How do you cope with high film cost?

Photo_Smith said:
If you know what you are doing you can give the customer what they want in 100-150 shots for most weddings any more points to your deficiency in doing a job rather than any client need.
Click to expand...

I would take the opposite view, with the typical wedding having around 100+ guests, and with all that happens at a wedding from getting ready to the dancing probably being 8-11 hours, how you can cover all that in just 100-150 shots is beyond me.
It may be you just do the ceremony, group shots and shots of the couple, and there's nothing wrong with that, and in the days of weddings being MF on a tripod with a resulting 50 prints, shooting more would have been wasteful, but mostly I've found couples are looking for more than that. Prints and albums are less important now as most of the viewing will be on a screen, not putting an image in the album doesn't mean you lose the image as would have once been the case, so as a photographer it gives you much more scope.

Typically I'll post around 500-700 images online for a full days coverage, and they will all be unique shots and of a consistant quality, I don't just photograph an expressionless guest and tick them off my list, there should be something to animate the shot, I don't shoot to make up numbers.

I started weddings with film and I shoot single shots, not in bursts, but two things have happened with digital, one being you can shoot in much lower light without resorting to flash, but this will still be around 1.8-3.2 at 30th of a sec or lower and with the limited DOF I might take three single shots as one will just be that little bit sharper, or catch just a little more light in the eye. That one I keep and the others get deleted, after all it's digital, why not give yourself some options, it takes seconds to edit so why box yourself in.

Actually one thing digital has taught me is to be a little more liberal with film as well, the really good stuff is fleeting, why not give yourself better odds.
 
Photography is expensive. If it is not worth the cost, perhaps you don't value your work enough? Not being rude, but you either pay for film and deal with it or go digital. It's all still photography (digital vs. film) and it is all still expensive.
 
bobbyrab said:
I would take the opposite view, with the typical wedding having around 100+ guests, and with all that happens at a wedding from getting ready to the dancing probably being 8-11 hours, how you can cover all that in just 100-150 shots is beyond me.
It may be you just do the ceremony, group shots and shots of the couple, and there's nothing wrong with that, and in the days of weddings being MF on a tripod with a resulting 50 prints, shooting more would have been wasteful, but mostly I've found couples are looking for more than that.
Click to expand...

Sure 50 shots isn't what I posted more like 150 for a typical wedding ALBUM.

Mostly I've found couples aren't looking for ten thousand shots posted online, less is more I say! If I'm shooting the whole wedding including getting ready ceremony, and reception two people could shoot 750 or so but that's still a long way off ten thousand shots in burst mode (like in the post I was replying to) and a long way of 400 shots on a single portrait sitting like the OP.

I shoot few weddings now more are more portraits, and I disagree that people need bulk of thousands of shots and shooting less is 'boxing yourself in' shooting what the couple require is what the game is-if they need 10k shots–I'm out whatever they pay.
 
thegman said:
Not sure if you're complimenting the Praktica or the Canon there. There is certainly *more* of a Canon, more technology etc. but good engineering is to do the task in the simplest, most effective way possible. Surely, the Praktica wins there, stick a decent lens on it, and a decent roll of film, and you've got *technically* a better solution.
Click to expand...

I'm complimenting the Canon... I like my Praktica FX, but it is an extremely crude machine.
 
Photo_Smith said:
Well, I've shot hundreds of weddings and I can tell you shooting 10K shots is no more likely to get 'the shot' than just plain 'ol knowing what your customer requires-you know the questions you asked them in the pre-chat.
To have 10K shots to choose from isn't reassuring its just a chore and for the couple it would be a bore also.
Burst shooting just to make sure they have their eyes open is plain daft; I shot weddings for years always just looked at the bride and groom while shooting, you might need to take a second shot say every 10-12 at most.
At worst you might have to resort to PSCS to 'open' the eyes but I've never had to do that personally.

If you know what you are doing you can give the customer what they want in 100-150 shots for most weddings any more points to your deficiency in doing a job rather than any client need.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, having done hundreds of weddings, you clearly know more about this than I do!
 
David Hughes said:
Hi,

I keep my eyes open and buy whenever I see it going cheaply. As has been said, about to expire or just expired is very cheap. Sometimes I get silly bargains when they clear th shelves for no reason I can understand, f'instance 3 36 exp. cassettes of slide film for two pounds earlier this year...

BTW, when I sold my dSLR (a serious "pro" model) I got to wondering what each photo cost and discovered that each file from the digital was the same price (within a fraction of a penny) as the 7 x 5 prints I pay for with colour negative film. Add the cost of the printer, paper and ink etc and digital is dearer. For reasons that escape me, people seem to think film is dear and digital is free but ignore the cost of a new digital, etc, every few months or years. And you can buy a lot of film for the loss of money on digital.

Regards, David
Click to expand...

Interesting...I just wrote up a blog post about that same issue. People do think digital is free and film costs a lot; that has become the accepted narrative. However, taking into account software, printers, ink, digital accessories, and constant upgrades for "outdated" equipment, I'd argue digital is at least as expensive as film, and perhaps more so.
 
Interesting comments about film usage and expectations.
By the way I didn`t take four hundred :).
I find that even when shooting digital I still have a 36 shot film mentality that I can`t shake.
 
Don't know if anyone pointed this out yet, but Velvia 100 is available on B & H for about $40 for a 5-pack, Portra is $36 for a 5-pack. Not cheap by any stretch, but 'manageable' given the amount of color I shoot.

I have not tried the cheap Rollei color film yet, need to buy some.

Randy
 
thegman said:
Shooting 8 shots in a burst will mean that you've got 8 chances to get a shot where someone does not have their eyes closed etc.
Click to expand...

At 3/10 to 4/10 of a second for an eye to blink that makes sense. For other human movements during posed shots the burst rate of a modern camera seems like it creates wasted editing time for the photographer. People are moving too slow in that situation to make a lot of difference in the shots. Now if you had a bride and groom walking down the isle or dancing at the reception and the burst rate was down around 2 to 4 shots per second then there would be enough variation between shots to make it worth the time to edit.

You might as well shoot video and take stills from it with the bonus of having two products for the bride and groom.
 
It's been brought up that some here are making money off their work (full time pro or part time work). I can understand the cost of film and processing affects profits, but you are making profits. For hobbyists, no matter what medium we choose to use, everything goes into the debit column, so film costs are more critical.

Also factor in that cost is relative to income. A $5 roll of film to a student or somebody making low wages is not the same as $5 to somebody making $100,000 a year (assuming that person doesn't have a lot of debt, health issues etc.).

On the plus side of digital is staying behind technological innovations. Do you really need the latest digital? Most every film camera out there is used. Few new film cameras are produced, yet we are satisfied with our equipment. Why not take the same attitude with digital. I use a Canon 10D and it makes nice images. I bought it used, so the price per image is cheaper than if I buy the latest camera. Sure there things I can't do with it that I can with a newer model, yet the same can be said for my film cameras. And the majority of the photos I take do not need ISO 6400 or 8 frames per second burst rate or firing a flash off camera with complete control of the flash from the camera. So, why pay for what I don't need (not saying I wouldn't buy it if I could afford it)?
 
I feel it's a matter of priorities, as a few others have mentioned. Of course this is a middle class, "first-world" conundrum. The poor can't afford to shoot cameras and the rich don't worry about the cost, so here we are doing what we always do in the middle class - running a budget. If I value making photographs on film, I will continue to pay for it until it becomes prohibitively expensive.

I went through a rough financial patch for a couple years and my film shooting slowed to a trickle, as did vacations, doctor's visits, pizzas, movies, cable TV etc. -- it was prohibitive for me to pay for lots of things. But now I'm blessed with income again and film is something I can afford. However I'm not rolling in dough, so film continues to need to be prioritized above things like new clothes or long car trips. It is worth every penny... and may I also say that I'm very grateful for places like B&H photo. I have spoken with a rep there who told me they move "tons" of film, so given the laws of supply and demand I hope the cost continues to remain very reasonable. Even if it did fluctuate, there are usually things we can cut out to make room for things we feel we would rather not do without.
 
I don't know what you guys are talking about. Film is EXPENSIVE these days. I don't take into account all these deals you can find online. If I go to a camera store in Toronto I will
better expecting to spend 15$ for a roll of color negative film and 5$ for development only. That's around 20$ a roll .55Cent a shot. Thus 100 color rolls a year is a good chunk of ME. I am also spending a lot of time scanning negatives at home. To answer the question: I don't! As we cannot really do much about film prices which are obviously the result digital photography revolution. Well at least higher film prices made me a more thoughtful photographer :)
 
I just can't get past this complaining of money and time spent on photography.

If you are truly into photography, you don't question these things and you figure out how to either make it economical (bulk B&W at home or use a cheap digital camera) or you work more to get extra money. If you are at a point where it's either photography or food, then you should relax on the photography for awhile and get your personal stuff together.
 
I'm finding getting to/into "photogenic" locations/situations is far more money/time demanding than film costs.
 
Well I deal with it by rarely shooting color. When i do color it's consumer fuji or kodak $2.20 to 4.50 a roll $10 walgreen processing with prints not too bad but pricey compared to Arista edu processed at home. Considering my income no way in hell will I pay $10 a roll for film i like photography but prefer food on the table a roof over my head and gas in my vehicle.
 
I'm not a pro, I do not make money with photography. I make photography because it is a passion. And I know a passion cost money and time. Film are expensive, computers are expensive...
robert
PS: I do not drive an expensive car, I do not buy the last "must have gadget", I do not go in "a la mode" restaurants, I do not buy a mobile phone twice a year...
 
I've never got on with Kodak Colorplus when it was in the pound shops here (would be hapy for any tips from those who find it works for them), the Agfa Vistaplus/Fuji stuff that's in there now works a lot better for me.

So for the majority of my film shooting it's the poundshop special all the way, I don't feel bad about burning "expensive" film just trying stuff out, and shooting in less than great light, and I like the film a lot, it'll be my go to for the forseeable future

I've usually preferred Kodak's warmer tones to fuji, and Tesco does single rolls of Kodak Gold for approx 2.30, so I sometimes pick a couple up when I'm in there..

And Portra when I'm doing something that "matters" on film.

I am struggling a bit now that it's winter and the hours of decent light are shorter, I'd like to shift to 400 just for a bit of extra headroom, but I haven't yet found a cheap/reliable/not overly coarse 400ISO film that I get on with quite the same.

I suspect I'm going to end up using Ultramax over the winter, and soaking up the extra cost/shooting a little less.

As far as B/W goes I'm strictly chromogenic, I know it costs more than real B/W I should do some "proper" B/W, but I figure I'm paying a little extra to remove the potential for me to cock it up when developing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom