Page 14 - NyghtVision Magazine Volume 3 #1
P. 14
14 INTERVIEW: FALCON, PART 1
devastating—just as digital has been current- Francois: You mentioned that digital bears
ly. Many established professionals who were its own costs, albeit not as obvious as those as-
considered “the names” in the photography sociated with film. Care to elaborate?
industry when we started are now gone. Falcon: Absolutely. Let’s go back to the il-
Francois: Reason being? lusion that digital is cheap. The fact is, if you
Falcon: There were several reasons why this want to do it correctly, it’s not. I admit that
happened. One of the main reasons was that I resisted JD’s recommendations early on be-
many established pros were slow to move to cause I believed digital didn’t require all the
digital. So, when the market shifted (and the “gear” that film did. But I was wrong. Believe
debate over whether or not film would be re- me, not everything can be fixed in Photoshop.
placed ended rather suddenly), they were However, the perception persists, and it’s tak-
caught off-guard. Also, many pros had studios en hold. In part, this is the result of cameras in
with significant overhead. And while digital cell phones and what I call the “Apple-ization”
did do away with much of the overhead asso- of the world. As digital images have become
ciated with film, one of the things we learned ubiquitous, the overall quality of these images
quickly was that digital—done correctly—isn’t has become quite poor. LCDs make them look
cheap at all. Digital has its own costs. They are far better than they are. It’s like everything
just not as obvious as they were in the days of else in a commodity driven world: The more
film. Anyway, when digital took root, day rates of something there is, the less value it has.
fell, licensing fees changed... and the pros just Francois: Can you offer an example?
couldn’t compete. Falcon: Look at what happened to wedding
Francois: Do you feel this was primarily a photographers. The idea that “digital is cheap”
result of their lack of foresight? hit that market hard. On average, a bride now
Falcon: No. Another reason why this hap- expects to pay $500-$800 for two photogra-
pened has to do with the industry itself. It isn’t phers for a ten-hour day, plus she’s been told
regulated. The various organizations have no that if she isn’t getting all the images at the
real credibility in the marketplace among end of her wedding day, she is being taken ad-
consumers. For example, we joined the PPA vantage of.
thinking it would be beneficial to be certified. Francois: Playing the devil’s advocate for
However, we soon discovered that certifica- the moment, why is that a problem?
tion requires almost as much “investment” Falcon: First, I must tell you that when we
in local and regional PPA groups as it does run across a bride who didn’t hire us, the first
in learning about photography and honing thing she says is how much she regrets her
one’s skills. Plus, membership isn’t cheap. We decision. Wedding photography is one of the
looked at the market to see if PPA certification most difficult types of photography. Photog-
had any credibility and, as far as we could tell, raphers have to adjust to all kinds of changes
found that it really didn’t. Without some form that occur in real time. Even with a wedding
of industry-wide regulation or certification coordinator, things change unexpectedly.
program that has real market value, there is Weddings are highly emotional and there are
no barrier to entry. Anyone can go to a retail times when the mood shifts the wrong way.
store, purchase a camera, and declare them- Brides break down. Newlyweds bicker. In-
self a pro. laws fight.
nyghtvision magazine volume 3, number 1, WINTER 2013
