How many photographer here still using SLR camera or film ?

I wonder to know how many photographer in the world still using SLR camera or film for their photograph?

And what make they are still not move to digital, is there any reason still stay with film?

 

Regards

Susy

I prefer digital for high volume, production oriented projects, such as event photography. It's more cost effective.

 

But I dislike post processing. I don't want to be the lab. So for low volume event photography I still prefer film. Let someone else do the dirty work.

 

B&W is different. The process *is* the enjoyable part, as much as making the exposures. Unfortunately I'm trying to figure out how to squeeze a darkroom into a closet in a small apartment. Not much different from the challenge faced by those who paint for enjoyment, tho'.

I still shoot film exclusively. I make photographs for pleasure, and probably to sublimate my toxic sexual demons. If

I made my living doing this, and thank gawd I don't, that would be a different matter.

 

Anything serious of mine is usually medium format black and white landscape. For the stuff I shoot, medium format

film photography still has certain advantages that I won't go into here. I am slow, and usually shoot from

a tripod. So far this year, I've shot about a dozen rolls of 35mm, and 30 rolls of 120. This means in calendar 2008 I

will expose fewer than 1500 frames.

 

The numbers are so small it would be pointless for me to convert to digital right now, although I don't rule it out in the

future.

I use film, mainly for panoramics and medium format. It is hard to get that quality from digital, at least within reasonable cost. I shoot a bit more than Dave, but still far from enough to justify a 39Mp digital medium format back. I am looking forward to the Sony 25Mp DSLR. After that I will probably still shoot panoramics on film, but probably less than now.

All my serious photography is still shot on film - b+w film, that is. I like the chemical image, I like the process, I like handling negs, paper and chemistry. Weird, I know, but then ask why painters still paint and sculptors still sculpt. To me, digital is too remote, it's 'in the box' and I can't touch it, it is kept isolated from me.

If, and it is a big if, you want to look at the actual light struck surfaces that bear the marks that form the picture then nothing that has been touched by digital technology is worth looking at. Nothing, ever!

 

Digital picture fabrication is the current mechanisation of traditional art practice; the old eye-brain-hand cycle of the painter merely being replaced by an equivalent camera-computer-printer cycle.

I tried digital with a D100 for nine months. I now have about twenty film cameras ranging from from 6x6 and 6x9 folders, TLRs, A Bronica ETRS, a Mamiya RB67 and a home made 5x4"<br><br>I just don't like the amount of sitting at a computer time involved. I do enough of that at work.

Actually I'm coming at it from the other direction. As a digital shooter I'm moving in to film, for a lot of the

reasons people mention here and more. For one, I want to be a better photographer. Digital promotes the spray

and pray mentality, automatic everything, push button photography. I like to slow down, look at the shot,

compose the shot. While that can be done digitally, the digital mentality doesn't promote such thinking.

 

I purchased 2 MF film cameras this year and am looking for a third. I purchased a 4x5 film camera as well. I

love shooting those cameras. The Digital just isn't as fun. You cannot compare plugging in a memory card with

pulling even relatively small 6x4.5mm film out of the tank and seeing your negatives. Then trying 4"x5" film -

the quality of detail, the anticipation, did I develop it right? So much can go wrong that I start to really

THINK what am I doing, why? Is this picture worth taking?

 

Why do I shoot film? Because its fun, knowing that if i push that shutter button, it will cost me $2.50 for that

sheet of film means I approach my photography much differently. Digital doesn't mean better, just different and

it took a Medium Format Film camera for me to learn that. I prefer film black and white to digital black and

white - no comparison. All the digital black and white's I've seen have an odd green hue to them under

florescent lighting. It looks ugly and its because the inks that the mfg's use.

 

For the record I shot over 25000 digital pictures last year shooting 2 hockey teams and college football. I

still shoot digital, it has its place, but for real fun, I love to take out the film. No one knows what it is or

thinks its some fancy digital camera better than their new dSLR. Its hilarious. Or they lecture me, I should go

digital, its better.

 

Digital does not mean better.

Still sticking with film!

 

The process behind a purely mechanical camera forces you to slow down, you can't just shoot hundred of images

and then spends hours looking at those shots to 'figure out' what's to throw and what's to 'tweak' to make it look

decent. OK, there are disappoitment, but for my favourite subject (landscapes!) there's still a lot to go for Velvia and

medium format. For other stuff though (portrait, 'casual' photography,...) digital is great so long as you don't get too

excited (and I mean, really too excited) with the shutter.

Both. I use digital for anything I will probably want to share (like visiting relatives) and film for anything important to me (like travel, hobby, scenic).

I should add that transparencies are my major film use and I see that it is now possible to make slides from digital files and I may try it sometine and if it is worthwhile I might switch entirely to digital.

Digital is definately more convenient, but I wouldn't feel safe without my film camera(s). I get incredible 3D looking B&W images from my Mamiya 6X4.5. With my Nikon FE-2 I can shoot Infrared, slides and T-Max . With my Nikon FM-2, I can shoot in the rain, in sand storms, at the beach, in below zero temps etc.

I use mainly digital for practicality, but see no reason to stop using film.<BR>

Thats the point really, which more people seem to realise now, you don't have to move to digital, you just do both.

I shoot mostly film for number of reasones.

When digital first hit the street, I switched over to it, and stuck with it for the most part up until a year or so after the first Digital Rebel came out. I still used film cameras as well, but I tried to move to digital for most things and I found that I just didn't like the post processing, or some of the technical aspects that seemed to me to intrude on the enjoyment of photography. I found that while digital offered certain advantages, very few of them addressed problems that I personally had, and because of that, I went back to film.

 

For the longest time I used 35mm film SLR cameras, but never could find one that really addressed all of my needs. I then moved to a medium format SLR system and found that this was much better in many ways, but still lacking something for certain situations. Now, and for the last few years, I have been very happily using 4x5 and medium format film for %90+ of what I do (digital being the remaining ~%10 - I no longer use 35mm film except in my stereo camera).

 

While I can say that if film did completely disappear in my lifetime (which I feel is unlikely) I would certainly switch to digital rather than giving up photography all together, there is something that, for me, cannot be replaced by a computer. The process of darkroom work is very rewarding and I can honestly say that I would *greatly* miss it. Working in a wet darkroom is rewarding in a way that, again for me, just cannot be replaced with a computer. That could be due to technology overload, or the accelerated pace of life in general in this day in age, or it could just be fun to use my hands to create something - who knows. But developing and printing in my little bathroom darkroom is one of the most rewarding hobbies that I have and I am wont to let it go.

 

- Randy

I'm still shooting 35mm film, for lots of reasons, but mainly for quality. I think many people's experience of film has been the photolab unfortunately, where you get grainy/horrible oversharpened low-res prints, which explains film's bad press. When you see a 30x20 optical print from 35mm, it's hard to say that digital is really 'there'. Having said that full-frame 16MP slrs probably are, but I don't have £5000+ to spend on just the body, given a new Nikon F6 gives you a pro body, full frame, great resolution and colour for just £1200. Or get a second-hand Pentax LX and £300 gets you a pro MF body. Leaving you thousands left over for the glass that is going to make a difference to your photography.

 

However the down sides are if you shoot a lot, film becomes overwhelming. It's also important to have a good scanner and be able to use it properly (not straight forward). And I feel I miss out on the convenience to share photos easily with friends etc on the internet. But then I might one day buy a D700 as a second body for more social photos, and use the F6 for my potential works of art ;)

 

Duncan

I'm sure some day I'll switch completely to digital, having used it for nearly 10 years now. But at this point, I actually shoot about 50% film and 50% digital. I typically use film for fun and the really important shots, especially if I don't have the digital with me. I use digital for snaps, vacation shots, testing lenses and photographic experimentation, and lastly for product shots for Ebay. Both IMHO are just tools with slightly different capabilities, like saw blades in my workshop....one cuts smoother crosscuts and the other cuts better ripcuts.

For several years now, I have shot only b/w, and hence use only film. However, I have recently become interested in using color as a medium and am considering the jump to part-time digital due to cost effectiveness. I have MF, LF, and 35mm film cameras that I love and can't imagine giving up. But a 5D sure would be convenient on some occasions. JR

IMHO, the nature of the question will probably give you a biased answer. As the number of film photographers shrinks, only the passionate will remain, and they'll be more apt to respond. The larger number of digital shooters likely don't care or barely remember film.

 

I've shot an awful lot of film over the years, but I can't find the time anymore. Digital provides me with better results, on average, than film ever did. Worse, I think today's materials don't compare to what I could buy in the '70s and the prices are absurd. Unlike many, I like post processing at the computer. I still have 4x5, medium format and 35mm, plus my darkroom, and I love the wet process, but I'd give less than even odds that I'll ever use them again.

I haven't touched film for years! I have no reason to... and I am glad. Digital is more convenient, I get great results with it (I am the only limitation, not the medium...) and it's greener too (no chemicals, no film, no waste, etc...).

This month's news letter says:

"-Cameras used:

Digital SLR camera: 84%

35 mm film camera: 44%

Point-and-shoot digital camera: 41%

Camera phone: 1%

Medium format camera: 19%

Large format camera: 5%

Rangefinder: 12%

Other: 4%

Still shooting film (almost exclusively) and still enjoying it, however I am not enjoying its escalating price. All of my better work is done with MF and LF film. I prefer the way it looks over digital capture. I like having an actual physical representation of the image in my hands <i>and</i> in my archive. Regards.

Giampi,

 

I respect your opinions, but you're going to have to show me unbiased reports showing that digital is 'greener' before I'll believe that statement. You need to consider the whole picture (computers, scanners, camera bodies, chips) - their production, disposal, etc, when you make statements like that, and electronics are a seriously non-green product in general. Digital might be 'greener' if you only look at what is used to create any given image, but if you look at what goes into making and disposing of the tools required to get that image, it's not quite no chemicals, waste, etc...

 

- Randy

>>You need to consider the whole picture (computers, scanners, camera bodies, chips)<<

 

I did - but, the whole picture is also that computers would exists REGARDLESS of digital cameras. Thus, it's a matter of percentages. Whereas a darkroom, film and its related chemical use exists ONLY for ONE purpose.

 

If you are a professional photographer perhaps your computer use might be 80% editing and the rest emailing (a greener alternative to snail mail), writing, business accounting, etc... all of which are paperless.

 

As for printing, since the image is edited before hand there is virtually NO waste (if you know what you are doing).

 

But, professional photographers are NOT the majority of users, amateurs are and they use computers for a whole different set of things: gaming, movie watching, burning CD's, web browsing, shopping online, family accounting, learning, etc... All in all, computers are green unless you throw yours away every time a new model comes around.

 

I always donate my older PCs to schools and/or other organizations, for example.

 

As for chips, again...they exist regardless of use. Chip makers have been around forever and will be around for a long time. So, you have to look at percentages there as well.

 

IN short, whereas film and its related chemicals only exist of their own end, computers and electronics exists for gazillion of uses, from microwave ovens to space shuttles.

But, I do agree that, especially in the US, we have become a throw away society. In fact, some people equate that to wealth. Sort of a "I CAN, THEREFORE I TRASH" mentality. Extreme consumerism doesn't help either. But, that would be a long post ;p