stump4545 Posted November 26, 2013 Share #1 Posted November 26, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why is that many photographers shoot digital cameras, but for personal use, choose to shoot with film cameras? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 Hi stump4545, Take a look here Digital for Commercial Work, Film for Personal Work. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
A miller Posted November 26, 2013 Share #2 Posted November 26, 2013 Wild guess would be that clients are ever-demanding and want near instant results. With digital the photographer can start organizing and (if necessary) editing asap. With analog, development takes time and then the negatives will need to either be printed or scanned, which also takes time. In the mordern world of digital photo editing, i suspect that many if not most film negatives would be scanned and then edited, which invariably takes longer b/c the scanned filed usually need a lot or work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted November 26, 2013 Author Share #3 Posted November 26, 2013 True, Film is slower, more time consuming, and more work. i guess that pros choose to shoot Film for personal work either really love the process, or prefer the different look of film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted November 26, 2013 Share #4 Posted November 26, 2013 I also would note that fusing film for client work is MUCH more expensive given the film and development costs. This is potentially huge as it is not uncommon for a photographer to take over 1000 shots at a wedding, for example. I for one LOVE film and much prefer the results over digital. But the extra time and expense do limit my use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenton C Posted December 1, 2013 Share #5 Posted December 1, 2013 Obviously for many, or most clients, the advantages of film arent appreciated, or don't outweigh the conveniences of digital. But to the more discerning eye . . . The craftsman must have some reason for preferring film. Their preference speaks volumes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richardgb Posted December 1, 2013 Share #6 Posted December 1, 2013 I also would note that fusing film for client work is MUCH more expensive given the film and development costs. This is potentially huge as it is not uncommon for a photographer to take over 1000 shots at a wedding, for example. ... I wouldn't confuse quantity with quality. In principle, some poor devil has to edit those 1000 photos, but in may cases they simply present near enough the whole lot to the 'happy couple' as a job well done. Could film be construed as evidence of a more thoughtful and caring approach? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted December 1, 2013 Share #7 Posted December 1, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why is that many photographers shoot digital cameras, but for personal use, choose to shoot with film cameras? Because I can't afford to buy an IQ260 Achromatic back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.