I feel like Don Mclean...

[rustys pics]

Dan, just mail order some slide film from B&H photo or Adorama. Ignore all the posts and

bad advice about film being dead, etc. etc. In fact, if I took a shot on film every time someone

yelled "film is dead" on this forum, I'd have gone through several rolls by now.

 

Buy it and shoot it while you can, and don't worry.

[jeff_z.]

There've been a few comments here from people relating their experiences that most pro's. have stopped using film. Again, my comments were based on fairly limited experiences/interractions; most are based on participating in a couple of intermediate/advanced level workshops. I also want to make clear that my areas of photographic interest, and also the focus of those workshops, are in nature, candids, and NGS-type photojournalism. I have no experience in the areas that were mentioned such as professional portrait, product, architecture, etc.

 

Having said that, and to answer Dan's question, I was told by an accomplished digital photographer who has been published numerous times by the magazine (National Geographic), that he was in a distintly small minority; that the great majority of NGS shooters were using film. I'm not saying this to voice any personal belief that film is "better"; I mentioned it to answer Dan's question, and also because I think many are being sold on the idea that digital is the only way to go, when I think that film remains a quite viable choice for many of us.

 

Personally, I am exponentially more interested in the art and craft of photo, rather than in keeping up with the very latest developments in digital camera technologies. I don't care about making extremely large prints, either. For people like me, with my photographic interests, I believe that film use, especially considering today's used equipment prices, makes sense. Scanning and digital printing are wonderful developments also, in my opinion, but I don't think that digital bodies at this stage are the only good choice.

[robert goldstein]

Good grief! Isn't it obvious that great photos can be made with either medium? It all

depends on the skill and vision of the photographer. However, there can be no question

that digital capture is far more efficient and makes perfect economic sense for a

professional. For amateurs, the economic calculations depend on how much film one

shoots vs how often one would feel compelled to upgrade to a new digital camera. Do not

underestimate this last point. For many, the siren call of new technology is irrestible.

[jeff_z.]

"For amateurs, the economic calculations depend on how much film one shoots vs how often one would feel compelled to upgrade to a new digital camera. Do not underestimate this last point."

 

While I would agree that this can definitely be one of the major factors (and I thought of it after posting- of course!), it's not the only one- perhaps even for pro's. While the economic decision to purchase a digital body could be at least partly based on the volume of film one uses over time, at least in my case, and I suspect for many other serious amateurs, that equation alone can favor staying with film bodies just as easily.

 

Also, in the experiences that I've mentioned, the people with the digital bodies had also invested in expensive laptop computers, and still seemed to be very often working with their images in post processing and often frustrated, while the rest of us were moving on. The pro spent a fair amount of time on his hardware/software as well- and this was not a "Digital ..." class. I think that the economic decision could also be based on consideration of the hardware/software one will also feel the need to purchase, as well as the time/effort needed to learn how to properly use all of this.. I for one, think it much simpler to pull out a sheet of slides, put them on a light table and scan the few that I really want to use.

 

And of course, if digital camera body technology progresses anything like other technologies have in the recent past, one will be able to buy higher capability with more user friendliness, all at significantly less cost as time goes on. At the present however, imho, I think that it is often not the best decision for a significant number of photographers- it's an individual decision, of course.

 

As you probably realize also, the reason that I've stated what to many is already obvious, is that I strongly feel that too many are virtually stampeded into buying digital bodies, without much consideration of these factors. One can't help but see this reflected in various marketing efforts. If they are successful in these efforts, the "death of film" could very well become a self fulfilling prophecy- unfairly, and prematurely at least, in my view.

[robert goldstein]

"Also, in the experiences that I've mentioned, the people with the digital bodies had also

invested in expensive laptop computers, and still seemed to be very often working with

their images in post processing and often frustrated, while the rest of us were moving on."

 

Shooting film does not necessarily mean being non-digital, if you scan your film for digital

editing. This is what I do, and I can tell you that it is very time consuming, but rewarding,

because the results can be so fine.

[jeff_z.]

'"Also, in the experiences that I've mentioned, the people with the digital bodies had also invested in expensive laptop computers, and still seemed to be very often working with their images in post processing and often frustrated, while the rest of us were moving on."

 

"Shooting film does not necessarily mean being non-digital, if you scan your film for digital editing. This is what I do, and I can tell you that it is very time consuming, but rewarding, because the results can be so fine."'

 

Yes, of course, this is what I do as well; I'm definitely not "non-digital", in that I scan and print digitally using film as the originating media. In one of my previous posts (further back on this page): "Scanning and digital printing are wonderful developments also, in my opinion, but I don't think that digital bodies at this stage are the only good choice."

[jeff_z.]

Hope I didn't come across as too prickly in my last post (no coffee!). Certainly no offense intended. I suppose I feel pretty strongly about this entire topic because of the pressure that seems to be considerable, to make film users out to be "Luddites", etc.

 

I see it in the mainstream media, the photographic media (adds, endless articles, equipment reviews, etc.), in many of our fellow photographers, and in the photography workshop curriculums. I find the latter to be especially troubling, but perhaps at least somewhat understandable, as I understand that at least some of them are under considerable financial pressure, and what's "new" seems to be a tried and true sales tool.. I know that I've cancelled several of my photography magazines because of their high percentage of content that constantly touts "new and improved digital whatever", etc. I know that magazines have always probably seized upon whatever is new to sell ad space, etc., but still..

 

Glad to hear that another photographer is happy with what scanning and printing film can produce!

[reuben_c]

<blockquote>This guy has been using film for over 28 years and he's the best pro photographer in my small art centric town. Do you think digital would make him any better?<A

href="http://www.partainphotographs.com/sensamp2.htm">Portr ait Photography</A></blockquote>

<p>

He's already there: "<a href="http://www.partainphotographs.com/pitch.htm">The Pitch</a>"

<p>

Note digital buzzwords that pepper that page -- "chip", "CD", "digital"... I haven't looked at the rest of the site so I have no idea if he's got other "digital stuff" on his site (I clicked the link to his pricing page out of curiosity, and this is what I saw).

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Yeah, Reuben.

 

I paid him a visit and he mentioned he went digital about a year

and half ago. He does huge 20x30 enlargements off a $6000

Nikon DSLR which naturaly gives the soft look he seems to like

in his work. Didn't mention the model.

 

He also said transitioning to digital was not easy. Huge learning

curve.

 

He also had to get rid of an old optical printer/chemical

processor.

[glenn_swan]

You will get a multitude of different answers to this question depending on how much money the person just spent on a new camera. If he/she bought digital...it's the best. If he/she still shoots film...it's the best. All I know is that for the past 6 years I have been a full time working pro photographer and I shoot film. E6 mostly. Except for portraits and weddings I use Portra. I recently did a slide show, and a young woman, also a full time working photographer who graduated from a photography school was amazed at the quality of my images. She actually said she may switch to film because she could never get the same results with digital. She also said she would have to go back to school if she switched to film because with the digital cameras they used in school none of the students had to pay that much attention to technique and exposure. They just fixed everything on the computer. Isn't it sad what has happened to photography with the advent of digital technology? Oh one more thing, check out National Geographic's web sight. Under Photography frequently asked questions you will find out that all of their photographers use transparency film. Either Kodachrome or Velvia. Gee...I wonder why. Well actually, I know why, remember I still shoot Velvia. Yes digital is cheaper, notice I didn't say less expensive, and it is so so easy to fix with Photo Shop but don't get the idea that cheaper and easier is better. It's just cheaper and easier. Two attributes that will always make something popular with the masses.