main reason to stick with film?

here i am, still waffling about cameras. i have been a pro for over

20 years, and have owned all kinds of 35mm (leicas, nikons), MF

(hassy, pentax 67, mamiya 645 and RZ, rolleiflex), and LF (cambo and

sinar 4x5s) gear. i have never owned a digital camera (except for a

little P&S oly). i am retiring soon, and will continue to do some

special projects. i dont want to carry around a lot of gear, i want

to be able to handhold whatever camera system i go with this time.

i want convenience, image quality, and ease in prepping images for

publication.

 

i have seen large prints side-by-side from MF film gear and canon

1Ds digital cpature. the film prints, while no better at

resolution, look significantly more realistic to me. however, in

publications (where different method of printing is used), i dont

see a lot of problems with digital imagery - it looks comparable in

quality to good MF work.

 

i have conversed with several other pros about this, and they are

all over the board. in the photo services unit at the agency where

i work, they do tons of general photog work, from portraiture to

aerial - almost all of it with 35mm film. the reason they dont use

digital? - the answer they give is "work-flow is so much easier with

film." they just process film and make 8x10s. when they shoot

digital, they have to mess with each individual image file before

they can print it. oddly, the digi guys claim that they switched to

digital because the workflow is faster, and their clients all

require digital files now, wihc means you gotta scan and mess with

some PS manipulations anyway. so, maybe workflow is a wash in the

long run. the film guys have to wait for processing before they

know what they got - the digi guys have instant feedback on site.

the film guys can make better prints, the digi guys do perfectly

respectable work for every other application. either way, you

pretty much have to supply clients with digital files. nice film

setup can be had for about $2000, nice digital youre looking at

maybe $5-10K.

 

if you were shooting just for publication, and didnt need to make

any large prints, would you still shoot film? is it mainly the

ridiculous price of 1DsMkII that keeps you shooting film (what if

the new nikon D2x only cost $1250?). dont you care about the

instant nature and realtime feedback of digital? what is your main

reason for sticking with film? thanks.

Velvia 100 (120 & 4x5), that's the reason. Everything else is digital. I do shoot both and I prefer the digital darkroom (Photoshop, much more convenient and easier) more than I do traditional darkroom.

<i>(what if the new nikon D2x only cost $1250?). </i>

 

<p>I'd be clambering over several hundred other photonetters to get my hands on one. Would still shoot BW film, though.

I'm not a pro so publication issues do not matter, I shoot both digital and film (Canon 20D with some nice L lenses, a few Rolleiflexes and a Mamiya 6 system) The digital is fun and fast to review shots and it's very versatile and I use it for color but I use the MF gear for B&W. I think there's a different look to the pictures and I prefer film for B&W. I also think my composition skills are heightened when I use the film cameras, I can more easily think the picture through and know how it'll look (esp. with the rolleis and their ground glass). There is a lot of hassle to go through to get the final product with film though. Bob.

"if you were shooting just for publication, and didnt need to make any large prints, would you still shoot film?"

 

Almost certainly not. But then I do make large prints of landscapes and my $850 6x7cm medium format rig exceeds comparably priced DSLRs when it comes to those large prints of landscapes. To compete with it, I'd have to plunk down $5000 for the D2X. I can buy and process alot of film for $5000. That being said, I honestly do look forward to the day when I can buy a DSLR that equals if not out does my medium format rig at a price I can swallow.

"(I)f you were shooting just for publication, and didn't need to make any large prints, would you still shoot film?"

 

 

No.

 

 

"(I)s it mainly the ridiculous price of 1DsMkII that keeps you shooting film (what if the new nikon D2x only cost $1250?)."

 

 

If the D2x cost $1,250, I would buy two and would probably wind up selling my MF gear. But the D2x costs more than 3X that amount- even at my dealer net price.

 

 

As such, if I know I'm going to enlarge to 8x12 or smaller, I'll shoot my D100s. If I know I'm going to enlarge over 8x12, I'll shoot my Mamiya 7IIs with color negative film. Developing, scanning and tweaking a 6x7cm negative image for digital printing takes longer, but you start out with a 500 Megabyte file and don't need to rez up to make an 11x14 or 16x20 print.

 

 

"(D)on't you care about the instant nature and realtime feedback of digital?"

 

 

The immediacy and "realtime feedback" are fun and are helpful (particularly histograms). However, I've been shooting long enough that I don't need to see what I've shot that instant to know I've made a technically correct image.

Fence sitting. I still like the look of film (B&W in particular) and scan my 6x7 frames using an epson 4870 into 16/48 bit depth, 2400 dpi files that are BIG. I'm not married to film, and when I can get this detail/tonal range in a big sensor I can afford and justify, the RB67 becomes a shelf sitter.

 

That being said, EVERY full time portrait shooter I've talked to in our area went digital when the cameras hit 6mp. A few offer film in addition.

 

I'd find it hard to believe any (volume) magazine publisher in the USA/Europe or Pacific Rim ISN'T using digital pre-press anyway (and thus would want submissions in digital format with a specific color space). I bet you'd have a tough time picking a canon D20 or even a Digital Rebel image from a "High End" DSLR, litho printed tabloid or smaller.

Just for publication? If I had a lot, I'd probably shoot digital--what little I do for publication requires a digital file anyway, which means scanning my B&W negatives. However, most of my work is for exhabition and (attempted) sale. For that purpose, I'll stick with film and fiber base paper. Besides, I LIKE working in a wet darkroom.

You certainly asked the right person when you reached me. Although I have 45 years of

experience in film and a degree in photojournalism, my current role in life is that of a

magazine publisher. A full-color, high gloss coated paper stock (60# Gloss #3, Free

Sheet) magazine. In other words, more like the stock used by Architectural Digest and not

Time or Newsweek.

 

I personally shoot film for "relaxation work" that I do mostly for exhibit prints. I shoot

reversal film--Velvia because the public LIKES saturated color--but I do own a Nikon D

-70. (Leica M-7s with all the lenses, Nikon F-6, with several lenses, and three Hasseblads

with 9 lenses, are my primary cameras. ( I have 4x5, four Rolleiflex TLRs and others

around here too.)

 

I know what a quality image should look like. Digital cameras such as the D-70 and up,

and the semi-pro to professional Canon cameras can produce excellent images. However

their is a problem emerging from use of digital--and I am always fighting with my

photographers about it.

 

Everybody today seems to think they are using a "point & shoot" and they get very, very

lazy. The result is poor white balance, and consistent underexposure with accompanying

loss of detail in the shadows or "muddy" highlights.

 

Too many people who make their living with a camera seem to think "oh, I can fix

it in photoshop, so whatever I got is good enough." Well, to somebody like me--who

bears the final responsibility and has to answer to the advertisers--"good enough" really

isn't. You can't have "good enough" with ISO 50 or 100 transparency film, so you better

know how to produce "Good to Excellent."

 

I fired one photographer last month after more time was spent "photoshopping" digital

images than it originally took to shoot the assignment. This was the third assignment in

a row that the person in question had failed to correct technique even though I personally

demonstrated how 2/3rds stop OVEREXPOSURE is easier to deal with digitally than

underexposure. If you underexpose, you have nothing to work with on the computer.

 

My real complaint isn't the "qualilty" that CAN be produced, it is the quality that IS

produced and lack of quality seems to have taken on epidemic proportions across the

board, not just with this one photographer who is now out of a job.

 

I have become very skilled at looking at the printed page in a magazine and picking out

the photos shot digitally with little care and less skill. I can't pick out the truly well-done

shots and tell whether or not digital or film was used. But in business, you are paying for

skill and for "work flow time."

 

Not enough photographic skill and too much work flow time produces poor images. For

many things digital is great and even necessary. But the tendency--especially with

editorial assignments--to operate like a pointer-and-shooter, by thinking you can "fix it

on the computer" is ruining "photographers" as well as publications.

 

When you turn to Medium Format, the ball game changes so much that there is no

comparison if you need to make large prints. Transparencies win.

 

Although I shoot reversal film, I have it scanned and printed digitally using very high-end

equipment and this combination will win the day every time.

If it were me and could afford it, I'd go with digital for general shooting for publication unless it called for architectural or very wide angle shots (I'd use my Mamiya 7 or 4x5 for those--wide angel doesn't seem to do very well in small format SLRs). Since you have (had?) various camera formats already, adding a good digital to the stable would be good business sense. I can?t imagine the workflow being any worse than film unless you are really married to wet printing. Personally I won't buy digital until it's more affordable and the B&W printing is better, but I'm not a working pro--if the economics make sense for your situation go for it.

I agree with you 100%, CPeter. I often shoot digital for editorial publications. Sometimes these shoots last a long time. After awhile of shooting digital, I find myself doubting my skills returning to film for personal work. Digital is simply too easy and doesn't take much technical skills. It actually made me lazy. I fear years from now young people who started with photography in this digital era, will never pass down the knowledge of traditional analog photography. Which is, in my opinion, critical in being a successful photographer that produces high quality products.

I found your perspective very interesting.

 

I am not a pro just a very keen enthusiast. To date I have never seen any compelling reason or benefit to become a digi user, neither in part nor totally.

 

I shoot 135, MF and LF formats. Of course (who would not) I do benefit from digi technology from a work-flow perspective - the ability to scan, share and manipulate my film images. These functions have been a huge benefit to me in recent years.

 

My reasons for not taking up digi imaging have simply been two-fold: 1. harware cost versus imaging quality - while costs continue to fall, the quality levels that would be acceptable to me as a replacement to film still involve hugely expensive equipment and even at the top end there is still room for improvement to 100% equal film's capabilities. 2. While digi's objectives of matching/exceeding film's quality attributes continue to develop, I am very reluctant to have computers and IT issues become involved in my image making and add complexities and new issues not worrying or distracting me while I use film.

 

However, there is no doubt that many users gain huge benefits from digi including timeliness, work-flow and processing costs.

 

I would really enjoy digi's benefits of being able to freely shoot and delete/keep either serious work or play without the feeling that film and processing costs are wasted.

 

But, except for images made by those using the leading edge digi equipment together with top quality optics, I have never seen a digi image that has impressed me. I often see images that have horribly poor resolution of fine detail; faces that have been unnaturally "smoothed" out; landscapes that are ruined by a mushy appearance. Too often magazines and newspapers are littered with such images.

 

Interestingly some photography magazines publish reader portfolios and often those shot digitally stand out badly against film shot samples.

 

I'm sure that the day I take up digi, it will be as a replacement of my EOS 1V - my machine gun for action and family types of occasions - when the likes of a 1DsII is about 50% of its cost today. Then I will get digis real benefits for that type of shooting. But I find it hard to predict when my Leica M or XPan cameras will ever be replaced. Nor can I predict when I will invest in digi backs for my Hasselblad 6x6 or Linhof 4x5 cameras.

 

Obviously digi technology developments necessitated taking many steps backwards before they could take steps forward to reach film's qualities. But ultimately give me a Hassy 6x6 or a LF 4x5 tranny over a digi image anyday.

<i>Everybody today seems to think they are using a "point & shoot" and they get very, very lazy.</i><p>

 

Everybody? You have polled every photographer on earth? You know what each and every person with a camera is doing?<p>

 

Everyone I know spends a fair amount of time setting things up (including lighting, digital settings, film stuff, whatever) and making sure they get something good to start with. Then they spend a fair amount of time in post-processing to make sure they have the results they want, just like they did in the darkroom (at least for those that worked in the darkroom.) However, I'm not arrogant enough to claim that this represents "everybody."<p>

 

<i>Too many people who make their living with a camera seem to think "oh, I can fix it in photoshop, so whatever I got is good enough."</I><p>

 

So you have a good count and you know how many is "too many"? Once again, I don't know anyone that does this, and I shoot a lot, and professionally.<p>

 

I recently shot a boxing match in a large arena and the photographer next to me, someone I had not met before, took every break to do white balance and exposure testing. I only did exposure testing because I shoot raw, but I have yet to meet anyone who shoots willy-nilly because they think they can fix it in Photoshop.<p>

 

 

<i>I fired one photographer last month after more time was spent "photoshopping" digital images than it originally took to shoot the assignment.</i><p>

 

So you hired a loser and you boast about it? I wouldn't post about that.<p>

 

<i>I agree with you 100%, CPeter</i><p>

 

Then the same comments apply to you too. You know everyone who shoots? You know enough statistics to talk about "too many people"? You had to fire a loser you hired and boasted about it?

"I am always fighting with my photographers about it"

 

As Jeff suggests you seem to be hiring the wrong photographers.

 

"This was the third assignment in a row that the person in question had failed to correct

technique even though I personally demonstrated how 2/3rds stop OVEREXPOSURE is

easier to deal with digitally than underexposure. If you underexpose, you have nothing to

work with on the computer"

 

Maybe the photographer was on the money and you and your production staff weren't.

Despite the "expose to the right" doctrine that people seem to accept without question

there are a lot of working photographers who prefer to start with a fairly "dark" RAW and

push the shadows. A lot depends on the style and kind of image being produced - open

and bright isn't right for everything. Despite what you're suggesting digital actually holds

more shadow

detail than most film emulsions, it's the highlights that get problematical.

 

"the tendency--especially with editorial assignments--to operate like a pointer-and-

shooter, by thinking you can "fix it on the computer" is ruining "photographers""

 

You really are hiring the wrong photographers. Maybe you're not paying enough? Not

offering the appropriate rights? Too much "fighting"? There's no shortage of editorial

photographers who take

the technical side of things very, very seriously regardless of the medium that they're

using.

I think many of the people who will "fix it in photoshop" are the same people who when shooting 35mm film thought with 36 on a roll, they would bracket up the ying yang on the basis that at least one of the exposures would turn out correctly. 35mm is often used with a lazy technique. I use 35mm in the same way as I use MF; exposure is carefully arrived at and I don't bracket.The "film is cheap" thought, parallels the "sloppy technique" crowd. If I take numerous shots of the same subject, it's because the composition is different, not the exposure.

Take a chill pill, Jeff. Man, you are tripping. Can any one express their opinions without someone flipping out??? Like I posted, I only mentioned myself not everyone else. I agree with CPeter 100% cause it applies to me. If you feel I ragged on you, Jeff or everyone who spends hours in PS post processing, than I appologize. But like you said jnorman doesn't know everyone...I agree. Just like everyone wouldn't consider your stuff professional. In a matter of fact, I wouldn't brag about it.

I am a beginner and I enjoy using my Fuji 69's. I think film is a traditional proccess that has an intrinsic artistic value. To learn that art is what I want to do, and continue doing. Even if film is dead one day, the negatives will live on. Considering the constant improvements in scanning, my negs will be scanned at a higher resolution than I could afford today.

 

Cheers.

Well before I took my DSLR out of action last weekend, how was I to know it didn't like water??;) I used it for action photography, family shots and people in general, some abstracts, and experimenting. I really liked it. At 6mp it's a pretty good tool for the job, 35mm film may have more detail but is not needed for my applications. I'll hold off replacing it though until I see what comes out next winter, hopefully 11+mp's.

 

I use film in my MF, I still think that MF has a LOT more detail than 35mm format be it digital or film. And, given the limits of 35mm lenses I do not see that ever changing. However, I can not wait for the day that a MF sized sensor is affordable. If I can get a 6x6 or larger sensor at what others may consider way to may pixels, then I'll be pretty happy.

 

Film is just the recording medium for MF and LF. When chips can be made that big then it will be a no brain-er.

I prefer manual-focus film cameras because I like to feel in direct control of my picture taking, and because everytime I use AF and zoom, I spend half of the time figuring out how to outwit the technology. I also enjoy working in the darkroom, and I consider the entire film workflow much simpler and straightforward. I spend enough time sitting behind a computer keyboard already and my prints look good enough to my eyes so as not to desire change. My expenditures on film and printing would allow me buy a decent DSLR rig every year, so money is not the issue for me.

 

On the other hand, if I were a pro, shooting for publication, I would invest my time, energy and resources in mastering the digital workflow and I would buy the best digital technology necessary. I have 12 square meters of book shelves with dictionaries in my study and six thousand books in my library, but there's nothing wrong with a bricklayer who has ten dusty volumes in his entire apartment.

Have D100, but still use film because:

 

1. I work on computer all day for dayjob. Like non-pixelated wet b&w darkroom

experience.

 

2. Dynamic range. You get more of it with film, especially b&w negative.

 

3. Wide angle is still wide angle on a 35mm film camera. Nice to have a compact 24mm

lens with a 52mm filter thread that actually is 24mm.

 

4. Medium format gear is cheap. Bought Minolota Autocord for $130. Bought Fuji

GW690III for $950. 6x9 beats 6mp.

 

5. It's fun to shoot less automated film cameras and not worry about keeping up with the

"latest and greatest" DSLR race.

"if you were shooting just for publication, and didnt need to make any large

prints, would you still shoot film? is it mainly the ridiculous price of 1DsMkII

that keeps you shooting film (what if the new nikon D2x only cost $1250?).

dont you care about the instant nature and realtime feedback of digital? what

is your main reason for sticking with film? thanks."

 

It depends on the kind of work you do and the publications you shoot for.

There's an almost infinite set of answers you could give to this question.

 

If you shoot film for a mag do they foot the processing costs or do you? If you

shoot digital can you pass on some of the huge capital costs to the mag or do

they expect digital to be cheaper?

 

For me it's client led as well being a personal preference. Most people I deal

with are happy to take film. There are a few who want digital and then I rent or

borrow.

 

'Instant nature'. I use Polaroid to check the lighting. On some occasions I've

found that working with digital slows the shooting process down because

everyone huddles around staring at the screen and then, before you know it,

the lights gone. On the other hand, there are going to be loads of jobs out

there where being able to check everything as you go along is a major, major

boon.

 

So, I'm going to make myself comfortable on the fence and say there are pros

and cons to both systems.

The main reason to stick with film has nothing to do with the image quality which, as we can see from the various contributions, is a topic of much debate.

 

Going digital will make you into a database manager and a slave to technology. You will need to spend a significant amount of time on the computer in order to stay organized and protected (in the even of a disk crash). When technology changes, and it will, frequently, you will have to keep up. You will have to spend more time with each frame (colour balance, etc.) than when you used a lab. For active professionals, this is probably not a big deal, and if I were a wedding photographer, photojournalist, or something similar, I would likely go digital.

 

However, I work in high tech and screwing around with a computer in my spare time is no thrill. The technology is still not very good, imho. If cars ran that way, we would all be dead or maimed. I shoot mainly large format but also quite a bit of medium format, both colour and black and white. I keep my negs in mylar envelopes and I don't have to manage them electronically, back them up, or anything else. They seem to to all their own management and backup quite nicely. Film is still the best medium for long term storage

Don,

 

I wouldn't disagree with what you're saying. However, it is possible that you

could delegate your work whether you're operating with film or digital.

 

If I do a job and my client requires re-touching on a photo I hand this over to

my lab. My take on this is that I'm a photographer not a re-toucher. There are

guys out there who spend their entire working lives on photoshop. Surely they

are going to do a better job than me?

 

I have no intention of slaving away in front of a screen. Other photographers

may love doing this, in which case good luck to them , but it's not my idea of

fun.

I'm a fine art photographer and print my images up to at least 30". Therefore, I shoot almost exclusively in 6X7 medium format. Also, since I shoot what I like, on my own time frame and have done very few assignment-type shoots in my life, I have no need for doing things "fast", which is a big benefit of digital capture, from what others are saying. My age is probably also a factor. I grew up with film and much prefer the look of film over digital capture. To me, digital represents the time in which we are currently living, where everything seems to be made faster and cheaper...not crafted to perfection any longer, but fast, cheap and "good enough".