Are Clients Balking At Paying Film/Processing Costs?

Now that so many pros have migrated to digital workflow, are clients balking
at paying film and processing costs to those professional photographers that
continue to shoot on film?

Do you even itemize those line items separately, or just present one
combined bill?

Take, for example, weddings: do the digital guys mention the advantage of
not having to charge for film? I would think that could be a selling point
in situations where large numbers of images are captured.

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:3UXMh.1791$Qi2.1149@trndny07...
Now that so many pros have migrated to digital workflow, are clients
balking at paying film and processing costs to those professional
photographers that continue to shoot on film?

Do you even itemize those line items separately, or just present one
combined bill?

Take, for example, weddings: do the digital guys mention the advantage of
not having to charge for film? I would think that could be a selling
point in situations where large numbers of images are captured.

Do you itemize post production costs or how about a pro-rated amount to
cover the cost of the digital camera, how about software costs? There are
other costs aside from processing.

jeremy wrote:
Now that so many pros have migrated to digital workflow, are clients
balking at paying film and processing costs to those professional
photographers that continue to shoot on film?

Do you even itemize those line items separately, or just present one
combined bill?

Take, for example, weddings: do the digital guys mention the
advantage of not having to charge for film? I would think that could
be a selling point in situations where large numbers of images are
captured.

If I were a client, I would balk at separate processing costs,
absolutely. It wouldn't matter if it were 1967 or 2007. It's all part
of the overall process. Separate line items like that make me feel
like the photographer was being dishonest by quoting me a low price
just to get the business then padded their profit by adding extras
after-the-fact. As a customer, it would make me feel lied to... taken
advantage of. Quote me a price and be done with it.

This is just my attitude, however, and is a general attitude. It's not
restricted to just photography.

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:3UXMh.1791$Qi2.1149@trndny07...
Now that so many pros have migrated to digital workflow, are clients
balking at paying film and processing costs to those professional
photographers that continue to shoot on film?

Do you even itemize those line items separately, or just present one
combined bill?

Take, for example, weddings: do the digital guys mention the advantage of
not having to charge for film? I would think that could be a selling
point in situations where large numbers of images are captured.

If I were to shoot film for a client, the cost of processing would be folded
into the invoice, not itemized.
As far as comparing cost of digital to film, we never do that. What we do
comment on is that many of the few (if that doesn't sound like an oxymoron)
film shooters still state a limit to the number of images they will take
during an event. We point out that there is no limit to the number of
images we take.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:3UXMh.1791$Qi2.1149@trndny07...
Now that so many pros have migrated to digital workflow, are clients
balking at paying film and processing costs to those professional
photographers that continue to shoot on film?

In comparison with the extra man hours behind a computer screen? I doubt
they'd notice the difference.

Do you even itemize those line items separately, or just present one
combined bill?

I wouldn't, unless the client explicitly asked for it.

Take, for example, weddings: do the digital guys mention the advantage of
not having to charge for film? I would think that could be a selling
point in situations where large numbers of images are captured.
Instead of charging for film they charge for man hours...

The only real advantage of using digital is speed. Instead of having to
possibly wait days for your contact sheets you can have them in an hour or
so from completing the shoot.
Instead of having to wait days for custom work to be printed you can have it
ready in a few hours.

And you can charge for that speed...

"Jeroen Wenting" jwenting at hornet dot demon dot nl wrote in message
l.nl...

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:3UXMh.1791$Qi2.1149@trndny07...
Now that so many pros have migrated to digital workflow, are clients
balking at paying film and processing costs to those professional
photographers that continue to shoot on film?

In comparison with the extra man hours behind a computer screen? I doubt
they'd notice the difference.

Do you even itemize those line items separately, or just present one
combined bill?

I wouldn't, unless the client explicitly asked for it.

Take, for example, weddings: do the digital guys mention the advantage of
not having to charge for film? I would think that could be a selling
point in situations where large numbers of images are captured.
Instead of charging for film they charge for man hours...

The only real advantage of using digital is speed. Instead of having to
possibly wait days for your contact sheets you can have them in an hour or
so from completing the shoot.
Instead of having to wait days for custom work to be printed you can have
it ready in a few hours.

And you can charge for that speed...

Digital has more advantages than that.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

jeremy wrote:
Now that so many pros have migrated to digital workflow, are clients balking
at paying film and processing costs to those professional photographers that
continue to shoot on film?

Do you even itemize those line items separately, or just present one
combined bill?

Take, for example, weddings: do the digital guys mention the advantage of
not having to charge for film? I would think that could be a selling point
in situations where large numbers of images are captured.

Most businesses want a "turnkey" result with a list of what is included
that meets their needs. This may include one price for setups and NRE
and another price structure for repeat items (prints in this case or
other finished articles). They don't want to see "internals" very much
as it has little influence on a business decision when you have several
companies bidding on the same job.

The advantages for the pro shooting digital are mainly time/workflow
related.

Most bread and butter wedding photogs have a set of price options in
"packages" with pre-defined output (#'s of prints at various sizes,
albums, framed, etc.), with options for variations in the print run
beyond the package. His job is to capture the images that satisfy the
output requirement. The internals of getting there are completely
hidden from the customer and for some of these packages even declaring
whether the images are film or digital would be wasted breath.

OTOH, for a large formal wedding portrait (40" x 25") a LF film shot
will produce a superior result in most cases.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"TheDave©" wrote in message
news
jeremy wrote:
Now that so many pros have migrated to digital workflow, are clients
balking at paying film and processing costs to those professional
photographers that continue to shoot on film?

Do you even itemize those line items separately, or just present one
combined bill?

Take, for example, weddings: do the digital guys mention the
advantage of not having to charge for film? I would think that could
be a selling point in situations where large numbers of images are
captured.

If I were a client, I would balk at separate processing costs,
absolutely. It wouldn't matter if it were 1967 or 2007. It's all part
of the overall process. Separate line items like that make me feel
like the photographer was being dishonest by quoting me a low price
just to get the business then padded their profit by adding extras
after-the-fact. As a customer, it would make me feel lied to... taken
advantage of. Quote me a price and be done with it.

This is just my attitude, however, and is a general attitude. It's not
restricted to just photography.

Must be rough for you looking at the cellphone bill, the landline phone
bill, the cable tv bill, etc., etc., etc. But I DO agree with you. Can you
imagine how it'd be if you bought your groceries and then saw separate line
items for building rent, merchandise transportation, loss due to spoilage,
utilities, and labor costs added on. Many businesses have a business model
that is the height of arrogance.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Most businesses want a "turnkey" result with a list of what is included
that meets their needs. This may include one price for setups and NRE

I've always known "NRE" to stand for "non-recurring engineering" costs.
That doesn't make sense here. So, what does NRE mean?

and another price structure for repeat items (prints in this case or other
finished articles). They don't want to see "internals" very much as it
has little influence on a business decision when you have several
companies bidding on the same job.

SNIP

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

george wrote:
"TheDave)" wrote in message
jeremy wrote:
Now that so many pros have migrated to digital workflow, are
clients balking at paying film and processing costs to those
professional photographers that continue to shoot on film?

Do you even itemize those line items separately, or just present
one combined bill?

Take, for example, weddings: do the digital guys mention the
advantage of not having to charge for film? I would think that
could be a selling point in situations where large numbers of
images are captured.

If I were a client, I would balk at separate processing costs,
absolutely. It wouldn't matter if it were 1967 or 2007. It's all
part of the overall process. Separate line items like that make me
feel like the photographer was being dishonest by quoting me a low
price just to get the business then padded their profit by adding
extras after-the-fact. As a customer, it would make me feel lied
to... taken advantage of. Quote me a price and be done with it.

This is just my attitude, however, and is a general attitude. It's
not restricted to just photography.

Must be rough for you looking at the cellphone bill, the landline
phone bill, the cable tv bill, etc., etc., etc. But I DO agree with
you. Can you imagine how it'd be if you bought your groceries and
then saw separate line items for building rent, merchandise
transportation, loss due to spoilage, utilities, and labor costs
added on. Many businesses have a business model that is the height
of arrogance.

Phone bills, etc., generally add taxes and government-imposed fees, and
while I still don't "like" it, it's easier to understand why they're
listed separately. I did get into a lengthy discuission with my phone
company customer service rep one day because I was questioning many of
the items (many of which were named identically on the bill) and she
either couldn't or wouldn't tell me what they were for.

There was a big debate awhile back on an eBay newsgroup over what
constituted "handling" in shipping & handling and what the customer
should pay extra for. It was surprising to me how many sellers thought
customers should be billed for gas and time to the post office, etc.,
when justifying high shipping costs. I thought most overhead should be
priced into the item itself and not added at the end, and used an
example similar to yours that most stores do it this way.