 x |
Digital Photography I realize that asking a question about digital photography on a website is like asking a bear if he is hungry. However, virtually all of the people I see using digital are using it as a hobby. So, they have the time to manipulate the images, color balance, etc. However, I do weddings. Clients more and more are asking for digital. I do not like digital. It is not ready for mass use. And, I do not have the time to manipulate 1,000+ images every single week, somtimes back to back. Let's say I have two weddings a week for 6 months straight at 1,000+ images every wedding. For those who are slow at math, that's 2,000 images every week. That's massive volume. I either need a team of paid pro's sitting at computers all day, which I would not feel good about...computers and sitting are unnatural for humans and create all kinds of health and vision problems. Or, do it all myself - NO THANK YOU! On top of that, I don't really think that clients want digital or film, they want images. How I "capture" them or deliver them should be up to me. They can request a CD of the images, or something. But, for a client to request a medium seems odd to me. This is very new and inappropriate. But, what they hey. I can deal with the issue just fine. Some pro's are using digital exclusely. They are working through the kinks. I prefer to wait until the kinks are worked out before I leap in that direction. I still think it's better than 10 years away. Also, the technology is ramping up so fast, a camera purchased 2 years ago is practically obsolete. EVER WONDER WHY COMPANIES ARE PUSHING FOR THIS??? There is a high turnover in the digital market. I can buy a film camera and literally keep it for a lifetime. Digital, that will absolutely not be the case. It will be silly to use a 6 megapixel camera in 2020. That's like using a 3MB computer now. It's laughable. I remember all too well the dot-com bomb. If you didn't have a dot-com, you were a schmuck. I see the same thing in digital photography. I also see the limitations digital has right now and wonder if those limitations will be fixed, or if that will be the end of it, and 20 years from now, we'll all be laughing about the "craze" of digital photography. Remember 8-Tracks, CB Radios, Hula-hoops, Beta, Dot-Com business? I just read an article about a very successfull photographer moving to an all digital studio. She was discussing some of the pitfalls, like more time on the computer, which is what she was trying to aviod when she went into the photography business. I too want to avoid massive computer use. I have a website, yes. I post here and elsewhere, yes. I order most equipment and film on-line, yes. But, it's not my job to do so. I could very easily replace all that with other things at virtually no cost or much change. The problems as I understand them are: The great parts are: Other than film and processing, which is still part of a professionals budget in the digital format, I do not see any advantages for the professional, at all! For the average consumer, there are many great benefits. But, for those who deal in volume day in and day out, I just can't figure out what the hub-bub is all about. Could someone please set me straight?
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Why do you need to be set straight? If you prefer film than use film. If you only want to use film for weddings, then show your client how your film pictures look. If they like them then what's the problem. I don't see how flash and white balance are problems with digital, but there are plus and minuses to both sides. 1,000 photos for one wedding? You really need to take that much?
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Thanks for your response. Well, it seems that many people are making the switch. But, I don't really understand why. I spoke to an associate of mine who did the switch, but she for her business, it works adequately. Although, she admitted that film is far superior, she didn't care. She's just making money. It's sad. 1,000 photos for a full-day wedding is appropriate and required. I take very little posed shots, which means I take mostly candids. This means I have to shoot more in order to make sure I capture the moment. Of course, this is transparent to the client.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ryan Chai |
For some of the problems that were listed about digital ie "Cannot blow-up with quality clarity" that is not true for all digital cameras. The EOS 1-Ds can go to 30*40 better than 35mm can. If you are to compare digital as it is right now against medium format, then your right. The only thing I see as a film user is good bulb duration without alot of noise. Digital has a future, a big one. It seems to me that 35mm will soon be at its limits in resolution and tonal changes. Digital still has a long way to go, but it will most certainly get there. Thanks hope you don't hate me! : )
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Thanks Ryan. I would never hate anyone for voicing their opinion, especially when I ask for it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
Jerry, I think you've talked yourself out of going digital right now. What's more, although I am not a pro, I agree with you. The time factor would eat me up, because I'd have to get it right. What you might consider is getting a high-end flatbed scanner, especially if you're shooting medium format. Some of the newer Epson scanners are doing wonderful medium format scans. A good scan from a good scanner is high-bit color, giving you more flexibility in brightness/contrast, color balance issues. As we've said, though, you would never find the time to scan everything you shoot. However, some fairly simple Photoshop operations can help you do tricks that might get you one up on the competition. A few are composites, using layers to do a double exposure effect, or simulated hand coloring, showing a sepia-tone image with only the bride's flowers, eyes, whatever, in color; or sheets of wallet-sizes, very easily and quickly done. I've been asked to remove the black sheep from more than one family photo. What's more, $79.95 Elements 2 will do a lot of this, and give you something to learn digital basics on.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gregg Vieregge |
If you use action sets in Photoshop 7 you can save alot of time. What this involves is recording a series of tasks and by hitting a disignated F key it will repeat the same steps for the next key. I use crop, brightness/contrast, color balnce and save. I can edit 350+ images in less very little time. Have done this all my files are now formatted, no more having to tape negs to a mask card. When a Bride orders re-prints I no longer have to sort through a big pile of negs. The file are all in numbered order. When I do re-prints I give the saved image a name such as 002-Mom or 004-Album pg12. , etc.. This will be printed on the back of the print and makes easy sorting. On group shots where you must take multiple to make sure eyes are open, you no longer have to print all proofs. This saves $$$. I pay $.53 for proofs, $1.10 for color corrected 5x7's and $2.40 for color corrected 8X10's by a pro lab. Film was twice that much. Turn around time for digital is 3-4 days vs 2+weeks for film. All this has saved me alot of time in processing orders and much more in $$$ savings. From all that I have read over the past year is that those that don't like digital are admitting that they haven't brushed up on their computer skills and Photoshop. It takes time but it's rewarding. I suggest Adobe Elements as a learning tool and then Photoshop 7 will be alot easier to master.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Leah Marshall |
Just a little sidebar..I am a college student currently taking photography. My school closed the darkroom and has turned completely digital. Digital is here to stay and film is going to be used less and less. In class, film and darkroom printing methods are classified for "artistic purposes", and Digital is for the commercial, advertising, portrait,fashion, etc photogs. Digital has made it possible to create perfect images in mere seconds. You can edit photos by scanning film, but why? I like film and digital, but I think it is worth having a digital camera and learning the ins and out.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael McCullough |
I too have issues with digital, that all to often plastic look of the images for onething,the mood you can develop with traditional film work is truly amazing pop some really fast black and white in your camera and get that grainy moodiness,that really cannot be done with digital.If you choose to scan your negatives with a 4000 dpi scanner you get resulting images that are in the 20-30 mega pixel range with 35mm.wow, better than anything out there in the digital market place!!!!!Oh and as far as clients go, your a traditional photograher.... and that sounds kinda great to me!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
A note to Leah. Thanks for the response. I wonder what school that is, and I also wonder if that is a trend in school. I went to B-school. At the time, they were teaching us about VC's and dot.coms. They were saying that the traditional business model was gone. Forget about it. Many people lost lots of money and jobs on that very stupid assumption. Although, not exactly the same, I don't know for sure, but am relatively certain that when color film was developed, there were those saying that BW would go away. Hah! That's almost laughable. I am asked to shoot BW more than color - and this is 2003. Digital is a different format. You cannot compare 35mm to 8x10 LF. You cannot compare MF to 35mm. You cannot compare pencil to paint. There are just different mediums. We are all artists and the medium we use to create our art is our choice. Photography has a very large area where it's not so much art, but rather a commodity. Clients want a picture, not an image. For those clients, the value of photography is probably not very high. They do not respect you as an artist, and they do not want to spend time waiting for a great product. They just want their pictures. This mode of photography is a huge market and I expect there to be a large amounts of photographers willing to fill that need. On the other end of the spectrum, I also expect there to be clients that want the art. They want a photographer who can deliver consistent results, but they also want that certain look that film has. Just like the subtle difference between water color paint and oil paint, I think they are just different mediums. There are things I want to do with digital. But, I am not ready to switch. It has to make it's way around to meet my needs. As the previous poster said, I use TMAX 3200 pulled to 1600 routinely. I also use TMAX 400 all the time. I can't imagine digital giving me that grainy feel I love. I'm sure there are things you can do to make that happen digitally. But, I actually strive to make grain part of the photograph, whereas digital does not have grain. So, it really doesn't fit my style. However, I can always have everything scanned, and most of my clients are willing to pay for that. So, it costs more. But, I never said I was the lowest bidder! Jerry
|
|
|
|
||
- Greg McCroskery Contact Greg McCroskery Greg McCroskery's Gallery |
Jerry, I'm not a digital camera salesman, but I am a professional photographer. You shouldn't switch to digital until you see a benefit. Several years ago, I waded into digital, and now don't shoot any 35m/m film -- I do still shoot medium format film. I feel digital offers a tremendous advantage in many (not all) situations. I disagree with the idea of scanning negatives as an alternative -- talk about a time eater! If you truly shoot 1,000 images per wedding, then you are a prime candidate for using digital because you are eating a lot of film and processing cost on each wedding. Once you become familiar with a good pro-level digital camera a lot of the post-processing issues disappear. There are programs like 'Flip Album' that make reviewing your images fast and easy to see which, if any, need any adjustment. Color balance is not a big issue, you're paying your lab to balance your flim color -- pay them to adjust your digital color balance if needed. Color balance can be adjusted on the fly with digital, because you can see what your color balance looks like on any shot and adjust accordingly. There's a valid reason so many wedding photographers are going digital, and it's not because they love sitting at a computer. I suggest that you visit Gary Fong's "digitalphotographers.net" website and ask Gary why he switched -- he's one of the best candid wedding photographers around. Mostly, keep your mind and options open -- digital isn't going anywhere but up. God Bless, Greg
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
If you prefer film, shoot film. What's the big deal.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Greg McCroskery Contact Greg McCroskery Greg McCroskery's Gallery |
This response is for Gregory's comment. Well said Gregory!! There's no reason for an painter to throw away his brushes just because someone invented the air-brush. God Bless, Greg
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ryan Chai |
I agree with Greg. I think in the long run we will all see that photography is photography with digital or film. Great pictures are now more dependent on the photographer not a billizion pixles and what not. I have reasons to love both.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Greg, The big deal is that I want a large discussion on all sides of the equation. I like shooting film, but I am not so stupid to just ignore it's existence. Many people want to side step the issue, but I want a direct conversation about both sides. I am very interested to hear from those who have switched from film to digital. I am interested to learn about how the switch has made a difference for them. I am not arguing, rather I initally presented my case and my POV, but that doesn't mean everyone else is wrong. This is a public forum for those of us who share a common interest. I wish everyone here would post their opinion so I could balance the scales. I do have plans to purchase some digital equipment and try it out. Who knows, maybe I'll love it and make the switch. Who cares, you ask? I do. I want to know why people have changed and what benefits they are getting from making the change. From my perspective, I am competing with these people. I need to be able to continue competing. I want to understand the advantages and disadvantages to both sides. I like film. That doesn't mean I will never like digital. As I have said, I think it has a place in our industry. Anwyay, I'm really enjoying this discussion, and some of the posters have been very informative. Thank you all for your responses and your time. Jerry
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brian |
Jerry, one point in your original post that hasn't had much discussion is your comment that your customers are asking you for a format (digital) rather than letting you decide. Maybe giving some perspective on this will help you understand what the digital craze is about. When people ask for digital, what are they really asking for? Do they care if the picture comes from a digital or film camera? Do they know (or think they know) that one has advantage over the other? I feel the answer to both of these questions is 'no'. I think what they're really asking for is a product - maybe something they think is only available from digital. For instance, maybe they want to be able to send the pictures via email, without having to scan them in. Maybe they want online ordering for them and their family. Maybe they want a picture cd they can play on their DVD player. Maybe they want a digital proof of every image in addition to the prints they choose for their album. These are just a few examples, but these are similar reasons people will easily drop $400-500 on a point and shoot digital camera vs. a really nice film camera. I guess what I'm saying is, have you dug into that question a bit deeper to see what your customers are really asking for? Secondly, can you provide what they're asking for at a competetive price using your current techniques?
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Brian, I think you are right on the money. That is what people want. Can I do it competitively? Maybe. It's really hard because how can someone who must pay for the service (scanning, etc) compete with someone who doesn't have to pay for the service (via digital images)? I am going to wait for digital to mature. In the meantime, I'll just figure out ways to compete head-to-head. One thought I've always had is that I'm actually not competing. I am charging a price for my services. If te party wants to go with someone lower priced, that's okay. There will always be someone lower priced than I. I was on the web the other day, chekcing out other wedding photo's in my area, and there was a guy offering his services at cost. Why? Who knows. But, that's what he was saying. How can anyone compete with that? Jerry
|
|
|
|
||
|
Earl Cole |
I am not a pro but I sell a few photos I use Both my idea is if I am going to sell it use film digital is great for the grandchildren I once had an attorney ask if I had ever altered a digital photo of course I use photoshop any correction is an alteration the photos were not used in court. I learned a good lesson.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||