clayne
shoot film or die
Couldn't think of anything else to say?
My gosh, it's so rare to see you speechless.
Just FYI: I worked a couple of such jobs when I was younger. I decided they weren't the way I wanted to live, so I stopped and did other things.
You're assuming everyone else has/had the same mobility. Survival of the fittest, I take it?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Of course. I've dug ditches; driven trucks; been a lifeguard on a beach; driven a fork-lift in a factory; bagged groceries; been a schoolteacher; produced audio-visuals; tried chartered accountancy for three months; worked in shops; and more.
Then again, my IQ has gone off the end of the scale of every test I've ever taken; I had (relatively) well-to-do and (very) supportive parents; I won a scholarship to a good school (Plymouth College and Mannamead School, recently in the news over nurturing Olympic divers); university education in my day was not only free but attracted a (very modest) annual grant as a reward for jumping through all the requisite hoops; and when I started working in the early 1970s there were jobs aplenty.
When I bought my first house for £5995 (call it $16,000) in 1974 or 1975 my father gave me the money for the deposit (£1000, $2800). A year or two later I got a job in a London advertising studio (as an assistant) from a friend whom I had met when he bought some of the rare Leica gear I'd acquired in the previous half-decade such as STEREOLY + viewer (£25/$70 -- I lived on muesli for a week), VIDEO, etc. Oh: and the only ever coupled, fat barrel 9cm Elmar with both an "a" (dummy) and "*" (duplicate serial number). That cost my girlfriend and me £11 ($25) in 1970 or so and I got custody of it when we split up. That one is in some of the books.
Obviously everyone has had similar advantages, and is therefore entitled to sneer at anyone who has failed to buy a Lamborghini in their 20s. Equally obviously, money is the only measure of success: the freedom to say f*** you to arrogant arseholes who think they can buy your soul and tell you how to live your life is worth nothing.
Cheers,
R.
slm
Formerly nextreme
Well that's what I was thinking (but didn't know for sure). To get back sort of on topic, having a film workflow today is possible to do with the caveat that being able to produce (or have produced) a final digital output of the capture might be required.
clayne
shoot film or die
People just want new shiet, medium doesn't matter so much. If tomorrow, film were suddenly back in style and "the thing to have," you'd be seeing plenty of X100, M8, and M9s being sold in the classifieds.
The reason I'd rather follow the work of primarily film/analog photographers is that they're explicitly not following "the thing to have." Their output is usually more interesting as a result, and I find their self-editing to be higher (and it doesn't matter if that's because they shoot less - it's still self editing).
The reason I'd rather follow the work of primarily film/analog photographers is that they're explicitly not following "the thing to have." Their output is usually more interesting as a result, and I find their self-editing to be higher (and it doesn't matter if that's because they shoot less - it's still self editing).
Fraser
Well-known
Working with film is fine but its certainly no fun when you have a deadline, I go back to the op he wants to pursue a career in journalism and to follow that career you need to shoot digital.
clayne
shoot film or die
We already went over that, so let's not try and over-simplify it. He didn't specify what kind of "journalism" he wanted to get into. Slow moving projects do not require digital. You're also rarely getting payed for it either. But to think he needs digital for a month long project where the actual film development could be done in a single day is a bit out there - and you don't have to scan it all.
I think in his mind he may be fantasizing about the LIFE magazine and NatGeo side of things, but good luck with that. It's sad, I wish that route were more pursuable in general for people.
I think in his mind he may be fantasizing about the LIFE magazine and NatGeo side of things, but good luck with that. It's sad, I wish that route were more pursuable in general for people.
slm
Formerly nextreme
Is that because of deadlines ? Maybe targeting something that has a longer and/or larger scope might be more receptive to a film workflow ?
slm
Formerly nextreme
Ah ya, thats how I envision things
newsgrunt
Well-known
Can you define at this point what branch of journalism you hope to get into and how does an M9 fit into the picture ?
dslrs really are the workhorses of journalism so I'd suggest getting used to the weight of a D800/600 or 5D/6D if you want to bring home the bacon so to speak.
and enjoy your M6, it'll be around alot longer than any digital M imo.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Indeed. For 'grip and grin' daily news photography, quite honestly all you need is durability (or a spare cheap body): quality is irrelevant. For something like Marieke ten Wolde's Freeing the Fish about Tibet -- http://www.ten-wolde.eu/home.html -- you might however do very well with film.
It's a great book. I got one in Arles.
Cheers,
R.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Thanks you for the compliment.
Well, at least that indicates you understand there might be a difference between a soapbox political rant and a complacent reflection on one's self.
G
flash
Member
Looks like the OP left the building some time ago. I wonder whether it was anything to do with the last 5 pages? You never know. He may come back for a look.
Last year I shot 70 thousand shots on my M9's. This year will be the same. It's an extrordinary number of photos, 90% of which will hit the virtual trash bin. But that's the way it is now for the majority of full time shooters. When I shot my first wedding I took 10 rolls of film in total. Now we average about 1500 shots, culled to 500 per wedding. I take the same number of frames for my commercial work, but only because we don't shoot polaroids anymore it's all done live and tethered. If you talk to most working journalists they have the motor drive set to 10FPS all the time. It's amazing we can hear our politicians over the sound of the shutters. Maybe we need to make those shutters louder when dealing with politicians?
Simply put digital dominates the working shooters market. Deadlines are shorter every year and costs are getting squeezed more and more. I simply couldn't afford to buy film in the quantities I'm asked to shoot today, let alone polaroids and the developing/scanning costs. Digital has devalued commercial photography and at the same time increased the demands on the photographer. That isn't going to change.
I still make a good living from my photography. But it's a lot different to a decade ago. But now I have more/cheaper competition than ever before. Even from guests at a wedding who'll have a set up on facebook before the reception is over. If you want wedding referrals, you get some images up on facebook within a few days. If I miss a few weeks my "fans" assume I've died and move on. Now there are a few who have made a success with a different business model. Great. But they're in the minority. Turn around is king. Quality is second. You should see some of the gushing comments over crap, out of focus wedding iphone shots on facebook.
Sure there are a few places where film can work. Fine Art is probably the main one, where a limited edition, really is one. Digital doesn't generally get the same respect, which could be a good thing. But overall you need to be able to email a proof to an art director in hours, not days. Photo essays, maybe. National Geographic wants digital nowadays. A newspaper editor wants it within minutes. In fact they'd prefer a live stream from a journalists iPhone. If the papers and magazines could develop film, which they no longer can, it'd be too late. When that plane landed in the Hudson river, I was looking at photos, in Australia, before they'd even got all the people off it. Wedding can be done on film by a select few. There's a small market for film weddings and a few players already in it. Most wedding photographers I know only shoot a small proportion of the day on film. The majority is shot on digital and film is for the special shots. Some of them have a second shooter with a DSLR while they shoot their 6x6. It's not for me though. I've worked as a commercial printer with both fibre based b&w and colour (mostly Cibachrome) materials. Film hold absolutely no romantic attraction to me. If I never have to make another contrast neg again, it'll be too soon.
I don't shoot only M9's. But they're a major part of my kit. I have a small AF system for things that the M9's won't do. Long lenses, macro and occasional zoom usage. The files aren't as nice but my clients don't care. The AF cameras are "good enough' for every application I need. Especially when the vast majority of my work is displayed 900 pixels wide.
The one and only reason I shoot the M9 is that i like them. I shot Caanon for 20 years. It would probably be easier to still be shooting Canon. But I enjoy the Leica so much that I happily deal with the inconveniences it has. The sensor in the D800/D4/1Dx may be "better". But the sensor in the M9 has soul. I like cameas with a personality. I think a Leica is the wrong camera for 90% of photographers. But if you love llllleicas and you think it's shortcomings are "features" why not? I do. And I've booked three weddings this year specifically because I shoot with Leicas.
The downside is that you're going to need two of them. There's no support like a CPS or NPS for Leica. Both my cameras have needed repairs that required a trip to Germany. 12 weeks. You will probably need an AF system as well. I do. I don't "need" my Leicas. I do need a macro, something longer than 135mm and occasionally, a zoom. But I shoot with them anyway. It's possible to shoot exclusively with a pair of Leicas. But it's difficult. As a journalist you'll almost certainly have to be able to do some video. So maybe a Panasonic GH m4/3 camera might be a good 2nd system.
When I started I shot my first wedding on a pair of beat up Canon AE-1's. It took me a couple of years to be able to afford a 'blad 501 and an 80mm. I wanted a new F1 and some lenses for the Hassleblad so badly. But my mentor wouldn't let me buy them until I could pay for them in cash I'd made from shooting. Best advice ever. It taught me not to dig a financial hole with gear that only looses value and that i could do quite well with modest gear and a good attitude.
My advice is to go after your goal with everything you've got. just do it in smaller steps. Save up and get a Fuji EX-1 and a few lenses. Noit a Leica but small and fun to shot with great image quality. Make some money. Sort out what you really need to make it work versus what you want. Get that. later when you have some time/experience/cash go out and buy your digital Leica. Get a brand new one, in chrome. That's your reward for doing the hard yards. The end goal. Enjoy the journey. It isn't going to be easy.
Good luck.
Gordon
Last year I shot 70 thousand shots on my M9's. This year will be the same. It's an extrordinary number of photos, 90% of which will hit the virtual trash bin. But that's the way it is now for the majority of full time shooters. When I shot my first wedding I took 10 rolls of film in total. Now we average about 1500 shots, culled to 500 per wedding. I take the same number of frames for my commercial work, but only because we don't shoot polaroids anymore it's all done live and tethered. If you talk to most working journalists they have the motor drive set to 10FPS all the time. It's amazing we can hear our politicians over the sound of the shutters. Maybe we need to make those shutters louder when dealing with politicians?
Simply put digital dominates the working shooters market. Deadlines are shorter every year and costs are getting squeezed more and more. I simply couldn't afford to buy film in the quantities I'm asked to shoot today, let alone polaroids and the developing/scanning costs. Digital has devalued commercial photography and at the same time increased the demands on the photographer. That isn't going to change.
I still make a good living from my photography. But it's a lot different to a decade ago. But now I have more/cheaper competition than ever before. Even from guests at a wedding who'll have a set up on facebook before the reception is over. If you want wedding referrals, you get some images up on facebook within a few days. If I miss a few weeks my "fans" assume I've died and move on. Now there are a few who have made a success with a different business model. Great. But they're in the minority. Turn around is king. Quality is second. You should see some of the gushing comments over crap, out of focus wedding iphone shots on facebook.
Sure there are a few places where film can work. Fine Art is probably the main one, where a limited edition, really is one. Digital doesn't generally get the same respect, which could be a good thing. But overall you need to be able to email a proof to an art director in hours, not days. Photo essays, maybe. National Geographic wants digital nowadays. A newspaper editor wants it within minutes. In fact they'd prefer a live stream from a journalists iPhone. If the papers and magazines could develop film, which they no longer can, it'd be too late. When that plane landed in the Hudson river, I was looking at photos, in Australia, before they'd even got all the people off it. Wedding can be done on film by a select few. There's a small market for film weddings and a few players already in it. Most wedding photographers I know only shoot a small proportion of the day on film. The majority is shot on digital and film is for the special shots. Some of them have a second shooter with a DSLR while they shoot their 6x6. It's not for me though. I've worked as a commercial printer with both fibre based b&w and colour (mostly Cibachrome) materials. Film hold absolutely no romantic attraction to me. If I never have to make another contrast neg again, it'll be too soon.
I don't shoot only M9's. But they're a major part of my kit. I have a small AF system for things that the M9's won't do. Long lenses, macro and occasional zoom usage. The files aren't as nice but my clients don't care. The AF cameras are "good enough' for every application I need. Especially when the vast majority of my work is displayed 900 pixels wide.
The one and only reason I shoot the M9 is that i like them. I shot Caanon for 20 years. It would probably be easier to still be shooting Canon. But I enjoy the Leica so much that I happily deal with the inconveniences it has. The sensor in the D800/D4/1Dx may be "better". But the sensor in the M9 has soul. I like cameas with a personality. I think a Leica is the wrong camera for 90% of photographers. But if you love llllleicas and you think it's shortcomings are "features" why not? I do. And I've booked three weddings this year specifically because I shoot with Leicas.
The downside is that you're going to need two of them. There's no support like a CPS or NPS for Leica. Both my cameras have needed repairs that required a trip to Germany. 12 weeks. You will probably need an AF system as well. I do. I don't "need" my Leicas. I do need a macro, something longer than 135mm and occasionally, a zoom. But I shoot with them anyway. It's possible to shoot exclusively with a pair of Leicas. But it's difficult. As a journalist you'll almost certainly have to be able to do some video. So maybe a Panasonic GH m4/3 camera might be a good 2nd system.
When I started I shot my first wedding on a pair of beat up Canon AE-1's. It took me a couple of years to be able to afford a 'blad 501 and an 80mm. I wanted a new F1 and some lenses for the Hassleblad so badly. But my mentor wouldn't let me buy them until I could pay for them in cash I'd made from shooting. Best advice ever. It taught me not to dig a financial hole with gear that only looses value and that i could do quite well with modest gear and a good attitude.
My advice is to go after your goal with everything you've got. just do it in smaller steps. Save up and get a Fuji EX-1 and a few lenses. Noit a Leica but small and fun to shot with great image quality. Make some money. Sort out what you really need to make it work versus what you want. Get that. later when you have some time/experience/cash go out and buy your digital Leica. Get a brand new one, in chrome. That's your reward for doing the hard yards. The end goal. Enjoy the journey. It isn't going to be easy.
Good luck.
Gordon
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It sounds like they built the M240 just for you, Gordon 
.
.clayne
shoot film or die
Yea please spend 9000$ for that shiny new camera.
Fraser
Well-known
You can moan all day about the price of digital cameras and the bad residuals the way I look at it I'm just buying all my film up front
fberna
Member
you have a scanner though, so why not uploading for us a picture of the dinosaurs happily scampering in your garden
Not sure how you loose something if you never had it to start with... LOL.
I am afraid I am an analogue die-hard. Film for photography and records for music. As it should be
slm
Formerly nextreme
sepiareverb
genius and moron
That whole post was wonderful Gordon.
This
This
sums up the reason most of us shoot M's I expect. I know I like them more than other cameras.
Turtle
Veteran
Thank you Gordon.
FWIW, I visited Salgado's Genesis exhibition in London today and, while there were a couple of overcooked images, there were many, many more stunning ones. Anyone who claims not to be affected by any of them based on 'technical quality' must be smoking something. There were some spectacularly well executed digital prints there, both from film originals and digital capture.
As Gordon says, a lot of the issue here is not 'what is best' (is there such a universal truth?), but what you get on with best. Whatever helps you produce the best results is the best. I cannot think of any other measure.
FWIW, I visited Salgado's Genesis exhibition in London today and, while there were a couple of overcooked images, there were many, many more stunning ones. Anyone who claims not to be affected by any of them based on 'technical quality' must be smoking something. There were some spectacularly well executed digital prints there, both from film originals and digital capture.
As Gordon says, a lot of the issue here is not 'what is best' (is there such a universal truth?), but what you get on with best. Whatever helps you produce the best results is the best. I cannot think of any other measure.
