I can't believe people shoot Weddings digitally!

[bs]

I work full time as a commercial photographer. I also shoot weddings. 90% of my commercial work is done digitally. 100% of my wedding work is done on film. Why? Because it is so much easier and quicker. I drop the film off at the lab on Monday, pick up the prints on Wednesday, deliver the images the following weekend. Post processing time is the time it takes for me to drive to the lab and back.

How do people cope digitally? The post processing would take almost as long as the shoot.

brenton.

 

[JamesM]

Hi Brenton,

You are absolutely correct. It has been a constant dillemma because shooting digitally requires a lot of post processing. However, you are also able to control the output to so much of a greater extent that the quality of the product is much more impressive (IMO).

-James

I work full time as a commercial photographer. I also shoot
weddings. 90% of my commercial work is done digitally. 100% of my
wedding work is done on film. Why? Because it is so much easier
and quicker. I drop the film off at the lab on Monday, pick up the
prints on Wednesday, deliver the images the following weekend.
Post processing time is the time it takes for me to drive to the
lab and back.
How do people cope digitally? The post processing would take
almost as long as the shoot.

brenton.

--
http://www.MasterworkPhotography.com

 

[bs]

What do you mean by 'control the output', making the quality of the product much more impressive?

brenton

You are absolutely correct. It has been a constant dillemma
because shooting digitally requires a lot of post processing.
However, you are also able to control the output to so much of a
greater extent that the quality of the product is much more
impressive (IMO).

-James

I work full time as a commercial photographer. I also shoot
weddings. 90% of my commercial work is done digitally. 100% of my
wedding work is done on film. Why? Because it is so much easier
and quicker. I drop the film off at the lab on Monday, pick up the
prints on Wednesday, deliver the images the following weekend.
Post processing time is the time it takes for me to drive to the
lab and back.
How do people cope digitally? The post processing would take
almost as long as the shoot.

brenton.

--
http://www.MasterworkPhotography.com

 

[Abe Evans]

When we shot with film it would take at least a day to scan then another day to assemble the preview book for printing. With digital it takes about

the same time but I can more easily correct with digital. I do miss the archival ability of film and being able to go into the darkroom if need be. But then I can see my results almost immediately and compensate if need be. We have found that color correcting from a digital camera file is easier than a scanned negative. One wonderful thing about shooting weddings digitally is not having to reload or advance film (manual cameras). We have always had an in-house lab; it just feels better to do it all yourself.

 

[JamesM]

Hi Brenton,

Yes. Specifically, it gives me the power of a VERY advanced dark room at my home. I cannot count on the guy down the street, but I can count on myself.

It is not that digital really provides anything that cannot be done with film. What it does is make it more accessible.

-JM

brenton

You are absolutely correct. It has been a constant dillemma
because shooting digitally requires a lot of post processing.
However, you are also able to control the output to so much of a
greater extent that the quality of the product is much more
impressive (IMO).

-James

I work full time as a commercial photographer. I also shoot
weddings. 90% of my commercial work is done digitally. 100% of my
wedding work is done on film. Why? Because it is so much easier
and quicker. I drop the film off at the lab on Monday, pick up the
prints on Wednesday, deliver the images the following weekend.
Post processing time is the time it takes for me to drive to the
lab and back.
How do people cope digitally? The post processing would take
almost as long as the shoot.

brenton.

--
http://www.MasterworkPhotography.com

--
http://www.MasterworkPhotography.com

 

[Mike Goebel]

What about those 1000's of photographers who live in Smallville, USA and don't have access to a lab. If they have an internet connection they can FTP their images the next day (just like you) and can get them back by the next weekend (just like you).

Yes- I know digital doesn't have the latitude that film does but the advantages outweight the disadvantages.

I work full time as a commercial photographer. I also shoot
weddings. 90% of my commercial work is done digitally. 100% of my
wedding work is done on film. Why? Because it is so much easier
and quicker. I drop the film off at the lab on Monday, pick up the
prints on Wednesday, deliver the images the following weekend.
Post processing time is the time it takes for me to drive to the
lab and back.
How do people cope digitally? The post processing would take
almost as long as the shoot.

brenton.

--
Only the Dead have seen the end of War....PLATO

 

[bs]

When we shot with film it would take at least a day to scan then
another day to assemble the preview book for printing. With digital
it takes about the same time but I can more easily correct with digital.

Why would you scan the film when you already have the prints to make the album?

Also if film is scanned properly/correctly there is NO difference in the ease at which the file can be corrected compared to a digital shot from a camera.

I do miss the archival ability of film and being able to go into the darkroom

if need be.

If you are going to print the images yourself you might as well shoot digital, i'm talking about saving time by using a good lab who does this for you. I mean it costs less and you'll get a more consistent/higher quality result by dropping film off at a lab to print than by dropping the digital camera card off at a lab and getting them to print the images. 95% of the images from a wedding are going to be straight shots from the camera, from film these need no adjustments, with digital they all need to be corrected (ie:curves,levels,saturation,contrast, resized,sharpened etc,etc) before they are ready to get a print from. The remaining 5% of shots that you might like to 'play' with and digitally enhance can be scanned from the film/print and then adjusted, the same as you would as if taken from a digital camera file. You don't need to scan all the shots from the wedding shot with film because remember you already have prints.

But then I can see my results almost immediately and

compensate if need be.

you don't see the results immediately from a digital file, you see the starting point of an image but it is always necassary to 'play' with it to come up with the result you are happy with and desire. With film the print is the result, and if you're not happy with it you get it re-printed, and if you'd like to do something'special' with it you scan just that print then manipulate it in p/shop then get it printed.

We have found that color correcting from a

digital camera file is easier than a scanned negative.

Time to employ a better scanner operator then.

One wonderful thing about shooting weddings digitally is not having to

reload or advance film (manual cameras). We have always had an
in-house lab; it just feels better to do it all yourself.

Digital isn't a totally automated process either, you have to reload memory cards and download to computers (not quicker or easier at all). IMO

I'm still keen to be convinced that digital for weddings is the way to go.

Brenton

 

[Rich. L]

Brenton,

I work as a wedding (primarily) and portrait photographer. I bought an S2 in August last year, and have never looked back.

With the advantages that digital offers, you are yet to provide an answer why not to use digital. ??

1) Exposures: We are professionals, therefore we should be able to control our exposures well enough to get great results. I am sure your commercial shoots are exposed correctly with digital ? Or do you do hit and miss until you get it right ? I expect you are able to get it right first time. This is what I do when I shoot on wedding days.

2) In lab Processing times: you site that having it back the next weekend is important. I put my files in an express post envelope on the Monday, they are in the lab Tuesday, out Friday. I don't see an argument here.

3) Post Processing: when you put film in to the lab, they "crop" the image onto the relevant paper size 3.5 x 5, 5 x 7 etc. Most outputs are not film size specific, and some cropping will occur in the print compared to neg. images. However, when I send in my digital files, I either crop them to output size myself on my Mac, OR, I let the lab do it. Again, no real argument as to which is better. However, I hear you arguing that my time in front of my Mac is possibly "wasting time" ? My response to this is simple. I am proficient at turning out beautiful proofable images within a matter of seconds for simple cropping and possible brightness adjustments etc.

A wedding may take two hours to do a few hundred images (cropped adjusted, B& W etc.), but the outputs are my own. If there is an exposure that I want printed, which may or not be outside the normal "latitude" of the digital equimpent exposure range, it is still printed as captured, or as I intend it to be. I am not relying on someone at the lab deciding what level of adjustments I want. This goes for any sepia prints, cross processing etc. All my images are outputted exactly the way I want. Therefore with film, once shotin b & W, always black and white. Once cross processed, always cross processed. Another pro-digital point.

4) Costing: I only send to the lab what I want printed. My "culls" of blinks, or accidental firings, or "flash not recycled" type shots are culled in a matter of seconds, during my time in front of the computer. Even if there was no other adjustments, but a simple cull in 30 minutes. (I did a wedding cull last night from last saturday's images in about 30-45 minutes, on an average wedding length, approx. 400 shots.) Weighed up against film, there is also the cost of film yuou save each time a "roll" is shot.

As for the end results back from the lab, I don't have to cull any images. You do. This culling time is a whole lot faster with keystrokes than physically flicking through every single image manually. And I put it to you that my method keeps the prints in better condition as well. No unwanted finger prints or damaged edges.

Yes, I am pro digital, through and through. Until I made the choices to become so, I would have sneared at possible problems as well. I put it to you that it is a personal choice, and once you make whatever choice you make, you become proficient at doing it well.

This is just a point of view from my perspective, and in no means a personal attack. But I look forward to seeing everybody elses in put on such a discussion !

Happy shooting,
Rich.


--
Shoot for the Stars.. you may just hit the moon

S2, Sigma 15-30, Nikon 24/2.8, Nikon 50/1.8, Nikon 85/1.8., Nikon 80-200/2.8, Tamron 2x converter.

