So You Wanna Go Digital N Save Time?

[azrul]

The allure of digital! The panacea for all professionals, would be photographer and hobbyist. Instant, high quality and best of all, apparently costless operation since there is no processing or film involved. Have batteries; will shoot. Instant photography is nothing new and as Edwin Land would have it, consumers could now save that fleeting moment in time and get it on the spot. No smelly chemicals, no leaking papers and with cameras that could be operated by someone with an IQ of a newt. In the 70s Kodak also released a 'less than compact' instant camera which tried to cash in on the 'instant consumerism' that Americans were so caught up with at the time.

The Polaroid

Edwin Land's creation, the Polaroid, has been ubiquitous among casual users, working professionals (for proofing), advanced users (copywork) and insurance companies (since Polaroids cannot be tampered with or reproduced). They remained the de-facto standard of company ID badges (and still do), passport mugshots and the intrepid photos of revellers at TGIFs. But the Polaroid for all it's merits was flawed in ways, the cameras though relatively inexpensive and easy to use, were typically limited to only 10shots. The film though not too difficult to buy was far from cost effective. Most who bought one, tried them out for the novelty and soon put them away in some corner to gather dust.

Before any remotely 'digital' came about, the Polaroid was the only means to get an instant result. The digital era which started in the late 80s was a product of getting work done faster and saving on the cost of film. Most early cameras were bulbous contraptions that required:

a) a big chequebook
b) someone with the patience to filp through huge manuals (and have a decent IQ)
c) own a personal computer

Consumers were never the target audience and they remained in the mainstream commercial market.

The late 90s was an interesting period. Gone were the days when digital backs costing typically $100,000 remained the only capture medium. Many 'pro-sumer' cameras were appearing alongside some relatively spartan P&S cameras. Cameras from that period often gave photos that were dismal to say the least; at best used for the web, but were not printable by minilabs.

Meanwhile, many professionals were given the option to go digital since equipment was becoming increasingly inexpensive while the recession increased prices of film and chemicals. Quality of cameras varied but most were able to print at least a decent 5x7" from consumer cameras (which was more than good enough for most newsprint applications, while others could manage a decent 8x10".

Canon's foray into the 'pro-sumer' (I hate that word) market started with the D30, which had a simple (yet larger than average) sensor with the ever popular EF mount. Costing about $14,000 Malaysian dollars, it was a lot cheaper than the $80,000 backs from PhaseOne or the $25,000 Nikon D1 series. Many press people here started off with one of these (assuming their photo departments didn't have a budget for a Kodak DCS!). Quality was good though initial comments bout the CMOS sensor was its 'softness'. Good or bad, it went well with many photographers. Raising the stakes was Nikon with their D100 series. I've used both cameras and both have proven to be decent cameras to work with in the field.

Meanwhile, maintaining a barrage of film for a medium format camera and a 4x5 was starting to look both economically unsound. Clients were also:

a) complaining about cost of scanning
b) wanting tighter deadlines
c) just asking for files on a CD

Photographers were considering:

a) lower holding cost (since you don't have to buy film and store)
b) no processing cost
c) no transport/time cost associated with visiting labs
d) ability to control the image creation process at an instant
e) being able to take on and deliver assignments outside lab hours

There you have it! An apparent perfect solution to the age old problem of idling with lots of film and being tied to labs to do everything after getting work done. Common complaints from photographers is the wasted time visiting labs/parking cars and making the trip to a client when they could use the time to idle or just do another job.

Making the conversion:

Most material shot in 2003 for me at least, was still on film. Save for two assignments done on a leased camera, the rest was on 120 and 4x5". Then with rising cost of film and time expectations from clients I decided it was time to go with the flow and make the switch. I also started reducing the stockpile of film in my fridge which soared to about $1800 worth of film at its peak.

The first major switch occurred while doing a location in KL last March and the client wanted 'digital'. No film, no drum scans. They wanted it ASAP. With no stock of Canon 10D cameras in M'sia and Singapore and the halted production of the 1D as the Mk2 was being introduced, I borrowed a trendy 300D from a friend and stuck on a lens to it. The shoot which covered about 10days technically almost covered the cost of the 10D camera which arrived the last day of my shoot. Brilliant I thought... cost retrieval was fast!

More work came along and for the type of work I do, shooting RAW was the best way to get precise colour correction and decent TIFF files. Based on my initial workflow, digital was great. RAWs are maintained until material is delivered to the client. The large TIFFs are retained and the RAWs disposed of after delivery and payment. Rationale: it's easier to give the client an identical file than to re-work a RAW file.

The New Cost:

Then there are the new costs! External firewire drives, multiple card readers, CF cards, external burners, keeping stockpiles of blank CDs etc. However, that wasn't the turning point in terms of cost per se. Most of these capital expenditure was something you could technically sink. The REAL cost of digital photography is time.

