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

<p>I understood, I was just giving my opinion on the type of photography I personally prefer. I will soooo miss film if it ever goes altogether - so much that I'll probably give up photography if I can't use my darkroom.</p>

<p>I shoot weddings using a variety of digital cameras and can PShop to higher standards than my customers need or expect and better IMO than my local competitors, so I'm firmly placed in this digital world.<br /> However, of my 8 presentation albums, two were shot on film (post processed in PShop) and more often than not, prospective clients will often comment favorably on the quality of my images whilst reviewing these books. They know nothing of the original source, but they are detecting a difference and one they like.<br /> I find it more than interesting that, in particular, there are three double page spreads that more often than not prompt a 'gasp' of appreciation. These spreads each contain 4, 8x6" lustre prints that were shot on a Mamiya 7 with Portra film. Evidence I believe that the print quality does shine through to B&G's that have no knowledge, or real interest in the capture device, or can explain why they feel the need to comment at hat point. I don't have that camera any longer, but I occasionally wonder whether that's a mistake.<br /> I suspect that in the end only very discerning photographers will be shooting weddings on film, or part film, but because of their commitment and knowledge, their end product will be superior to the general mass of digital shooters.</p>

<p>Film will be around for ever, IMO. Somebody is planning to produce another big batch of 20"x24" Polaroid and that has to be bought in $2,500 packs. For long into the future, there'll be demand for several million rolls a year of 35mm and that volume will keep a factory in China/Japan/Albania .... etc, busy.</p>

<p>Sure there is a place for medium format film. Try shooting some Kodak Ektar 100 and you'll see a great tonal range still unmatched by Digital. A lot of people are shooting Medium format Holgas at weddings for a unique look. A lot of people will tell you "NO". But if you want to give your photography a personal stamp go for film and explore the different emulsions. Photoshop CANNOT simulate all of the Analog Look of film. Just have fun and see if you like it.</p>

<p>There are a number of sectors to this question. First, there's amateur/artistic shooting versus professional (wedding) shots. Second, there's b/w versus color.<br>

Film has a wonderful place for amateur/art photography, but for pros it's purely a niche now. It's a lot of extra work and substantial expense over digital. And although I think b/w film will be around forever, being relatively simple to make and easy to process at home, color film may die off completely. Its manufacture is about economies of scale, and it's getting wiped out by digital there. Does it make sense for Fuji/Kodak to keep manufacturing color film for a market 10% the size of its past, or 1%? We've already lost Agfa.<br>

If you're going to try to sell film as part of a wedding shoot, first market it as an exclusive boutique service, for an upcharge. Second, market b/w rather than color. Why? Because b/w looks more "special". And it's very, very hard to get the richness and depth of traditional b/w printing from digital. A glorious, hand-printed b/w photo of the bride and groom, large size, off medium format, will look truly magical AND be a clear work of craftsmanship.</p>

<p>I want to begin by thanking all the contributors to this thread as I have enjoyed it immensely. I am a fine art photographer who shoots landscapes, people, and architecture almost exclusively in 35 mm film. I shoot about 25% digital and I have my own darkroom. I purchased a first-rate complete darkroom with papers for $180 and I process my own film.<br>

In my experience, the cost of film is much less than digital when it comes to equipment and printing. I own 2 F5s, an F4 and an F100 that I purchased for nearly nothing over the course of two years on EBay. But cost is only the means that allowed me to acquire pro film equipment. The ends for me are the higher quality resolution of film and the artistry, the warmth of a silver gelatin print compared to a digital print. For me efficiency is irrelevant and the truth is, I print more film images than digital ones because I find more pleasure working in the darkroom than I do scrolling through slide shows in my computer and handing them off to a lab.<br>

The question of Film vs Digital is really one of preference. For me, they are different media in many ways with different results and costs. I have no problem finding excellent pro films and labs in south Florida and in my experience, as people mentioned in previous posts, old analog technologies resist obsolescence precisely because of their niche or specialty value. I believe that the pervasiveness of film cameras will mean that there will always be a market for film and film processing.<br>

