Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Who is still using film and why?  (Read 33973 times)

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #80 on: August 09, 2013, 09:42:50 am »

I sent a lot of work to Dugal.  They are good people, after you break through some of the counter staff.  They make great prints and do great scans.  For B&W Lamount is incredible.  They inkjet B&W lab is unreal.  All HP's with custom RIPS and people who know what they are doing.  They printed Annie L's big museum show a few years back.  I prefer analogue prints but not at large sizes.



What an incredible deal -- I love that Dugal did that. My first editorial shoots (12 years ago), for a free weekly in L.A. that no longer exists, paid $75 per shoot, and $250 for the cover (including all expenses); still the lowest fees I've ever heard of. It was a labor of love for all involved, and it got me access to great subjects and enabled me to build a portfolio. I limited myself to three rolls of B&W per shoot, processed them myself, chose an image, scanned it and sent it to the magazine. They let the photographers choose. (I'm under no illusions that they were doing us a favor, but the people who ran the art department were talented people with a terrible budget.)

A few years ago I bought a drum scanner from a fellow photographer here, and I still scan my own film. It's a 4-foot-long, 200-pound beast (Howtek 7500), but the results are tremendous. I know what I'm trying to get while I'm scanning, and I barely do any work in post to my film shots.

I've heard the M9 is different from other digitals. It just hasn't been a priority for me. My money mostly goes into marketing, testing, lighting, and fleshing out my H system (which has been a great system). 
Logged

ondebanks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #81 on: August 09, 2013, 11:46:10 am »

I have never stopped shooting film although have alongside shot various digital. I am now shooting 80% of my work with film on Kodak Portra with various cameras, Hasselblad, Mamiya 6 & 7, Pentax 67 and Plaubel Makina 67, all of which kick the butt of my Leica S2 in terms of aesthetic and quality, and the S2 is quite a bit nicer than the Phase i had.  Digital sucks.

Gary,

Since your Pentax 67 kicks the butt of your Leica S2, I'll do you a favour: I'll take that nasty useless S2 off your hands for the price of a Pentax 67. Howzat for a fantastic deal?  :D

Ray
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #82 on: August 09, 2013, 12:04:37 pm »

I have never stopped shooting film although have alongside shot various digital. I am now shooting 80% of my work with film on Kodak Portra with various cameras, Hasselblad, Mamiya 6 & 7, Pentax 67 and Plaubel Makina 67, all of which kick the butt of my Leica S2 in terms of aesthetic and quality, and the S2 is quite a bit nicer than the Phase i had.  Digital sucks.

Epines, your 5x4 night trees series is particularly nice.


Personally I think statements like this are a bit silly (best word I can think of right now) and say more about the prejudices and/or inadequacies of the photographer than about any truth about capture methods. As both a full time fine art and commercial photographer I use both film and digital from 4x5 to FF DSLR depending on the requirements of the images and the final product or client. BUT at this point I have no problem mixing the two into a seamless final product whether that be for a magazine spread or a museum show. Any statement that proclaims the universal superiority of one over the other is a statement that the person has not mastered both capture methods.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2013, 04:10:07 pm by Kirk Gittings »
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #83 on: August 09, 2013, 02:26:17 pm »

Kirk,  I don't think that his statement necessarily says anything about his skills, its his aesthetic preferences.  I like the way film looks, and think that you can get close with digital.  I can match Digital to film, or rather, film to digital.  I find it easier to match LF to digital, but find the post for digital to be time consuming, not as time consuming as dealing with film.  Its also subject dependent.  I find film to be much nicer than digital for my style of portraiture. 

I love Leica S files, by the way, but a good print pr scan of a 6x7 negative just looks so good it hurts.


Any statement that proclaims the universal superiority of one over the other is a statement that the person has not mastered both capture methods.
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #84 on: August 09, 2013, 02:38:47 pm »

T, Kirk,

In a way I'd love to go back to film, but today I don't see that as possible for my work, even when we do an editorial and I shoot and process in one city.

it's just too much effort in the front end.  I love the fact that with film, that film was kind of stupid.  Once you zoned in on a film stock, you knew how it would react regardless of ambient colour bounce, but with digital, it just seems like it's always hit and miss and like T says, the back end on digital is a monster.

I'm amazed I can shoot 10 subjects on white and have to adjust skin tones (usually a lot)  to stop casting, red in shadows, yellow in transitional areas, etc. etc.

You see it in cinema and television also.  Watch someone set at a desk and drop their head.  The brown (red) of the desk just throws their faces red in the medium shadows) and then they go back up to the key and they go yellow, because the colorist probably working on lack of time and budget had to make a middle of the road decision.

Film doesn't do this as much (it can), but digital, is too sensitive.   

In fact the prettiest way to work digital is to desat the whole image and paint back the saturation where you want it.  Slightly, but it does give more of a film impression.


IMO

BC
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #85 on: August 09, 2013, 02:52:50 pm »

We need a revolution; let's all burn our bras!

