thrid Posted October 13, 2008 Share #21 Posted October 13, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't know if there is anyone left in the news business, who shoots film exclusively. I highly doubt there is. It just doesn't seem possible, since the whole business went digital years ago. There certainly are many art photographers who still shoot film exclusively (Edward Sexton?). Some commercial photographers still shoot a mix, although the bulk of their work is shot digital. Antonin Kratochvil still shoots film (Leica M / Tri-X, TMY3200), but will do digital if he has to. Antonin Kratochvil Gary Knight also at VII will occasionally shoot film (M bodies), along with digital. I think Nachtwey, who was one of the last hold outs, switched to digital about 2-3 years ago. None of his recent work looks like it was shot on film. Annie Leibowitz still shoots film with an M6 + M-Winder, but from what I can tell her studio work is all digital. I'm not sure if Salgado still shoots film. Last I read he had switched from Pentax 645 to Hasselblad H, but I'm not sure if he's using a digital back or still shooting Tri-X. On a whole the vast majority of professionals are now digital. Clients and art directors demand it. Turn around times are so short that film is not practical anymore. The cost of shooting large quantities of color film and processing it, is a factor, although storing thousands of digital files isn't free either. I also believe that a lot of people just don't want to have to deal with the whole workflow of film. It's a lot more convenient to simply download everything in to Aperture or Lightroom, that process, pick and scan film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 13, 2008 Posted October 13, 2008 Hi thrid, Take a look here Who still shoot films professionally. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mym6is12 Posted October 13, 2008 Share #22 Posted October 13, 2008 How's your workflow? must be a nightmare? do you scan yourself? ! Don't know what Riccis does, but I've recently noticed that Vuescan now has a scan to DNG option. It's been a revelation : I now use CS3 Bridge to 'develop as last conversion' multiple shots - it's dramatically speeded up my color neg workflow. The only problem, is since also doing digital, I now habitually look at the EXIF info to see the shutter/aperture - but it's not there ..doh! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccis Posted October 13, 2008 Share #23 Posted October 13, 2008 Albert - I use the Fuji Pro line for color (Pro 400H and 800Z) and love them. Martin - My workflow is actually a breeze and, this was one of the reasons I went back to film, because of the simplified workflow. See, I was spending way too much time trying to make my digital work look like film and decided to use film to begin with. Even though I live in Florida, all my film is developed and scanned at my lab in L.A. (Richard Photo Lab). I overnight all my rolls after a wedding to the lab and within two weeks or less, I receive all the high-res scans and printed proofs. At this point all I have to do is sort the images, remove any bad shots and upload to the client's online gallery. The total time I spend on sorting, uploading and activating gallery is less than an hour. Also, because of my sometimes hectic travel schedule (to give you and idea, I've had 4 weddings and four engagement sessions over the six weeks in New York, L.A., New York again, Italy and Boston) my turning around of the digital work was taking more than I wanted it to be. I now have more time to network with wedding coordinators and magazine editors than before. I can also concentrate on better servicing my existing clients and taking care of things that are more important to my brand than just sitting at the computer doing post-processing. BTW, outsourcing my digital RAW conversions was never an option since I had my own post-processing style that is different than the regular digital work you see out there. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted October 13, 2008 Share #24 Posted October 13, 2008 Riccis - a very interesting commentary - and you've made me think... Maybe it's time to dig out the film Ms and the EOS 1v and play with film again - Glad I've held on to them... I used to love the Fuji pro colour negative film too - really flexible and great skin tones... You've made me feel nostalgic! Best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccis Posted October 13, 2008 Share #25 Posted October 13, 2008 Riccis - a very interesting commentary - and you've made me think... Maybe it's time to dig out the film Ms and the EOS 1v and play with film again - Glad I've held on to them... I used to love the Fuji pro colour negative film too - really flexible and great skin tones... You've made me feel nostalgic! Best Chris - You're too funny! I just got off a plane and I'm a bit tired, but please let me know if you have additional questions. Thanks all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted October 13, 2008 Share #26 Posted October 13, 2008 The cost of shooting large quantities of color film and processing it, is a factor... I think when a lot of people discuss the cost of film versus digital, what gets left out of the equation is the fact that digital cameras have a very short useful life because they are rendered obsolete by dramatic advances in technology on a regular basis. I used to replace my pro level film bodies about every 8 to 10 years. I now replace my pro level digital bodies about every 2 years. One could buy a lot of film and processing for the difference in equipment costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted October 13, 2008 Share #27 Posted October 13, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think when a lot of people discuss the cost of film versus digital, what gets left out of the equation is the fact that digital cameras have a very short useful life because they are rendered obsolete by dramatic advances in technology on a regular basis. I used to replace my pro level film bodies about every 8 to 10 years. I now replace my pro level digital bodies about every 2 years. One could buy a lot of film and processing for the difference in equipment costs. Brent, that is something that many people overlook. I have a stockpile of "vintage" Nikon DSLR's in my cabinet at work that date back to May of 2000. It's mind numbing when you think of what a Nikon D1 cost back then....and how many variations we've gone through