I can't believe people shoot Weddings digitally!

[Ed Leys20479]

(snip)

i have to
say it really bugs me when people make statements along the lines
that digital makes them better photographers.....

(snip)

brenton

Hi brenton,

Well, I've read through the thread, and the misunderstandings, and it is clear to me you know what you are talking about. People sometimes almost seem to work at not picking up what is being said.

I just thought I'd slightly spin off of your statement above with a somewhat related peeve of my own. I've often seen in these forums statements that people have had an SLR for several years ...then got a digital and learned more about photography in a couple of weeks than they ever learned with their film camera. Sigh, they must not have been paying attention. (Probably what then mean is that they are learning to use their digital camera...and they mistake that for learning about photography.)

I saw one post here from someone who claimed to have had an SLR for five years (or was it ten), then got a digital and shot 400 exposures in a weekend and learned what the difference was between f/4 and f/8. He said it with some pride, too.

I didn't respond. If I did I would have told him to go out and lie in the street...

Take care,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

 

[Chad D]

you can shoot RAW and use C1 very fast very accurate
I can edit through for blinks and double check any WB issues etc..

maybe total 4 hours but this includes blinks etc... so not to bad for me the rest of my workflow is pretty much on Auto making my dir for print and for the web proofing I just click it and go come back in a bit

I dont think digital is easier or time savings really its just dif

I have total control I really look at it like I have a darkroom and I am doing my own work
I can do my won dodging burning toning whatever I want

I also think if you like film cool dont smack digital so hard till you really know the workflow and understand it

same as digital Film has its ups downs and both can get the job done

I think film can be less work I agree with that but for that time I feel I have more control both in post and pre work
I can change ISO on the fly etc...

now for film if you do anykind of online proofing etc.. you will have to scan those in somehow ??? again more pros cons

bottom line is I say do what works for you and dont worry about knocking the other guy

reminds me of snowboarding when I started back in 1980 everyone wanted to knock it it started catching on then some people got in battles over it
I say who cares as long as you are sliding down the hill having fun !!!

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.

--
Chad D
http://www.chaddahlquist.com

 

[bs]

Hi Ed,

I agree with you totally.......at times i'm amazed myself! A lot of people don't seem to understand that digital cameras and film cameras are doing exactly the same thing, Capturing Light! For some strange reason people think digital makes them suddenly professional, it frustrates the hell out of me! It was like they were scared of film before - maybe b/c they didn't understand it, but b/c digital is linked with computers they think they know exactly what's going on b/c of there familiarity with computers so that makes them good photographers.

At the moment photography is going through a big change where a lot of people who would normally employ someone to take photographs are trying to do it themselves, rather than use a professional photographer; because they think they can - digital gives them that confidence. My take on it is that eventually there will be a realisation that digital cameras aren't the be all and end all of photography it still requires the skill of a good "photographer", not just the skill of an "operator" who knows how to use the camera - there's more to it than that. Well hope that is what will happen anyway, otherwise we're all doomed!

cheers,
Brenton.

Hi brenton,

Well, I've read through the thread, and the misunderstandings, and
it is clear to me you know what you are talking about. People
sometimes almost seem to work at not picking up what is being said.

I just thought I'd slightly spin off of your statement above with a
somewhat related peeve of my own. I've often seen in these forums
statements that people have had an SLR for several years ...then
got a digital and learned more about photography in a couple of
weeks than they ever learned with their film camera. Sigh, they
must not have been paying attention. (Probably what then mean is
that they are learning to use their digital camera...and they
mistake that for learning about photography.)

I saw one post here from someone who claimed to have had an SLR for
five years (or was it ten), then got a digital and shot 400
exposures in a weekend and learned what the difference was between
f/4 and f/8. He said it with some pride, too.

I didn't respond. If I did I would have told him to go out and lie
in the street...

Take care,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

 

[George Law]

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.

I began shooting in 35mm, went to medium format (6x7), set myself up for digital,but have returned to 35mm.

