Wedding Photography - Film only

magicbastarder

there's only one place in ireland (well, in the six counties anyway) which still processes E6, that i know of - the fuji centre on abbey street. and they charge through the nose.
i know gunns had considered it, but i think physical space was a big issue.

ScumLord

Snowie wrote: »

man i know 4 or 5 good wedding photographers and they all say the same film is not cost effective.

I've found in Ireland "not cost effective" means, "I can make more money doing it another way". Maximising profits is ingrained in Irish people to such an extent they see no other way of doing things. It leaves no room for niche or even quality in some businesses.

vintagecosmos

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's only one place in ireland (well, in the six counties anyway) which still processes E6, that i know of - the fuji centre on abbey street. and they charge through the nose.
i know gunns had considered it, but i think physical space was a big issue.

I heard recently that they may not be replenishing their chemicals. A friend got back fairly faded 35mm slides.

I have 120 slide film which I want to use. Anyone know of a good place to develop it in the UK?

Cameraman

melekalikimaka wrote: »

30 shots buy a digital wedding tog and 30 shots from a film tog imo should not be in same price range.

Of course not - obviously whoever took the 30 best photos charges more

melekalikimaka

Cameraman wrote: »

Of course not - obviously whoever took the 30 best photos charges more

joking aside i think the medium deserves a premium

Cameraman

melekalikimaka wrote: »

joking aside i think the medium deserves a premium

I wouldn't agree - I don't think that the fact that film was used deserves a premium as such. It's the end result that counts.

However, I do think it's possible to use it as a marketing differentiator, and possibly be able to charge more, or get more business as a result - which is a different point.

magicbastarder

if a client specifically wants film, then a price premium is justified. if the photographer prefers film, then (s)he will be hard pressed to justify a price premium for it to the customer.

melekalikimaka

Cameraman wrote: »

I wouldn't agree - I don't think that the fact that film was used deserves a premium as such. It's the end result that counts.

Of course end results are important... personally I can see myself looking at a film wedding if choice was given, and would happily pay the premium it merits

ScumLord

Cameraman wrote: »

I wouldn't agree - I don't think that the fact that film was used deserves a premium as such. It's the end result that counts.

It deserves a premium because it costs more. The end results may be virtually identical to the lay person it doesn't negate the fact it's a more expensive process.

I think given the choice many might like to plump for the more expensive film shoot for weddings (in particular) if the differences are explained to them beforehand. If they are made to believe the best results will be with film they might want to go for it seeing as it's supposed to be a once in a lifetime event.

I can appreciate the difference between film and digital but I think digital is a better medium. I started with photoshop and got into photography from there so I'm always going to want to take a photo into photoshop before I'll even consider it finished. So to me a film picture feels pretty useless.

Cameraman

ScumLord wrote: »

It deserves a premium because it costs more. The end results may be virtually identical to the lay person it doesn't negate the fact it's a more expensive process.

I would have thought it did (negate the justification for charging more) - IF it's the end result which counts (which is what I believe).

I don't accept that the end result will (necessarily) be better with film - different maybe, but not necessarily better. And, before someone points out that you can get a look with film that you can't emulate with digital :

(a) I'm not convinced that's true - by the time you actually scan/edit/produce a print

(b) I don't aim to emulate a given film look anyway - I am trying to emulate reality, and the version of it I see in my head and am trying to achieve :-) That's where I put my learning efforts.


I suppose, the only reasons I see to use film are (a) Because you like it and (b) As a marketing differentiator. Both valid reasons BTW - but nothing to do with the quality of the end result (which depends more on the photographer).

I used film for years - B&W and transparencies - and if I thought it would produce better results - I'd use it (I still have a many of my old film cameras).

amdgilmore

Cameraman wrote: »

I used film for years - B&W and transparencies - and if I thought it would produce better results - I'd use it (I still have a many of my old film cameras).

I'll take them.

Cameraman

amdgilmore wrote: »

I'll take them.

Sorry - gonna hang onto them until I retire - then will take up film again.
That is - if any company is still producing 35mm film then

ScumLord

Cameraman wrote: »

I would have thought it did (negate the justification for charging more) - IF it's the end result which counts (which is what I believe).

It's just the economic side of business that means it will cost extra. Maybe you or I don't see any additional worth in the final result but the bottom line is it costs more to do so the customer has to pay extra.

I do find that the old film photos from my youth have a certain appeal to them but I'm also pretty certain that if I wanted that look I could achieve it in photoshop in such a way that's easily replicable and cost effective.

Cameraman

ScumLord wrote: »

It's just the economic side of business that means it will cost extra. Maybe you or I don't see any additional worth in the final result but the bottom line is it costs more to do so the customer has to pay extra.

I agree that if you have to use something more expensive to achieve the required result, then you charge more to cover the extra cost. What I don't accept is that you need to use film in the first place - therefore shouldn't be able to justify charging more. I see it as more of a personal choice thing - not a quality thing.

Should I charge more just because my camera and lens costs a lot more than someone who has produced a great photo using a "enter cheap camera name here" ? I know there are other considerations ehre - but that's a similar argument.

ScumLord

Cameraman wrote: »

I agree that if you have to use something more expensive to achieve the required result, then you charge more to cover the extra cost. What I don't accept is that you need to use film in the first place - therefore shouldn't be able to justify charging more. I see it as more of a personal choice thing - not a quality thing.

I completely agree, although it wouldn't surprise me that if you give the customer the option they'd go for the more expensive option (for weddings in particular, not so much in other areas) if they believe it's better. From a business sense I wouldn't even give the the option unless they asked for it. Too much hassle, although if film is your thing you probably enjoy the hassle of it all.

Should I charge more just because my camera and lens costs a lot more than someone who has produced a great photo using a "enter cheap camera name here" ? I know there are other considerations ehre - but that's a similar argument.

Really you should charge extra, your recouping your costs and if you don't charge accordingly you'll be at a loss. I think there's a problem in this country in regards to quality and cost. We don't appreciate quality and over emphasize the importance of low cost. You could use cars as an example, a mercedes costs more even though it does more or less the same job as a fiat 500 90% of the time.

Although that said, weddings are probably the one place where people are willing to pay the extra as they've only got one shot at the photos and they should know they're better off with someone that knows what they're doing.