AlanG Posted October 21, 2011 Share #81 Posted October 21, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Doesn't take much to get the old timers riled up...does it? Alan turns every discussion into a conversation about himself... Thanks for the kind thoughts. Although I don't see how you could confuse me with George Hurrell. My point clearly was that having a variety of roles, rather than a narrowly defined one, has always been a part of what many photographers have done. However, to be competitive, perhaps the role of today's professional photographer is changing for many. E.g. If you are in competition with me, maybe you'll need to know how to retouch and you'll realize this can both supplement your income and make you a more attractive choice to a client. Do you care to hear about that? Of course you could just farm this retouching work out too. OK, I'll give you a report about my best friend. He is a pretty high level and widely published photographer and has used Leicas for about 35 years. He didn't like the digital Leicas after trying M8s for a while and sold all of his film Leicas last month. He only shoots digital now using Nikons and MF via an Alpa/PhaseOne combo. He does no retouching or design work, only shooting. Sorry to tell you the news. It happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Hi AlanG, Take a look here How many pros still use film?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted October 21, 2011 Share #82 Posted October 21, 2011 @ doc henry - a good list! But I notice a few of those "professionals" wouldn't pass gentleman villain's test - they are just multi-taskers, "jacks of all trades" and "handymen" - because they also shoot and produce video and/or motion graphics. Notably: Michael Sugrue, Brian Finke, Finn O'Hara. Check their websites - Finn O'Hara bills himself as "Director/Photographer" right up front. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted October 21, 2011 Share #83 Posted October 21, 2011 @ doc henry - a good list! But I notice a few of those "professionals" wouldn't pass gentleman villain's test - they are just multi-taskers, "jacks of all trades" and "handymen" - because they also shoot and produce video and/or motion graphics. Notably: Michael Sugrue, Brian Finke, Finn O'Hara. Check their websites - Finn O'Hara bills himself as "Director/Photographer" right up front. ... but Andy they probably continued to use film right ? for forgiveness here are some photographers who always shoot film .... really nice pictures in b&w and colors specially Karen Wise ! A Stroll in Paris : International Street Photographer Eric Kim : International Street Photographer 6 Reasons Why Shooting Film Will Make You a Better Street Photographer — Eric Kim Street Photography Karen Wise Photography - Unique and Artistic Wedding Photojournalism Why We Love Film http://www.lomography.com/magazine/lifestyle/2011/04/27/rachel-rebibo-still-shoots-film "Film is dead? No, I don't think so. Personally I'll keep using it until I've reached the last frame on the last roll." (Richard Martin) New York Institute of Photography - History of Digital Cameras | History of Film Cameras | NYIP Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 21, 2011 Share #84 Posted October 21, 2011 Doesn't take much to get the old timers riled up...does it? [...]Pico makes drive-by-insults (the forum is littered with his jabs)[...] Thank Admin for Ignore Files. Ta Ta Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 21, 2011 Share #85 Posted October 21, 2011 ... but Andy they probably continued to use film right ? Of course, (or so I assume looking at their current web site images and blogs and bios). I never said otherwise. My point was simply that - according to gentleman villain's definition (not mine, HIS) - some of those on your list (regardless of whether they shoot film or digital still pictures) don't qualify as "professionals." because they've moved out of their specialized role, into other media. There are professional photographers who shoot film, and stick to the specialization of still photographs There are professional photographers who shoot film, and also branch out into other media (design, video) - as your list shows There are professional photographers who shoot digital, and stick to the specialization of still photographs There are professional photographers who shoot digital, and also branch out into other media (design, video) I think all those statements are true. Gentleman villain believes 2 and 4 are false. What do you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 21, 2011 Share #86 Posted October 21, 2011 [...]There are professional photographers who shoot film, and stick to the specialization of still photographs There are professional photographers who shoot film, and also branch out into other media (design, video) - as your list shows There are professional photographers who shoot digital, and stick to the specialization of still photographs There are professional photographers who shoot digital, and also branch out into other media (design, video) I think all those statements are true. Gentleman villain believes 2 and 4 are false. What do you think? IMHO, Gentleman Vinegar is full one seeking a mantra rather than reality. My bet is that he has enlarged amygdalae and a tiny anterior cingulate cortex. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted October 21, 2011 Share #87 Posted October 21, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The point is that the only true photography professionals left are the ones shooting film. The others working in digital imaging are not specialists because they are expected to do more than just photography. The profession and specialty of a photographer is tied to film. Gentleman Villain, I understand your interpretation and you're right that the real photographer (film) passes perhaps more time than the photographer (digital) works at his computer and software photos. It is true that a film photographer (the "real" one ,the "professional" ,as you said) takes time to shoot and takes time in his dark room .... the professional (digital) does not work the same way and does not get the same way his image .... Certainly now we want to work fast to get a quick result, question of lack of time and to earn more and still more , question of profit and gain, that i understand , and it is perhaps sufficient for their customers.... In total, if you really want to make photo, you must free yourself of this mania of shooting "like a fool ".... it remains the film (like all the photographers said in the links i posted here).... which you have the time to take the picture, frame and appreciate what you do , in other words , like the beauty of a real photo Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Barbour Posted October 21, 2011 Share #88 Posted October 21, 2011 please visit utube or Blurb books, Looking for Castro, all shot with BW film...all personal work with film, in 8 years of shooting digital for commercial assignments>$15,000 on upgrading cameras, $8,000 on replacing crashed computers>months of post production of digital images.....so you think you save money with digital....I don't think so...40 years of shooting and I can pick up my negs that I processed in 1971 and print them......you got to love film because your digital photographs will disappear...one way or another... David Barbour Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted October 21, 2011 Share #89 Posted October 21, 2011 please visit utube or Blurb books, Looking for Castro, all shot with BW film...all personal work with film, in 8 years of shooting digital for commercial assignments>$15,000 on upgrading cameras, $8,000 on replacing crashed computers>months of post production of digital images.....so you think you save money with digital....I don't think so...40 years of shooting and I can pick up my negs that I processed in 1971 and print them......you got to love film because your digital photographs will disappear...one way or another...David Barbour Photography Thanks for the link David Really nice pictures specially in b&w .... You are right about the archiving .... I just get out all my films of the 1970s .... what beauty in photos ! I do not know if digital photo files, last as long ! Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted October 21, 2011 Share #90 Posted October 21, 2011 Of course, (or so I assume looking at their current web site images and blogs and bios). I never said otherwise. My point was simply that - according to gentleman villain's definition (not mine, HIS) - some of those on your list (regardless of whether they shoot film or digital still pictures) don't qualify as "professionals." because they've moved out of their specialized role, into other media. There are professional photographers who shoot film, and stick to the specialization of still photographs There are professional photographers who shoot film, and also branch out into other media (design, video) - as your list shows There are professional photographers who shoot digital, and stick to the specialization of still photographs There are professional photographers who shoot digital, and also branch out into other media (design, video) I think all those statements are true. Gentleman villain believes 2 and 4 are false. What do you think? Andy, Gentleman Villain may be is a purist, but as I said in my post response to Villain , photographers have to work on every front, as a matter of saving money, to live simply , so they must do everything ... but this is a choice (sometimes forced), there are some who made the video too : making videos and taking pictures, why not ? after all negative film and video or movie film , are they not the same ? I personally will not do it , but I'm not a photographer and I do not earn my life by the picture but taking care of people Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted October 21, 2011 Share #91 Posted October 21, 2011 ...film , as i said previously , recently scanned with my Epsonscan ... dating from the 1980s, ie more than 30 years of age ... has not lost one grain of silver! " http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/204196-chantilly-castle.html Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveO Posted October 21, 2011 Share #92 Posted October 21, 2011 I'm not a pro, but I enjoy both digital and film. Especially 120 film with my Rolleiflex. Of course I have a hard time finding all the negatives. Digital is nice because all my files are on my computer, memory cards, back up Western Digital drive, or a laptop. Of course a house fire would destroy all of this and the negatives. Maybe I should keep my WD drive in a safe deposit box? My Rolleiflex is about 45 years old and works perfectly with no batteries. I don't think a digital camera will last that long and work without a battery too. DaveO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 22, 2011 Share #93 Posted October 22, 2011 I'm not a pro, but I enjoy both digital and film. Especially 120 film with my Rolleiflex. Of course I have a hard time finding all the negatives. [....] Hah! If an editor asks me, for example, pictures from the Days of Rage in Chicago during the early Seventies, I just think: "Sure they are in the library, second shelf from the bottom, third box from the left, sixth folder from the front! So I walk into the library, look around and ask myself, "What am I doing here, anyway?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 22, 2011 Share #94 Posted October 22, 2011 please visit utube or Blurb books, Looking for Castro, all shot with BW film...all personal work with film, in 8 years of shooting digital for commercial assignments>$15,000 on upgrading cameras, $8,000 on replacing crashed computers>months of post production of digital images.....so you think you save money with digital....I don't think so...40 years of shooting and I can pick up my negs that I processed in 1971 and print them......you got to love film because your digital photographs will disappear...one way or another...David Barbour Photography It is fine with me and everyone else if you like using film. And I'd encourage more to try it if they haven't. (And darkroom work too.) I don't know if anyone is keeping a running tally. Do you not scan your film for digital delivery, retouching, etc? And don't you use computers for your personal life, photography, and business in various ways? I think the problem with the OP's question is that it clearly is un-answerable and of course devolves into the same old film vs. digital points that have been made ad nauseum. We all know that some photographers like the look of film, the workflow of film, or like using film cameras. And some of these are pros - however we define the term. But if you look at the various fields of photography you'll realize that the pros who use film for work are generally in a few fields whereas some fields such as news, forensic, applied photography, repro. and others have gone almost 100% digital. And then consider that digital photography opens the doors to photographers to do things that were difficult or impossible to do on film. Such as virtual tours, hi ISO shooting (a friend now can shoot from helicopters in low light), and stitching for high resolution or panoramas. It also makes it very easy to do things such as basic retouching, montages, switching heads for better expressions in group shots, various type of exposure, color, or perspective corrections, etc. Most "working" photographers are expected to be able to do some of this today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 22, 2011 Share #95 Posted October 22, 2011 What I enjoy the most is Holo3daphy. It makes views that can be viewed from any angle a photorobot makes. No human complications, easy copy-right because most will be public domain government property, and you can capture any 2D image you wish for any purpose, commercial or private. When? 2014 (but it exists today already) Die, digital dogs! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 22, 2011 Share #96 Posted October 22, 2011 you got to love film because your digital photographs will disappear...one way or another... Really? And why would that be - is it impossible to ensure that a digital file will not be updatable - I certainly don't think so. I do however suspect that we will lose many images deemed not to be worth retaining (unlike film where its as easy to retain the dross as the good material) and we may well find this to be a mistake eventually when information is lost. Just my point of view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 22, 2011 Share #97 Posted October 22, 2011 Really? And why would that be - is it impossible to ensure that a digital file will not be updatable - I certainly don't think so. I do however suspect that we will lose many images deemed not to be worth retaining (unlike film where its as easy to retain the dross as the good material) and we may well find this to be a mistake eventually when information is lost. Just my point of view. With roll film we tend to keep that part of the roll upon which a 'keeper' exists. It is interesting over the years to look at the other images on that strip. OTOH, with digital I tend to pare the images to just keepers and 'maybe' keepers, rarely a linear set as with a strip of film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.