As a trained artist and an avid photographer who shoots both media, I can say with certainty that a trained eye, a discerning eye, almost always see the difference between a silver gelatin print and a digital print. I also believe that in the medium of black and white photography, there is no comparison between the two in terms of integrity, quality, warmth, and appeal, the silver gelatin print is without equal.</p>

<p>I'm not even going into the discussion of the feeling of silver gelatin print. But shooting with a D700, I went back to 35mm and my medium format more and more.<br>

Simple reason; The D700 is giving wonderful photos, but it does not challenge me anymore to hunt for that one shot. You can take thousands, so why be critical. Also composition-wise, the speed and ease of shooting with a D700 makes that I was lacking more and more the creative challenge. <br>

So I'm now shooting 35mm F5, digital D700 and MF Mamiya C330f. A great combination and investment in film is very reasonable these days as well.</p>

 

<p>Marc--nowhere did I say that all analog labs were bad. Your analogy is beside the point. My statement was in reference to your comment that 'labs aren't an issue'. My point is, they are--at least the ones that we all used to use for obtaining prints. I am not talking about the drugstore, 1 hour lab. I am talking about pro labs, where you could get wonderful prints from negatives for wholesale prices. Now, you will have to look harder to find a pro lab that will even print from negatives, and when they do, the quality just isn't there, and you have to pay more per print than prints from digital files.</p>

<p>The lab I referred to is one of the biggest pro labs in the US. I also have accounts at two other pro labs, neither of which will print from negatives anymore. Sometimes I look at some of the prints I've had made over the years, and the quality difference is obvious. You can see the richness in skin tone and the color and contrast are beautiful--all for your standard wholesale print prices.</p>

<p>One could keep gravitating to the increasingly fewer labs that still can produce good prints, but again--you will probably pay more. And if you don't print directly from negatives--to me--what's the point? As Aimee said above, if you scan the negative, the resulting scan is almost the same as a digital file, particularly if the scan is not handled well (in which case, it is worse than a digital file), and most lab scans (even pro labs) don't produce scans with great care, since they have to scan hundreds of negatives per job. You and I have had this conversation before. I agree that, done well, a scan from a negative can still retain that rich film quality, but the 'done well' part is the key. With the hundreds of images one shoots at a wedding, it is a problem, IMHO. I, for one, would not scan all the negatives, and even if one scans only the album picks, that is still a lot of work (there goes the comparison to digital processing time). Even if one does find a lab capable of great scans, you will still be paying more for it.</p>

<p>This is why I think a film only business (not a hybrid) will be difficult for someone just starting out in wedding photography. Not impossible, but difficult. I'd think you would have to arrive on the upscale scene/market 'fully blown'. One would not be able to start small--charging low prices--and slowly work one's way up. Now--it costs more to be all film and compete against the low end digital shooters (unless you just give the rolls of film to the client--who won't know what to do with them), so you have to get clients who will pay more to make it worthwhile. I can see working your way up with a hybrid business, though, particularly with black and white film.</p>

<p>And there are some aspects of digital that are just plain better than shooting with film. Low light shooting for instance. I like being able to use high ISO to get good quality images. I like being able to alter the contrast in Lightroom for low light reception images, where on film, the shadows would block up or be less accessible (even with great use of off camera lighting).</p>

<p>So if I were considering adding film into my business, I would use it where it shines, and digital where it shines. But for me--film would be printed from the negative.</p>

<p>There always be film. It might me a niche market for artists. There are folks doing wet plate photography and dry plate photography today and there will be folks doing darkroom photography in the future. Even if they have to make our own plates and cameras. Look at the pinhole camera movement.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p>Gee, there are a lot of responses. I am going to have to take some time to read through everything.</p>

<p>Nadine, I agree with you that film would have to be done in an analog way to make it worthwhile. Otherwise, you're at the mercy of a scanner and its rendition of your negative. Also, I don't see much benefit to shooting color film when digital (eg Canon 5D Mark II) has more flexibility. B&W film processed and printed by hand is attractive though.</p>

