Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is there a definite move back to film by many???  (Read 17224 times)
sperera
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« on: February 24, 2009, 10:04:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi there....I've noticed manufacturers like Kodak bringing us Kodak Ektar to be released soon on 120 format, the continuation of classic films like my personal favourite Kodak T-Max 100....is this cos there's still loads of people shooting film or even going back to film or shooting film alongside digital cos they feel film is still the king?Huh? I'd love to know how many of you feel like this......
Logged

Stephen Perera
www.ulookfierce.com
haefnerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 617


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2009, 10:14:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Not in the automotive or architectural photography business.  Jim
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4803



« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2009, 10:35:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think I've met a single pro still shooting firm in the past year or so. On my recent Antarctic trip, out of 77 pros and advanced amateurs there was one person with a film camera, and it was a Fuji 617. He was also shooting with a DSLR and a medium format system with a back.

Film is still obviously being used by some, but the scale has become tiny. The largest pro dealer in Toronto now has one small freezer with film when they used to have a fridge unit that covered an entire 30 foot long wall.

Michael

Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1129


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2009, 10:54:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: haefnerphoto
Not in the automotive or architectural photography business.  Jim

i think in germany architecture is still the last professional niche where more than a marginal percentage is working with film ( i estimate between 30 - 40% still with film -  most of these with 4x5" ). reason is that in the past the available system costs have been extremely high, meanwhile the  solutions have been in many ways beyond the old 4x5" film workflow, esp. in terms of how to view and compose the motifs  on ground glass .
both things together ( costs and miss of features ) leaded to the situation that many photographers decided to wait either till prices come down a little bit and/or till the systems become more "architecture- photographic" like. now with the new cameras as the artec, the linhof techno ( and maybe the new arca ) as well as with the new 23mm rodenstock shift lens,  the camera/ lens base seems to be more adequate for our needs, although still extremely pricey,- although sensor prices for 22/33/39 mp sensors are much cheaper now than one year before.... but the crisis frightens many pros about the closer future, few people wants to spent high amounts of money now or make new leasing contracts, if they have not already filled books for longer times.

but i hardly doubt that many arch. photographers will go back to film after they once have done their feet in digital.


btw.:
the new 17/24mm canon shift lenses will be a winner in my field, at least  if they will be  half as good as they should be ....
« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 10:54:46 AM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Anthony R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2009, 11:04:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Certainly film isn't being used as much as it once was and I don't think that people are "going back", BUT there are still quite a few professionals shooting film still in NYC. Danielle Levitt, Jeff Reidel, Christian Lantry, Andrew Hetherington, Simon Emmett to name a few. (Probably not shooting film exclusively but still). Look around at higher end magazines such as GQ, ESPN, Rolling Stone...etc.

I'm sure it depends on where you are in the world. I know it's a pain in the ass finding someone to develop film now if you live in Seattle.
Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2009, 11:31:00 AM »
ReplyReply

What the heck is film. Seriously for me it has been at least 10 years since i ran film through a body. I actually have no clue what is even being sold. Scary
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2009, 11:43:00 AM »
ReplyReply

70% film.  Everything from 35mm to 4x5.  I use digital when I'm shooting someone elses comp or cosmetics/beauty.

I process all of my B&W and soon my own color.  I bought a Kreonite C-41 machine (roller transporter) and a Colex 31" print processor.  

Labs in NYC are plentiful.
Logged
sperera
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2009, 12:21:30 PM »
ReplyReply

well, its just that I had a look around Kodak's site and i was amazed a new Kodak Ektar is being launched for 120 format.....i just thought, in my ignorance of course, that Kodak etc werent making new films.....so it was a surprise to say the least.

I also thought, well, if they're making new films there must be a demand or a push to create demand......hence the question......

.......so perhaps Kodak is thinking.....mmmmmmmmmm.....ok....the guys that know are after absolute quality.....so bring out new films to encourage them to take out their old Hasselblads etc and shot film again cos to rival the quality you can get with film on a great drum scanner would cost you six figures today....buying a top end digital medium format camera...........to echo what another poster was saying about the recession.....

I myself have a Scanmate 5000 drum scanner which i used to scan film like the amazing Fuji Provia coming off Haselblad with Zeiss lenses.....i still today havent seen that 'thing' that gave me compared to what i see with digital.....so with labs still offering developing etc perhaps its still a good idea to shoot film at least alongside digital.....

example.....you're a pro and you've set up THE shot.....you do it with your digital camera and then you also shoot with the film camera....why not? i think this would be appealing to people who have 12 mp Nikons and Canons who can now get hold of a medium format kit for $2000 or even less.....do you know what im getting at?
« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 12:23:45 PM by sperera » Logged

Stephen Perera
www.ulookfierce.com
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670



WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2009, 12:53:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Couldn't give a rat's arse what capture medium a photographer uses, the medium is not the message.
Logged

sperera
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2009, 01:04:02 PM »
ReplyReply

i agree but thats not the question....the question is....is there a movement back to film or not....you obviously shoot Hasselblad film so is that my answer??? nice shots you have by the way....
« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 01:07:20 PM by sperera » Logged

Stephen Perera
www.ulookfierce.com
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2009, 01:14:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anthony R
I'm sure it depends on where you are in the world.


The last meeting I had on Madison Avenue, the AD asked somewhat sheepishly, if I would mind shooting digital for a large project.  I replied, no no problem most of my current work is digital and he was surprised, actually almost shocked that I didn't find that an issue.  In fact, if truth be told I think I probably dropped a half step in his eyes by not proclaiming that film is the best solution, though keep in mind this is New York and also keep in mind that perception is much stronger than reality, in fact in the major cities of photography perception is reality.

Had I insisted that I shoot the project with film, I believe it would have been accepted.

As far as what is film, well it's still around and many of the "names" in this business prefer it, or better put prefer working with their old RZ's, pentax 6x7's, view cameras etc.  It kind of falls under the heading if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

You can make digital "look" like film, but we all know the backend post processing of digital is much more intensive than film capture, even to get to a continuous solid base.

Now in other, smaller markets, film has disappeared, or at least film labs have virtually disappeared, though if truth be told, a lot of us that have spent huge volumes of money and time learning digital would go back to some kind of film workflow if possible.  Or at least for certain projects, because regardless of the strides that digital capture has made, it is still somewhat amazing that to get to the polaroid stage it takes a technician, computer, monitor, generators and all kinds of jury rigged flags just to view the image.

Also most busy photographers are electronic upgrade weary.  Obviously Annie is not sitting up at night testing her Canon images in C-1 vs. CS4, vs. DPP (actually I doubt seriously if she would know what those are), but most of us that have invested, worked at digital and do most of the backend managing of our images, long for the days of drop it off and ship it.

I know I would love to pick up any camera I chose and just use it, without thinking or even concerning myself what proprietary processor goes with what proprietary capture device and why can't I have a frame size larger than 645 and why is their only one "digital film back" that will shoot a almost full 645 frame?

Also we know that this upgrade process will never end.  Larger images, newer software, bigger computers to run the newer software, bigger hard drives to store the bigger images, then once it's all sorted out it starts over again to buy equipment that only means we will take the 200mb files and downsize them to 34mb.  

So what's film?   Well it depends on where your standing, but I wish more now than ever that the digital process had never started.  In New York you can shoot film, here in Cooter, Mo., we shoot digital.

Regardless, film is not dead and if there was any serious investment dollars left in the world, it might make a comeback.

I expect any day to open up PDN and see a photo of 8,000 photographers standing on the Hudson dropping their electronic cameras in the river, with the headline that says, Photographers say enough is enough, we want to make photographs, not work on computers.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 01:16:18 PM by bcooter » Logged
sperera
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2009, 01:33:35 PM »
ReplyReply

thanks for taking the time to write such a considered answer that I can certainly relate to in many ways.....

i am obviously sitting back an taking stock of what im doing and where i want to go with all this....

i was torturing myself over whether to spend tons of money on a medium format digital camera (albeit used) or not and then assessing the related workflow issues.....with Hasselblad you have Phocus and then Photoshop if need be, with Nikon you have Capture NX2, Capture One, Lightroom or whatever you prefer and then Photoshop again if need be......all of which is time-consuming and laborious in itself.....

