75% Pro Photographers Still Use Film

  • Thread starter Thread starter paul cull-pearce
  • Start date Start date
I was very surprised at that figure. Until I saw that it was a survey sponsored by Kodak.
 
They probably don't use film exclusively. I still shoot slide film for my camera club competitions but that probably accounts for less than 5% of my images.
 
I use 75% film and 25% digital. Just prefer it. Think Hoodi uses 100% film,...?
 
I've been giving serious thought to it lately, at least for B&W stuff which never seems to look right from my D200.
 
King_Boru said:
Nothing to do with the camera, its just digital in general.
Click to expand...
Well quite.

Also, a quick look at the prices of F-series Nikons in good condition makes you think a bit. £200-odd quid for an F4?

I think I'd call that a bargain.
 
King_Boru said:
I use 75% film and 25% digital. Just prefer it. Think Hoodi uses 100% film,...?
Click to expand...

No, more similar to you sir - as much as I like film digital is just so much easier for events work.

Most FA / art photographers I know shoot almost all film. Most wedding / event 'togs I know shoot almost all digital. The journo's are a real mix.

Film is nice, digital is nice, go both of them :shrug:
 
Whenever I think about shooting film it's purely a nostalgia trip I'm afraid. I think the fact that it's a Kodak sponsored survey speaks volumes. Patrick Lichfield was a real digital hater initially, and a real die hard film man for a long time. He went completely digital in the end though and I remember him being interviewed where he said it was the best thing he ever did, being able to see shots and show clients images there and then.

The war's over, and film lost. ;) It's getting increasingly difficult to get the film of your choice, even from specialist camera shops. It's very sad in many respects, especially for those who prefer to stick to film.
 
CT said:
It's getting increasingly difficult to get the film of your choice, even from specialist camera shops.
Click to expand...

Really? Whilst I don't doubt that getting something specific is trickier than it used to be, with the internet in hand it's still really no trouble to get even the most obscure of film stocks. Yes, a lot of companies are going bust & the big ones are stopping production of some less popular films, but there are also still new films coming out which often fill the gap.
It's still fairly easy to pick up all you need to make a Daguerreotype, I don't see film going anywhere anytime soon.
 
film for black and white, i dont honestly think that 75% of pros still shoot film for the bluk of there work probably something more to do with the kodak sponsorship and clever use of the surveys results as 2blue4u says!
 
Hoodi said:
Really? Whilst I don't doubt that getting something specific is trickier than it used to be, with the internet in hand it's still really no trouble to get even the most obscure of film stocks. Yes, a lot of companies are going bust & the big ones are stopping production of some less popular films, but there are also still new films coming out which often fill the gap.
It's still fairly easy to pick up all you need to make a Daguerreotype, I don't see film going anywhere anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Well I was using camera shops as the obvious barometer of the change Hoodi. You could walk into my local Jessops at one time and get virtually any film you wanted from a refrigerated shelf.

Last time I wanted a roll of Provia they had to rummage round in the store room, eventually finding the last roll - which was out of date. I used to walk into Jessops and regularly buy IR film too. Try doing that now. :shrug:
 
I wonder why so many art photographers still use film? (My impression is that Hoodi is correct that most still do use it)

Is it that they mostly also use medium or large format and can't afford digital backs the way food or product photographers can?

Or is it something about film itself?
 
CT said:
The war's over, and film lost. ;) It's getting increasingly difficult to get the film of your choice, even from specialist camera shops. It's very sad in many respects, especially for those who prefer to stick to film.
Click to expand...

Hi Cedric, perhaps the war is not lost, just a battle won.

A good analogy is the Swiss mechanical watch. For several hundred years, you could only buy a mechanical watch.

Then in the early seventies, along came the Japanese digital. Very accurate, no need to wind, waterproof - it was a dream, and after a couple of years, prices came down to consumer levels, and everybody could afford one.

Sound familiar??

In the last 10 years however, the mechanical watch is back, and selling like hotcakes. Everybody is making them now, the Swiss, Germans, Japanese, and even the Chinese. It seems that old fashioned values will out, even if people have to pay for them.

The old fashioned mechanical watches from the early part of the last century, which at one time were easily collectible because no one wanted them, are now fetching thousands of pounds.

Don't sell the old Nikon F2/3, Canon F1, Pentax LX et al.............you just never know!!
 
CT, there are a ton of reasons that Jessops et al don't stock what they used to in terms of film gear. I'm not trying to suggest that film is not on the decline, but rather that you are incorrect that it's a challenge to get hold of what you're after (well, so long as you've got a PC it's not) & also that I beleive it to be a misnomer that film has lost a war of mediums - yes, digital is inherently more suitable for some work, but film is still the weapon of choice for many.
As an aside, we all know that high street photography shops are on the decline full stop, yet on the flip side photography is most definitely on the rise as a hobby & more. In many places all you can find is a Jessops, and we all know they're not exactly the bees knees for digital gear!
Also, I kid you not when I say I walked into a high street photography shop here in Cardiff on Wednesday and picked up two rolls of 120 Kodak EIR.
 
dougdarter said:
A good analogy is the Swiss mechanical watch. For several hundred years, you could only buy a mechanical watch.

