I knew when I was a teenager that being a photographer would be cool. I might not have pursued it as hard as I did, digital made the transition easier.

sboerup wrote:
I knew when I was a teenager that being a photographer would be cool. I might not have pursued it as hard as I did, digital made the transition easier.



Did you do much work in film as a teenager?

I resisted digital as I was a PT newspaper sports shooter on film in 2003, worked full time and went to school at night. At that time, digital make work a little easier as I cut out time from processing color film and made getting work done faster.

Some things I learned from 10-15 yrs earlier with transparencies/B&W just went to digital. Downside is, unless one invests in the many programs in post processing, digital looks the same, more or less.

No velvia/provia/kodachrome/Tri-X/ APX-100 look as there once was long ago and could tell by the film's distinct characteristics.

canonet wrote:
vbjimmie wrote:
flash wrote:
[Film was so much easier than digital.
Gordon

So, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say....film still exists. Maybe you aussies just don't import it? I've never seen how film is easier though. Hell, digital basically tells you wether or not you got your shot right. Film...not so much.

I think digital, to a point, makes one a little lazy as it gives one the thinking "i can get it right in photoshop if there's a mistake". For film, you had to get it right in the camera which forced folks to shoot lesser frames and have more keepers.

I started shooting digital like film for many things and the keeper rate went waaay up! Sitting at a computer correcting images is not so much fun!


What you say is true in terms of composition and blinkies and whatnot... but not in terms of exposure. You had to work very hard to make a shot truly unusable with film. With Digital (even with Raw and it's response to pushing/pulling) there is significantly less latitude for exposure errors

I think of it like this.

I don't care what people say...I chimp my ass off.
I take a shot, I chimp. It wasn't right...I adjust, take next shot.

You can't do that with film. That's why I say digtal is easier than film.

If of course you get the chance to take it again...

Which is why I said 'next shot'
I'm never so off that I can't fix it in post...but I don't want to have to.

How's many Bob's do you know that can meter and load a roll of film ?
Far less competitive market if it was film only.
Actually taught about setting up a site for film only weddings, a niche market now don't you think.
I certainly won't be pulling the trigger, film B/W got a lot of character, hard to reproduce with digital.


canonet wrote:
jofoto photo wrote:
I miss my Mamiya, a resounding yes and double up on the prices. No digital would be at this moment be a godsend.
I'd dance the streets if alien bugs ate cmos and ccd and bob's ass


What makes you say this? I still pull out my mamiyas to shoot and sometimes drag a C330 and a Rb67 to shoot basketball ( it can be done!) . I;m not hip on Digital B&W.

I think a nice hand-printed 11x14 B&W portrait with a RB67 and a 127mm or 180 on fiber base paper blows the doors of a 5d and a L-series lens ( i'm gonna get shot for that statement!)

vbjimmie wrote:
I think of it like this.

I don't care what people say...I chimp my ass off.
I take a shot, I chimp. It wasn't right...I adjust, take next shot.

You can't do that with film. That's why I say digtal is easier than film.

I say you can with film. Of course you cannot see it but the years of shooting similar sitiuations in weddings, etc. should tell one what lighting situations work or not work. if you see an indoor shot, immediately you may think :

Flash 1/2 power (if guide number on flash is sufficient to do so) @ ASA 400 1/60 at F5.6 if subject is x feet away. Adjust( stop down) if moving closer or further( open up). I still ask about the guide number on a flash in feet!

The downside of SLRs is you have the flapping mirror, unlike a twin-lens or big 4x5.

jofoto says:

How's many Bob's do you know that can meter and load a roll of film ?
Far less competitive market if it was film only.
Actually taught about setting up a site for film only weddings, a niche market now don't you think.
I certainly won't be pulling the trigger, film B/W got a lot of character, hard to reproduce with digital.

I know a couple but they're nervous at situations where tech ability counts! I cannot remember when there were so many wedding photographers on the market to shoot. Is that also the case in the UK with the rise of D-SLRs?

I've tried with digital to get a decent B&W print and no luck. i can run some Ilford XP2 Super in my hasselblad or RB, even a Nikon F, and the result is unmatched by any fancy post-process digiphoto ( in my opinion).

The rise in wedding shooters is solely attributed to DSLR's, my demographics is much the same.
10-20 shooters per available wedding, pricepoint becomes a major factor. Blown dresses are now fine art weddings and actually perceived as better photography because it was supposedly done deliberately, My A.S , the mind boggles when i see it and my stomach churns, WTH am I doing wrong, all you do is educate the client and hope they have the good sense to value the difference. Whether it be digital or film.

Unfortunately today's client couldn't care less about this.
( I've tried with digital to get a decent B&W print and no luck. i can run some Ilford XP2 Super in my hasselblad or RB, even a Nikon F, and the result is unmatched by any fancy post-process digiphoto ( in my opinion)



canonet wrote:
jofoto says:

How's many Bob's do you know that can meter and load a roll of film ?
Far less competitive market if it was film only.
Actually taught about setting up a site for film only weddings, a niche market now don't you think.
I certainly won't be pulling the trigger, film B/W got a lot of character, hard to reproduce with digital.