..........my life was easier when i had the film processed and i scanned it in myself (i have a drum scanner as i said with 5000 real dpi) to open in Photoshop.....that was it.....

Logged

Stephen Perera
www.ulookfierce.com
yaya
Guest
« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2009, 01:40:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sperera
Hi there....I've noticed manufacturers like Kodak bringing us Kodak Ektar to be released soon on 120 format, the continuation of classic films like my personal favourite Kodak T-Max 100....is this cos there's still loads of people shooting film or even going back to film or shooting film alongside digital cos they feel film is still the king?Huh? I'd love to know how many of you feel like this......

And at the same time Kodak is bringing you the AFi-II 10 and Aptus-II 10 as they (we) believe there's room (and business) for both mediums.

Yair
Logged
mtomalty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2009, 02:10:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Unrelated
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 09:51:25 AM by mtomalty » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2009, 02:18:19 PM »
ReplyReply



So what's film?   Well it depends on where your standing, but I wish more now than ever that the digital process had never started.  In New York you can shoot film, here in Cooter, Mo., we shoot digital.

Regardless, film is not dead and if there was any serious investment dollars left in the world, it might make a comeback.

I expect any day to open up PDN and see a photo of 8,000 photographers standing on the Hudson dropping their electronic cameras in the river, with the headline that says, Photographers say enough is enough, we want to make photographs, not work on computers.
[/quote]



Hey, Cooter

I never thought that the day - well, night for me - would come when I would find myself agreeing 100% with you. As with you and Cooter, Mo., my situation in Mallorca, Spain precludes the use of E6 materials.

Ironically, I still have my Nikon film camera but it sits in an aluminium box and glares at me when its digital cousin - can´t be brothers - gets taken out for walkies. The same happens with the CanoScan and you can imagine what the freezer says about all that stock still living inside it. Somehow, having to pay for film and processing by myself (hard getting used to being one´s own client) certainly would concentrate the mind on what is and is not worth shooting. But, if you can´t get it processed... come to think of it, I would also have liked to play with some model of Leica M.

Rob C

Logged

Alex MacPherson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2009, 02:33:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
Photographers say enough is enough, we want to make photographs, not work on computers.

Amen to that
Logged

Alex MacPherson

Visit My Website
jimgolden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2009, 02:34:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Commercial it's not even a question, all digital from my perspective. I think editorial is a different ball game, a lot of editorial is still shot on film - esp. some of the more known shooters - it's part of their look and we all know point a film camera into the sun for the blown out look of sun over the shoulder is WAY easier w/ film then digi - takes a little more post to make it look good....IMHO
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7324


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2009, 02:51:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

No, no more film. But my Pentax 67 equipment is still around. I did actually shoot three rolls of Velvia 120 2008, mostly because I have a fisheye for the Pentax. I just did some comparison shooting between my A900 and he Pentax but the slides have not been developed yet. The T-Max 100 was my choice for B/W, Velvia for slides.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: sperera
Hi there....I've noticed manufacturers like Kodak bringing us Kodak Ektar to be released soon on 120 format, the continuation of classic films like my personal favourite Kodak T-Max 100....is this cos there's still loads of people shooting film or even going back to film or shooting film alongside digital cos they feel film is still the king?Huh? I'd love to know how many of you feel like this......
Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2009, 03:33:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: yaya
And at the same time Kodak is bringing you the AFi-II 10 and Aptus-II 10 as they (we) believe there's room (and business) for both mediums.

Yair


Yair,

Your right, but you left out a big workflow advantage of the AFI-which is you get a retouched image straight out of the camera.

[attachment=11724:leaf.jpg]
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670



WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2009, 04:12:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sperera
i agree but thats not the question....the question is....is there a movement back to film or not....you obviously shoot Hasselblad film so is that my answer??? nice shots you have by the way....

Without meaning to be rude, my answer would be the same. I couldn't give a rat's arse whether other photographers are moving back to film or not. The fact is both forms of capture are not mutually exclusive and co-exist very nicely.

...and thanks for your kind comment, much appreciated.

Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad