Anybody still using all film??

[fotografz]

That's because it isn't wrong Al. And anyone that really knows anything about digital

knows it isn't wrong.

 

Migrating back to film where I can. Even though PSCS2 has considerably lessened the

digital workflow issue, not everything about making images revolves around efficiency. In

the long run, whatever a person determines is important for their product quality will be

the deciding factor. For some it is using digital. For others maybe not.

 

Can't wait for the new Fuji Pro films to hit the shelves.

[cjogo]

As long as the clients request film >> we will deliver. The option for digital is always available. If they request and can afford the medium of digital that's waht we employ. But film is the mainstay, at present..

[ernie_tangalakis]

I too am surprised at all the film shooters here. If you read this forum and others you would think that film is out. I love the look of film. Some of the best pictures ever taken where with older cameras and with film. Real Pros, not like we see today where the whole picture is done in PS not on site. Oh no, you got me started. Anyway, film still rules!

Maybe I need to sell my two digitals.

[bruce_rubenstein]

I prefer film cameras to digital ones. They tend to be some combination of smaller, lighter, better viewfinders, better AF, more reliable flash. For some shooting I prefer a MF 35mm camera. DSLRs are either big, heavy and expensive, and match the camera performance of pro film cameras, or are based on mid/lower end film camera parts.

 

For the actual picture part, it depends on what I have to deliver. If I just have to deliver a set of proofs, film is easiser. If I have to do an album and large prints I prefer digital. With digital I have more control over how the product comes out. When I shoot for other photographers, they all wish I was shooting digital instead of film.

[r.m.]

A little late to the party, but all film and I love it.

[picturesque]

I use film and digital. So far, I'm somewhat disappointed in the scans made from film. It is convenient to have the scans for further digital work and for incorporating into a digital workflow, but I notice that prints made from the negatives (even proofs) are always beautiful but prints made from scans are lacking. I know you are yet another step away the original, so it isn't surprising, but I had hoped it would not be as great a difference. Maybe I need to get my own film scanner and control this myself on selected film shots.

[think27]

All Film. My lab feels...and I feel...that digital is just not there yet. I don't like the texture of the skin on digital.. Film just looks better to me. Can I tell? 95% of the time - yes. I've had a few photographers in my area test me ;-)

[gcoates]

I'm still using all film. Why? Because it's cheaper for me -- I can't afford the $8,000 Mark II yet, and $8,000 will by a LOT of film and processing. Also because I enjoy it and I love the look.

[gregory_c]

Well, as of today all film, I just won a bid to photograph a building due for renovation, to shoot before, after, inside & outside for a large construction firm. And they want digital pics for websites & display. I know my Hassy will do good & film can be scanned, but I am hoping for a long relationship with this firm.

I sure like the 20D with L series lenses !! My weddings are all film, but the ease of variable ISO, and inexpensive B&W pics makes it nice for casual photojournalistic shots. But i will shoot all formals on film,,,

[hugh_jaramillo]

Hybrid here, MF film for formals, BW all film and candids on digital and also for creative and backup shots.

[tod_odriscoll]

All film. I shoot primarily weddings, with a few portraits as well. I have been testing a friend's D70 for the last month or so, and took a few images with it at a recent wedding. (He's an amateur photographer, so doesn't need it on a daily basis). I must say I am impressed with the camera. However, I prefer the look and feel of prints made from film. I may add digital to the mix, but I don't think I want to go all digital. At least, not at this point. I don't like spending hours in front of a computer. That's not why I became a photographer.

[jeremy_safran1]

Tool around with digi for personal snaps, but anything for hire, or that must look "good" is 6x6 - period. Frankly, for large jobs, it's just SO much more convenient. Drop film at lab, pick up proofs the next day - pull out and toss the garbage - hand the rest to client - life is grand.

 

PS only if I'm paid for special stuff. But with my trusty Hassy, they usually take 'em as they come.

 

Who has the time or money to waist with digital - leave that for the astronauts - I have a job to do and a life to live.

 

Finally, their is the technical lack of color depth, tonal range, or clarity that digital causes.

 

So in the end, why on earth would anybody invest in the hassle of digital, unless your just an tech-head. If that's what it's about, then have fun and go for it. Just not at my event.

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't do weddings often but I do events occasionally and then I primarily shoot C-41 film, including 100UC and 200UC, and Portra 400BW and BW400CN. I have the prints developed and process many by scanning and making prints by inkjet. I love it. I think in event photography, the film look is just much better ...

 

I'm glad Marc W is remembering film... I really like your black and white film stuff.

[scott levine]

I'm glad I stumled on to this link. Maybe Kodak and the others should take a look too.

I am a 100% Medium format film shooter. I still prefer the way it looks, especially when

I'm shooting Portraits on 6x7. I prefer looking a proofs and not at my monitor. I use

Lustre Color for all of my Portrait and Wedding work. I like dropping 15-20 rolls of 220

in a bag and letting the lab handle the rest. They scan all my film and return proofs and a

low res cd

for ordering with their LabLink plus software. They even have a website for wedding

guests to log on and order photos. Digital albums, no problem, they have those too.

Retouching and artwork are their specialty not mine, I'm a photographer who has a family

that expects to see their father once in a wile. I see digital as taking away more of my

time and money, and lots of it to do it right.

[f_p]

Yep.

 

Went from dslr (6 mp) to MF film.

 

Toyed with idea of digital to supplement MF...saw output from 1DS MkII...decided to STAY with film.

 

I think 35mm film looks better. 6x6 looks WAAAAAAY better. Let's not even talk about 4x5 or 8x10.

 

16+ megapixel digital still looks like plastic to me.