I know a couple but they're nervous at situations where tech ability counts! I cannot remember when there were so many wedding photographers on the market to shoot. Is that also the case in the UK with the rise of D-SLRs?

I've tried with digital to get a decent B&W print and no luck. i can run some Ilford XP2 Super in my hasselblad or RB, even a Nikon F, and the result is unmatched by any fancy post-process digiphoto ( in my opinion).

jophoto said:
The rise in wedding shooters is solely attributed to DSLR's, my demographics is much the same.
10-20 shooters per available wedding, pricepoint becomes a major factor. Blown dresses are now fine art weddings and actually perceived as better photography because it was supposedly done deliberately, My A.S , the mind boggles when i see it and my stomach churns, WTH am I doing wrong, all you do is educate the client and hope they have the good sense to value the difference. Whether it be digital or film.

I have noticed the immediate ride in wedding photogs ( also happening in shooting sports too..........set sports mode and get to work!) When you say blown dresses, are you referring to blown highllights that is popular these days? I do not do it and basically shoot everything straight for exposure and will adjust for backlighting, etc. so its all in-camera. one thing I will educate future clients on it NOt having the Bobs with their super Samsungs with a pic of them in action. My assistant shot apic at a recent wedding of the massive number of bobs with cameras who wanted to get closer during the ceremony!

J
Unfortunately today's client couldn't care less about this.
( I've tried with digital to get a decent B&W print and no luck. i can run some Ilford XP2 Super in my hasselblad or RB, even a Nikon F, and the result is unmatched by any fancy post-process digiphoto ( in my opinion)

This is unfortunate today's client does not understand this.

I shot more years in film than digital, and I'd go back to using my Hasselblad's if need be.

Side note - I was ogling an old friend of mine at a local store.... the FTb QL for $45 with a lens... Man - I loved that camera! I think I'll go back and pick it up to shoot some b&w...

I would ACTUALLY devote all my efforts to climbing the ranks within the government... lol

When I shot weddings professionally, I never shot smaller than medium format: Mamiya 645's for candids, RB67's for formals, plus Mamiya C330's and Hasselblads.

I think the technology of the time affected wedding photo style. Color film and electronic flash created the candid wedding photo market. Before then is was one or two formal photos. I actually have an 8x10 wedding formal negative!

I found out a few days before we attended my wife's step-niece that she did not hire a professional photographer and was inviting all interested to take photos. The small amount of shooting made me wish I had digital back in the day! I always wanted to shoot reportage style (I'm trying to avoid the connotations of "PJ"). I would have loved to shoot available light, with just a little augmentation from flash or video lights.

I think the average competent pro wedding photographer is providing a much better product than the average competent film pro of 20 years ago. The very talented, including some who post here on a regular basis are providing wonderful images and albums that were just unavailable "back in the day".

Those who long for the "quality" of film shooting are just being silly.

nay i would be a pharmacist.

I started back in the film days (and I'm only 26!) shooting a hassleblad and a rebel slr. So yes I would still be doing it, but I love the freedom I have with digital.

dmacmillian, I think folks were still creative with film for decades and digital took it another step. There could have been a thinking of some things we should not do with film but I think digital will make folks take a second look at that and try anyway.

dmacmillan wrote:

I think the average competent pro wedding photographer is providing a much better product than the average competent film pro of 20 years ago. The very talented, including some who post here on a regular basis are providing wonderful images and albums that were just unavailable "back in the day".

Those who long for the "quality" of film shooting are just being silly.

I've been saying the same thing for a while...I think because digital shortens the learning curve of photography on such a huge scale, it's really improved the quality of photography as a whole over what people were shooting 20 or 30 years ago. Yes, it also means everyone and their dog is a photographer, but that just means being "good" isn't good enough any more...you have to step up.

I still like shooting a little film here and there in my old OM bodies (and my Leica ) and I have many fond memories of developing Tri-X with my dad in our basement darkroom...but if I had to go back to strictly shooting film (particularly for weddings) I wouldn't. It would just take too much of the fun out of it for me.

That said, getting good digital B&W prints is a struggle (at least for me) and I still haven't seen a digital formula that can really replicate Velvia 50 .

I have noticed in my area that photographers who never shot film spend loads more time editing than pre-digital photographers. I have friends who spend 40+ hours editing a wedding, where I spend an average of 4. Seems like people are more interested in the latest photoshop action they can buy than solid photographic principles.

bert reed wrote:
I have noticed in my area that photographers who never shot film spend loads more time editing than pre-digital photographers. I have friends who spend 40+ hours editing a wedding, where I spend an average of 4. Seems like people are more interested in the latest photoshop action they can buy than solid photographic principles.

I think this is the case for Digital shooters in my area too; photoshop actions. It makes me wonder if its done for the photographer, or the client.

I've spent six hours max editing/post processing a wedding and felt it was too much! Many of the fundamentals which was taught long ago has fallen by the wayside.
The local cam shop mentioned a few pros who shoot nothing but program at weddings and make a reasonable living by it. If something happened to program, they would be lost!