There are certain disadvantages to using digital photography for professional shoots.

I was once asked to shoot a row of store facades in Binondo. There was a row of trucks parked along the street obstructing the view. The client nonetheless asked me to take the shot. It was only after I had pressed the trigger that the client said, "Kaya mo naman burahin ang trucks para lumabas ang mga tindahan sa likod di ba?"

A fellow pro complained that a client was refusing to pay him his usual per layout fees because he had switched to digital. "Dapat arawan na lang ang bayad sa iyo. Hindi ka na gumagastos sa polaroids, film at processing."

Clients used to asked me if I had a filter for this or that purpose when I was still shooting film. "May filter ka para mukhang umaaraw? Ang lakas kasi ng ulan eh." What I now here is quite similar. "Kaya naman sa Photoshop tanggalin ang ulan para mukhang umaaaraw di ba?"

Does anyone else have a similar rant? :D

Mr. JO, you are such a funny man, kaka bawas ng homesick dito sa saudi. hahaha. Di ka ba napa hagalpak ng tawa sa request ng client mo?

A couple ask me to shoot their pre wed, They Guy said we would like to keep the negatives, I told them I shoot digital, so I would provide them soft copies in CD format as negatives, the wife blurted out to his husband to be " di ba yung kapatid mo bumili ng Digital Ixus, sa kanya na lang kaya kasi pareho lang naman digital cam. :)

Some clients, specially in event photography... expected me to produce exhorbitant number of frames coz they new I was shooting digital... The worse part about it is that they also expected when I gave them the photos; that all are already edited masterpieces of digital art... no facial blemishes... etc. etc. :)

tell your client that you are a photographer, not a magician :)

tell your client that you are a photographer, not a magician :)

Jo, Kai, oh yeah!!! Really!!! While I do not shoot professionally, I do get my fair share of request to do a "Dr. Vicky Belo" on my shots!!! Pare, pimple at konting blemishes kaya ko, but please, double chin, love handles and boobs enlargement!!!! I am a photographer, not a miracle worker!!!:D :D :D

I used to travel with several rolls of Velvia and a few alkalines when on location shoot. I thought that with digital photography I would travel lighter, but no. My bag now is full of chords and chargers. . .for the storage/viewer, AA rechargeables, laptop, etc.

Of course, you have to bring the portable generator on extended shoots on remote locations (true with both film or digital).

Happy shooting.:)

I've been asked by a client to change clothes of the models (3) in an image for the reason we cannot reshoot because the models were just flown in and had left the country when the photo compre was disapproved by the owner(client side).:) But no choice we cannot say no, so we did. We were able to do it by getting another model as body model and redo exactly the same lighting, angle... etc. and have to get also similar vitals of the models from the existing image. then after shoot drop out body model of the new image then paste it to the old image ala barbie doll magic. all this with a publication deadline the following day. whew.:RedEye: Final image was approved and published.:Grin:

@arnel, you can/should charge extra for that.. its not your fault that the client/owner disapproved the outift :) * just read in another thread that you work for an agency, so am sure na you did charged the client extra for the additional work done :P

i think its not a disadvantage, but rather the advantage for digital photography. imagine if you shot everything on film.. mas mahirap and more expensive to "change/match outfits"

Hi Kai,

Yes we did.:) a lot of extras.

Yes you are right we can say its more of an advantage. rather disadvantage, less effrot, time, and bucks.:Grin:

btw, i've seen your many fashion spreads, great work !!!. maybe we can have coffee sometime.:)

@arnel, you can/should charge extra for that.. its not your fault that the client/owner disapproved the outift :) * just read in another thread that you work for an agency, so am sure na you did charged the client extra for the additional work done :P

i think its not a disadvantage, but rather the advantage for digital photography. imagine if you shot everything on film.. mas mahirap and more expensive to "change/match outfits"

One sort of disadvantage with digital photography is that many photographers end up lacking the discipline of coming up with a really good shot. In film days, we would be very cautious about shooting. Since we couldn't have instant previews like we do with digital, plus the cost of film and processing, we would take great efforts to get everything right. We would do our best to make sure everything is in place, that lighting and exposure was as perfect as possible. Nowadays, there is tendency to just shoot and fix later.

