Do you shoot film, digital or both?

[greybeard]

I love the instant feedback of digital.

 

[Snaps]

Used to shoot a lot of film, but these days it's pretty much all digital. I sold most of my film cameras, OM's and TLR's, but kept my OM1. That one will be buried with me, lol.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I am considering trying out Film, I am thinking I want to get a Nikon film body which means I can use my beloved Sigma 50mm 1.4 on it. I feel film is better in some respects, the organic and REAL look too prints still smashes digital at times in my opinion. Nowadays, in digital alot of the so called 'best images' appear as if they were generated on a computer screen with this generic, fake and plastic look to them. All I can say is, I am quickly tiring of the HDR look and like the way Film can capture a larger dynamic range whilst retaining a 'real' feel to the images. I am however, working hard on trying to create HDR images now that have a more natural look to them.

So in conclusion... hoping to be digital and film soon!

 

[usayit]

I can understand what he means. (or my interpretation of it anyway) I want my pics to look a certain way. Film gives me that look without trying to get it right in post processing. Plus I don't have to worry as much about blown highlights. I don't have to worry about hard drive space and making multiple backups.. etc. As much as I try to avoid it, I always end up taking waaayyy too many pics when i'm shooting with my digital cameras, which means more post processing later than if i'd just shot 36 shots of film and chose my shots more wisely, which is a hassle.

When I first read Sw1tchFX's response, I said.. whaaat??? Then I had to stop and think about it a while...

I too can understand... in a way. I found that film vs digital in terms of convenience is simply shifting the hassle from one part of the workflow to another. Its just a matter which workflow are you more adapt to. I too shot from a long time with film then darkroom... then from film to scan.. then to digital. I adapted to the hassles of digital very very quickly... after all, I am a computer engineer and the technology used to manage photographic data is no different from any other. In other words, I went from handling film AND digital data to simply just digital data.. something I already do on a daily basis. I also never really fell into the habit of shooting like a machine gun.... maybe... I am estimating 10-20% more frames than I would as film. Lightroom handles those extras very quickly.

I truly hope that film and the associated consumables are available when I retire many years from now. I'd probably start shooting it again once the stresses and pressures of life and lifted.

 

[slackercruster]

I shoot mostly film. I develop and scan it myself (color and b&w) Mostly because the cameras I like to use take film..

Are you having any trouble getting chemicals or paper? Is it a pretty steady supply?

No. I live a few blocks from freestyle photo. They're always stocked.

I shoot much more film than digital, by a long shot. Digital is just too much of a hassle most of the time.

How is digital a hassle?

I can understand what he means. (or my interpretation of it anyway) I want my pics to look a certain way. Film gives me that look without trying to get it right in post processing. Plus I don't have to worry as much about blown highlights. I don't have to worry about hard drive space and making multiple backups.. etc. As much as I try to avoid it, I always end up taking waaayyy too many pics when i'm shooting with my digital cameras, which means more post processing later than if i'd just shot 36 shots of film and chose my shots more wisely, which is a hassle.

Ahhh... Freestyle. Glad to hear they are still in biz. And how is there biz going?

I used to live in L.A. (35 years) Bought lots of stuff from Freestyle in the 1970's. I remember buying glass plates from them that were from the 1950's. They still worked good. They had the oddest stuff from gov photo surplus.

 

[MReid]

98% digital....but there is just something about shooting film with great film cameras.
Having to scan everything degrades the quality and kinda takes some of the fun out of it...but still I get out and shoot a roll here and there. Like I said mainly because I enjoy using my film cameras.

 

[analog.universe]

100% digi, film always seemed like a lot of consumption to me. Constantly buying chemicals, and then throwing them out. Constantly buying film. Constantly buying paper. Just way too much stuff. I like that my photos are just electrons until I want them to be something else... If I take a shot I don't like, it costs me $0.0005 in shutter in wear and $0.0001 in battery recharge or something. With film, I'd be so reluctant to not waste all the physical stuff, I'd never have gotten half the shots I have now.

Also, I feel bad enough for the earth putting a plastic water bottle in the recycle bin, all the energy necessary to get rid of it. Would be way too much of a mental burden for me to be getting rid of all those chemicals all the time.

 

[Helen B]

I use both film and digital, for both my personal stuff and at work. At work we still use large format Ektachrome 100G and Fuji instant FP-100C45 (which is no longer made) for proofing, along with a D3 and the three PC-E Nikkors which are quite convenient. I'd guess at about 50/50. For my personal stuff I use a variety of cameras and formats - whatever suits the particular project I am working on - and probably more film than digital, but it varies. My most recent purchase was a re-buy into the Mamiya Press system - I had sold all of my Mamiya Press equipment about 10 years ago and now I miss it. It's an interchangeable-lens medium format rangefinder system and I use it with Fuji instant film (mostly FP-3000B and FP-100C, both of which are still made) and 8-on 120 film (ie 6x9).

Best,
Helen

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Digital.

Also I can't believe that guy says It's a hassle.!!??

On clic on the iPhone. Another clic in Facebook app. Picture just shared with the world. No hassle.

Not quite what i'm talking about..

I shoot much more film than digital, by a long shot. Digital is just too much of a hassle most of the time.

How is digital a hassle?

I can understand what he means. (or my interpretation of it anyway) I want my pics to look a certain way. Film gives me that look without trying to get it right in post processing. Plus I don't have to worry as much about blown highlights. I don't have to worry about hard drive space and making multiple backups.. etc. As much as I try to avoid it, I always end up taking waaayyy too many pics when i'm shooting with my digital cameras, which means more post processing later than if i'd just shot 36 shots of film and chose my shots more wisely, which is a hassle.

Pretty damn much. I still have multiple backups though
Why fake a real, organic, natural yet enhanced look when you can just shoot the real thing and not worry about it?
Why overshoot thousands of pictures, when you can just take your time, pay attention to what you're doing, and get it right the first time?
In natural light, just put their back to the sun, shoot wide open, expose for the shadows and add a stop on top of that. Why worry about blown highlights?

When I first read Sw1tchFX's response, I said.. whaaat??? Then I had to stop and think about it a while...

I too can understand... in a way. I found that film vs digital in terms of convenience is simply shifting the hassle from one part of the workflow to another. Its just a matter which workflow are you more adapt to. I too shot from a long time with film then darkroom... then from film to scan.. then to digital. I adapted to the hassles of digital very very quickly... after all, I am a computer engineer and the technology used to manage photographic data is no different from any other. In other words, I went from handling film AND digital data to simply just digital data.. something I already do on a daily basis. I also never really fell into the habit of shooting like a machine gun.... maybe... I am estimating 10-20% more frames than I would as film. Lightroom handles those extras very quickly.

I truly hope that film and the associated consumables are available when I retire many years from now. I'd probably start shooting it again once the stresses and pressures of life and lifted.

This is very true, it's all about workflow maangment, which is one thing that wears me out about digital.

Post-Production.




Every frame is a blank slate. You play lab when you shoot digitally. You may enjoy shooting weddings, but do you really enjoy spending 10+ hours doing post-production? I hate it. When it's personal work, that's one thing. But lets say you're paid to shoot a wedding:

You spend 8 hours bustin' your butt to have 3000 images between you and your assistant(s). When you get home, you put them on your computer, back them up, and go to bed. You're tired. Your turn around time is 14 days, so the next day you start culling through pictures. Now this is the 10th wedding you've shot this year, so you're pretty much on autopilot by now, for 3000 pictures this takes 2-3 hours. Now you have to go through and color correct everything. WB, exposure etc.. This takes another 2-4 hours. Lightroom speeds things up a bit..but some pictures are trickier than others. Now you have to add "your look". Split-toning and doing more major edits, and since the lighting isn't the same across all the pictures, this takes another 2-4 hours or so. After that, you're taking out zits, blemishes, liquifying, making sure the skin tones are bright. This is generally a combination of LR and PS, and takes the longest at about 3-5 hours. When that's done, save, back up, and than do whatever.

