film & digital cameras ... enlightenment

[Dew]

i had a new client calling me on the phone today, looking for portraits... i mentioned to her that i shoot with digital & film ... she asked me a question that totally caught me off guard, "what's the difference between digital and film?" :scratch:

... im fumbling through my mental archives trying to give her an answer and one that she could understand .. while thinking at the same time, she wouldnt know the difference between the two if i sat 2 prints in her face :? ... so i said, "well, me personally ... i like the way color looks with digital because its cleaner ... b&w film gives more details in the shadows." (she also mentioned she wanted b&w)

so my question to u is ... the next time someone calls and ask me this same question (keeping in mind, their not experts, their just ordinary people) ... what should i say? :scratch:

 

[terri]

Exactly what you said, as far as the imagery and your own preferences as a photographer.

The other difference? The final print itself. If having a highly archival silver gelatin print is appealing to your clients, they might want you to use film.

 

[metroshane]

"There is no difference in the final product--just the means in which I choose to capture the image". You and I know there are subtle differences, but without getting into a philosophical discussion...it's a good enough answer.

 

[Dew]

"There is no difference in the final product--just the means in which I choose to capture the image"..........

now, what if she were a "ask a lot of questions" kinda girl like myself and said, "if there is no difference, why do u offer both?"

 

[mrsid99]

"There is no difference in the final product--just the means in which I choose to capture the image"..........

now, what if she were a "ask a lot of questions" kinda girl like myself and said, "if there is no difference, why do u offer both?"

Then how about saying: "To confuse the enemy" or maybe say that "Digital looks better on HDTV's" or then again "Film gives a more retro look" or maybe.......

 

[ksmattfish]

You know the differences, just start listing them off, stop when the glazed look starts to form in her eyes.

In my opinion they don't have a choice anyway. They came to a Pro Photog because they don't know how to do it; they are paying me to figure out what will be best to get the job done right. I would explain the strengths and weaknesses of either medium/equipment as it pertains to the client's needs, emphasizing the points why I am choosing to use one over the other.

 

[Dew]

"to confuse the enemy" :LOL: ... thats a good one .. i think they will stop at that

i've been asked this question before and find myself giving long-winded technical answers and hear silence on the other end of the phone ... i dont want to get them to involved in the technical aspects of it ... but i also want to be "helpful" and offer them an answer to which they can understand ... in lay-mens terms

even if i say "cleaner" .. im sure they have no idea what im talking about ... but i usually use both on a shoot unless they have a special request for b&w .... then somehow they always say, "did u get this one in color?"

 

[metroshane]

In that case I just say it's like the differnce between oil paint and charcoal. Both can make great art...but are different means of getting there.

 

[Dew]

You know the differences, just start listing them off, stop when the glazed look starts to form in her eyes.

In my opinion they don't have a choice anyway. They came to a Pro Photog because they don't know how to do it; they are paying me to figure out what will be best to get the job done right. I would explain the strengths and weaknesses of either medium/equipment as it pertains to the client's needs, emphasizing the points why I am choosing to use one over the other.

the hubby gave a similar answer to this, "they dont know what they want, that's why thier hiring u."

which made me ask myself a few questions ... "why do i offer both?" ... so this chatterbox turns to the hubby whose always eager to answer my questions .. especially when he's busy on the computer , "are there a lot of photographers who "ride the fence" like i do and offer both?" ... "why not choose one or the other?"

 

[Kent Frost]

"why not choose one or the other?"

Because business is business and god forbid you have a potential client decline because he/she loves your work, but won't hire you because you won't shoot with film. Or vice versa with digital. A spectrum of people are out there, and just as equal a spectrum of opinions are out there also. If you're trying to make a living, there's no reason not to cater as to many people as you can.

It's the same with shooting weddings and having customers that know the difference between 35mm and 120/220.

 

[Sharkbait]

"are there a lot of photographers who "ride the fence" like i do and offer both?" ... "why not choose one or the other?"

I'm gonna catch hell for this one.

From my website:

Our equipment is less than a year old, top of the line, and all digital. We refuse to risk our customers' most prized photographs on film, which can be lost, damaged by heat, cold, moisture, light, improper developing, improper handling before exposure, improper exposure at time-of-shot, etc.

While that's a bit heavy-handed, I do feel that digital just offers far more safety than film. For example, our own wedding album has a big gap--there are no photos of my wife with the bridesmaids, with her (now deceased) grandmother, etc., because the photographer fried that roll when she popped the back of her camera before rewinding the film. Plus, with digital I can instantly check to see if I got the shot, not hope that it was properly exposed, framed, nobody blinked, etc.

 

[ksmattfish]

Right now I only offer film photography. But in the future, I will add digital equipment to my selection of gear. If a customer approaches me knowing that they need film or digital, I'll just go from there. If a customer mentions other needs, but doesn't mention film or digital I'd assume that I was to make the decision based on my best knowledge of how to create what they want.

 

[jack]

my present understanding is that capturing on film allows more ready
flexibility... neg, slide, big print, huge print. that may be entirely irrelevant
to mrs smith whose called you for some nice pictures of her grandchildren,
but it is a factor in choosing who YOU approach, off your own back, as
potential clients. i know it IS possible to get all these media-types from a
pretty-decent digital cam, but if you are seeking to - ask yourself why you
are bothering with digital in the first place.

the great factor with digital is the cost-benefits which can be past on
to the customer in a lower quote. but whether i upload from twain or
scan, i still have to fiddle and tweak the images to feel happy with them.
i wonder how the true cost comparisons figure out. (?)

i would tweak metroshane's analogy a wee bit and say it's like the
difference between oil paint and acrylic paint. IMO.

but thats with an artifact hanging on a wall. on a monitor, in a pulp-
newspaper, on a Pizza Hut 20%off mailer - i dont think it matters. only
your pricematters, supported by convincing-quality existing work.

what do you all think ? .//jack

 

[jack]

Plus, with digital I can instantly check to see if I got the shot, not hope that it was properly exposed, framed, nobody blinked, etc.

that is a point shark. indeed. but without trying to appear flippant,
if i'm paying close attention on a posed or static subject TTL, i should be
able to feel confident that i got the composition right in 2 or 3
identical attempts. (as long as i havent made a serious gaffe with exposure,
but if you have studio and lamps you use everyday, is that likely ?).
after-all, it is a manually-operated shutter isnt it ! (thats the craft,
even with a m/w).

true - a film can be frazzed by neglilgent handling. but a
flash-memory card can be corrupted too.

it's tricky !, my mind remains open to all viewpoints..//jack

 

[Sharkbait]

Plus, with digital I can instantly check to see if I got the shot, not hope that it was properly exposed, framed, nobody blinked, etc.

that is a point shark. indeed. but without trying to appear flippant,
if i'm paying close attention on a posed or static subject TTL, i should be
able to feel confident that i got the composition right in 2 or 3
identical attempts. (as long as i havent made a serious gaffe with exposure,
but if you have studio and lamps you use everyday, is that likely ?).
after-all, it is a manually-operated shutter isnt it ! (thats the craft,
even with a m/w).

true - a film can be frazzed by neglilgent handling. but a
flash-memory card can be corrupted too.

it's tricky !, my mind remains open to all viewpoints..//jack

Yep, and I see your points (and didn't think you were being flippant). Like I said, I think I stated it on my site a bit heavy-handed, as things CAN go wrong with digital, too. But for me personally, with my equipment, my experiences both as a photographer and a customer, and such, I am about 1000% more comfortable with digital than with film. :thumbsup: