Is there still a place for film now and in the future?

<p>there will always be a place for film. it may improve over the years, but it will stay with us.<br>

special order? most likely. hard to find? most likely. still around? most definately.<br>

look at vacuum tubes, even brand new high end audio equiptment uses them. they still make them.<br>

even records. i can walk into best buy and buy LPs</p>

<p>David, the thought has crossed my mind to return to doing more 100% film weddings. I'm nearing retirement and will scale back when I do ... this means I could get very specific and pick and choose what I do. That "exclusive" thing. Portraits on film using an RZ 6X7 are still unmatched by digital at any cost, which could be another "retirement" outlet.</p>

<p>Aimee, obtaining film has never been an issue even though lots of people said it would be 6-7 years ago ... not an issue now, even thought people keep saying it is ... I doubt it will be dispite people saying it will be. Supplies are simply getting centralized. It's not in every corner drug store any more, but then 120/220 never was. Labs aren't an issue, just ones at the end of your block with a gum cracking teen doing the processing are dissappearing.</p>

<p>Your bottom line "the customer doesn't really care HOW you create their images" may be true ... for you. Unless you provide something that does make them care they probably won't.</p>

<p>My preference is to mix the media ... formals are so much easier with 120 film because of their controlled nature ... IMO, they are the most tedious and boring to process all the endless combinations of groups in front of a computer. Let the lab do those, and then they are archival where it matters most.</p>

<p>The last wedding where I shot film, I used a Nikon F6 and had to laugh as I tried to chimp the LCD at first ... LOL! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Marc--some pro labs still handling film may not be disappearing, although one of the pro labs I use stopped handling film at all, but they are losing the ability to print from negatives well. I sent in some medium format negs to be printed the old fashioned way, and what came back was basically the worst printing job I'd ever seen. I sent everything back for a re-do and got back just decent prints--nothing like before.</p>

<p>Color balance was way off and they were all too dark. It used to be that any good pro lab could print from color negatives and produce excellent, creamy skin tone, and great color balance and density--all for the standard print prices. Now, not only do you pay more for prints from negatives, in some cases, the art is gone. Maybe the people that knew how to run the machines and exercise judgement are all retired or gone.</p>

<p>I think film is way more exclusive than digital. Around here film use by snapshooters have been dead for at least five, six years and everybody and their grandma has a digital camera.<br /> Images shot on film though, preferably with "vintage" equipment, hand processed (for B&W) and hand made silver gelatin prints - you don't see that everyday. Personally I'd love to pay a premium for that the day I get married. It's more art and less computer so to speak. How the image was made and why is as important as what it looks like and I think there are people willing to pay extra for that.</p>

<p>I think that it might be difficult to shoot only film commercially - there is the cost and for weddings many clients prefer digital or beleive digital is better. I suspect that film is a long way from being dead. I remeber when the vinyl LP was dead but over recent years they have made a comeback. I think that film will behave the same way. Over time the range of films will be reduced to a smaller selection, mainline retail will not stock film and processing will become a mail or very big city thing. Prices will rise but there will still be people around who want to pay for the joy of using film and plenty of top quality film cameras. i think that high ISO film and lower quality films will disappear first as digital is clearly the way to go for low light applications and if you go to the expense of using film (35mm or 120 now costs around $15-$20 to buy and process - B&W is best done yourself) you would want a quality emulsion.<br>

Personally i love using film and prime lenses and after my oldest kid learn't on digital (it is cheaper) but now I am letting him use and old Canon FD film camera and his images are much better as he actually has to think about each shot and the prime lens makes him move about. While I shoot digital I do not have the same emotional attachment to it as I do for film so I plan to keep shooting film for another 25 years.</p>

<p>What a huge and emotional question that also exercises all our minds too. Film lovers take heart...</p>

