|
Still shooting film for a living and loving it!
 |
I want to hear from those that still shoot film for a living and what camera you use.
Posted at 6:51AM, 15 May 2008 PDT
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Well, up 'til now it's been supplemental to that digital debacle I've stepped in, but I've taken the first few steps to just showing up with film cameras at my two latest jobs.
Right now it's a Nikon FM and a Leica M2.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
national geographic is still all film.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
That doesn't sound right to me. I'm not a National Geographic buff, or anything, but...
www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6450-6561
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
National geo is probably all digi now.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Early this year I watched a documentary on NG channel, about a staff photographer ( can't remember his name) from NG. And they said he was the only staff photographer still shooting film.
I also read somewhere on the net a while ago saying that Steve McCurry shoots digital ( D2Xs) in JPEG.
Originally posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
shinoda. alessandro edited this topic 2 months ago.
|
 |
For a living I'm a physicist. But all my gallery work and print sales are film.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
@kukkurovaca: a D1X is a full frame digital camera, that produces a quality similar to that of medium format.
The problem is that for full frame digital cameras you need a full-frame sensor and there is where you begin to have problems: The sensor is made from a slice of silicon and the bigger this slice the more difficult it gets to avoid failures during it's manufacture. This makes that ful frame digital cameras (and digital backs) are much more expensive than what it would like. The relation between a 35mm film SLR and a MF film camera is not comparable (well, now there are digital backs for 3000$ in the second hand market, but I just bought a Koni Omega Rapid for 200$ and I can even buy a Nikkon D200 10 MPixel DSRL for this price).
And that's medium format... but just think that film does not stop there, there is also 4x5 large format. There are of course digital cameras that are this big, but they are expensive. It's said that 40-50 Mpixel cameras can match a 4x5... but... A Phase One P45 costs 10.000$...
You can buy a lot of view cameras for this price... you can even build your own, or get a press camera for less than 100$: Mi Bush Pressman costed me 75$ and my Crown Graphics 150$...
What happens is that medium and large format film has still a better quality/price relation than digital, specially as there is a real gigantic second hand market that includes cameras and equipment from the (at least) the last 50 years.
I'm not so stupid as to say that there will not be the same market for digital equipment, as I told before, there are beginning to appear quite good older digital equipment that's still very high quality.
Well, that doesn't say that as soon as I can can save 3000$ (2000 EUR os so) I will not run to get a digital back :) (yes, I'm bad, I shoot both and I like it).
Originally posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Enric Martinez edited this topic 2 months ago.
|
 |
@ Enric Martinez : D1X is far from being a full frame DSLR since the D3 is Nikon's first one and I wouldn't dare say that a 5-someting Mpix camera is comparable to what a medium format camera can deliver …
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Lets keep to the subject OK. We can talk about high end digital elsewhere.
I want to hear from those that shoot film and make a living from it.
What I want to know specifically is about your workflow.
Are you shooting the job and delivering the negative then on to the next job?
Are you having to scan your negative to complete the job and is this something you have had to add to your workflow recently to keep your clients happy? We all have our reasons for sticking to film. Some of us can shoot and get our negs back the next day, scan and deliver the job in 48 hours. We prefer film for certain reasons.
Tell me why it your choice of medium.
Originally posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
MO&A edited this topic 2 months ago.
|
|
The D1x is not a full-frame camera, and it is nothing like a medium format camera. Heck, my lowly *D40* has a higher resolution, same chip size, and probably better image processing than a D1x. Too bad, because I could afford a used D1x, whereas I there's no way I could afford a D3 at the moment, let alone a digital medium format system.
::sigh::
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Julien: Oh f...k!! I did it again, I thought they where talking about a Canon D1 ... not a Nikon :P I think that they do it specially because of me. bastards... ROFLMAO
@MO&A : Here is a good place to ask : photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1547
It's the best and oldest professional photography site...
Originally posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Enric Martinez edited this topic 2 months ago.
|
 |
there is no Canon D1. this thread is all fucked up
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
There's a lot of bitterness on photo.net about the whole "digital" thing, lol. Whatever. I shoot film, and I charge people for it. And they like it. Nuff said.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Keith McArthur:
Well, then this must be an UFO: Canon EOS 1D
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Ooh, yeah I guess I'm not up to date on ng stuff, I heard that about two years ago somewhere that they only accept slide film, guess times have changed.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Back to topic - I'm fortunate to have ALOT of time between jobs (while I work a regular job to pay the bills), so when I shoot film, I shoot it, keeping specific track of what shots are on what roll, thanks to a Sharpie marker, then get them developed as negatives only with a CD.
I then go through these in the computer, and usually shots that won't be bigger than 8x10, I can go ahead and print from the lab-scanned CD. Others that need work get re-scanned by my Nikon CoolScan V, and then PS'd for bigger printing. Then I get the prints to the client. The whole process takes a nice casual week.
I like this process as I don't overshoot and the lab does all the mundane stuff for me.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
mamiya 330f, nikon fm, rolleiflex f3.5,
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Armando Alberto I don't know about that, I do know that a lots of photos are usually from high end full-frame DSLR, National Geographic have a mixture, the best thing is that you can't tell if it taken with a film or digital.
what they have is fantastic picture, regardless of whether it's taken with a film or digital, simply because it's harder to tell if it's a digital snap or not.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
If you are wondering about a film workflow, I dont shoot film for a living, I use film for my personal work or if a client requests it, or the job requires it, but I have been an assistant to professional photographers. In the biggest studio that I worked in that still shot film of a regular, commercial oriented business, it was mainly 4x5 and 6x7cm.
Almost all images were religiously shot on chrome. There were some that were captured on color neg film, all dependent on the situation.
There were no light meters used by the photographer, all was calculated in his head in conjunction with poloroid instant images.
On the 4x5, there would be an assistant loading film constantly in a changing bag while the photographer worked, it would have no doubt been a challenge to keep up when things were moving quickly.
The 120 was developed in house. Never got to do that, so I'm not sure the intricacies of e-6 processing and the use of a densitometer.
The 4x5 was sent to a lab to be processed. Once all the images were developed, the color negatives would be made into b&w contact sheets in the studio darkroom, and selected for scanning/ printing based on the contact sheets.
The chrome was selected and sent off to have c--prints made or for scanning and editing.
Most of the time digitized files would be delivered to a client. Because the methods of printing have changed over the years, a contributing factor for shooting chrome was that it was easier to recreate the image for printing since it was transparency. But, with the methods for printing being what they are, digital files are readily accepted and the standard for the studio.
A little long winded, but it can get a little complicated when you try and include the details. I hope that some of this helps. This was what went on in my experiences with an all film work flow.
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I talked to Joel Sartori, one of Geo's top photographers, about a month ago about the film/digi thing. He was one of the last Geo photographers to shoot entirely film, and gave it up when he switched to one of the Nikon D2 variants. He seems to be pretty in love with the D3 now (but really, who wouldn't be? Even as in love with film as I am, that's quite a camera).
On the topic of who still uses film... there's always Dave Burnett. For those of you unfamiliar with his work, check this out: www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/technology/circuits/08schiesel...
I know Danny Wilcox Frazier is doing some cool stuff with film too. Here's his website: www.reduxpictures.com/portfolios/frazier/
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
pentax k1000 with a 50 mm, 28-200mm, 17mm fisheye. and, nikon f3 motordrive with a 18-35 super-wide zoom.
pentax for life.
<3
Posted 2 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
I Shoot Film /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to I Shoot Film discussion threads
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Save to del.icio.us