Are there portrait pros that do only analog B&W ?

[Ken Lee]

... and do they make a decent living ?

Any links to their sites would be greatly appreciated.

[Frank Petronio]

Herb Ritts, Greg Gorman... they mostly work in black and white and were the biggest celeb photogs through the 1990s. They built such nice houses to use as portrait locations that the stars were jealous - so we're talking 5-10 million dollar places...

[John Kasaian]

My cousin's wife used to take children's portraits using B&W and medium format and did quite well.

[Walt Calahan]

Almost nobody does ONLY analog B&W.

But here a friend who does NO digital, and makes almost all his money doing analog B&W:

http://www.mattmendelsohn.com/

Enjoy

I still do analog B&W, but nowhere near what Matt does. I have to admit my clients want mostly color.

http://www.walterpcalahan.com

[John_5572]

Greg Gorman, in a 2004 interview, “Until the past year, digital couldn’t compete with film,” he says. “But now, about 80 to 85 percent of what I shoot is digital. Film is dying. Labs are closing, especially with the onset of larger file sizes. It is now almost essential to learn software programs like Adobe’s Photoshop and to keep your eyes on the latest technology in hardware and software.”

[Kirk Gittings]

OT Isn't Herb Ritt's dead from AIDS by about 2-3 years? Or am I dreaming? Again?

[steve simmons]

Yes, Ritz died about two years ago.

Jack Holowitz shot film in the portrait business in Mass but he is now retired. Much of his work was large format.

steve simmons

[David A. Goldfarb]

<spelling police>Ritts died about two years ago, but I think Ritz is still around. Who's "Ritt" and what was it of Ritt's that died?</spelling police>

[Hans Berkhout]

hily shot! Piloce in the Furom?

[steve simmons]

Herb Ritts died about two years ago.

I do not care how you spell his name. He still died about 2 years ago.

steve simmons

[Merg Ross]

I believe that there are very successful photographers making black and white analog portraits. I get requests quite often and oblige as a favor rather than seek remuneration. As to making a decent living, I can not answer your query. However, I would doubt that a large format camera would be the tool of preference as it was for Brady, Newman, Weston, Karsh and the like. A medium format camera would be the better choice in my opinion.

[Ole Tjugen]

Our local portrait photographer does only analog B&W, prints on fiber paper, mounts on archival matt board, and seems to be doing quite well. She sends anyone who wants colour or quick turnaround to other photographers!

[Enrico]

steve simmons: "I do not care how you spell..(etc)"

careful now..

[Sanders McNew]

"Almost nobody does ONLY analog B&W."

I don't know what you mean by "pro," but I shoot nothing but portraits in LF B+W. See www.mcnew.net for samples.

Sanders McNew

[David Beal]

In my part of the world (Cleveland, Ohio) b/w prints, shot with film and archivally printed, command a high price, and there are people willing to pay it. The very hottest thing in wedding photography is platinum, and there are buyers.

In order for someone to spend disposable income on photography, particularly in these hard times, they must be convinced that they will receive something which is fairly priced and gives timeless value. B/W portraiture is timeless.

Good luck, and good shooting to you all.

/s/ David Beal
Memories Preserved Photography, LLC

[darter]

I find it continually interesting that many traditional film users who switch to digital then announce that "film is dead." They can't stand the idea that they left something behind that had value, so they attempt to bury it prematurely so they can't go back. What a weak-minded, sniveling crowd.

[Martin Drozda]

Almost nobody does ONLY analog B&W.

A lot of those in the old Soviet Bloc still do.



A naive statement. All my friends (in Slovakia), including those that work for newspapers use a digital camera. The last time I visited a local camera shop, I could not find any film camera. It is all digital. Additionaly, there is no (big enough) shop that would still be able to make profit on film cameras. I had to order my last film camera from the US. It is the US where film still survives...

[John_4185]

I know several pros (I am retired) and speaking of one in particular who went digital three years ago...

On the one hand, he admits that alltogether he is spending more per year now to keep his setup current and competitive through upgrades but he is far happier with the expense than with dealing with the 'wet stuff', and he is confident that he will make it through this period of accelerating change to enjoy more stability, fewer upgrades.

On the other hand, he occasionally gets demands for 'film' photography, MF in general, and LF View in particular and he is amazed how much more the film folks can charge compared to what he is expected to charge. Last time this happened, the 'film guy' made more in a day than Mr. Digital could in a week.

Aside - I am wondering if there's not a special niche for a banquet photographer today. It truly makes a special point about the host who commissions such.

Strange turns like the banquet photography idea are good things. ULF folks! Go for it. (Calamity Jane - I have a feeling you have already planned such for your real West shooting groups. No?)