Most Asian economies tend not to value time. Tell a client you're going to charge them $2,000 for printing, drum scanning and polaroids and they'll pay. Tell them you're going to add $300 over fees for re-touching and they ask for discounts.

Time and the hour:

The last month was spent sleeping barely 4 1/2hrs a day with post-processing n re-touching on my end. Shoot, attend meetings, visit clients then back home till late to get everything ready by the next day. Sleep at 4ish, wake by 9ish to get ready for an assignment in town, then head back to continue retouching + also retouching the stuff shot the same day.

I remember having time on my hands after a shoot to have a drink or coffee with a friend or just to idle the afternoon away after i'm done with the lab. It was leisurely. Next morning go back to lab, edit the stuff by selection and deliver, send invoice. Job done.

Back at home, losing two keys from my powerbook (no thanks to my cat), a bluetooth adapter that died (so my net access and my bluetooth mouse don't work) and my old optical USB mouse is wonky (i've since thrown it away since it was completely useless) were no help at all in making my re-touching any easier. I probably spend about as much time if not more in front of the computer as i do at my shoots. Am I still a photographer or a re-toucher?

Well, my crux of my article is:

a) film allows me to shoot more assignments in a day successfully yet still deliver the next day and still get sleep at night.

b) shooting digital may be fast since there are no polaroids etc, but you're going to be spending heaps of time in front of a computer. if all your assignments are rush jobs deliverable the next day, kiss sleep goodbye.

Now, most may find this equation somewhat simplistic but then again, that's what it's all about. A well know leftist theoretician said; "A man is but an appendage to a machine," and I pretty much feel that my Powerbook is glued to me on a permanent basis for the last few months. I'm starting to realise that the drudgery of digital at times is not worth it. Like others, I value my time-off and weekends. I've spent most weekends; yup you got it, re-touching.

As a hobbyist, coming back from a weekend shoot with files is probably a welcome change from sitting at a desk the whole day. But for a working professional picture this:

a) assignment starts at 10am and runs to 1am the next day. Volume of files shot: 6GB. Delivery: day after. I started re-touching the moment i got home and slept at 4am.

b) woke up at 8.30am to get ready to appear at 10am in KL for a location shoot. daytime shots are finished in an hour but i have to return on site by 6.45pm to do the evening shots.

c) Finishing at about 11.30am, i head to a restaurant, complete with me Powerbook to finish re-touching the stuff from previous night.

d) 6ish, I head back to Jalan Ampang to finish the evening shots I had to make and yes I am lugging my Powerbook with me since I don't drive. I take another 45mins on location to complete work.

e) head across street for cheap mamak dinner then head home to shower n complete re-touching from previous night + the images shot in morning and afternoon. They are due the following day. Sleep about 4am and groundhog day begins yet again.

Now, the trick is: to multiply what happened in these two days over a 2 or 3 month period. Saying 'NO' to a client in KL is just as good as suicide. They'll hire someone else and never use me again. I guess I am at a point in my career where I can't say NO to good clients with budgets. Alas, more sleepless nights... even while writing this, the film scanner is running so I can't re-touch anything. So I guess I best write and make coffee. I think i'm going to be using my film gear more in the coming months unless I get a re-toucher/slave.

[choen]

1 hour of shoot for me would usually mean 2 + hours post shoot processing for me and this ratio applies to the scale of days too. If the delivery deadline is urgent (which is common, to have a client call on Monday to say the shoot is Monday and delivery is Tuesday morning) there goes my meal times, **** times, sleep time etc. Like Azrul I'd just turn into an appendage to a couple of machines.

Digital photography is actually very expensive. I can say that I end up buying a new hard disk every few months. If this goes on it'd be very soon before I start to run a server of just digital images. Yesterday alone I ended up buying a new CD writer (the last one went into permanent coma) and stock piled on a few hundred pieces of CDs.

[choen]

Would you believe it. I spent the last few hours burning CDs for delivery. Stuck in the same position for the entire time! And since it's 7 am now there goes my sleep for today.

[ted]

:lol: :lol: :pimpin_ted: :lol: :lol:

no wonder I found you two always appear idling on line!

heheheh speaking of which, i just had fun scrounging thru my cd archives looking for some stock pic that a client wants in 4 hours time. I practically felled asleep in fornt of the 'puter with a stack of cds by my side on the table and a another pile by the feet.

when i woke up, i found Azrul's article (so that whats u wanna me to read before I went 'offline; no?)

now m eye-ing Azrul's Hassy.

D2x? naaahhhh...

[xmenla]

Me still sleepy.

:snoring: :snoring: :snoring:

[maxby]

I didn't realise you need to spend so much time with digital. I thought doing B&W is time consuming, still printing the 15 rolls from my last my last shoot 2 months ago. Now looks like the time taken for digital work also can expand to fill the leisure time I have....Looks like digital is an attractive alternative... :lol: :ph34r: :lol:

[ted]

Oh, the joy of film!

left: the final approved shot

right: me working :lol: :lol: :pimpin_ted: :lol: :lol:

photo credit: my assistant.

Oh, the joy of film! That night when I went home I get meself a solid 9 hour sleep!

oh, the joy of film!

[nabghani]

azrul ... with present work volume I think it's an appropriate time take up an apprentice (ie. slave) to do all the drudge work.

[azrul]

Will find suitable apprentice/slave soon. Would spend time with smelly chemicals anytime to develop film than perched precariously in front of a computer! hehe.

[maxby]

There has been a lot of discussions among professionals especially those wedding photogs with a lot of work, shifting back to film for the same reason.

Professional digital image processing and touching up isn't cheap. A friend in Spore told me he charges anything from 100 to 1000 sgd per image... :lol: :ph34r: :lol:

[azrul]

i do use one professional retoucher for some special work.

meanwhile, will be dragging out ze 40 year old 4x5" for more work in ze sunshine.

[Brian]

azrul, did you offload your hassey gear already or do you still have anything film-based and portable?

[azrul]

I dumped hassey stuff... will stick with the 4x5" with sheet + roll fim holders. I also maintain some 35mm gear that can be used for some work as well.

[suzums]

ah ha! so thats what the late nights have been about!

Most Asian economies tend not to value time. Tell a client you're going to charge them $2,000 for printing, drum scanning and polaroids and they'll pay. Tell them you're going to add $300 over fees for re-touching and they ask for discounts.


hell do i second that!

[tsechien]

Jen Siow did mention explicitly in his workshop last week in Penang that he sticks to photography cos that is what he's good at and he has a staff (hired slave :lol: ) who only focuses on the retouching , post processing part. He humbly surrenders to the fact that he ain't that good or as creative in this area of the craft as this young guy he has hired (who ain't a photographer but a graphics kinda guy).

Moreover, by doing this he can do more photography (taking on more jobs)

I think that after you achieve critical volume on your business (and azrul, I feel that you are waaay past this point), you need dedicated people to handle specific tasks.

Trying to juggle this volume of work can be suicide.

Just my 2 cents....
chien

[nadiahkimie]

all hail film :D

great article to read azrul, definitely makes me glad that i haven't switched over. however, i am a semi-slave to my powerbook too :D

[nadiahkimie]

Oh, one more thing...

Azrul, ted & whomever shoots 4x5's... do you shoot batik? As in, not fashion, but the actual kain itself.

The reason I'm asking is that a batik boutique would like to do a collection book of specific batik artworks that they will bring to tradeshows, give as gifts, etc. I'm working on the book in terms of design and am looking for a photographer cos we'd like the shots to be taken on 4x5's to retain details and the quality of the image (1 or 2 may be blown up to 2' x 4' banner).

I wonder if any of you are interested. Basically there'll be about 30-40 pieces of batik. It can either be shot in a studio, or there's a room at the boutique that can be used, but it's kinda small and it's all warm lights (but kind of dark) so lighting is probably necessary. And if you have a quote too that would be great, but hopefully its not so expensive please :D I'll be on hand to help with ironing n stuff like that. Erm, I've seen this done before in a studio somewhere in sg buloh, and they taped the kain to a board so that it wouldn't crease and slacken in the middle bits as well.

So if any of you are interested, please please let me know, or PM me or something. thanks!

[mza]

Ted apa lagi...thts an opportunity man!
Batik photographer...hehehe

[nadiahkimie]

Originally posted by mza@Jun 24 2005, 04:45 PM
Ted apa lagi...thts an opportunity man!
Batik photographer...hehehe
get paid according to your rates. okay what? :D

[PhotoNut]

Great reading material, azrul. Your article really perk me up.

[Kelvin K]

Good or bad is all depending on how you manage your work flow. As mentioned by Jen during his talk, with film you work stop after completing shooting & passing your film to lab but with digital photography, your work continue with computer.

Well, working with film might give you more time to sleep but what if the pictures came back not as expected? Scan into digital file & save in computer? Probably too late as time is ticking fast.

Instant feedback of digital camera allows you or your client to review & "approve" the shoot, &/or let you (or assistance) process the pictures immediately in PC. You sleep better knowing the assignment is succesfull.

Digital is THE technology. We should use it to our advantage. Adapt it & change your work flow. Hiring a full time graphic assistance is a good idea. :)

[Sisterlance]

if u shoot a lot of film, it's the same thing. But instead of piling up cds, u pile up negatives. People need to control what they shoot. Digital is not at fault.

[wKkaY]

Imagine what ultrabroadband can do to a digital photographer's workflow.

