Reading mode: Light Dark

D-slr economics with portraiture...

Go to last post
MikeMiles said:
I have a couple of questions regarding a d-slr and portrait
photography. First, it's easy to say I save money because of
processing and film costs. However, I never hear anybody talk about
editing time. It seems that anytime I get near the PC I can just
about guarantee I'll spend at least at least a 1/2 hour per photo.
Now, if I consider my time is worth $50 an hour. All of a sudden,
processing costs don't seem that bad! How do you validate this?
Second, what about your printing costs? Do you not give clients a
contact sheet for proofing? Inks and paper are also very expensive.
I can get excelent processing done on the best papers for a
reasonable price.

Also, do clients automatically think digital is better? I'm not
convinced digital images surpass film with portraiture (as well as
time spent on the final image). With film I get a good 4 stops of
lattitude and I use it. With digital, I find the lighting needs to
be kind of "flat" in order not to blow out a highlight. In other
words, I have to expose for the highlights, and insure I have
almost equal lighting for the fill. With film, I expose for the
shadows. This means I meter the main and overexpose a full stop for
the shadows. With digital I seem to have to meter the main and
underexpsose 1/3 stops to not blow it out!

lets talk about the first question.
Click to expand...
we are doing all our portraits on Digital.

The Answer is to shoot the portrait the way you want it to look and not have to fix it on the computer.

Also remember that this is about more then just cost. when a client comes in your studio and you can show them the images right away and they can walk out with a proof book. You have impressed them. We are quickly becoming a fast food world and now we can be a part of that.

we do over 290 weddings a year and have been shooting on digital since march. my last statement showed over 10.000 decrease in lab expenses.
 
MikeMiles

when you are considering film vrs digital cost are you considering your time comuting to the labs and back? you said your times $50 per hr. well at that rate it's $100-$150 for me to pick sometthing up at a lab, that's just negs. now how about chatting up the printers about retouch and so forth, then there's gas and wear and tear on the car. also I'm spending $50-$60 on gas a week now with out going to buy film and running back and forth between labs.

this reminds me of the guy that didn't want to pay $4 for a tech swab so he spent 12 hours making one.

one more thing for me, I get enormous benifit going over the images I have recorded one by one which I never really was exposed to to looking at proofs. this has improved my photography AND I did have to learn to re-lite for digital

so it's a toss up. there is no free lunch. everything must be paid for. if you do not enjoy time at the pc, and do enjoy driving around with 3 million other people (yes, I live in LA) stay with film.

if you do go digital I would suggesst a 2 monitor set up with your pc, increassed my work flow tremendously. BTW if your spending 1/2 per image on touch up you might want to consider improving your photoshop skills also . . .

Brian
 
Michael Long said:
MikeMiles said:
Why is it anytime I ask a question about digital someone like you
has to reply? It reads like a broken record. You read between the
lines to get up on your pulpit on why film is dead and digital is
better.
Click to expand...
And you expect... what? You're on a pro digital forum.
Click to expand...
Read some of the responses here and on this site. Things like "bracket more." Was this a revelation this guy figured out with digital? I can go on here, but being a pro and being a savy photographer are different things.
Michael Long said:
You asked about long editing times. I responed that finding the
right tools can help, and that I find that the creative control it
enables over the final output justifies the time spent.
Click to expand...
Basically, my question was how do you monetarily justify it. Where is the point of no return? I disagree the final output justifies it if it equates to making $5 an hour.

Plus, I get asked a lot if I'm shooting digital. For now it's a toss-up between people who want film and people who want digital. The younger crowd seems to want digital. They can't say it's better. I think it's just instant gratification thing. But if it sells...
Michael Long said:
You also made an erroneous statement regarding digital being flat.
It doesn't have to be.
Click to expand...
It seems a couple of other responders agreed here that the images can be seen as flat relative to what can be done with negative film. Maybe it's a style thing that takes people like me a longer to get used to for the results I want.

I should have made two posts instead of combining this with cost.
Michael Long said:
There are also different kinds of portraiture. You didn't say what
you do, or what kind of clientele you shoot. From my perspective,
the higher-end the photography, the more justified the additional
editing time becomes.
Click to expand...
I definately agree! I'm sure the pricing matches too.
Michael Long said:
And to answer another question, I don't shoot professionally any
more, but I've done commercial work, shooting 35mm (Nikon/Canon),
6x6 (Hassie), 6x7 (RZ), and 4x5 and 8x10 (Sinar). As such I've
pushed a lot a film.

Finally, I never said film was dead. I just said I don't use it
anymore...
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input, Mike
 
brian bradley said:
MikeMiles

when you are considering film vrs digital cost are you considering
your time comuting to the labs and back? you said your times $50
per hr. well at that rate it's $100-$150 for me to pick sometthing
up at a lab, that's just negs. now how about chatting up the
printers about retouch and so forth, then there's gas and wear and
tear on the car. also I'm spending $50-$60 on gas a week now with
out going to buy film and running back and forth between labs.
Click to expand...
I'm lucky (?) the lab I use is 3 miles away. I ride my bike there for lunch. For film, I buy bulk through mail order. I can't afford it locally. Some labs even offer daily pick-up if you have the volume.
bm bradley said:
this reminds me of the guy that didn't want to pay $4 for a tech
swab so he spent 12 hours making one.

one more thing for me, I get enormous benifit going over the images
I have recorded one by one which I never really was exposed to to
looking at proofs. this has improved my photography AND I did have
to learn to re-lite for digital

so it's a toss up. there is no free lunch. everything must be paid
for. if you do not enjoy time at the pc, and do enjoy driving
around with 3 million other people (yes, I live in LA) stay with
film.

if you do go digital I would suggesst a 2 monitor set up with your
pc, increassed my work flow tremendously. BTW if your spending 1/2
per image on touch up you might want to consider improving your
photoshop skills also . . .
Click to expand...
You're right I need to improve here. I'm struggling learning to diffuse in PS instead of with a filter. I still haven't dialed in a consistant match between the print and the amount of diffusion I applied. This is very much different than the results I get scanning images. I can scan in batch mode with only using PS for problems and slight resharpening.

BTW, how much time do you alot per image? When do you call it quits? I see people offering some images that I know either take time or suffer in print quality.

Mike
bm bradley said:
Brian
Click to expand...
 
Hi Mike, if your photography is not full time, and if you only value your time at $50. per hour, a jump into digital is a no brainer- Go for it! You have the time, economics, and inclination to tweak each shot, digital is the best for that. Bill off the cost of processing digital instead of the cost for film and tack on a little more for your other computer and education.
MikeMiles said:
Nice shots! I especially like the camedia shot! This is more the
type of shot I'm getting frustrated with. I like doing thing like
pushing a highlight to it's limit, while using a black reflector
for fill, and want to get a certain result without having to dodge
and burn in PS. Which is where I'm at now.

Of course I've experimented pushing the exposure. For my taste, it
seems like at one point it's not highlighted where I want, 1/3 stop
more, and it's too cooked. So I take the previous one and dodge and
burn in PS. Maybe I'm being to anal...

This is side work for me (one I don't need, but enjoy). By day I
design chips that go in things like your camera;^) I like creating
pictures, like the one in you link, that most people have never had
done. Sure, I can do a simple, what I call "mall" lighting, and be
done with it. But this isn't as fun for me!

Thanks for your comments, Mike
Russ Jennings said:
http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=276122

http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=275745

Both shot with my D60 in a studio. One main light, one fill light,
one hair light. I meter, take a shot at the metered reading, look
at the histogram, and maybe take two more test shots to get it
perfect. Then I don't touch it again unless I change something.

As far as dynamic range goes, this shot

http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=166753

Was on a Camedia E-10, which doesn't have a lot of range, IMHO, and
you still get a lot of modeling/contour. The lighting might look
flat to your eyes, but the camera will punch up the contrast a lot.

Most of my shots require minimal tweaking. Only if a shot has a
problem (a little OOF, really bad color) but looks good enough to
try and salvage will I spend more then 5 or 10 minutes on it. A
good shot can be ready to print in about 2 minutes worth of
photoshop time. Not to mention, you're not going to be adjusting
each and every shot. Print out proofs, tell the client they're not
color corrected or adjusted, and then only work on the ones they
want to buy. Include in your prices the time for working on the
print in Photoshop.

Thanks for listening

Russ
MikeMiles said:
I have a couple of questions regarding a d-slr and portrait
photography. First, it's easy to say I save money because of
processing and film costs. However, I never hear anybody talk about
editing time. It seems that anytime I get near the PC I can just
about guarantee I'll spend at least at least a 1/2 hour per photo.
Now, if I consider my time is worth $50 an hour. All of a sudden,
processing costs don't seem that bad! How do you validate this?
Second, what about your printing costs? Do you not give clients a
contact sheet for proofing? Inks and paper are also very expensive.
I can get excelent processing done on the best papers for a
reasonable price.

