|
|
My friend Larry is a part-time wedding photographer, who has a brother-in-law that is a full time professional photographer shooting stock all around the world. This pro is in tune with various segments of the professional market and he has been suggesting to Larry that he should just bite the bullet and get into digital now because all the other pros are doing so. Hmm…very interesting. I make no bones that I love digital photography and find the potential that it offers to be intoxicating compared to film. If I could afford to do so, I would shoot and print everything within the digital realm. However, we aren’t all tech people who optioned themselves out before the tech bubble burst and thus, we do not have reams of cash bursting out of our pockets. Doing state of the art digital is a prohibitively expensive proposition, one that few of us will be able to afford. There are certain professionals who have little choice but to invest in digital gear to supplant their film cameras. In my sleepy little burg of Vancouver, the two local newspapers have been digital for the better part of a decade, in fact, the Vancouver Sun and Province papers were the first major newspapers in North America to go digital for their staff photographers back in 1994. I would expect the dedicated sports photographers to be in the same situation, going digital because all the other pros are doing it. Journalists are in a very competitive market and the freelancers would have it even tougher having to take saleable images day in and day out. Going digital reduces the amount of time wasted having to process film and increases the competitive edge. Take the shot, download to a laptop and transmit the data over a cell or satellite phone to a news agency. The faster you can do this the better the chance that your images get picked up and hence money coming in. Digital makes sense for these photographers. Following the postings on various newsgroups would indicate that more and more photographers in other fields are also going digital. Commercial pros can increase their productivity and their profits thanks to the digital workflow in a controlled studio environment. No more needing to snap off numerous Polaroids to get everything right before taking the actual shot with real film. Set-up, take the shot and review immediately, adjust and correct the scene as necessary for the effect or look desired. Digital makes sense for these photographers. More
and more wedding photographers are shooting digitally too and each
one has come up with a workflow that suits them and the amount of
editing they want to do for a shoot. However, I am seeing a trend
that only the full time and higher priced professionals in the
You can consider my friend Larry in this category of part-time professional photographers. Larry is not cheap though, as his packages are about average for the Vancouver market of wedding photographers. He’s been keeping an eye out for what the other photographers are doing, whether they are converting to digital capture, as well as what kind of benefits digital has to offer that improve on film. He does not want to miss the boat on digital if he sees his competitor’s switching over. I have also been a keen advocate of digital capture whenever we get together to talk about what’s happening in the world of photography relevant for us. There is certainly a sense that we should go whole hog into digital and keep up with the rich Joneses in the US. However, how much sense does this make, especially within the Vancouver market? To do a digital wedding right and to play it safe too, a photographer will need:
Even if the photographer can get away with just having to buy the cameras and storage cards only with lenses and flash units already in hand, going digital is a significant outlay of capital and one that even I (digital boy) must say is a bit dubious for any obvious benefit. My friend was intrigued by the EOS 1D with its ultra fast response and similar build quality and control layout as his EOS 1v and EOS 3 bodies, but not intrigued enough to blow nearly $10 grand CAN to purchase one body with all of the batteries and flash cards to run it. The 4 MP resolution was also not enough to convince him that the 1D would be the right choice for him at this time. The 1Ds is much more to his liking for providing the build quality, response time, and very importantly, the resolution to allow for good-sized enlargements. However, the 1Ds is higher-priced than the original 1D and even with his Canon Professional Services discount, he would still be looking at over $20 grand to do the digital kit right with enough flash cards to handle the volume of shooting he would do per gig. Add that cost to his basic overhead of running a business,
These
would constitute major expenditures for a photographer who is doing
it part time and
At this time, the answer is no. Currently, and specific to this local market, digital is not sweeping the ranks of the wedding pros. Clients are dimly aware that digital is available as a viable alternative to film but film is safe, it’s known, people understand it as something material that they can hold in their hands. Digital offers all of that too but the acceptance of images stored on a CD-R or hard drive instead of cellulite is not widespread. For a fulltime professional shooting a wide variety of jobs, digital can certainly be an effective tool, however, for the part time, semi-professional photographer, likely, many would test what digital can do with the lower cost Nikon D100 or Canon D60 first before splurging on the full blown professional bodies. So, waiting and biding some time before going digital is not such a bad idea and it does allow the photographer to see what may come about from the faster, two-year cycles that digital technology goes through. Instead of spending $20 grand on a pair of EOS 1D bodies and then regretting it with the introduction of the 1Ds, he can now zone in on a body that would meet pretty much all of his needs in the digital realm – if and when he feels that such costs can be justified for his business plan. For others who do little to nothing professionally (like me), converting to digital is mind-bogglingly expensive and much thought had to be done to even justify and consider the D100 class D-SLR. There is no way that I could or would spend $20 grand to buy a pair of Nikon D2 bodies for what I want out of photography. Although desire always surpasses actual need and I certainly desire state of the art digital, I do not need it and besides which, I already put that kind of money into my medium format kit. Any more money spent without getting serious about running my own business is foolhardy and fodder for a divorce. So, as that digital boat sails by me, I’ll be waving to all those inclined to be first on the block with a new D-SLR, as I keep my bank account balance in the black. I think anyone else thinking that they're missing out on digital, to remain level-headed and consider that film is not going anywhere anytime soon.
|
|
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
  |
|
Edwin's
Vignettes - Missing the Digital Boat
Now
consider that with film, Larry already has three bodies with a good
complement of lenses. He has to buy film for every shoot but this
cost would have already been factored into his cost structure and
package prices. He could make more money shooting digitally because
the film costs are eliminated, however, he would be spending more
time editing the images and that in itself, is actually a significant
cost. Is that time spent worth the amount of money he would make from
a digital shoot, especially in light of the large capital costs of
digital?
