Leica inspiration for documentary work

[Vics]

You're right! Very inspiring! Thanks for posting.

 

[nlubis]

Thanks for the link. Enjoyed it.
Always love to see people who enjoys the things they do.

 

[robert blu]

A good link, thanks. Interesting notes to be taken, at least for me!
robert

 

[David_Manning]

Just to comment to Dave Lackey, my point is that it's good to still see professionals choosing film, when it's hard for a professional to get a client to PAY for film. Just by virtue of economics, most professionals have shifted to digital, if for nothing else than being financially competitive with other photographers.

I love film and love shooting film...it's my preferred method. But EVERY photographic work I've been hired to shoot has been digitally captured. For me, it's economics. It didn't matter if it was editorial magazine work, or long-lead work for a book.

 

[Turtle]

Its a pleasure to find a new photographer doing interesting work and posting an enjoyable video giving some personal perspectives.

Film, M9.... Of course film is viable, but not under all circumstances. Anyone shooting film commercially will tell you that they either shoot both or that their commercial model/approach takes film usable into account and that it almost occupies a niche (and who says niches cannot be commercially lucrative). Its certainly not viable for everyone all the time.

Personally I love film and I enjoy sharing my passion for the medium with other like-minded individuals. Thats what this video is about for me.

 

[John Rountree]

I don't understand what you mean about getting the client to pay for film, processing, etc. When I quote a job I do not give a breakdown on how much is spent for what. I quote a fee and the client either agrees or not. How I allocate the fee is nobody's business but mine. Do other professionals actually tell their clients "I am charging you $X.00 less because i no longer have to pay for film, etc.?" Actually I think the choice to use digital and not have the film, processing costs is just a bonus for most professionals. Or, the money not spent on film, et al, is used to cover the time involved with post shooting processing. So, what difference does it make if you are shooting digital or film? If you think you can't be creative with film ...please don't go there.

 

[dave lackey]

Just to comment to Dave Lackey, my point is that it's good to still see professionals choosing film, when it's hard for a professional to get a client to PAY for film. Just by virtue of economics, most professionals have shifted to digital, if for nothing else than being financially competitive with other photographers.

I love film and love shooting film...it's my preferred method. But EVERY photographic work I've been hired to shoot has been digitally captured. For me, it's economics. It didn't matter if it was editorial magazine work, or long-lead work for a book.

Hi, David...

I understand. Economics.

The out-of-pocket costs are always important in any business. Just recently, I finished my first small town photo essay all in black and white film. Yes, it cost about $20-25/roll for purchase, process, scans...but that is nothing compared to doing it digitally.🙂

Consider your work, how you want it to look, how you want your work to look over time and film is cheap. Using the same lens(es) on a digital RF (say M8 or M9 will cost you anywhere from $2500-$6000 for used bodies. The files are bigger. My computer would have to be ditched and a new one with new software of all kinds would have to be purchased. So, at a minimum, I would have $5000-8000 invested/spent on a digital workflow.

I just can't afford it. Printing books cost anywhere from $70-$120 +shipping. No way to pay for upgrades there. Selling prints? Yeah, but it will take a very long time to pay for the same upgrades.

And then, consider processing and scanning yourself. Or, let someone else do it and you spend your time shooting and marketing. Just build the costs into the overall price of the project. Lots of ways to look at it.

The one thing that is difficult to change is that people want digital because it is quicker, in general. Maybe, maybe not. A small town project may take 10-12 rolls of film. Calculate how much time it would take you to develop and scan those vs. a lab doing it. Labs are a couple of weeks wait but you can do it yourself probably as quick as post-processing in digital. Or not. It depends. The other difficult thing is requests for digital files. You can certainly scan film and submit it that way but it may not work into the magazine's workflow.

That is why I have always done a hybrid approach, both digital and film.:angel:

Nowadays, I have sold all my digital cameras and will venture into processing myself to save a little bit but also obtain a great deal of control. I will be using digital again but for very different projects.