How many pros still use film?

[aesop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...thanks David and Bill for (once again) reminding us what this thread is all about, and thanks to Michael for this little gem:

 

 

...<snip>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.

 

I am no pro but for what it's worth, I use film because I know precisely what to expect, wherever I am. My odd travelling habits (here today, there tomorrow for the next 2 weeks) dictate that a fully mechanical camera is a prerequisite.

[pico]

For a while I was pretty close to our publications and relations department where the editors were highly experienced and talented. They tried many different photographers and I've watched various pros shoot PR pictures all over our beautiful university campus. They all work with an assistant now, and shoot thousands of pictures. Our editor's comment: "With all the images they make, every single bit of minutiae had best be perfect. Perfect!"

 

So digital has changed expectations and none dare shoot film except where only film will do, and that's so rare there's only one photographer they use for film. (I wish it were me now that I am retired with a room full of MF and LF hardware.)

 

It's a one-way trip, all going digital. If the principle of scale-of-manufacturing applied to digital sensors (and it does not - yet) I'd expect even true MF and LF digital to be here. But it is not.

[NZDavid]

Another just-different-but-not-necessarily-better reason is a different way of thinking. Disadvantages become advantages. Film costs more. You end up with fewer pictures. So you have to think more. Each exposure counts. You have to be precise with exposure and composition. And while computers are essential and very capable, it's sometimes good to get back to something entirely mechanical.

[pico]

Another just-different-but-not-necessarily-better reason is a different way of thinking. Disadvantages become advantages. Film costs more. You end up with fewer pictures. So you have to think more. Each exposure counts. You have to be precise with exposure and composition. And while computers are essential and very capable, it's sometimes good to get back to something entirely mechanical.

 

Of course. Put your portfolio of published material up against these digital people and make your case there.

[NZDavid]

Another oldfashioned skill that is seldom practised these days is reading.

 

Once again, this wasn't about film being better or worse. My OP said many pros seem to use digital for work but still like using film for pleasure. I wondered why that might be the case, and also if any pros still used film for work. Surprisingly, some do.

[AlanG]

Another just-different-but-not-necessarily-better reason is a different way of thinking. Disadvantages become advantages. Film costs more. You end up with fewer pictures. So you have to think more. Each exposure counts. You have to be precise with exposure and composition. And while computers are essential and very capable, it's sometimes good to get back to something entirely mechanical.

 

 

I know that National Geographic editors would tell photographers to shoot a lot of film.

 

When I shot film and often had a budget, I hated it when I had to narrow my choices too much. For example, sometimes the sky would look OK but I didn't know if it would get better or worse. Should I shoot now, or wait? Sometimes I'd shoot and then something changes or a new idea comes up and I'd like to do that too. But I'd risk exceeding my film budget and it would come out of my pocket.

 

With digital this is no problem. I shoot as many ideas as I can and give my clients more choices. Maybe they want to run vertical on an ad and horizontal in a brochure. Maybe they could use it shot loose so there is room for type. Clients love having choices. As a long time large format shooter who was very used to working deliberately and with precision I can say that those skills don't go away and I can work as locked down as I want. But I still can shoot variations without raising the cost or adding much time. And it can be very liberating to shoot reflexively too. With digital I can do it either way at any time.

[Michael Tyler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My OP said many pros seem to use digital for work but still like using film for pleasure. I wondered why that might be the case, and also if any pros still used film for work. Surprisingly, some do.

 

The pros who do have it built into their business model. Film = less computer time = more time to market = revenue to pay for lab fees and hopefully some extra profit to boot.

 

My personal work has a lot of film in it. I do it for the mechanical simplicity (Leica M2) and the slow-cooked experience that goes along with it. Shooting for clients is incredibly fast paced and unforgiving. When your rent is on the line, it's easy to trade some of the artsiness for a boringly flexible digital slr. I applaud the guys who shoot film. But some of them don't shoot like I do, where in low light film is stretched outside its comfort zone.

[Megrez]

I am a pro and I only use film. I'm not going to get into the for's and against's but I don;t like the clinical appearance of digital images, or the smaller tonal range. I use film from 35mm to 10" x 12" sheets. Many of my cameras are over 100 years old.

 

Each to their own though. This works extremely well for me, but I can see why digital has its appeal.

[dave.gt]

As a documentary photographer, I now use only film for everything professionally as well as personally. Having divested myself of my studio equipment, all of my digital cameras and unnecessary gear, I now use the Leica M3 and the Leica R4 for all of my work.

 

My clients are very happy with the rather expensive artist books they purchase from me.

[ddp]

Personally - I still shoot film for pleasure. Between a Leica M, Rolleiflex, Kodak Retina IIIC and Nikon F3 - one of those bodies typically has film in it. I like the way it looks better than digital files and I prefer the way M lenses render on film vs. digital. The Rolleiflex produces beautiful images as well. It's really a personal preference for me, inconvenient in today's world I guess but worth it when I see how things turn out.

 

For my corporate & wedding shooting - it's basically all digital. Nikon D3S and almost the full line of fast Nikkor primes. For smaller clients (family portrait work) - I sometimes ask if they want film as well, since some people actually like the look of it.

[dave.gt]

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.

 

Well, for me it just works better. My documentary work has no hurried time line and I enjoy my film cameras. I started out with digital and the conversions just didn't work for me as I mixed in a few film images so I went with the better looking film images. The character of the film images matched the project much better.

 

Cost is no big deal either as it is priced into the cost of the printed artist books.

 

I send my film out for processing and scanning giving me more time to do actual photography rather than sitting at a keyboard. So, I am a happy man and my clients are too.

[sblitz]

dave -- thanks for sharing your views. curious as to the film you tend to use? also, do you believe something is lost in the digital translation?

 

steve

[Allen in Montreal]

.......My documentary work has no hurried time line.......

I send my film out for processing and scanning giving me more time to do actual photography rather than sitting at a keyboard. So, I am a happy man and my clients are too.

 

Consider yourself fortunate.

 

Last week I shot a job, on a Canon 1d MK4, Raw files sent to the CF card, jpegs sent to the SD card. During the shoot, zip out the iPhone, pull the SD card, and FTP a full rez jpeg to the client from the iPhone.

 

Do they NEED it?

I don't believe for one second they really do need it that fast.

They WANT it that fast.

Just because it can be done!

 

I now charge extra for it, some pay without hesitation, others can suddenly wait for a DVD to arrive the next day or for a FTP upload late at night.

[Michael Tyler]

Just for perspective. When shooting weddings, I click between 1200-1500 frames (I'm on the lower end of shutter actuations for my field).

 

1200 divided by 36 = 34 rolls of film.

 

Portra/400h including shipping/tax = ~$7 per roll.

 

Develop/scan at a pro lab = ~$20 per roll.

 

So the typical job would render a COG equal to almost $1000. The typical wedding photographer aims to shoot between 20-40 jobs a year.

 

Financially speaking, it just doesn't make sense unless you really love film, and can really market yourself well enough to get the revenue to support it. Some people do, and I think it's great. For my business, the scales tip well in favor of digital. Film is in my heart and I shoot it for my personal work.

[adan]

To back up a moment - what is a "professional" photographer?

 

For me "professional" means someone whose livelihood (and the housing, feeding and educating of their children) comes primarily or even exclusively from the sale of their pictures and photographic services. Business operators.

 

There are a lot of photographers who sell pictures - but are substantially supported by other means: teaching, selling cameras (guilty!), retirement income, family money (Ansel Adams, H. C-B, Robert Frank and Elliot Porter all had "family money" supporting their photographic talents).

 

I just want to distinguish between those for whom photography is a sideline that happens to bring in some income (and thus have freedom to do whatever they want, regardless of the marketplace) - and those who have to deliver and perform every day, just to keep food on the table.

 

"Semi-pros" can, of course, be fully professional in their approach - respecting their clients' needs, delivering quality work on deadline, jumping successfully through the hoops of marketing, accounting and general business development. Running a business - even if it is a part-time business.

 

But I know - as an semi-pro photographer with a professional outlook when my "day job" was as a designer at the newspaper - that the real pros were envious (in a friendly way) of my freedom to do my work when I wanted, with the tools and materials that I wanted, for the clients I could spend time with.

 

THEY had to deliver every day - and when the market went digital, they had to do what the market wanted, or go under.

[too old to care]

This is slight off topic, but Andy is describing me. I worked my way through college in the 70's with a camera, I worked for two studios shooting mostly weddings. After college I ran my own part time business while I also worked as an engineer. One day my full-time job took too much time from my part-time job so I left it behind.

 

However, I still shoot weddings (friends and family only) and I mostly use digital. With film, I never shoot more than about 150 to 200 photos. It is too expensive and my "customers" never buy more anyway. Even with digital I have hard time shooting more than 400 to 450 photos. I have seen photographers shoot a thousand or more, but I wonder if they sell more? And when I ask my "customers" which they prefer, most of them just look at me with a blank stare.

 

Wayne

[earleygallery]

Just for perspective. When shooting weddings, I click between 1200-1500 frames .

 

Wow! When I shot weddings - on 120 film stock - I'd use 6-8 rolls on average. The clients were always happy and they always managed to fill an album with their favourite images.

 

OK reportage style coverage means more photos, but 1500 is mind boggling to me!

[pgk]

To back up a moment - what is a "professional" photographer?

 

For me "professional" means someone whose livelihood (and the housing, feeding and educating of their children) comes primarily or even exclusively from the sale of their pictures and photographic services.

The answer depends on what you define as 'photographic services'. To me selling images sits alongside writing (books and articles), and selling specialist underwater photo equipment (I use it, so understand it). Commissioned photography has reduced so it depends on just what you class as the 'core business' of a photographer as being.

 

As evidenced here, there are still some pros who are in the enviable position of being able to choose whether to shoot film or digitally - I would suggest that they are a very small minority already - whilst most of us find the cost factor alone to be a compelling reason to shoot digitally.

[mod2001]

Just for perspective. When shooting weddings, I click between 1200-1500 frames (I'm on the lower end of shutter actuations for my field).

.

 

You should better use the videofunction of your camera and print the frames

 

Yogi

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NZDavid]

To me, if you make money from your photography, even if only occasionally, you are professional. Perhaps "part-time professional" is more accurate. "Semi pro" is an odd phrase. As a journalist, most of my work is writing but I also do photography.

 

I guess the best kind of job is doing something you love. I wonder if when you are relentlessly churning out a many images as possible, as quickly as possible, does that detract from the pleasure aspect of the job?