<p>Hello Val<br>

You have posed an interesting dellima. I purchased a Canon 5D Mark II because I wanted a camera that had the same format as my Canon ELAN 7NE. I still love film, but have not shot one roll since purchasing the 5D Mark II. The resolution is incredible and with products like Exposure by Alien Skin, I can create film like prints easily.</p>

 

<p>Nadine, Labs have never been an issue for me. Scanning film never has never been a problem. Printing scans and having them look different from digital images never has been a problem. It requires a different work flow and different product sold to clients. Frankly, it appears your experiences are not the same as mine. So, it's probably useless to carry the sub conversation on any further. </p>

<p>I get the feeling there is a movement to suck the alternative thinking out of having choices ... further homogenizing this sector of photography in the name of so called "commerce." No one has ever come up with alternatives to mainstream ways of approaching wedding photography by doing everything the way everyone else does. Pack mentality is not good commerce IMO.</p>

<p>We've come to believe that you can't shoot film in low light and we need super high ISO digital cameras to do it. I don't know about anyone else, but I never used film over ISO 800 and shot weddings for years and years to no ill effect. Again, perhaps my experiences differ from everyone else's.</p>

<p>What you provide to clients doesn't have to be like everyone else. That's why I liked Jeff Ascough's approach to providing about 200 frames, and how he sells that notion in a Mc Donald's "Billion Served, Super Size Me" society.</p>

<p>Time spent: the lab processes and proofs film. 20 minutes to cull the junk proofs. Done. Once they are selected, the custom album prints cost the same as printing custom digital files. </p>

<p>

<p>Should you want to scan: Scanning film and printing it doesn't look like digital. That's an incorrect assumption. Film grain is random, and that random aspect is preserved in scans. Film's heel/toe response and latitude is different than digital, and is preserved in scans. Prints from digital or film can be done on true photographic paper, but the film prints look like film always has.</p>

<p> </p>

 

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think Nadine has a point, and its the immediacy of digital that has changed clients expectations, both of the cost and also the time frame to see the keepers.</p>

<p>Of the two pro's that I know, one takes weeks to produce film landscapes and portraits and charges $2500 per beautifully mounted and framed image. He takes engagements months in advance. That's one extreme. Then there are the local photographers who shoot a wedding and send a cd to the client the next day with a couple of hundred images from which to choose to print. These charge an hourly fee. One could go broke doing that very quickly.</p>

<p>Its a bit like the perennial problem of paying for expertise and quality, but how do you get that experience if you charge too much? I think that the answer is to do landscapes and get good, so you can show off your work, or do a model session for some portraits and do the same. One can hire a gorgeous model for $200/hr and a studio for for less and build your portfolio. No one will know that you weren't being paid. I'd call that an investment in marketing.</p>

<p>Marc--I'm not saying labs have been a issue for you, or scanning. I know you scan your film yourself, mostly, because you feel lab scans don't do justice to the image. I agree, and I agree that a print from a well done scanned negative looks different from a digital print. We've had this conversation before, unless something has changed. The labs I am talking about are the mainstream pro labs. I grant you that there are smaller and specialty labs now taking over the negative printing business that can probably do extremely well. I haven't found one yet because I am not pursuing color film printing for my wedding photography business, or I would make it a point to do so.</p>

<p>Of course, our experiences are different. Why would they be the same?</p>

<p>As for different workflow--that is my point. With mainstream labs, printing from negatives is a problem. Perhaps you don't use the mainstream labs (or haven't). I am not talking about prints from custom digital files, I'm talking about the 'standard' print. This is the same level of print that we photographers could get wonderful quality from at most any pro lab.</p>

<p>I am not trying to suck the alternative thinking out of choices--merely saying that finding a lab that can do justice to printing from negatives at the same pricepoint as your mainstream pro lab's wholesale prints from digital is a problem...a problem that will definitely affect one's ability to start up a wedding photography business based on film, to compete with the equivalent new digital shooters. This is why I said one has to come on the upscale market 'fully blown'. The typical newcomer's method of starting low priced and working up is not going to be easy to do with this scenario.</p>