RAW files can be uploaded quickly to outsourcing online labs, where photoshop monkeys choose the best shots and tweak them. It's mostly process work anyway. Your preferences are saved in your profile, and specific instructions can be given per-job. I believe some cameras also allow attaching a recorded memo to a photo, so that can help somewhat with the processing.

The files are then sent back, hopefully before your deadline. You could also opt for your files to be delivered to some online print shop. You get your sleep, and in return you pay a nominal fee.

Oh well, if only broadband development isn't encumbered by telcos' business strategies, we could see a bit of development on this front. It could be a paradigm shift, just as outsourced callcentres were!

[yoong]

means not far from the future (if its not already here) we will see digital re-touchers in demand?

[azrul]

Quote: "Well, working with film might give you more time to sleep but what if the pictures came back not as expected? Scan into digital file & save in computer? Probably too late as time is ticking fast."

-> anyone who knows me, knows i want the shots to come up right the first time. that's why I bring polaroids ;) feed back from chimping speeds up the shoot, it doesn't speed up post-processing RAW files when you get back at the end of the day.

Quote: "if u shoot a lot of film, it's the same thing. But instead of piling up cds, u pile up negatives. People need to control what they shoot. Digital is not at fault."

-> contrary to popular belief, my shooting style hasn't changed. i shoot no more in digital than i would with film. i don't believe in overshooting. since first week of january till now, my camera hasn't gone past 6500 exposure. my situation is the sheer volume of work coming in... i know with film i won't have to spend countless sleepless nights in front of a computer. for the work that i do, shooting raw is the only remedy.

Quote: "Digital is THE technology. We should use it to our advantage. Adapt it & change your work flow. "

-> haha. though i only bought a digital camera last year, i've been using digital cameras since 1999. i'm no stranger to digital workflows. my background is with the press, so imaging/colour workflows are my cuppa tea.

quote: "RAW files can be uploaded quickly to outsourcing online labs, "

-> hold your horses. a lab i know is planning to offer this service to process RAW files soon enough. watch this space....

[Brian]

Originally posted by Sisterlance@Jun 24 2005, 07:49 PM
if u shoot a lot of film, it's the same thing. But instead of piling up cds, u pile up negatives. People need to control what they shoot. Digital is not at fault.
Even though he touched on it, his article wasn't about storage but about the false perception that digital is cheaper because you don't have to buy film but the reality that for moderate-to-high volume shooters it is more expensive due to the increased post-processing time involved. Most Asians don't value time but more tangible things, so digital seems cheaper. Working pros have to place a value on time which makes digital more expensive then film.

The 'immediacy' of digital also creates a demand for faster returns from the clients, which doesn't help.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Kelvin K@Jun 24 2005, 06:51 PM
Well, working with film might give you more time to sleep but what if the pictures came back not as expected? Scan into digital file & save in computer? Probably too late as time is ticking fast.

Instant feedback of digital camera allows you or your client to review & "approve" the shoot, &/or let you (or assistance) process the pictures immediately in PC. You sleep better knowing the assignment is succesfull.
Umm...doesn't polaroid do the same thing? And if the polaroid is composed & exposed the way you and the client wants it, then it will also be the same for the film shot. No post-processing required cause it's already right in-camera.

If you think the polaroid way is less efficient, I guarantee you that It'd be faster then "processing the picture immediately"...you seem to imply with that statement that it is a couple quick clicks over a few seconds when in actuality it's not even with auto-scripts or PS-actions taking up some of the required post-processing.

Digital is THE technology. We should use it to our advantage. Adapt it & change your work flow. Hiring a full time graphic assistance is a good idea.* :)Fanatacism is stupid. NOTHING, film or digital , is THE technology. If anyone says *either* to me is half-blind. How can anything be THE technology? How can anyone be so ignorant as to even think that, much less say it aloud among a group of individuals who has experience with both and knows the shortcomings and benefits of both? We're not the tech-idiots at Lowyat here, bud. <_<

[leoych]

Thanks azrul on sharing the wonderful write-up. I'll for now reserve my comment due to my ignorant on which is better. I'll just enjoy photography as it comes and as it goes.....

Cheers!

[Sisterlance]

Originally posted by Brian@Jun 24 2005, 10:58 PM
Even though he touched on it, his article wasn't about storage but about the false perception that digital is cheaper because you don't have to buy film but the reality that for moderate-to-high volume shooters it is more expensive due to the increased post-processing time involved. Most Asians don't value time but more tangible things, so digital seems cheaper. Working pros have to place a value on time which makes digital more expensive then film.