Then in the early seventies, along came the Japanese digital. Very accurate, no need to wind, waterproof - it was a dream, and after a couple of years, prices came down to consumer levels, and everybody could afford one.

Sound familiar??

In the last 10 years however, the mechanical watch is back, and selling like hotcakes. Everybody is making them now, the Swiss, Germans, Japanese, and even the Chinese. It seems that old fashioned values will out, even if people have to pay for them.

The old fashioned mechanical watches from the early part of the last century, which at one time were easily collectible because no one wanted them, are now fetching thousands of pounds.

Don't sell the old Nikon F2/3, Canon F1, Pentax LX et al.............you just never know!!
Click to expand...


surely the watch analogy is not such a good one because unlike film the mechanical watch is mearly a fashion and asthetic thing, film users clearly arnt swayed by fashion and trends otherwise they would have moved over to digital which is very much the "in thing" at the moment, they shoot film because they like it and feel comfortable with it, not because its stylish, and i dont think that film will ever become fashionable in the future.

lets just hope film doesnt die out (and i dont think it will (in the same way black and white hasnt died out due to the availability of colour film)) because its magical :)
 
OK OK... Jessops wasn't the best example. :lol:
 
i was speaking to someone at work yesterday who still uses film, and his main reason for not changing was due to having 'all the equipment', so i can understand from existing film users for not going over to digital if what you have already serves you well, but i can't see many of the new generations investing in film.

I'm sure there will always be a niche market for film, just as there are for Vinyl etc. Overtime i think these will dissolve, everything moves on whether its for good or bad, if we hang on to our ways, there will be no advancements..
 
Hoodi said:
No, more similar to you sir - as much as I like film digital is just so much easier for events work.

Most FA / art photographers I know shoot almost all film. Most wedding / event 'togs I know shoot almost all digital. The journo's are a real mix.

Film is nice, digital is nice, go both of them :shrug:
Click to expand...

Agree with you there, for weddings I would use digital over film purely to save me some £££'s. But to be honest, the F-80 is still slung over the shoulder and I find myself going through 4-5 rolls of the good ol' Fuji Reala 100.

Druid said:
Well quite.

Also, a quick look at the prices of F-series Nikons in good condition makes you think a bit. £200-odd quid for an F4?

I think I'd call that a bargain.
Click to expand...

You can still get hold of new F-80's if you look around. Picked mine up from WE a couple of months ago for £90. Might want to give them a buz to see if they have any left. It is a truly great camera. I had one when they first came out, cost me £350 back then I think :gag:.

King.
 
I also suppose it has alot to do with the type of Photography you do? Why would you use film at a wedding when you can use digital and see what you have taken right after the shot and make sure you got it? where a still life in large format the quality is their and if it does not work you can do it again?

I like film and digital - hoodi's digital scans of his film using MF show that film is certanly not dead.
 
Film gives a feel for pictures that digital never will, most people use digital these days for speed of getting the pics, to ease of working on them, most people have a computer now so digital is easier to work with and send round the world.

Less time sensitive jobs such as still life, advertising, modelling can happily use film and get the quality and uniqueness only it can provide.
 
Betamax anybody?
 
nope. digital for us. ta. i recon kodak are way out on that figure. they prob asked all the people they sold film to.
is that also why kodak are shutting proccesing plants round here then?.
we have a pile of film gear collecting dust. only getting some use cos my offspring is doing media summatorother at college.
 
I doubt that all those people use film exclusively although perhaps some do. Also, I doubt that we're talking solely or even mostly about 35mm. I would guess a fair proportion of them are using film with medium or large format and may very well use digital for anything smaller or for paying engagements like weddings where the convenience of digital is paramount.

That might change when medium format digital becomes accessible to those who aren't able to write off a few tens of thousands, but right now, if you want to do massive fine art prints, then I suspect that a 645 or 6x6 or bigger at £500-odd for a very nice outfit (I've been checking Ffordes) is an attractive approach compared to buying a 1Ds or MF digital back all but the most successful art photographers.
 
Druid said:
I wonder why so many art photographers still use film? (My impression is that Hoodi is correct that most still do use it)

Is it that they mostly also use medium or large format and can't afford digital backs the way food or product photographers can?

Or is it something about film itself?
Click to expand...

It's something about film. Digital just cant touch the quality of the stuff. Sure you can get a 40 odd megapixie digiback that will shoot an 80mb raw file, where you can read the number plate of a car shot from 30'000 feet up in a plane.....


....but it just doesn't have the same quality of tone or texture.

The trouble for film is that almost no-one needs that certain quality of tone and texture. I know none of my clients do and would far rather have cheaper prices, quicker turnaround and damn fine digi images.
 
I love film. It still cannot be beaten. The wise use both tho.
 
dazzajl said:
It's something about film. Digital just cant touch the quality of the stuff. Sure you can get a 40 odd megapixie digiback that will shoot an 80mb raw file that you where read a number plate of a car when shot from 30'000 feet up in a plane.....


....but it just doesn't have the same quality of tone or texture.

The trouble for film is that almost no-one needs that certain quality of tone and texture. I know none of my clients do and would far rather have cheaper prices, quicker turnaround and damn fine digi images.
Click to expand...

That's certainly very visible to me with B&W, which is why I've been eyeing up film stuff on Ffordes site lately.

I don't see the difference as obviously with colour though, except where we're talking about Joe Cornish type shots where film allows a larger dynamic range and/or large format allows camera movements to be used to extend depth of field and capture stupid amounts of detail where even the fanciest DSLRs would run into diffraction limits.
 
Has nobody actually read any of the link? All it is suggesting is that 75% of pro togs will still use film, to one or extent or another. Not that it'll be what they use exclusively, or even their mainstay. Just that they'll still use it in some form or another.

That's pretty beleivable, I think?
 
Hoodi said:
Has nobody actually read any of the link? All it is suggesting is that 75% of pro togs will still use film, to one or extent or another. Not that it'll be what they use exclusively, or even their mainstay. Just that they'll still use it in some form or another.

That's pretty believable, I think?
Click to expand...

I think is believable.

I'm using Colour / Tranny / B&W Film on 5x4, and B&W 35mm.

As well as Digital on Small format / Medium Format and 5x4.
 
Just re-read the post `Pro togs' mmmm well It still sounds an unbelievable high percentage to me
 
peanuts said:
when you look at the sales of digital cameras compared with those using film I should have thought the answer to the question was self evident. biggest load of rubbish I ever heard
Click to expand...

You dont have to sell Film cameras as there are millions out there already.
 
So long as the industry continues to serve the choice it seems likely to continue. There is room and use for both formats. It was industry marketing ploys to sell digital kit that largely brought about the idea that we use one or the other exclusively, which is daft. As we know, both have their merits in different circumstances and times.:bang:
 
Surely cost comes into this as well.

I was chatting to a wedding photographer recently. he said it would cost over £5k to replace his film camera/lenses etc and then there was a new learning curve. He didn't see it as having any payback, especially as he hoped to retire in the next 5 years.

I sold my film equipment when I went digital as for me the developing was just too expensive but I still haven't got lenses as good as I had.
 
Warehouse Express have just added a film section to their website whcih now shows various Fujifilms and Ilford options. Looks like the demand is on it way back in. I'm not surprised really.

Long live the ol' days!

King.
 
Film/transparency cannot be beaten by digital in it's present form nor for a long long time I suspect.
Same as vinyl is still better than CD (using the right equipment).That comment will lose me many votes I trust. :lol:

anyway, digital is much much more consumer friendly than film is. It's easy and comparitively cheap and as such appeals to so many more people, some that would have no interest otherwise. So the ratio of film to digi users is bound to be influenced greatly by that alone.
 
Didn't know WE had added a film section KB, and they're a bit cheaper for fiber paper than my normal supplier, too! :D
 
Hoodi said:
Didn't know WE had added a film section KB, and they're a bit cheaper for fiber paper than my normal supplier, too! :D
Click to expand...

Aye, only stumbled across it today. Although you might want to give them a ring as earlier they didnt have an eta for stock. I would prefer buying from them as they are always professional and deliver exceptional customer service.

Also Hoodi, I dont know if youve seen my other thread but Redwood Photographic in Colchester have today been able to supply me with 10 Fujifilm Reala 100 rolls for next to nothing. They also mentioned that they have a massive stock of film.
 
Got talking to a guy today in work he shoots alot of wildlife photography. He has been using film for over 20 years. Only last year he sold 3 Nikon F5 cameras for 2 Nikon D200 cameras keeping all his lenses. But after six months he sold his D200 cameras and went back to film and bought 2 Nikon F6 cameras.

Paul
 
paul cull-pearce said:
Got talking to a guy today in work he shoots alot of wildlife photography. He has been using film for over 20 years. Only last year he sold 3 Nikon F5 cameras for 2 Nikon D200 cameras keeping all his lenses. But after six months he sold his D200 cameras and went back to film and bought 2 Nikon F6 cameras.

Paul
Click to expand...

I'd sell a kidney for an F6.
 
er... 75% ???
All the colleague pros I know are digital with occasional large format neg if needed..
I dunno where the heck they pull that figure, it's just not right.
In the commercial world there is no time or budget for faffing with film anymore. We've got tight deadlines, art directors leaning over laptops and couriers delivering DVD's from the studio.
Great for nostalgia trips maybe, but for us the darkroom is now a store and the DSLR / phase one has taken over completely.
I can't say I miss film either. Not in the area of our work anyway.
Maybe 75% of the professionals have a much more relaxed work schedule and client base than us.. ? :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top