Large format assignments?!

[toyotadesigner]

10x8" go for squillions 5x4" is very well paid, 120 is good money, 35mm becomes free and digital photographers should pay the client

You've made my weekend

[turtle]

It made me smile too, but it is accurate only very infrequently.

Yes, in certain niches, you can charge lots of money for uniquely presented (and captured) film images, but the notion that the very best digital work is not taken seriously (and paid for handsomely) is completely false. If a person's digital work is not commanding a respectable fee, it is because that digital work is not nearly as good as those whose does Film is also not necessarily associated with 'best' either, although opinions do vary and a photographer can brand his work any way he wishes to play upon the prejudices of their market (and of course shape those prejudices). The idea that you cannot produce top-grade digital architecture work because of inherent flaws in the medium is ridiculous. For anyone suggesting this, I would suggest getting out to more exhibitions and opening your eyes.

This thread has frankly astonished me. There are a few here who are living in a fantasy land. Nobody said there are no film commissions any more, or that they could not be commercially viable.... only that the vast majority of commissions are digital and those who make their money working full time in the areas where the view camera has dominated even recently (i.e. architecture) are almost exclusively shooting digital (though some will shoot film if requested to do so). For more run of the mill work it is a no-brainer. This is my experience also. Anyone starting out now and trying to establish a business based on film only commissions is almost certain to fail and quickly, unless they are doing something truly unique or shooting within the fine art real where their individual prints are selling for thousands and selling strongly.

I was a contributing photographer for a large group commission, after which the photographers' prints were auctioned by Christies in London, after being exhibited at Getty Gallery with national media coverage, so not low-profile stuff. All the photographers were encouraged to shoot film (long story), but most of the commercial photographers stuck with digital because they were not too keen to deviate from their current workflow. Many of the photographers were big names and I did not see any correlation between sale price and capture method. So there you go, even when all costs were covered... when there were no pressing deadlines and when photographers knew these images would stand next to their names in the public eye, most shot digital. I shot B&W film so don't go thinking I am biased...

You've made my weekend

[C.T. Greene]

Funy how the world turns . . Don't know about commerical work but I did break down my barrier against shooting digital. After all, as stated before whether digital or film there are reasons for particular formats, they have their strengths & their weaknesses (limitations). Which should have more concern than cost factor.
That is the true negative aspect of digital . . . the source of the greatest strength is also the source of the greatest weakness.
It is always a lose when the best photography (er) is seen as the one with the highest price camera or the lowest rates. LF polaroids were commonly used in the days of film . . to preview the scene pior to other film, digital fills that gap now. LF shooting being manual & the associated cost tends to require greater attention to details.
Its strength as well as its limitation. Of course, this is all rather empty when most photography is done with cell phones, destined to the digital void.

[Kirk Gittings]

Anyone starting out now and trying to establish a business based on film only commissions is almost certain to fail and quickly, unless they are doing something truly unique or shooting within the fine art real where their individual prints are selling for thousands and selling strongly.

When you get past the wishful thinking, the chest pounding, and the cheering for your team, this is the simple sad truth. This month a local magazine did an invitational article on landscape photographers. Since I pretty much only shoot landscape in 4x5 B&W that is what I submitted. When they found out from me it was from film they were enthused and took copious notes. They were enthused so much that they didn't even mention it in the accompanying final article. This is the third article this year about my landscape work (one in a museum publication) and none of them mentioned the use of film. AAMOF the last time I can remember that a magazine asked me what I shot landscape with was an article in VC like in 2005 or something.

[Michael E]

This is the third article this year about my landscape work (one in a museum publication) and none of them mentioned the use of film.

There would be something wrong with your images if they did. This is something photographers should think about, not their audience. The use of film is a tool, not a sign of quality. Viewers should be so captivated by the image that they forget everything they ever knew about composition or technique.

Michael

[Kimberly Anderson]

Just landed a commercial shoot BECAUSE I shoot large format, black and white and will print GSP's. They could hire anyone to shoot it digitally and in color but they are hiring me because of the unique tools and look that I am able to provide.

Shooting in early April.

[Kirk Gittings]

Cool. What is a GSP?

[Kimberly Anderson]

Gelatin Silver Print

[Kirk Gittings]

Dough!

[Noah A]

Just landed a commercial shoot BECAUSE I shoot large format, black and white and will print GSP's. They could hire anyone to shoot it digitally and in color but they are hiring me because of the unique tools and look that I am able to provide.

Shooting in early April.

The shoot isn't on April 1st I hope...