The 'immediacy' of digital also creates a demand for faster returns from the clients, which doesn't help.
I agree with u Brian. I was actually addressing the storage issue when Choen brought it up about him losing sleep and all ;)

Talking about post processing time. I have personal first hand experience that the amount of post work after a film shoot is not easy too. U send it outfor process, u spend money. U do it yourself(assuming b/w), u spend lots of time. Whereelse for digital, u only lose time and sleep.

hence what u shoot/keep determines what life remains of u.

and I can't decide if digital is cheaper. It has to be a case by case basis as we dun know what each photog's return($) is, or what the clients demand is.

for an amatuer like me, i can use both media as I wish without much consideration.

Pros or people making money out of their gear has to balance their workflow for the best returns.

[Sisterlance]

but then if u r really good, U will decide what to shoot and when to hand in. Really good that is ;)

[eugene]

Hey Az...too much work lack of sleep caused you to rant about it eh? :lol:



but then if u r really good, U will decide what to shoot and when to hand in. Really good that is

Hmm..sisterlance, do you even have any idea what you're talking about? :rolleyes:




Digital is THE technology. We should use it to our advantage. Adapt it & change your work flow. Hiring a full time graphic assistance is a good idea.

I agree with the getting extra help section, but not the former. Without trying to turn this into a digital vs film thread, there is still undenialable flaws in digital which most people tend to oversee. Just because of the quick feedback, quality and time and many other things get brush aside. In short, it isn't THE technology yet. Remember, photography didn't even took over painting but evolve onto an art of it's own, what's more a new medium of this art?


means not far from the future (if its not already here) we will see digital re-touchers in demand?

Actually, I alread saw a few ads asking for it in malaysia, but the pay for them are worth peanuts. Nonetheless, the photographer I worked with in Ireland held on tightly onto his retoucher. Quote unquote him, without her, my studio won't work, so I don't mind paying more for her...and she does get paid decently.

[chinks]

Nah! Digital is super fast!

Back in da ol' days, to touch things up had to blow up a print, do hours & hours of touch up and re-shoot the touched up work. Now it's just photoshop. Badda bing!

It just seems long n' difficult because, in fact, it's so easy you've taken up the jobs of the photographer, printer and retoucher combined.

It's absolutely true that for things to go easy again for the photographer, they'll need a separate retoucher and printer once again, even for digital work. And I can see this as the future evolution of things to come (of course it's already happened with some high profile photographers.)

[dlcmh]

The amount of time spent postprocessing digital images depends on:
(1) How good the camera's imaging algorithms are - certain brand / models produce images that require less postprocessing than others, or allows comprehensive and quick access to image optimization parameters
(2) How comfortable the photographer is in tweaking his / her camera to give optimal results for a given situation

Shooting RAW does not obviate the need to get the exposure right (as in shooting film), and also digital-only paramaters such as White Balance, Tone (Contrast, custom curves in Nikon), Saturation, Colour Mode (sRGB IIIa in Nikons) and Sharpening.

Starting with the Nikon D70, and onwards to Nikon D2X, Nikon D50, the Canon 20D, 1Ds MkII and 350D, the image output is comparable to what one gets with film, IMO.

Of course, certain areas of photography remain the domain of 4x5s, simply due to the resolution required, or the flexibility of the available lenses.

[azrul]

For those who don't know what I, I shoot interiors. Kiss off custom curves etc, because they never work for interiors. Every room and every corner has to be treated independently. If you're a production line photographer working with consistent lighting, custom curves work quite well but interiors are a totally different story.

Quote: "Starting with the Nikon D70, and onwards to Nikon D2X, Nikon D50, the Canon 20D, 1Ds MkII and 350D, the image output is comparable to what one gets with film, IMO."

-> actually image quality is the least of my worries. as for the cameras, each of them have their own 'quirks' when they deal with white balance. most of my prints are max 20x30" which any of these cameras is perfectly capable of doing, BUT like i mentioned in my previous posting months ago, film still renders a LOT more detail. Also, there is a problem with colour fringing on the edges, esp cameras with large sensors. The bigger the sensor, the more noticeable it is, esp in highlights.

Quote: "Of course, certain areas of photography remain the domain of 4x5s, simply due to the resolution required, or the flexibility of the available lenses."

-> resolution one of the things i like. 4x5 allows a good photographer to perform the near impossible; at times almost breaking the laws of physics when it comes to the way it can render an image. only camera i can think of that allows almost infinite depth of field while the lens is wide open.

[dlcmh]

Originally posted by azrul@Jun 25 2005, 05:33 PM
For those who don't know what I, I shoot interiors. Kiss off custom curves etc, because they never work for interiors. Every room and every corner has to be treated independently. If you're a production line photographer working with consistent lighting, custom curves work quite well but interiors are a totally different story.

Quote: "Starting with the Nikon D70, and onwards to Nikon D2X, Nikon D50, the Canon 20D, 1Ds MkII and 350D, the image output is comparable to what one gets with film, IMO."

