film exclusively

[Kirk Gittings]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[The Dread Pirate Robins]

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]

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]

I'm all film baby!! and photo paper too!

[phil sweeney]

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]

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.