 

[Jimmy Chen]

100% of my
wedding work is done on film. Why? Because it is so much easier
and quicker. I drop the film off at the lab on Monday, pick up the
prints on Wednesday, deliver the images the following weekend.

How do people cope digitally? The post processing would take
almost as long as the shoot.

Have you tried sending your film overseas to places such as Taiwan and produce large prints, send the prints over via FedEx, and still pay only 1/2 the cost when compared to here and hence pass on the savings to your paying clients?

Someone I know owns a wedding studio and digital is all he shots ... He doesnt even give his clients "prints" as he gives them photo CDs.

Sending his "films" over to Taiwan doesnt cost him anything either.

--
jc

 

[David's Digital Photography]

I work full time as a commercial photographer. I also shoot
weddings. 90% of my commercial work is done digitally. 100% of my
wedding work is done on film. Why? Because it is so much easier
and quicker. I drop the film off at the lab on Monday, pick up the
prints on Wednesday, deliver the images the following weekend.
Post processing time is the time it takes for me to drive to the
lab and back.
How do people cope digitally? The post processing would take
almost as long as the shoot.

brenton.

--

A number of years ago I also have did commercial photography and shot a number of weddings using 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 and it's not as simple as you suggest shooting film.

Even a person who is a really good photographer, and I had the majority of my wedding shot turn out pretty darn good, you still had to go through them to verify that expressions looked right and check for closed eyes and compare one print to another as most every wedding photographer I knew, and that was quite a few, always at least double shot, if not tripple, all posed shots and many of the others too so there was a lot of time spent comparing proofs to cull out the ones that weren't up to par from the photographers standpoint and them most photographers still had to put the proofs in a proof album to give to the bride and sometimes an album for the parents too. It all took a lot of time and effort.

So I don't feel that digital is really any more work and indeed gives the photographer a chance to correct any number of things that might turn up to spoil a good picture but with film most of the time you and your customer were stuck with the image as it was unless you and they wanted to pay an artist to airbrush something out etc. at quite an expense.
With digital even a lously artist like me can shine.

Now I'm not saying that digital isn't work as it most definitely is and due to the fact that our state of the art cameras allow us to shoot a seccession of shots very easily we tend to shoot a considerable amount more than with film which in acutallity double, tripples or even quadruples our work load but that's our own doing and needs to be curbed if the photoger sees fit.

With digital we don't have to go anwhere to deliver or pick up our images as our lab, in most cases is our computer and printer unless larger size prints are desired than we can print, and our dark room is PS or some other program which allows us to make adjustments which use to require a lot of time and sometimes trial and error in the old dark room if you do your own color printing and even B&W printing too.

So I don't think I can agree with you on your statement at all, in fact I feel that it's quite the other way around! But old habits die hard and I'm no exception to jumping to something new, just glad I'd been away from photography for awhile.

Time & Images share one common basis. In a moment they're gone!
Capture the moment!
David Smith, Digital Photography

 

[bs]

Brenton,

I work as a wedding (primarily) and portrait photographer. I bought
an S2 in August last year, and have never looked back.

With the advantages that digital offers, you are yet to provide an
answer why not to use digital. ??

I didn't say don't use digital i just wanted to be convinced that it is more efficient than film for weddings.

1) Exposures: We are professionals, therefore we should be able to
control our exposures well enough to get great results. I am sure
your commercial shoots are exposed correctly with digital ? Or do
you do hit and miss until you get it right ? I expect you are able
to get it right first time. This is what I do when I shoot on
wedding days.

With digital i have the ability to hit and miss, but so does film - you have some latitude in the printing process. i'd love to get it right first time every time though. But with digital even if the exposure is right on the image still needs adjustment in p/shop.

2) In lab Processing times: you site that having it back the next
weekend is important. I put my files in an express post envelope on
the Monday, they are in the lab Tuesday, out Friday. I don't see an
argument here.

Just that i hadn't spent anytime post processing images, i just pick up the final results from the lab. It's not really a question of how quickly i get the final prints back just how much time i've spent on them to get to this stage.

However, I hear you arguing that my time in front of my Mac
is possibly "wasting time" ? My response to this is simple. I am
proficient at turning out beautiful proofable images within a
matter of seconds for simple cropping and possible brightness
adjustments etc.

not that you are 'wasting time' - just that you are 'spending time', you must have a fast computer if it only takes a matter of seconds, but if you have hundreds of shots those seconds add up. People keep commenting about this fact on this forum and i just want to explore the options to reduce this when using digital.

Weighed up against film, there is also
the cost of film yuou save each time a "roll" is shot.

True but this is considered in the pricing of the wedding.

Yes, I am pro digital, through and through. Until I made the
choices to become so, I would have sneared at possible problems as
well. I put it to you that it is a personal choice, and once you
make whatever choice you make, you become proficient at doing it
well.

This is just a point of view from my perspective, and in no means a
personal attack.

Well that's good to hear, but like i said in my first post i use digital also, i guess that's why i'm questioning digital for weddings...........

Brenton.

 

[bs]

What about those 1000's of photographers who live in Smallville,
USA and don't have access to a lab. If they have an internet
connection they can FTP their images the next day (just like you)
and can get them back by the next weekend (just like you).
Yes- I know digital doesn't have the latitude that film does but
the advantages outweight the disadvantages.

Well digital is probably the way to go for them.....but my point wasn't meant to be how quickly you get the final print back from the lab, just how much time you spend on the images getting to the final print. This is the important factor in my situation, and because i have access to excellent labs isolation isn't a factor.

brenton.

 

[classici]

I'm in Brendon's court...

We shoot about 800 medium format film images at a wedding.

We tried digital at weddings for about 6 months. The end result was that we buried ourselves in post production.

A lot of this arguement turns on the question of WHO is going to do the post production. Is it the photographer? Or do you have someone at your studio to do it? For the majority of studios I would suggest it is the photographer. This begs the question, "When do I, as the photographer, have time to do this?" If your studio is like mine, I typically have a pretty "full plate" of stuff going on at any time. What I could once delegate to a (no offense) lower trained studio person with film, I now found myself needing to handle to get the nuances of how the digital file needed to look. I think this is the anal retentiveness coming out... So... the end result is that I picked up A WHOLE LOT of additional duties of post production.

Plus, with digital we shot EVEN MORE images at a wedding... something like 1200-1500. All that freedom of film constraints has a down side too!

Then there is the reject rate at our lab. With film prints it is like 1% come back "questionable". With digital, it seems like it was more like 15-25% had one issue or another that didn't meet our expectations... this in turn meant MORE post production work and delays getting albums out.

Somewhere along this time the question kept coming up, "Why are we beating ourselves up trying to make a digital image look like a film image when we could MUCH EASIER just have shot film in the first place. Realistically how much does it save our studio? $150 in film and $100 in processing per wedding. That kept begging the question, how much is all that post production time costing our studio? If I figure my time as a photographer is at least worth $25 per hour, and realistically it is worth much more, all that extra time really offset the perceived benefits of the cost savings digital was supposed to provide.

Needless to say, we went back to film for our weddings and are quite happy to pay the $250 in film / processing to make our lives easier after the wedding.

Digital gains new advantages when you start offering uniquely digital products to your wedding clients, but for us, we were mostly printing straight prints for mounted albums. In the end, digital didn't yield enough benefits to our way of shooting weddings to warrant the additional time it took.

We love digital and do all of our portraits digitally, but when you start talking about handling 800+ digital files... archiving, converting from raw to tif, presenting, post processing, and printing... it just worked out better for us with film.

I know for a lot of photographers digital works great... but the simplicity of film has its merits too.

classici

 

[wing88]

Uitilise what digital has to offer, double your prices
and cut the number of weddings in half ...

I am not a pro .. I only do all my commercial shooting and
catalogue shooting for our own companies and associated
companies this is why I built my own studio, have my own
Epson 9600 for printing proofs and posters and why I now
are able to start even more businesses because I have
learned and understood digitla for different purposes..

I also do the occasional wedding because I just have fun
and I do slide shows telling a story and large posters with
picture collages .. the client gets a CD and can print for
their album whatever they want .. I many cases they come back
and ask me for prints from my Epson because the lab just is not
delivering the same quality in many cases ...

But they know what is achievable because they all get a poster
which is included in the price ... Because none of the photogs
around here does something like this or even remotely as good
I can achieve usually about triple the price of a standard package
just because people like what they see and want the same ...

If you think that digital is replacement for film ? wrong ..
its a new media and one I like ..

I never shot as a photographer on film .. a bit hobby shooting
with an SLR but I just couldnt be bothered to really look at the
media seriously... I am a computer person from trade ...
Shooting, developing, scanning, colour correcting yuk, slow ..
Digital: well I shoot 600-900 images on a wedding and
it takes about two days to put the slide show together and
do all the processing including the poster and print ...
5000-8000 A$ for 3 days work is ok for me as an amateur ...
the standard package is 1500-3000 A$ where I live.

