Anyone still using film as a professional?

[bevan_young]

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone knows of anyone who still uses film in the photography

profession?

Im aware that in this day and age most magazines,papers etc have tight dealines

and about the only type area I can think of is a person who shoots for an art

gallery walls.

 

Thanks for your time and answers.

[fullmetalphotograper]

I would about 99% of the commercial and editorial world is digital in output. In the

commercial world over 90% is digital capture. Almost all images are digitized today. In

terms of capture this a little different. I know a few commercial photographers who still

capture images with film. Although when ever possible they use digital capture. It only has

been the last 2 years that digital could match 35mm film quality and slr functionality.

Digital is now starting to get close to medium format. Where you see a lot film usage is for

Viewcamera work. There is not a really economical equal to a 4x5 or 8x10 film. You do not

have the tilt & shift movements and the tonal range of film. what usually happens the film

is scanned by a drum scanner. The image usually 25 megapixels or greator. This not a

cheap process. How much longer will this be going on it is hard to say. Where you will see

this used is food shots. architecture shots. I do no some wedding photogs using film but

they are very rare.

[trunfio]

Not to encourage another film vs. digital debate, but can someone explain this to me?

 

I had a Hasselblad 500C/M with 150mm CF lens. I used Portra 160 and 400 all the time. I

had Imacon scans made of some of my film Hassie shots. Enlargements were 13x19,

16x20 and occasionally 20x24 done by the lab: a most respected lab in Boston. My

portrait images (these were only portraits with the Hassie) are consistently weaker (from a

film grain perspective, color density perspective, etc) than almost all of my digital prints

from a D200 bought in Dec. 2006 using good glass and a decent workflow which starts in

RAW. For the digital, I print 20x30 regularly. And 30x40 to canvas. My digital lab does

great textures, mounts, and corrected and uncorrected prints.

 

Could I have done this in film with my Hassie? Or, if so, how come I wasn't able to?

(Technical skills aside).

[sandysocks]

A surprising number of magazine editors still prefer slides. I guess they are still as entrenched in their ways as some photographers. Even magazines that ask for digital submissions are still using many images that originated as film. Most likely you have noticed this.

[anson_ko]

same debate about CD/DVD vs black vinyl records. Technology is moving forward. There are always some disagreed.

[qtluong]

Sure, but in <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/large-format/">large format</a>. A 5x7 drum-scanned surpasses the best medium-format digital backs in terms of resolution, at a fraction of the cost. In 35mm, there isn't much more point to film, though.

[anson_ko]

just a matter of time, technology will be there. For special requirments use special cameras. But 99% of photography requirment, 12-16MP is good enough.

[justinblake]

Film is clearly far inferior to digital in all respects. Anyone who still has a film camera should sell them now, very cheaply, to me. Particularly if you have a Hasselblad 501CM or a Leica M7, terrible cameras. Just because I am a nice guy I will give you a few dollars for these junky old film cameras.

[peter_lawrence]

Paul, two things you could do to improve the technical quality of your Hassie prints is first

use a high quality ultra-fine grain transparency film like Kodak E100G or E100GX or

Fujichrome Astia 100F or Provia 100F. These ultra-fine grain color transparency films

simply scan better than any color negative film.

 

The second thing you could do is use a better scanner. Imacon scans are very nice for

what they are, but they are no match to a high quality Heidelberg Tango 16 Bit drum scan.

 

Try to find a lab that uses a Heidelberg Tango drum scanner for the best results.

 

Here in California, Color Folio, West Coast Imaging, and Calypso Imaging all use

Heidelberg Tango drum scanners.

 

Still, for most jobs and applications, shooting digitally is usually now the more popular

choice.

[lee_ricks]

I know a few who are exclusively film. I use Medium format sometimes but I admit it is out of nostalgia more than necessity.

 

I use slide film for artwork as many galleries still ask for it for art entries. Occasionally a customer will ask for film. They never have a good reason but they do it anyway.

 

I would use film if I were photographing a wedding outdoors in direct sunlight. This may be a personal failure but what the heck.

[dawn_kelly]

Justin, you just about had me hopping mad when I started to read your post. Then I caught on and decided to join you. I'll help others by giving out a few bucks for those horrible film cameras.

 

As a wedding photographer, I shoot mostly film, probably around 90%. A hundred years of refinement in film capturing the image and its details.

[jeff_z.]

No offense intended, but I have to think that much of the information I'm reading here is

simply somewhat-informed speculation. As far as editors being on "tight deadlines", I'm

acquainted with at least one Geographic contributor who is frequently published in the

magazine. One of his jobs, published within the last year or so, was at least fourteen

months in the making! Now, without doubt, many publications have much shorter lead

times, but there are many who do not. Recently, someone I spoke with that is in a

position to have direct knowledge, told me of at least one Geographic photographer still

using Kodachrome. From that, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that many

more are still using the latest E-6 emulsions.

 

 

"In 35mm, there isn't much more point to film, though." Why? I've nothing against digital,

but love my film equipment and am proficient at scanning. With the file size I can

produce, is this not the equivalent of a good original digital capture file? And, can

someone that really knows, give me some hard numbers as far as the quality produced

from a Nikon Coolscan V scan on one of the best 100 speed emulsions, and what quality

level digital body would be needed to equal or surpass this? I suspect that even if an

affordable digital body surpasses the scanned film image, that the film image is plenty

good enough for magazine publication.

 

 

I have no quarrel with technology, it's just that it seems to me that if this is not factual

information stated here, readers are being unfairly influenced. And, as someone still

finding 35mm film photography quite amazing and fun, I don't want to see it go away for

unfair reasons.

[qtluong]

I have scanned over 10,000 35mm slides (mostly on Nikon scanners, but also well over 100 drum scans). The resolution available in a Canon 1Ds mark 2 frame is simply superior, and this advantage is magnified by the absence of grain in the digital image. The same would be true of any 12MP+ camera. Then there are the workflow advantages, high ISO, flexibility, and lack of incremental costs. The only technical advantage of film in my opinion is the ease of getting pleasing color. It's true that the film image in 35mm is still good enough for plenty of uses, but I think there isn't much point in using a medium that is mostly technically inferior, if you have the choice.

[steve_rasmussen]

As a pro stock shooter, I use film 100%. It is 6x7 and mostly Velvia 50. I must admit that my 35mm Leica just sits, mostly unused because publishers don't want 35mm film. They also don't like digital when less than 10 MP, at least in nature work. The publishers I deal with still like film but are starting to accept digital, however they are very picky about what equipment you are using. One publisher wanted to go all digital but found it limited the submissions from long established stock pros so much that they are accepting both film and digital again. I will stay with film unless my customers change.

[hjoseph7]

"Film is clearly far inferior to digital in all respects. Anyone who still has a film camera should sell them now, very cheaply, to me."

 

Justin I have a manual Mamiya 645, a Nikon F5, Nikon Fe2 and FM2 I also have a Canon EOS-3 and an Elan II. I'll sell them all to you you foe a couple of bucks if you can afford it. Thanks.

[david_henderson]

"I will stay with film unless my customers change."

 

My main library will accept digital submissions only from mid 2008. Assuming I want to stay with them I have the choice between moving to digtital photography, spending a good chunk of my life behind a film scanner- which I own already, or paying a lab for Imacon or drum scans - which will burn up the first year or so profits from library placement. To the cost of the second and third options I need to add the approx $5000 pa I spend on film and processing.

 

That Hasselblad plus digital back looks more attractive every time I think about it.

[William Michael]

>>> Just wondering if anyone knows of anyone who still uses film in the photography profession? <<<

 

My ex studio still uses 5x7; 5x4; 6x7 and (some) medium format; mainly for portraiture which is to be mounted and stretched on canvas, 20 x 24 or larger.

 

I have a colleague who shoots B&W only on 5X4 for portraits, hand print them and makes a bomb in this niche industry.

 

Neither of these two endeavours is bowing to, nor ignoring the `technology moving forward` debate mentioned here and in other threads.

 

Both however are highly sophisticated businesses providing a profitable service using quality equipment producing excellent results: I expect both will continue so long as the market warrants and a profit is to be had.

 

WW

[justinblake]

Harry, how could you bear to even consider letting go of such a beautiful collection of cameras... wait... I mean... oh, oh, yeah those old film dinosaurs, probably good for some scrap metal, give you $50 for the lot. <crosses fingers>

[Life Photo-Documentaries]

I do not work "as professional" but use photography for professional purposes. I still use

velvia 100 iso to photograph images used in my publications. I am now working in a

snakes' manual that will be published by the University. I use a Nikon coolscan V to

digitalize, I can not afford a drum scanner, either my lab ( http://www.ntrc.tamuk.edu/).

One disadvantage is that If snake and background colors are to close, the scanner can not

separate as well (density range), even when separated in the slide.

 

This is a personal preference, I like to SEE a GOOD slide. I think that confronting digital

and film is a neverending story... FOr sure, dead lines in editorial work is the main issue if

any one works as professional, but as stated before, would depend on the company

preferences... The Modern world of business will normally demand digital?. If I have the

choice, I will decide between digital or film according to my needs...

 

I just bought a EOS 40D for "events" , but I would like to work the Snakes' photofashion

sessions in film medium format... I am not attached to deadlines. Photography is NOT

about the media (digital or film), is about the photograph, the message. Advertisement,

news are something else... for gallery walls and books too. I have been asked to show the

witchcraft (Brujeria) and Colmillos (Fangs) B&W portfolios. When that happens, I would like

to print in photopaper (silver halide) but if a interesting proposal is received, I could print

digitally... or lithograph... why not?

 

www.lopezjohnston.com is my website, all based on film, not because reject digital, simply

because I did not have one! If someone take a minute to criticize my work, I will

appreciate it. As final message, radical confronting digital vs film is like confronting a tail

piano with a Korg synthesizer... each one is different, but BOTH are about MUSIC.

 

Thank you

[sara_fredericks]

Hi. My name is Jon and I am a former Velvia addict.

 

I reluctantly switched to digital with the D200, which I waited for to be designed because I did not feel that digi had quite 'made it' to the quality level of film.

 

Do I regret the transition? No. But it still stings in my gut. Am I impressed with the results of the D200? Absolutely. No question. The results are stunning. But they are digital stunning, not Velvia stunning, if ya know what I mean. The images load to the website with little or no fuss, unlike a Coolscanned 35mm slide, which requires a fair amount of work.

 

I now MUST use digital because my clients do (I lead photo trips) so I have to be on top of what they need. But I am still lamenting the loss of film as the standard.

 

Plus the cost issue is a total no-brainer, though the initial outlay for a D200 and now a D300 is a punch in the gut...but hey..that's what I get for shooting Nikons..They could be Leicas!