PDA

View Full Version : No more pixels, no more...



cobalt
11-Sep-2008, 16:51
That's it. Decision made. I hate shooting events, weddings, and the like. I hate being questioned by other photographers (during concerts!) about why I "still" use a hasselblad. I hate trying to "sell myself" to potential clients who have their taste buds deeply imbedded in their asses. And I just don't like inkjet black and white, with the exception of a few from scanned film. And I STILL like the contact prints better.

I've decided that I am going to go...

... film. Exclusively. Yup.

Putting d300, Nikon 9000 up for sale, never to look back. From now on, it will be 4x5 5x7, 8x10, contact printed for the most part. Maybe an enlargement here and there from a ditial negative. Decided that this is the part of photography that makes me happy, making silver gelating prints that make people go ahhh...ohhh...oooo...even if it means keeping a day job. Jpegs? Jpegs? I don't got to show you no stinkin' jpegs!

Whew....glad that decision is over with. I've been struggling with this for a long time...thanks for the input. (see previous post.)

ericantonio
11-Sep-2008, 17:25
You go man!

Ralph Barker
11-Sep-2008, 18:03
Bold decision. Hope you're able to stick to it.

ic-racer
11-Sep-2008, 18:05
Good move!

Stephen Willard
11-Sep-2008, 18:41
Welcome to the fold brother cobalt!

SaveBears
11-Sep-2008, 19:52
I hope you have good luck and I admire your choice, stick with it and make people understand, and you should do very well..

roteague
11-Sep-2008, 20:54
That's it. Decision made. I hate shooting events, weddings, and the like. I hate being questioned by other photographers (during concerts!) about why I "still" use a hasselblad. I hate trying to "sell myself" to potential clients who have their taste buds deeply imbedded in their asses. And I just don't like inkjet black and white, with the exception of a few from scanned film. And I STILL like the contact prints better.

I've decided that I am going to go...

... film. Exclusively. Yup.

Putting d300, Nikon 9000 up for sale, never to look back. From now on, it will be 4x5 5x7, 8x10, contact printed for the most part. Maybe an enlargement here and there from a ditial negative. Decided that this is the part of photography that makes me happy, making silver gelating prints that make people go ahhh...ohhh...oooo...even if it means keeping a day job. Jpegs? Jpegs? I don't got to show you no stinkin' jpegs!

Whew....glad that decision is over with. I've been struggling with this for a long time...thanks for the input. (see previous post.)

Good on you!!!

Frank Bagbey
11-Sep-2008, 20:59
More and more pros are going back to film, in some cases to survive. Digitial is trying to achieve all the goals film achieved many years ago.

Tintype Bob
12-Sep-2008, 05:24
Good for you, go back to being an artist instead of a computer geek

largeformatrocks
12-Sep-2008, 07:52
Good, Good, Good, glad to see yet another going to the "darkslide", the best thing about digital photography to me is because it becoming so popular, i can now afford all the cool LF gear that before was way out of reach. : ))

Garry Madlung
12-Sep-2008, 08:05
I'm in awe of your move. Wow! And you're not apologizing! Thanks for making a statement!

mealers
12-Sep-2008, 08:05
I did the same, sold all my digital gear and started MF...Then saw LF and my eyes nearly popped out so out went the Blad and in came the Shen Hao.
Best move I ever made, photography is once again enjoyable :)

Best of luck!

matthewbetcher
12-Sep-2008, 08:32
congrats on sticking to it!... I'm in the same position - digital would be sooooo much easier to shoot, but like you said - no ooohs and aahhs. A friend of mine who was skeptical of my luddite approach saw the final prints and told me they reminded him of how much he missed his turntable and the analog creaminess of vinyl... needless to say, he's now pissed at me because he had to go replace his turntable!

and even those who balk at the upfront price of what i am doing vs the many other "accidental" digital photographers doing a similar thing (those who shoot 400 frames are bound to get a few decent ones, eh?) finally "get it" when they see the prints. They may not be able to articulate the difference, but it just resonates with them...

you may find that in the end, analog is now a premium and as such be charged accordingly... hell, you may make more dough now! It's just all about the marketing...

here's my wonderfully ironic flash website full of analog photography :)

www.chienchienphoto.com

Richard K.
12-Sep-2008, 09:02
An intuitive, epiphanous and correct choice. Welcome to the brotherhood of light. :)

butterfly
12-Sep-2008, 12:21
Did the same myself the other week. Sold ALL my canon DSLR gear. Film really does still rule! Got a Hasselblad for when my 4x5 is not suitable. With the proceeds bought a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED Scanner. Awesome combination!! Film is so much more satisfying to me as an amateur - FUN!! You carry on having fun :-)

cobalt
12-Sep-2008, 12:39
Did the same myself the other week. Sold ALL my canon DSLR gear. Film really does still rule! Got a Hasselblad for when my 4x5 is not suitable. With the proceeds bought a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED Scanner. Awesome combination!! Film is so much more satisfying to me as an amateur - FUN!! You carry on having fun :-)
Hasselblad is the best, if you can't do 4x5. I might keep the 9000 until I get enough space for a real darkroom; I put the d300 up for sale already; I am having a bit of trouble doing the same with the blads and the 40, 80, 150 and 250 zeiss lenses...they are so damned good.

