So, what's the big deal about film anyway?

[hepcat]

Hi Roger,

I don't think there is any 'big deal' about film. It is what it is, it does what it does. If you like using it, if you and/or your clients perceive it to have some special value, then if you feel you want to exploit that perception go for it.
...
Both film and digital are special, and neither are as well. I don't care about the market, the competition, the horrendous flood of mediocre photos swirling through the ether anymore—I have the liberty of enjoying my photography again. The only thing that gets in the way sometimes now is simply the amount of time I have to spend on it.

G

That's what I find so interesting, Godfrey. Each has its place. Each has some strengths... but I'm beginning to see that emerging "feeling"... a market among the more upscale image consumers who may *believe* that film offers something that digital doesn't... again much like the connoisseurs of vinyl albums and tube amps. If they're willing to buy that I'll be more than happy to provide it to them.

There is some truth in your concern. I think the answer is to leave the general public consumer to others and aim higher in selecting your clients. Hunt higher up the food chain, so to speak. Hunt for elk, not squirrels. One elk will provide food for many meals; one meal requires many squirrels.

If someone is looking for a $400 wedding photographer who is willing to spew out the photographic print equivalent of a tray full of White Castle hamburgers, leave that market segment to others.

Your target clients are people with more evolved taste, a more discerning eye and an appreciation of fine print quality. Aim for the clients who want filet mignon, not White Castle hamburgers. Aim for the clients who will pay $4000 for a wedding photographer, not the $400 crowd.

That would be my approach, anyway. I would have fewer clients, but I would also have to work less to generate the same amount of income. And the work itself as well as the final product (the prints) would be much more satisfying to everyone involved in the equation.

Yep... I think this thread has come full-circle as that's exactly my perspective and what my original post was about. I think I can provide a product that will appeal to a smaller, but more appreciative market who can afford that kind of service... I just need to find the way to reach that market segment effectively.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Agree with noisy and I am glad that the general public is not my client. Also to a bit of what you were talking about Bresson calls the visual work that you put into it all a developed instinct.

To do any of this well it's not easy as has been pointed out. And the easy part is the technical part of all of this and to that well takes years to master but the visual part is infinitely difficult and a very long journey but that is what will put you in demand and really separate you from the rest.

It took me years to build a strong client base. My biggest client to me 5 years to fully land. The well prepared are the ones that seem to always get lucky.

Love that image to Dan.....

I feel the way to succeed is to offer something no one else can offer and not compete with the masses.. I am glad that I don't have to compete with herd. They are not who my clients would use.

 

[BlackXList]

The main thing that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion is that whilst some appreciate what film can bring, it's also true that many clients are used to the vastly compressed digital turnaround time (this to me is one of the reasons some of the quality has suffered).

Whilst once upon a time the film would need to be developed, contact sheet made, choices made, and final prints/scans made, the expectation now is to have the finished photo almost before it has been taken. It doesn't allow for the same kind of thoughtful consideration.

The best example of this ridiculousness is some cameras coming out with Wifi and sharing apps built in.
Taking the photo is only a part of the process, I want to look at it on a proper screen, select the best from the shoot, and post process them, not toss them out into the world half finished.

Any steps into incorporating film in a professional workflow also needs to include managing the expectations of clients that it's not an instant process.

 

[Roger Hicks]

we compete by offering superior quality imagery.

A trained chimpanzee can pick up a digital camera and press the shutter button and produce an image; that's the easy part.

Regardless of the genre - wedding, portrait, documentary, travel, nature, landscape - images that have visual impact and arresting composition do not just happen. It takes years of relentless work to hone the eye to the point where producing such images begins to happen. It takes many more years of work for the eye to evolve to the point where a photographer is able to create arresting images even on a semi-regular basis.

Henri Cartier-Bresson once said, "Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." He was right. God knows my first 10,000 images were crap! 🙄

It takes a LOT of time, work, sacrifice, sweat, frustration and commitment to get to the point where a photographer will be able to produce superior images with visual impact - and that is a fact that people do not want to hear. There are no shortcuts.

The good news is this, though: Photography is like anything else in life - you will get out of it as much as you put in to it.

They've taken to training 'em nowadays, then, eh?

Cheers,

R.

 

[hepcat]

The main thing that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion is that whilst some appreciate what film can bring, it's also true that many clients are used to the vastly compressed digital turnaround time (this to me is one of the reasons some of the quality has suffered).

Whilst once upon a time the film would need to be developed, contact sheet made, choices made, and final prints/scans made, the expectation now is to have the finished photo almost before it has been taken. It doesn't allow for the same kind of thoughtful consideration.

The best example of this ridiculousness is some cameras coming out with Wifi and sharing apps built in.
Taking the photo is only a part of the process, I want to look at it on a proper screen, select the best from the shoot, and post process them, not toss them out into the world half finished.

Any steps into incorporating film in a professional workflow also needs to include managing the expectations of clients that it's not an instant process.

Your points are well taken and are actually part of what I think differentiates film shooters... especially medium format film shooters. The entire process is slower and more deliberate rather than rushed and schizophrenic; although that doesn't mean it has to be painfully slow. I think that there are clients who will appreciate that more finely crafted approach to working. It certainly suits my style of shooting better as it's the way I've always worked. Now I can market it as a differentiating advantage. 😉

 

[Scrambler]

Aim for the clients who will pay $4000 for a wedding photographer, not the $400 crowd.

My cousin (actually, my cousin's in-laws) paid $25,000 for wedding photography 15 years ago. The clients are out there.

 

[tunalegs]

There is a perception among the public, and even among some of us here, that film is superior to digital. Whether or not that is true is a matter of taste, of course, but the idea is beginning to gain ground in the public consciousness. There's been the seed of discontent planted that they're missing "something" with digital imaging; and fortunately that "something" is intangible.

The difference is blatantly obvious. I can look at my mom's photo albums. Decades of sharp, crisp photos - end when she got her digital camera. And it's not just the camera, but the way they print now is awful. It almost breaks my heart to see that what she's going to leave behind documenting the later part of her life is so inferior in quality to everything before it. Digital is absolutely awful on the consumer level - especially if you're going to make prints. It is genuinely upsetting.

If you're a hobbyist or a pro who is willing to pay a lot of money to get film-level results out of digital then sure you can get those results, or better. But that sort of person is a tiny minority amongst the photo taking public at large.

 

[goamules]

...What I'm doing is differentiating my product in the market place for those folks who appreciate high-quality hand-produced work and are willing to pay for it. I may not get much business, but that's ok. ....

From a large format and wetplate shooter, I'll tell you it is contingent on location. Location, location, location. In the Desert southwest, no one cares if the process is more archival, looks amazingly different from digital, or is unique and hard to do. They care about cheap, and a quick snap. I've put out shingles, and attended arty craft fairs with a LF wooden camera and sample plates too many times. You get no bites around here. The first question is "do you have old timey clothes to dress up in?". and then , "Is it free?" Remember the generations are changing. The current that is approaching their peak earning years are the ones that take fake red-eye, fakeblur pics with Instagram and a cell phone. If it kinda looks old, and can be done in less than 5 minutes after every party or dinner...that's good enough.

 

[pseudobreccia]

I was drawn back into film about a year ago. Although I still like shooting digital...I really believe I enjoy using film more. I really like the look of B&W film versus results produced digitally. I'm not approaching it as an either/or type of situation. I'm happy to use both formats!

 

[Paul Jenkin]

What's so special about film? Everything and nothing. There's more than one way to create a beautiful photo and it can be done with film or digital. Many people have a very binary decision making process - it's one or the other. For those like me, it's both. I see no sense in depriving myself of either medium when both are great fun. Sure, I'm a traditionalist in many respects - I've used film since the early 1970's when I was just hitting my teens. I still love using film. But I also love the immediacy of digital and the fact that you're not limited to one ISO setting on a roll - and I can get hand-held digital photos I couldn't even dream of with film - unless I was using a tripod.

Film is fantastic. Used well, it can produce superb, graduated tones. Northing in life is perfect but having access to both film and digital should be a cause for celebration rather than seen as an opportunity to denegrate a wonderful medium.

 

[pvdhaar]

What's so special about film, is that it is a non-linear medium. That means it can handle highlights and do multiple and long exposures in a way that can't be replicated with digital..