to get to where we're at now with the D3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest noah_addis Posted October 13, 2008 Share #28 Posted October 13, 2008 The issue of replacing digital cameras is a real one, but we're getting to the point with the current cameras that the replacement schedule could slow. If your current digital camera, whether it's an M8, D3, etc., provides good enough performance for the work you do, then there is little reason to switch cameras every two years. I know some people always need to have the latest and greatest, but my 10MP M8 can do great 12x18in prints, which is as big as I ever made in the darkroom with Tri-x. It has great tonality and incredible sharpness, and since I only used to shoot Tri-x, the high-iso issue isn't a problem for me. I could be happy shooting with the M8 for many years. I'm sure the same could be said for those shooting with D700s and 5Ds. How much more resolution do you REALLY need for the work you do, and are the Canon and Nikon lenses capable of resolving more detail than 12mp? Back when we were shooting with 2.74 megapixel Nikon D1 cameras, we welcomed new higher resolution cameras. But I think we're at the point now where despite the new bells and whisles tacked on by camera manufacturers (S mode, anyone?), the current cameras will remain very capable and competitive with whatever new cameras may be introduced. I'm sure the camera manufacturers will continue the MP race and continue to market shiny new cameras to amateurs and pros, but the cameras available at this point could be used sucessfully for years. For pros who shoot lots and lots of film, the price for digital is competitive, even if you do replace your cameras every few years. The time savings depend on the way you work. I develop my own BW film and scan for proofs and make wet prints for the finished product. This takes (me) much more time than shooting digital. And that time could be spent shooting another project or marketing my work and finding new clients. I still love the look of film though. Gotta go start editing and scanning that film I shot in May now.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted October 13, 2008 Share #29 Posted October 13, 2008 Just building up my Leica film camera stock again to make the switch back, maybe. It'll be a hybrid scanned film route, but will reduce time at the front end and will produce the best skin tones for wedding portraits. The cost of maintaining three different digital camera systems is crippling. Will retain the digital cameras, but unlikely to keep updating them. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted October 13, 2008 Share #30 Posted October 13, 2008 Martin - My workflow is actually a breeze and, this was one of the reasons I went back to film, because of the simplified workflow. See, I was spending way too much time trying to make my digital work look like film and decided to use film to begin with. Even though I live in Florida, all my film is developed and scanned at my lab in L.A. (Richard Photo Lab). I overnight all my rolls after a wedding to the lab and within two weeks or less, I receive all the high-res scans and printed proofs. At this point all I have to do is sort the images, remove any bad shots and upload to the client's online gallery. The total time I spend on sorting, uploading and activating gallery is less than an hour. Also, because of my sometimes hectic travel schedule (to give you and idea, I've had 4 weddings and four engagement sessions over the six weeks in New York, L.A., New York again, Italy and Boston) my turning around of the digital work was taking more than I wanted it to be. I now have more time to network with wedding coordinators and magazine editors than before. I can also concentrate on better servicing my existing clients and taking care of things that are more important to my brand than just sitting at the computer doing post-processing. BTW, outsourcing my digital RAW conversions was never an option since I had my own post-processing style that is different than the regular digital work you see out there. Cheers, Thanks Riccis! Do you feel safe to ship such important film? How do the lab scan all those shots? can't be Imacon or drum scans? would cost hella lot of money for so many shots.. Frontier or Noritsu? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccis Posted October 13, 2008 Share #31 Posted October 13, 2008 Thanks Riccis!Do you feel safe to ship such important film? How do the lab scan all those shots? can't be Imacon or drum scans? would cost hella lot of money for so many shots.. Frontier or Noritsu? Martin - I overnight everything from the location of the wedding except when I do weddings outside of the US. I tape multiple shipping labels to ensure they are not lost. The folks from Richard Photo keep the negatives and just send me the printed proofs and scans just in case they are lost on the way to me, but this is also sent via priority overnight. I don't know exactly how they perform the scans, but they are around 6-8 Mbs each and more than enough for enlargements and album images. They have both Frontier and Noritsu, but I prefer the look of the Frontier machine. Now that I am back shooting film, the majority of my clients are requesting fiber based fine art enlargements and the scans are mostly used for the images that go into my fine art monographs. All my prints are done by Robert Cavalli, also in L.A. (Still Moving Pictures), he is truly a master and definitely makes my work look its best. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccis Posted October 13, 2008 Share #32 Posted October 13, 2008 would cost hella lot of money for so many shots.. I am not a machine gun shooter (even when I was doing digital captures), and for the average wedding day don't shoot over 25 rolls which I tighly edit when received from the lab to around 500-700 amazing images... My estimated lab fees are around $1,500 per job... Again, if I were to add up the amount of time spent giving my digital work the look I was going for, it would definitely add up to more than the cost of film and processing... Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted October 13, 2008 Share #33 Posted October 13, 2008 How many film M's do you have on hand at a wedding Riccis? Which lenses? You had 5 M8's in the trunk, I recall ..... all gone ? Big commitment to your vision. Great to hear. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccis Posted October 13, 2008 Share #34 Posted October 13, 2008 How many film M's do you have on hand at a wedding Riccis? Which lenses? You had 5 M8's in the trunk, I recall ..... all gone ? Big commitment to your vision. Great to hear. Rolo Rolo - Yes, all the M8s are gone... I currently own 2 M7s and also have another on the way. As far as lenses, I currently have a 35 summi, Noctilux, 70/2 and 90/2. I will add the new 21/1.4 and will probably sell the 70/2 since I only pull the long lens for church ceremonies. My lens cap on one M7 is the Nocti loaded with B&W and the other camera usually has the 35 or 90. I am shooting about 90% of my work in B&W, except when I do those beautiful outdoor weddings in California where is more 50% color and 50% B&W depending on the location (outdoor winery, beach, etc...) There are a few industry folks very interested on my move and I am doing an inteview with Rangefinder magazine on it this afternoon that will be published in the upcoming wedding issue in January... Believe it or not, there are other well respected wedding photographers that are also planning to go back to film for the same reasons I did... Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted October 13, 2008 Share #35 Posted October 13, 2008 I'm sure the same could be said for those shooting with D700s and 5Ds. How much more resolution do you REALLY need for the work you do, and are the Canon and Nikon lenses capable of resolving more detail than 12mp? I think we're going to be facing a period where sensor development and ISO sensitivity become the main focus of DSLR development. Between the Nikon D2X and D3 - there's no huge void in sensor size....but the D3 represents a paradigm shift in the Nikon lineup. I'll be very curious to see how many people go back to film for certain things as Riccis has done..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted October 13, 2008 Share #36 Posted October 13, 2008 I can tell you with some certainty that no one in the Sports world shoots film anymore They don't even shoot Canon digital anymore, having switched to Nikon over the last two-three years I'm sure some 'artists' out there (and old dyed-in-the-wool analogue farts like myself) still prefer the look of film though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccis Posted October 13, 2008 Share #37 Posted October 13, 2008 I can tell you with some certainty that no one in the Sports world shoots film anymore They don't even shoot Canon digital anymore, having switched to Nikon over the last two-three years I'm sure some 'artists' out there (and old dyed-in-the-wool analogue farts like myself) still prefer the look of film though Yep, sports is one of the fields where digital is the only way to go... I don't consider myself an old fart (I'm only 33, after all), but I'm definitely one of those who loves the look of film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photogdave Posted October 13, 2008 Share #38 Posted October 13, 2008 There are a few industry folks very interested on my move and I am doing an inteview with Rangefinder magazine on it this afternoon that will be published in the upcoming wedding issue in January... Believe it or not, there are other well respected wedding photographers that are also planning to go back to film for the same reasons I did... Can't wait to see this! This will be great promotion for the film industry and a bit of a wake-up for those who feel they "have to go digital" but haven't completely thought through the options. Good on you Riccis, I hope this snowballs into a big movement! From my point of view as a former PJ who shoots occasional weddings, the digital workflow was killing me. Coming home from my day job, which involves a good deal of computer time, only to sit at my computer all night and edit was a real drag. It took forever to fisnish a digital only wedding. I went back to film for my last wedding and shot Fuji Across B&W in a Hexar RF and and Fuji 400 ProH color in a Fuji GA645. The lab did the hard part, I picked the frames I like the best, scanned them and created a nice album from an online book publisher. Gave the album and DVD of high-res scans to the clients. I know of a number of "weekend" wedding shooters who also don't have time for the digital workflow so they pay someone else to do all their RAW processing! To me that throws any cost savings and convenience right out the window! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 13, 2008 Share #39 Posted October 13, 2008 I'm impressed that Ricci has dumped the M8s but not unduly surprised. It's interesting that he's happy to subcontract out the developing/scanning and the printing where he doesn't feel able to subcontract out the digital PP which adds hugely to his workload. I think greater emphasis needs to be put on getting the image right in the camera with digital and move away from the "you can fix it in PP" idea. I might be able to, but do not want to. Life is too short. The Nikon D3 was and is a revelation to me compared to the M8 because of the move to FF which restored the look (field of view/depth of field) of lenses I remember from when I used film as well as providing fully usable ISO performance way beyond what the M8 provides. That's why I'm disappointed with the M8.2. Some enhancements, a bug fix (framelines) but the same old sensor and same old dreary high ISO performance. Oh, and it costs 50% more than a D3... and around double what an M7 costs. In time, hopefully, we'll get a camera which puts D3 high ISO performance into a full-frame M form factor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccis Posted October 13, 2008 Share #40 Posted October 13, 2008 Mark - I've always structured my pricing to include the post-processing costs. To me it's a matter of me doing the work vs the lab. I'd much rather not sit in front of a computer for hours and instead invest that time into other aspects of my business such as vendor relationships, brand awareness increase, giving my existing and future clients a better experience or just spending more time with my family. I must also add that the biggest chunk of my time was spent trying to give my digital images my own look (that somewhat looked like film), and this is something that I was not able to outsource. Again, this was a decision based on what I belive works best for my business and where I want to go. I just wrapped up a 50 minute interview and there will be much more info there... Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.