What percentage of your photography is with film?

[rayonline_nz]

You can "Report Post" to ask a moderator to edit it for you.
But right now it is more fun .
Other than pros who have a film component to their work, and probably have numbers as part of their business, I expect most of us who use both won't have a reliable way to answer your question. For me, the choice of medium is dictated by a whole bunch of factors that vary with the circumstances, and I definitely don't keep track of the numbers.
I get joy from both film and digital, but I definitely get a lot more joy from film.
And a question: for those who work in the hybrid world, like those who make digital inter-negatives and then contact print using traditional processes, how do you track their percentages?

I don't do inter-negs but .. with film and digital components. Lightroom has the numbers for both my digital files and my film preview scans. I scan all my film (including those before I took up photography at a lowish resolution) with my flatbed and then I import them into a Lightroom folder. Folders such as CN1, CN2, MS1, MS2, S1, S2. Color neg, mounted slides, or slides (sleeved). A shared folder means people can even share these on the TV. Also BW1, BW 2 etc.

Anyway I am guessing if it is not just my own photography but any photography other than photograph this lovely sweater or dress at the store or that coffee or lunch I had or that tourist map I'm thinking for many it would be quite high for digital. We go on holidays with family and friends, we meet up with people we haven't seen for a while and get a picture or two and we file away. Photograph the family next to the Xmas tree etc ... celebrating New Years etc.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Poll question fixed.

 

[NedL]

About 50% film and 50% paper.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

About 98% of my photos and 98% of my prints are from film.

I have over 75 film cameras ranging from 8x11mm to 4x5 and have used about a third of them this year.

I have three digital cameras that I occasionally use for special events where I need to provide someone with a digital image quickly.

 

[ozphoto]

For my professional work - 99% digital (sadly), but for my personal work, it's 100% film, about 90/10 (B&W/colour).

I admit to shooting stuff on my iPhone when I'm out with friends - don't want to be lugging an EOS1 to the bar/restaurant, but I do take the time to compose and shoot those shots as if it were shot on film - it's *never* a "quick-snap" when I want to capture a scene that has grabbed my attention.

 

[R.Gould]

I never use anything but film, and print everything in my darkroom, before I retired I used 100% film for my professional work as well, and all my work photography was black and white, I was the last in the Channel Islands, and I was very busy, indeed I still get folk asking me to do some work for them

 

[AgX]

I do not own a digital camera.

 

[mshchem]

I bought a Nikon D200 when it was new about 12 years back. Sold it recently for about 10% of what I paid for it. I have a D800 that I bought when D810 came out great for action shots of my cats, only problem is it scares the daylights out of them.. So that's going next.
If I can't have a negative to print the digital doesn't do me much good. I have a Canon G15 digital that I use for email and occasional snap.Otherwise it's all medium format, mostly 6x9, or 4X5 AND 8X10. It's funny the cats aren't scared of my V8 Deardorff, I think they're smarter than most people . Recently my wife treated me to a trip to London, she's a museum curator, so that's what we did. This trip has reinvigorated my interest in printing. This to me is what it's all about.
Best Regards Mike

 

[LAG]

My vote is "up to 100%" (though the measurement was rounded to the nearest number in my personal case). However I find it hugely rewarding when I hear that someone around me is using at least 1% for film, to keep it going!

I am happy with that.
Warm regards!

 

[removed account4]

If I can't have a negative to print the digital doesn't do me much good

it is the simplest thing in the world to have a negative made from a digital file
that you can go into your darkroom or in the sun and make an analog silver, iron, or whatever else
kind of print you want to make. it costs about 75¢ for a 8x10 transparency and 10¢ for a paper negative.
the idea that because it is a file, and most of the population uses a file to send to a printer doesn't mean the
other methods are not useful. if you have ever seen the photogravures of max martinucci you know what i am talking about.

as with everything YMMV

 

[MrBrowning]

I chose 100% but it's more like 95%. I'll use my cellphone for to take snapshots of my kids on occasion. Other than that I use Film.

 

[dale116dot7]

Probably like most here. Anything I would consider photography is 100% film for me. For work or the odd thing that is a photo to remember how something is put together or a 'scope trace or that sort of thing, I'll use my cell phone camera. Total I'd say 95% film, 5% digital.

 

[darkosaric]

100%

 

[Bob Carnie]

Colour Neg and Black White neg for me, I have never used a digital camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do not own a digital camera.

Me neither.

 

[Wayne]

100% of my photography destined for printing is done with film. I have a DSLR and a pawn shop point and shoot that I use for documenting things/places for work, and for posting a picture of my scorched valves to the tractor forums without having to finish a roll and develop film. I consider all of that completely seperate from "my photography".

 

[Wallendo]

If based on "keepers", I am 85% film and 15% digital.
If total images are counted it is probably 50-50, primarily because I shoot digital in situations where I will be taking a lot of shots such as an athletic event or family gathering - even then I try to take a film camera when possible.

 

[Cholentpot]

80% film, 20% digital.

That being said, I only shoot film because digital is available. Yes I love my film and I shoot about a roll every two weeks on average. A large part of why I choose film is because I can't afford a pro Digital camera that can get me the feeling I have with my film cameras. Along with being unique in my peer group and getting a different perspective.

If I could find a digital camera that would give me the feeling of a film camera I would probably shoot far more digital. Also for work such as macro and other stuff having instant feedback I feel is essential. Without it I would not even attempt to shoot some styles. Film is excellent for the majority of photography I do but I'm not going to deny that digital is far better at somethings than my 35mm film SLR.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When you have shot enough film you gain the confidence to know when you either got the shot or need to take one more to get the shot. At that point you do not worry about getting the shot because you know that you got it.

 

[Leigh B]

When you have shot enough film you gain the confidence to know when you either got the shot or need to take one more to get the shot. At that point you do not worry about getting the shot because you know that you got it.

Hi Sirius,

I always take backup exposures of significant subject matter when shooting sheet film, sometimes three or four identical exposures. For subjects of less significance or more suitable for manipulation, the exposures may differ.

I develop multiple sheets, but only one from each set, to avoid any loss due to problems during processing.

- Leigh

 

[Harry Stevens]

I own a Fuji point and shoot D just for snaping things that I am repairing and knowing what wires or parts went where. I would say I am 90% film but I don't let it blind me to the fact how important D is in the world.

 

[benjiboy]

By definition "film photography" is with film, all my cameras only take film so I'm unable to shoot with anything else.

 

[railwayman3]

I've voted 50%, but that's skewed a little by digital images used in connection with other hobbies and for record purposes for work. "Serious/hobby" photography would be entirely on film for preference, it encourages me to take time to "think" while shooting, and there is a challenge and satisfaction to get pleasing and successful results which isn't always there with digital.

 

[Craig]

If I could find a digital camera that would give me the feeling of a film camera I would probably shoot far more digital. Also for work such as macro and other stuff having instant feedback I feel is essential. Without it I would not even attempt to shoot some styles. Film is excellent for the majority of photography I do but I'm not going to deny that digital is far better at somethings than my 35mm film SLR.

Look at a Nikon Df. It's basically a digital FE. Amazing low light performance too, it has truly changed the way I do night street photography. I can do things that are impossible with film.

I use both digital and film, a full frame 35mm DSLR, and film from 35mm to 8x10. I view each as a tool with strengths and weaknesses and use an appropriate one for the situation and the results I need. No single camera is perfect for every situation.

For example, I recently took apart a copal shutter on an LF lens to repair it. As I took off each screw or part I took a photo using the DLSR. I made sure that I had included everything I wanted in each shot, didn't have glare from the light etc. As I was reassembling the shutter I had the images up on the computer in front of me as a reference. It would have been inappropriate to use film for that, I wanted the instant verification of focus, exposure etc and I don't want to have to make 100 colour prints in the darkroom when I could scroll through images on the computer until I found the view I needed. It's not fine art, it's simply documentation.

On the other hand, if I'm taking a landscape where I know I want to make a print for my wall, it will be the 4x5 or 8x10 - depending upon how far from the car I have to go!

I'm not dogmatic about "everything must be on film "or digital all the way"; I use whatever is the best tool for the job at hand to get the desired results. Sometimes that's a phone, sometimes it's the 8x10.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Look at a Nikon Df. It's basically a digital FE.
...

And I take my metaphorical hat off to Nikon not only for allowing the Df to accept pre-AI lenses, but also for creating a camera that has external controls for all major functions. To me it seems like a digital version of an F4.

...
If I could find a digital camera that would give me the feeling of a film camera...

Consider the aforementioned Nikon Df or the Fuji X series (e.g. X-Pro2, X-T2, or even X-100). All have external controls reminiscent of fine film cameras from the 1980's-1990's.


Although roughly 98% of my photography is with film, I don't want to be ignorant and ignore new technology. I'm glad that I feel capable and comfortable using any digital camera on the market today, even though my main ones are only the older Fuji X-Pro1 and Nikon D700.