For the product that I provide my clients, I have found that it is not only less time consuming but also less expensive to shoot on film. A little explanation; I provide my clients with 4x6 size true photo prints of all their originals (I do cull the bloopers......a few failed strobes and an occassional out of focus..........way less than 1%..........I just shoot 333 shots last weekend and culled 6 prints). I use a pro lab here in Muskegon, Michigan (Radium) and they are very very good. Nine rolls of film costs me $63.00 and $72.00 for processing and printing, for a total of $135.00. The same 333 shots on digital would cost me $166.50 for the same 4x6 prints. I saved $31.50 in real money and I no post processing time myself.

I am not totally oppossed to shooting weddings in digital; there are many things about digital that are very appealling to me. As a matter of fact, I shoot my seniors in all digital now and will be offering weddings in digital next year (but at a some higher fee).

George
http://www.pbase.com/law

 

[bs]

.....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.

they can but they charge for it! Generally labs print the digital file you provide them with, it's not there responsibility to take a raw straight out of camera file and prepare it to make a decent print, not unless you pay a lot of extra money for the service. That's what a good Mac digital manipulator will do.

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

you're right! That's why i find it hard to justify digital wedding photography, purely b/c of the large number of files that are taken under possibly varying conditions all requiring post processing. It becomes tedious and time consuming and that's my point exactly!

brenton.

 

[BobTrips]

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

they can but they charge for it!

So they edit your film shots for free (get rid of all those annoying zits) but charge you for doing the same for digital?

They charge you the same to print a 'fixed' film shot and an 'unfixed' digital?

They've built in tech costs for the film prints but don't subtract them when they just dump your digital prints in the machine?

Sounds like there's something amiss here....

Whether you shoot film or digital is purely a business decision. If you have a printer who is turning your film shots into prints for quite a bit less than your digital shots, let the numbers be your guide.

Fill me in a bit here. They take your film, slosh it around in some chemicals and run it trough a scanner? (That costs them.)

Surely they don't 'just print it'. Surely they must make some slight adjustments. If so, seems like the costs saved by not having to develop and scan would be greatly offset by going straight to digital.

Seems to me like they would welcome and encourage the move to digital by doing the digital editing and dropping the price a bit.

Maybe you're just caught in the no man's land created by the transition from film to digital. Maybe your lab hasn't sufficiently thought things through. Things are going to switch, if your lab can't find a way to make the switch, well, remember open pit blast furnaces and Bethlehem Steel?

--
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'.

 

[davidphoto]

My receipt for effective digital weddings is:

• adjust lights very precisely
• shoot JPG (not raws)
• enjoy the freedom of digital imaging and potential postproduction capabilities

Since you are a good photograhper from the technical point of view, if you follow my advices, you will end up having 90% of images printable out-of-the-camera. No (if not very little) postproduction is needed.

Otherwise, I second your point.

The only drawback in my workflow is that shooting JPGs and not RAWs is like taking the risk of shooting reportage with a low ISO transparency film instead of a trustful negative film. You have to be precise and self confident to at least give up the RAW format advantages.

Last wedding I shot the makeup of the bride tuned out to be orrible. Shooting it digital (instead of negative portrait film) even made it look worse. So I had to actually retouch more than 100 images to get decent portraits :-(

ciao,
--
davide gazzotti
projects: http://www.davidegazzotti.com
works: http://www.davidephoto.com

 

[BobTrips]

I just thought I'd slightly spin off of your statement above with a
somewhat related peeve of my own. I've often seen in these forums
statements that people have had an SLR for several years ...then
got a digital and learned more about photography in a couple of
weeks than they ever learned with their film camera.

Gosh, Ed, ... I'm one of those. 35 years with film and I sure learned a lot in a few weeks with digital.

Sigh, they
must not have been paying attention. (Probably what then mean is
that they are learning to use their digital camera...and they
mistake that for learning about photography.)

No. And let me preface this with saying that I'm not a pro.

I worked at taking better photographs. But I didn't take the opportunity to stand outside a one hour developing shop, take my pictures, record the relevant data for each picture, run the roll in, and sit down with prints and data. My bad.

When I got a digital I was able to get some almost immediate feedback. It worked. I've seen the same for several other photographers.

The situation may well be different for pros who have been through rigorous training and/or apprenticeships. Lots of us amateurs are self taught, or at least have received little help.

That may be where these comments arise. My guess is that most of these posts come from people more like me.

Please don't make me lie down in the street.... ;o)

--
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'.

 

[Peter Phan]

I miss the freedom of dropping off all my wedding films, too. But I am quickly streamlining my workflow so that post work is getting less and less. One big time saver is merely getting the shot right from the beginning. Things like the Expo/Disc for proper WB and careful light metering can save you a lot of time later. But overall, the freedom to instantly review, instantly change ISO, shoot higher ISO with much less "grain" than the same ISO with film, are what make shooting digital a big benefit.

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.

 

[BOB44713]

At last week's wedding, I took a digital portrait of the Bride and Groom at the park with my E-20. At the recepetion, using my HiTi 630ps printer I printed out custom 4x6 thank you cards and gave them to the bride and groom to give out to thier guests. You should have seen the couple's faces. They were so amazed and the guests just loved them. I can't tell you how popular that made me at the wedding and the addtional work I picked up that otherwise I would have never seen. Digital may have its down side, but the rewards are too great to ignore. I currently shoot film at the ceremony and digital for everthing else. Once I get a camera that can shoot faster, (probaly the Canon 10D) I will shoot totally digital.
--
BobT

 

[Doug MacMillan]

... 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.

Brenton, I understand completely your frustration. I do think someone won't end up a better photographer because of digital, but they may reach their potential faster.

I suggested to my students that shooting slides was the best way to learn photography. Shooting slides forces you to do everything at the point of exposure. You learn to crop in camera, get your exposure spot on and color adjust/correct with the use of filters. Digital can force the same discipline, especially when combined with instant feedback. Sure you can crop and adjust exposure/color in post processing, but the mere volume of images folks tend to take makes them want to get it right in camera and not spend tedious hours fixing things that shouldn't be broken. At least that's my hope. Probably sloppy photographers will be sloppy photographers, be it film or digital.

I also subscribe to the philosophy that even good photographers improve with volume. To broadly generalize, just as you need to write volumes before you become a good writer and you have to play thousands of notes before you become a decent musician, you need to shoot thousands of images to become really proficient. People who would never dream of shooting 10 rolls of film on a subject think nothing of shooting 500 digital images.

Since we're on the philosophy kick, I'll add one more. I think photographers fall into three main categories. There are the truly gifted. They are born with an "eye" and a good imagination. They make great photographs whether formally trained or not. They tend to strike out on their own, not caring so much for rules as for gaining techniques that will help them express their ideas photographically. I've had the pleasure of knowing some photographers in this category. I admire them greatly. I am not one of them. The second group may not have the eye, but they can pay close attention. They can learn the rules of composition, lighting, exposure, etc. and can create wonderful, if not highly imaginative images. On occasion they break out and make a truly creative photograph despite themselves. Most of the pros I know fall in this category. They keep the seminar guys and photography schools in business. The third group, bless their hearts, are visually tone deaf. They may rarely take an OK photo, but they reach their peak early and rarely progress past that point even with intense effort. A lot of these guys are tempted to turn pro, mainly because they are incapable of perceiving the difference between a truly good and truly horrible photograph. They think to themselves "Hey, my stuff is as good as Joe Pro down the street!" You can't convince them otherwise.

Doug

 

[Jacques Cornell]

For me, the following advantages are compelling:

1) Instant image review,

2) No need to carry and juggle multiple film speeds & types,

3) Ability to shoot 150 images uninterrupted (RAW on 1GB card),

4) Ability to burn/dodge, crop, precisely correct color/exposure/contrast, add custom borders,

5) Digital files without scanning - for posting on Web and making slide shows,

6) Zero marginal cost per frame lets me shoot as much as I want without worrying about film budget, and

7) Zero film cost lets me offer an economical package with a good profit margin.

I have shot weddings with 35mm and 67 film, and the last one I shot with both digital and 67 film. After the last one, I resolved never to shoot film again. I am not a high-end wedding shooter with lots of assistants, so I need to keep things simple. Fewer things to set up and juggle means more and better shots taken. Shooting RAW reduce the indoor/outdoor exposure/color-balance issues to a couple of button pushes. Shooting RAW, I don't even have to think about color temperature. Instant review allowed me to confirm flash/ambient ratios at a glance. In short, it removed the hail-Mary guesswork and allowed me to more quickly get the shots I wanted.

You're right, post-processing does eat up time. But then, so does dealing with a lab and labeling and filing negs. I find editing digital files less cumbersome than editing negs & proofs. Also, a searchable database of digital images makes finding originals much easier than digging through drawers of neg sheets. I post the whole wedding to a website where the bride, groom, and guests can view them and order reprints, so I never have to deal with reprint orders. It's all handled online. I just post-process, edit, post to the website, then sit back and collect checks for print orders.

Personally, I like having total control at every step of the process. Although post-processing can be tedious, I find it satisfying to make the final images look exactly the way I envisioned them. I know other pros who feel as you do - they'd rather hand off the film and be done with it. Whether one prefers film or digital seems to be very much a matter of personality and priorities. For a control-freak gear-head like me, digital solves a lot of problems.

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.

I can post-process, edit, and upload to a lab on Monday, and have the lab mail the proof prints to the clients on Wednesday. No travel.

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.

True, but the prints look exactly the way I want, and I save a lot of time on image management later.

--
'May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.' -
Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[ajs2]

Hi,

I wounder what you guys are doing if converting files to RAW takes effort on your part? The process of converting RAW to JPG or TIFF is a batch process done by the computer.

My WorKflow

1) Load RAW files onto PC.
2) Backup RAW.
3) Convert to RAW and add ICM.

4) Browse & select Images. Perform any corrects and save. 2 mins average per picture, 5mins max.
5) Run photshop action to produce
a) PC slide show & DVD selection album (maybe hard copy album)
b) Photos for web.
c) 8x10 & 7x5 for album
N.B. sharpens, slight auto corrects & applies lab profile
6) Burn disks, 1x for lab, 1x DVD
7) Upload to internet.
8) Visit customer & select prints
9) Lab does prints
10) Put prints in album and packs
11) Post to customer

My time in all thats is therefore

2 hours to copy & backup
1 hour per 30 prints
3 hours with customer selecting prints (inc travel)
4 hours putting album togethers

I guess that 1 and a half days post production work. 3 hour extra work because of digital. Cost 3x£25 per hour= £75. It therefore costs me £75 to do digital which same as the lab cost of the M/F film & processing.

The digital printing is cheaper as the film M/F printing needed hand printing. Film is corrected by lab at the printing stage.
Alex

1) Instant image review,

2) No need to carry and juggle multiple film speeds & types,

3) Ability to shoot 150 images uninterrupted (RAW on 1GB card),

4) Ability to burn/dodge, crop, precisely correct
color/exposure/contrast, add custom borders,

5) Digital files without scanning - for posting on Web and making
slide shows,

6) Zero marginal cost per frame lets me shoot as much as I want
without worrying about film budget, and

7) Zero film cost lets me offer an economical package with a good
profit margin.

I have shot weddings with 35mm and 67 film, and the last one I shot
with both digital and 67 film. After the last one, I resolved never
to shoot film again. I am not a high-end wedding shooter with lots
of assistants, so I need to keep things simple. Fewer things to set
up and juggle means more and better shots taken. Shooting RAW
reduce the indoor/outdoor exposure/color-balance issues to a couple
of button pushes. Shooting RAW, I don't even have to think about
color temperature. Instant review allowed me to confirm
flash/ambient ratios at a glance. In short, it removed the
hail-Mary guesswork and allowed me to more quickly get the shots I
wanted.

You're right, post-processing does eat up time. But then, so does
dealing with a lab and labeling and filing negs. I find editing
digital files less cumbersome than editing negs & proofs. Also, a
searchable database of digital images makes finding originals much
easier than digging through drawers of neg sheets. I post the whole
wedding to a website where the bride, groom, and guests can view
them and order reprints, so I never have to deal with reprint
orders. It's all handled online. I just post-process, edit, post to
the website, then sit back and collect checks for print orders.

Personally, I like having total control at every step of the
process. Although post-processing can be tedious, I find it
satisfying to make the final images look exactly the way I
envisioned them. I know other pros who feel as you do - they'd
rather hand off the film and be done with it. Whether one prefers
film or digital seems to be very much a matter of personality and
priorities. For a control-freak gear-head like me, digital solves a
lot of problems.

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.

I can post-process, edit, and upload to a lab on Monday, and have
the lab mail the proof prints to the clients on Wednesday. No
travel.

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.

True, but the prints look exactly the way I want, and I save a lot
of time on image management later.

--
'May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.' -
Dwight D. Eisenhower

--
Alex
A camera is a box to capture & store light, nothing more & nothing less.

 

[BobTrips]

I began shooting in 35mm, went to medium format (6x7), set myself
up for digital,but have returned to 35mm.

For the product that I provide my clients, I have found that it is
not only less time consuming but also less expensive to shoot on
film. A little explanation; I provide my clients with 4x6 size true
photo prints of all their originals (I do cull the bloopers......a
few failed strobes and an occassional out of focus..........way
less than 1%..........I just shoot 333 shots last weekend and
culled 6 prints).

I use a pro lab here in Muskegon, Michigan
(Radium) and they are very very good. Nine rolls of film costs me
$63.00 and $72.00 for processing and printing, for a total of
$135.00. The same 333 shots on digital would cost me $166.50 for
the same 4x6 prints. I saved $31.50 in real money and I no post
processing time myself.

Your lab charges you $0.22 per 4x6 print when they process and print your film. They charge you $0.50 to simply print a 4x6 from a digital file. Do I have that right?

Obviously the film/digital decision has to be swayed toward film from a purely business stance.

What I have to question is why they are charging so much for a digital print? From what you've posted it sounds like they are simply printing the file, you're doing the editing.

Sounds like they haven't caught up with the real world. You may have to shoot film for a while longer out of respect for the bottom line.

(Or use someone else to print your digital files.)

--
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'.

 

[RJNedimyer]

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.

Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality!

Professional level film processing is no longer available in my area I get better prints from my 2 year $130 Hp than from the Local Pro labs.

So, a $2 Sam's Clubs print is outstanding in comparison to what I can get on film for $8 to $16.

Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality!

--
Ray
RJNedimyer

 

[davidphoto]

I often offer the on-site printing as an additional service. it is great.
--
davide gazzotti
projects: http://www.davidegazzotti.com
works: http://www.davidephoto.com

 

[Mr. Stacey]

I know the majority of you fellas are .

I have no idea why it takes you guys a long @$$ time to get your images going.

My workflow is so d@mned refined, in 45 minutes, the d@mn pictures are uploaded and burned.

--

 

[steve giron]

Who do you use to print your images from online selections?

For me, the following advantages are compelling:

1) Instant image review,

2) No need to carry and juggle multiple film speeds & types,

3) Ability to shoot 150 images uninterrupted (RAW on 1GB card),

4) Ability to burn/dodge, crop, precisely correct
color/exposure/contrast, add custom borders,

5) Digital files without scanning - for posting on Web and Dwight D. Eisenhower

--- clip ----

 

[Louise Vessey]

Hi Brenton,

Yes, there is more time spent post processing, but that is the part I LOVE! I have total control over the colour, cropping, quality, and artistic touches. Brides or grooms with blemishes and such are retouched on the fly.

The response from my clients since going digital has been phenominal. Their albums just look SO much more polished.

I used to juggle and lug around 2, 35mm bodies (colour and black and white) and my 20 lb case with all my Pentax 645 gear, not to mention my Manfrotto and studio lights. Now it is one camera, one flash, no reloading film every 30 or 36 frames. Freedom to shoot without concern with cost and waste, the ability to see flare from flash, the ability to test creative lighting techniques and ultimately the control I get after the fact.

Folks can sneak a peak at the photos on the day, they get a huge charge out of that!

AND friends and family can see the wedding album online the day after the wedding while it is fresh on their minds. I get orders from aunts and uncles that would never typically see the 'real life' album.

Plus my profits per wedding are much higher (yes more time in post processing but ulitmately more money in my pocket).

Oh, I could go on.....

--
Louise Vessey,
PEI, Canada http://www.lightandvision.com

 

[bs]

Bob i think you are confused about what we are talking about?

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

they can but they charge for it!

So they edit your film shots for free (get rid of all those
annoying zits) but charge you for doing the same for digital?

No, i give them my film they process it then print it at the size i want? There's no editing i get all the prints.

I could give them digital files, they put them on there computer then print them. The point is they print the files i give them, it's not there responsibility to adjust them so they make a good print, if i want them to do this they probably will but i will be charged extra for it, and it is not cheap! Also the files could be altered many different ways, how do they know what the images are meant to look like, and what needs to be fixed and what doesn't? It really is my responsibility to adjust the files to how i want them to look when printed before i give them to the lab.

They charge you the same to print a 'fixed' film shot and an
'unfixed' digital?

They've built in tech costs for the film prints but don't subtract
them when they just dump your digital prints in the machine?

It's around the same for a digital or film print at a given size, why should digital be so much cheaper? They still use paper, ink, an expensive machine and need a technition to run the thing - surely you know how much it costs to print at home or work - it's not for free - and can be quite expensive.

Sounds like there's something amiss here....

doesn't to me- they are running a business not a service.

Whether you shoot film or digital is purely a business decision.

Fill me in a bit here. They take your film, slosh it around in
some chemicals and run it trough a scanner? (That costs them.)

No they slosh it around in some chemicals (processing), then put it through a printer to make prints. Where does scanning come into it? Why do i need to scan if i have the prints?

Surely they don't 'just print it'. Surely they must make some
slight adjustments. If so, seems like the costs saved by not
having to develop and scan would be greatly offset by going
straight to digital.

Have you ever used film? There are lots of adjustments that can be made in the printing process but if you have a good lab you can ask them to print thigs to look a certain way (ie: have a warm color balance, take out some red/cyan etc,etc) The point is they're doing all the adjustments, i don't have to spend hours at a computer doing them myself like i would if i shot digital.

If i gave them digital files and asked them to make the same adjustments before printing it would cost me a hell of a lot more! It's pretty standard to pay a good digital image manipulator around $100 per hour.....that's the minimum we charge commercially.

Seems to me like they would welcome and encourage the move to
digital by doing the digital editing and dropping the price a bit.

Nop i wouldn't think so...if anything the price would go up, because it is much more labour intensive. 36 frame Film is loaded into processing machine, then loaded into printer, prints come out.

36 Digital files are loaded on computer by tech, tech opens and adjusts each one individually to how he thinks thay should look, plays around with them to get rid of any 'zits' (because that's what you would expect he should do for the amount of money you are paying him), files are put through printer, prints come out.

For a wedding shot on film you might have 10-15 rolls (max), a lot of digital photographers go nuts b/c they think it is free and shoot thousands of shots. Imagine if the tech had to go through all of those individually for you.
Which process is more labour intensive?

Maybe you're just caught in the no man's land created by the
transition from film to digital. Maybe your lab hasn't
sufficiently thought things through. Things are going to switch,
if your lab can't find a way to make the switch, well, remember
open pit blast furnaces and Bethlehem Steel?

I'm not caught in no mans land because i make use out of both digital and film and am comfortable with both. Unless you are increasing your prices significantly for the weddings you are doing and still able to get enough clients at this higher price i don't see how digital is efficient in this case. People act as if digital is cheaper (if not free), they act as if it is going to save them heaps of time and is simpler - you haven't convinced me it is.

Brenton.

p.s. i don't know anything about the steel industry i'm a photographer, cheers.