Depressed Pro

[dchphoto]

Hi everyone. I am a pro film photographer who has been planning to jump to digital recently. I feel the quality is there now and I would like to grow and expand my business. I have been a long time Nikon shooter and am excited about the new d2x. However, when I read these forums, I realize that digital is going to greatly increase my work flow. NOt only that, there appears to be only Nikon Capture as the best raw converter for the d2x- especially since Nikon is monkeying around with the WB. So if I want to use Capture reasonably fast, I need an update to my old 2.8G 512k computer. My studio is wedding based so this means a huge increase in time messing with files that used to just go to the lab and come back perfect every time. It will take at least $12,000 for the camera, cards, new computer, and accessories to get me up and running so I can look forward to a huge increase in time spent in front of the computer. There is no raw standard and third party vendors are fighting Nikon and each other. By the time the dust settles, there will be new and better cameras and probably much improved software. I'm wondering what is the point of going digital if I really don't gain anything qualitywise over my medium format portraits and my nikon film based weddings. Seems that the extra cost for film and processing is worth it to get perfect prints from the lab without spending hours in front of the computer. Plus I know my negatives will be here in five years and I don't have to worry about how to support my files (like the d30 people do) in years to come.

I really like the idea and potential of digital and I was really excited about getting a d2x. But now looking at it from the above perspective it just seems like a lot of money and a lot of headaches and steep learning curves too. Anyone have any thoughts about this? If you were film and recently switched, were you glad you did? Is there something I'm not seeing or thinking about??

 

[gho]

Digital gives you control over post processing that you typically left for the labs. If you don't want to post process, you can simply hand over the digital files to the lab and they will do their normal "auto corrections" and make prints you're prolly accustomed to.

You have a very nice gallery, and I think you have some great work. But, it really looks like you need a better film scanner. I've been looking into a CoolScan V myself. Scanning a negative, processing it, and then printing is is actually more work than shooting digital, where you skip the scan stage, and get cleaner images as a result.

Additionally, with today's digital cameras, high ISO shots have less "grain" than in film. Though film definately has much greater dynamic range. You may be more prone to blowing out a bride's dress with digital than you are with film.

Gregory

 

[Peter69322]

Frankly, you're concerns seem quite legitimate. I started in digital, so have no similar point of reference. But if I had a successful wedding business with medium format/35mm, I'd be quite hesitant for just the reasons you site. There will be more time processing. You have to either love that work, like pain, or see that in the end the bottom line makes it pay. best ...Peterc
--
http://www.innerimager.com

 

[paulfrye]

Hi dchphoto,

I'm sure you'll find Pro Wedding Photographers on this forum who are managing very well in the digital arena. The D2x is truly an amazing camera.

There ARE a number of problems, but I believe they'll be worked out with time. Part of being a member of this forum is high-lighting those issues and working to get something done about them.

None of those problems are so serious at this point that there are not good work-a-rounds. For one thing, once you've adapted to a camera like a D2x, you'll probably find post-processing can be minimal...and you can still do batch processing in NC or go to a third party tool like Bibble, Adobe, etc. None of the problems mentioned keep you from doing that. Out of the camera, the D2x has provide the best photos I've found yet, and I'm often doing minimal changes to the files. WB is still the trickiest, but again, the D2x is doing the best job so far of any previous cameras in handling WB.

I believe the archival issues and how to support your files in the future will also be resolved in the near-term. Again there are a number of work-a-rounds such as doing a conversion to TIFF which is the most permanent file format right now.

I agree you'll probably want to upgrade your computer. The larger files take more horsepower to work.

Overall, I think you'll find a gain in quality and the ability to control the output of your work. As for more work, that is definitely true initially, until you settle down to the workflow that works for you.

I'm going to step back now...and let the fireworks flow.