<p>I also didn't say we 'needed' digital cameras to shoot high ISO, or that we were missing anything by shooting past weddings with lower ISO film. I said digital does a better job of extremely high ISO. I have seen some extremely high ISO images from very low light wedding ceremonies that I know would not look so good on film. I shot weddings with nothing higher than ISO 400 film too (I didn't really use ISO 800), and before that, with ISO 125 film. There was nothing 'missing', but now, one can shoot at the extremely high ISOs to very good effect, so why not? My opinion only.</p>

<p>I'm all for being creative about one's products and services and doing things differently. You still have to make a profit if you are serious about running a business. My point is--as a new wedding shooter, it will be harder to compete with new digital shooters if you are going to start a film only business. Not only with expenses, although I totally get the equivalent time spent in front of a computer, but with marketing. (We are, however, talking about out of pocket expense vs time). Again, to get to the folks who appreciate the difference and who will pay for that difference, one needs to market creatively too. If one is already at that level, I'd say it would be easy to convert to a film only business. I think Neil Ambrose, above, might easily do so. A new wedding photographer? Much harder.</p>

<p>I suspect that 5-10 years from now that we'll look back on this discussion and smile......</p>

<blockquote>

<p>film involves more raw expenses in the way of material, processing and scanning (if you convert to digital), you will have to, for instance, figure out a way to counter the fact that digital (on the surface) has no similar costs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i shot weddings with nikon d3's, but i have now upgraded to 135 film. i have a hybrid workflow, and whilst the ongoing costs of film/development/scanning aren't there with digital, my workflow with film now saves me hundreds of dollars per wedding in saved post processing time. the last wedding that i shot with both digital and film (50/50), I presented the images to the b&g and they chose around 85% of the film images. it was at that point that i knew i had to shoot all film. the images do look better, but it comes with its challenges. anything worth doing, is worth doing right and i guess i do like a challenge.</p>

<p>Tom--as I said, you are comparing out of pocket expenses to time. On one level, they are comparable, on another, they aren't. If one were not a newcomer to the business then time savings can definitely make a considerable difference. If one is a newcomer trying to start a business, out of pocket could just be the thing that prevents you from making a go of it early on.</p>

<p>I definitely agree with you about the challenge, though. You'd better really want to work with film if you do it.</p>

<p>Hi Val</p>

<p>Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and preferences when it comes to art. Doing photography as a hobby only I cannot really comment on your question however I have a dark room and process and print all my own black and white negatives. We have had a problem in South Africa of acquiring the chemicals. I googled formulas and managed to get the raw chemicals and mixed them myself (you don't have to be a rocket scientist) Second hand dark room equipment is readily available and cheap. There are also many alternative processes that you can use to make your work unique. ie lith printing (my favourite) split toning, bromide, van dyke etc. Also the final print on fibre based paper, in my opinion, has a certain feel and look that your customers should notice. However I am bias towards film as I love my time in the dark room. Good luck with your endeavours and don't give up on film just yet.<br>

Kind regards<br>

Cherene</p>

<p>I think Tom has it right. Digital only works out cheaper if you don't charge for the time you spend post-processing.</p>

<p>If I were ever to start doing weddings (which I most certainly will not!). I would do it the way he suggests.</p>

<p>Send films to lab, get proofs, send print order to lab. There are labs in the UK who keep files for a year so you can re-order with just the print serial number.</p>

 

<p>Pardon me, but this whole discussion seems pretty silly. Isn't wedding photography, especially, about the pictures and not how the pictures were shot? It seems using film or not is purely a photographer's decision, and if it's cost effective.</p>

<p>Tom said "my workflow with film now saves me hundreds of dollars per wedding in saved post processing time."</p>

<p>Time only has a dollar value if you can sell the time to someone. On the other hand, if you can avoid spending $500 by post processing for 4 days, then that can be really important to someone who has time on his hands. <br>

Full time wedding photographers with a schedule for, say 25 weddings a year, can have a lot of time available out of season to use to save expense. </p>

<p>In addition to post processing, I could pay for my albums to be designed and assembled, but why would I pay a manufacturer to do that when the alternative is to keep the cash in the business. Very different scenario to an active and busy studio. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Tom said "my workflow with film now saves me hundreds of dollars per wedding in saved post processing time."<br>

Time only has a dollar value if you can sell the time to someone. On the other hand, if you can avoid spending $500</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, there are two sides to this.</p>

<p>My view is that if you are spending several hours in the evenings post processing, then someone shoould be paying you to do it. </p>

<p>On the other hand, I expect many people are of the opinion that rather than sit at home in front of the TV all evening, they could be post-processing. To some, this means that there is no cost involved.</p>

<p>Interesting; Steve immediately identifies the differences in all our circumstances.<br>

Most of the money coming into this house comes from my wedding photography endeavors. If it was a supplement to the income from my previous job, the economics and motivation would be entirely different.<br>

One of the best ways to save time is take fewer images and remove the insurance that the extra frames provide. From my film days I know I could reduce the number of shots I now take in half, but run the risk of having portraits with eyes shut ... etc.. Not only does this reduce the processing, but it makes the job more 'digestible' .</p>

 

<p>I think the people who consider the time spent at home in the evenings post processing to be a zero cost are more likely to be the people who do an odd wedding here and there to supplement their income and are happy to get this extra income even if it does eat into their leisure time.</p>

<p>The problem with assuming it is free if it is your main occupation is that it is not scaleable. If you suddenly had an increase in business, you would still need to find the time. You would end up working all night and day.</p>

<p>Once your workload increases to the point where you need to hire someone else to help out, this 'business plan' goes out of the window as this person is not going to work for free!</p>

 

<p> Sorry, but I still contend that relative costs are LESS of a consideration than is being presented here. IMO, it is NOT a reason for VAL to abandon film.</p>

<p>First off, VAL is starting out as a possible second shooter per the original post. That's a good, low risk toe in the water. VAL is not a wedding shooter ... this is an experiment. What if VAL hates it? Shooting with the present gear presents no financial risk, buying digital gear does. </p>

<p>RE: start up costs: In this case VAL already has the 645 camera. In future the addition of a top end 35mm film body is cheap if desired. Lenses and flash gear cost the same, and can be used if VAL decides to go digital later. Low risk. </p>

<p>In comparison, IF you do not already have the gear, digital is initially quite an expense. The equipment is expensive compared to film gear. Ancillary costs associated with digital are the underside of an iceberg that could sink a new business pretty quickly ... most of which HAS to be purchased BEFORE you earn one dime. You do not pay for film and processing until you already have the work. BIG difference.</p>

<p>If you process your own digital files, experienced people here seem to forget the snail like learning curve of digital processing. It is a relatively slow and tedious undertaking, and requires years to get good at. Personally, I didn't swap out to hybrid capture from shooting 100% of my weddings on film for well over a year while I learned to process digital files ... which I look back on now and cringe. </p>

<p>In the end it IS the photographer's choice. I just hope we can keep the presentation balanced.</p>

<p>My personal take is that of a hybrid shooter. I can shoot a 645 camera with a digital back, or a film back ... on a Nikon digital camera or a Nikon film camera. Which, is an option VAL could exercise in future by doing Medium Format color digital and B&W film at will. To costly? MF Digital backs can be had now for considerably less than a high end 35mm DSLR (I know this for a fact because I just sold one, to get a better one).</p>

<p>Not suggesting VAL even think of doing this NOW, but if he goes for the quality over quantity marketing approach, it could well be a consideration in future if his approach gains favor in the marketplace. If it doesn't work VAL will know it, and can make the decision to swap to 100% 35mm digital at any point ... and has risked virtually nothing up to that point.</p>

<p>-Marc </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The expectation of many tech-savvy, young brides and grooms is that there will be in their hands a DVD with 1500 to 2000 images for their perusal & for album selection, the minute they return from their honeymoon. I have a soft spot for film, but using film would make satisfying that expectation quite a hustle, and an expensive one at that.</p>

<p>Still shooting film at times; my backup body is an F100.</p>