Anybody still using all film??

[ernie_tangalakis]

Is anyone still shooting all film for their weddings. I like to shoot

both and if it wasn't for the covenience of digital I would just stay

with film. I really think it looks better. How about you. Is film

where it's at for you? This is not a digital vs film but I would like

to know if your using film and why.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

I think it's slightly possible that Al Kaplan hasn't quite made the digital jump yet....

[michael mccarley]

My grand father! ;)

[gary_woodard]

I understand Al did finally recieve a Canon XT Kiss in lime green with a

Happy Meal this weekend. Careful Al dont use it with a long lens tends to

warp the mount. :}

[al_kaplan1]

Yup, still all film. And more and more, black and white traditional emulsion film printed on conventional B&W double weight paper. Some prefer the look, others the proven arcival qualities, and with so few photographers (or labs) doing it anymore in the Miami area I'd be a fool to turn it down.

 

This morning I delivered an order of 3 dozen B&W prints of some outdoor family groupings at the park. The guy just now called ordering 26 more prints for one of his kids and his family. The other son hasn't ordered yet for his family. And he was asking about getting some 16x20's too.

 

Not bad for an hour's shoot in the park and two rolls of Tri-X. I'd love to do an entire wedding like that.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Did the same thing today with digital Al, family portraits in the garden, under 1 hour and probably a big order as there were lots of grandparents! I developed on the computer and will be presenting CD proofs but the job is the same I guess.

[cjogo]

Still , more than 90& film. Just less time consuming and easier on the B&G. Our coverage still includes the neg/prints ...process the event and deliver in 2 days. Since the cost of cards (256 @ $11.00) are dropping...with digital we can deliver the cards > on the day of the wedding. Unless the client is willing to pay for PS & computer time.

[stacy]

I love film...but I do use digital too

[awahlster]

All paid work is shot on film. I have a Canon G3 that I will snap a few shots with at a wedding so I have something to show right away but they are not sold. or even shown to the bride unless they happen to catch something special.

[dain_binder1]

I shoot all film and have the negatives scanned. Best of both worlds and all my clients love it.

[derek_c.]

All film here.<br>

Why?... why not?<br>

[Jerry_]

Film: the break-even point for a digital-camera-body wedding is beyond the local economy. [i can shoot with a F5 and make enough in three weddings to pay for the camera body (used.) My guess the F5 will still be working three to five years down the road. How many 'new' models of digital bodies will appear in three to five years?]

[melisa]

Yep. It's actually more convenient for me to shoot film. I really don't have the time for learning or doing major post processing right now, I shoot it and drop it off. Just shot 20 rolls at my last event and then I got to spend the whole next day gardening and playing outside with my little man...well, after I packaged up my film to the lab. :) Like Dain, I also get a CD and enjoy playing w/ my images in PS too.

[marcin harla]

I shoot both film and digital, but have to admit that my film camera sees less and less use... Paradox is I like film more but shoot more digital nowadays.

<br>However I'm really lusting for a MF camera and no doubt will shoot some more film when finally I'll put my hands on one

[claudiu_ionescu]

Yep, I shooted 20 rolls of new Kodak 400 UC film (which replaced Portra 400 UC) on my last wedding. Scanning, dust and scratches and tweaking colours made me so mad that my next wedding will be digital. Though, I'm not sure that will be better.

[ernie_tangalakis]

I just bought another film camera. A 1N to go with my EOS 3. I think I'm going to shoot more weddings with film from now on. I have two digital cameras that I've been using but spend WAY to much time at the computer after. So, it will be off to the lab for me. Let them get do the work and put the shots on a high res CD for me. Plus I'll still have the negatives. Oh yah!

[russ_butner___portland__or]

I have tow upcoming wedding shoots, where the clients have specifically said "film only." Which suits me fine, because that's all I use. I just shot an all B/W wedding (Neopan 400CN) and the client loved the results. Interestingly enough, my next "film only" wedding shoot, is of a young couple that work in the digital industry and are very knowledgeable about the lack of archivalness of digital imaging. The groom works for Intel, and the bride works in the digital & data storage and filing field. They specifically stated, "we do not want our wedding shot with digital."

 

Russ<div></div>

[matt_needham]

So far it's been 100% film, although I just got a 20D, and I'm sure it will replace some of the 35mm work. I plan on offering both. At least 1/3rd of my wedding clients have had a preference for all film. The rest don't care if it's film or digital. Only one groom so far has said he would prefer digital to film, he was vetoed by the bride who demanded 100% film for their wedding photography.

[manolis1]

When my friends ask me to photograph their social events (baptism ceremonies, birthday parties, etc.) I always use negative films (REALA, KODAK 400UC and NPZ). The next day, I drop the films to the lab (kellards photo lab) about 8:30AM and they are ready before 2:00PM. I order one CD with all the photos in, as well. So I cover film and digital at the same time.

 

The FILM is A L I V E and it's not gonna D I E.

 

I play with digital photography and I like it a lot but I LOVE film photography.

[jonathan_brown1]

All film at this point. I am not against digital at all just waiting for the right time for my business and for me as a photographer. I think I will most likely add digital this year or early next, looking at the Canon 20D of 1D Mk II. I think when I do get digital I will add digital to my equipment and not completely replace film. I am considering film for formals and digital for all else to keep down processing costs while not having to spend a day processing RAW files.

 

I have quite a few clients who's first question is "Are you film?" So I do not feel that being film is holding back my business at all at this point.

[nstock]

Shoot Both.

If it is a commercial job, it depends on the demands of the client whether it is a film job with digital back up or a digital job with film back up.

 

For my own stuff.. the things I want to keep.. I use film.

[mark_lapolt___new_haven__c]

All film, all manual focus, all the time....

[jshaw.photo]

Film film film. There is still something romantic and artistic about doing things the old fashioned way. You can really sell romantic and artistic traditional craftsmanship - and use film. You can really sell photojournalistic approaches - and use film.

 

There is still nothing like seeing the wedding photographer with Hassy or RB at a wedding...

[al_kaplan1]

It's really surprising that so many responses came in in favor of film and nobody at all has made a serious argument about how wrong we all really are.

[eoghan]

For someone starting out shooting weddings though, to buy the film, get it developed and scanned, about how much does that cost? I'm guessing about 15 or 20 dollars per roll maybe?

 

I'm asking because I'm curious, not because I'm making an argument or anything. It makes a lot of sense to me because it allows the clients that want film to be satisifed, yet allows one to do some PS work for large prints if wanted. But I'm wondering how much people pay throughout the US for this for say, 10-15 rolls per wedding? -e