iphoenix Posted December 3, 2011 Share #21 Posted December 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Lets now get back on topic... Though I have a number of compact digital cameras (buy them from opportunity shops at next to nothing prices); I hardly use them. I use only film cameras for my real photography. In the 1960/70's I did my own processing but, as time became less my own, then had it done commercially. Now, with more time available, I am starting to get my hands wet again. (It took 2 weeks of searching through unmarked boxes to find the equipment.) I couldn't be bothered going to that trouble to process computer images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 3, 2011 Posted December 3, 2011 Hi iphoenix, Take a look here 100% film based photography. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Studio58 Posted December 3, 2011 Share #22 Posted December 3, 2011 Personally, I love the idea of shooting film. Hopefully, my recently acquired M6 will get some serious use in the coming years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted December 3, 2011 Share #23 Posted December 3, 2011 To me, and to all my photographer friends, the endless files, backups, file names and overall digital management is a load of crap. I stand on this. If you want to dissociate, it's yours to do so. No need to get all nervous about it. Yeah, I have to agree for the most part. It all changes and needs updating far too often. I love digital every time I make a nice stock sale while on the road with my iPhone or iPad, but managing what is now over 500,000 digital images is a pain, off site storage, file health checking, etc. At least with film, you can move around, camera, development, drying, editing, printing....no aching back at the computer, eye strain...it's good stuff. I have been using digital for ages, since 95, I know it's strengths and weaknesses well, but film, been using it for 35 years, feels real, feels right. My wife landed a great job recently...she told me to not worry about getting more clients / sales, dump digital, go all fine art. I am working on it baby, I am working on it...film is the future...for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted December 3, 2011 Share #24 Posted December 3, 2011 My wife landed a great job recently...she told me to not worry about getting more clients / sales, dump digital, go all fine art. I am working on it baby, I am working on it...film is the future...for me. what a wonderful position to be in. Congratulations to you both Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted December 3, 2011 Share #25 Posted December 3, 2011 Yes, let's... this thread is in favor of film, not anti-digital. ....agree with Doug but i prefer film for its consistency Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted December 3, 2011 Share #26 Posted December 3, 2011 what a wonderful position to be in. Congratulations to you both +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted December 3, 2011 Share #27 Posted December 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Neither process is superior nor inferior by any means. They are simply different. Do what works for you depending on the end result that you are looking to achieve. Don't lose sight of the end product: the image itself. And if you simply prefer one process over the over because it gives you pleasure, that's great (like a furniture maker who uses hand tools versus power tools; yet knowing that both processes can create exceptional products.) I personally work in hybrid mode. Film capture to drum scan to post processing in Photoshop then back to analog (photo-chemical Lightjet print.) The motion film industry has been doing this for years: film capture, telecine to digital for non-linear editing, then back to film via the film recorder. The master is stored on film. But the industry also now captures digitally, too. I do the same sometimes; capture digitally and then to the analog Lightjet print or sometimes on ink and paper with inkjet. Or sometimes capture on film and print digitally on paper with ink. It all depends in the end product I have in mind. It's really great that we have so many tools to work with these days. You can visualize your end product and then choose the best workflow to achieve that result. It's a great time to be in photography. And either way (digital or analog) it's still very much a hands-on craft. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sterlinstarlin Posted December 3, 2011 Share #28 Posted December 3, 2011 I shoot film 100% of the time. I hear and read a lot of stuff about trying to make digital look like film. You never really hear a lot of film shooters talking about methods for making film look like digital. I see digital as the logical extension of the one hour photo service. Convenience comes with a sacrifice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Greenwell Posted December 3, 2011 Share #29 Posted December 3, 2011 I made a big effort to try digital after 45 years of using film but gave up after 3 months, in fact I got to really dislike the process, I am now back to 100% film. I will keep reading up on digital and it's progress but film suits me just fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted December 3, 2011 Author Share #30 Posted December 3, 2011 To me, and to all my photographer friends, the endless files, backups, file names and overall digital management is a load of crap. That's one of the problems with digital technology: My peers who work digitally are always running from the grim reapers of digital: Hard drive failure, file corruption, disc damage, etc. It appears that they will be forever running from those demons. Back up hard drive "A" today with hard drives "B" and "C." Some day, hard drive "A" fails. "B" is now your primary, "C" is your secondary. Back up "C" with "D." Some day "C" fails. "D" is now your primary. Back up "D" with "E." Multiply that process by 2, 3, 4 or 5 - depending on how many hard drives full of images you have accumulated. Where does it all end? It never does. Compared to that, my black plasitc archival boxes full of negs and chromes are joyous masterpieces of simplicity. I have boxes of E6 chromes that are 20 years old that look as good as the day I developed them. A photographer friend of mine has boxes of Kodachrome transparencies that are 45 to 50 years old that are in astonishingly good condition, considering their age. It's all about how you store them. Then there's the issue of image retrieval. I have never had one of my black plastic archival storage boxes [i"]eat" [/i]a sheet of negatives or chromes. Hard drives eat images alot, judging by the frequency of the wailing we hear from digital photographers. No, thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted December 3, 2011 Share #31 Posted December 3, 2011 To be honest I thought it was you who came over as insecure with your attack on digital photographers. Personally I have no problem with people preferring film. You obviously feel differently about people who make a different choice to you. Please don't forget that we're in the "Film" subforum. Unless I'm illiterate (which happens sometimes). And I would agree with you 100% but then again I'd insult my multiple D700s, D2Hs, my M8 and my recent M9, all of which acount for more then 150,000 shots per year The only reason that keeps me alive and still shooting is because I don't do any retouching (Tha k God!!) and I cleanse my eyes and soul by using some film and a good old mechanical camera here and there. On another note, What's really cool about shooting film and wet printing is that 20 rolls could keep me very busy one whole year: from careful shooting to careful developing to carefully printing each frame to archival standards. It's simply an archaic process that's enjoyable. Just Like playing chess! No Nintendo can ever come as close to driving a person to total insanity as one simple board of chess can. Film, mechanical cameras, chemicals and a bottle of Jack soothes the Soul! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 3, 2011 Share #32 Posted December 3, 2011 How the hell do you deal with 3,000 shots per week, every week of the year? That's roughly one shot every two minutes for a 12 hour day, seven days a week. Then they need processing properly. Then you need to eat. And drive to the assignment. And drive home again. And post here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted December 3, 2011 Share #33 Posted December 3, 2011 How the hell do you deal with 3,000 shots per week, every week of the year? That's roughly one shot every two minutes for a 12 hour day, seven days a week. Then they need processing properly. Then you need to eat. And drive to the assignment. And drive home again. And post here. You think I'm BS'ing? Count 40 weddings a year + fashion + family stuff + Pre-wedding sessions + Boudoir stuff + Corporate + PJ and there you have 100,000-150,000 shots easily. 3000 shots a week is a piece of cake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 3, 2011 Share #34 Posted December 3, 2011 Who mentioned BSing? Not me. So, how do you properly deal with 3,000 shots, every week? Properly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 3, 2011 Share #35 Posted December 3, 2011 That's one of the problems with digital technology: My peers who work digitally are always running from the grim reapers of digital: Hard drive failure, file corruption, disc damage, etc. It appears that they will be forever running from those demons. Back up hard drive "A" today with hard drives "B" and "C." Some day, hard drive "A" fails. "B" is now your primary, "C" is your secondary. Back up "C" with "D." Some day "C" fails. "D" is now your primary. Back up "D" with "E." Multiply that process by 2, 3, 4 or 5 - depending on how many hard drives full of images you have accumulated. Where does it all end? It never does. Compared to that, my black plasitc archival boxes full of negs and chromes are joyous masterpieces of simplicity. I have boxes of E6 chromes that are 20 years old that look as good as the day I developed them. A photographer friend of mine has boxes of Kodachrome transparencies that are 45 to 50 years old that are in astonishingly good condition, considering their age. It's all about how you store them. Then there's the issue of image retrieval. I have never had one of my black plastic archival storage boxes [i"]eat" [/i]a sheet of negatives or chromes. Hard drives eat images alot, judging by the frequency of the wailing we hear from digital photographers. No, thank you. So you don't feel there is a need to back up film? Have you ever had a fire hose spray the room where all of your photos were stored? Fortunately the fire was put out quickly and most of my images were fairly well closed up. You've never had a client damage or lose an image? And nobody answered any of my questions or concerns about filing film, cross-indexing it, searching for the images and retrieving them, sending them to clients, and keeping track of it all. For those working photographers out there who are 100% film based, do you have commercial clients who will accept submission on film? How about stock sales? Starting in the mid 90s my clients required me to scan my film and submit the images in digital form. So I had the same issues and advantages of a digital workflow while using film to record the image. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/167666-100-film-based-photography/?do=findComment&comment=1861451'>More sharing options...
NB23 Posted December 3, 2011 Share #36 Posted December 3, 2011 Andy, I let my associate to deal with the PP stuff and I relax in the darkroom, reconnecting with real photography. It's what keeps me shooting. That's just me though. Alan, That's insane. Who cares about photography when something like this happens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Greenwell Posted December 3, 2011 Share #37 Posted December 3, 2011 When I attempted to try digital I had a clear out of a lot of my film collection and bought a M9, my dealer gave me tuition on lightroom, talking to the guy who did the post processing tuition he admitted that despite being a computer enthusiast he went home after work with a headache every day. I have photo albums belonging to my late grandparents, my grandfather started in 1908 putting photos in a album, the quality of the prints are today very good.I will pass them onto the next generation one day. Around my house I have framed prints of up to 45 years in age, some of the colour prints have lost a bit due to sunlight but the B&W are still very good. My friends and family send me prints of their children and events, all are taken on digital but have been very poorly printed and after a year or two are fading very fast. When I go to their house's I can see that all the photos that they have are fading fast and will one day be consigned to the bin, what a shame that the record of family life will be lost for good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 3, 2011 Share #38 Posted December 3, 2011 Andy,I let my associate to deal with the PP stuff and I relax in the darkroom, reconnecting with real photography. It's what keeps me shooting. So you don't do your own post processing for your paying clients? Just like HCB. Interesting. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted December 3, 2011 Share #39 Posted December 3, 2011 ... ... all of which acount for more then 150,000 shots per year Film, mechanical cameras, chemicals and a bottle of Jack soothes the Soul! Hope they're the right type of chemicals you're using there!....... :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted December 3, 2011 Share #40 Posted December 3, 2011 So you don't do your own post processing for your paying clients? . Plenty of photographers don't process their work... they just shoot and leave the PP to guys who are great at doing that. And 3,000 images a week is nothing out of the ordinary. I generally shoot 2,000 at a wedding. For me the challenge has been to generate the work... Ned is in a fortunate position to have that much going on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.