-> actually image quality is the least of my worries. as for the cameras, each of them have their own 'quirks' when they deal with white balance. most of my prints are max 20x30" which any of these cameras is perfectly capable of doing, BUT like i mentioned in my previous posting months ago, film still renders a LOT more detail. Also, there is a problem with colour fringing on the edges, esp cameras with large sensors. The bigger the sensor, the more noticeable it is, esp in highlights.

OK, Azrul - this is a good one to discuss. You mentioned shooting interiors. Wouldn't shooting with film present the same challenges? After all, each brand of film has its own "curve", so to speak.

BTW, I still think that shooting film with the appropriate equipment is still the best way to shoot interiors (from a face-to-face discusion we had many months ago, and also from doing a lot of reading up on the strict requirements imposed by architectural photography)

Regarding colour fringing in highlights and other aberrations (seen especially with large sensors), I agree, that's digital showing its ugly and infantile side.

[azrul]

I shoot most of my interiors with specific films. The colours are never as perfect as I want them and that's where they are drum scanned and my retoucher works on them.

For architecture, it's generally quite OK. Little needs to be done since I only shoot in good weather. Ultimately, my work is done once I pack the camera. 'Editing' is more like 'sorting' and with 120 and 4x5" transparencies it's a breeze... dump it on a colour correct lightbox and you can instantly see what works and what doesn't. I hate spending ages staring at thumbnails on a screen.

[wKkaY]

Originally posted by chinks@Jun 25 2005, 01:54 PM
Back in da ol' days, to touch things up had to blow up a print, do hours & hours of touch up and re-shoot the touched up work.
Is this for real or did you make it up? ;)

BTW, what is shooting 'interiors'?

[BurgaFlippinMan]

interiors of buildings, rooms...the like.

[asmd]

right now is when both film and digital have ovelrlapped considerably. heck, not so long ago good folk were cribbing that digital simply didnt have the resolution to match film... and everybody simply nodded in agreement. right now is when it would provoke a drawn out conversation that could go either way.. now that digital has matured a little more.
azrul has a very valid point in that digital would probably tax the photographer more if he did his own retouching or sent it out to a retoucher (either physically or financially).
i certainly am not going to pretend to know where this will eventually lead to.. or the ins and outs of the pro photog world (but i can imagine though)... but in my humble opinion,
not using digital is as wrong as not using film.... or the other way around if it suits you.
its really up to the photog to see what suits him best. after all, when it comes to professional photography... its bread and butter. not like the hobbyist who doesnt have deadlines to meet to put food on the table.
the end justifies the means.
you do what you need to do to get the job done the best you know how.
your article was a good read azrul... digital right now has its place. you just got to know your needs and where to place it appropriately.

regards,
asmd.

[azrul]

quote:"not using digital is as wrong as not using film"

-> i had this conversation last week with some photographers from singapore. discounting one medium for another is not the way to go. no one medium is better than the other. both have their merits in their own right. admittedly, even film doesn't have the flexibility of digital when it comes to shooting interiors... tungten film is balanced for 3200K while daylight is balanced to 5500K. most interiors are a mixture of various new world artificial light sources and trying to get them right on film is never easy. recently i had an interior that required a colour balance of 2450K to get it just right while with film, there would be extreme difficulty to get the colour balance right while compensating for exposure. digital's merit is that colour balance can be adjusted almost steplessly compared to film and that is why i recommend it to most of my clients for shooting interiors. i can perceive a variation of 100K on screen so when using film, the variation would tremendous. however, if the desired output is a transparency, it's extra work. conversely, if the trans going into production use, then a retoucher will work on it and colours are adjusted later.

i tend to reserve my 4x5" to mostly outdoor work since it's application outdoors is subject to much less variation than indoors. digital is great for interior work but the only hazard is its ease in blowing highlights such as light sources or windows. this requires often requires layering to correct the problem.

[digitalartist]

Thank God I only shoot for kicks.....and dare I say the post-retouching is actually a pleasure ???? I suppose its a pleasure because you can actually STOP retouching when you're bored and especially when there's a good documentary on the telly...

I feel for you Azrul....go get a retouching assistant and get your life back, because the march of digital is probably unstoppable. So when's our next roti canai session??? Ask for square roti canais if you want them freshly tossed..something I learned from the roti canai master.

:D

[digitalartist]

Originally posted by nadiahkimie@Jun 24 2005, 03:13 PM
Oh, one more thing...

Azrul, ted & whomever shoots 4x5's... do you shoot batik? As in, not fashion, but the actual kain itself.


Heck, Nadiah, I'd shoot those bateks for free with my 1 DS simply for digital copies of the pics, and also to have a shootout with the 4x5....

But alas, I'm committed for other more interesting persuits...maybe next time....

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[azrul]

Quote: "Thank God I only shoot for kicks.....and dare I say the post-retouching is actually a pleasure ?"
-> i have to agree that i've been ultra reluctant to get a retoucher all this while because i love the sense of having control over every image. i'm sure you do too. i am planning to wrangle a 'harem' of retouchers that can do work for me on a job to job basis once the studio is up and running. i used to love retouching my stuff since i could do whatever i wanted with it... well, that was like ages ago when digital work was the minority. yup... need to get my life back. it's 2.08 am now and i just returned home after a long night with a client and i have to retouch some stuff yet again for delivery tomorrow. sigh.

Quote: "Heck, Nadiah, I'd shoot those bateks for free with my 1 DS simply for digital copies of the pics, and also to have a shootout with the 4x5.... "

-> can i don't mind doing it for comparison.

Quote: " So when's our next roti canai session?"

-> this weekend can ah? this week has been hectic.

[chizuoka]

I dun get it.. digital was supposed to "Save" you time. You can see your shots on your screen immediately. So you are supposed to get the photo right at that very moment already. Why process again when you get back?

Could it be because your mind tells you "Oh, you do not have to get it right the first time, because you can always edit it back home" B) So, you dun care to get it right the first time and just shoot.

Film also does require post processing isnt it.. if you did not do it right the first time. Removing stuff like facial defects are also required both in film and in digital right. So there should not be any difference in post processing time for digital n film.

In fact you save alot of time Not Going to develop your films yourself and just transfer to your PC.

Ha ha.. i dunno.. just what i think la....

[azrul]

quote: "Why process again when you get back? "
-> read the earlier part of this thread. i shoot interiors. colour correction. etc...

quote: "So you are supposed to get the photo right at that very moment already"
->thats true for most things, but try that with interiors.

quote: " dun get it.. digital was supposed to "Save" you time."
-> try shooting by day and spend an entire night extracting RAW files and doing the colour correction for next day delivery.

quote: "Film also does require post processing isnt it.. if you did not do it right the first time."
-> nope. that's the dirty work of the graphic artist. my job is just to send in film to the lab and collect it.

quote: " Removing stuff like facial defects are also required both in film and in digital right. So there should not be any difference in post processing time for digital n film. "
-> i don't do that, the agencies or magazines do that kinda dirty work (the retouching you're referring to is agency quality DI work which is something I don't do). again, i think you misunderstand. if it's done on film, it's done once and it's the final image since film is predictable. i deliver film direct to the client; if there is drum scanning, the most that happens is colour matching the scan to the trans. shoot a raw file and the files are never 100% predictable, you're forced to edit them. then again if you read my earlier post, the bulk of my work is interiors/architecture.

quote: "In fact you save alot of time Not Going to develop your films yourself and just transfer to your PC. "
-> i don't develop them myself. transparencies are sent to a lab since E6 is a mechanical process. for your information, work only STARTS when the images are transferred to the PC and the post-processing begins.

[Kelvin K]

Get an ExpoDisk for your DSLR to see if it will give you color accuracy.

[azrul]

nah... that's not the solution. there is no ONE correct colour balance for shooting interiors. every client has different preferences.

[maxby]

I notice there is a real difference between photography as means of earning a living and photography as a hobby. So some of the suggestions may not be backed up by experience in this critical arena.

It is just like a person who has experience building his own house thinking that he can also develop a housing scheme too..... :lol: :ph34r: :lol:

[Yen]

I guess if u cari makan taking photos, then u just hv to make yr pictures sell and satisfy your clients. If digital doesnt work for u then what 2 do. If going digital means the need to hire assistants or loose valuable sleeping time then the decision is so easy to make - Azrul should stick to the media that has worked so well for him before - film.

The following should make an interesting reading - comparison between 1dsmk2 and the Phase One P25.

[URL=http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds-mk11-vs-p25.shtml]

[ted]

Originally posted by maxby@Jul 1 2005, 04:57 PM
I notice there is a real difference between photography as means of earning a living and photography as a hobby. So some of the suggestions may not be backed up by experience in this critical arena.

It is just like a person who has experience building his own house thinking that he can also develop a housing scheme too..... :lol: :ph34r: :lol:
very subtle, but methink the subtleties is lost here

:pimpin_ted: :pimpin_ted: :lol: :pimpin_ted: :pimpin_ted:

coz they never build housing scheme, nor they do photography as a living.

apologies to y'all who felt offended by my post here B)

[Brian]

Originally posted by Yen@Jul 4 2005, 11:01 AM
The following should make an interesting reading - comparison between 1dsmk2 and the Phase One P25.

[URL=http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds-mk11-vs-p25.shtml]
I don't trust that Luminous Landscapes guy one bit. Seriously. If you read through more then a couple of his reviews you'll see a *huge* lop-sided bias...often based on no more then "artistic opinion" (because the physics of the universe fail his suppositions). :rolleyes:

[ted]

'suppositions', must look that up

[ted]

Okies got it, link here (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supposition).