Also, do clients automatically think digital is better? I'm not
convinced digital images surpass film with portraiture (as well as
time spent on the final image). With film I get a good 4 stops of
lattitude and I use it. With digital, I find the lighting needs to
be kind of "flat" in order not to blow out a highlight. In other
words, I have to expose for the highlights, and insure I have
almost equal lighting for the fill. With film, I expose for the
shadows. This means I meter the main and overexpose a full stop for
the shadows. With digital I seem to have to meter the main and
underexpsose 1/3 stops to not blow it out!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I've enjoyed reading this entire thread... whilst there are different opinions, the dialog remained civil, for the most part. I do not make a living at this, but I do sell and people seek me out for portrait work.
One book I found very useful is:

"Professional Techniques For Digital Wedding Photography" by Jeff Hawkins and Kathleen Hawkins ... published by Amherst Media......

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com
 
the story so far....

film depending on B&W or colour has 3-5 stops of recordable detail.....

a pro digital generally has 12 stops of latitude....

semi-pro digitals seem to vary but the results are astounding. Metering for

highlights , not always using matrix metering in bright light produces results that will whop film for shadow and highlight detail.

its not a lie :)
d
l
 
Latitude, as used in photography, means the ability of the film or sensor to recover an image that is over or under exposed. Dynamic range is the term used to describe the range of brightness covered by a particular sensor or film in a single shot.

No camera or film has 12 stops of latitude. Many films and some digital cameras have two, maybe three, in exceptional circumstances. Perhaps you meant dynamic range.

I've not yet been able to capture in a single shot 12 stops of dynamic range on a Canon D30, D60, or EOS-1D ... what are you using to do this? I certainly want one, because it will allow me to be several stops off on a 'flat' scene. (It can be done with a cooled monochrome CCD astrocam ...)
Ken
MrPunkasS said:
the story so far....

film depending on B&W or colour has 3-5 stops of recordable
detail.....

a pro digital generally has 12 stops of latitude....

semi-pro digitals seem to vary but the results are astounding.
Metering for
highlights , not always using matrix metering in bright light
produces results that will whop film for shadow and highlight
detail.

its not a lie :)
d
l
Click to expand...
--

No 1D, very few lenses, no camera bag or teleconverters thanks to some thief. Also, NO Canon 1200mm f/5.6.
 
Hmmm,

12 stop not aware of it being poss. in these DSLR's. The Dynamic range seam to be around 6/7 stops. I sure some of those Digital backs improve on this.

Thu of cause on Negative, you seam to be able to capture around 7/8 stops depending on film. Ansel Adams work was all about print 10 stops from B&W(Zone system). T-grain B&W films these days have a greater range than Adams had to work with.

Slide film does have less stops of cause, and yes Digitals RAW files will surpass this. Thu to get slide films sense of sharpness & colour requires some work in photoshop.

The 10 stops for print makes sense from a fine art point of view, as the human eye can't see any more range than that!!! So capturing more requires you to compress the range when printing.
Alex
Ken Phillips said:
MrPunkasS said:
the story so far....

film depending on B&W or colour has 3-5 stops of recordable
detail.....

a pro digital generally has 12 stops of latitude....

semi-pro digitals seem to vary but the results are astounding.
Metering for
highlights , not always using matrix metering in bright light
produces results that will whop film for shadow and highlight
detail.

its not a lie :)
d
l
Click to expand...
--
No 1D, very few lenses, no camera bag or teleconverters thanks to
some thief. Also, NO Canon 1200mm f/5.6.
Click to expand...
 
Mike using digital in the studio is really a good way to go. With controlled lighting, you will get fine results. The secret to digital IMHO is soft lighting, which you get in the studio. I would suggest digital to anyone in the studio. Now having said that, I like film better for weddings. When running and gunning at weddings, I sometimes miss perfect exposures and film is just more forgiving for me anyway. Most if not all of my customers demand proofs so if I am going to proof anyway I shoot film for weddings and Digital for studio. I know that I will get flames for my opinion but you know what they say about opinions..............lol
MikeMiles said:
I have a couple of questions regarding a d-slr and portrait
photography. First, it's easy to say I save money because of
processing and film costs. However, I never hear anybody talk about
editing time. It seems that anytime I get near the PC I can just
about guarantee I'll spend at least at least a 1/2 hour per photo.
Now, if I consider my time is worth $50 an hour. All of a sudden,
processing costs don't seem that bad! How do you validate this?
Second, what about your printing costs? Do you not give clients a
contact sheet for proofing? Inks and paper are also very expensive.
I can get excelent processing done on the best papers for a
reasonable price.

Also, do clients automatically think digital is better? I'm not
convinced digital images surpass film with portraiture (as well as
time spent on the final image). With film I get a good 4 stops of
lattitude and I use it. With digital, I find the lighting needs to
be kind of "flat" in order not to blow out a highlight. In other
words, I have to expose for the highlights, and insure I have
almost equal lighting for the fill. With film, I expose for the
shadows. This means I meter the main and overexpose a full stop for
the shadows. With digital I seem to have to meter the main and
underexpsose 1/3 stops to not blow it out!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top