One thing I've come to both love and hate about digital photography, is the time spent in front of a computer. The love thing is well, it's so easy to implement fixes or get creative with the image. But on the other hand, I take a lot more pictures and spend a lot more time in front of the computer.
I still have my Dynax 7's and a bunch of Kodak Portra (very nice film by the way). But it's still hard getting the motivation to use these cameras instead of the digital.
I'm pondering that it might be nice to actually go back to photographing weddings with film. The idea of just dropping off the film to be developed rather than playing about with the images on a PC is…well, kind of appealing. And film could make a nice point of difference to a wedding. The colour fidelity and grain of film is kind of artistic in a way that digital still doesn't match.
So, any thoughts out there? Is the motive to keep photographing with film being sustained or slowly dropping off. Would you be brave enough these days to shoot a major event just with film?
So who is still with film these days? Sep 07
9 Comments Leave a comment
-
-
Brendan Moyle 619 days ago
Seriously? Oh dear. yeah, it’s getting harder.
There’s a Kodak Express place in Albany I sometimes use- the point though is you do have to ask. There’s no counter or notices advertising the fact now. They do send the film off though- it’s not done on site.
I also use PCL Imaging in Auckland. http://www.pcl.co.nz/
The third option is a local, outfit that still has a wetlab to do E6 black-and-white. They also do colour C41. They’re Photo and Digital Browns Bay http://www.photodigital.co.nz/
-
Darcy Cowan 619 days ago
hhmm. Good info, thanks.
I understand the photoshop she normally would have used had closed down and everyone else was digital.
Don’t know if she was offered the off-site option or not.Cheers
-
Brendan Moyle 619 days ago
Yes, the brick-and-mortar outfits are struggling I think. The volatile exchange rate hasn’t helped, nor the ease of internet options. And fewer and fewer people are shooting with film.
Digital is really such a better option though for the family snapper. I think it’s just a small core of relatively older people still using compact film cameras.
I’m pleased to see that Kodak, Fuji and Ilford are still producing films, but my lurking fear is what will happen as attrition gradually reduces the number of film cameras around. I suspect that once my Minolta’s die, that will be the end of my film days.
-
Darcy Cowan 619 days ago
Yeah, especially as printing from digital is so cheap, we got 60 odd photos printed at Harvey Norman recently for less than it would have cost me to get a roll of 24 processed 10 years ago.
-
gregorybodnar 618 days ago
There are a few people shooting film and new people finding it, thanks to toy cameras and recent retro-fashion. New Zealand struggles a little bit in terms of supply for both film and for developers, but if you can’t find *anything*, then you’re not really looking.
Normal colour negative process (C-41) is still incredibly common and you’ll still find 1-hour developers at many chemists and corner photo stores. Black and white is a bit more specialist, but it’s worth learning to do yourself if you’re interested in anything artistic with it. Colour positive/slide film (E6) is getting much harder to find at a decent price, but can be processed with C-41 for a distinctive, saturated look.
I shot a netball match on film – that was an expensive experiment. I’d need a likely buyer for an image before I’d do that again. On the other hand, I do have friends who shoot weddings on film. It’s a different look to digital and people seem to be willing to pay for that.
For personal shooting (which is most, for me), I barely pick up the digital. I find it turns my brain into Auto and I’m generally less satisfied with the results. Film makes me think. I’d rather spend a few rolls of film than blast my way through a few hundred guess-and-test shots.
-
stuartg 617 days ago
After over three decades of film, I took a deep breath and went digital. I kept my old lenses and equipment and just got new DSLR bodies, so that I could go back to film if needed.
By going digital in this fashion, I kept the skills of using film. Because of this, I tend to take considerably fewer photos of a scene than photographers brought up with digital.
I have never used Photoshop; Picasa has more than I need to produce the final .jpg from the RAW. This means that I have more time for the photography and need less for the computer processing.
So far, the only thing that I’ve missed about film is how reciprocity failure could sometimes give an unexpected look to long exposure night shots. I guess I could do the same in Photoshop if I cared to learn, but don’t see the need.
I’m finally considering getting rid of the film bodies.
-
Brendan Moyle 617 days ago
@gergorybodnar
At the moment I have phases when film is popular, and those when I use digital for the most part. When I do shoot with film, it’s usually landscapes or portraits. These are genres where getting the right shot at the right moment matters- so you tend to photograph less.
For wildlife and macro- well, it’s almost all digital. A lot of that is down to the sheer cost of shooting with film. And with macro- being able to verify how the lighting is falling on the subject straight away- whether I need to boost the flash up or down- the feedback from digital is vital.
The other area I’ve come to appreciate digital is for traveling. My last use of film overseas was in 2009. The reason I say it’s the last, is because of the extra work entailed by juggling films just killed the fun.
-
Brendan Moyle 617 days ago
@stuartg
yeah, I’m still a hybrid. I shoot with both film and digital, using lenses that cross both systems. A lot of photography is still down to the physics of superb bits of ground-glass, directing an image on to something that can record it- either film or a digital sensor.
Being used to film is I think a good discipline to carry over into digital. I’m very much of the ‘shoot less, keep more’ school.
Nonetheless, I’ll easily spend an hour or two in front of a PC for each each shooting a wedding or portrait session. A little bit of airbrushing to reduce pronounced blemishes or poor skin tones, a little bit of extra background blur to isolate the subject, perhaps a vignette…it’s surprising how these things do add up.
This is different to say wildlife or macro shots, where it’s really just crop and process from raw :)
Where can you get film developed these days? My MiL tried and couldn’t find anywhere that still does it.