How much is film used these days in printed media?

[stric]

It's hard to dispute the power of digital photography in an increasingly digital world. But when it comes to fine photography magazines such as National Geographic, how much is film used in these fine printed publications? I've heard somewhere that for full page photos, film is still an undisputable leader, but from what I've seen in digital worls it's simply a matter of time before digital photography takes over (not completely though-film will probably become a niche market). I've also read on another forum that Leica M is still the main weapo of National Geographic photographers.
Does nayone here have any info on presence of film in professional photographic word?
Thank you...

PS. I am not trying to start digital vs. film fight. the ultimate result of either medium is an image. I guess photography evolves in digital direction but I still like and belive in inherent qualities and proven-technology of film.

 

[saxshooter]

John Stanmeyer (of VII) recently did a story for Nat Geo on global aid and it was all shot on Canon digital. Looked good to me.

 

[T_om]

Since the fall of 2002, National Geographic has gone more and more to digital. Here is an interesting read about that first digital shoot. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6450-6561

NG is/was one of the very last holdouts concerning digital. Almost nothing you see in print any longer is film

Whoever told you film was still the "undisputed leader" for magazine spreads was blowing smoke where the sun does not shine.

Commercial photography is almost 100% digital now.

Which STILL does not mean that if you want to shoot film, you shouldn't do just that. Use the tools you want to get the look you want, and to hell with what they are shooting at National Geographic or anywhere else.

Tom

 

[trittium]

I heard a lot of fashion photography is still captured on film, but not sure about it.

 

[Socke]

Trittium, some of the most expensive fashion photographers shoot the most expensive models on film for some projects.


Those projects under a tight schedule and a limited budget are shot with digital cameras, I've seen a shot where they had a graphics artist on location who not only evaluated photos on his powerbook, he proof printed magazine pages minutes after the shot, the magazin itself was at the kiosks the week after!

 

[stet]

I also heard that the really expensive fashion/commercial work is done on film. A few months ago I asked a friend of mine in Philadelphia who works in fashion about film, if he still used it, and he said that you only see that in high-dollar projects in NYC, Milan, etc.

I know that the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette became fully switched over to digital in 2001. The last holdout was Ben Krain, their main award-winning photog. On the other hand, I posted this just recently, but I was impressed with the work of Philip Blenkinsop, a journalist who shoots for l'Agence VU. I met him in a Bangkok photo supply store, and he said he shoots all his work with Leica and Mamiya rangefinders, processing and developing in his home. You can see some of his work here: http://www.agencevu.com/fr/photographes/default.asp?Photographes=7

*rick

 

[jaapv]

That is indeed a very impressive portefolio Mr. Blenkinsop has there, Rick. And it is hard to see that that type of work would benefit from digital. Rather the opposite, I would think.

 

[wyk_penguin]

With digital backs becoming possible on Hassy, even fashion photogs shoot digital now. No need for polaroids when the shots come up on the laptop seconds after the shot.

I wonder if the people who used to use 4X5 view cams to take product photos have changed yet?

 

[Paul T.]

"Almost nothing you see in print any longer is film"

I'd like to see your evidence for this, because the major European magazine publishers - Emap, IPC, Conde Nast - still shoot a lot of film. Of course digital is far more entrenched than it was even three years ago, when it was a comparative novelty.


More crucial from a photographer's POV is the fact they are being hugely squeezed on film costs, and will ultimately lose out, because the extra fees they can claim for digital delivery - which demands a large capital investment - are derisory. Apart from this, it's largely a non-issue, and the majority of high quality magazines will select a photgrapher first, and accept whatever delivery mediun s/he is happy with.

 

[VinceC]

I think it quickly comes down to a business decision. Most magazines buy from freelancers. The editor probably doesn't care much about how the image was created, so long as it arrives on deadline, meets the terms of the assignment and is in a usable format.

Nearly everyone making a living with a camera is going to have access to digital, even if they shoot both. So there ultimately will be slightly more profit from doing the job on digital which, over time, amortizes the cost of the equipment and pays the rent. There will likely always be a few film holdouts in niche markets for aethetic or attitude reasons, but they're not part of any trend. You can still find people shooting and making money with tripod view cameras. Doesn't mean they're part of a retro trend heading back to Dageurrotypes.

 

[danielnorton]

Commercial photography is almost 100% digital now.

This is simply 100% not true.

Being a commercial fashion/advertising photographer in NYC I can tell you that while digital is making a big dent It's very far from 100%

 

[Andy K]

Interesting that National Geographic was mentioned. recently they have begun accepting work from digital cameras, and the quality has visibly suffered. In the most recent issue, April 2006, there is an article titled A Dry Red Season where all the photography was done with a digital camera. On pages 74-75 there is a panorama in which pixels are clearly visible to the unassisted eye. The quality is absolutely dreadful.

 

[ch1]

Perhaps Jorge and the moderators could create another "black hole forum" like the infamous ANFSCD forum to which these kinds of threads could be banished? 😉