Is B+W film for Pros or just Hobbyists

[tlitody]

I guess my question is are you or do you think you could make a living from using solely B+W film and wet printing to B+W paper in todays market.
I'm thinking weddings, portraits and any other family type images that may crop up such aniversaries etc. And any B+W commercial work that may crop up from time to time.

 

[tomalophicon]

It's viable and I plan to do it.

 

[umboody]

I could see myself making money from it, but I can't at the moment because of other work commitments.

 

[degruyl]

Art photography (as opposed to commercial or what have you) has a soft spot in its heart for film. At the same time, I do most of my B&W prints as alt process prints (scanned film -> digital negative or large format negative). I sell them. That part works fine. Would I call it a living? Nope. But most artists of any sort have a day job or grants.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

B&W certainly has a strong place in the art world. I also know a number of documentary photographers that still shoot a lot of B&W (or, rather, convert digital to B&W). But, making a living at any kind of photography has gotten more challenging and I would guess most doing it are shooting primarily color.

 

[scottwallick]

B&W 35mm film, yes, probably. Although 'hobbyist' and 'pro' are loose definitions (to put it kindly). B&W 120, 220, large format, no, required by the pros.

 

[sper]

The short answer to your quiestion is, no, they shoot digital because they have clients and clients want speed and versatility.

The long answer is...yes. They shoot film when they can afford to if they choose to work in that way.

For my 2 cents though, don't worry about what the pros use. You'll be dissapointed. It has more to do with bottom line thinking than artistry.

 

[jljohn]

Most folks (actually all) that I know of who are truly committed to B&W film based work make a portion of their meager to modest incomes teaching workshops and selling books. I doubt that making, printing, and selling b&w images is sufficient to make a living by itself.

OK, as I wrote this, I thought of Roman Loranc, who, I believe, does not teach and only has two books that could not have made much profit for him. So, maybe he actually does. He of course is coming from the landscape scene.

Boston has a committed B&W child and family photographer named Cheryl Richards (http://www.cherylrichards.com/) who has made a living (i believe) making b&w darkroom portraits of children and families. So, she may be an example, but I am not sure if it is all she does.

 

[maddoc]

I think member "Riccis" is a good example for a successful pro, shooting BW film.🙂

 

[Gumby]

I suppose it really depends a lot upon what one considers a "decent living". In general I would think B&W/Silver Gel only would be excessively constraining. But I suppose if the images were numerous and universally masterful it might be possible. I just hope that anyone who does this either has a second income stream (like a working spouse or a really big inheritance)... or no serious need for meat in their soup.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I could see myself making money from it, but I can't at the moment because of other work commitments.

Eh?

You mean...

You can but you can't.

If I were good enough, I could.

But I'm not good enough.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tomalophicon]

Eh?

You mean...

You can but you can't.

If I were good enough, I could.

But I'm not good enough.

Cheers,

R.

No need to be a wally.

 

[Roger Hicks]

No need to be a wally.

Point taken, but I'm good enough to have earned a living from photography (including writing about it) for the last 30+ years.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tomalophicon]

Point taken, but I'm good enough to have earned a living from photography (including writing about it) for the last 30+ years.

Cheers,

R.

Grats. So am I.

 

[tomalophicon]

The short answer to your quiestion is, no, they shoot digital because they have clients and clients want speed and versatility.

The long answer is...yes. They shoot film when they can afford to if they choose to work in that way.

For my 2 cents though, don't worry about what the pros use. You'll be dissapointed. It has more to do with bottom line thinking than artistry.

If you do good work the client will wait for your work, especially if they've sought you out.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you do good work the client will wait for your work, especially if they've sought you out.

Probably. If the term 'wait' is one they comprehend (I started in advertising):

IF I WANTED IT TODAY, I'D ASK FOR IT TOMORROW!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gumby]

Point taken, but I'm good enough to have earned a living from photography (including writing about it) for the last 30+ years.

I wouldn't doubt you, but I don't think that was solely with B&W and wet printing, which is the topic of this thread if I recall correctly.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

"If you do good work the client will wait for your work, especially if they've sought you out."

Well, maybe. But the reality is that lots of folks do good work, and most of them do it with digital. So the incentive to seek out people who do things slower isn't really there anymore. But some buyers of photography are nostalgic like many of us here. 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

I wouldn't doubt you, but I don't think that was solely with B&W and wet printing, which is the topic of this thread if I recall correctly.

Well, yes, but it was the wally bit I was arguing with.

My argument is that yes, it's possible, if you're good enough.

Your earlier point, about what constitutes a good living, was rather more germane.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JayGannon]

Depends on who you are shooting for, if your doing a 3 month assignment you can shoot film, if your doing 24 hour news you have to shoot digital these days.
But yes there are plenty of people earning a good living on B&W film, both in the art world and the reportage world. However 75% of them will also have a digital system for certain assignments.