<p>When the only professional digital camera around was the Kodak/Nikon hybrid, all we film guys were hoping that the majors would just simply make replacement backs with a sensor, and leave everything else that we loved just the same. Actually, this is just what happened in MF and is happening in LF. In 35mm, the majors saw an opportunity to get away from expensive to manufacture mechanical cameras like the F4s marvel of engineering. They saw digital as a way to program all the adjustments into very cheap firmware instead and make a lot of money. We all thought it was modern and advanced. In fact it was just cheap and easy. And it still is.</p>

<p>There is a growing resurgence in film. I know for a fact, in this country film sales bottomed in 2008 and are now increasing again. The demand for quality mechanical film bodies is increasing. Prices are going up as well. Just last month a mint FM2n sold on eBay for $1100. Another is for sale for $950. A good FE2 has doubled in price. So have those for the F3HP. Prices for used M6/M7/MP bodies have also stabilised and are becoming rare again. Blad bodies with an 80 slipped down to $1000, but are now back up to $1500. And lastly, a year ago you could buy a beautiful, large format Tachihara or Sinar for $1000. You can't now. Technology is converging. Now, I can put a 1gb back on my LF camera, and I can also get any number of 6x9x12x17 backs for it as well.</p>

<p>It maybe be a niche, but film will stay for a long time yet. Creamy fine grain with subtle changes in contrast and tone in a film B&W portrait, will never be replaced by little square pixels. My grandfathers glass 10x8 negatives from a 50 year career, are considerd so precious that they have been stored in the National Archives. Even I can't touch them without someone in a white coat standing beside me. I have seen contact prints made from some of these and they look like real life with zero grain. In fact, today, in PS4, there are tricks to alter a digital image so it looks more like film. What greater acknowledgement is there?</p>

<p>Forget Ansel Adams for a minute. Google your very own<strong> William Henry Jackson </strong> and tell me that you are not deeply moved by his images. They are art, made on huge glass negatives under very primitive conditions.<strong> </strong> Photographers from around the world lug their 8x10 box cameras up high into the Colorado Rockies every year in a effort to replicate his image<strong> Mount of the Holy Cross. </strong> It is a pilgrimage to the altar of film photography as an art. I hope one day to do the same. Our own <strong>Ken Duncan</strong> demonstrates just what film can do for landscapes. Look at what <strong>David Oliver</strong> can do for portraits and weddings. Both only use digital when its appropriate, but their fine art work is always done with film. And whats so wonderful, is that they will teach you do the same if you want to.</p>

<p>The only thing restricting the resurgance of film is a shortage of developing facilities which were almost shut down about three years ago. In Sydney, today, we now have three pro labs, compared to one a year ago. To me fine art film like what my grandfather did is art, but astounding digial images are marvels of technical computer skill. Neither is better, just dramatically different.</p>

<p>To expand on Nadines' comment about the " art " being gone, its my opinion that <strong>digital changed</strong> <strong>photography from an ART to a Science</strong>. Digital photography certainly has its benefits, a multitude actually, but many too things have been lost in the process. Fast food is food, sort of, but its no comparison to a true cooked dinner. I think my 5D is a wonderful tool, but its no match for the images from my 167 MT and 85 contax lens. Film at 11; oops make that pixels at 11.</p>

<p >As it was I who first steered this particular conversation to focus purposefully on B&W – well you gotta pat your own back sometimes. :) . . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I would like to add: I have considered exclusive B&W as a niche service, long and hard, but as an adjunct to a "normal" Wedding coverage - an "add on". If you did dig up old threads you will have noticed I have toyed with this idea for several years.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I understand that regional supplies of film will vary, but it (and continues even until yesterday), to be my experience that if I want film I can get it - and I think my geographic draw on local supplies / suppliers, is far more scant than those of you who reside in the USA (or UK).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I do agree that having film processed and printed, to any high calibre, is another issue - another reason why I looked at B&W, as, although rusty - I am formally trained as a B&W Printer & Tech and when I owned our studios, we used to do our own, in-house B&W work.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >And, whilst I think it would be interesting to debate the pros and cons of an all film Wedding Coverage, the marketing techniques and etc. – it is just my general thought that <strong ><em >to start that up</em></strong> does not interest me at all because the lead and bleed of the busines would be enormously time consuming and costly – and I am blunt in saying that is my feeling and not based upon any data or detailed analysis. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Only months ago I was doing 645 Neg work <strong ><em >as a part of the Wedding Coverage. </em></strong>It is important to note that<strong ><em > </em></strong>was a residue from cutting my old studio over to a Digital format.<strong ><em > </em></strong> </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I am not sure of the business and detailed format backgrounds of others who presently use Film for Weddings – but it is my guess that few have started up in their business in the last couple of years and have for that time exclusively used film, but rather like me – film is their legacy.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p>There will always be a place for film photography. Why paint if you can do it all on a computer? Why write if you can do it all on a computer? Why think if the computer can think for you? <br>

Traditional photography will evolve into an arts & craft medium, free to explore new methods of expression. If film runs out, I'm buying a canvas. Where is the satisfaction in the making of a beautiful digital PRINT? <br>

Humans are turning into lazy button pushing...I'm not sure what...but we have the creativity and tools just we are losing the "craft". <br>

I</p>

 

<p>Unless you're already well established (i.e. have the proven chops and portfolio book and referral business to command a high fee), you're likely to get creamed trying to exclusively shoot film for weddings. It's a very competitive market that's moved almost entirely digital for a reason, and that's in order to keep up with runaway costs and shrinking margins. And no, there isn't any virtue at all in only shooting 200 images at a wedding when your competition can easily fire off thousands for no incremental cost per frame.<br>

You're also going to get killed on quality if you shoot less than 645 against others shooting with FF digital. And even then you'll get finessed both at high ISOs and with action. <br>

With 30+ experience (20+ of it professionally) I still shoot film, still love it for my personal and artistic projects. Heck even with digital I've been known to schlepp a spare camera body with film to a wedding for when the light gets too harsh or for backup. But it's just not a good business plan to try to carve out a niche in weddings with a film-only workflow these days.<br>

BTW, anyone recommending E6 in this thread clearly has little to no experience shooting weddings professionally--their advice can be safely discarded. Black Tux+White Dress At High Noon= Low Contrast C41 Print Film (or CMOS Sensor).</p>

 

<p>Marc Williams shot my wedding more than five years ago. I specifically requested that the wedding be shot on film. I don't remember if Marc had a digital camera with him, but I think he did. Regardless, my favorite images were those shot on film cameras. How do I know? Marc was kind enough to give us all of the negatives: the good, the bad and the ugly. <br>

Most couples can't tell the difference between a digital image or a film image, nor do they care to. What they want is good photos, plain and simple. But, if the negatives are scanned and then printed with ink, even archival ink, they are still digital prints. At that point it becomes six of one and half a dozen of the other.<br>

What sells most is the quality of the work: good digital work beats crappy film work all day, every day.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ivan, no one suggested using E6 films for weddings, please take the time to read in context. I mentioned that Dale Labs does ALL types of films from all manufacturers ... including E6 ... which a lot of labs have discontinued ... in context this shows their dedication to film, NOT that one should shoot E6 at a wedding.</p>

<p>Nadine, you had a bad experience with that lab. Did you have a bad experience with all analog labs? Using that logic, then the lab I used to print some digital files that did a horrible, horrible job is indicative of all digital print labs ... which is obviously not true.</p>

<p>Since the over-all consensus is that film is a bad business move, I wonder how those people mentioned in the beginning of this thread are still in business?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4859252">Aimee Pieters</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Aug 24, 2009; 02:49 p.m.<br>

Let's not get into a discussion about film vs. digital as that's not really practical. Obtaining film and having it processed and printed will be the issue here. If the lab that processes the film will scan it and print it digitally, why go through the expense of film and worry about keeping it cool and fresh?<br /> The bottom line is that your customer doesn't really care HOW you create their images, only what they look like. Does it matter if you get a new roof on your home and it's hammered and nailed or secured with staples?<br /> I attempted a film/digital combination at first and keeping everything categorized was a nightmare.<br /> You can market anything successfully, I just don't know how practical it is....-Aimee</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I sometimes wonder this myself....and then I see the results from my 4x5 scans and remeber why I still shoot film.</p>

