Everything's almost digital now (except for hobbyists and fine art people)?

[mcblue]

<p>Sorry if this sounds like a duh question, but I was wondering if it were accurate to say that commercial/business photography has gone digital now, and film is now just slated for fine art or as an expensive hobby?</p>

<p>(This is with an exception for people who work in large format for landscapes, fine art, and high-end portraiture of course. I'm mostly referring to medium format and small format for fashion, commercial still-life, weddings and most portraiture.)</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>yes</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Nearly all professional and commercial work is digital. Most, not all, but most consumer/family-type photography is digital-- the soccer games, birthday parties, vacation trips and so on.</p>

<p>Where film still excels is in what I call creative photography, as practised by good amateurs, which includes pros doing their personal work. I don't think you have to esoterize this by calling it 'fine art'. If you are shooting in low volume for high quality, and you are able to previsualize your results, film is still arguably the better alternative. Sites like photo.net, RFF, and others tend to concentrate this kind of photographer, so there are still a lot of film users around here. </p>

[marta_cajiao]

You could be right Carlos--seems that everyone has gone digital and buying film and especially black and white film is not only expensive but getting hard to find. For the longest time I used film cameras and just recently purchased a digital camera because,except for a few places it was hard to find a good place to process my film. It's like one day I walked into Blockbuster Videoas and was stunned to learn that they had gone from VHS to DVDS and it seemed like it just happened over night and I didn't even own a DVD player--had no idea what it was. Technology is making such leaps and bounds that if you're not there at the cusp you can get left behind--suddenly film photography is outdated and expensive to buy and have processed--it's considered old school by most people and like emailing some people think it's quaint that others actually use stamps and envelopes and write with pens/pencils on paper. Now it's either board that digital fast track train or ride that burro on the dirt path and get there whenever. Life is moving at such a fast pace that it's dizzying and there's no slowing down for those who want to get off and taking the time to smell the flowers.

[mcblue]

<p>Thanks. That's exactly the sense that I get. I went back to film this year for fun and personal work (looking into TLRs, vintage cameras, etc.) and I felt more disciplined and deliberate with composition again. But I couldn't ever imagine people using film for commercial work anymore given the cost (money and workflow/time).</p>

[jackaldridge]

<p>I own tons of digital gear... and I'm buying 60 year old rangefinders on eBay to shoot with when I shoot 'for me'.<br>

Film is a warm fuzzy place for me for some reason... heck I've even started developing my own B&W then scanning the negs.<br>

Maybe it's just me, but there does seem to be a bit of a revival with regard to film for personal use...</p>

 

[mcblue]

<p>I'm mostly a hobbyist and I did some jobs only because of friend references, but I was mostly a digital guy since 2004. Then I just stopped shooting personal work around 2006 and it felt like I started taking everything for granted. I don't know if film is a revival in general, but it seems to be a revival for me.</p>

<p>But then I recalled how as a little, my family's favorite photographer and developing lab used TLRs for school id's, family portraits, and grad portraits. I even got to see how he edited people's imperfections (analog photoshop) and now I can't imagine this being done today. Compared to using photoshop, it seemed like a real craft though.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>I'm not sure what they all do for a living, but the guys commenting on this page are a pretty diverse group of photographers:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/learn/film/open-letter-to-film-users/</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>If you are shooting in low volume for high quality, and you are able to previsualize your results, film is still arguably the better alternative.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Begs the question - why? Your working method should be no different for either film or digital. Seeing the photograph is the problem that needs to be solved; and this has nothing to do with the workflow to produce the final image.</p>

[john_lynch5]

<p>The term "Workflow" wasn't in common usage until the digital age.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Almost no one does full layouts by photolitho anymore; so, at some point, the publication is going to be digital. It is simply mechanically easier to get all of that done while making adjustments if the work is done on computers. So, it carries over from there, forwards and backwards through the process. </p>

<p>Keep in mind, if you generate any kind of <b>primary content</b>, including text or any type of supporting or coordinating role for videography or photography itself, you can basically use any method and still be successful. Its in the secondary and tertiary layers of publication that digital will excel because of its flexibility. </p>

<p>For example, I know a guy who could probably write a decent TV script on a paper bag; but, at some point they would want digital editing. If you are a primitive artist, a primary content provider, and are making and creating the actual substance of the message, you could use almost anything from a lump of charcoal on up. In order for it to get into any type of corporate, collective publication activity [anything bigger than you and a potato stamp with ink pad], something is going to need to be digitized. It's either that or a hand-cranked mimeograph machine. </p>

[steve_swinehart]

<blockquote>

<p>The term "Workflow" wasn't in common usage until the digital age.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Your point being......? Having been in graphic arts production for nearly 35 years, the term workflow was always used to describe the different process steps to get images and words into different display formats. It is equally applicable to describing the difference in working process between using film based imaging and digitally based imaging. As John Okeefe-Odom succintly pointed out - if you're doing graphic arts today - it's going to be done digitally, and I applaud that having spent hundreds of hours at light tables doing paste-ups.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Keep in mind, if you generate any kind of <strong>primary content</strong>, including text or any type of supporting or coordinating role for videography or photography itself, you can basically use any method and still be successful.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Amen. Exactly. Any method can be used to produce a successful image. As I've stated previously, the problem to be solved is seeing the photograph....</p>

[stp]

<p>If film photography is a hobby, I don't consider it an expensive hobby. Digital has been far more expensive (for me, at least) than film ever was. Just yesterday, in preparation for a trip to Iceland, I bought three more flash cards and a portable storage device (I want redundant backups of digital photos; things can happen). Another $600. My digital camera is being recalibrated; don't know what the cost will be. I'm also taking my Mamiya 7II, two lenses, and about 4 rolls of film for the really special photos. The savings in digital is really in terms of time; I'll have my digital photos immediately (well, after some hours on the computer), but the film will take a day if I process locally or a week to 10 days if I use an out-of-town lab.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>"If you are shooting in low volume for high quality, and you are able to previsualize your results, film is still arguably the better alternative."</em></p>

<p>And easily arguable, just the opposite; digital is better alternative for dozens of reasons.</p>

<p>LOL -- "previsualize" -- as if film capture can read your mind. LOL</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Steve, I believe John's reference to workflow was specifically within the context of individuals taking and making photographs, nothing else.</p>

<p>I've been a photographer for more than 40 years and never once heard the term "workflow" applied to any aspect of taking or making photographs until the digital era. However, I've also worked in printing, graphic arts and newspaper production and, yes, the term was used in the context of those jobs.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>I think the reason Ken was right in his comment about low volume is that film is very cheap if used this way. The quality of used cameras and lenses is so high that for the equivalent quality in digital you have to spend a fortune.<br>

I use mostly MF, and my cameras were gifts or inherited. Cost: 0.<br>

Development cost for do-it-myself: trivial.<br>

Number of frames shot: low. Percentage of perfectly-focused and exposed frames: very high.<br>

Satisfaction with quality of images: very high.<br>

Investment in batteries: approaching 0.<br>

Time spent evaluating newest DSLRs and trying to make sense of what I would buy next: 0<br>

Personal satisfaction with the viewfinders, ergonomics, and format of most DSLRs: very low.<br>

Cost of my own DSLR 2 years ago: $600. Cost on used market: $200.<br>

Cost of Mamiya 6 body 5 years ago: $1000. Cost of same body on used market: $1000.</p>

<p>Stephen, I liked your comment about using your Mamiya 7 for the really special photos--exactly how I feel.<br>

Scott</p>

[dave_s]

<p><em>LOL -- "previsualize" -- as if film capture can read your mind. LOL</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Ken, you need to get out more! This is not a new term, and it has nothing to do with clairvoyance. Previsualization is a fundamental concept for Zone System users (which I am, incidentally, not). Adams wrote about it as being a defining theme in his work. The idea is simply that you visualize the final print that you want to render, when you are planning your exposure, long before you even trip the shutter. For obvious reasons, film users have less leeway in this department than digital photographers-- and relax, I'm not making a value judgment with this statement.</p>

<p>And, to move back a few posts, <em>Begs the question - why? Your working method should be no different for either film or digital.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

This is absolutely correct. I still use film, but I could keep my same working method with a digital camera. Reasons <em>why</em> are many, and you've heard them all before:<br>

(a) archival hard copy negative<br>

(b) choice of printing optically or digitally<br>

© no battery dependence (a big deal if you're a backpacker)<br>

(d) I have a bunch of film cameras that I know how to use and I don't feel like changing.</p>

<p>Like I said, for many photographers, film is arguably the better alternative. And so is digital. </p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Dave i also travel a lot..</p>

<p>1_you also can get archival hard copy by making them on demand and posting them to you at home..and still have them with you on the other side of the glode, on a HD, on a card, on a thumb drive, on a laptop..hell! i can have as many hard copy as i want and need. Can you do that with neg? (i also know a lot in that area having travel for years with photographer, having to fight with custom to have the film manually check, having them fedex by batch on long trip)</p>

<p>2_not sure i follow you there..but i can also have my print made on *real* R4 paper or inkjet as i wish.</p>

<p>3_get a mini solar panel that can be roll in your bag and your set (not if you where in San Francisco this last 3 days do)</p>

<p>4_i had a bunch of film camera, and i have a bunch of digital camera; f stop, speed, iso are the same on any of them..know one, know them all.</p>

<p>Agree with the last sentence, they are BOTH a good alternative, i dont find one better than the other, except for speed production, i would obviuously choose digital.</p>

[summitar]

<p>I am 72 and for years I dreamed of buying a really nice film camera. My goal was something like a Leica screwmount IIIc, because there was Leica manual of that vintage which I could check out of the local library. All those knobs and buttons. But way, way out of my family's price range. I bought my first 35mm camera in vietnam, a Konica Auto S2 at the PX for $35. Still have it, stll works, still is about the biggest bang for the buck. I also bought a Canon FT-QL at the PX before leaving nam for $65.<br>

I finally did get my Leica IIIc in 2001 and it is a thing of beauty but a PITA to load. I also have a few Leica Ms. I love the workmanship of the metal and glass cameras of the classic era just as I love the memories of steam locomotives. I grew up across the street from a major repair facility for steam locomotives for the New York Central.<br>

That said, you just cna't beat the convenience of digital when you are traveling. I visited the British Isles in 1985 and carried a Retina IIa which performed very well with print film and the sunny-16 rule.<br>

In my last 3 trips to Europe, in 2002, 2003, and 2008, it was digital all the way. On the 2000 trip, I left my Nion D200 at home in favor of a Canon powershot A650IS. Put in 4 Lithium AAs and the camera is still functional 6 months later on the same batteries. I find wearing a heavy camera like the D200 all day is like wearing fire plug around your neck. The only drawback to the powershot was that I couldn't go wider than 35mm equiv. 28mm would have been nice.<br>

I think my younger kids are lucky to have immersed themselves in digital photography with no pangsof nostalgia over the old classics. I will still travel with the newer whiz bangs, but Isometimes feel guilty about using the old classics, of which I have over 100.</p>