digital cams for commercial work not efficient?

jnorman · Dec 5, 2002

i just read this over at the LF forum. i would be interested in how those of you who are doing commercial photography with digital cameras might respond to this. my daughter will soon be graduating from USC in photography, and we need to be making a decision about equipment for her career. i was thinking maybe a D1X, but maybe she should stick with her nikon N90 and scan her film work instead for a few years. comments? thanks.

(snip)
"Digital might not kill medium format...

and more interestingly enough, not for the reasons you might first think. I have recently returned to shooting Hasselblad and 4X5 for assignments after about 2 years of a commitment to going completely digital.

While it is probably true that digital cameras will eventually overcome their "hi-res" video look, blown out highlights, and might even be able to match the resolution and density of our best films there are a few professional reasons it may not take over so soon.

And it's not the expense. Even though the daunting budget you'd need to be set up properly is astronomical- put together the costs of an MF digital camera + high end workstation + storage +color calibration software/hardware. A lot of people will pay for this stuff.

It's not the learning curve. Although this took me several months of reading through Photoshop 6 and 7 books, countless hours of practice with using the new digital darkroom tools, understanding color management systems and finally how to print what I saw on my screen. Many people will learn this.

Professionally speaking, the dirty little secret of digital happens the day after the shoot.

It is the hours spent batch processing raw files into tifs and making adjustments. The dozens of CDs or DVDs that need to be burned to deliver the assignment- unless you hand over your own drive to the client. Time preparing the digital catalog of files and possibly having to print them out.

I learned pretty early on that I was under charging considering the additional time I was putting into post processing. On later assignments, I tried to charge for post production days and incredulous editors and art directors looked at me and said "Digital's suppose to be cheaper and faster, why should we pay you more?"

Of course, they didn't even think about reimbursing me for suggesting and helping them calibrate their monitors and output devices so they wouldn't call me and ask me why my film was too dark or too red. But I had to do this. If I didn't they would have thought I'd botched the assignment and I wouldn't have been hired again.

With my Hasselblad and film, I turn in my assignment and that's it. I don't get a panic call the day of a press check only to find out that the prepress service bureau has ignored or over-written my embedded profiles.

I don't get paid enough to take on the additional responsibility that was traditionally the scanner operator's. When I shoot film, I can still point to that beautiful little miracle and say "See the density and color is fine. Adjust your scanner and press!"

Professionally speaking, at this point in time, digital's greatest weakness is the extra time most photographers are not being compensated for while trying to impress clients and compete with each other. It's also the added burden of having to babysit the whole process to make sure the client can get what he wants. And lastly, it's waiting for the rest of the non-photography world that process and use our images to catch up with us.

I think I've got a few years left on my 503CW. "

-- Paul R , December 04, 2002; 09:52 P.M. Eastern* (end snip)

--
jnorman
sunridge studios
salem, oregon

Don Lashier · Dec 6, 2002

Interesting comments and he makes some valid points. But I think the equation varies considerably depending upon the type of work you're doing. FI, if you have control over the entire process most or all of his arguments become moot. I would guess that this is the case more often than you might think. But even the author seems to admit that digital will take over eventually, so why doesn't your daughter get a DSLR and keep her N90 as well. She'll no doubt find uses for both, and probably would be well served by getting some digital experience and skills even if her initial work calls for film. And in any case the DSLR should be useful for test shots, proofing, proposals, etc.

DL

jnorman said:
i just read this over at the LF forum. i would be interested in how
those of you who are doing commercial photography with digital
cameras might respond to this. my daughter will soon be graduating
from USC in photography, and we need to be making a decision about
equipment for her career. i was thinking maybe a D1X, but maybe she
should stick with her nikon N90 and scan her film work instead for
a few years. comments? thanks.

(snip)

aaront · Dec 6, 2002

jnorman said:
i just read this over at the LF forum. i would be interested in how
those of you who are doing commercial photography with digital
cameras might respond to this. my daughter will soon be graduating
from USC in photography, and we need to be making a decision about
equipment for her career. i was thinking maybe a D1X, but maybe she
should stick with her nikon N90 and scan her film work instead for
a few years. comments? thanks.

Stay with the N90 and scan with the Canoscan FS4000US film scanner.

You won't have to wait any longer than next spring for the next generation DSLR's. (Nikon, Fuji and Kodak- they all take N Lenses)
Take a quick look at this link:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=3909716

jnorman said:
(snip)
"Digital might not kill medium format...

The Full frame Canon and Kodak 14n and others to be announced in the spring will be nipping at MF's heels.

jnorman said:
and more interestingly enough, not for the reasons you might first
think. I have recently returned to shooting Hasselblad and 4X5 for
assignments after about 2 years of a commitment to going completely
digital.
While it is probably true that digital cameras will eventually
overcome their "hi-res" video look, blown out highlights, and might
even be able to match the resolution and density of our best films
there are a few professional reasons it may not take over so soon.

If your Digital equipment is/was 2 years old there is a whole generation of improvement in DSLR.

jnorman said:
And it's not the expense. Even though the daunting budget you'd
need to be set up properly is astronomical- put together the costs
of an MF digital camera + high end workstation + storage +color
calibration software/hardware. A lot of people will pay for this
stuff.

I agree!

jnorman said:
It's not the learning curve. Although this took me several months
of reading through Photoshop 6 and 7 books, countless hours of
practice with using the new digital darkroom tools, understanding
color management systems and finally how to print what I saw on my
screen. Many people will learn this.

Ditto

jnorman said:
Professionally speaking, the dirty little secret of digital happens
the day after the shoot.

jnorman said:
It is the hours spent batch processing raw files into tifs and
making adjustments. The dozens of CDs or DVDs that need to be
burned to deliver the assignment- unless you hand over your own
drive to the client. Time preparing the digital catalog of files
and possibly having to print them out.

Kodak has the best workflow, might sovle the problem.

jnorman said:
I learned pretty early on that I was under charging considering the
additional time I was putting into post processing. On later
assignments, I tried to charge for post production days and
incredulous editors and art directors looked at me and said
"Digital's suppose to be cheaper and faster, why should we pay you
more?"

Of course, they didn't even think about reimbursing me for
suggesting and helping them calibrate their monitors and output
devices so they wouldn't call me and ask me why my film was too
dark or too red. But I had to do this. If I didn't they would have
thought I'd botched the assignment and I wouldn't have been hired
again.

Part of the learnig curve, their's! If they are important clients keep helping them out. They will appreciate it. Chalk it up to GoodWill.

jnorman said:
With my Hasselblad and film, I turn in my assignment and that's it.
I don't get a panic call the day of a press check only to find out
that the prepress service bureau has ignored or over-written my
embedded profiles.

They will learn, they have to, just a matter of time.

jnorman said:
I don't get paid enough to take on the additional responsibility
that was traditionally the scanner operator's. When I shoot film, I
can still point to that beautiful little miracle and say "See the
density and color is fine. Adjust your scanner and press!"

With a well tweaked and working in the same Color Space I see no problem.

jnorman said:
Professionally speaking, at this point in time, digital's greatest
weakness is the extra time most photographers are not being
compensated for while trying to impress clients and compete with
each other. It's also the added burden of having to babysit the
whole process to make sure the client can get what he wants. And
lastly, it's waiting for the rest of the non-photography world that
process and use our images to catch up with us.

Always have to babysit a certain amount. Do it better than the competion

jnorman said:
I think I've got a few years left on my 503CW. "

Once you get a good workflow setup, Kodak might have the best, then most of your "negative" problems will simply disappear. Good Luck on your choice.

jnorman said:
-- Paul R , December 04, 2002; 09:52 P.M. Eastern*

--
Aaron Thomson

and some of my pics
http://www.groupfirst.com/portfolio1.html

(Wannabe, Gonnabe) Pro Photog

John Cote · Dec 6, 2002

jnorman said:
i just read this over at the LF forum........

This is a very interesting discussion. In business its all about making money, and it should be. The same thing being discussed here happend in the printing industry when things went digital several years ago. Printers found that they could take control of the digital imaging (prepress) process from trade houses and they bought scanners and imagesetters. Then they found out that this prep process was a lot of work and they couldn't just give it away.

