Are any of you 100% film shooters?

[leo patrone]

<p align="left">I was just wondering how many of you are still shooting film

100% if any. I am a 100% film shooter. Don't get me wrong, I am not one of those

guys that hates digital shooters, I shoot film because that is what works best

for me. I am interested to see if I am not alone in this forum. You can visit <a

href="http://www.leopatronephotography.com">www.leopatronephotography.com</a> to

see my work. Thank you in advance.</p>

[silver]

Our studio is 100% film, although I do have an 8 mp digital p&s to play with. We do not have a problem with digital, film just works better for us, we have a great lab and do not like spending hours at the computer.

[kenny_c]

I use digital for my jobs, but personally, im still shooting film.

[cjogo]

Film ::: unless someone can afford the digital. We offer both depends on their budget.

[karl_borowski]

All film as well. Mostly medium format, with 35mm only for 2ndary backups and tableshots.

I guess I"m probably the only one here that does the labwork myself. We sometimes outlab

the film, but do pretty much every size but wallets in-house now.

[doug_harhai]

I'm 100% film, in all formats. I am not adverse to digital, in fact I am even thinking of buying a film scanner for a few reasons. But I love my film cameras, and I have several professional cameras that (in total) cost me a fraction of what I would pay for one professional digital body. For my B/W, I will probably always keep my darkroom, I just love doing the printing, and I like the way the finished product looks.

[emmett_s]

Leo nice stuff! Reminds me of the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I am shooting both with a preference for film...but, and this is a big but....I am so dissatisfied with the labs I've tried/used, that I need to find another. Advice anyone?

[steve_levine]

I'm 100% film. For a while I used a DSLR for some candids, but found it isn't worth the trouble.

[steve_newberry___northern_]

100% film here too.

Many clients hire us because they prefer film but

there are just as many who prefer digital that don't hire us

which is fine. It's a huge market so as long as

you offer something special that appeals to a certain segment

of the population then they will hire you.

[kevin m.]

Hi Leo, nice work on your site! Looks like you do some alternative processing in some of

those shots, particularly Leti and Aaron's wedding. Do you, or is it PS work?

 

I'm still 100% film, BTW.

[robbie_caswell]

For all of my second shooting gigs and newspaper work, I'm all digital. My last solo wedding I did for myself I mixed a few rolls of film in and they came out nice.

 

I'm finding the more I explore Photoshop 7, the more I rely on Nikon Capture to bulk process, the more I depend on the histogram, the more I shoot RAW, the more I become one with my D200, the more I rely on changing ISO etc on the fly... the more I like digital.

 

However, when I go on vacation in Bermuda and will take my Leica M6. If only for a last walk down retro boulevard, and the fact I have a TON of film I need to shoot...

[annealmasy]

I started in film, and was quite adept at it. My switch to digital was purely to boost my profit

margin, and I've never looked back. In my opinion digital is the only was to go if you want to

stay competitive in this industry. Not to say you CAN'T succeed and shoot film, but digital

can definitely give you an edge if you play your cards right.

[kevin m.]

Anne, can you explain how digital makes you more profitable? From the outside looking in,

it doesn't seem to make much sense to me, particularly since so many people in the public

have the notion that digital = free.

[mercsadies]

I only shoot digital. I wouldn't feel comfortable shooting film because it's not what I learned on. I'm only 23 and because of my age and skill level I appeal to people who are around my age.

[afs760bf]

All film - 35mm and medium format. No digital until I can afford a 5D, or the next generation of full-frame DSLR. One of these days, though.

[kristian_.]

Yes. Definitely.

[fotografz]

Refreshing work Leo.

 

I'm digital, but shoot a fair amount of film ... and will be doing more now that I finally got an

Imacon scanner. Should have it next week, so this Saturday's wedding will see some rolls run

through the Leica and Hasselblad.

[al_kaplan1]

It's only more profitable to shoot digital if the equipment costs aren't factored in, and you place no value on your time spent staring at the monitor. It's immature technology, and those who jumped on board early have "upgraded" their cameras how many times in a few short years? One friend switched to digital Canon because he was already a long time Canon film shooter. After a year or so he switched to Nikon, buying all new lenses as well. Now he's back with Canon, but of course he'd sold all his Canon gear at a loss with the first switch. I'd estimate he's lost about $10,000 twice now.

 

Then there's the archiving problem. Kodak is now hyping a new 16mm film system to film makers who've been shooting video. Their sales pitch is largely that your films will be around in 100 years, unlike your digitally stored video. I'm heading out to the darkroom this morning to make three B&W prints, a reorder of some baby pictures that I shot back in 1976. The negatives are there and still easy to print.

 

Digital media, at the current state of the art, needs to be recopied every few years or the files get corrupted. Then there's the problem of old storage media being compatible with your computer, like what do you do with "floppies" when your new computer can't use them? Figuring inflation, film today is cheaper than it was years ago, and both B&W a color are a lot better than they used to be.

[lb-]

<i>It's only more profitable to shoot digital if the equipment costs aren't factored in, and you place no value on your time spent staring at the monitor. </i><p>

 

sigh. profitability is a business issue. Good business and bad business have nothing to do with what type of camera you use. Equipment costs (and time considerations) are just numbers to plug into equations. there are no universals. That your 40 year old leicas are all paid up and working great is wonderful, but means nothing in my market, doing the work I do. <p>

 

<i>It's immature technology, and those who jumped on board early have "upgraded" their cameras how many times in a few short years? </i><p>

 

doesn't matter if I upgrade once every 5 years or 5 times a year, if my equipment costs are such that I'm losing money that's just an issue of poor business skills. <p>

 

<i>Then there's the archiving problem. Kodak is now hyping a new 16mm film system to film makers who've been shooting video. Their sales pitch is largely that your films will be around in 100 years, unlike your digitally stored video.</i><p>

 

again you're trying to blame technology for what is ultimately human failings. nothing is stable. there is no archival format. film doesn't last forever. MOST film from 100 years ago is dust. most glass plate images from 100+ years ago are gone. anything of value needs to be correctly cared for, be it a negative or a digital file <p>

 

no offense is meant Al, but by your own admission (or bragging) you really don't know anything about a digital workflow, and you certainly can't know anything about my specific business in my specific market, so while arguing and rhetoric and generalizations are fun, ultimately your second hand anti-digital information isn't very useful.

[fotografz]

Lucas, unlike Al, I'm up to my eyeballs in digital and can speak to some of the discussion

points raised here (hopefully without starting a flame war) ...

 

The touting of business skills while true, isn't the whole story. The cost of doing business

in almost every commercial sector has increased exponentially ... unfortunately, rates

haven't kept pace.

 

So, while you, as one practitioner, may be able to cover these increased costs, there are

many others who are now working harder for less. From what I can tell, this is a majority

phenomena as opposed to a minority.

 

Now, I'm not talking about the heavy hitters in each commercial sector, their rates would

cover almost any cost factor. But instead the day-to-day shooters all over the country that

put food on the table, and want to send their kids to college. They're the ones taking the

hit.

 

I've said this before, my hat is off to the full time wedding shooters ... I honest to God

don't know how you do it.

[lb-]

hey marc, <p>

 

of course it's not the whole story, but I was responding to this.....<p>

 

<i>It's only more profitable to shoot digital if the equipment costs aren't factored in, and you place no value on your time spent staring at the monitor.</i><p>

 

I made the move to integrate a digital workflow into my business only when it made sense for me. The notion that I did so only because I was too stupid to factor the equipment costs into my business plan or that I don't value my time is just goofy. <p>

 

I'm making no grand sweeping claims one way or the other. I waited longer than many before I made a move with digital. others can do as they please, but the goofball rhetoric (in either direction) doesn't really move the converstaion forward. <p>

 

and while it may be that many are "now working harder for less", imho that really IS a business issue. I'm not disputing that in many markets it's getting harder to make a living (I'm quite sure I couldn't swing my lifestyle on weddings alone) but digital capture is just another factor to plug in, and certianly not the whole story either. <p>

[carbon_dragon]

>>>again you're trying to blame technology for what is ultimately human failings. nothing is stable. there is no archival format. film doesn't last forever. MOST film from 100 years ago is dust. most glass plate images from 100+ years ago are gone. anything of value needs to be correctly cared for, be it a negative or a digital file

<<<

 

This is a pretty misleading generalization. True film is not perfectly archival and some of the early color films faded badly, but generally your negatives from 1950 are probably not only printable today, but useable in enlargers and even computer scanners (35mm and most medium formats anyway). You'll NEVER get that kind of archival nature out of digital because there isn't a "standard" format and media that lasts more than a few years. It really IS easier to archive film than digital -- much easier.

 

To keep your digital images accessible requires effort and lots of it. You have to make multiple copies, watch for obsolescent media and file formats, periodically copy to new media, look for good backup archiving (hard drives, online, etc.). It can be handled, but not in the cavalier way we are used to handling our film archiving (put it in an acid free sleeve and put it in a binder on the shelf and come back in 20 years).

 

On the other hand if you DO the work with digital and can still read your file 30 years later it won't have lost any quality.

 

I'm convinced a whole generation of family pictures is going to dissappear completely as the media and file formats they use go obsolete and become unreadable. The pros and the advanced amateurs are up to the job of archiving digital, but the average joe is going to wrongly assume that that single CD-R copy is going to last forever and be readable in 2055.

[lb-]

hey david,

 

1950 wasn't 100 years ago, but that's really beside the point.

 

nothing lasts forever. Film, digital or otherwise. Each format is going to have it's pluses and it's minuses. We can selectively point them out in the hopes of winning arguments or we can embrace the differences (for better or worse) and accept that neither is perfect and nobody is right or wrong here.

 

the issue isn't generalizations but rather gross simplifications.

 

Film isn't "easier to archive" than digital, it's just different and to correctly archive either requires diligence.

 

I can't see how family snap shots or the data management habits of the "average joe" really relates to a discussion about working photographers and their equipment choices, but frankly the same person who assumes that their CDR will be fine in 50 years is the one leaving their negs in the damp basement.

[fotografz]

I agree, we can speculate until the cows come home.

 

The fact is digital is the medium of the day, and assuredly THE medium of tomorrow.

 

For commercial work it's been a God sent. Instant approval on the set, no re-shoots and

all that entails. Digital is the printing method for virtually all media now, and engraving

services want CMYK digital files anyway. I haven't shot film on a commercial job in 5 years

or so.

 

However, I think personal work and weddings are different. They wrap fish with the

commercial work ... longevity is measured in a months, maybe a couple of years ... unless

you're the historian at the Advertising Hall of Fame.

 

But pictures of my kids when they were just babies, photos of 7 year old me with my

Grand Father, wedding photos of my wife's parents and ones of her mom during WWII, a

B&W of my dad at 5 years of age in a Radio Flyer ... all still here, framed on my mantle ...

some taken with a Brownie Hawkeye and drug store developed.

 

In contrast, I have asked clients from years ago if they followed my advice to copy their

wedding disks and store them separately. Not one of them had done it. Not one.

 

I can't store all this stuff. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of shots. All on the if

come ... no real pressing economic reason to upkeep all that work. I know I'll never do it.

Never. No one else I know will either.

 

So, I also agree that it's more likely than not that a whole generation of images are going

to disappear, and someone's great Grandchild is going to wonder what the heck we were

thinking.

[robbie_caswell]

It's all a wash. It's time or money.

 

Next week an image shot from 35mm last Xmas during a prep hoops tourneyment will be turned in for publication. If that player (likely lottery pick) becomes the next Kevin Garnett... what format would you rather have? The image from a 10-16MP camera or 35mm?

 

Personally, I will never do anything less than 10MP for weddings and sports.

 

It's medium format quality with fast glass.

 

Why would anyone shoot with less when the bodies (D200) are so affordable?

 

Nearly pulled the trigger on a used Mk2 16MP last night... not so affordable.