dmacmillan wrote:
How long have you been shooting film? What formats do you shoot? Do you develop your film, B&W, color negative and color transparency, then print from all three in a wet lab?
Over the course of your experience with film, how many rolls have you shot? Have you ever shot film professionally?
In order asked.
25 plus years.
35mm and medium format.
I develop B & W and C41. I rarely shoot E6 but will once Film Ferrania are up and running and I will process it myself.
I have wet printed in the past and am currently constructing a dark room to resume this activity.
I have shot more film than I could ever count. Thousands of rolls, easily.
I do not shoot professionally. I am an avid amateur.
Even though this thread has veered off the fairway and into the bunker a couple of times there is still a lot of great points.
When I shot/developed/printed/scanned film I did so because that is all there was. Doing this on a daily deadline was HUGE pressure. When digital hit being able to shoot your assignments and head home to transmit your images from home while cracking open a cold beer was awesome! The efficiency, freedom and not having to mix chemistry was ground breaking.
The transistion along the way was interesting as well. I recall having a temp photographer who filled in for a staff shooter for a couple of weeks. This guy (a good AP shooter) was so used to shooting color negative film. Our paper was still shooting slow Fujichrome E6 that was then drum scanned by the "back shop". Coping with the chemistry, slow development times, and fighting all the color cast issues with slide film drove him nuts. Our color got worse when the staff photographers had to scan their own color negative film. It took time to get it looking as good as the chrome days. Not all (even really good photographers) took to scanning, computers and software that well though.
But I think working with film made it easier to be a professional: not every average joe could gel lights and use filters while shooting 100 ISO Fujichrome. Same thing with processing and printing black and white. Modern digital has added a zillion photographers of all persuasions to the mix.
On web forums there have been repeated threads that feature digital phoptographers mocking film shooters. The back and forth banter can get out of hand at times. I have a friend who loves all his fancy Canon gear. He enjoys poking fun at film based shooters, saying that is all "yesteryear". Lately he is feeling the same kind of heat when he hears that his Canon gear is entering the twilight of its relevancy, being brushed aside by smaller mirrorless platforms. The details are different but the emotions are the same...
Yes, I've had it up to here with folks, some of whom have been banned from the forum in the past for this kind of behavior, whose insistence on perfect politically correct adherence to their current point of view leads them to repeatedly and personally attack anyone with a different perspective, with the ultimate goal accomplishing what? Humiliation? Persuasion? Making anyone who disagrees shut up and go away? A thread in which only people who prefer film over digital are allowed to post? Killing yet another thread with their disagreeableness? Something else?
Completely baseless. You have no honesty whatsoever to make such claims. NO ONE is stating ANYWHERE that film advocates are allowed to post and that digital adherents are not. No one.
You cannot in anyway post any quote that states text that sustains these baseless claims.
What HAS happened is that some, yourself included, has clearly made pejorative statements against film users. The text is clear to see and multiple people have noted this. No amount of blather is going to make this go away.
Fact: No one has put down digital photographers personally in this thread. No one.
Fact: No one has stated at all that anyone should shut up and go away.
This thread has a clear record of who cannot tolerate the other side and I'm quite confident that film users will not be indicted as the intolerant side.
That you have to make up such baseless mistruths to try to "win" truly explains what type of person you are. Anyone who reads this threads will be left scratching their head at what the hell you are talking about, because none of the text backs up your wild accusations.
But I think working with film made it easier to be a professional: not every average joe could gel lights and use filters while shooting 100 ISO Fujichrome. Same thing with processing and printing black and white. Modern digital has added a zillion photographers of all persuasions to the mix.
100% true! Even 110%! Working with film takes loads more skill than digital and you are right, back in the film era people could make a working living from photography. Most of the photo studios that I had in my town have long since closed up. It's pretty rare to find a pro photographer. Many major newspapers now dont even have staff photographers! Digital has reduced the skill level to get "good enough" photos to the point that it is much much harder to earn a decent living this way. Of course, it can be done, but it is much harder than it used to be and in many cases, the pay is far lower.
I had not heard of much wedding photography still being shot on film so that was a surprise. Even more so, in the thread there were several people who stated that they incorporated film into the weddings they shoot. Several mentioned that they did none of this and that's not a surprise. The advantages of digital really shine in weddings, where overhead costs are high and you have to fight for every dollar from the customer. Still, interest in film is high enough that some photographers are returning to it.
And in that thread, like this one, there has to be a few people who insult film users. None of the people who are using film put down digital but sadly, that favor is not returned by those insecure digital folks.
I had not heard of much wedding photography still being shot on film so that was a surprise. Even more so, in the thread there were several people who stated that they incorporated film into the weddings they shoot. Several mentioned that they did none of this and that's not a surprise. The advantages of digital really shine in weddings, where overhead costs are high and you have to fight for every dollar from the customer. Still, interest in film is high enough that some photographers are returning to it.
And in that thread, like this one, there has to be a few people who insult film users. None of the people who are using film put down digital but sadly, that favor is not returned by those insecure digital folks.
This guy below is doing most if not all of his photography including wedding assignments with film. He has an amazing experience with film and darkroom work. He distinguishes himself from many other digital shooters in his style and work:
retrofocus wrote:
This guy below is doing most if not all of his photography including wedding assignments with film. He has an amazing experience with film and darkroom work. He distinguishes himself from many other digital shooters in his style and work:
Eek! Where did this guy come from? 1984? I don't think anyone, least of all Dan would criticize someone choosing to work in film. I was watching a movie last night about artists painting oil on canvas. The Danish Girl I think it was which emphasized another topic, but whatever. It brought home to me the time and energy paint artists would put into trying to capture the feeling or essence of a scene. The movie had great cinematography and showed images of some of the landscapes the artist was working so long to try to capture on canvas. As long as the artist can also somehow manage to feed theirself then more power to them.
Likewise with film, its a medium with different qualities than digital and can emote differently. If an artist chooses to work in film and still pay the bills then life is good. Digital has sped up and to some extent economized the process. It pays the bills more efficiently perhaps but I don't think anyone can criticize someone choosing to work in film any more than anyone can criticize some one choosing to work in paint. There are so many more critical things to worry about in this world that what medium we choose to create in pales in comparison.
There are a few select photographers who use both, often on the same assignment. My friend James Porto, one of the world's photography rock stars, uses 35mm B/W, a 2 1/4 Rolleiflex, and the latest digital gear, often all at the same time. James was a pioneer with Photoshop, he still writes popular books on digital and Photoshop. But he still does a lot of commercial work with film and hand printing.
On weddings. IF I were to go back shooting weddings I would buy two or three Hasselblad bodies, a 50mm, 80mm and 150mm lens, and shoot 8-12 rolls of film as I used to do years ago. Square 5x5 proof books for the family and only cropping later for final prints.
Simple and easy to do the work and I know it from personal experience. Shoot B&W, hand print in the darkroom and charge top dollar.
Would not work for many photographers but it was a simple formula that worked for decades and allowed for fine images as one concentrated more on the individual images rather than trying to machine gun everything in sight. What bride or family can really look at 2500 images?
I still own 35mm film cameras ranging from prewar Leica IIIb to Contax RTS III and Aria. Have also owned 120 folders and a Hasselblad 2000 system. Main impediment to regular film use is time: time to manage outside services, or to develop and print personally. Riding the digital tiger takes all available time. Digital photography and crack cocaine have annoying similarities. Additionally, my main focus is studio and technical photography that is simply impossible with film, being related to complicated lighting schemes and combining multiple frames in unnatural ways. For a casual and battery-free experience, the old Leica gear remains relevant, and I don't feel any need to justify ISO, color correctness, DR, MP, and other fripperies.
Daniel Smith wrote:
On weddings. IF I were to go back shooting weddings I would buy two or three Hasselblad bodies, a 50mm, 80mm and 150mm lens, and shoot 8-12 rolls of film as I used to do years ago. Square 5x5 proof books for the family and only cropping later for final prints.
Simple and easy to do the work and I know it from personal experience. Shoot B&W, hand print in the darkroom and charge top dollar.
