you can chose to be slow and deliberate with digital as well.
the best what i ever did since i went to digital was to disable immediate preview and stopped chimping.
digital MF is as slow and deliberate like film MF too.
and maybe i am different but one reason i like MF is that i can shoot in full daylight like it is in a shadow :-). fact that i have awesome DOF at f5.6, wireless flash sync at 1/500 and ISO 50 is a killer for me.
I attended a wedding in June – dear friends of mine and had a look at their photographer’s site. She shoots an interesting combination of digital and film – I thought it a clever and artistic approach.
For a photographer such as yourself with a passion for film, as others have suggested, make yourself the brand of choice for that niche, priced accordingly. $7 to 10K perhaps for a full film wedding.
But the most interesting thing to me is that doing so doesn’t preclude you from offering an additional, more “commercial” blend package of say, 90% digital, 10% film with a price structure 50% above typical competent digital shooters in your area. $120 film cost against a $1500 or $2000 premium within a $4500 package, perhaps?
One of the more enlightening bits of business information in the past couple of decades for me was to learn that the average price point of a Tiffany & Co sale that year was about $250.
This is important --- Tiffany built its allure with $10,000 all-film weddings but made its fortune based on 10% film (platinum) and 90% digital (silver).
(no flames please, from the digital crowd – it’s a branding example, not a critique of formats… : )
Kittyk wrote:
i agree. i had more clients asking worried about if i still shoot film, then those who prefer to be shot at film.
Add me to the "agreeing" crowd. I've offered a film option and have surveyed clients for several years as to their feelings in regards to "film" vs. digital. Most don't care one way or the other. A minority say they prefer digital just for the ease of computer/iinternet sharing. Only one time did I have someone request some "medium format black and white film", which I was not able to offer; I'm only doing 35mm film. In my surveying of clients (I ask every single client about it) I have NEVER been told they would prefer film. I think if I were to tell them the price would go up if I were to shoot film, I don't think I'd get anyone to pay it. MAYBE if I sold film hard to them, showing them examples in person of film vs. digital, I might be able to get them to pay a little more, but probably not enough more to cover the time and expense of scanning all the film.
While I do fall into the camp that believes film looks better than digital (and this is why I offer a film option) the sad truth is that, today, how many young brides even know anything about film to know the difference in results.
exactly my experience.
back in the days (didn't do wedding yet) when we shot film only, most our customers (commercials or not) were worried about film as in "we get film, how to get it on computer then?". When i explained to them that they get digital files regardless of how they are captured they were fine with that. I think it only got worse with how film shooting is perceived: "my mom had analog camera so all we get from her are paper prints. Can you scan them and put on canvas?". No honey, i can scan the film and it will probably be nicer then if she shoot with Coolpix.
Sure OP have all the rights to not worry about what customers pick him and serve the niche. And i find it cool. And nostalgic (still film shooter here).
Ok..not to critisize - and I am not saying the OP's galleries or style is not good..he obviousy has a good eye and timing....but help me understand how and why someone would pay 5000.00 (if you look at the second wedding gallery) for this style of photography. The brides dress is overexposed in every shot, this flat unsaturated color trend is overkill to me, in a sense that why would a client lile this.. Is this a trendy style that will fade out soon..or is this 'green hippish' style, as I like to call it, the new and only way to go?
It just seems very - care free - shoot as you go kind of thing.. I know its not the case..but if I were not a photog. I would think these shots are lacking in collour, and so many are over exposed..so why would I pay 5K..
I see some of his work is good - and some great moments caught, great emotion and nice perspectives, snd other stuff - but it's not leaping out - I'm thinking at 5K I'd be getting something like Jeff Ascough, Ghionis etc..or the like..
Like I said I'm not trying to critique the OP's work or workflow.. I'm just wondering about this style of photography..Is it really in this much demand at that high price?
Hi guys... Wow, this is definitely an active forum! Stepped away for a moment and it seems there are quite a few responses! Thanks so much for the input so far. I really appreciate it. It seems there has been quite a bit of advice across the board and I will definitely consider it all in pricing, clientèle, output, etc. The debate between film and digital capability is also something I really consider and take seriously. The low light (and other) performance of many modern dSLRs is quite incredible and I do definitely try to utilize the advantages they do offer in darker settings.
I actually am younger, learned to shoot on digital, then learned to shoot film and fell in love. I have a difficult time with the results seen (especially in skin tones and light capture) when shooting digital... knowing that there are many that have excellent capture and post, that I do admire, shooting digital. Digital workflow is something that I am constantly working on improving upon. The gallery 'additional' is mostly shot in digital.
Really, in regards to price I will have to sift through and see what I can pull from all of these responses so far. I know marketing, pricing, and sales are extremely complex and that many of you have spent years creating your own market and building your businesses, as I expect to have to put in my own time as well. This past year has definitely been a lesson in patience when it comes to these things.
Nektario, I really appreciate your critique/opinion and will definitely consider your perspective on exposure, color, pricing, etc.
j-anderson wrote:
Hi guys... Wow, this is definitely an active forum! Stepped away for a moment and it seems there are quite a few responses! Thanks so much for the input so far. I really appreciate it. It seems there has been quite a bit of advice across the board and I will definitely consider it all in pricing, clientèle, output, etc. The debate between film and digital capability is also something I really consider and take seriously. The low light (and other) performance of many modern dSLRs is quite incredible and I do definitely try to utilize the advantages they do offer in darker settings.
I actually am younger, learned to shoot on digital, then learned to shoot film and fell in love. I have a difficult time with the results seen (especially in skin tones and light capture) when shooting digital... knowing that there are many that have excellent capture and post, that I do admire, shooting digital. Digital workflow is something that I am constantly working on improving upon. The gallery 'additional' is mostly shot in digital.
Really, in regards to price I will have to sift through and see what I can pull from all of these responses so far. I know marketing, pricing, and sales are extremely complex and that many of you have spent years creating your own market and building your businesses, as I expect to have to put in my own time as well. This past year has definitely been a lesson in patience when it comes to these things.
Nektario, I really appreciate your critique/opinion and will definitely consider your perspective on exposure, color, pricing, etc....Show more →
Hey..thanks for trying to see what Imsaying.. I am assuming that the original files are as every other camera shoots them..I think you are post processing to this color style and texture.. even the blown highlights.. So it's not so mucha critique..because I have seen this style before..
What I'm asking is, do people really like this?
I actually like the shots that have that magazine color look to them..Im even wondering what you do to get that effect on those photos.. ie" The guy holding the dog leash" in the first wedding gallery.. Very interesting processing there..
.
Nektario K wrote:
Ok..not to critisize - and I am not saying the OP's galleries or style is not good..he obviousy has a good eye and timing....but help me understand how and why someone would pay 5000.00 (if you look at the second wedding gallery) for this style of photography. The brides dress is overexposed in every shot, this flat unsaturated color trend is overkill to me, in a sense that why would a client lile this.. Is this a trendy style that will fade out soon..or is this 'green hippish' style, as I like to call it, the new and only way to go?
It just seems very - care free - shoot as you go kind of thing.. I know its not the case..but if I were not a photog. I would think these shots are lacking in collour, and so many are over exposed..so why would I pay 5K..
I see some of his work is good - and some great moments caught, great emotion and nice perspectives, snd other stuff - but it's not leaping out - I'm thinking at 5K I'd be getting something like Jeff Ascough, Ghionis etc..or the like..
Like I said I'm not trying to critique the OP's work or workflow.. I'm just wondering about this style of photography..Is it really in this much demand at that high price? ...Show more →
i am not saying that OP is even close to best of anything i have seen, but overexposed dress? Hm, on my calibrated monitor it doesnt seem so. Besides, if you are rather PJ then hardcore post photoshopper, you will rarely get dress exposed with full details properly without separating processing of skin and dress. you just cannot do it, especially not with poor dynamic range of small format cameras.
James,
I have a couple of questions about "the look". You say you like the look of film and I like the look you've got going here. Are you processing the scanned film to get that look or is this pretty much what you get back from the lab?
I don't have an answer, but I'm wondering if you could spend some time and do some test to see if you could work out actions that would allow you to approximate "the look" from digital capture. That would pay dividends in expense and shooting convenience. Personally, I think customers pay for "the look" and few care how you achieve it.
I got out of the photography business way before digital. I shot in a traditional style, but yearned for the ability to shoot with a more documentary approach that I see being used by current photographer's work that I really like.
Hi dmac. Most everything shot in film is straight from the lab, minus a very slight s-curve adjustment. I have played with digital quite a bit (and actually do really enjoy the results I've been able to achieve through Lightroom, and most recently using VSCO actions that are made to emulate the 'look' of film) I just still really enjoy the workflow with film, the overall ease of capture, skin tones, etc.
These images were some tests done with the newer VSCO actions for LR
Nektario K- If I remember right the image you are referring to was shot with a 5d mkii + 50mm 1.2 and edited in Lightroom. For this image I adjusted color temperature (with one of the film images to the side for reference) exposure +, contrast +, and clarity +. Not too much going on here otherwise.
