Gone back to film

I left film because my cost to shoot a wedding averaged $500 per wedding, I shot hassie and 35mm B&W candids. The candids were printed on a contact sheet, lots of complaints about not being able to see them clearly (not large enough). The hassie was proofed to a 5x5. Plenty large enough for the customer to scan! I have 2 complaints about digital, first, more time per wedding for me. Second, joe blow down the street now thinks he's a great photographer, he does not have a clue! Blown hightlights, bad color, flat prints or prints with Wally World stamped on the back. Now I have to spend time educating the public what real digital looks like, FILM. When done correctly it's better than film, more control, less lab cost, faster service from my lab. Digital has a huge learning curve, when you think you got it, here comes another curve! The first and most critical part to digital is exposure, get it right and your 95% there. I use Kodak cameras shot raw, to give me a little lee way, but it's still got to be shot tight. Shooting slides and trusting my light meter has gone a long way with my transition. I understand your frustration, been there, just learn to shoot for the hightlights and adjust midtones and shadows. Just like pull or push processing with film.

[Jeff_Tiemann]

Well spoken Vance... I too shoot kodak digital in the RAW format when I am shooting weddings. Digital workflow is more intensive but as you said, 95% is nailing the exposure. Coming from a chrome background my self, I realize that digital leaves no room for mistakes. As for the photogs that our out there shooting jpg on everything, I do not know how you do it and achieve consistent (film like) results. To the original poster of this forum, I would say that the best thing to do, is to do what is best for you, your business and your clients. If you can provide your client a better result using film, then so be it. While your at it, you have a unique opportunity to market your self as one of the few remaining film photographers who dose things the "traditional" way. Always use everything about the way you do things as a positive attribute to you and your work.

Cordially,

-tiemann
web page

[RobWatts]

Like my dad has always said, "That's why they make Chocolate and Vanilla!" (And all of the other zillion flavors out now).

I guess my digital learning curve wasn't as steep as some have had. I shot nothing but chromes for magazines for years. High speed action stuff such as Supercross/Motocross, Wakeboarding, BMX, etc. Like it was mentioned above, this must have prepared me for the lack of exposure latitude digital has.

Also, I started using Photoshop over ten years ago. It was version 2.0 LE which came with a color scanner. (To further emphasize how technology has advanced, this scanner was a three pass color scanner which took over five minutes for an 8 1/2 x 11 page scan.) So, I already knew a lot of the capabilities of the software.

Currently, I shoot weddings and portraits in jpeg and have had very consistent results. Not to say I haven't had numerous shots blown by under or over exposure. BUT, I couldn't imagine switching back to film. Heck, I had a million blown shots on film for that matter.

Use what you are comfortable with. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] I see the future of digital nothing short of fantastic. I'm anxious to see what awaits over the next few years! I'll keep my digital work flow, thanks! lol


RW

[Mike_Guilbault]

I'm in agreement with all the pro-digital comments here. I too "grew up" shooting transparency and used computers since the days of the TRS-80 (anyone remember who made it?). I guess learning photography with transparencies I have no problem shooting my weddings in jpg. You have to be more careful about exposure than you do with RAW, but if you are, you can obtain excellent results without the added time to process the RAW files - not to mention the extra images you can get on the CF and the faster shooting allowed. I do use RAW shooting commercial work, or family portraits and such, but those images are generally going to be much larger and the time to process 40-50 images isn't too bad. I got rid of all my Hassy equip. a couple years ago and even my Nikon 35mm's - personally... I'll never use film again. I didn't use proofs for weddings even when I used film, so for me the workflow from shooting to album is even better.

[David_Willoughby]

Mike wasn't it the Radio shack "trash 80"? I shoot JPEG, miss shots and get shots, same as film. Never shot chromes, digital is teaching me to think more about my exposures....I am sure that before digital there were a lot of shooters that shot film and had to shoot chromes for weddings...and after the first time they were probably frustrated with slide film!...at least with digital you get imediate feedback.

[Robert_Smith]

From the time I hand the film into the processor all of my workflow is gigital, Its just that top end scanners produce better digital images than than cameras at the moment, if this was not the case National Geographic would insist on digital cameras. Soon this may change and when it does I shall start shooting digital again


Rob

[Mike_Guilbault]

Yes.. it was Radio Shack - the 'trash' 80 - or as some others put it "TRS" meant "totally replaces sex"