"Most pros use film"

[Brad_]

<I>ask any pro lab what they used to run for roll counts then and now.</I><P>

 

There you go again Eric, with that pesky reality stuff.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In shooting artwork; I wnet to a digital scan back years ago. Before we use to shoot tranys; scan them; flatbed or mail away drum scans. I still do this every blue moon. The local only "pro lab" died; so the digital capture route wasnt really done for money; just to save the darn delays with mailing away MF and 4x5 films to be processed. Lab volume contracted; they stretched their chemicals; lost films; lost their minds; lost their decent employees; lost their customers; us. This was several years ago. The local "pro lab" is basically walgreens for 35mm C41; I have a commerical account their; they have processed probably 700 rolls with no problems. The "pro lab" that did 4x5; MF; 35mm lost film; sctrached it; light fogged 4x5 films. Wlagreens here is light years more pro than the senile ole lab in its last 2 years; that caused me to reshoot way too many jobs. I know of a ewedding photographer who lost the entire set of MF filmsm there; before he moved on. <BR><BR>Alot of folks were focus on digital versus film; and NEVER mention the regional differences in labs; or the hassles of dealing with lost films processed by labs in their senile end of life years. Customers for you images dont want excuses; they want images. The jump to digital is often just a "dead lab issue"; not a "film versus digital tecehnical performance issue"

[kelly_flanigan1]

Looks like I need another coffee; or dictionary!

[lee_shively]

Unless you're a pro, this really doesn't matter.

 

Clumsy, inefficient film is okay unless your livelihood is at stake.

[gene_e._mccluney]

I am a pro photographer with 30 years of experience, and I have become about 85%

digital, because my clients demanded it. I had no say in it. I either shoot digital for them,

or they will go elsewhere.

 

For myself, I prefer film, and still shoot 95% film for my personal "non-commercial"

images.

[glen_evans1]

Seb, Is your friend's magazine for big women or is it a big one for women? Also, to allude to as yet unsubstantiated cleavage is unprofessional. This is, after all a photo site. Perhaps your friend was trying to distract you with her B.S. anyway, using cleavage to widen the gap between film and digital is almost ironic. G.E.

[donald_brewster]

Pros are going to use what their clients demand or what meets their clients needs best. It is as simple as that.

[socke]

Not one roll of film was harmed during this fashion shoot:<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.tribeca-jeans.com/downloads/tribecaliveshooting2004.wmv">warning! Large WMV Video<br></a><br>

[ben z]

"Unless you're a pro, this really doesn't matter."

 

That's the conclusion I came to also, Lee, and why I'm fine with shooting film and letting digital keep getting better and cheaper. But some amateurs seem to constantly seek reassurance about the security of film's future, and other amateurs (and some pros)are always right there to pour salt into their wounds. I have no clue why either does that.

[brambor]

Now I know what they mean when they say: "You're running like a girl"

[paul t]

I've never met a photo editor, however impressive their cleavage, who

reckons that 'exciting' photographers use a particular make of camera. <p>

[Aoresteen]

My observations (very limited) has been that wedding photographers still shoot the formals on film (MF) and the candids on digital. At least that what I've seen in Orlando & Atlanta in the last two years.

 

Me, I am still happy with film. We bought a digital camera (6mp) last year and what my wife has found out the pain it is to do digital post-production. She still has problems with email versions of pictures and print versions. She still wants 4x6 prints. So I bought her an HP 375 Photosmart printer for Christmas and she likes it.

 

When I can get a full frame back for my 6x6 SLR for $1,000 that runs untethered then I will give digital a serious go.

[paul t]

"the recording end of things, which is almost all digital now" <p>

Jeff, you're responding to one doubtful generalisation (most pros use film)

with another. London's best-known studio has two digital studios, and one

very popular analogue one. In fact, the analogy is more complex - most

people have gone to digital more because the equipment is ultimately

cheaper, than because it's better quality - digital has some big advantages

(easier editing), analogue has others (you can push the levels without nasty

digital distortion, and it sounds familiar for guitar-based rock). Of course,

they're both plenty good enough for any musician , and if you take the norm

as being digital (which is cheaper, and more practical) with a healthy rump in

favour of analogue (White Stripes, Hives, etc etc), 20 years on from when

digital first appeared, maybe there is a clue as to what will happen with film.

[mr.wind-upbird]

Vinyl doesn't play in advanced resolution 5.1 surround. And it never will.

[Brad_]

<I>Jeff, you're responding to one doubtful generalisation (most pros use film) with

another.</I><P>

 

<I>most people have gone to digital more because the equipment is ultimately cheaper,

than because it's better quality</I><P>

 

A doubtful generalization???<P>

 

No. It's because there are no professional analog tape recorders manufactured today. And

the last of the five professional analog tape manufacturers closed their factory earlier this

year - resulting in extremely limited availability of stashed analog tape. Digital is clearly

better on a variety of fronts, including dynamic range (without using degrading

compressor/expanders/dolby), frequency response, frequency response accuracy, noise,

crosstalk, - plus all the advantages digital has for transport, mixing, storage, and copy-

ability. Recoding studios and musicians did not roll over and let this happen to them by

the mean old digital recorder manufacturers and their marketeers, which I'm sure is going

to be the claim. And professional digital recording equipment sure wasn't cheaper when

this transition was underway years ago.

[andrewlamb]

Paul

 

If the White Stripes choose to record analogue (forget the name of the studio)

then that's ok because they are the clients and ultimately they foot the bill.

 

Most professional photographers will supply whatever their client asks

because the latter foot the bill.

 

I don't think analogies with either the music or movie business stand up to

close examination of what's going on in photography.

[braden_barclay]

Jeff, the analogy to vinyl is indeed a proper one, you're just looking at it from the wrong angle. The reason for vinyl becoming popular again is not because of DJ services or any of that nonesense, it's simply because it's a better format. CD's made their big break in the 90's just as digital cameras are what everyone's buying today. After 10 or 15 years of listening to cd's people begin to realize their place as an audio medium; they're convenient, but don't sound better and are not archival. People realize that they only have to buy a vinyl record once and it will most likely last them the rest of their lives. A cd, on the other hand, will oxidize and deteriorate much faster than vinyl and will have to be repurchased. This is especially true when a new 'remastered' version comes out, or a new format such as dvd audio or sacd. The same folks will go back to using film more in the future just the same. Negatives, properly stored, will last much like vinyl. You don't have to worry about corrupted files and incompatible formats in forty years. Once everyone on the planet has a digital camera they'll go back to using film, I'm sure of it. The best things in life are left unchanged. That's why we're using leica's!

[paul t]

"I don't think analogies with either the music or movie business stand up to

close examination" <p>

You're right. Shouldn't have addressed the point, which has minimal

relevance (or rather, has some relevance, but it's been done to oblivion here),

just wanted to point out that analogue recording <a href="http://

www.abbeyroad.co.uk/playback/articles.php?id=116">isn't as extinct as some

would have you believe</a>.

[francois_d]

Vinyls are still sold today, from high quality pressing at $35 a piece to regular stuff at less than $10. It' not only hip hop or DJ oriented, see the jazz or rock sections of any good store. Vinyls are in fact of better quality that 20 years ago. Few people listening to music and caring about music prefer vinyls over CDs.

[chiswick_john]

"Negatives, properly stored, will last much like vinyl. You don't have to worry about corrupted files and incompatible formats in forty years." And much like vinyl they will degrade everytime you use them (expose them to light) Digital can be copied to multiple formats without loss of quality and be transfered to newer storage media as it becomes available and still be an exact copy of the original. As it is a binary code it's life is potentialy infinite. In the short term multiple copies can be (and should be) stored in different locations to ensure data security - theft, accident, fire flood etc. You precious vinyl or film is in a single vunerable format. Except my vinyl which has been transfered to digital.

[andy m.]

No they don't.

 

I had quite a sobering experience today. I walked along to a major pro shop on the edge of the University to buy some fixative and Tri-X.

 

The assistant told me that they had no Tri-X left, no ID-11 .. discontinued, according to their database :-( and only AGFA film fixative left in stock. I was however, able to obtain D76 :-)

 

He told me that 'only students seem to be doing B+W work these days'.

____________________________________________________________________

 

This week I needed to capture some images of buildings for a poster presentation. I took the departmental Canon D60, got some really nice images in about ten minutes, corrected the vertical perspectives in PS and pasted them into the presentation- the whole process took 30 minutes.

 

To have use film for that application would have been laughable.

 

Do you really think that most pros still use film?

[andy m.]

Brad, you obviously know about sound recording.

 

Regarding your dynamic range comment; how do you feel the dynamic range of affordable digital cameras compares to regular print film? My experience is that is considerably lower, but this is admittedly not extensive experience.

[Spearhead]

Braden, it's pretty obvious that you've never worked in the music business and you've drawn all sorts of conclusions as a consumer that don't connect to what's going on with the product. I'd suggest getting a job at Universal or Sony for a year or two and then reporting back.

[frank granovski]

I'm a pro and I use film only. Thank you very much. ;*)

 

PS: pro camera - Yashica Electro GSN.

[braden_barclay]

Jeff, what exactly does working in the music industry have to do with what we're talking about here?