In this day and age, can film cameras be used professionally? Now what I mean by this is can film still be capable for the average professional photographer for all types of works? I'm not referring to using film along side digital, but rather using film exclusively.
Film used professionally
-
A
- Thread starter mehguy
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Custom Hand Held 4x5 Camera - Sinar Handy w/ 65mm f/8 Super Angulon
- Started by pdccamerqs
-
For Sale Schneider-Kreuznach Super Angulon 5.6/65mm
- Started by pdccamerqs
-
For Sale FotodioX Pro Right Angle View Finder Hood for 4x5 Sinar Camera
- Started by pdccamerqs
-
For Sale Singh-Ray 84x120mm Galen Rowell ND-2G-SS Graduated Neutral Density Filter
- Started by pdccamerqs
-
For Sale Deardorff 8x10 Lens Board - ILEX #5 Flange
- Started by berarthbun
Forum statistics
It all depends on what the final deliverable needs to be to satisfy the customer.
If I could find a way, I'd be first in line to trade in my non-film cameras!
Right now, I'm only able to do portraits on film, professionally. My retail clients love the results I get from film, but my commercial clients usually need images much faster for PR purposes.
Right now, I'm only able to do portraits on film, professionally. My retail clients love the results I get from film, but my commercial clients usually need images much faster for PR purposes.
MattKing
Moderator
Some do, but they tend to have a particular place in a niche market.
And an ability to do so depends on the availability of excellent labs, which is place specific.
Yes. If your career was grounded in film, and established over a long period of time and the "world", or clients, are familiar with the quality and workflow, then it is no different to those making their motza in digital spheres, the one major difference is that analogue is slower. Pro-level labs with a dedicated response to individual photographers are no less essential for analogue than they are for digital practitioners, but quality the photographer's work is paramount. There are a huge many pro-level MF and LF photographers, but I think from my own experience they (we) are serving a niche market now and that's what I envisage into the future.
I sure as heck do not know, but I would think any:
Magazine
Newspaper
Television/News station
would be irate if a photographer could no immediately get their pics to a computer.
Can you imagine telling an Editor/Producer they will have to wait... that you had to get film developed.?
Or....."What do you mean you cannot show it to us in color".?
Magazine
Newspaper
Television/News station
would be irate if a photographer could no immediately get their pics to a computer.
Can you imagine telling an Editor/Producer they will have to wait... that you had to get film developed.?
Or....."What do you mean you cannot show it to us in color".?
MattKing
Moderator
Most of the newspapers don't employ photographers any more.
The television stations have used video for a long time for news.
For magazine work, there really isn't much news publication any more. For general editorial though, where time deadlines aren't tight, it is probably possible, but you would still have to be able to supply the results in digital form.
But none of those areas ever employed a large number of photographers.
I have a friend who posts here from time to time. He is quite successful with high end commercial work. Whenever he can, he likes to shoot wetplate portraiture for his commercial clients. Some of them are quite keen.
The television stations have used video for a long time for news.
For magazine work, there really isn't much news publication any more. For general editorial though, where time deadlines aren't tight, it is probably possible, but you would still have to be able to supply the results in digital form.
But none of those areas ever employed a large number of photographers.
I have a friend who posts here from time to time. He is quite successful with high end commercial work. Whenever he can, he likes to shoot wetplate portraiture for his commercial clients. Some of them are quite keen.
I guess my response did seem a bit circa 1970.
Even if many have gone digital (pardon the pun) there are still A Lot of magazines with a lot of pictures...especially hobby magazines:
Architecture
Guns
Cars
Guitar Amps
Cars
Knives
Cooking
etc etc
There are Lots of photos used, and I cannot see film being of much use in that niche.
I am amazed at the visual fidelity that comes from a cell phone, or the little Nikon Camera I just git for 20 bux...Fun Pix or something like that.?
And the way they can shoot in low-light.....for such small money
...then transferred so quickly to so many places. Most of the advertising world will never wait for film again
Always exceptions of course, but in general, I do not see film doing well for professionals, especially for a Guy/Gal on the road.?
I doubt many Wedding Photographers use film...and That Seems to be an area where a person can still make a living with a camera.
