Why shoot analogue colour photos?

[Taylor Nankervis]

The answer is in the film workflow and aesthetic which cannot be duplicated digitally.

Yep. But why is this simple explanation so difficult for people to understand and appreciate?
I still put much more emphasis on the quality of the subject of the photograph than how it is photographed or printed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The overall impression and HOW it is printed are inseparable. Otherwise, a "subject" is just a subject. It should always be something more.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Get a clue:

Steven Spielberg's upcoming 2026 film, currently titled "The Dish," is the latest big Spielberg movie that is expected to be shot on film,

A movie.

And: You think Spielberg fiddles in the darkroom and then goes on some internet forum to debate the pros and cons of Rodinol?

I remain on the view that analog workflow is now predominantly a hobbiyst thing (nothing wrong with that), especially when finddling in the lab ( and posting about it ) is a key part of it.

When looking at what pros do and talk about, say the ones who were featured in the annual Oskar Barnack Awards, I can read about their "mission", their creative ideas, their travels to foreign locations, sometimes (!) about their choice of gear (Hint: must be durable, easy to repair/replace).

6x9 folders, pinhole cameras, niche TLRs, GDR M39 SLRs from 1970s Western German mail order catalogues, obsessing over Rodinol...a nice hobby, on par with vintage cars, making our own bread or the unique world of model trains. The beauty of a hobby is that the process matters as much as as the outcome (if not more).

 

[dcy]

A movie.

And: You think Spielberg fiddles in the darkroom and then goes on some internet forum to debate the pros and cons of Rodinol?

I remain on the view that analog workflow is now predominantly a hobbiyst thing (nothing wrong with that), especially when finddling in the lab ( and posting about it ) is a key part of it.

Has there every been a time, or an activity, where "fiddling in a lab and posting about it in an internet forum" was not primarily a hobbyist thing?

Whether analog or digital, whether photography or [whatever], I expect that in a professional setting you have a standardized workflow with as much automation and as little variability and as much reproducibility as possible.

Whether analog workflow is primarily hobbyist or primarily professional probably depends on whether you measure by number of people involved or by feet of film. While it may not look like it, I am making a point. If you are Kodak, the unit of measure that you care about is feet of film sold, not number of end users. If most feet of film are bought by a minority photographers and movie producers who use it professionally, then that's who your audience is.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Well, by "pro" I referred to professional photographers for whom photography is more or less the primary means of generating income etc. Dont nail me on the definition as my mother tongue is not English.

I beliebe the "pros" are obsessed with getting the right picture, whereas a hobbyist often prefers to debate minor technical details with his (virtual) neighbours, with an element of performance (e.g. in an urban setting with a Japanese TLR around his neck).

 

[koraks]

Dont nail me on the definition

This is not to bug anyone about definitions, but...if we're going to draw a line between 'professional' and 'non-professional' photographers, it's more or less inescapable that we make explicit what we're talking about. I did something similar about a page ago when talking about artists. Speaking of which, I think it depends a lot what kind of professional photographer you're talking about. I think that what @dcy said may hold true for some/many photographers who commercially shoot products, food, perhaps fashion (although there's a lot of creativity and experimentation going on in that segment), documentary, journalism etc. Then again, there'll be lots of exceptions as well as lots of niches within the established areas where people are working in a more free manner.

I beliebe the "pros" are obsessed with getting the right picture, whereas a hobbyist often prefers to debate minor technical details with his (virtual) neighbours

There are also plenty of amateurs who are obsessed with the picture while putting technique at a secondary (or tertiary) spot, and pros who just won't stop (for the love of Dog) talking about equipment.

 

[MattKing]

Well, by "pro" I referred to professional photographers for whom photography is more or less the primary means of generating income etc. Dont nail me on the definition as my mother tongue is not English.

I beliebe the "pros" are obsessed with getting the right picture, whereas a hobbyist often prefers to debate minor technical details with his (virtual) neighbours, with an element of performance (e.g. in an urban setting with a Japanese TLR around his neck).

Back in the day when professional photographers only had film, I can assure you that the discussions about technical details were common, and energetic.
The major difference being, of course, that they were either face to face or on the telephone.
And of course, sometimes via exchange of mailed letters.
In many cases, those technical discussions were focused on how to save money .
Because in most cases, professional photographers were concentrating on business.
Cameras, lenses, lighting equipment, album suppliers, film choice, process controls and/or best labs for the dollar were the sorts of subjects you could reliably count on!