Allen in Montreal
12-Sep-2008, 12:50
I shot a job for a client who want to hear "NOTHING" of film.
Untl last week when they tried to get a print made, 101 inches long from a Canon Mark lll file. The print is great if the view stays 20 feet away from it.:mad:

I will be re shooting the scene on 4x5 next week. I would have chosen 5x7 but my lab is closed and no one else processes 5x7 sheets in the city anymore.

But even after seeing the results of the Ditfile, the cost of a good scan came up, as if i should cover that expense!

QT Luong
12-Sep-2008, 13:01
More and more pros are going back to film, in some cases to survive.

Who ?

redrockcoulee
12-Sep-2008, 16:12
One must shoot what works for them not what others do. It certainly sounds like the decision you made was the right one for you. I borrowed a Hasselblad system after I was using LF and to me it was THE system for me. On top of that I was offered a CS8000 for next to nothing and have ended up buying most of my own 'blad system, camera and two lenses plus extension tubes. But will not abandon either LF or digital/35. But if you find LF works better than MF than it is the right one for you. If I had to decide I would keep the MF. Unfortunately for me my wife is one who does not care how much gear I buy as I am the tight one in the family but she does put her foot down not allowing me to sell much of it if want something else.:) Best to you with your decision.

Brian Vuillemenot
12-Sep-2008, 16:48
Look, guys, as has been stated many, many times before on this forum, cameras are just tools- pick the right one for the job. I'm all with you on the quality of LF- I wouldn't want anything else for my serious work. However, I still have a digital SLR, and since adding it to my photo toolkit a year ago, it's expanded my possibilities greatly. No, of course it won't replace 4X5, and I'm not going to make any big prints from it, but it complements LF very nicely. I just don't understand the emotionally negative reactions people on this site have to digital cameras-like they have to rid those evil things them from their lives for good- they're not going to take away your LF!

roteague
12-Sep-2008, 16:49
Who ?

The intelligent ones.....

Marko
12-Sep-2008, 19:14
Who ?

Those with insufficient production to justify digital workflow?

QT Luong
12-Sep-2008, 19:36
Names, please, so even if we will not be able to know their IQ, at least we can have an idea of their standing in the photography world :-)

Frank Petronio
12-Sep-2008, 19:47
I don't know any professional photographers personally, in the real world, who do not shoot digital the majority of the time. I don't know any good professional photographers who don't shoot some film still... it is like the difference between a hack and a serious pro.

I imagine that famous and entrenched photographers like Paulo Roversi can afford the time and have the power to still shoot only film, but at that level the magazines are honored to be working with him and the ad budgets are phenomenal.

Almost none of the graphic design studios, in-house corporate designers, or regional advertising agencies (business to business, smaller businesses) will still accept film without a look of surprise and probable, "thats-the-last-time-you'll-ever-work-here" sort of look.

It's almost a predictable stereotype, but many of the professionals who shoot digital for production work during the daytime are playing with Holgas and Lomos after hours, you know, to do "art". Not as many have the gumption to do large format.

Anyway, Cobalt, you're nuts! that's a badass attitude, good luck.

Gary L. Quay
13-Sep-2008, 05:29
Those with insufficient production to justify digital workflow?


Like me.

Marko
13-Sep-2008, 09:06
Almost none of the graphic design studios, in-house corporate designers, or regional advertising agencies (business to business, smaller businesses) will still accept film without a look of surprise and probable, "thats-the-last-time-you'll-ever-work-here" sort of look.

This reminds me of the time when personal computers started breaking into the mainstream and people who made a living by writing - newsies, novelists and such - went absolutely nuts with discussions just like this. If you would believe them, no serious writing could ever be done without the wonderful tactile feedback and the sound of a typewriter and the computer would positively and eternally destroy any inspiration and originality, yadda, yadda, whine, whine... Nevermind the fact that only a decade or so earlier, the same arguments were used for the electric typewriter or a few decades before that for the typewriter itself...

Today, it doesn't even occur to me to ask how many of them still use a typewriter today to deliver their scribulations, much less a classic typewriter. Even the typesetting business has siwtched to a completely digital route, so someone would have to retype the whole deal into the computer somewhere down the line, someone would have to check for spelling and typos (both author's and typist's) , someone would have to scan convert all the images...

I guess the most lucrative ones, like that gal who wrote the Harry Potter series (pls. notice I said lucrative!) could still pull it off as an eccentricity, but that's about it.

The point is, nobody's even thinking about it. That dilemma is long dead in those circles and the life went on. But digital has only had less than a decade in photography so far. The notion that technological breakthroughs take a generation to become universally accepted holds true here as well. ;)

QT Luong
13-Sep-2008, 09:32
I don't know any professional photographers personally, in the real world, who do not shoot digital the majority of the time.

If professional photography is equaled with commercial photography, this is not surprising, however, in art photography circles (the kind where prints start in the four figures, and the NYT reviews the shows), most are still using film. The thing is that they are not switching back from digi, since they never changed their working methods.

Gene McCluney
13-Sep-2008, 10:11
I am a professional/commercial Photographer...for 32 years now. I shoot digital when I have-to, but I prefer and shoot 4x5 film for my studio product shots, and I have clients that want film. While professional photography is "client driven" it is possible (as in my case) to have intelligent clients that appreciate the superiority of LF film. I also have an advantage in that I process all film in-house, and offer (if requested) in-house scanning of my LF images. Of course I charge for scanning.

The fact is, if you shoot commercial, all your images will be digitized for production. So, we analog photographers have to embrace digital to a certain extent..however we choose to "capture" on film.

Frank Petronio
13-Sep-2008, 11:40
QT -- "Professional photographers" who sell their prints for four and five figures in famous galleries are not even called "photographers" anymore. Once the call themselves "artists" they can charge more. Jeff Wall, Gregory Crewdson, etc. don't really participate in the "photo" world as much as they do the art scene. Even our former participant Cris Jordan disassociates himself from being a mere photographer.... ;-)

cobalt
13-Sep-2008, 12:41
QT -- "Professional photographers" who sell their prints for four and five figures in famous galleries are not even called "photographers" anymore. Once the call themselves "artists" they can charge more. Jeff Wall, Gregory Crewdson, etc. don't really participate in the "photo" world as much as they do the art scene. Even our former participant Cris Jordan disassociates himself from being a mere photographer.... ;-)

This is true. In a way, you might say I am rediscovering my roots, in that respect. I have always been an artist; I simply have been using cameras more so than paint brushes and pencils during the last few years. I read this forum because of the knowledge of the participants. In practice, I have difficulty with photographers and the omnipresent enthusiasts. Last event I shot, the jazz festival in Detroit, I was bombarded by idiotic questions, from "photographers", such as "you still use a Hasselblad?", "they make digital backs for those that fit just like a film back. Did you know that?", "what model is that?".
What made the questions particularly annoying was that they were being asked while we were all in front of the stage, and SOME of us were trying to make decent images. I for one am sick and tired of camera store employees telling me that roll and sheet film won't be made any longer, hearing them perpetuate the LIE that digital slrs now surpass medium format in quality, and looking at me as if I had just stepped out of a time machine when I dare ask for chemistry or darkroom equipment.

As a painter and illustrator, I NEVER had anyone tell me that his Grumbacher was better than my Windsor and Newton, that acrylic paint will make oils obsolete, or that using Illustrator was a necessity for producing my work. The problem seems to exist primarily among non- art photographers, if you will. Artists just use the tools that work for them. I don't particularly care for digital cameras for use in making fine art, but don't mind that others use them. They are simply not appropriate for what I want to achieve.

Allen in Montreal
13-Sep-2008, 13:15
.....

Almost none of the graphic design studios, in-house corporate designers, or regional advertising agencies (business to business, smaller businesses) will still accept film without a look of surprise and probable, "thats-the-last-time-you'll-ever-work-here" sort of look........

I went digital in 1999, but never let film go completely.
In about 2001, I was shooting a brochure for a long time client, I did the cover and the back page on 6x4.5 E-6 and all the images inside that were to run 5x7 or less on a Canon D-2000 using Kodak RAW Tiff format (3.7 mpx only! and that was the big camera in the day).

The design house tried to get me fired from the project when they realized they could not bill the client all the scanning fees, they had just bought a huge scanner. We estimated the scanning fees saved by my client to be about $3500.00 at that time.

Today, as you mention, the reverse is true.
If you subject a client to scan fees without prior knowledge and explanation / justification, they would dump you.

Ben Calwell
13-Sep-2008, 14:26
How much do you want for the D300?

otzi
15-Sep-2008, 07:05
clients who have their taste buds deeply imbedded in their asses.

Have you been poaching my clients, I wondered where they went ;)