PDA

View Full Version : film exclusively



cobalt
8-Sep-2008, 06:22
Anybody here do that? I mean, anyone here not own a digital camera? I have recently acquired another one...but I am just not as pleased with it as with MF or LF.
I am thinking of giving it up and shooting 4x5 and up exclusively. But I still have that little problem with an acceptable scanner (16x20 and smaller exhibition prints), and the fact that I have yet to see (let alone produce) an inkjet print that is up to snuff with a silver version of the same. And even the labs print (real) black and white on color paper! Damn! I am a bit frustrated.

I have been told by a good friend and experience photographer that I will look silly as a professional without a digital slr in my arsenal, so to speak. But I just don't feel as good about what I do when I use the silly thing, although it is very good for what it is (D300). My $150 Speed Graphic a d 127mm Ektar, even when subjected to a scan with an Epson 4990, just makes me wonder why the hell I spent all that loot on a dslr. But, I have surmised that publications won't accept this. What gives??

Cutting to the chase, I know that shooting 6x6 and up will limit my client list drastically. But that is what I really want to do. I am ready to sell the damned thing and buy a Linhof. Crazy?

David A. Goldfarb
8-Sep-2008, 06:39
I keep a digicam for copy work (mostly to put things on the web or to digitize documents), and for photographing things I want to sell on the internet, but other than that, it's all film. The Coolpix 990 has been fine for those purposes since I bought it new around 2000-2001.

Louie Powell
8-Sep-2008, 06:55
I, personally, do not own a digicam.

Recently, I had to use one in a workshop. I borrowed a Canon 20D, and the experience was OK. But given a choice of where I would prefer to invest some mad money, it would more likely be in an 8x10 than in a digital.

My wife does, and I occasionally borrow it to make equipment pictures.

MIke Sherck
8-Sep-2008, 07:05
My wife owns an older Olympus 2 MP digital camera which we use to list stuff for sale online, but I personally don't own one. I use one at work (Nikon,) for stuff that mostly gets used on the web, but I don't own it. The girls both have Canon compact digital cameras but I use them pretty rarely (and mostly to show them how to take better pictures of their pets.) My son has an iPhone, which serves as his camera.

But for me, it's all film. Of course, I'm not a photographic professional: I get to do whatever I want. If you're a photo pro, you get to do mostly what the client wants. *Grin* That's why I'm not a pro.

Well, that plus the fact I'm not a very good photographer. And a worse printer. But I can still aspire to the moral high ground. :)

Mike

John Kasaian
8-Sep-2008, 07:11
My bride loves her digi and I have used it on occassion but I don't own one. I do have an Olympus Stylus and shoot B&W exclusively so the family snaps consist of both color (hers) and B&W (mine) What I find interesting is that I often get asked to photograph large family gatherings (weddings, baptisms, parties etc...) People still like the look of b&w film!
If I ever buy a cell phone I'd like to get one with a digi though.

Ralph Barker
8-Sep-2008, 07:22
Few things are as pleasing as a tightly-fitting dovetail cut with a dozuki and finely-honed chisels, but I also own a router. ;)

JBrunner
8-Sep-2008, 07:30
I view it as a case of the right tool for the right job. I own everything from a 1Ds to an 8x10. There are many commercial jobs I wouldn't think of approaching with film, and some where I push for it. Most of my clients have arrived at a point where they trust me to make the decision, or in some cases ask for film, because they know what it is capable of and where it really shines.

For my personal "artistic" work where my end goal is a print, I shoot film, most often large format. Content aside, I have seen some good ink prints (and a lot of astoundingly bad), and some good lightjet prints (and a few bad), and if my work was primarily color I might go the scan/print route. Since my personal work is black and white I prefer making my prints myself, and I find the darkroom process more cathartic and involving as an artist. Also, I can't make a cyanotype, cyanowhite, or platinum or silver contact print with a computer. I can try to imitate one, but to me it's just that, a silly imitation. With print making it boils down to an aesthetic, and what your real goals are. Nothing really good is easy, whatever work flow you choose, so choose what leads you to your desired end, and apply yourself accordingly.

I have also seen quite a few lackluster silver prints, and believe process alone can't make up for artistry, or photographic and technical skill. It's important to be in control of whatever process you use, and most of all, and what I see as most lacking, understanding what a good print is, and what gets you there. Those without this understanding are the ones who dismiss film, or dismiss digital out of hand.

rjbrine
8-Sep-2008, 08:23
I also feel unhappy shooting with a dslr as it does not compare in working process and quality to 5x4. It is useful on small jobs where there are budget restrictions. For me the only possible replacement is an arca swiss 6x9 with a high end digital back. Until the economy picks up I plan to continue with 5x4 trannie.

reellis67
8-Sep-2008, 08:28
But that is what I really want to do. I am ready to sell the damned thing and buy a Linhof. Crazy?

Nope! I gave up on the whole digital SLR thing some time ago. I say do what you want to do and let everyone else do what ever they want. My wife inherited my original digital Rebel, but shelved it in preference for an Elph, which she uses for all of our casual pictures. I don't use anything but my 4x5 and sometimes my 8x10 cameras anymore and I see no reason to carry something around that you don't want to use just because someone else thinks you should.

- Randy

CG
8-Sep-2008, 08:59
For a pro - things are different. If I was wanting to make a transition to an all film, all LF professional existance, I'd work up a portfolio of LF film based work and transit existing clients to film or find new clients willing to go to film.

I'm not sure I'd just make the jump without prepping the market.

C

gevalia
8-Sep-2008, 09:32
My short answer (meaning I rewrote this 3 times).

I am new to LF/MF/film. My experience with photography is that I took my 1st photo 3 years ago on digital. I'm now thoroughly enjoying LF and use my MF when I do not have the time at the location to set up my LF.

I have a 2 week vacation coming up in October in southern Utah. I plan on leaving the digital and going with film only. Just a few backcountry hikes with mostly day hikes. If that goes well, I will be selling my digital gear. This is a personal thing for sure, I do enjoy the "process" more.

gevalia
8-Sep-2008, 09:35
Jason,

Your YouTube vid taught me how to load a 120 reel. And the one on LF where you sneez is real funny.


I view it as a case of the right tool for the right job. I own everything from a 1Ds to an 8x10. There are many commercial jobs I wouldn't think of approaching with film, and some where I push for it. Most of my clients have arrived at a point where they trust me to make the decision, or in some cases ask for film, because they know what it is capable of and where it really shines.

For my personal "artistic" work where my end goal is a print, I shoot film, most often large format. Content aside, I have seen some good ink prints (and a lot of astoundingly bad), and some good lightjet prints (and a few bad), and if my work was primarily color I might go the scan/print route. Since my personal work is black and white I prefer making my prints myself, and I find the darkroom process more cathartic and involving as an artist. Also, I can't make a cyanotype, cyanowhite, or platinum or silver contact print with a computer. I can try to imitate one, but to me it's just that, a silly imitation. With print making it boils down to an aesthetic, and what your real goals are. Nothing really good is easy, whatever work flow you choose, so choose what leads you to your desired end, and apply yourself accordingly.

I have also seen quite a few lackluster silver prints, and believe process alone can't make up for artistry, or photographic and technical skill. It's important to be in control of whatever process you use, and most of all, and what I see as most lacking, understanding what a good print is, and what gets you there. Those without this understanding are the ones who dismiss film, or dismiss digital out of hand.

Gene McCluney
8-Sep-2008, 09:39
I am forced to use digital for some of my commercial work, but for my personal work, it is 100% film, and mostly large format. Also, due to intelligent clients, about 80% of my commercial work is 4x5 color transparency.

Anupam
8-Sep-2008, 09:58
After years of not owning a digital I got an used D200 about three months ago. But in spite of a lot of gratuitous shooting of table lamps and bookshelves and such to "play" with the camera, I seem to have made less than 10 real shots with it in the whole time. So, I am slowly resigning to the fact that even though it's a good camera, it's not quite on my wavelength. I'll use it for eBay shots and such and maybe force myself to do real photography with it occasionally.

