Kodak: Most photographers prefer film

Even if the client wanted a TIFF file she is not going to care whether it was from a Canon DSLR or a Coolscan. The photographer still has the freedom to shoot whatever he wants.
 
Rayt said:
Even if the client wanted a TIFF file she is not going to care whether it was from a Canon DSLR or a Coolscan. The photographer still has the freedom to shoot whatever he wants.
Click to expand...

The average client will not pay extra for film and processing when the final result needs to be a file and when a digital camera will produce "perfectly good" results. A photographer who "chooses", "uses" or "insists" on film will often take himself out of contention for a job. So does that mean the photographer has the freedom to shoot whatever he wants?

Of course there are non-average clients......
 
Superbus_ said:
I prefer film and I'm from Europe. Am I a professional??? ;)
Click to expand...

You must be!!!

If feathers are light, and the sun gives off light, it must be the sun gives off feathers.

I won't even venture what that makes me?

Anyway, this may mean that Ilford can keep making film. :cool:
 
Counterintuitive as it sounds, this does make sense given that it came from a survey of professional photographers. Although we tend to think of "professional" in the sense of high-profile advertising and editorial shooters whose work is for publication, the fact is that numerically, the largest segment of professionals is in the wedding and portrait field.

And while publication shooters need to deliver files (since virtually all publications are produced on computers nowadays), workers in the wedding and portrait fields need to deliver prints on paper. For this application, film is still a very good way to work, with lots of advantages over digital.

These do include some technical advantages, such as less risk of blown highlights and greater dynamic range.

But they also include significant advantages in the business process, based on the fact that wedding and portrait shooters can call on a well-developed infrastructure of film-based services.

If you're working in these fields and you work from digital capture, you're pretty much 100% responsible for your own color management, quality control, and post-shoot finishing. The time you spend on these services comes out of your own workday and means less time available to spend on the things that generate revenue for you: shooting jobs and selling to clients.

If you shoot your weddings and portraits on film, you can job out virtually every non-revenue-generating aspect to vendors: they'll take care of processing, proofing, retouching, making enlargements, and assembling albums or print packages.

Meanwhile, the key advantage of digital capture for publication shooters -- the fast availability of end product -- isn't as big a plus for the wedding/portrait photographer. The new graduate or wedded couple already has a lot of stuff going on in connection with the recent big event, and doesn't really need to walk out with prints in hand. In fact, newly married couples may be more interested in seeing the photos after the actual event has had time to recede into memory slightly.


Note that I'm not a wedding or portrait shooter (thank you, God!) and am just analyzing this from a common-sense business viewpoint. But I think it's a good theory for demonstrating why film is still a preferred medium for a numerically large segment of professional users.
 
Last edited:
landsknechte said:
Suprising that 55% prefer digital for black and white work.
Click to expand...

Can't understand that. My general dissapointment about digital is B&W.
Yes, you can have fantastic results in post-processing, but how will it look
on paper? I don't have a chance to see huge prints in photo galleries here...
also, classic B&W print can last 100 years, how much digital prints will live?
Time will show ...
 
PetarDima said:
My general dissapointment about digital is B&W.
Click to expand...
Likewise.
PetarDima said:
Yes, you can have fantastic results in post-processing, but how will it look on paper?
Click to expand...
Average, at best, compared to film.
PetarDima said:
classic B&W print can last 100 years, how much digital prints will live?
Time will show ...
Click to expand...
Going off a photo printed out from an inkjet printer, from a few years ago, it's fading already. Compare that to a colour photo, printed from some multilab thing, longevity with digital prints isn't guaranteed.
 
The digital camera manufacturers are their own worst enemy. Although the technology is grand, the ever continuing climb in cost will eventually do them in. Also, without any truly effective (and cost efficient) method of archiving images, a high price in the form of lost images and inaccessible technology will be paid.
 
rovnguy said:
The digital camera manufacturers are their own worst enemy. Although the technology is grand, the ever continuing climb in cost will eventually do them in. Also, without any truly effective (and cost efficient) method of archiving images, a high price in the form of lost images and inaccessible technology will be paid.
Click to expand...

Yep! Wetplate is the way! My grandfather was right after all, these tiny negatives on inflamable material are not worth the effort. :D
 
Film

Film

I'm not a pro but at one time it was my ambition to become a Pro Wedding Photographer. The few events and Weddings I do I use 35 film as my primary medium. Simply because all I have to do is be a photographer and I pay someone else to make the prints. I have two complete camera setups based on Canons Elan 7N cameras, 580EX, camera brackets, Quantum Turbo batteries and chords plus all the right lenses. These cameras use E-TTL-II and so do the flashes. I shoot in Color and B&W, using Kodak Portra 160NC and 400CN films. Most prints are 4" x 6".

I also use film in my M5 and Summilux 50 for my walk around film camera and I use a dedicated film scanner in my home and print at home using the HP 8750.

I never use the Canon film Elan 7N camera's for fun and play. They are work tools as is my EOS 1-V. Well I do use the EOS 1-V for birding as I have two film only Sigma telephoto lenses the 500 f/4.5 and 800 f/5.6. The 1-V will also do sports at 10FPS.

For other fun and birding I use any one of 4 Canon DSLR's and a Pentax K100D DSLR for the instant feedback and download to my computers. The prints are fine. My Pentax is an all manual DSLR when I set it to M and use K and M42 screw mount lenses. Just like a film 35mm camera except it uses a sensor and SD card instead of film.
 
Peter55 said:
For other fun and birding I use any one of 4 Canon DSLR's and a Pentax K100D DSLR for the instant feedback and download to my computers. The prints are fine. My Pentax is an all manual DSLR when I set it to M and use K and M42 screw mount lenses. Just like a film 35mm camera except it uses a sensor and SD card instead of film.
Click to expand...
My 350D can be set to behave exactly the same way. Stick it into manual mode, switch the AF off, away you go.

At the end of the day though, inkjet prints fade. Yep, film photos fade as well, but at a slower rate, if at all.
 
rovnguy said:
The digital camera manufacturers are their own worst enemy. Although the technology is grand, the ever continuing climb in cost will eventually do them in. Also, without any truly effective (and cost efficient) method of archiving images, a high price in the form of lost images and inaccessible technology will be paid.
Click to expand...

Of course, since nobody uses digital cameras these days and likely nobody will in the future, there's no economic motive for companies to develop means to pass on digital information as technology progresses, and to read obsolete technology.

Paper rots. Film rots. If done properly, digital information can be kept absolutely intact and undegraded indefiantly.


That argument against digital is about as logically sound as saying that we should abandon film because spare parts for enlargers are going to be difficult to come by in the future.
 
jlw said:
....And while publication shooters need to deliver files (since virtually all publications are produced on computers nowadays), workers in the wedding and portrait fields need to deliver prints on paper. For this application, film is still a very good way to work, with lots of advantages over digital....
...If you're working in these fields and you work from digital capture, you're pretty much 100% responsible for your own color management, quality control, and post-shoot finishing. The time you spend on these services comes out of your own workday and means less time available to spend on the things that generate revenue for you: shooting jobs and selling to clients.

If you shoot your weddings and portraits on film, you can job out virtually every non-revenue-generating aspect to vendors: they'll take care of processing, proofing, retouching, making enlargements, and assembling albums or print packages.

Meanwhile, the key advantage of digital capture for publication shooters -- the fast availability of end product -- isn't as big a plus for the wedding/portrait photographer...
Click to expand...

Very well stated. I can see many of these services available for hire to digital based photogs as well, but if I was one of these photogs I'd be shooting film and drawing it to the attention of the client as a bonus. There is a built-in longevity to film that I think is important for certain things, and a wedding is one of those (call me old-fashioned- I won't argue :D)

I was at a wedding two weeks ago, and it was all shot digitally and I was surprised at that. The 'no rush' of wedding work does seem to make it a natural for film- choosing your stock for the situation/location another benefit.

Both the photogs were shooting and chimping every shot- despite that they were obviously seasoned shooters- something else that surprised me.
 
landsknechte said:
Paper rots. Film rots. If done properly, digital information can be kept absolutely intact and undegraded indefiantly.
Click to expand...

I can easily find 150 year old photos and negatives that are still quite viable.
Now where can I read this 20 year old 5.25" 360K floppy disk? ;)

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom