Shooting Film Commercially

[luis_rives]

<p>Out of my own curiosity, I was wondering if there are any photographers left that use film commercially, especially 4x5. If there are, why would they do so in a commercial setting? In my mind the only people I see using film are hobbyists or amateurs (like myself) and "fine arts" photographers.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>As far as I know, there aren't 4x5 digital cameras yet, at least I can't afford one. </p>

<p>Seems to me that some fine arts are done commercially, but maybe you mean studio or wedding photography. I suspect pretty soon some will start up to give the "old fashioned" look. It might be possible to make digital look like film, but might as well use real film. (Note, for example, the popularity of vacuum tube amplifiers among the high-end audio people.)</p>

<p>But I suspect much is us old hobbyists doing it for fun.</p>

 

[eugen_mezei]

I recently bought two Plaubel 5x7" from a studio. They told me they used them for product photography but finally gave up and are digital now.

I guess you will find comercial work on LF in some printing industry and in X-ray. (Although X-ray is more and more digital too.)

Don't restrict photography to imaging only.

[larrydressler]

<p>The last guy shooting 4x5 commercially here in my area retired a few years ago. He held on to his equipment but he told me I can have first dibs on it when he is done being a retired hobbyist. He was doing real well and had a full backlogged shooting schedule but at 70 years old he decided to relax a little.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>Michael Fatali (<a href="http://fatali.com/">http://fatali.com/</a>) is still shooting 8x10. </p>

[steve m smith]

<p>There are a few high end wedding photographers using film only and an increasing number adding film as an option.</p>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

I won't classify myself as high end wedding photographer but i still shoot sometimes on film for commercial wedding

photography.

[Stephen_Prunier]

<p>I don't use 4"x5", but I still work using my Mamiya RZ67. Usually with B&W. I still have my darkroom so I can have a contact sheet ready in a couple hours. I don't think you'll find many pro's doing catalog, product, or stock using film. But there's a few still doing it though.</p>

[charles_h2]

<p>I still use film for commercial projects, even 4x5. Why? Many commercial photographers are hired because of their rates, others are hired for their style. If the client (art/creative director) hires you for your style, they tend to let you do just that. I have to admit that this is becoming more the exception, and not the rule.</p>

<p>I would never claim that film is better than digital, and frankly the argument is a dead horse. I made a substantial investment with film, and even though it is obsolete, I just love processing film. It is time consuming, but if the results are good, it's worth it. When the application requires digital, I love the speed in which you get results, but I always manage to sneak in a couple of shots with film to show the client, as an option. It's a big world out there, and I'm sure there are more people using film than we can imagine, otherwise companies would stop making it...... </p><div></div>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>If your work demands the last word in quality, and the ultimate in flexibility (tilt, shift, raise lower) in your ability to control sharpness, depth of field, etc, you really cannot go better than a 4x5</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00dWaW"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5462781">Charles H</a>, Oct 06, 2015; 04:58 p.m. I would never claim that film is better than digital.....</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >When you are dealing with <em>large format</em>, that is still a very viable claim. </p>

[r_david]

<p>Every year, more and more publishers are not accepting transparencies. The publishing workflow is pretty much entirely digital. Even the publishers who still accept transparencies scan them.</p>

<p>So, if there are commercial photographers still shooting 4x5 for publication, they will eventually have to scan them before submitting them if they want to stick to that format. <br>

There are outliers - of course there is always an exception. <a href="http://thesunmagazine.org/about/submission_guidelines/photography">The Sun Magazine </a>still accepts prints.</p>

<p>The thing is everyone's workflow is electronic or will be entirely electronic and analog just adds extra work. And with today's crazy deadlines, any extra quality that may exist just isn't worth it.</p>

<p>With 50Megapixel camera prices now below that of a luxury car and incredible gains in digital quality, I don't see 4x5 being used for any other reason than it's just a preferred workflow; there's not much technical or artist advantage for most applications. </p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>I'm a 6x7 stock shooter and still use film but I have to admit that I have lost a lot of my customers, even when I scan my slides to digital. Some publishers will buy scanned film, others will not. Using a top end home scanner (X5) or drum scanner just ruins any chance of making any money in this business. In the publishers' quest to maximize profits via their work flow, I am painted into a corner and have to shoot digital to some degree; not something I prefer. I am too old to re-shoot all of my stock in digital. I still shoot mostly film just because I enjoy it. </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Steve, we do what we have to do and it is not a sin. I am fortunate as I only do shows and local exhibits that I sell from and then it is only part time and an extension of my hobby. Pays for the hobby mostly.<br>

I do though get an odd referral from some by others I know to do film shooting and mostly they want to try and recreate something. </p>