(Un)fortunately, my girlfriend's little P&S went through the washing machine, so she has ended up with my uber-cam instead and seems to be enjoying fiddling with it a lot. She might even end up learning quite a bit about photography - she's already started borrowing my tripod. So the investment might not have been wasted after all.

Bjorn Nilsson
8-Sep-2008, 10:08
I bought a compact digi (Nikon P3) for my spouce a couple of years ago. She loves it and brings home more good pictures than with any previous camera. I do use that camera from time to time if I want to put something on the 'net.
Else I keep telling myself that I do photography to relax from work and slow down. So my "compact" is a Hassy SWC. :) I love my Sinar but I'm also contemplating a Chamonix or similar for portability, which have become an issue as I'm getting older.
Once upon a time (20 years ago) I had photography for living. If I were in that situation now, I guess I would have collected an arsenal of digicams, computers and printers. I recon that getting out of that business (bankruptcy) made me want to slow down and only make pictures for pleasure. Apart from that it's not the computer aspect which keeps me away from digicams, as I've worked as a programmer for several years, making hardware/software etc. a non-issue.

A shorter version of this could be: I still like film and dark rooms. The smell of fixer doesn't bother me either.

//Björn

BradS
8-Sep-2008, 10:25
Digital cameras are really good for making beautiful color snaps of no lasting importance. Point, shoot and throw away.

I bought my wife a Canon Powershot-G3 back when they just came on the market. She used it for one season and realized...that although itis a wonderful performer, it is pretty useless for what she wants to do with a camera (mainly, document family). She doesn't want to throw away the family snaps. That's the first and last digicam we'll ever own. She's gone back to the 35mm Canon EOS Rebel Ti.

Aahx
8-Sep-2008, 10:48
Hmm.. well for my day job, I use digital (Canon 1D Mark III) for most of my work, and film (Noblex 6x12 or Omega 4x5) very occasionally (only three times this year).

Now for my personal work I primarily shoot film (Pentax 645, and Wista (and now Chamonix) 4x5’s. With my current only personal digital camera being my Iphone (was blackberry prior to last week). And I am seriously considering picking the new Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 for a "carry in pocket" image gatherer (much better than a phone cam). And this is where I feel digital can shine, in a pocket carry everywhere kind of environment.

It really comes down to what you are doing with the images, and what you want from them. This is a personal subjective issue. But for my pro work, my clients demand digital most of the time. Even though for some things like weddings and portraiture I encourage the use of film. Not always do they wish to go with it. If I only did film… I would likely loose a lot of customers doing the work that I do. So using digital is more an economic necessity than a preferred choice.

Pat Kearns
8-Sep-2008, 11:00
About 6 weeks ago I got a digital and have been shooting lamps as well trying to learn all the controls. I will probably use it for family pictures and functions because everyone will want copies quickly. Personally, film rules! There is nothing more satisfying then seeing a B & W print magically emerge in a tray of developer. If that's not black magic then I don't know what is.

butterfly
8-Sep-2008, 11:25
I have just sold all my Canon DSLR gear. Basically it gave me lovely images, but as an amateur I do photography for FUN. The digital gear did not give me any pleasure. I have a 4x5 and medium formats.

With the proceeds of the sale I have bought a Nikon coolscan 9000ED. It is a tremendous machine. I am now buying an Epson V750 for the 4x5's, having been perfectly pleased with the 4990, but a member of my family wants it on 'loan' to scan all the family archive.

I love doing 4x5. It gives me greatest pleasure. Digital never did.

Regards

Steve

anchored
8-Sep-2008, 11:35
I personally do not own a digital camera, having complete large format, medium format, and 35mm format camera systems. However, I do occasionally borrow my wife's point'n shoot camera for "snappies."

The ONLY reason for this is because of what I shoot... strictly landscape, scenics, and occasional studio and architectural work... and with very large prints as a "goal."

Now, if I were shooting sports, street-scenes, portraits, fashion, family snaps, etc., or not being over-concerned about print sizes, I for sure would be owning and using digital cameras instead. Simply a matter of different tools work better for some jobs than others.....

