Jump to content

Do top Professional photographers use film still ?


john_dowle1

Recommended Posts

<p>Are there still some of the worlds top photographers using medium format film for their work or have most moved over to digital ? I was wondering because with digital medium format they obviously have a choice that is equal or better quality, or is it better or equal to film MF ?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>John:<br>

There must be a few. Pro shops in NYC still sell medium and large format film. And there are still a few pro labs left too.</p>

<p>The thing you have to remember though is that there's no single thing called "quality" in professional photography. Different films and digital platforms have factors that make them...well...different. Unique combinations make up signature styles.</p>

<p>Finally, if you're working with the sorts of high-end clients that New York commercial shooters are, it's unlikely you can indulge in the luxury of film vs digital debates. It's all about getting a unique look and feel. If a certain kind of images is called for; you do it.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I was asking only out of interest, I shoot weddings with D3's & D700's but have just started with MF, I'm shooting film for my own pleasure, although I might start shooting some portraits etc with MF at some weddings this summer. I just wondered if any well known big shooters still preferred to use film MF/LF for their work, thanks for the feedback.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>At a certain level, photographers are hired to produce images that have the look and feel that "they" create. If you are shooting film for your look, then you will probably shoot film. But my sense is that there are probably very few photographers, probably much older and specialized, that would only use film these days. Some clients don't really care what is used while many look at you with a blank stare if you suggest shooting film.</p>

<p>I will add that as recently as 5 years ago, I had clients who wanted their work shot with film and that was more than ok with me. I do think digital has gotten better in the last 5 years, but for certain work I would probably prefer shooting film--even though digital takes a lot of the guess work out of it all.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The reasons for shooting medium and large format film are still there. The quality can't be beat unless you spend a lot of money on a digital camera. I know several wedding shooters that still prefer film. It's what they do. And the cost of film and processing is a lot cheaper than a pair of high end DSLRs.<br>

The fine art shooters are of course still shooting film. But the commercial world has gone almost exclusively digital over the last decade. For example in the photo district in Manhattan there were dozens of E6 processing labs. Now you are lucky to find one.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just kidding.<br>

But there are lots of well-known photographers working with film. One obvious one is Martin Schoeller (although he seems content to take the same photograph again and again). There are several whose work appears in the NY Times. I think Steve Pyke is one. Also some that shoot for the New Yorker. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Loved this quote from David Bailey in the cited link -<br>

“Nah” he quipped in front of the Labour Party leader. “Digital’s like socialism – it flattens everything out and makes everything the same.”</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>From my experience I know many that still use film, but I don't know (personally) any that exclusively use it anymore. I'm sure there are some out there though... obviously still landscape folk, but it's a bit more difficult to find those with more time-dependant work using it exclusively.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>No doubt a few do. But they also have budgets from their clients that will support that. Depending on the medium foramt digital back and resolution yes, a MFDB can surpass the resolution ( which is notthe end all and be all of quality) of even the best medium format and some 4x5 films which also then have to be scanned. <br>

David Bailey says a lot of things . Some are acute observations of the world but some are salty rubbish that make good sound bites. Bailey also hasn't really changed his style of shooting in decades , which is fine because it works for him. If you try it you'll just be a second, third or fourth rate imitation of him.. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Are there still some of the worlds top photographers using medium format film</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, lots. Whether its 'most' or not is impossible to measure, and will depend a lot on who you think the world's top photographers are. But nearly everyone must also be using digital in one way or another, even if it's just for test shots or for their holiday snaps.</p>

 

<blockquote>I was wondering because with digital medium format they obviously have a choice that is equal or better quality, or is it better or equal to film MF ?</blockquote>

<p>That seems to assume that their aim is to get the best quality, whatever 'quality' means. If they all were aiming for the best 'quality' meaning resolution, then they'd probably all be using 20" x 24" plate cameras with film. or suchlike. But many may be aiming instead to achieve a particular effect. Whether they can best achieve the effect they are looking for using film or digital will rather depend on the particular effect that they are trying to achieve.</p>

<p>But yes, lots of the world's most famous photographers still use film. If you're looking at the art world for example, you'll probably find that's a majority. If you think of the world's top photographers as being travel photographers shooting for National Geographic, then you'll probably find that more shoot digital.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you for all the replies fellas, I'm learning a lot from reading all the information I read here on photo.net.<br>

I have shot digital for 8 years now and I'm extremely happy with my current cameras the D3's & D700's that I use but when I visited Joe Cornishes gallery (he is a successful British landscape photographer) close the where I live I must admit that I am astounded by the quality of the large prints that are hung on the walls, incredible quality. He shoots with large format cameras and I think he also uses medium format sometimes, obviously the prints are done professionally and that must make a big difference I think.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the best landscape photographers are shooting medium and large format film, with Fuji Velvia being a favorite.

It's funny, but if you look at, say, Outdoor Photographer magazine, most of the magazine is trying to get you to buy

digital stuff but most of the time the cover was shot on Velvia film. The trick is the huge frame size - if you make an

enlargement from a 4"x5" frame size, that's a lot less enlarging than from a 1"x1.5" frame. But really, the important

thing isn't how many people are shooting film or digital but what's goin to work for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Look at various image users and producers! Some pro is doing "Tin-Types",others work with large format sheet film. A pro must produce. The manner is unimportant.The final result is the goal. It's not what seems better.<br>

Truth be told,all digital files could be useless in 20 years..If NASA can't read their old data, what chance have we? So maybe we all must make prints and maybe shoot film also.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>So maybe we all must make prints and maybe shoot film also.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even if you are fully digital in your photography, I think it's very important to make prints as these will probably be around much longer than any files.</p>

<p>Also I don't understand the people who are always upgrading their equipment to get ever increasing resolution then only view their images on a monitor or TV or digital photo frame or only upload to websites.</p>

<p>To me, photography is about making and showing prints.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"Truth be told,all digital files could be useless in 20 years.."</i><br><br>Truth be told: if they are, it's because noone wants to use them anymore.<br>It's extremely easy to keep digital files alive across as many format changes as you want to fear. You may not want to put in the effort for some (or many), because you don't need all those files (just as on film, there are 'keepers', and ones that do not need a name because they might as well not be at all). Not now, and not in 20 years. But there is absolutely no problem.<br><br>(Declaration of interests: i like film more than digital, and consequently use film much, much more than digital.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yes, but it's likely that their businesses are tuned to run on film.</p>

<p>Keep in mind the bottom line. To screw up with film costs at least a dollar a frame. To do well with film, it'll cost $10 per frame, because of the follow-on printing. The digital equipment can cost more than a car, but have no cost per error beyond lost time and opportunity. Digital's main sustainment cost will lie with updating software and licensing computers, the payout of hush money to other businesses. Both media will require an outlay of thousands of dollars over a lifetime; but, the money will be spent in different ratios. </p>

<p>The decay of both kinds of equipment will have different rates. The film camera will last for decades, but its recording media is consumed in an instant. The digital camera will have a lifespan of about five years or less, but can produce tens of thousands of images of consistent recording quality. The disposition of the property, where and how images are stored, also counts, economically. </p>

<p>Understanding these commercial differences in the operation is an important part of evaluating the monetary aspects of operating the cameras. Notice also that bulk consumer demand will push and pull a market. This will affect equipment and supply availability, regardless of the object's merits. If the majority want a Trabi, and you want to keep your Ferrari running, most oil filters for sale will fit on the Trabant. If you are in the Ferrari operating business, it's a point to consider. That consideration includes charging your client accordingly, consuming your resources on the job accordingly, and making each item well.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If, in the OP's case of doing some weddings in digital and some portraits in film: think of the outlay per job. If you want to do some portraits, you can spend a few rolls and keep your costs per job under $50 for the camera recordings. If you shoot the wedding in color transparency 120, a hundred frames will run you near $100. I don't do weddings, so I have no idea how much they shoot; but, I remember Josh Root posting one time about how his outlay for photographing a wedding in transparency exceeded $700. Meanwhile, the amount of money a client will want to pay will be based on average cost in the market; higher overhead for the photographer will not necessarily be embraced by every potential client. So, frame rate and method of working to get the image recorded will have a lot to do with disciplining your profit margin to stay within budget.</p>

<p>My film photographs outsell my digital photos at a rate of 25:1. Sometimes even less for digital. [The digital photos do well if the end product is meant to be seen on a monitor, hands down.] Meanwhile, my main purchasers want decor photographs for home and office; they want to see the product framed and on a wall. I end up operating a razor, a saw and a drill as much as a camera, grad cylinder and darkroom. Also, I have no incentive or requirement to make a lot of recordings, fast. Truth is, working faster doesn't help me personally do better. When the difference means a supply bill base difference of $50 or $1000, per task, just to get the image recorded, then that's something to keep in mind.</p>

<p>I have no quarrel with people who would work differently; but, I think no one would advise adopting a destructive amount of overhead for the task at hand. Either recording method, film or digital, applied incorrectly, could result in a destructive pattern of spending against the money coming in per job. My hypothetical advice to you would be to keep your slow work in film and your fast, one-time event recordings like weddings, in digital. Doing some crossover, like 10% or less of the day, could probably be absorbed by either process. Meanwhile, you have to pay your own bills as your client pays you.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As a wedding photographer, there are things that are more important to me than overheads. Overheads are of course important, but probably aren't going to drive the choice of format unless other factors are more or less equal.</p>

<p>The two most important of these are: whether choosing one format or the other is going to create a greater buzz and demand for my services. If it does, then extra overheads can easily be obsorbed in increased income. The other is: time. If I can develop a workflow using one approach or the other that can save me a day or two post processing work, then that is worth quite a lot of overheads. I can always shoot the odd extra wedding or two if I want with the time saved.</p>

<p>Using film, the overheads are probably going to be less than $700, simply because you're very unlikely to shoot 700 frames of medium format. You're also unlikely to be photographing with transparency. Most film wedding photographers will probably shoot a few rolls of medium format, and the rest on 35mm, and probably won't be using a digi-maching-gunning approach.</p>

<p>About 8 rolls of MF and 15 rolls of 35mm is a pretty decent average allowance for a wedding. Including film purchase, development <strong>and scanning</strong>, that's about $450 total. Photographing one extra wedding might (depending on pricing of course) easily pay for the film overheads for around 7 or 8 weddings. So <em><strong>if</strong></em> using film involved less post processing (doing relative minor adjustment to scans rather than having to work on RAW files to achieve a 'look') and meant I could take on the odd extra wedding, then the extra film overheads would be relatively insignificant. If it cut my post processing in half, and saved me perhaps a couple of days per wedding, then the film overheads would be relatively insignificant compared to the revenue I'd get from taking on extra weddings.</p>

<p>Not arguing in favour of using film, just saying that film cost is a relatively small part of the economics of it.</p>

<p>The most important thing of all is whether using one medium or another creates greater demand, and whether it might save post processing time.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>So do you find that shooting weddings on film has an effect on demand, or does it really not matter to the clients? It sounds like if you can get in an extra job to make up the difference in cost, and you have enough demand that you can get the extra job, then you can just take your pick and work however you prefer to.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...