I think there are two things to consider here: First, what the market (the people who will buy photos from your daughter) demand now, and what they will demand in the future. As long as agencies will go along with getting transparancies from a photographer and take responsibility for scanning and correction etc film will be fine. This may be the case with some types of work for quite a while. However, I think that for quite a bit of the work which will be done in the near future, the market will demand digital just because of what was mentioned above. It is less hassle for them and gives them a quicker production cycle.

Photographers, like printers, will have to figure out how to charge for services in the new market. Lots of them already have.

"The future is digital and the future is now" (or maybe in the next couple of months with new generation cameras).

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

Tariq · Dec 6, 2002

jnorman said:
i just read this over at the LF forum. i would be interested in how
those of you who are doing commercial photography with digital
cameras might respond to this. my daughter will soon be graduating
from USC in photography, and we need to be making a decision about
equipment for her career. i was thinking maybe a D1X, but maybe she
should stick with her nikon N90 and scan her film work instead for
a few years. comments? thanks.

I think Ultimately the decision is your Daughters to make depending on what she likes to shoot, how she shoots, the market she expects to enter, ect. If she only shoots 35mm color, then I would definately move to a 6+ DSLR as Most High End DSLR's of 6MP+ can look as good or better than 35mm Color Film. If she shoots Medium-Large Format B&W/Chrome, she will probably NOT be happy with a DSLR. Personally, I would buy the Fuji S2 before the D1X, but that's based purely on image quality and my shooting style. My experience shooting Digital vs Film is that The Photographer takes over many more responsibilities in the Chain - The Lab, Scanner, Post Processing work, Color Correction, Arhieving, ect. and Thus should be charging for these additional services if the client requires them. I charge more with Digital Work vs. Film. I also save time in that I don't have to run around dropping off and picking up film all the time. Yes, you can spend more time "tweaking" a digital image BUT you should get paid for this and often this requires educating the client on exactly what they are getting(final images ready for print, ect.) I disagree with the "Video" look point - perhaps with earlier Digital cameras or Consumer level stuff but not current DSLR's . Hope this helps.

Tariq
Tariq.com

jnorman said:
(snip)
"Digital might not kill medium format...

and more interestingly enough, not for the reasons you might first
think. I have recently returned to shooting Hasselblad and 4X5 for
assignments after about 2 years of a commitment to going completely
digital.

While it is probably true that digital cameras will eventually
overcome their "hi-res" video look, blown out highlights, and might
even be able to match the resolution and density of our best films
there are a few professional reasons it may not take over so soon.

And it's not the expense. Even though the daunting budget you'd
need to be set up properly is astronomical- put together the costs
of an MF digital camera + high end workstation + storage +color
calibration software/hardware. A lot of people will pay for this
stuff.

It's not the learning curve. Although this took me several months
of reading through Photoshop 6 and 7 books, countless hours of
practice with using the new digital darkroom tools, understanding
color management systems and finally how to print what I saw on my
screen. Many people will learn this.

Professionally speaking, the dirty little secret of digital happens
the day after the shoot.

It is the hours spent batch processing raw files into tifs and
making adjustments. The dozens of CDs or DVDs that need to be
burned to deliver the assignment- unless you hand over your own
drive to the client. Time preparing the digital catalog of files
and possibly having to print them out.

I learned pretty early on that I was under charging considering the
additional time I was putting into post processing. On later
assignments, I tried to charge for post production days and
incredulous editors and art directors looked at me and said
"Digital's suppose to be cheaper and faster, why should we pay you
more?"

Of course, they didn't even think about reimbursing me for
suggesting and helping them calibrate their monitors and output
devices so they wouldn't call me and ask me why my film was too
dark or too red. But I had to do this. If I didn't they would have
thought I'd botched the assignment and I wouldn't have been hired
again.

With my Hasselblad and film, I turn in my assignment and that's it.
I don't get a panic call the day of a press check only to find out
that the prepress service bureau has ignored or over-written my
embedded profiles.

