Anyone Still Making a "Good" Living Who ONLY Shoots Film?

[c_watson1]

<p>"And let's not forget Bill Cunningham:-)"<br>

Though he's still apparently on his bike in decent weather, I think he ditched his FM2 for digital some time ago: http://www.thesartorialist.com/photos/on-the-scene-bill-cunningham-at-ralph-lauren-new-york/</p>

[Marc453]

<p>I am a full time news photographer and I do shoot commercial jobs once in a while. I can tell you that the main reason I use digital instead of film is the lower cost of digital images. Even if you use a medium format digital camera and back, the cost in time and instant results overwhelm any advantage film ever had. I have Hasselblad and Mamiya medium format cameras and I use them and have the negatives converted to digital images. costly, but sometimes necessary, especially if it costs less than renting the MF digital. I don't see film making a big comeback, especially if MF digital backs start coming down in cost.</p>

[john_photos]

<p>Surfed to the Jonathan canalas site. There are many young wedding photographers, primarily on the coasts, that use 120 film. Its a trend in some markets. Noticed all the particpants at his workshops were holding contax 645's. The hip new film wedding camera these days at workshops that does not even use leaf shutters!! I personally (words spoken as primarily a medium format guy) do not understand why any wedding shooter would shoot film unless it is simply to have a professional lab remove the headache of post processing. For low light I would think it would be absolutely necessary to use digital. Wedding photography in the wealthy large american big cities (NYC, SF, Portland, Boston, LA, Chicago etc) is very very trendy so perhaps using film has become a selling point in these current times of a "unique vision". Whatever works though with the paucity of emulsions currently available I would think it hard to distinguish yourself based on a perceived "film look". Just find the settings that work in digital and stick with them throughout the event. . However, if film becomes hip and its a selling point for these 6 figure wedding guys (i.e the hip wedding photographers.. not your average small town photographer.. unless u live in Sun Valley, Idaho or Aspen Colorado etc). These top wedding pro's just past the cost onto the client. Harder to do if you are in a market where the brides will not pay the extra cost.<br>

Todd Hido is a master of the color darkroom and one of my favorite photographers. Avant Fine art and very very successful. His prints sell for.. well I"m sure lots. An american gallery darling and an incredibly gifted artist. Few people who come to these photo.net forums even look at this type of "new topographic" photography so I am surprised but delighted to see him referenced here. Compare his work to the cibachrome guy in terms of the artistic vision. Hido continues to use the same 6x7 camera he had shot for over 20 years. His prints in person are a site to behold. Color negative never looked so brilliant. Last I read Todd still shoots film but has started to dabble in digital. </p>

[miesnert]

<p>How about (I am not sure about the amount of income with all of these, but they are all well known and respected photographers in their particular area of expertiece). Most of them are considered art photographers, here it is that I think most people still use film (the lab I work with prints analogue only for exhibitions and museums (they do have a durst printer for the occasional analogue print) I think probably 95% of their jobs are analogue work.<br>

Dana Lixenberg<br>

Jacqueline Hassink<br>

Bas Princen<br>

Geert Goiris<br>

Scarlett Hooft Graafland<br>

Massimo Vitali<br>

Elliot Wilcox<br>

Marleen Sleeuwits<br>

Peter Bialobrzeski<br>

Hans Christian Schink<br>

Bryan Schutmaat<br>

Matthias Hoch</p>

[starshooter]

I iz confoozed. This thread seems to suggest if ya haven't heard of a guy or gal then he/she does not exist. There are MILLIONS of folks shooting photos for pay and a handful of names noted here means nothing. I know quite a few people who just shoot film and are doing okay. Housewives who shoot kids,cameramen who shoot visual arts works for publication, panoram photographers with film cameras 40 to 90 years old that no digital I have ever seen can match, "art" photographer who won't go near a digital camera or an ink jet printer to save their soul, nostalgia shooters who go into wet darakrooms ande produce old fashioned prints with the scalloped edges like the 1950s, TO NAME A FEW.

[ObiWon]

<p>Not a massive market and I don't make my living from it, but I do take B&W wedding photos for a few clients a year who want a different traditional look.<br>

I use the old wedding photographer standby of a Bronica ETRS and a Vivitar 283 'Light Machine' flash shooting on 120 Ilford film and printing on their paper too. Bog standard 24 or 36 shots for a wedding like the 'good ole days :-)'<br>

I don't scan the negatives in and nothing gets within 10 paces of the Epson Photo printers I use. If you said it was my indulgent hobby you would probably be right but in public I would deny it most vehemently! Having said that I do seem to sell far more prints than I ever thought I would. Go figure.</p>

[nathan_wong2]

<p>This guy might still be making money off film. He uses a Hasselblad and Fuji Velvia 50 film. http://www.olegnovikov.com/index.shtml</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Iv'e pretty much stopped taking new commercial clients because I am steadily working towards shooting nothing but black and white medium and large format film and hand crafting wet prints for fine art. So far sales are on track to become 50% of my annual income in my second year doing it. <br /> I use a tiny bit of film for commercial work but like I said, I am phasing that out as fast as I can as I want the rest of my work / career to be totally devoid of digital or computer anything.<br>

I would certainly consider a good living at it to be half of what I made in my best year ever, pre-economic crash.</p>