How often do commercial photographers use digital?

[ann]

here is one link, it isn't the one i read last week but another
Associated Press: Shutterbugs Ditching Digital For Film The Phoblographer

 

[epp_b]

...but there is a recent trend of shooting with film again...

Aaaand, there you have it. It's trendy and that's why most people are doing it. That's what hipsters do: follow the trends like zombies follow living people for flesh.

EDIT: I just watched that video. It's hipster crappery everywhere. Avoid like the plague.

 

[ann]

well that may be true of this link, but not the other one.

and digital wasn"t a trend a few years ago?

 

[magkelly]

I mostly agree with this as someone who had to step backwards to be able to afford to learn more advanced techniques. I do believe I really started learning when I got my first SLR. The process and the cost has definitely slowed me down and made me think more, using film. But that being said I don't know that had I gotten a DSLR already I wouldn't have been able to say the same thing. I might not be shooting quite so carefully, so few shots, I think, but in the end it's definitely been the process of changing out lenses and coping with figuring out the correct settings and all with them that's really been most helpful to this stage of my development as a photographer. Using film is interesting and even satisfying in some way I can't really explain, but I still don't think I'd turn ever down a DSLR just to shoot film cameras. I want to do both. They both have their advantages and disadvantages, and I think I can learn from either process really.

The thing about learning on a film camera is that you really have to learn about everything to pull it off without wasting a ton of time and money. You have to really understand before you press the trigger what it is you're about to capture, how, and why. It forces you to think about each shot, to be selective about what you're shooting and how and why. You have to understand what you're doing enough to pre-visualise the results.

You take notes about your shots, and have to wait to see the results, even if you develop them yourself. You're limited to how many shots you can take before you have to change out your film, and since each one has a dollar amount attached to it, you learn to be more selective and concentrated on each.

With digital, there's a tendency to use a shotgun approach. Just shoot at every aperture and shutter speed and with every lens you have at your disposal, then choose a keeper or two from maybe hundreds of shots, without really understanding or caring what made those particular keepers work. Instant review means shooting hundreds of photos one after another doesn't require much thought at all, especially since it won't cost a penny more to do so. You can throw out 10,000 photos without blinking an eye because it didn't cost a single extra dime.

I love what digital allows me to achieve. But still, there's something to be said for forcing photography students to learn with film, IMHO. It forces them to actually take the time and make the effort to truly understand it all at a gut level until it becomes instinctual, and the knowledge and understanding gained from the process is the very best foundation for an aspiring photographer to build upon.

 

[Christie Photo]

also don't forget that film still has the dynamic range advantage over digital - digital sensors are getting better, but they are not quite yet at the range that film can achieve...

I've wondered about this... the dynamic range. Does anyone know about how it shakes out in printing? Paper has a lesser range than film. Has modern sensor caught up to the dynamic range of papers?

The thing for me is... I'm not making many conventional prints these days. Since most of my stuff is commercial, it goes to the printer for color seps. But for those portraits I am making, I often feel there's something "off" when I get the prints from the lab. I dunno. Maybe it's just the power of suggestion.

-Pete

 

[epp_b]

and digital wasn"t a trend a few years ago?

No, digital was just a logical evolution of camera technology. Sure, it helped popularize photography because the accessibility it provided, but I wouldn't call it a trend.

Thankfully, all those hipsters running around and getting in the way with their kit-lensed Rebels are losing interest because they never had any interest to begin with.

I use digital because it works for me. If digital didn't exist and I needed to use film, I'd do that instead.

also don't forget that film still has the dynamic range advantage over digital - digital sensors are getting better, but they are not quite yet at the range that film can achieve...

This only applies to print / negative film. Slide film and digital are more comparable, in terms of dynamic range.

Does anyone know about how it shakes out in printing? Paper has a lesser range than film.

I think it's a matter of dodging and burning the film until you get the DR within the range of the paper and ink.

 

[flea77]

also don't forget that film still has the dynamic range advantage over digital - digital sensors are getting better, but they are not quite yet at the range that film can achieve (at least in the commercial 35mm market - large formate digital sensors might be, but even for working pros many of them are still far to expensive to justify the upgrade

I would agree that film has better dynamic range, especially in B&W. Large format sensors may have better dynamic range than small ones (honestly I don't know) but then they have to contend against large format film. If you have ever seen a large format contact print, well, it will take your breath away.

Then again photography has never really been about the best result, it is always been "acceptable" results, speed, cost and convenience. If that were not the case no portrait photographer would ever use anything smaller than an 8x10 view camera if they were delivering 8x10 prints.

Allan

 

[Christie Photo]

Then again photography has never really been about the best result, it is always been "acceptable" results, speed, cost and convenience.

Ain't it the truth! And in this digital age, the bar keeps getting set lower and lower. And I'm not talking about only the image quality, but also the composition. It's my observation since digital imaging is less forgiving than negative film, the camera exposure technology had to become better and better until SLR cameras have become glorified point-and-shoots, making it easy for virtually anyone to achieve "acceptable" results.

-Pete