go back to film???

Have your say on issues related to using a DSLR camera.

Moderator: Moderators

Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

go back to film???

Postby jdear on Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:15 am

I had an interview with a wedding / portrait studio up in the 'shire' for a possible position shooting weddings with them.

They told me they only shoot weddings on film (they develop themselves and print onsite in their pro lab at the back of the studio)

the expectation if I got the job would be to move back to film and buy a film body down the track.

in their opinion film is superior for wedding work

they dont have couples coming back to them with issues from digital-captured photos


I Love shooting digital... could I go back?? :roll:

Jonathan
User avatar
jdear
Senior Member
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:34 am
Location: Shellharbour, NSW

Postby devilla101 on Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:24 am

This is the second time I heard about this. My friend who bought a D70 for his pro wedding photography (long time film SLR user) said he is ditching it purely because he hated doing a lot of PP. I asked him to shoot in jpg instead but he is now sold on the idea that digital is not ready for prime-time in his line of work. Back to film he says cause he captures the shot he means to capture
User avatar
devilla101
Senior Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Rockdale, Sydney, Australia

Postby the foto fanatic on Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:30 am

devilla101 wrote:Back to film he says cause he captures the shot he means to capture


For the life of me, I don't understand this logic. :?

Either way, the tool being used is a camera. You can "capture the shot you mean to capture" just as well with a digital body as with a film body.

Many photogs use digital, and I suspect most of them aren't doing a lot of PP. Some are so confident of their skills and the formula they have developed that they shoot JPEG only.
TFF (Trevor)
My History Blog: Your Brisbane: Past & Present
My Photo Blog: The Foto Fanatic
Nikon stuff!
User avatar
the foto fanatic
Moderator
 
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: Teneriffe, Brisbane

Postby devilla101 on Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:35 am

cricketfan wrote:
devilla101 wrote:Back to film he says cause he captures the shot he means to capture


No idea also mate, he's been in the business for 10+ years and I am in no position arguing the pluses of digital use compared to film use to him.
User avatar
devilla101
Senior Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:48 pm
Location: Rockdale, Sydney, Australia

Postby MCWB on Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:40 am

If he does too much PP, either he isn't experienced enough with his camera or his workflow sucks. :!:

Edited for clarity.
Last edited by MCWB on Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MCWB
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2121
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:55 pm
Location: Epping/CBD, Sydney-D200, D70

Postby Killakoala on Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:38 am

Maybe he needs to try out a Fuji S3/5. Then maybe he'll change his mind.

Still, it's his choice to stay that way. But one day he will be forced to change as film becomes more expensive due to it's rarity. It will become a niche market. Might be some money in it too, in later years, for those who want and old-world look of their weddings.
Steve.
|D700| D2H | F5 | 70-200VR | 85 1.4 | 50 1.4 | 28-70 | 10.5 | 12-24 | SB800 |
Website-> http://www.stevekilburn.com
Leeds United for promotion in 2014 - Hurrah!!!
User avatar
Killakoala
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5398
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: Southland NZ

Postby Nnnnsic on Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:55 am

If he hates doing PP then he needs to take the picture right in the first place, and if that's on film or digital, it's still going to to screw him over if he can't actually do that.

Remember that a darkroom is still a place for PP too.
Producer & Editor @ GadgetGuy.com.au
Contributor for fine magazines such as PC Authority and Popular Science.
User avatar
Nnnnsic
I'm a jazz singer... so I know what I'm doing
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 12:29 am
Location: Cubicle No. 42... somewhere in Bondi, NSW

Postby Greg B on Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:02 pm

Maybe they are locked in to film because of the pro lab out the back. If the go digital, they would have capital expenditure to make, whereas sticking with film, they continue to utilise existing plant and equipment.

As for the film vs. digital debate, who cares? Use whatever, I don't really see that it will make any difference to the end user (ie, the happy couple).
Greg - - - - D200 etc

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
User avatar
Greg B
Moderator
 
Posts: 5938
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: Surrey Hills, Melbourne

Postby xorl on Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:14 pm

Maybe their DSLR can't create JPEGs that look like their favourite slide film out of the box. Perhaps they have grown to like a particular look and don't want post process each image to achieve it? They might not have been processing their images particularly efficiently either.

If they wanted to go in the other direction (Eg, Astia slide -> D200 Portrait look) I'm sure they would experience a lot more pain :).
Mark
User avatar
xorl
Member
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:07 am
Location: Sydney, NSW

Postby Yi-P on Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:15 pm

Maybe he doesnt know how to use a computer at all? :lol:
User avatar
Yi-P
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3579
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:12 am
Location: Sydney -- Ashfield

Re: go back to film???

Postby DaveB on Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:40 pm

jdear wrote:
they dont have couples coming back to them with issues from digital-captured photos

I wouldn't expect to have anyone coming back with issues specifically regarding digital-captured images either. ;)
If they're implying that they've tried digital and their customers didn't like it, I would infer that they were doing something wrong.

But you can't really tell them what to do: it's their business and they're free to set their own rules. You could work their way, to build up your cred with them and then show them the efficiency and quality advantages of going digital, but that would mean that you'd have to:
  1. Have your digital equipment and workflow down pat.
  2. Be really confident of your skills.
You'd want to be an expert, and know you're an expert... ;) You'd want to have perfect demonstrations.
Even then they might decide to stay with what they know!
At some point you might decide that it's their problem and not yours... ;)

I Love shooting digital... could I go back?? :roll:

I know I wouldn't want to, but I suppose I could.
I have been finding lately that most of my RAW shots require no tweaking (other than WB) but I do use the histogram intermittently while shooting to set my exposures accurately, so I would need to use a different metering method...
User avatar
DaveB
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1850
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:57 pm
Location: Box Hill, Vic

Re: go back to film???

Postby gstark on Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:34 pm

DaveB wrote:At some point you might decide that it's their problem and not yours... ;)


Dave,

I really think it's as simple as that. :)

Digital photography, today, while not a wholly mature technology, is certainly a long way down that path, and a far cry from where it was even five years ago.

The only reason why a professional photographer would be unable to pull excellent results using a current(-ish) toolset would be due to their own skills.

Or perhaps a lack of them.
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22918
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Re: go back to film???

Postby moz on Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:01 pm

gstark wrote:The only reason why a professional photographer would be unable to pull excellent results using a current(-ish) toolset would be due to their own skills.


Many of these people have huge skills when it comes to getting down and dirty with chemicals and those are hard to build up all over again. It just depends how long they intend to stay in business - if they're plowing through the last few years before they retire then all well and good. But for the long term... I'd be tempted to regard their approach as indicating a business opportunity.
http://www.moz.net.nz
have bicycle, will go to Critical Mass
User avatar
moz
Senior Member
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:50 pm
Location: Coburg, Melbun.

Re: go back to film???

Postby gstark on Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:27 pm

Moz,

That might make some sense, except that

jdear wrote:in their opinion film is superior for wedding work
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22918
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Re: go back to film???

Postby moz on Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:15 pm

Yeah, film might be superior in the sense that with their skills, and their equipment, they get a better result from film.

To me and you that just says their skills are out of date, but if they're making money... don't forget that there are still people making buggy whips!
http://www.moz.net.nz
have bicycle, will go to Critical Mass
User avatar
moz
Senior Member
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:50 pm
Location: Coburg, Melbun.

Postby TonyH on Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:29 pm

Maybe also not to forget the ability to create a little smoke and mirrors marketing...... "We only shoot in film as digital quality is nowhere near comparable quality.."

Some members of the public will believe anything and perhaps be prepared to pay more for the privilege...... :D

By shooting film they have different marketing perspective to most other wedding photogs.

Being new technology (relatively) they can push the barrow of tried and proven quality. The fact is that the great majority of the public don't really understand the technology. Presenting a set of negs is something tangible that you can see and touch.
All I know, is that I don't know enough.....
TonyH
Senior Member
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:39 am
Location: Brisbane, QLD Nikon D200 & D70

Postby jethro on Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:35 pm

Film work is an art! Digital is an educated guess for many. Combine both skills and get something that has opened the door for many who have the skills to enhance the digital market IE PShop to a more than saleable product hence make a semi viable living from your skills
jethro
shoot it real.

look! and see. Shoot and feel
User avatar
jethro
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:03 pm
Location: down south, sydney


Return to General Discussion