THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION:

I asked the The Wedding Guys, both Film and Digital, Is film really dead yet? These are guys and gals at both ends of the ends of the spectrum. That way I could see if the digital revolution or evolution has impacted cross the board. They range from astute professional business people with studio, secretary, solid bookings, and a small gallery to weekend warriors looking to supplement their income. 

All admitted the digital side will win.  Many reasons including the obvious, more money for the manufacturer. The high enders supplement weddings with some event work and portraits. None of the weekend warriors had a facility and few had a business license or work permits as their location was their home. This was not their primary income. But I’ll guarantee in one circle it was listed for taxes. 

He had a run in with the IRS, they got him over film purchases not paying sales tax and one thing led to another. What were the pros using? Surprise, many were still using FILM. 2nd. Surprise: A large percentage are "still" using Medium format, Lumedyne's , pole lights, and did I say it before, “making good money”. Though all admitted it was getting tougher from all the competition from the low end. Why did they stick with film? Here are the reasons given in their words... 

Their investment in equipment, training, confidence, and redundancy. "I know and understand the equipment I'm using and have confidence in it, it's proven; I have triple redundancy and added medium equipment price wise is at an all time low. He said good for the buyer, bad for the seller".

I use Medium format on occasion and until recently the larger files needed were elusive to the Med shooter, but with a Nikon D3X and 24 meg files, hello they are there. So I have no restrictions on size. Anything is possible.  BUT at what price tag...$7999.00.   Like me some held on because the investment is not warranted by the work.

The PROS know their craft, the front end, posing, exposure, design, style, and their client’s preferences and spend very little time on the back end. Cropping and basic exposure are done first in the head and transferred to the camera.  The lab has it fairly easy with their consistency and close working relationships and with products like Fuji 160s and 160c. Newer lab equipment allows fast scans and offers the best of both worlds. The lab does a fine job. I'm out getting more business, not glued to a computer correcting my mistakes. I pay the lab for that and my costs are the same maybe 40 cents a print differential for film and development. The C-41 at $2.50 a roll and the cost of the film at $4.00 a roll. With 10 rolls at 60.00 difference on a 3000 dollar job who cares? I just offer the negatives to the Bride at $100.00 additional. 

Of course the customer is paying for the PRO lab, and the ensuing quality of their work. These guys charge for what they do and by establishing a clientele, offer service, and their clientele is interested in results. 

I get a lot of time off. The lab is doing the post processing. The quality of the print is better with film. (Very common answer, they didn't like the "look" of digital. 

I know my clientele. I take care of them. I know I'll get referrals and good clients generally send you more of their peers; It could only happen with a strong clientele and good business practices. I think that’s the key and another thing one mentioned was to ‘Be true to thyself”. Good profits come from good work and good business practices.

Then he hit me with a line I wrote in another article. If I have to do one wedding a week and there are 52 opportunities in a year to make an income, I sure want to NET 2500 a week to cover my studio, bills and lifestyle. If I did $500 dollar weddings, I would be making 24,000 a year. I can’t afford low end work. That I understood. 

Now, the other side of the story. These were mostly the part-time shooters. They were much diversified as a group because there were some good part timers and well, the other guys. A few still were sticking with film. Most were leaning to digital and here were their reasons; 

Cost of film. In their budget realm, sixty dollars was a lot of money for film per job and if they could put that in their pocket, it paid for their gear. 

Most didn't offer prints but offered a CD-ROM as testament to their work. They never bothered with prints. They shot the affair, did some cursory Photoshop magic though most used cheaper programs and burnt a CD. That was the extent of the lab work. When I asked them about DPI, profiles and saturation of the CD they offered their clientele, a few offered HI-RES and instructions and a few had blank stares.

Most were newer shooters and just breaking into the business or a career change and knew they had to be competitive to "make a reputation for themselves". Few had a business plan, the majority did have business cards and a few even had a decent website. Most though did not wish to discuss the word county licenses and taxation. 

Few had enough business to make it full time and couldn't afford to do so. This was the most common reason I got for the part timers. Many held their day jobs because of insurance, workman's comp, retirement etc. Some who made 1000 dollars a month part time would have to pay that for health insurance alone. Add liability and a few other costs an it becomes untenable. So the answer to the question about film brings more to the table than just convenience of digital. There are many factors involved. 

Main reason they shot digital. Age, some had never shot film….