[Ken Lee]

"A medium format camera would be the better choice in my opinion."



Yes. I have been thinking about getting a Mamiya 6 for this purpose, since it is simpler and more affordable than a Hassy, easier to hold, and has better lenses than Bronica 6x6. Also, it has no mirror, and no size/noise issues like a Pentax 6x7 or Bronica GS-1. (I had a GS-1, and while the 100mm lens was good, the longer lens was a bit fuzzy, not to mention heavy).



Another approach would be to shoot digital, and make digital negatives, for either Pt/Pd or Silver prints.... Any thoughts there ?

[Jerry Flynn]

Thirty years ago, I worked at a portrait studio that did fairly large volume. At that point, digital was just an idea that was being discussed.

Other than the B&W glossies we did for high school yearbooks, the vast majority of our work was shot on color negative (VPS). Very occasionally, we did a B&W sitting(on Ektapan, usually). Perhaps one out of a thousand or so. Slighlty more frequently, we would make a B&W print from the color negatuve (on Panalure). Very often these Panalure prints were toned and hand colored. I think most of the time this was so the picture would match older prints a family might have already had.

We had LF cameras in the studio including a split-back 5X7 Deardorff, but at the time most work was done on 70mm unperforated long rolls (approx 2 1/4 X 3 1/4) on Camerz equipment.

So, even in in the pre-digital days, the classic B&W print was pretty much a thing of the past. People wanted color portaits.

As David Beal and Ole Tjugen point out, above, someone with good marketing skills could probably still carve out a nice niche for affluent customers from the general portrait market.

[David Luttmann]

The B&W portrait is becoming more popular in our area. For portrait work, I use a 1DS for about 95% and an RB67 for the remainder. Mainly Ilford Pan F and Fuji NPS for film. Most of these shots are around the 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 sizes.

As to making more using film....we've found film requests to have dropped to near zero. As to making more in a day shooting film than digital users make in a week....LOL. Mentioning film is more often a detriment as clients are so used to their whiz-bang digital cameras that regardless of whether true or not....they believe digital to be better.

And with our most common sizes of 11x14 & 16x20, there is little difference between the 1DS and RB67. If you were using the 1DS MK2, then you'd see no difference at all....unless you like spending $100+ to drum scan each 6x7 film exposure.....which most people no longer do.

There may be a small market niche for the analog B&W portrait photographer, but it would be slim pickins in all but the larger markets.

[John_4185]

Jerry Thirty years ago, I worked at a portrait studio that did fairly large volume. At that point, digital was just an idea that was being discussed.

FWIW, forty years ago (almost exactly), the word "pixel" occured in the literature of military recon photography. Thirty years ago, it entered into the public record of the same. (This just to show that Digital was a long time coming. 'course, the first Internet goes back to the same year!)

In 1970 we were already trying shooting video for sports in attempts to capture action better, faster, and of course it utterly failed because while the image might pass as a smaller picture in a daily newspaper (b&w), photographers and editors also shot for portfolios, clip contests, and national contests in which the images were presented as 16x20"! whoa. Thirty-five years later, it's come of 'age', so to speak.

But I ain't going there except for the Day Job.

[Pete_6109]

Didn't Al Gore invent digital photography, along with the internet?

[Jerry Flynn]

JJ,

The discussions I was involved in 30 years ago were with studio photographers who understood that their print clients were already beginning to use computers to set type and create layouts. They figured it would only be a matter of time before their clients would expect images in digital form. We didn't know how it would happen, exactly, probably we thought it would be more scanning of prints or chromes, but it was something that was rising on the horizon and being considered by the more forward-thinking pros of the day.

[Henry Ambrose]

If you make really good pictures I don't think your client will care what kind of camera/process you used.

There is one guy in town here who does B&W portraits who gets $2,000 sitting fees - if I remember correctly. Another who used to do only traditional B&W has lately been shooting a lot of digital color. He still seems to make good money and does still use B&W film on a regular basis but most of his work I see is color digital.

[Porcelle]

I too was thinking that the idea was viable, if it would hold any commercial merit. It's one of those things that you enjoy, and know the value of; expressing that value to a consumer market is an entirely different thing. If you want to do something with a specific format and media, 4x5 and B&W, (and be a specialist) you need to educate your potential clients on why what you do is unique and can command a price that meets your costs and affords you some comfort. You might find some success that other couldn't... I think that the proliferation of digital, especially for "Pro's", has also enabled some to create a niche' in ULF and LF portrait photography; it does have an aesthetic quality that is not comparable. But like any other competitive business, it requires you to educate your customers on the reasons why your better.
Regards,
dave