Would not work for many photographers but it was a simple formula that worked for decades and allowed for fine images as one concentrated more on the individual images rather than trying to machine gun everything in sight. What bride or family can really look at 2500 images?...Show more →
Just because you can machine gun everything in sight doesn't mean you have to.
I spent 25 years shooting film professionally and I don't shoot more frames than I need because that's the way I learned and got the best results. But film can and does let you down, often for reasons that don't become apparent until it's too late. Digital just doesn't do that.
I don't shoot weddings but if I did you bet I'd want the flexibility of digital plus the absolute guarantee of success dual cards and a hard disk backup gives you. Plus RAW, the histogram, instant review, easy retouching etc etc
With digital you can experiment on-site and see if what you are trying is working instead of relying on polaroid and limited ISO's and contrast control.
dhphoto wrote:
Just because you can doesn't mean you have to.
I spent 25 years shooting film professionally and I don't shoot more frames than I need because that's the way I learned and got the best results. But film can and does let you down, often for reasons that don't become apparent until it's too late.
dhphoto wrote:
Digital just doesn't do that.
I agree with the rest of your post, except for this. Digital can and does fail unexpectedly at times, just in different ways.
Once I was out shooting at dusk. I had captured a bunch of very nice images of my children. They looked great on the small LCD screen and so I ended the shoot happily. Later when I was on the computer I started post processing the images. Various images needed a tad more exposure or just the shadows boosted. I did so and discovered to my complete dismay that once I boosted the dark parts of the images, hot pixels appeared, many of them. The sensor in my camera was failing. I checked all images from that shoot and found hot pixels anywhere I boosted exposure, even by 1/2 stop. Every image. Going back to previous shoots I found the same thing. The camera was less than 2 years old but was completely useless to me once I found this problem.
dhphoto wrote:
I don't shoot weddings but if I did you bet I'd want the flexibility of digital plus the absolute guarantee of success dual cards and a hard disk backup gives you. Plus RAW, the histogram, instant review, easy retouching etc etc
With digital you can experiment on-site and see if what you are trying is working instead of relying on polaroid and limited ISO's and contrast control.
rico wrote:
I still own 35mm film cameras ranging from prewar Leica IIIb to Contax RTS III and Aria. Have also owned 120 folders and a Hasselblad 2000 system. Main impediment to regular film use is time: time to manage outside services, or to develop and print personally. Riding the digital tiger takes all available time. Digital photography and crack cocaine have annoying similarities. Additionally, my main focus is studio and technical photography that is simply impossible with film, being related to complicated lighting schemes and combining multiple frames in unnatural ways. For a casual and battery-free experience, the old Leica gear remains relevant, and I don't feel any need to justify ISO, color correctness, DR, MP, and other fripperies....Show more →
For years I have been tempted to get a Contax RTS III. That is such a beautiful camera. I held one once as was just smitten with it. I REALLY dont need another camera, but if I ever do break down and buy another, odds are it will be either a Contax RTS III or a Zeiss Ikon ZM. I would love to add Zeiss glass to my arsenal.
George Orwell wrote:
Once I was out shooting at dusk. I had captured a bunch of very nice images of my children. They looked great on the small LCD screen and so I ended the shoot happily. Later when I was on the computer I started post processing the images. Various images needed a tad more exposure or just the shadows boosted. I did so and discovered to my complete dismay that once I boosted the dark parts of the images, hot pixels appeared, many of them. The sensor in my camera was failing. I checked all images from that shoot and found hot pixels anywhere I boosted exposure, even by 1/2 stop. Every image. Going back to previous shoots I found the same thing. The camera was less than 2 years old but was completely useless to me once I found this problem.
Daniel Smith wrote:
What bride or family can really look at 2500 images?
Every last digital photographer I know, in person, has a library in excess of 200,000 images. None of that is pro work, it's just how many images they have amassed since going digital. I recognized that in myself and often came back from vacations with several thousand images. To me, the ubiquity of digital images has devalued the images themselves. Certainly that's a reason why photographers struggle to make a living wage in today's world. The supply of images far outstrips demand.
When shooting film, I typically return home from a trip with less than 300 images, closer to 200 usually. My satisfaction level has subsequently been much higher.