Some don't even attempt to meter for the right exposure. They just shoot, look at the lcd, and adjust along the way. That procedure may work but it isn't very precise. Its so trial and error. And relying on that procedure has caused a lot of problems. One photographer shooting for glossy mag asked my help to fix up a problem he had with the images of a recent shoot. He didn't get the correct exposure and just checked his lcd. LCDs can be decieving, and the result was there was severe overexposure on some areas of the skin. As in there parts of the face that were too washed out that there was no more data.

Another disadvantage in a sense is that a number of shoots can end up being less challenging. Its fun to be creative and working around a nice background and creatively lighting things. But due to the convenience of digital editing, a number of shots are just done plainly against a white background. They will just add the background later in photoshop. It may be a blessing too in a sense. But for a photographer who enjoys the creative process... well... its not as fun.

One sort of disadvantage with digital photography is that many photographers end up lacking the discipline of coming up with a really good shot. In film days, we would be very cautious about shooting. Since we couldn't have instant previews like we do with digital, plus the cost of film and processing, we would take great efforts to get everything right. We would do our best to make sure everything is in place, that lighting and exposure was as perfect as possible. Nowadays, there is tendency to just shoot and fix later.

Some don't even attempt to meter for the right exposure. They just shoot, look at the lcd, and adjust along the way. That procedure may work but it isn't very precise. Its so trial and error. And relying on that procedure has caused a lot of problems. One photographer shooting for glossy mag asked my help to fix up a problem he had with the images of a recent shoot. He didn't get the correct exposure and just checked his lcd. LCDs can be decieving, and the result was there was severe overexposure on some areas of the skin. As in there parts of the face that were too washed out that there was no more data.

Another disadvantage in a sense is that a number of shoots can end up being less challenging. Its fun to be creative and working around a nice background and creatively lighting things. But due to the convenience of digital editing, a number of shots are just done plainly against a white background. They will just add the background later in photoshop. It may be a blessing too in a sense. But for a photographer who enjoys the creative process... well... its not as fun.

:) All so true... Specially on the diminishing photographic discipline...

Hi Louie,

I agree with you. Back in those Velvia days, when I see something sticking (say a tree branch) into the frame, I move so as to avoid it. But now with digital, you can just shoot it and remove it in post processing, which I do not encourage. Look for another angle, find a different viewpoint, bend, move up or stoop.

This is what I always tell participants in my location photo tours. After all, photography is both discipline and craft. Get the image right the first time with little or no "manipulation" in post processing.

I still pick up those candy wrappers whenever possible before I click, although I now fully shoot in digital.

Happy shooting!

___________________
http://www.yklcolor.com/images/noli

I agree with the discipline. People tends to shoot and shoot and think of post processing later on without even minding if they are getting the correct exposure or not.

I've been asked by a client to change clothes of the models (3) in an image for the reason we cannot reshoot because the models were just flown in and had left the country when the photo compre was disapproved by the owner(client side).:) But no choice we cannot say no, so we did. We were able to do it by getting another model as body model and redo exactly the same lighting, angle... etc. and have to get also similar vitals of the models from the existing image. then after shoot drop out body model of the new image then paste it to the old image ala barbie doll magic. all this with a publication deadline the following day. whew.:RedEye: Final image was approved and published.:Grin:

Hi, Arnel.

Out of curiousity, did the original model ever find out? :)

It seems like there are no big disadvantage of being a digital photographer as i can see on the post above compared to a film shooter. Sooner or later on the megapixel race can catch up with high resolution of the Large Format output. We have the power of both worlds, now a days digital photographer is also a developer all-in-one who can decide what will be the outcome of the product according to the needs.

But i agree that lack of discipline (lazy as it is) is becoming more pre-dominant on digital photography world. The digital freedom brought into photography makes the photography leap into unimaginable bounds compared 20yrs ago. What we got is annoyance and igorance of our customers and i think that's the only disadvantage.

It seems like there are no big disadvantage of being a digital photographer as i can see on the post above compared to a film shooter. Sooner or later on the megapixel race can catch up with high resolution of the Large Format output. We have the power of both worlds, now a days digital photographer is also a developer all-in-one who can decide what will be the outcome of the product according to the needs.

But i agree that lack of discipline (lazy as it is) is becoming more pre-dominant on digital photography world. The digital freedom brought into photography makes the photography leap into unimaginable bounds compared 20yrs ago. What we got is annoyance and igorance of our customers and i think that's the only disadvantage.

:) I agree with you Jerome... That's why if only most digital photographers would shoot in such a way that they treat their shots/frames more like film... Masaya sana! :D Kaso, almost everyone is guilty of being trigger happy at some point in time...

lemme jump in... =)

a disadvantage for me is not having those negatives. file formats change, so the files i've stored now may not be viewable 50yrs from now. unless of course there's a way around this that I don't know of yet...

Clients expect too much from photographers nowadays. Photographers should be creating images, not fixing them.

I wonder what would happen if the light meter or the image previews stopped working on the dslrs the photographers use today. A photographer with a sound knowledge of exposure would keep on shooting in manual mode and set the exposure according to the lighting conditions. A photographer without this knowledge will be stuck and will send his or her camera for repair asap.

That is why I am more excited during long trips to the wilderness because I get to dump my dslr. With a film camera, you only worry about film and batteries during the shoot. And with limited shots, you think more about your composition and exposure before pressing the shutter.

If it weren't for the cost and the clients, I guess we'd all be shooting Velvia and everything will be alright.

I've read a some stories that were very similar to my past experiences.

I do agree that some photographers use digital technology as a crutch and lack a bit of discipline in shooting.

The technology presently available isn't at fault. It's the person using the technology :D

lemme jump in... =)

a disadvantage for me is not having those negatives. file formats change, so the files i've stored now may not be viewable 50yrs from now. unless of course there's a way around this that I don't know of yet...

Actually Scott this is one of the reasons why Adobe advocates and stresses the relevance of it's DNG format... So that there would be a standard RAW format file for all camera brands/types, according to them... :Grin:

I was pondering... Since digital cameras are getting better and better and alot more easier to use year after year... Aren't photographers suppose to be scared that the idea of hiring a PRO in the near future will be almost obsolete since, everything can be done easily, competitively and more cost friendly in the user level? :)

almost everyone who owns a car, can drive. lalo na now, cars come with automatic tranny, full power interiors, sat nav and all the things to make driving easy.

but not everyone can be alonzo or schummy.

camera just like cars.. is just a tool.. you still need someone to operate it and make full use of its potentials :)

almost everyone who owns a car, can drive. lalo na now, cars come with automatic tranny, full power interiors, sat nav and all the things to make driving easy.

but not everyone can be alonzo or schummy.

camera just like cars.. is just a tool.. you still need someone to operate it and make full use of its potentials :)

perfect analogy! :Grin:

Naaaah..... :D

I've already had several past experiences wherein a client hired someone who lacked the necessary experience and skill for pro shoots. The guy had the gear - but that was it. I was eventually hired to reshoot everything.


I was pondering... Since digital cameras are getting better and better and alot more easier to use year after year... Aren't photographers suppose to be scared that the idea of hiring a PRO in the near future will be almost obsolete since, everything can be done easily, competitively and more cost friendly in the user level? :)

Naaaah..... :D

I've already had several past experiences wherein a client hired someone who lacked the necessary experience and skill for pro shoots. The guy had the gear - but that was it. I was eventually hired to reshoot everything.

Sir Jo Avila... I'm one of your silent fans! :)

The final piece of the camera puzzle is the photographer.

:)As the technology in photography steadily evolves, there will be a time that everybody feels like a pro, shoot like a pro since they can get good results on a point-and-shoot cameras. The only difference is that pro's know's how to read the light, frame it right, process it right and knows how to sell their products.

The only difference is that pro's know's how to read the light, frame it right, process it right and knows how to sell their products.

:) Actually, this is suppose to be the ideal... However, realistically speaking... There are alot of Non-pros which can really do most, if not all of these things and more; better than most professionals.

However, realistically speaking... There are alot of Non-pros which can really do most, if not all of these things and more; better than most professionals.

I agree to that Earl since im too a non-pro. :)

But there are things that pros have to do that non-pros don't do.

At the end of the day a pro has to make a profit. :D

hmm "pro" doesnt mean magaling. a professional is called such kasi yan ang hanap buhay nya.

of course possible na mas magaling yun ibang non-pro sa mga pro.

hmm "pro" doesnt mean magaling. a professional is called such kasi yan ang hanap buhay nya.

of course possible na mas magaling yun ibang non-pro sa mga pro.

But the ideal is he has to be atleast better than average as well as more proficient. :)