You might be gung-ho about spending 9-16+ hours in front of the computer editing a wedding of people you probably don't know outside of a business relationship for two weeks, but i'm not. I loath it.


Now lets say you shoot the same wedding on film:

You spend 8 hours bustin' your butt to have maybe 1500 pictures between you and your assistant(s). When you get home, you go to bed. You're tired. Your turn-around time is also 14 days, so the next day you FedEx your film to the Lab while you're out in town anyway. You do something else with your time for the next 10 days. When the film is done, you download it off the Lab's FTP server while you watch Netflix. After that, you go though and cull out the bad pictures, which takes about 1-1 1/2 hours. After that, you make small adjustments if needed to the color, but since you use a Professional lab, this takes about 30 minutes. After that, you clone out the zits and liquify. Takes about an hour. Then you're done, you save, back up, and than do whatever. Total time in front of the computer doing post: 1.5-2 hours.

Now which do you prefer, and how much do you value your time? For how I want my wedding pictures to look (soft, pastel, bright, but not blown out) would take hours/days in front of the computer shooting digital. I hate doing post production, and film makes life so much easier in that regard.


Not to mention, with film you shoot COMPLETELY differently. No more of this "spray and pray" attitude, "whatever, i'll just pick it out later", or "whatever I can fix this in post". You're much more deliberate and conscious about what you're doing. Film cameras don't have LCD's, so you don't have to feel insecure about yourself and chimp the LCD after every single picture.

Digital > Shoot/Chimp/adjust/interact.
Film > shoot/interact.

With color negative film like 400h or Portra 400, if you accidentally overexpose 2 stops, who cares? It's not like you'd really be able to tell anyway. Color negative film has so much latitude it's ridiculous. All you have to do is get in the ballpark, the Lab does the rest. Try that with digital and see if you can get away with it > you can't.

For the way I shoot, the only advantage of digital is the low light performance and ease of shooting with speedlights. Otherwise with film + RPL, I get perfect exposure, perfect highlights, and perfect skintones every time. Unless I screw up major.


Straight from the Lab:

Ektar 100 off the 645

Fuji 400h off the F100

Kodak BW400CN off the F100

Velvia 50 off a Hasselblad

Portra 400 off the F100

I just have a hard time arguing with the results, when film just makes it so easy

 

[usayit]

Sw1tch, just playin devils advocate....

Is it not really a fair comparison as both workflows you describe give a different amount of control? Control that if one is willing to give up to someone to some else in the digital world would just be he same as sending your negatives out.

Kinda like a digital photog shooting JPG or using Lightroom auto adjust feature....

I spent total of 9 hours straight in the darkroom to get my final project in school just right....

 

[Sw1tchFX]

LOL devil's advocate...

I think it's a totally valid comparison because what I want to accomplish digitally, I can accomplish easily by shooting analog and sending it to the Lab I trust and have a relationship with. Sending my film to RPL isn't anything close to being the same as shooting Jpeg and doing auto adjust. That's inconsistent.

I shoot specific films depending on the situation at hand and what color tone I want to reproduce. When I'm done shooting, RPL knows what to do when I send them my film.

Now your Final Project for school..I'm sure that was personal. You chose the subject after all, i'm sure.

Doing projects for school does not equal "Oh yeah, I love shooting Senior portraits!"

 

[usayit]

I can accomplish easily by shooting analog and sending it to the Lab I trust and have a relationship with. Sending my film to RPL isn't anything close to being the same as shooting Jpeg and doing auto adjust.

You are very lucky...... not too many labs still exist around here to build a good relationship and trust.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

You've got that right....

 

[Tony S]

The last film I shot was at the World Trade Center in New York the week of 9/18 -9/25/11. Since then everything I have done has been digital.