Kirk Gittings
8-Sep-2008, 12:02
Over the past few years, all but one (a Boston architect, I gave him files anyway and he was thrilled) of my commercial clients expected files. They don't want prints or film, which means you are responsible for the scanning. During the first three years of this market, I only shot film and VCs and scanned it in house. Scanning became like a third job on top of shooting and processing the files. I was officially the "old school" guy in my market, which was good with some existing clients but worthless with new and younger clients. There simply was not enough time in a week to do scanning in house justice and there were no dependable scan labs around that could turn my film around at a reasonable cost. So I went over to shooting digital and would not go back. I still prefer shooting LF film for my personal work.

willwilson
8-Sep-2008, 12:57
No digital here. Its just too hard to cram a computer monitor into the negative stage of my enlarger.

I must admit that I use my fiancee's digital elph for snapshots on occasion and it is really good for that.

Ash
8-Sep-2008, 13:06
Check out a thread of mine, where I shot some film today.

I approached about 20 people, took the photo's of maybe 17 of them? All with instant film. Only two or three people really noticed I was shooting Fuji Instant (one because her husband works for Fuji, another because she took an interest in the camera, and somebody else because they asked).

Of all those people I only had to explain my choice to about 2 of them. "Why don't you shoot digital?" - I was surprised how few people asked that.



It depends on the application. I wouldn't dare shoot film at a fashion show, or a sports event. It's just not worth it for me. I'd shoot both digital and film in a studio. The digital for the satisfaction of the customer, the film for my own satisfaction.



I had held out until this year, but the course I'm on means I MUST shoot digital to pass. To get by in the photography world, and make money, you need digital.

Maris Rusis
8-Sep-2008, 16:04
No digicams, no scanners, no printers; everything starts and finishes as pictures made from light sensitive materials.

My photographer's card reads "Guaranteed No Digital" and I whisper "or your money back". There is nothing inherently wrong with digitally fabricated pictures but I don't want to compete against 50 million hot-shot DSLR snappers and pixel pushers. Especially if they have more talent, vision, imagination, and energy than me.

I'll pick up what business I can by offering an increasingly unique product....light-pictures.

Gordon Moat
8-Sep-2008, 16:21
You can always rent as needed for paid shoots. That way you can use the latest when your clients really want that, or when you feel you need it.

One thing is that delivering digital is very important and often expected in commercial photography. Starting with film means scanning, or hiring out scans. That can be done in-house (in-studio) or at a good lab.

Another issue is turn-around, and as Ash pointed out, film is just not appropriate for some work. Sure, you could to it, but you have to be willing to jump through more hoops.

Officially, I only own a High Definition (HD) video set-up, though mostly just to document my shoots. I have used a few D-SLRs in the past, though I currently only rent those, or an MFDB, as needed.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

The Dread Pirate Robins
8-Sep-2008, 16:41
I have a digital camera that I use for quick snaps to throw on the web, usually if I see my kids do something that I think their grandma in Texas would like to see in her email inbox.

It is by no means a professional digital camera. My Pentax Spotmatic has sharper optics and can deliver better results, hands down.

Skorzen
8-Sep-2008, 17:22
I started digital, went just about completely film and have moved back to a mix of the two. For me I found that much of what I was using 35mm and 120 for were things that were just better suited to digital. I would shoot a few rolls, and never get around to doing much with them (i.e. scanning etc). Now for my "serious" stuff I don't want to use anything less than 4X5 (the other day I was out playing with my ancient 8X10 and someone asked if that camera took better pictures than a digital...;) ) However I find myself shooting sports for my school as well as documenting trips with my fiends etc and for that digital is great.

This pic is a perfect example of why I like having the digital, this past Saturday I braved TS Hannah with my fiancee and another friend and we went to the Redbull Soapbox race in Philadelphia. Standing in the pouring rain for a couple hours with my D2X was a whole lotta fun, I can imagine doing that with a LF camera (although I think I Speed Graphic would have been sweet if the weather was better).

Andrew O'Neill
8-Sep-2008, 17:27
I'm all film baby!! and photo paper too!

phil sweeney
8-Sep-2008, 18:18
I do not own a digital camera. I have thought about getting one to photograph my 7 x 17s and other contact prints for display. Thought about it.

I have a company issued point and shoot on the service van. Works real well for illustration purposes. I'll take a bunch of shots and hand it to someone in the office. I downloaded 3 images for myself once.

I always joke with the folks at work, "where is the thing you look through on this camera?" But they know I still have a record player and reel to reel!

Michael Wynd
8-Sep-2008, 18:25
My partner uses one exclusively, but I have no need nor inclination to use one. I have two 35mm cameras which get no use and one 8x10 that I use all the time. My partner keeps sniping at me that her dslr can do everything the 8x10 can do. I just look at her and laugh. the only thing I have used a dslr for is checking the exposure for the LF camera.

Frank Petronio
8-Sep-2008, 19:58
I've never liked any of the recent digital P&S cameras, they are just too tiny and complicated for what they are good for: snapshots. But I rather like my Nikon D300, like the D80 and D70 before it. But... when I really look at the small format stuff that works, the best shots have been from Tri-X in Leicas. More than even all the thousands of rolls I shot in the film Nikons for 20 years... Maybe it is foolish brand snobbery but even the cheap screw mount bodies gave me great photos. They seem to be just the right amount of hassle to use, which slows me down and makes me concentrate best. Auto-Focus super cameras are just too fast and efficient... I need the pause to wind and focus and meter. Guess I am finally an old fart after all....

(And clearly my D300 has better image quality than 35mm Tri-X, at least without using some super drum scanner.)

So if I don't get slammed with generic assignments for bland documentation in the next couple of months, I'm going to swap that DSLR for another Leica and Nikon Coolscan combo.

And maybe get a $350 used D70 for eBay and obligatory Xmas morning snapshots....

Frank Bagbey
8-Sep-2008, 20:26
Not being a sports photographer in need of speed, the only thing I use digitial for is Ebay. Trade publications are full of stories of big time photogs who gave up digitial and went back to Velvia for food photography, flower photography, etc. One photog almost lost all his clients over his new use of digitial. Going back to Velvia and scanning those images put him back in the million dollar studio catagory. Since the camera publications are funded by digitial these days, they are reluctant to tell it the way it is: more and more pros (not portrait and wedding photogs) are giving up digitial and going back to film. Out in the field it is experienced all the time, but it is not something the mags want to talk about. Wait until the 10 and 12 megapixel cellphone cameras hit the USA! Digitial camera sales will die out, being taken over by the telephone companies. Me, I will still be shooting 8x10 and 5x7 and 4x5.

jnantz
8-Sep-2008, 20:31
i use a little of each for work-stuff depending on who the client is
and what they expect. some expect archival negatives and prints,
some just want something transmitted to them ...

i'd like to get rid of the d-X00s but they worked well on the last few jobs i had,
the graflex slr, pen ft and other stuff i have works well too...
i use what works, don't limit myself and don't really worry about it ...

PViapiano
8-Sep-2008, 21:26
I'm not a pro, but I will tell you that the two commercial assignments I was asked to do in the past year was because the client knew I used film. They wanted black and white, and they wanted film...no digital.

Also, when I hand people a gelatin silver print, they always say "Wow...what is this?" before they comment on the image. That's pretty telling to me. I've made very good inkjet prints on some of the best materials available, but never ever got that reaction.

Oh, and...we have two digicams in the house. A Canon D30 dSLR (yes, the original that practically started it all) and a tiny ELPH that my wife uses. I shoot a Leica M2, Mamiya RZ Pro II, Mamiya 7 and Ebony 45s...

Mark Stahlke
8-Sep-2008, 22:16
I spent two weeks in August wandering around the Wind River Range in Wyoming. I had three cameras with me - a Tachihara 4x5, a Canham 8x10, and a Nikon D300.

So what did I shoot?
120 sheets of 4x5, a couple dozen sheets of 8x10, and exactly nine digital pics. All nine of the digital shots were location scouting for the big cameras.

JBrunner
8-Sep-2008, 22:24
Jason,

Your YouTube vid taught me how to load a 120 reel. And the one on LF where you sneez is real funny.

That's awesome. I'm honored to have played some small part in your affliction... I mean.. new disease, I mean... well, anyway, thanks for the props.

cobalt
9-Sep-2008, 05:48
No digicams, no scanners, no printers; everything starts and finishes as pictures made from light sensitive materials.

My photographer's card reads "Guaranteed No Digital" and I whisper "or your money back". There is nothing inherently wrong with digitally fabricated pictures but I don't want to compete against 50 million hot-shot DSLR snappers and pixel pushers. Especially if they have more talent, vision, imagination, and energy than me.

I'll pick up what business I can by offering an increasingly unique product....light-pictures.

We seem to be of a similar mind in that respect.

cobalt
9-Sep-2008, 05:55
I've never liked any of the recent digital P&S cameras, they are just too tiny and complicated for what they are good for: snapshots. But I rather like my Nikon D300, like the D80 and D70 before it. But... when I really look at the small format stuff that works, the best shots have been from Tri-X in Leicas. More than even all the thousands of rolls I shot in the film Nikons for 20 years... Maybe it is foolish brand snobbery but even the cheap screw mount bodies gave me great photos. They seem to be just the right amount of hassle to use, which slows me down and makes me concentrate best. Auto-Focus super cameras are just too fast and efficient... I need the pause to wind and focus and meter. Guess I am finally an old fart after all....

(And clearly my D300 has better image quality than 35mm Tri-X, at least without using some super drum scanner.)

So if I don't get slammed with generic assignments for bland documentation in the next couple of months, I'm going to swap that DSLR for another Leica and Nikon Coolscan combo.

And maybe get a $350 used D70 for eBay and obligatory Xmas morning snapshots....

So...what's the skinny? I have visited your sight, and find it impressive, to say the least. I see from your reply that you have the same camera. WHY do you keep it when the Leicas are clearly superior image producers? I though about selling my Coolscan, but can't bring myself to do it.

cobalt
9-Sep-2008, 06:07
What brought the question about is this:

I was allowed rather privileged access to shoot the Detroit International Jazz Festival about a week and a half ago. I typically use a Hasselblad with a 250mm lens to do this. ( I'd been shooting this festival casually (i.e. without press credentials) for a couple of years prior to this.)
Making photos of performers on a dark stage, with only stage lighting, seemed to be greatly suited to digital. But, after looking at the files compared to the scanned (severely cropped in some cases), images of Tri X and Neopan, in poor light, pushed as much as 3 stops, I find that the Blad images look like photographs; the D300 images look... digital ... OK... like a lot of other folk's stuff.

But I was left wondering why I even brought the damned thing to begin with. It's not that the D300 sucks, per se; it's just that, for instance, from 50 yards away, I was able to get a good (cropped!) image of a harpist that other photographers were leaning on the stage to get with there super duper kit zoom lenses. Why do I own this digi thing again??

Frank Petronio
9-Sep-2008, 07:28
I'm just saying, I have other fish in the kettle at the moment but I plan on going back to 35mm B&W rangefinder stuff once I get my other stuff out of the way, and I'll probably dump the nicer D300 in favor of some cheap little used or crappy digicam for eBay pix and snapshots...

PViapiano
9-Sep-2008, 08:23
Hey, I've been using my Leica almost exclusively since the beginning of this year, printing all in the wet darkroom, and it has been amazingly liberating.

It's nice to change it up now and then...keeps the juices fresh!

jdc
9-Sep-2008, 10:07
I used an lf for most jobs exchanging a rfh for sheets when I needed to make up for my dearth of lenses, but my clients always wanted files. I recently did a job that required a quantity of shots with a turnaround that just couldn't be done with film so I bought a d300. It paid for its self immediately and as soon as I can I'll dump it for the d700. For what I do I can't see the need or the business case for the D3 -- I'd buy a used imacon or drum scanner first. For my own work I shoot only film and mostly MF RF. Having finally made the switch I can't believe I didn't do it sooner. The business of photography is after all about producing product and a DSLR is all about production. The art of photography (for me) requires a different tool.