I have more requests than I am willing to do because I do many
other things ... I am in the process to setup a couple of
multimedia students to do the job and just do a few hours on
the day and let the students do the rest ... digital makes it
possible for me .. cause I am not interested in chemics or
paper art ... I am good at taking pictures and packaging them
electronically ... So be aware not to be passed on the wrong side
by others thinking like me ...

Please take no offense ... I only replied to your post honestly.

Regards
GMD

 

[bs]

David's Digital Photography wrote:

Even a person who is a really good photographer, and I had the
majority of my wedding shot turn out pretty darn good, you still
had to go through them to verify that expressions looked right and
check for closed eyes and compare one print to another as most
every wedding photographer I knew, and that was quite a few, always
at least double shot, if not tripple, all posed shots and many of
the others too so there was a lot of time spent comparing proofs to
cull out the ones that weren't up to par from the photographers
standpoint and them most photographers still had to put the proofs
in a proof album to give to the bride and sometimes an album for
the parents too. It all took a lot of time and effort.

this is something you do regardless of whether you shoot digital or film, not really the point i'm trying to question.

So I don't feel that digital is really any more work and indeed
gives the photographer a chance to correct any number of things
that might turn up to spoil a good picture but with film most of
the time you and your customer were stuck with the image as it was
unless you and they wanted to pay an artist to airbrush something
out etc. at quite an expense.
With digital even a lously artist like me can shine.

Have you spent hours manipulating digital files before? Are you sure this isn't really more work? Why would you airbrush when you can scan 'spoiled' images, fix them, then make digital prints from them? A good photographer may only have to do this for a couple of (if any) prints per wedding.

With digital we don't have to go anwhere to deliver or pick up our
images as our lab, in most cases is our computer and printer unless
larger size prints are desired than we can print, and our dark room
is PS or some other program which allows us to make adjustments
which use to require a lot of time and sometimes trial and error in
the old dark room if you do your own color printing and even B&W
printing too.

How long does it take you to prepare in p/shop and print an average wedding? Is it less than the time to drive to a lab, drop of the film then come back and pick up the prints? How much is the cost of paper/ink/printer? Is it less than the cost of getting the same prints done from film at a professional lab?

So I don't think I can agree with you on your statement at all, in
fact I feel that it's quite the other way around! But old habits
die hard and I'm no exception to jumping to something new, just
glad I'd been away from photography for awhile.

Sorry it isn't an old habit, i'm not putting my head in the sand about digital, the thing is i use it 5 days a week as a commercial photographer. I just don't think that for wedding photography it is the be and end all that a lot of people claim it is.....if anything it is still a lot of work - that's what i'm questioning.

This isn't meant to be a direct attack on you David, but i have to say it really bugs me when people make statements along the lines that digital makes them better photographers.....i mean it's still just a camera and a record of light, digital or film there's no difference in your photographic ability. It amazes me when people pick up a digital camera and suddenly think they're expert photographers (i'm thinking of some of my commercial clients now.......just terrible)......they suddenly think shots they've taken but wouldn't accept off me are good (very frustrating).

brenton

 

[Rich. L]

It is not a matter of sides here. I do not lack respect for shooting film, just incorrect arguments.

Post processing from RAW to TIF is completely unnecessary, and a poor argument. Why are you shooting RAW for weddings ? Or more to the point, why shoot Medium format ? Especially 800 shots ?

MF is more expensive than 35mm film, but for a sharp shot in an album, who really cares if it was a point and shoot or a MF camera that made the 8x10 image ?

If albums are what you are shooting for, than you shoot JPGS that can be if needed shot larger.

I used to shoot Pentax 645n MF gear. Heavy, slow, and certainly 16 shots per roll wated alot of my time doing slow rollfilm changes. The same arguments against MF for digital capture or 35mm. Size of final prints is consideration. Commercially, yeah go for it, shoot RAW for "billboard" sized images. But for album prints up to 11x14 inches, even a small to medium sized digital capture JPG is fine !

I sold around 20 16" x 20" prints when I had my 645, and already I have sold maybe 10-15 shots of the same size from the digital shots from a wedding (captured in JPGS or TIFF mode on my S2).

I still cannot see why all this post processing time, is necessary if you are handling your workflow correctly to begin with ? That is, not shooting in RAW just because your camera can ?

Cheers
Rich.


--
Shoot for the Stars.. you may just hit the moon

S2, Sigma 15-30, Nikon 24/2.8, Nikon 50/1.8, Nikon 85/1.8., Nikon 80-200/2.8, Tamron 2x converter.

 

[Rich. L]

Hey GMD,

I was going to ask you on email, but you dont have an email address listed. Where in Australia are you ? What are you called (Studio) ?

Feel free to email me the answers if you wish. I will be away for two days from 3pm this afternoon, but I look forward to hearing from you.

cheers
Rich.

--
Shoot for the Stars.. you may just hit the moon

S2, Sigma 15-30, Nikon 24/2.8, Nikon 50/1.8, Nikon 85/1.8., Nikon 80-200/2.8, Tamron 2x converter.

 

[wing88]

have my reasons ...
I am in Perth

this is my studio ..







A Kaidan computerized turntable will go in there
shortly for object movies which is my next experiment
for the CD we will use for one of our businesses next
year ..

I also have done this
http://www.perthdigital.com/minit/index.html

and are in the process of marketing this product ..

Regards
GMD

Hey GMD,

I was going to ask you on email, but you dont have an email address
listed. Where in Australia are you ? What are you called (Studio) ?

Feel free to email me the answers if you wish. I will be away for
two days from 3pm this afternoon, but I look forward to hearing
from you.

cheers
Rich.

--
Shoot for the Stars.. you may just hit the moon

S2, Sigma 15-30, Nikon 24/2.8, Nikon 50/1.8, Nikon 85/1.8., Nikon
80-200/2.8, Tamron 2x converter.

 

[bs]

Uitilise what digital has to offer, double your prices
and cut the number of weddings in half ...

you've got to be kidding.

I am not a pro .. I only do all my commercial shooting and
catalogue shooting for our own companies and associated
companies this is why I built my own studio, have my own
Epson 9600 for printing proofs and posters and why I now
are able to start even more businesses because I have
learned and understood digitla for different purposes..

but you can spin it......who knows you might do alright?

I also do the occasional wedding because I just have fun

So you can't really offer any perspective about my question because you don't 'really' do them.

But they know what is achievable because they all get a poster
which is included in the price ... Because none of the photogs
around here does something like this or even remotely as good
I can achieve usually about triple the price of a standard package
just because people like what they see and want the same ...

got any examples?

If you think that digital is replacement for film ? wrong ..
its a new media and one I like ..

wrong it's another method of photography that's all, new media might take into account what you do with the images after they're captured but that's all.......i think you're confused.

I never shot as a photographer on film .. a bit hobby shooting
with an SLR but I just couldnt be bothered to really look at the
media seriously... I am a computer person from trade ...
Shooting, developing, scanning, colour correcting yuk, slow ..
Digital: well I shoot 600-900 images on a wedding and
it takes about two days to put the slide show together and
do all the processing including the poster and print ...
5000-8000 A$ for 3 days work is ok for me as an amateur ...
the standard package is 1500-3000 A$ where I live.

I've seen a lot of work from non-photographers who pick up a digital camera and suddenly feel like they're good at photography, bad lighting, bad composition, they think it's a good shot b/c everyones smiling. What digital camera are you using that requires no 'shooting, color correcting, sharpening, contrast adjustment etc....things i think you consider "yuk"?

Yeah $5000-8000 is alright for three days work, so what do you get $5000, $8000 or $1500 or $3000?........why stay an amateur 'photographer' ? You must be making heaps at your real job!

I have more requests than I am willing to do because I do many
other things ...

So using digital takes a lot of time does it? I think that was my original point. thanks.

... So be aware not to be passed on the wrong side
by others thinking like me ...

Feel free to pass me, i think we're aiming at totally different markets.

Please take no offense ... I only replied to your post honestly.

yeah,yeah - no offence taken. But you've totally misinterpreted my question and the gone off on a totally different tangent.

brenton

 

[BobTrips]

.....but my point
wasn't meant to be how quickly you get the final print back from
the lab, just how much time you spend on the images getting to the
final print. This is the important factor in my situation, and
because i have access to excellent labs isolation isn't a factor.

Seems as if you have a half-excellent lab.

A totally excellent lab would be able to the processing on either digital or film.

(This, to me, seems to be a need waiting to be filled.

Imagine a web based editing service. Staffed by stay at home moms, people who have difficulty traveling to worksites, students needing part time work, talented people in far away places, etc. A central office could accept the files and people could sign on, download a job from the queue, ....

Tie it back into a printing service in your region, ....

A Walmart waiting for a Mr. Sam.)
--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.