I don't get paid enough to take on the additional responsibility
that was traditionally the scanner operator's. When I shoot film, I
can still point to that beautiful little miracle and say "See the
density and color is fine. Adjust your scanner and press!"

Professionally speaking, at this point in time, digital's greatest
weakness is the extra time most photographers are not being
compensated for while trying to impress clients and compete with
each other. It's also the added burden of having to babysit the
whole process to make sure the client can get what he wants. And
lastly, it's waiting for the rest of the non-photography world that
process and use our images to catch up with us.

I think I've got a few years left on my 503CW. "

-- Paul R , December 04, 2002; 09:52 P.M. Eastern* (end snip)

--
jnorman
sunridge studios
salem, oregon

ajs2107922 · Dec 6, 2002

Hi,

You are doing this the wrong way round! You should NOT working out what kit you need then say what am I taking peatures of?

When she know what market she want to go into. The gain some Pro experence in that area and work out the business model. Once you understand the market, then look at the kit.

In the case you state you purchase now will be errors. 6 months on they will not.

The Nikon D1X is a likely to be replaced next year in any case.

--
Alex
LWS photographic (UK)

james russell · Dec 6, 2002

jnorman said:
and more interestingly enough, not for the reasons you might first
think.

I find the digital, or film question fascinating.

We entered digital capture at the request of a client and at first, didin't see the point.

With some systems just the time to convert raw files to tiffs and color managing made this a complicated proposition.

We tried just about every system and bought a few, rented a few and shot most projects on film, with some digital backup. We had a Fuji S2 in the studio for months and never gave it much thought. After all, it is a plastic body and cost less than a car so how can it perform on a professional level.

http://www.pbase.com/russruth/compare

Well, we were wrong. It does perform and I believe equal to Kodak NC 100 drummed scanned film.

To top this it is very easy to color manage and ouitput with the files needing very little color correction. In Jpeg form (which after much, much testing) I believe has a smoother and better look than the raw file, which also makes post processing easier.

We also found very fast software for film like contact sheets and can now color manage and output three sets of color corrected contact sheets from 600 images in less than a day.

Having a color managed hard copy, contact sheet goes a long way to dispelling the "my monitor doesn't look right" notion on digital. It also makes it easy for client to pre press house to find and select an image.

As the fuji performs this well, I can only imagine what the next generation of cameras will bring.

Some clients still want the traditional workflow of film. But every client we have shot digital backup for and have seen the results has said the next project will be digital.

The most digital accepting clients seem to be the ones with years of experience where the new art directors have more resistance to digital. (Go figure).

One advanatage that digital has over film for a beginning photographer is the cost savings in testing. Also digital forces a young photographer to learn color management, pre press needs, etc., which will be vital in a few years.

James

http://www.pbase.com/russruth/recent_dec_02

steve dunning70670 · Dec 6, 2002

...yes that's a nice thought!

When I started in 1988 my gear - Mamiya RZ67 & Sinar 54 was for a career - only just put down the RZ in favour of the D60.

These days it’s more like computers - newer, better stuff will be here tomorrow... Since the D60 I realise how effing tedious scanning in is - all that dust spotting! Arrgh! Yes get yer Nikon coolscan and wind up the antidust setting - and sit back while it takes 20 minutes per 35mm tranny! Life's too short - and the last thing we need is MORE post processing time - we want less not more!

The article about going back to film is very interesting. I can't see it for myself; I'm a technology nutter - Inspector Gadget of the photo world. My reasoning is that two of my major customers are time critical and fixed budget: my aim is to make myself indispensable.

The D60 works very well with the Sinar 54 - they get high quality 54s, and I reduce my Polaroid test count, but they also get shots on a CD TODAY - and things can only get better. The results are unsharpened TIFFs and straight from the camera, and they know this, so they can post process as much as they see fit. ICC colour profiles? Still struggling with those...

steve dunning
http://www.stunningphoto.com

Search

digital cams for commercial work not efficient?

jnorman

Member

Don Lashier

Guest

aaront

Senior Member

John Cote

Senior Member

Tariq

Senior Member

ajs2107922

Leading Member

james russell

Leading Member

steve dunning70670

Active member

Keyboard shortcuts