<p>As to customers not caring about the method of capture....maybe yours don't.</p>

<p>This question came at a great time for me. I have been shooting digital for about 4 years now after shooting film for 25 years. I just today pulled out an old Nikon FM10 film camera that I took hiking with me for years. I now take a Nikon coolpix S2. I put a 50mm f1.8 E lens on the FM10, hit the shutter.....WOW.... I forgot what a great sound and feel they make. I then pulled out my Hassey 500c/m, 50mm lens.....hit the shutter.....MORE WOW..... <br>

I am getting ready to do 2 hikes in the next month....the FM10 is going with me along with rolls of Kodak Ektar 100 film.... I cannot wait.... Film cameras take me back to when I really felt like a photographer.<br>

Randy</p>

<p >"<strong><em>The only thing restricting the [resurgence] of film is a shortage of developing facilities which were almost shut down about three years ago. In Sydney, today, we now have three pro labs, compared to one a year ago."</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >And IMO we seem to be playing big time catch up to re-gain the staff with darkroom skills and techniques, which we had in reasonable “abundance”, about five years ago.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>I photographed weddings with film for several years part time, doing just 7 rolls of 35mm (mostly color, occassionally one or two B&W), and one or two rolls of 220 MF for formals - I found that doing many more shots than that begins to challenge ones' ability to take good, creative, and/or candid photos. I imagine were I to take 1500 shots at a wedding, even a long one, would result in most being mundane photos of people standing around talking or with food in their mouths or similar boring shots, and the subsequent post selection of the better shots would result in few additional quality shots beyond the 300 or so film frames taken.<br>

I also remember the day I took a wedding portrait on 6x4.5 w/portra 160NC and my friend used his Nikon D300 - he blew out the highlights due to the bright sunlight w/white dress - the portra held the subtlest of gradient tones in the white highlights just fine as always. Another day I changed lenses and forgot to set the aperture on the lense, overexposing a few formal shots by a full 2 stops before catching the mistake only to realize the Portra NC still handled it with almost zero noticeable effect.<br>

Point is these are possible selling advantages you might make use of. I also agree on the post processing - the biggest time is spent mounting them on cropping cards for the enlargements but is still likely as much or less than digital post processing given the lower volumes.<br>

You might also want to take advantage of grain and film types - i.e. using fast and/or faster and/or specific B&W films to deliberately get some graininess/look for a more classic look - that could be another nitch. Personally I think B&W all the way (B&W film, processing & prints) would have the biggest selling point but you'd have to really do your homework and learn all the classic techniques and looks and develop your own consistent style.</p>

I've plugged this site here before, but here it comes again:

 

Fuji sells all their film as well as mailers through http://www.fujilab.co.uk/

 

Of course, if you prefer Ilford or Kodak, it's no use, but I think that site will stay up for as long as Fuji makes film, and they ship worldwide.

 

I haven't tried their development (I'm blessed with a very good pro lab near work), but I've ordered film there several times, delivery is quick, shipping usually the next day.

<p>Vincent, I fully agree with your comments about the shortage of develpoing facilities. Of course you could always do what I did when I regularly (about 20 years ago now) shot weddings: Do all the processing and printing yourself. I found I could get just the result I was looking for by doing my own hand printing, both colour and monochrome. It also saved me a load of cash outlay, as I was not paying someone else to do it for me. I still have my own darkroom and I stil do all my own printing, and yes I do mean colour as well, though I no longer handle weddings.</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

This is an interesting discussion. Whilst I am by no means a wedding photographer (or professional), I recently shot a roll of B/W film with an old Canon AE-1 at my brother's wedding and was really pleased with the results, a few of which I posted here: <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00UFDq">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UFDq</a><br>

It got me thinking that there may be scope to be hired as a second shooter at weddings using (especially B/W) film and taking non-traditional, more PJ kind of shots... <br>

I happen to think that there is something truly special about shooting film that digital may never truly be able to replicate. I may not be half as practical but it is something that will take a long time to die out completely. There will always be people shooting film!<br>

Thanks,<br>

Tom</p>

<p>I do, a bit. I offer B&W film as an option for those that know and can appreciate the difference. I don't see much point in shooting color neg or chrome anymore though except for fun.</p>

<p>"In other words, to make the fact that you use film transparent to the client, you have to have the style and talent to rise above talk about cost and numbers."<br>

Counterpoint:<br>

Actually I don't try to hide that, I highlight it and charge more for it. There are still people out there who can see the difference with fine grain and tonality that cannot be completely duplicated in PS. This is also one of those things that sets some of us apart from the newer digital only competitors who never learned to meter or manual focus (not that that's the case with all of them/ but many here). I show clients examples of the differences between fully auto brainless spray and pray photography and what I try to do. Yes we are a bit flooded here with GYCs ;-)</p>

<p>I'm lucky to still have some competent labs here in the northeast but I don't count on having them around forever. So yes I still have a fully equipped dark room.'</p>

<p>I'm sure the media itself and the chemicals to develop it will always be around at least for the artists niche market. I'm already paying about 60% more for similar films though. Fuji seems to be the one most interested in keeping it alive. I buy from B&H and freeze/fridge it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What sells most is the quality of the work: good digital work beats crappy film work all day, every day (Mikal)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure about your distinction. Surely good work beats crappy work, period. What it was shot on won't matter.</p>

<p>But, when you're comparing good work and good work, the combination of photographer, media and method become useful points of differentiation.</p>

<p>If you shoot weddings with film and you don't include film cost, processing cost, scanning cost and the amount of time it takes to do those things into your cost and into your time frame, then you will loose your pants. Smart photographers take this into account.</p>

<p>If you shoot weddings with digital and you don't include extra batteries and cards cost, and the time you spend sorting and editing photos into your cost and time frame, then you will loose your pants. Smart photographers take this into account.</p>

<p>Im no wedding photographer, but my niece asked me to shoot a few at her wedding waiting of course after the paid photographer was finished with her shots, i was using an rb67, wasnt sure what the hired photog was using, it was digital i know that, what ever it was i know that the chromes from the rb blew the digitals away. I did a special black and white shot at the reception of my niece and her husband using my 8x10 and then enlarged it to 32x40, looks like you could walk into it, i use film exclusivly and then somtetimes scan depending how large i want to go. , i shoot mf up to 8x10 and where i live i have to order all my film which is fine with me. all black a nd white and only chromes on special occasions, i enjoy being in the darkroom, that is the fun of photography in my opinion, for me time is not money so i will always shoot film besides i know i will never be able to afford a digital back for an 8x10 if one will ever exist. : ))</p>

<p>John, it seems you and I are very like minded. I know that the quality of digital is now very good, and is getting better all the time. However, having tried it, I just hate sitting in front of P.C. screen but I love working my darkroom. There's also something special about having to wait until you've processed your images before you can see the result. Being able to view them on a little camera screen rather spoils the whole process for me. Surely, if you can't check it on the spot, you'll spend more time getting it right in the first place. As for black and white; there's no way digital monochromes can compare to a true silver gelatin print. I know thre's lots of people who won't agree with me, it's just how I feel and my general opinion.</p>

<p>It seems that a few of you didn't understand my point regarding that your customer doesn't care HOW you capture your images.<br>

If you can produce a different or superior product with film, then by all means go for it! But if you're going to have the film processed, scanned and printed digitally and the result appear the SAME, then why bother? If the images look the same side-by-side, then you're not going to get more work or more money by marketing that you use film or digital.<br>

It's all about the results, it's not about your customers or mine.....-Aimee</p>