honcho Posted October 16, 2011 Share #21 Posted October 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) .....Do any pros still shoot film for work? What kind of shots?...... All of my fine art landscape work, some stock images intended for interior decor and furnishings manufacturers and occasional architectural work depending upon the end use is taken on E6 film, either 6x9cm or 6x17cm. Those are my niche areas where film is just viable. I do all my scanning in-house. As far as my core business goes, that is fully digital and has been for 12 years. Outside of those niche areas where I can still make money and using my MP for fun, I do not miss film at all. Wild horses would not drag me into a darkroom again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 Hi honcho, Take a look here How many pros still use film?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Ronan Posted October 16, 2011 Share #22 Posted October 16, 2011 Ronan clearly hasn't read this thread! Many pro's shoot film. Don't just spout your opinion, it's better to quote facts. I talk from personal professional experience dating past 5 years. For 3 cities, Paris, NYC and Montreal. I take that over some random post about 'some professional' that makes 25k a year shooting film for his family & friends. I also look & search. I contact known professionals, i read recent articles and magazines, and heck, i've also walked into studios to take a look (mostly friends in the business & professionals i have contacted with references). Pro's shoot digital. Not 100% of them, but most. You want to stay on edge in this new VERY competitive market, you shoot digital. But like everything, you can take this post with a grain of salt. It's different everywhere and i'm sure in some places and for some types of photography (like mentioned before), some Pro's shoot more film than digital, but those are exceptions. I really don't know why it's so hard to believe. I'm guessing the people not accepting it are much older than me and has known film most of their life. But times changes. Heh, just look at the top camera makers... it's all digital now with the exception of one or two film bodies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim123 Posted October 16, 2011 Share #23 Posted October 16, 2011 To me photography is a magical process. So what really matters is the end result. If pros want to use film or digital thats their choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 16, 2011 Share #24 Posted October 16, 2011 I still use film for MF (Hasselblad, Veriwide and Horseman 6x12), Linhof 4x5 and rarely Deardorff 8x10". Not so much for 35mm although I have 8 Leica Ms. Still they have their place, but not so often today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronan Posted October 16, 2011 Share #25 Posted October 16, 2011 I still use film for MF (Hasselblad, Veriwide and Horseman 6x12), Linhof 4x5 and rarely Deardorff 8x10". Not so much for 35mm although I have 8 Leica Ms. Still they have their place, but not so often today. Now you're talking. Film medium format is still 'big' because of the high cost of medium format digital systems. But the trend is that if they can afford it, they buy it. Also when your competition is using the latest medium format system, you tend to follow that to keep on edge. Personal believes don't matter much when your clients are turned away because of your 50 year old camera that shoots film and they have to wait longer to get a result. You get better everything with digital (yes IQ too), but it has its costs. Since its a business, they have to think about that. In most cases, instant gratification (for you and your client) is a big + AND a cost saver. Also to be taken into consideration is POST PROCESSING. Digital Camera = Take picture, upload on computer, post process, digital/paper print. Film Camera = Take picture, process, scan (you better have a good scanner!), upload on computer, post process, digital/paper print. Try telling your clients to wait 1-2 days extra because you need to process/scan the photos. They will laugh at you and go somewhere else. All of my fine art landscape work, some stock images intended for interior decor and furnishings manufacturers and occasional architectural work depending upon the end use is taken on E6 film, either 6x9cm or 6x17cm. Those are my niche areas where film is just viable. I do all my scanning in-house. As far as my core business goes, that is fully digital and has been for 12 years. Outside of those niche areas where I can still make money and using my MP for fun, I do not miss film at all. Wild horses would not drag me into a darkroom again. That's the typical experience/response i received from professionals that have a primary shooting type and also niche(s). Honcho is not only a good photographer but a smart businessman. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 16, 2011 Share #26 Posted October 16, 2011 One can go to NYC and attend the PhotoPlus Expo at the end of this month and see how many of the vendors are selling film and darkroom related products vs. digital. And if you read over the list of seminars, there are many about digital technology, but few if any about film technology. (Best I can tell from browsing the list.) Granted this show has become a lot more "consumer," and "wanna be" oriented than when it was almost exclusively commercial and advertising pro shooter oriented. But there still are a lot of pros who attend. And it also targets wedding photographers much more now. I've attended this show annually for about 30 years and the change is pretty obvious to me that film and related equipment and materials have been on a steady decline at this show. Seminar Schedule | PhotoPlus Expo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 16, 2011 Share #27 Posted October 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) \Personal believes don't matter much when your clients are turned away because of your 50 year old camera that shoots film and they have to wait longer to get a result. It depends upon the the results they expect, does it not? If a client wants better than digital images, I would use MF or LF. You clearly would not, but try to get away with crappy little digital images. Good luck with that. That's all there is to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronan Posted October 16, 2011 Share #28 Posted October 16, 2011 It depends upon the the results they expect, does it not? If a client wants crappy digital images, I would not use MF or LF. You might. That's all there is to it. Digital images are not crappy. If anything, they are better than film and have been for a couple years (and has been proven true). That's purely professional gear i'm talking about. I don't touch consumer grade gear. Just look at what professionals use. What the big C's are R&D and putting on the market (for professionals). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 16, 2011 Share #29 Posted October 16, 2011 Digital images are not crappy. If anything, they are better than film and have been for a couple years (and has been proven true). That's purely professional gear i'm talking about. I don't touch consumer grade gear. Just look at what professionals use. What the big C's are R&D and putting on the market (for professionals). Your delusion feeds my market. Keep on believing that. It makes me more wealthy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronan Posted October 16, 2011 Share #30 Posted October 16, 2011 Your delusion feeds my market. Keep on believing that. It makes me more wealthy. Prove me wrong then. I hear of the 'magic' of film, so how come most professionals, enthusiast and amateurs use digital? Tell me why hundred of millions of dollars are poured into R&D. Saying 'film is special, film is magic, film is old' is not a valid point. It's just personal feelings toward something. Personal feelings like those don't belong in business and have driven out of business many people. This is strictly 35mm and MF talk. LF is a whole other beast in a very tight niche. BTW don't bother trying to clutter this thread with Digital vs Film, theirs a bunch of that already everywhere and the consensus is digital wins. My points stand strong. Feel free to go look at the competition and professionals. I leave you with that, since i have better things to do than talk about Digital vs Film on a forum. I know what i shot in and out of the studio, what my colleagues shot and what the competition shot. Digital. Cheers P.S: Don't take anything too harshly but this is my opinion based upon personal experience + research. I'm NOT telling you what to do, i'm just stating whats going on out there based on recent research (and again, personal experience in 3 major cities). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 16, 2011 Share #31 Posted October 16, 2011 So how many pros still use film? I say 6,459 in the US. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mod2001 Posted October 16, 2011 Share #32 Posted October 16, 2011 How many professional painters still use oil or pencils? Panting on a PC is cheaper, faster and the IQ is much better. And the clients don't have to wait for weeks or even months. However, just scanning my b/w images from this night in Barcelona and hearing Simple Minds on my reord player. Yogi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted October 16, 2011 Share #33 Posted October 16, 2011 ..... Honcho is not only a good photographer but a smart businessman. Thanks, but it is really a matter of simple economics in a digitally driven industry. There is no commercial sense or gain in applying unnecessary processes, direct costs and time penalties in any business. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 17, 2011 Share #34 Posted October 17, 2011 Funny film vs. digital "debate here:" Harrison Cronbi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share #35 Posted October 17, 2011 I didn't really want to have another digital v film debate. I was more interested in why pros still like film. Several reasons spring to mind: * They like the results and the character of film. Yes, you can manipulate a computer program to produce "film-like" results but it's not the same thing. * They appreciate the archival properties of film. * They do not need results in a hurry. * They do more fine art than PJ or commercial work. * They like using film cameras such as Leica because of their simplicity and dependability. I wasn't for a moment suggesting either one or the other is "better". I would agree that film is a limited market, but can see no reason why it can't continue as a niche market for enthusiasts, whether pro or amateur. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
autillo Posted October 17, 2011 Share #36 Posted October 17, 2011 I'm shooting film again, after years of only shooting digital. In my opinion is a matter of look , personal preferences. I'm not going to abandon digital for the moment, I think both worlds can live together...and of course pleasure is an important part of life to me, and I enjoy much more shooting film than digital. regards DANIEL BELENGUER Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Tyler Posted October 17, 2011 Share #37 Posted October 17, 2011 Wanted to jump in here because I make my living with photography. Ronan is not far off, most people use digital. But we do it because it's superior? Just plain false. We do it because we need to. A film camera plus lab fees are far more expensive than a digital camera. It's my contention that many of us made it through the recession because we had already invested in digital equipment before Lehman Bros fell, and we could ride through the turmoil with a minimal cost of goods compared to what it might have been ten years ago. Film + lab fees can be $1000+ per job (I shoot weddings, but other fields would have similar proportional COGs). A digital camera pays for itself in only a few jobs. As for whatever "superior" is define as, consider this: One of the top wedding photographers in America, Jessica Claire, hired Jose Villa for her own wedding because he shot film. She wanted the aesthetic. MF film slightly overexposed creates a look which is simply impossible to replicated with current digital sensors. Riccis is another good example, and his portfolio shows the aesthetic that b&w film can deliver over the mud-soup which most people make of their monotone digital shots. I shoot ambient light, sometimes in very dim locations, and in that respect digital is more flexible than film. However out in the daylight, film is the forgotten king of photography. The closest I have ever come to that look with a digital camera is the Leica M8 (never could afford an M9 but imagine the same would hold true). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 17, 2011 Share #38 Posted October 17, 2011 I didn't really want to have another digital v film debate. I was more interested in why pros still like film. Several reasons spring to mind: * They like the results and the character of film. Yes, you can manipulate a computer program to produce "film-like" results but it's not the same thing. * They appreciate the archival properties of film. * They do not need results in a hurry. * They do more fine art than PJ or commercial work. * They like using film cameras such as Leica because of their simplicity and dependability. I wasn't for a moment suggesting either one or the other is "better". I would agree that film is a limited market, but can see no reason why it can't continue as a niche market for enthusiasts, whether pro or amateur. But there are very, very few pros who are in the very fortunate position of being able to use film simply because they 'like' it. I'd argue that for the VAST majority of pros the statements you make simply don't apply. Highly competent computer savvy manipulators can make digital images look very like film (just a very few viewers may be able to differentiate a well adjusted image). To truly utilise film's archival properties require expensive archival storage facilities - again very few have these - and in my experience film is not very archival if stored poorly (I once went through an archive of 50 year old Kodachromes which had most faded despite being kept dark, cool and dry). Most imagery is shot to a time schedule - such schedules have (in my experience) shrunk dramatically since digital, but fine art and stock probably don't have time constraints as much as most other shoots. Simplicity and dependability are vague concepts. Neither mechanical nor digital cameras such as Leicas are really simple mechanisms and dependability has always been about carrying a backup body in my experience. There are as many pitfalls (including processing problems) with film as digital. I'm not suggesting that film or digital are anything other than different, but personally speaking I could not go back to shooting film - I would go bust extremely quickly and I think that the vast majority of pros would agree. Shooting film professionally is (whether you like it or not) already a niche market with just a few fortunate few being in the exalted position of being able to make the choice of shooting it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 17, 2011 Share #39 Posted October 17, 2011 Putting the "look" aside, I shot film professionally for about 20 years. What I liked least about photography during that time was all of the problems associated with film: Stocking a variety of types and sizes in quantities of the same emulsion. Bringing all of that film with me for various cameras. Testing it for color (transparencies.) (This may require CC filters.) Not having the film I "needed" with me or in the camera at a specific time. Understanding and compensating for reciprocity law failure. (May require CC filters.) Dealing with color balance (transparencies.) Overshooting (often with several cameras) and labeling exposed film - holding some back from the lab. Not knowing if I really got the image until later. No ability to review with clients on site. All of the trips to the store, lab and sending it to clients. Filing and labeling the images. Scanning it. Scratches, dust, lab screw-ups, etc. As for the "look"... I like the results from digital better too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 17, 2011 Share #40 Posted October 17, 2011 The OP asked: "Many pros seem to use digital professionally but shoot film cameras for pleasure. Why? Do any pros still shoot film for work? What kind of shots? Portraits, B+W landscapes, street photography, gallery work? Just curious." ...not a reiteration of why you hate film and don't use Leica. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.