Pro photgrapher's still use film?

LJH · Feb 5, 2013

I think that the segment is a key factor in this arena.

I know of many landscape professionals still using film. In particular, the Panorama shooters using 120 film for 6x17cm images. Nothing (including the Seitz digital) comes close to the quality and enlargement possibilities of a well exposed piece of Velvia in this segment.

Also, large printed B&W landscapes, IMO, are still best shot on LF (or ULF) film. Is there anyone out in the digital world producing the quality of, say, Clive Butcher? I think not...

henry finley · Feb 5, 2013

Take Parker Smith's word on it where he says something about just working for sake of having something to do. I'm a commercial printer, and have grown nothing but old and weary after 30 years of just "swapping dollars", as my Dad calls it. And now I'm in a buggy-whip business and there is no money to be made. My best customer of 24 years would drop me in a New York minute if I dared try to make a living off of him. Oh, I do the work, because I'm just plain stuck. But fk him, is my attitude when I'm on the press getting filthy and aggravated doing his stupid labels. On the other hand, I have made a partial switch to the digital Konica-Minolta Bizhub machine, but the toner eats up any possible profit. So there again, I'm stuck. So let me testify to his statement about if you don't make some good money at it, then screw the whole blasted thing. Pardon my french.

ohnostudio · Feb 5, 2013

Still do some food and product on film and will be doing some wedding work in May. I don't really shoot weddings anymore but I'm helping out a fellow shooter. The bulk of the wedding will be shot digital but the couple has requested some specifics on film mainly because of the wedding venue which is a period mansion.

The work is out there in some segments but you have to really work to find it. It doesn't come easy but it is out there.

cjbecker · Feb 5, 2013

When I was running my small business I was shooting all film. All medium format and becuase I did not want to undercut anybody, and there was just not the clientel that I was looking for; it dissolved. I still do little things here and there, all still on film thought.

henry finley · Feb 6, 2013

I fouled up a wedding once. With a Rolleiflex in 1984. The x-sync said x, but the interior linkage was fouled up and it was actually "M". Never again. No more weddings, ever again And I can't really photograph people, because they are so overweight and dress so poorly now. (see the Walmart people photos now on youtube). I'm not going to photograph men with no collars, or women in pants. And this is a genteel description of the present style. So I shoot barns and pastures and the like.

sehrgut · Feb 6, 2013

I agree with the sentiment, Henry. I'm fortunate to be heavily involved in the swing-dancing community, so there are always a lot of dapper folk who care about how they look for me to shoot.

StoneNYC · Feb 6, 2013

I agree HEAVILY with the statements about not undercutting the market as it really hurts us professionals, ALSO the standard is to charge for the work PLUS MATERIALS which means the client will be paying for all your film rolls. Most clients won't really like this as it would be a "new concept" to them since its not done that way any longer.

Also I think we tend to forget that the average person views film as crappy and low quality, most people if ANY exposure to film is by means of shitty labs with bad scans returned on disk that are pixelated and covered with dust and blurred, not crisp or brilliant looking. So the public often views film as low quality vs digital. So it will be hard to convince people that film will give them nice images.

Just some food for thought.

Perhaps just not telling them it's film at all would help haha

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

ToddB · Feb 6, 2013

photograph people, because they are so overweight and dress so poorly now. (see the Walmart people photos now on youtube). I'm not going to photograph men with no collars, or women in pants. And this is a genteel description of the present style. So I shoot barns and pastures and the like.

Boy.. this is so true. I live in New Mexico and standard dress code here out in public is Sponge Bob sweats, flip flops and stained T shirt. This is the MO for both men and women. No one takes pride on how they look. Film or digital shooter stuggle with shooting people these days. I remember I shot a wedding some time ago. The couple was average however the the uncles did want to tuck in thier tux shirt or make the effort to look nice. I felt very diappointed on wanted to do for them, but without the cooperation from people it will never happen. I'm not shooting weddings any more. They also try talk you down on the price, with the statment of "Just a little Ceremony". Sorry.. I'm straying from topic. When I shoot an assignment, I usually ask for two week turn around. So, being timely is consistant with either film or digital. I should mention that I have access to high end film scanner that scans negs to give 1.5 gig images.

Mark Crabtree · Feb 6, 2013

I was going to mention that I still make my living shooting film, but this thread seems to have gone somewhere completely different. I probably don't meet the sartorial requirements of this august group of critics anyway, so I'll just move on.

batwister · Feb 6, 2013

henry finley said:
I fouled up a wedding once. With a Rolleiflex in 1984. The x-sync said x, but the interior linkage was fouled up and it was actually "M". Never again. No more weddings, ever again And I can't really photograph people, because they are so overweight and dress so poorly now. (see the Walmart people photos now on youtube). I'm not going to photograph men with no collars, or women in pants. And this is a genteel description of the present style. So I shoot barns and pastures and the like.

I've actually found the opposite in the UK - there's a conservative fashionista epidemic. Even in rural towns everyone has a metropolitan style, no matter how ugly, overweight or lower class they are. Most portraiture ends up looking like the Sartorialist. This is admittedly more of a problem for documentary work - an example.

ToddB · Feb 6, 2013

Hey Mark, Are your customers reseptive to what you provide? Do you shoot Medium format or 35mm?

Todd

henry finley · Feb 6, 2013

Mark Crabtree said:
I was going to mention that I still make my living shooting film, but this thread seems to have gone somewhere completely different. I probably don't meet the sartorial requirements of this august group of critics anyway, so I'll just move on.

Well then, pull it back on track. I'd be interested in hearing what you had to say, with no further comment from me.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Feb 6, 2013

If you have any aspirations towards working as a professional photographer, then stop what you are doing and buy this book: Best Business Practices for Photographers by John Harrington. It's a good dose of reality in a business where most people live in fantasy land.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Feb 6, 2013

Mark Crabtree said:
I was going to mention that I still make my living shooting film, but this thread seems to have gone somewhere completely different. I probably don't meet the sartorial requirements of this august group of critics anyway, so I'll just move on.

I'd be very interested in what you have to say. It's great that you still make a living shooting film, but it's even better that you still make a living making photographs!

xya · Feb 6, 2013

LJH said:
I think that the segment is a key factor in this arena.

I know of many landscape professionals still using film. In particular, the Panorama shooters using 120 film for 6x17cm images. Nothing (including the Seitz digital) comes close to the quality and enlargement possibilities of a well exposed piece of Velvia in this segment.

Also, large printed B&W landscapes, IMO, are still best shot on LF (or ULF) film. Is there anyone out in the digital world producing the quality of, say, Clive Butcher? I think not...

I don't agree. myself, I still live from shooting MF on film, as an artist, not as an ordinary photographer. but I see the digital work from my photographer friends. with a conon 1D (no way as expensive as a hassy), photoshop and an epson A3 professional printer they do prints that I can't do with my gear. the quality is impeccable, be it colour or b&w. open your eyes, the quality of digital work as improved a lot. have you ever seen a b&w digital print with matte ink on matte paper? I never ever could do this in my lab.

rorye · Feb 6, 2013

I make my living taking photographs but client's logistics dictate that it's all digital, I haven't shot a commercial job on film in 5 years.
But for my own pleasure I'll sometimes shoot a film version and the client invariably loves it.

Of course 100% of my personal work is shot on film

www.roryearnshaw.com

PKM-25 · Feb 6, 2013

Here is one...

http://www.weddingphotographydirect...es/love-for-traditional-film-photography.aspx

http://lisaberryphotography.com/

LJH · Feb 6, 2013

xya said:
I don't agree. myself [sic], I still live from shooting MF on film, as an artist, not as an ordinary photographer.

I'm not actually sure what part of what I wrote is disagreeable to you. I also don't actually know what makes you "an artist". Is there some degree, diploma or certificate that you've earned that makes you better than us "ordinary" photographers? Or are you just self-ordained?

xya said:
with [sic] a conon [sic] 1D (no way as expensive as a hassy [sic]), photoshop [sic] and an epson [sic] A3 professional printer [sic] they do prints that I can't do with my gear.

I would put it to you that this is more a result of your lack of skill that the medium's capability. Perhaps your ambition outweighs your ability?

xya said:
open [sic] your eyes, the quality of digital work as improved a lot.

Perhaps you should open yours, you condescending jerk. Supporting my assertion that your ambition outweighs your ability, what do you think generally happens to a piece of Velvia after it's exposed? It goes in to a digital workflow. Given your "artistic" brilliance, what digital capture device can produce a BETTER digital file than a piece of Velvia 6x17 that has been drum scanned at high (2400+ dpi) resolution?

xya said:
have [sic] you ever seen a b&w digital print with matte ink on matte paper?

Yes. What's your point?

xya said:
I never ever could do this in my lab.

Again, your ambition obviously outweighs your ability.

xya · Feb 6, 2013

why so much hate? why these insults? do you know anything about me and my work? this is not the way I would like to discuss. just forget it. I won't answer to this any more. good bye.

sehrgut · Feb 6, 2013

LJH, chill, dude. He disagreed very politely, without casting any aspersions on you, and you attacked him. He wasn't the slightest bit condescending, but I can tell you're not the sort of person I'd want to be on the right OR wrong side of, by your response.

LJH · Feb 6, 2013

sehrgut said:
but I can tell you're not the sort of person I'd want to be on the right OR wrong side of, by your response.

Yet you still feel the need to chime in. Go figure, DUDE.

LJH · Feb 6, 2013

xya said:
just [sic] forget it. I won't answer to this any more. good bye.

As expected, good to see that you've got the courage of your convictions. I guess being an "Artist" allows you to make claims that you don't/can't/won't substantiate.

batwister · Feb 6, 2013

:munch:

JBrunner · Feb 6, 2013

Since we've managed to devolve this into a pointless A vs D thread, thwack.

Pro photgrapher's still use film?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency