What percentage of your photography is with film?

[Stephen Prunier]

I use my RZ67 about 90% of the time. I have a Nikon D200 for taking snap shots when I'm out scouting, or when I want to see if an idea will work before shooting with film. I also use the D200 for walking around town taking in parades, events etc. then sharing with family members living out of state. To me film IS photography. While digital has it's place in the world. It's just not for me as a tool for creating.

 

[blockend]

I aim to primarily use film, but as I shoot, process and print my images, then scan the negatives and turn them into printed books, it's very labour intensive. I can easily accumulate 25 films in a busy period, and at the end of the line I turn to digital photography to recuperate and question my sanity. I've tried giving up film photography a number of times and learn to love digital, but it's a completely different thing. When I do shoot digital I use manual exposure and focus and nail them with in camera jpegs, saving the Raw file to a hard drive for posterity. It's less time in front of a monitor and fewer editing decisions to make.

 

[flatulent1]

...

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 guess.

 

[Jarrett]

I'm up to 80 to 90%. I want to go 100% once I get a Nikon F6 so I can use my Nikon lenses.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Alternative material, speciffically melanomatypes. Made by cutting a stencil, placing it, and exposing to the sun for several hours while shielding the surrounding epidermis. Development is very slow, often taking decades.

Seriously though 100% film.

 

[LeftCoastKid]

A reasonable guess would be something between 95 and 98 per cent film. Although I have a D800 - purchased new in 2012 (?), and take it with me on my "landscape excursions," the nod generally goes to my Hasselblads, or one of my Nikons (if I'm shooting macro or wildlife). As an aside, the cards in the D800 are set at "raw/jpeg," and the most recent cards installed, have images dating from December 2013 to May 2017, with, currently, 153 "shots" remaining on a pair of 16GB cards. PanF+, FP4+, Tri-X, and Ektachrome seem to win out almost all the time. Go figure...

 

[jim10219]

25% of my pictures, but about 90% of my time making photos is with film. I love digital for spray and pray (animal portraits, air shows, etc.), night or low light shots (indoor without flash), product photography, or anything where you need high volume and/or low cost. So basically most commercial work.

I love film for personal work, photography outings, and anything that I want to sell at a gallery or enter into a competition. With film I like to slow down and previsualize each shot.

 

[eddie]

All of my photography is with film. I occasionally use a digicam/phone to take a reference photo for hand-coloring purposes. I consider that usage akin to taking notes, but quicker.

 

[mshchem]

All serious work I do is on film. Almost everything I shoot is medium format. I process and print everything myself. I recently purchased a mint used D3, I use it to take existing light photos of my cats, that's about it.
A work on paper, a serious work for me is a silver gelatin print on fiber base paper.
I have neither the time, inclination or budget to learn and practice digital photography that produces results that I can achieve with medium and large format.

 

[patobrocks]

I only use digital for eBay and Craigslist photos. Film is for serious fun, meditation and expression. Digital does what is best for modern day sales, the other way we communicate and share with others.

I am thinking that maybe listing some Kombucha SCOBYs in Craigslist's free section without pictures is a mistake.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

Digital for pictures of a practical nature.
Film for photographs of an artistic or meant to be gifted nature.

So I voted 50% but would weight that to 100% for "pictures that I mean to matter."

 

[BMbikerider]

I voted 60% but that is increasing the more disenchanted I am getting with digital. yes it is convenient, cheaper with regard to purchase of film, but there is something missing and that is for me the work that goes into producing the print from a negative.

If I can use a comparison it is a bit like buying a piece of furniture in a flatpack form and putting it together with a few simple tools., Compare this to making a similar piece of furniture, from raw wood, tools and skill aquired over a number of years - I know which has the more value.

Taking the point of cost to another level, How often do we buy a new enlarger? How often do we have to buy new darkroom equipment? On the other hand the software and hardware companies are constantly upgrading or modifying their products and at the same time, telling the gullable among us that unless we have this that or another, our photography will be rubbish.