As luck (or stupidity) would have it, I went to the local superstore to buy some caustic soda for attacking bathroom scale - lots here with the very hard water - and I knew the girl behind the check-out. She used to work as a PShopper for her dad's old high street wedding/portrait business, long sold. I asked her if they had sold off their 500Cs to the new snappers, and she said no, she and her sister still had them... I asked her to give me a price if they want to sell. Perhaps it's just the heat and humidity.

Rob C

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #86 on: August 09, 2013, 03:13:10 pm »

When I first started seriously working with digital (1ds) I would look at the files and wonder where the light pollution was coming from.  I was looking for slow shutter and wide apertures and wondering if my modeling lights were polluting teh shadows, making them red(ish), yellow transitions in different frames, wondering if my packs were bad or flash tubes were bad.  I spent money at Flash Clinic and shot in blacked out rooms and realized its just different than film.  An easy fix in any case, but man I enjoy just picking up a yellow box from Duggal with my perfect yellow prints.   

T, Kirk,

In a way I'd love to go back to film, but today I don't see that as possible for my work, even when we do an editorial and I shoot and process in one city.

it's just too much effort in the front end.  I love the fact that with film, that film was kind of stupid.  Once you zoned in on a film stock, you knew how it would react regardless of ambient colour bounce, but with digital, it just seems like it's always hit and miss and like T says, the back end on digital is a monster.

I'm amazed I can shoot 10 subjects on white and have to adjust skin tones (usually a lot)  to stop casting, red in shadows, yellow in transitional areas, etc. etc.

You see it in cinema and television also.  Watch someone set at a desk and drop their head.  The brown (red) of the desk just throws their faces red in the medium shadows) and then they go back up to the key and they go yellow, because the colorist probably working on lack of time and budget had to make a middle of the road decision.

Film doesn't do this as much (it can), but digital, is too sensitive.   

In fact the prettiest way to work digital is to desat the whole image and paint back the saturation where you want it.  Slightly, but it does give more of a film impression.


IMO

BC
Logged

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #87 on: August 09, 2013, 04:58:57 pm »

Well Kirk, can't say your response surprises me, this is after all a digital biased website. As for your comment about my skills as a photographer, i won't comment, suffice to say i don't see any digital from anyone that does it for me. In my opinion it sucks, simple as that, bit like your superior position.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2013, 05:01:08 pm by Gary Yeowell »
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #88 on: August 09, 2013, 05:13:26 pm »

Your "digital sucks" comment was trolling and I guess I shouldn't have been sucked in by it. You could have said something like digital doesn't do what I want it to but instead said something intended to try and get a rise from people on this forum. So now you are offended? Please.

FYI I spend far more time on the Large Format Forum as I shoot as much 4x5 film as digital. Though most of my living comes from digital architectural photography, I'm coming up on my 100th museum/gallery exhibit since 1972 (99% film based) and have taught it at 5 universities. So I think I know something about the capabilities of film and digital.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2013, 05:17:45 pm by Kirk Gittings »
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #89 on: August 09, 2013, 05:28:10 pm »

When I first started seriously working with digital (1ds) I would look at the files and wonder where the light pollution was coming from.  I was looking for slow shutter and wide apertures and wondering if my modeling lights were polluting teh shadows, making them red(ish), yellow transitions in different frames, wondering if my packs were bad or flash tubes were bad.  I spent money at Flash Clinic and shot in blacked out rooms and realized its just different than film.  An easy fix in any case, but man I enjoy just picking up a yellow box from Duggal with my perfect yellow prints.   


It's all a semi easy fix.  What changed with digital to film was with film, when we sent contact sheets they had to be semi close, but not perfect, with transparencies they had to be spot on (remember buying cases of the same emulsion?), but with digital with the 1ds, I'd just use the jpegs out of camera for the galleries and nobody seemed to mind, though I still think the 1ds transitioned better from film to digital than most of the newer digital cameras.

I think digital like the 5d3 is just too everything.   Too smooth, too color receptive, too . . . I dunno  . . . digital.

Then again I like the mft cameras because they don't have a huge ambient color range, they do noise up after 800 iso and they look t me like film . . . but I shot epr transparency film that even at 64 asa was still grainy, so what d I know?

I do know that I have seen beautiful digital images, beautiful film images and at the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter.

IMO

BC
Logged

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #90 on: August 09, 2013, 05:37:56 pm »

Kirk, i am far from offended, nothing you could say would offend me really. I have also spent the last 22 years earning my living shooting mostly film images, so you are in no better position to offer a superior judgement.
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #91 on: August 09, 2013, 05:45:20 pm »

Right and "digital sucks" does not come from a superior judgement. LOL.
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #92 on: August 09, 2013, 05:48:40 pm »

But i did not and would not intimate that someone who thinks film sucks says more about their skills as a photographer.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2013, 05:54:40 pm by Gary Yeowell »
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #93 on: August 09, 2013, 08:35:04 pm »

But i did not and would not intimate that someone who thinks film sucks says more about their skills as a photographer.

Don't worry about it. I'm still getting kicked in the teeth by the recession in my industry and I've lost my sense of humor and perspective of late.
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 823
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #94 on: August 10, 2013, 01:58:08 am »

Kirk, i am far from offended, nothing you could say would offend me really. I have also spent the last 22 years earning my living shooting mostly film images, so you are in no better position to offer a superior judgement.

Hmmm. No website for you listed on LL. Googled your name and found a bunch of photos, though I am not certain they are by you. Saw some on Flickr that say done with a Leica S2. Whether it is you or not,
some of the photos I saw on the Web with the S2 look great (technically and aesthetically) and I don't really care what medium was used. On the other hand, there was a lot of stuff that looked very ordinary to me. In any case, seems to me that if you are going to be so opinionated and make such provocative statements, you might at least make it easy for readers to judge your photographic capabilities.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2013, 02:00:48 am by David Eichler »
Logged

DanielStone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 664
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #95 on: August 10, 2013, 03:23:19 am »

'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'

or so I thought....

Who cares if someone doesn't have a website? We're not 15yr olds comparing d*** sizes in the locker room guys ;)

We're photographers. It shouldn't matter to others what tools we use to create/take our photographs. If film gives US(the photographers/image makers) that 'feeling' we need in our photographs, or if those of us that disdain film in all of its form/function prefer to sit in front of a computer, so be it. If it allows us to work in the way we WANT/NEED to work, whether to meet the needs of our own workflows, or those of clients then use it. If it WORKS, use it.

I know of a few photographers who are still shooting big stuff who don't have a website of their own, or if they do, don't maintain it religiously. They are shooting enough that their name is getting 'out there' without having to maintain a website. Take Peter Lindbergh's site for instance.

I'd venture to guess that many photographers probably don't care about what other *photographers* think of their work, but if their clients keep calling and they're booking jobs, then they're doing something people want.

Shoot film if you like it, shoot digital if it works for you

BOTH have their place IMO

-Dan
Logged

David Eichler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 823
    • San Francisco Architectural and Interior Photographer
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #96 on: August 10, 2013, 04:15:11 am »

'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'

or so I thought....

Who cares if someone doesn't have a website? We're not 15yr olds comparing d*** sizes in the locker room guys ;)

We're photographers. It shouldn't matter to others what tools we use to create/take our photographs. If film gives US(the photographers/image makers) that 'feeling' we need in our photographs, or if those of us that disdain film in all of its form/function prefer to sit in front of a computer, so be it. If it allows us to work in the way we WANT/NEED to work, whether to meet the needs of our own workflows, or those of clients then use it. If it WORKS, use it.

I know of a few photographers who are still shooting big stuff who don't have a website of their own, or if they do, don't maintain it religiously. They are shooting enough that their name is getting 'out there' without having to maintain a website. Take Peter Lindbergh's site for instance.

I'd venture to guess that many photographers probably don't care about what other *photographers* think of their work, but if their clients keep calling and they're booking jobs, then they're doing something people want.

Shoot film if you like it, shoot digital if it works for you

BOTH have their place IMO

-Dan

I am sorry if I gave the impression that is what I meant. These days, it seems like standard practice for professional photographers to have some samples of their work on the web, whether on their own website or that of their agency. If it is someone at the top of the profession who doesn't need that kind of marketing, then I would expect a fair number of people in this forum would recognize the name.

There are an awful lot of people spouting opinions on the Web these days with no evidence that they have any experience or capabilities to support their opinions. It is not about one photographer being better than another, if that is even something that can be quantified. I think it is about one photographer demonstrating reasonable proficiency with his or her craft.
Logged

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #97 on: August 10, 2013, 06:48:52 am »

Well David, my judgement is from using the S2 alongside film, and my conclusion is as written.

As for the 'personal' bit.

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?assettype=image&artist=Gary+Yeowell

Anyway, you won't get any clue from thumbnails in terms of 'quality' whatever that means.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2013, 07:08:42 am by Gary Yeowell »
Logged

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #98 on: August 10, 2013, 07:05:23 am »

To Kirk, i hear you, and getting tougher.
Best,
Gary.
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: Who is still using film and why?
« Reply #99 on: August 10, 2013, 01:05:41 pm »

This is what I'm digging about C1 7 and M9 files. At around 800 the limits of the sensor show noise, but C1 let's me dial it in so it looks grainy and, well, analogue. Dial the luminance noise up or down, the noise looks like soft grain.  Combined with the 70's lenses that have nice texture and a cool cast , a rounded rendering, sharp but not too much contrast.  I've never been happier with digital files.

T



Then again I like the mft cameras because they don't have a huge ambient color range, they do noise up after 800 iso and they look t me like film . . . but I shot epr transparency film that even at 64 asa was still grainy, so what d I know?

I do know that I have seen beautiful digital images, beautiful film images and at the end of the day, it probably doesn't matter.

IMO

BC
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up