Oh, 'artistic opinion' we have a lot here in PM.com. Mykamera? forget it, majority of them just girl shootist...

Apologies to Mykamera forummers.

[Snapshot]

Great article azrul.

I've always admired the pros but if your's is a typical "day in the office", boy I'm glad that I just do photography for fun. :)

[azrul]

film is still not a viable alternative for rush jobs or for clients that ONLY want files.

[betazone]

Hi Azrul, Thanks for sharing your insights with us. Indeed eye-opener especially for us pro-wannabes. However I would also like to know what are your returns after switching to digital? I mean do you have more customers...higher revenue, net profit..?
In other words, is the sacrifice worth it ?

Matt

[maxby]

Though this article was written 2 years ago, has digital photography progressed since then to make things simpler for the Pros? I am just wondering out loud.

[teohjitkhiam]

I just want to state on record that I have never done any commercial photography work before i.e. I am not a pro, but I would like to add my two cents, if it was worth anything in the first place.

A couple of weeks ago, I went for a amateur model shoot called TFCD, which basically means the models pose for you for free in return for a CD of their photographs. Anyway, some of these guys were snapping away in RAW format like nobody's business.

I think it took them two, three weeks to do the post-processing and finally hand-over the CDs to the models. It got me thinking about what a senior PM'er said during the Raya open house. In effect he advocated that, and I am paraphrasing here, six hours of pre-preparation may save six hours of post-processing at the end of the day.

So, I think it is the amount of work put in before the shoot that counts, and not the actual shoot or post-processing. Digital has enable the M249 SAW spray-and-pray mentality, where in the hope of getting that one good shot out of every one hundred. But, hey, I'm just shootin' my two cents mouth off and mebbe as an amateur, I am utterly ignorant on how a workflow of a pro looks like.

Though this article was written 2 years ago, has digital photography progressed since then to make things simpler for the Pros? I am just wondering out loud.

[rook_1e]

Thanks for digging this out. discussions in forums years ago are more serious than discussions today. Today's discussion is more like flaming, sharing photos or poisoning or WTB and WTS. Digg more..

[Steven Leong]

Though this article was written 2 years ago, has digital photography progressed since then to make things simpler for the Pros? I am just wondering out loud.

Is it possible to shoot film, process the film, do a high-res scan into your PC, burn a CD for the client by 8am next morning if your shoot finishes at 10pm at night?

Oftentimes, I find shooting digital is the only way (not that I shoot film at all nowadays). ::)

[Steven Leong]

I just want to state on record that I have never done any commercial photography work before i.e. I am not a pro, but I would like to add my two cents, if it was worth anything in the first place.

A couple of weeks ago, I went for a amateur model shoot called TFCD, which basically means the models pose for you for free in return for a CD of their photographs. Anyway, some of these guys were snapping away in RAW format like nobody's business.

I think it took them two, three weeks to do the post-processing and finally hand-over the CDs to the models. It got me thinking about what a senior PM'er said during the Raya open house. In effect he advocated that, and I am paraphrasing here, six hours of pre-preparation may save six hours of post-processing at the end of the day.

So, I think it is the amount of work put in before the shoot that counts, and not the actual shoot or post-processing. Digital has enable the M249 SAW spray-and-pray mentality, where in the hope of getting that one good shot out of every one hundred. But, hey, I'm just shootin' my two cents mouth off and mebbe as an amateur, I am utterly ignorant on how a workflow of a pro looks like.

The expectations of clients have changed nowadays, clients have full knowledge that we can touch-up photos and fully expect photographers to deliver "perfect" shots... shots that are retouched to remove any blemishes, any foreign objects.... colors look the way the way whether the weather was cooperative or not.

Simply put, unless you are really good and really lucky or your clients don't expect much about quality, post-processing is PART of the workflow. The only difference is HOW MUCH post-processing you do.

Now this is talking about professional photography, I rarely retouch any of my personal work except cloning dust spots and occasionally, adjusting WB and exposure.

[superkitty]

So, I think it is the amount of work put in before the shoot that counts, and not the actual shoot or post-processing. Digital has enable the M249 SAW spray-and-pray mentality, where in the hope of getting that one good shot out of every one hundred.

Hey, M249 SAW is a great machine gun if you are not triggle happy... at least in the computer game..:D)

What counts is the product itself. It doesn't matter whether you take six hour planning and one hour PP or the other way around. And I think if somebody can simply spray a hundred shots and get one really good one, so be it. It is still a good picture. Of course you can call the photographer cheating but technology is constantly changing the way we do things. A good photo is still a good photo.


Digital is the future... :D):D):D)

[zaxxshoxx]

great article