Regards,

Paul

Hi everyone. I am a pro film photographer who has been planning to
jump to digital recently. I feel the quality is there now and I
would like to grow and expand my business. I have been a long time
Nikon shooter and am excited about the new d2x. However, when I
read these forums, I realize that digital is going to greatly
increase my work flow. NOt only that, there appears to be only
Nikon Capture as the best raw converter for the d2x- especially
since Nikon is monkeying around with the WB. So if I want to use
Capture reasonably fast, I need an update to my old 2.8G 512k
computer. My studio is wedding based so this means a huge increase
in time messing with files that used to just go to the lab and come
back perfect every time. It will take at least $12,000 for the
camera, cards, new computer, and accessories to get me up and
running so I can look forward to a huge increase in time spent in
front of the computer. There is no raw standard and third party
vendors are fighting Nikon and each other. By the time the dust
settles, there will be new and better cameras and probably much
improved software. I'm wondering what is the point of going digital
if I really don't gain anything qualitywise over my medium format
portraits and my nikon film based weddings. Seems that the extra
cost for film and processing is worth it to get perfect prints from
the lab without spending hours in front of the computer. Plus I
know my negatives will be here in five years and I don't have to
worry about how to support my files (like the d30 people do) in
years to come.

I really like the idea and potential of digital and I was really
excited about getting a d2x. But now looking at it from the above
perspective it just seems like a lot of money and a lot of
headaches and steep learning curves too. Anyone have any thoughts
about this? If you were film and recently switched, were you glad
you did? Is there something I'm not seeing or thinking about??

--
The grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do,
something to love and something to hope for. - Joseph Addison

 

[dchphoto]

Thanks for the replies! For weddings, I mail the film off to my pro lab and in three weeks or so, get beautiful prints back from the lab. It takes 30-45 minutes to edit the blinks etc. Then another hour to put them in a preview album. Then that is it. Clean and simple. For portraits, I photograph the session, drop the film off for scans on a cd, pick it up the next day locally, dump the files into a client folder, edit the bad ones, then show the images with a digital projector to the clients. They see eveything huge and they order and pay at that time. Takes about 10 minutes to transfer the files from CD to the client folder and edit them. A photographer in town shoot a 1dsmk2 and spends about 20 minutes getting ONE 8x10 order ready for printing. Most of my work gets no retouching at all except for removing bags under the eyes sometimes. Is it not possible to get great images out of the box with a d2x with nothing more than sending the nef's to the lab? I am very picky when it comes to my work but I just can't see why it is necessary to work so hard to get the same quality that film provides with nothing more than filling out an order bag for the lab? Please understand, I really do want to go digital. I think it would save me the $600-$800 per month I spend on film,processing, and scans. But if that is offest by increasing my workflow by 500% I'm just not sure if it is worth it. If the processing programs had their act together, it would make it a lot easier!

 

[hassy501]

Hi,

I photographed weddings for the past 15 years shooting Hasselblad and Nikon film.

I was very hesitant to switch over also and in fact did not want to for the same fears you are concerned with, work flow and time in front of the computer.

It all depends on how much control you want over your images.

First of all......you will save lots of $$$$$$. No film to buy or process, no negatives to sort, edit or store. The savings add up immensely.

Secondly, you can still send you digital files to a lab who will do the processing for you in the way of color correction etc.

But you will find that once you get into the editing part of digital, you will be amazed at what you can do.......special effects, borders, collages, retouches and fix its that would take lots of money and time from a film retouched........im not an expert but I can remove blemishes, enhance skin, remove unwanted background distractions, add dramatic skies, take images and turn them into dramatic graphic images which my clients love.........they want what they see in magazines.......your value as a photographer will indeed increase.

If i were you, I would still shoot your main images on film, shoot some images with digital to get your comfort level up, and then you will see exactly where you stand on the whole changeover.........i guarantee you will be excited to change.

You wont worry anymore about your shot selection or ratio of images shot/images used.........thats the part i love...i can take chances on something i would not take a chance on before with film....with film each shot is $$$$$....with digital, each shot is basciallly free.....if you dont like it, delete it..........but ive been able to capture images that i could never capture before.........

Digital images have much more ambient light capturing ability.........in my church shots im amazed at the detail digital captures with ambient light....im not a scientist but the proof is in the pudding........

I still shoot my formals with medium format, which takes about two 220 rollls, but everything else is digital.

Send my your email and I will forward you some online albums I have to show you what you can achieve.

George...happy shooting....

 

[Peter69322]

so now the other side. I've shot weddings with an S2 and a D2H. I haven't shot weddings with the D2X yet, but I have shot sports and general images. The D2X JPG's are really, really good. The color especially is ready to print in most cases, much more than the D2H, perhaps even more than the S2. Once you learn when you can trust auto WB and when to either dial in a K value using a colormeter or shoot a grey custom, and once you learn where you like the contrast and other settings, you could probably shoot the D2X pretty much as you do the medium format and just send the files out. There, I've given both sides of the response, I must be done now! best ...Peter
--
http://www.innerimager.com

 

[ASD]

I have been a pro for 25yrs and in 99 I went digital. It was harder then as not that many companies made products for the cameras and support was poor. Today there are many support groups like the one you are on.The cameras are better, flash is closer to good exposures, and white balance can be customized. I have been in the mind set you are in many times. The question was it worth it? Well to be straight my first dslr a Nikon/Kodak 460 cost me $11.000.00. That was alot due to the fact that the cards were expensive and the battery was internal, not able to have a spare was bad. There will be more time infront of a computer, that is for sure. You could go in gradually like I did. Start off by shooting portraits, famlies, grads, kids. When you get comfortable and confident add weddings to the mix. Just last year I have been fully digital. I added small amounts of digital to the weddings since 99 to get my confidence up and to learn gradually, it made it easier with less pressure. Just now I am going through a growth spurt. I have been a Mac user and now I am going to buy the New G5's , a 4000 printer, to print my own 16x20, prints. I have used a Kodak 8650 printer and a 8660 printer. I have been happy with the results but 8x10 is the only size. So we all go through growing pains, but the best part we have each other to help us through the tough times and problems. If you have concerns this site will deliver the answers. I just wish it was there when I went digital. Good Luck!

 

[Dennis D]

A photographer in town shoot a 1dsmk2 and spends about 20 minutes getting ONE 8x10 order ready for printing.

That's way too long to spend processing an 8x10 for print. If I take more than 5 minutes to get one 8x10 ready for print it's because the person has lots of acne and I'm doing a touch up job for them. I usually spend maybe 3 minutes average per image (and that's for prints), for my proofs I batch process them and really spend no time on them other than setting up the batch sequence. Sometimes I need to adjust the levels on a random image that's been underexposed but that's only about 20 out of 800 wedding images. The good thing about the D2x is it seems to need less processing than my D1X did.
--
Dennis D

 

[Knox / streetkid]

I shot a wedding this weekend . . . . I have been sitting here for two days (roughly) working on these photos. It's ridiculous. I shot hasselblad and F100 as well. Took them to the lab. Finished!

Plus, film will not have as many blown out spots on candids. Nor will digital have the front to back depth that the Hasselblad will. If I choose to do some 'artsy fartsy' PS work, I will be able to scan the negs . . . with digital, I HAVE to do post work. Personally, I would stay where you are.
--
Knox
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
http://alleycatphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/streetkid

 

[camper_joe]

Hi dchphoto,

I think you have nailed an important point that is not mentioned a lot, the workflow is the thing and maybe you don't want to be the photo lab, I know I don't care for it.

But with such a variety of powerful editing tools available in the digital realm some find it too easy to get caught up in this aspect of digital photography.

I continue to strive on getting better and better exposures right out of the camera to minimize the post processing. Shooting digital is a lot like transparencies, nail the exposure and the workflow moves easier and faster.

Thing is I use Nikon D-100s and their 'personality' just seems to need some post processing while the samples posted taken with the D2x are so much better right out of camera.

Film's wider dynamic range can make life simpler when dealing with white wedding dresses but on the other hand you'll also find some fine examples of digital wedding coverage.

Tough call but I got rid of most of my film cameras about two years ago and have no strong regrets. Kept an F-100 and N80 for just in case.
Happy Shooting,
Camperjoe

'Badges, we don't need no stinkin' badges!'

 

[John Cote]

.....Anyone have any thoughts about this? If you were film and recently > switched, were you glad you did? Is there something I'm not seeing or > thinking about??

I went digital with a D100 when the first came out several years ago. I had quit being a full time photographer about 20 years before. Digital got me back into photography. When I first did this for a living, I did almost all of my own BW darkroom work, and I am in the graphic arts business so I had already been a Photoshop junkie. The first thing I noticed about digital photography was that I spent more time in the Photoshop darkroom than I used to in the wet darkroom because now I was doing my own color too. I find that weddings are really time intensive. I do not shoot many weddings...maybe 2 or 3 a year.

One of the first jobs I got was shooting motorsports. The people I shoot for do not use anyone who does not shoot digitally as of last year. Shooting for them is relatively easy because they just want disks of the un-retouched files with the really bad ones deleted and the files renamed. It is still more work than it was with film, because then, you just turned in the film at the end of the day.

I know a lot of digital wedding photogs and I still know quite a few people who still shoot film weddings. Personally, I would never go back to small format film. With my D2X, the only film I will probably ever shoot will be with my 4x5 for products or maybe some architecture or landscape. However, the post processing is a big responsibility and a big pain when you are doing a lot of boring shots. You will learn to batch process a lot of your wedding shots. You will probably end up shooting a lot of the informal stuff in jpg.

D2X RAW files are a big pain in the butt to process right now, but they are really amazing files. The processing will get better....but you will still be up late nights at the computer. Such is life.

--
John Cote
http://www.centralprepress.com

'Cameras are just cr@p we have to lug around because there is no direct brain to printer connection...yet!'

 

[Steve Bingham]

Bite the bullet! Pro labs also do digital. You can also shoot JPG. One of my protégés makes $150,000 a year shooting nothing but digital weddings - and he spends very little time in front of a computer!
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

 

[Michael Hung]

I think your concerns are very valid.

With film, I dump 10-20 rolls of film to my trusty lab and is 95% done. The operator is really experienced and she can get the best out of the films in no time, and she checks every photo..

The problem is they (being a small lab) haven't moved to digital. Now my digital files are going to an inexperienced lab (although still better than Costco/Walmart). They are no where as good as my trusty film lab. (So I have to ask them for reprints sometimes..) And I still have to do all the RAW to JPEG conversion myself, which takes overnight with my batch file easily.

Although when I print 8x10s from digital, I do it with my PC/printer and it's so much easier/faster/cheaper than the lab.. (No driving, etc). And the quality is better.. Of course I can only a few.. (Like 20 max a evening)..

So.. actually I don't do full digital weddings.. I still mix in the blad and a F5 sometimes for b/w or cross processing. (Although I found that I can't print the blad photos myself without scanning the film.. so it's a pain too)

Anyway, I have moved to pure digital for certain events.. baptism, family, etc that I can handle all the printing myself (like around 50 photos). Also I am moving to a D2X for model shoots.. which makes lots of sense for me because I just need to print 1 photo per model (among the 18-20 photos taken per model). No more wait for contact sheets at the lab..

Michael

 

[NikonJeff]

http://www.millerslab.com

they are a professional lab that caters to both film and digital shooters - If you shoot medium format or 35mm you can have long roll films scans done at the time of development so you can enjoy some of the benefits we digtal shooters have while still enjoying the ease of film. BTW, 2-3 day turnaround not weeks...

Digital is great, but only if you realize that you are now the lab and have the job of quality control... Some computer people are photographers, but some photographers aren't computer people ;-)

I've been shooting digital for almost 6 years now and 4 years ago went cold turkey for my weddings and started solely offering digital. I currently use (2) D1x cameras and pro glass - I passed on my D2x simply because I hadn't seen any wedding work when mine came in (week 2 of availablity).

Sometimes I regret not getting it, but more from a techie point of view than from a needs stand point. My D1x produces wonderful images in the print sizes that most of my customers are looking for (11x14 or 16x20). I'm sure that I would get more detail in the 16x20s with the D2x, but honestly I dread the 20-25mb file size for the minimal gain on my current client base. Not to mention the gigs of extra server storage that I would need just to keep the data...

As a matter of fact, I just sent one of my bodies to Mamiya for an internal pocket wizard installation just to clean up the cable mess... I had the buffers on both cameras upgraded over the winter and what a huge difference that made to the cameras performance! I should've done that a couple years ago.

I also like the in camera B&W on the D1x that is only offered via Nikon Capture with the D2x.

Just my .02
Jeff Guntert
Schenectady, NY

 

[dchphoto]

Thanks for the input everyone! I guess I need learn about batch processing files. I'm not a computer person in the sense that I enjoy being behind the camera, not the computer screen. I also don't want to be the lab.I would love to know how someone makes $150K a year doing digital weddings without much time in front of the screen! I know I can save money if I am willing to gaze for hours and hours in front of a computer screen. But I also know I enjoy spending my evenings with my wife and baby daughter. If I could figure out a way to upload the nef files to my lab's ftp site and tell them to "have at it" and have them send me perfect prints like they do with my film files, I would definitely go digital! Is technology close to this at all?? I think if digital were as convenient as this and you could just upload your files to your lab and let THEM worry and stress over the WB and color issues, then film would become a nitch item. Are we anywhere near this yet? My website is http://www.dchphoto.com if anyone is interested in seeing what I do.

 

[paulfrye]

I think a number of folks hit on it. There are people who enjoy being in front of the camera and those who enjoy being in front of the computer and various combinations of both.

I think when folks started going digital they thought in terms of saving money because they didn't have to have a lab. No matter what camera you use, though, the same choice is there...to lab or not to lab. I think labs will be catching on to this pretty quick.

Hell, I might even become a lab when I retire from my current bread-and-butter profession.

Regards,

Paul

Thanks for the input everyone! I guess I need learn about batch
processing files. I'm not a computer person in the sense that I
enjoy being behind the camera, not the computer screen. I also
don't want to be the lab.I would love to know how someone makes
$150K a year doing digital weddings without much time in front of
the screen! I know I can save money if I am willing to gaze for
hours and hours in front of a computer screen. But I also know I
enjoy spending my evenings with my wife and baby daughter. If I
could figure out a way to upload the nef files to my lab's ftp site
and tell them to "have at it" and have them send me perfect prints
like they do with my film files, I would definitely go digital! Is
technology close to this at all?? I think if digital were as
convenient as this and you could just upload your files to your lab
and let THEM worry and stress over the WB and color issues, then
film would become a nitch item. Are we anywhere near this yet? My
website is http://www.dchphoto.com if anyone is interested in seeing what
I do.

--
The grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do,
something to love and something to hope for. - Joseph Addison

 

[fjp]

I don't have time to address all your issues, but I want to point out that you certainly do not need a new computer. All you need to do is double your memory to 2 GBytes and you'll be just fine. That's a relatively cheap upgrade and you'll save some money. Don't spend money where you don't need to. I run with 2.8GHz and 2 gigs of RAM and have absolutely no complaints.

--
FJP, Software Engineer

 

[Iusefilm]

There is no reasons to be depressed about the "need" to go digital. People are purchasing images that are becoming memories in time! Not "files" from a Nikon or Canon! I never ever heard a studio going out of business because they used Bronica or Mamiya for portraitures and weddings, instead of Hasselblads. A potentional bride never ever asked the stupid question during consults about a particular colour film vs. the next best thing. They wanted wall and album worthy selections.

To see something important in a file from one digital camera or the next is a "photographer" thing.

Having said that, digital workflow does make a lot of sence, however... not risking or not experimenting with film??? what were you guys doing.... a roll of film is still cheaper than a 12-15,000 investment to have the freedom to risk a shot, or experiment. The laws of image taking is still the same. An F/ stop, a shutter speed and available darkness....and thinking before you press the shutter? Who ever heard of that meaningless concept. Of course it is pointless to mention that a film photographer knew when he or she got the shot or not. It was called experience. A forgotten word from a forgotten dictionary form a forgotten age/century.

Perhaps you should consider a less costly aproach to integrate digital workflow with your present work. In the end only the image matters, and nobody cares if it was created with chalk or coal...
My clients ask if I use digital and I always reply, I do! No pun intended.
Then the consult moves to much more important subjects.
Tony K

 

[Michael Hung]

I wonder how much do they charge? I am paying my trusty film lab about CDN20 (around USD15) a roll of 135 and slightly cheaper for 120.. (Develop and 4x6/6x6 proofs).

I fully understand that I am the lab part.. it's just that I am not as efficient as the trusty lab at quality control (Meaning I have to spend more time fixing WB, color, etc than the lab to get the same result).. and time is money of course.. so the division of labour is not efficient at all.. and the running-cost saving (ie. film) doesn't justisfy it in many cases.. (Esp those ones that the client surely won't want to enlarge..)

But that said, my D2X is coming in soon.. (I was using a D100 since they started selling it). And I am trying to convince my trusty mini-lab to move to digital.. which they really have to.. (But they are a small, family business.. the frontier's so much investment when the current machines are working fine).. The ideal case would be: NEF+JPEG.. send in the jpeg, and come back with close-to-perfect prints at the same cost as what I am paying now for film development and proofs.. (No post-processing on my part other than backup to DVD).

M