Kind of parallels audio, and the "death" of recording studios and 2" Tape.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
the only place that actively uses film based equipment that I know is the HABS project
but even that is kind of tricky. they used to want contact prints on AZO paper, but
now that isn't made anymore, now they accept contact prints on LODIMA paper
and any other paper, and sometimes pigment prints on a photo mount card.
state versions of the HABS project, well its a crap shoot. some still want exclusively
film and contact prints, others want 35mm film and enlargements, some want digital files and
archival pigment prints. i bid a job last year for a building out of state in and the state wanted
BOTH 4x5 film, contact prints AND digital files taken at the exact same time.
if you can find a niche that is totally film based you will be lucky.
but even that is kind of tricky. they used to want contact prints on AZO paper, but
now that isn't made anymore, now they accept contact prints on LODIMA paper
and any other paper, and sometimes pigment prints on a photo mount card.
state versions of the HABS project, well its a crap shoot. some still want exclusively
film and contact prints, others want 35mm film and enlargements, some want digital files and
archival pigment prints. i bid a job last year for a building out of state in and the state wanted
BOTH 4x5 film, contact prints AND digital files taken at the exact same time.
if you can find a niche that is totally film based you will be lucky.
Film have always been capable to do any kind of professional work.
The difference from of today from the past is that Digital is faster to work, and most business want fast results.
But film is still used with large format architecture, portraits, conceptual fashion, aerial, stars, weddings, sports and even in cinema, when they want use it. And there are still many using it exclusively.
The difference from of today from the past is that Digital is faster to work, and most business want fast results.
But film is still used with large format architecture, portraits, conceptual fashion, aerial, stars, weddings, sports and even in cinema, when they want use it. And there are still many using it exclusively.
On a stock photographer group on Facebook a trend seems to emerge, people begin using film professionally again.
As a stock photographer myself, I can see that the percentage of licenses from film material is higher than the percentage presence of film material in my archive. Basically, film seems to "sell" better, that's true today as in the past years.
I'm not sure whether the reason is that the image is taken on film, or just that film work tend to be more careful, possibly ultimately yielding a higher average image quality. Film selling better than digital is confirmed by some other photographers on the Alamy forum (Alamy being my stock agency). I think highlights rendition in critical light conditions plays a part in my case, I don't do studio work, I always take pictures with available light.
It goes without saying that what the agency and the client and the printer see is actually the scan.
As a stock photographer myself, I can see that the percentage of licenses from film material is higher than the percentage presence of film material in my archive. Basically, film seems to "sell" better, that's true today as in the past years.
I'm not sure whether the reason is that the image is taken on film, or just that film work tend to be more careful, possibly ultimately yielding a higher average image quality. Film selling better than digital is confirmed by some other photographers on the Alamy forum (Alamy being my stock agency). I think highlights rendition in critical light conditions plays a part in my case, I don't do studio work, I always take pictures with available light.
It goes without saying that what the agency and the client and the printer see is actually the scan.
Fine arts, ( what ever that means) wedding, portraits, can still be done with film, might even be a selling point.
Photojournalism, (Some should tell the Arizona Republic they still have PJ on staff, not many but some), wire, police, most scientific, school, industrial, event, commercial are unlikely to done with film.
Photojournalism, (Some should tell the Arizona Republic they still have PJ on staff, not many but some), wire, police, most scientific, school, industrial, event, commercial are unlikely to done with film.
I have an acquaintance with a successful wedding photography business in the UK who shoots 95% of weddings on black and white film.
Can it be done? Yes! But you have to put in a lot of hours with marketing and convincing customers that the extra effort and time is going to be worthwhile.
I think very few clients are going to say: "Cool, you shoot film, and therefore I must hire you." You have to stand out somehow with your work to draw customers in, but it is my belief it is entirely up to you as a photographer to make that happen.
Then, of course, as many have pointed out - some types of photography film just isn't going to cut it anymore.
Can it be done? Yes! But you have to put in a lot of hours with marketing and convincing customers that the extra effort and time is going to be worthwhile.
I think very few clients are going to say: "Cool, you shoot film, and therefore I must hire you." You have to stand out somehow with your work to draw customers in, but it is my belief it is entirely up to you as a photographer to make that happen.
Then, of course, as many have pointed out - some types of photography film just isn't going to cut it anymore.
From what I see there's a small percentage that advertise "I shoot film" and do well with it. Small market and mostly wedding/portrait photogs.
Architectural photographers have all gone digital. You could't survive shooting film.
I know of a wedding/portrait photographer who was just recently still shooting medium format film. I guess he still is.
Like mentioned earlier there are large format and wet plate photographers doing portraits and fine art photography. I don't know of anyone shooting 35mm professionally any more. Maybe for small 4x6 candids of the reception at a wedding?
I know of a wedding/portrait photographer who was just recently still shooting medium format film. I guess he still is.
Like mentioned earlier there are large format and wet plate photographers doing portraits and fine art photography. I don't know of anyone shooting 35mm professionally any more. Maybe for small 4x6 candids of the reception at a wedding?
The wedding photographer I know shoots only 35mm Ilford HP5+.
That's interesting!
I shot a wedding once with 35mm color negative film. It was a second wedding for both my wife's sister and her groom. They had a tiny wedding and were not going to hire a photographer so I shot it as a gift. If I had owned a medium format camera at the time I would have used that. I also shot the reception. A smaller camera with a longish lens is great for candids.
I don't like to shoot weddings, when I did was as a favor. I used MF, LF, and 35mm, the LF was with my trusty Crown, 135mm Zeiss, 20 double sided film holder, holder and a Vivitar 283 2 flash set up, color negative film of 80s and plus X, then 35mm for more spontaneous shots at the reception. My wife who was an art director set up the formal shots. Based on that one shoot I had lots of offers for work. I could see that the right marketing one could get work shooting 4X5 wedding.
MattKing
Moderator
Daniel B. has gone quiet on APUG for a while, but if he hadn't, I'm sure he would chime in .
.
Many moons ago...around 1995, I went to a seminar hosted by Ed Pierce and Monty Zucker, both renown wedding/portrait photographers who used 6x6 Bronicas almost exclusively as did Dennis Reggie. To my knowledge I think Ed and Dennis are using the digital technology as everyone wants everything right now and digital gives it to them.
Gone are the days of waiting till the proofs get back from your favorite lab to show your clients. I had one of the best labs in the country, CPQ in east TN and their quality was second to none but; they went digital only long ago. The best albums one could give a bride/groom after their wedding and proofs were sorted out, shown and orders placed was Art Leather. I don't even know if they exist anymore. It's sort of sad to see the places I worked with and bought their products go by the wayside due to advancements in photo technology.
A place for film today? I think so but, from a professional standpoint of making a living today I have to doubt it.
Gone are the days of waiting till the proofs get back from your favorite lab to show your clients. I had one of the best labs in the country, CPQ in east TN and their quality was second to none but; they went digital only long ago. The best albums one could give a bride/groom after their wedding and proofs were sorted out, shown and orders placed was Art Leather. I don't even know if they exist anymore. It's sort of sad to see the places I worked with and bought their products go by the wayside due to advancements in photo technology.
A place for film today? I think so but, from a professional standpoint of making a living today I have to doubt it.
In the end, professional photography is for the clients. Circumstances, market conditions, and how products and services have been advertised over the years will have a big impact on customer expectations.
I don't think 99% of clients give a rip how the light was captured (film or digital), but they will have a lot to say about how the pictures are delivered.
If film was to become commercially viable and competitive again, a sea change in consumer mentality and expectation needs to occur, and it probably won't.
With that, also consider that today digital cameras have some capabilities that film doesn't even begin to approach, particularly with regard to quality low light situations. Just today I saw a new Canon concept camera with a maximum ISO of 4,560,000, capable of full resolution video in what would seem like complete darkness, with better 'seeing' than the human eye under those conditions. It's pretty remarkable, and one has to appreciate how far that technology has come. I guess why I'm saying that is that we are getting farther and farther from film being a technical alternative, where the distance in sheer technical performance is ever increasing, and that too is a huge barrier to making film commercially viable again.
I don't think 99% of clients give a rip how the light was captured (film or digital), but they will have a lot to say about how the pictures are delivered.
If film was to become commercially viable and competitive again, a sea change in consumer mentality and expectation needs to occur, and it probably won't.
With that, also consider that today digital cameras have some capabilities that film doesn't even begin to approach, particularly with regard to quality low light situations. Just today I saw a new Canon concept camera with a maximum ISO of 4,560,000, capable of full resolution video in what would seem like complete darkness, with better 'seeing' than the human eye under those conditions. It's pretty remarkable, and one has to appreciate how far that technology has come. I guess why I'm saying that is that we are getting farther and farther from film being a technical alternative, where the distance in sheer technical performance is ever increasing, and that too is a huge barrier to making film commercially viable again.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,297
- Format
- Multi Format
In the area of commercial photography where there's a need for quick turnaround with short image shelf life it's tough. However, there are exceptions.
http://www.businessoffashion.com/ar...otographers-hawkesworth-weir-dodgson-ghertner
http://www.businessoffashion.com/ar...otographers-hawkesworth-weir-dodgson-ghertner
One of the most recognized Brazilian wedding photographer shoot 100% 35mm film.
There are many people shooting film but not advertising it. They just show up with their film cameras and if somebody says something they say this is how they always do. The fact they are established in the market make people accept whatever they want photograph with. Most people will not notice the photographer is using a 35mm or even meddle format film camera until see their assistant change the negatives. It happened several times to me.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |