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.
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!
steve simmons: "I do not care how you spell..(etc)"
careful now..
"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
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
David Beal
Memories Preserved Photography, LLC
"Making tomorrow's memories by
capturing today's happiness" (R)
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.
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...
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?)
"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 ?
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks