GoodPhotos
Carpe lumen!
Most working photographers I know shoot film for fun, and digital for food (and fun).
In his excellent book "Digital Photography Bootcamp" (Amherst, 2006), Kevin Kubota sums up why why I'll never shoot film again for work...(and haven't since 2001)
Today with 100% digital workflow, we get to do all of that work in the shooting AND the processing steps and maybe we just outsource the printing. With a properly profiled and calibrated workflow any print should look damn near exactly like what I see on my monitor so the actual printing doesn't have the same creative control that it used to when I shot on colour negative for 17 years, but my images look exactly like I want them too in print.
The 'downside' is that it is now a LOT more work for us, but in exchange we now have total creative control that most of us had lost (and if we are smart, we charge for the added work anyhow.)
Ultimately, if photography is just your Avocation, either film or digital is just as valid an option depending on which suits your mood and budget, but if photography is your actual Vocation, (and you don't have an efficient wet lab at your disposal) 100% digital workflow is really the only path that makes fiscal and creative sense today.
(oh, and there is no such thing as a 'digital look' and a 'film look' there are only good photographs and not as good photographs. Both types of photos can be made on either digital or film.)
In his excellent book "Digital Photography Bootcamp" (Amherst, 2006), Kevin Kubota sums up why why I'll never shoot film again for work...(and haven't since 2001)
For me the best reason to shoot my weddings with 100% digital workflow is having back that total control of my final images. For years, most of us who shoot events and protraits for a living had to rely on a good relationship with a pro-lab for 2/3 of the process for our final images. Sure, we made the initial exposure, but the lab did all of the critical work in processing and printing, using thier best judgement for our images. Often their artistic choices and weren't in complete lock step with what ours would have been and so our images, looked like all the other images which came out of that given lab.
Today with 100% digital workflow, we get to do all of that work in the shooting AND the processing steps and maybe we just outsource the printing. With a properly profiled and calibrated workflow any print should look damn near exactly like what I see on my monitor so the actual printing doesn't have the same creative control that it used to when I shot on colour negative for 17 years, but my images look exactly like I want them too in print.
The 'downside' is that it is now a LOT more work for us, but in exchange we now have total creative control that most of us had lost (and if we are smart, we charge for the added work anyhow.)
Ultimately, if photography is just your Avocation, either film or digital is just as valid an option depending on which suits your mood and budget, but if photography is your actual Vocation, (and you don't have an efficient wet lab at your disposal) 100% digital workflow is really the only path that makes fiscal and creative sense today.
(oh, and there is no such thing as a 'digital look' and a 'film look' there are only good photographs and not as good photographs. Both types of photos can be made on either digital or film.)
Last edited:
