digital backs

[simon warren]

Hi Guys

Its been a while since my last post. I dont know what is happening in the States but digital is making things very difficult for photographers here in the UK. As an Architectural photographer I strive for perfection and as far as I am concerened shooting on film on 5x4 gives me that. Unfortunately clients are increasingly refusing to pay for scanning and in some cases film. Simply because they are reveiving images from guys shooting on digital who make no extra charges. Have I got it all wrong can digital be better for architectue? If any of you guys are shooting on digital what do you use and how does it compare.

Thanks Simon

[Walt Calahan]

First off, anyone shooting digital should be charging for digital capture, post-production, master films, web galleries, printed contact sheets, etc.

So to say your clients won't pay for film, processing and scanning is to say they are selling you a song and a dance 'cause they should be paying more for digital services. At least they do here in the States.

Now about "better". If you clients find digital more useful to their needs, then of course your clients knows digital is better. That doesn't mean your 5x4 isn't good, it simply doesn't offer your client what they need.

Clients drive the market. We supply a service.

[simon warren]

Thanks for your comments. Yes guys do charge for digital services. Unfortunately more and more clients just want the job done for the least money. Quality is really coming down. New guys with little or no experience are coming along and shooting for a fraction of the cost and producing inferior results in my opinion. Sounds like its better across the pond?

Simon

[Walt Calahan]

No no, not better across the pond. Sounds more like the same now that you've expanded on your posting.

Personally I'm with you. 5x4 is better. But the client's drive for faster, more, right now, can bring down quality.

That said, in a generation or two, digital backs in the hands of a caring photographer such as yourself will be able to produce to your film standards. Let's just hope the cost of the digital investment is lower!!! Ouch!

[simon warren]

Sadly digital backs in the UK range from around £17K to£10k . Unfortunately in two decades time I will be 66!

Cheers Simon

[Frank Petronio]

A few years ago the cheapskates used 35mm when the better photographers used large format. So what is new?

[Walt Calahan]

Simon

Sorry, when I wrote "generation" I didn't mean human generation, but computer generation.

4 to 6 years from now LF digital that's good may be affordable.

Crossing fingers.

I'll be 69 in 20 years. OUCH!!

[Kirk Gittings]

Simon,

See my site www.gittingsphoto.com. I still shoot film and scan it. Because of my relationship with Freestyle and Calumet I get to test most everything new in digital out there.....Like digital photographers who charge a "capture" fee. I charge a capture fee in which I hide my film, polaroid, processing and scanning costs. This is not necessary with all clients just uninformed brainwashed ones. I do primarily shoot 120 color negatives for scanning which saves on film costs. I have had 0 problems competing with digital photographers.

Even Hedrich Blessing arguably the leading AP firm in the US shoots film and scans it.

If I were to switch to digital, it would not be cost effective for my clients. My fees would have to go up to cover the equip costs (I currently use a 50 year old camera, very cost effective) and I would get less images done in a day. Digital architectural photography is slower than shooting film.

[Richard Littlewood]

I'd go along with what you say Simon. I work in the UK, trying to fly the flag for film, and I too have noticed that scanning has become 'something that dosn't need doing now', and also the idea of filing images for the future has become less important.
I work in galleries and museums photographing Art work in 2D and 3D, using film, in a few formats, and have good predictable lighting etc, and I know how to use it. Recently I've seen someone doing a job that I should have had, and he was photographing some small paintings using a digital SLR, propping these paintings up in window light, and shooting without a tripod. I also saw the (printed) results, and I suppose, if anything, they were just scraping OK.
Yes, standards have taken a nose dive, but prices have not. Things have just speeded up. Thats OK by me, it's the way of things, and I suspect that ex-film pro's may just possibly have a greater understanding of the mechanics of image making, because we were brought up to think in those terms.
I also accept that unless I buy into digital for commercial work it will go somewhere ealse, so buy the back for your 5x4 (if you have the cash) then buy the better one next year, and the next!
Good luck!

[Kirk Gittings]

"Recently I've seen someone doing a job that I should have had, and he was photographing some small paintings using a digital SLR, propping these paintings up in window light, and shooting without a tripod. "

But we have always had to deal with competition from ill equiped and experienced amatuers pretending they are pros. This kind of example is not new with digital.