Professional Photographers: Film vs Digital workflow?

foodpoison

foodpoison

Messages
6,253
Name
Sean
Edit My Images
Yes
So, professional photographers, preferably photographers working to a deadline for a client such as a magazine editor, I'm mainly looking at event/sports photographers but anything that you've been contracted to do really. Portrait photographers or wedding photographers, your input would be greatly appreciated too.

Now, please, only participate in this if you shot film and then moved to digital, mainly professional but amateur opinions too.

I would like to know in under 10 steps:
-Your film workflow
-Your digital workflow

I would also like to have up to 3 points of each:
-What's better about your digital workflow?
-What did you prefer about your film workflow?


So!
For example:

My film workflow:
1.Shoot film
2. Immediately take film to processors
3. Process film, have film cut into strips of 6 and archive film in folder with shoot title and date
4. Look at contact sheet and 6x4 prints for best photographs
5. Reprint best photographs in darkroom
6. Send the best photographs to client in form of 6x4 prints to see if they're interested in purchasing

My digital workflow:
1. Shoot
2. Bring files home and back up on server
3. Process all raw images, check exposure, delete any real cock-ups (i.e. super blurry, completely underexposed etc etc)
4. Pick out best and separate into folder
5. Process to best of my ability as quickly as possible
6. Pick out best for client and either send via email or hand a CD

Dig. Pros:
- a lot quicker
- can check I'm shooting properly while I'm on the go
- easier to post process

film pros:
- feels a lot more hands on
- physical objects - negatives - less likely to lose them
- choosing the right film means most of the pp work is done for me

Now, your turn. This is a research project for my photography unit essay and I need real world information not just stuff written in books.
Thanks guys, this is much appreciated.
 
I agree entirely with your examples and pros and cons. Not much for me to add really.


Steve.
 
Perhaps you could add in some timing. People think that digital is instantaneous now but some time is obviously needed for post processing just as some time is needed for processing the film.

As an example, my father used to do wedding photography as a second income. The process was: Take pictures, send film to lab, get proofs back, put proofs in album for customer, get repeat orders from customer printed by same lab.

The current trend in wedding photography seems to be to take thousands of images, spend many hours post processing then.... well, I don't know what happens next any more!

If I was doing wedding photography (and I don't ever want to) I would do it with film and get the lab to do my 'post processing' for me. I still think that with access to a good lab, I could get proof prints from film to a customer quicker than I could do it digitally.

Something else which may be worth mentioning is the number of images typically taken in a session using either medium and the expectations of your customers.


Steve.
 
foodpoison said:
film pros:
- physical objects - negatives - less likely to lose them
Click to expand...

Can't say I completely agree with that, I had an interview with one of the top 100 UK wedding photographers today. They talked me through their storage process of digital files, backing up to multiple optical disks, leaving one disk in an entirely seperate house. Carry current wedding shots with them, whenever they leave the house etc.

You only have one set of negatives, if you lose them you're bummed. You can easily make safer backups of digital files in many different locations.

Anyway, my work flow:
1. Shoot.
2. SD card reader, copy to computer HDD, and external harddrive.
3. delete clearly rubbish shots in lightroom
4. edit the shots and save a in a folder called "edit" leaving a folder called "raw" for the raw shots.
5. when editing has finished I Rar up the edited and raw files. Copy them to my external.
6. Format memory card and delete the inital copies I made from the SD card ( as I now have rar files for those.)
 
Wigster said:
Can't say I completely agree with that, I had an interview with one of the top 100 UK wedding photographers today. They talked me through their storage process of digital files, backing up to multiple optical disks, leaving one disk in an entirely seperate house. Carry current wedding shots with them, whenever they leave the house etc.

You only have one set of negatives, if you lose them you're bummed. You can easily make safer backups of digital files in many different locations.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point, one which I hadn't thought of, hence why I made the thread. thanks very much :)
 
Steve Smith said:
Perhaps you could add in some timing. People think that digital is instantaneous now but some time is obviously needed for post processing just as some time is needed for processing the film.

As an example, my father used to do wedding photography as a second income. The process was: Take pictures, send film to lab, get proofs back, put proofs in album for customer, get repeat orders from customer printed by same lab.

The current trend in wedding photography seems to be to take thousands of images, spend many hours post processing then.... well, I don't know what happens next any more!

If I was doing wedding photography (and I don't ever want to) I would do it with film and get the lab to do my 'post processing' for me. I still think that with access to a good lab, I could get proof prints from film to a customer quicker than I could do it digitally.

Something else which may be worth mentioning is the number of images typically taken in a session using either medium and the expectations of your customers.


Steve.
Click to expand...

This also, thanks!
 
You don't get your hands wet working with digital - that's a huge plus. Delivery is expected in hours (or quicker) now compared to days in the film days. Huge huge advantage knowing you've got something useable as you shoot.
 
Sean, do your own bloomin' homework :LOL:
 
Wigster said:
Can't say I completely agree with that, I had an interview with one of the top 100 UK wedding photographers today. They talked me through their storage process of digital files, backing up to multiple optical disks, leaving one disk in an entirely seperate house. Carry current wedding shots with them, whenever they leave the house etc.

You only have one set of negatives, if you lose them you're bummed. You can easily make safer backups of digital files in many different locations.
Click to expand...

This was my first thought too!
 
Wigster said:
Can't say I completely agree with that, I had an interview with one of the top 100 UK wedding photographers today. They talked me through their storage process of digital files, backing up to multiple optical disks, leaving one disk in an entirely seperate house. Carry current wedding shots with them, whenever they leave the house etc.

You only have one set of negatives, if you lose them you're bummed. You can easily make safer backups of digital files in many different locations.
Click to expand...

Well...yes but...no, all you have to do is look after the negs, its a physical thing you can hold, you don't have to put your trust in a third party.
If you lost the negs I agree, you would be bummed for definite, but the scope for that kind of catastrophic loss to occur is much less when we don't rely on electricity, electronic components and other people to take care of our stuffs.
The reason you are backed up, double backed up in triplicate with belt and braces is, digital storage isn't as reliable as a cupboard....:)
Its odds of any one out of a million components failing V odds of cupboard burning to ash...
 
joxby said:
Its odds of any one out of a million components failing V odds of cupboard burning to ash...
Click to expand...

Whilst the photographer is alive and assuming he is vigilant with his backups, the digital file has a slight advantage in the longevity department - but only just.

Once he is gone and no one really cares, the digital files will eventually become un-readable. The negatives and prints sitting in the cupbpoard will still be there.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top