Photographers Who Still Use Film
Photography: stitch
With even Polaroid dropping production of its instant film, it really does look like the end of the road for analog photography.
Or does it?
More than three-quarters of US-based professional photographers who took part in a survey at the end of 2007 said they would continue to use film photography for at least some projects, even while they used digital formats. The reasons quoted ranged from “film’s superiority in capturing more information on medium and large format film” to “archival storage.”
That survey was conducted by… erm, Kodak, so the figures might not be as scientific as they look. But there are still a number of photographers who insist on spending time in the darkroom instead of in front of Photoshop.
These are some of the biggest.
David Bailey
For David Bailey, the British fashion photographer who rose to fame in the 1960s, sticking with film might appear to have as much to do with nostalgia for Swinging London as a preference for the old way of shooting. But according to BBC journalist’s Nick Robinson’s blog, not only does Bailey still develop with chemicals, he skips the pixels because of the quality.
While taking a portrait of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently, Bailey was reportedly asked if he ever uses digital.
“Nah” he quipped in front of the Labour Party leader. “Digital’s like socialism – it flattens everything out and makes everything the same.”
Jack Dykinga
David Bailey uses film to shoot the famous; Pulitzer-Prize winning photographer Jack Dykinga uses film to capture the deserts of the southwest.
The subjects couldn’t be more different but the reasons for ignoring the benefits of digital photography are fairly similar. For Bailey, film photography brings greater depth to an image; for Dykinga, film beats digital images for the amount of information it can pack into a picture.
“There’s absolutely no better way for me to do landscape than large-format film, which in my case is 4×5 and Fuji-chrome Velvia film,” Dykinga told Outdoor Photographer magazine. “In terms of raw capture of information, if you want to look at it from a computer geek’s point of view, I’m capturing roughly 1,500 megabytes of information in a single sheet of film. That translates to about 500 megapixels.”
Sacha Dean Biyan
Sacha Dean Biyan is an award-winning fashion photographer and photojournalist who spends much of his time on the road either shooting for clients that have included Sony Music, the Gap and Lexus or collecting images for his Earth Pilgrim project.
Oddly for someone whose background was originally in aeronautical engineering, Biyan shoots entirely on film — although he might use digital manipulation in post-production. As he explains on his tech-heavy website:
“For now, despite the obvious advantages of digital, my obsession with quality always draws me back to traditional means. I use medium or large format cameras, and still prefer platinum palladium printing for my images, which unfortunately cannot be appreciated over the Internet.”
Nevada Weir
Nevada Weir is a travel photographer whose images have appeared in National Geographic, Smithsonian and Geo, sold through Getty and Corbis, and appeared in nine photography books.
Not all of her images are shot on film though and while Biyan waxes lyrical about the quality of palladium printing, for Weir, film cameras are simply more practical for the sort of photography she shoots.
“I could care less,” she told Shutterbug magazine, “film – digital; the only problem is that in many places I travel there is no electricity and that eliminates the digital camera.”
Richard Murai
Like Sasha Dean Biyan, Richard Murai, who specializes in shooting the world’s sacred sites, also uses film to capture his images but turns to digital technology when the shooting ends. For printing, he uses digital scanning and large-scale, dedicated grayscale digital printers.
According to his website, that combination of a traditional medium with high tech product gives him maximum control and quality without risking long-term storage problems.
“Photographers can now truly paint with light,” he told the Mowen Solinsky gallery.
If you’re still using film, you might want to check out the Analog Photography Users’ Group and tell us whether you think film beats digital.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I still love film, but it's largely nostalgia for those days in highschool and college spent in the darkroom. Which is why I mostly shoot with a DSLR now, and most of the time it's pictures of my kids. I still dream of my own darkroom in my next house, but it's largely just a dream.
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:45 am
Like most pro-photographers agree, film holds a whole lot more depth and color, not to mention the mood of the exposure, than digital. Some digital exposures are totally flattened due to inadequate depth, which most film exposures capture to a great extent. And then there's the fact that there is yet a digital camera to equally the resolution quality of film!
February 25th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I'm looking back at my old photos and slides and wondering why I was so quick to want a digital. OK, the cost effectiveness is there, but the quality of the final print... with a semi-pro 6.1mp you can print an 8x10. whoo hoo. with a 10mp ok, you can do 11x14. I've shot 35mm for years and years and I can do greater than 16x20. that's quality that is still hard to get from a digital. For people, I think I'll keep going with digital, but for bodyscapes, landscapes and the like, I think I'm heading back to my roots.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
FILM: There is a REASON the top cinematographer in the world are exposing the wonder new Kodak films. Just shot my first digital project last night and with the amazing new NIKON D3 which shoots at 6400 ISO with little apparent noise BUT
am I stoked with the images??? HARDLY. I think the digital revolution is largely the result of overzealous marketing campaigns that have overwhelmed the analog business. It is Largely HYPE and over promising. I running around trying to figure out how to put a film look on the digital files any ideas or suggestion.
I LOVE FUJI film as well and particularly Pro800 120 film, 160 S and 400H and there is NO comparison in quality, communication, tonal range, color, FEEL, and LOOK of FILM. F6,F5 and Hasselblad H1 owner. I mourn the loss of Polaroid as well. The hardness of digital is just UPSETTING!!!
I've got a lot to learn about it however. But I'm keeping my film equipment for SURE...
Boulder, CO
March 17th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Film is very important for any photographer and this is something I and we (EVA) try to push with people starting out, this is mainly why this post is so interesting and to add greater depth here we are reading from the "next generation" of photographers.
Film photography is all we use now for our major projects, the digital camera is for researching ideas and taking photographs of places and structures so we have something to go back on.
Film is like Vinyl they will have to bring it back when they realize people what it and there is a market for it. It has greater depth, greater grain without the use of Photoshop and other photography software (which is all the rage now a days for amateur photographers).
Anyone who loves photography should at least put down the digital camera and try film and then see what difference and what different film is and does to a photograph.
William.x
March 27th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Aside from the differences in quality between film and digital, I find that digital has made many photographers 'lazy', so to speak. When I shoot digital I feel a slight carelessness knowing that Photoshop will fix any errors with exposure or adjust the tones, etc. (assuming I miss those errors on the display). But with film I find myself taking my time, checking things twice, and I get a rush of excitement when I shoot that one frame. Picking up my slides from the lab is equally exciting and satisfying.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I've just bought the D3 and I expect it to be well used particularly in low light and creative situations requiring speed. But no matter what I see and shoot with it, I'll always be looking for the opportunity to capture the same image with film, simply because the quality in terms of color, depth and clarity remains vastly superior.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:30 am
I got into digital just over a year ago and have found the medium has made me a very lazy photographer. I also have made very few photographs I'm proud of and I dislike handling the complex digital bodies.
I'm glad I didn't sell off my film kit as it's getting more use than digital these days.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Not to forget James Nachtwey!
May 28th, 2008 at 7:45 am
I “went digital” back in 2005 and spent the next three years spending money and time on computer equipment, hard drives, memory cards, expensive ink, expensive “photo” paper, expensive digital SLR’s and for what? To get images that were almost as good as 35mm film shot through my 22 year old F3. I certainly did not see any financial benefit to the digital revolution.
June 14th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Even 35mm film is superior to any digital camera I've used. The best dslrs I've used include the Fuji S3/S5 and Nikon d2x/d300.
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
The one thing I do know is digital photography makes me lazy. I get alot of photos but very few good ones . With film I take my time because I know I have but so many rolls left. You know that if you have only have five shots left you will make every shot count. I learned photography on film and I will still shoot film until the day I die!
June 28th, 2008 at 12:05 am
I just purchased my first DSLR. Great camera however I prefer to shoot my 35mm Film SLR. I enjoy the simple things about shooting film for example loading the film, hearing it wind up, taking my time to get that great shot and most of all anticipating how that shot turned out. With digital its just to easy to shoot, shoot, and shoot, then veiw and delete, delete, delete. Inserting my memory card in my computer is not as fun as getting that roll developed.
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:22 am
"Soñar no cuesta nada" is a Spanish saying and means: dreaming doesn't cost anything. I personally do not understand why people still imagine, film is never going away; in the last five years at least 80% or more has disappeared; does anybody really believe, that in twenty years there is still film around? It's only a question of profit making; if there is not enough sale to cover film making costs and allowing somne profit, film disappears, and it will, period. No whining interests econocmic interests and no company will ever produce something unprofitable.
So stop whining and dreaming, reality is unavoidable. I am taking photos since half a century and am mighty happy to be able to live this only starting digital age, a huge advantage with tremendously more possiblities and advantages in photography, with ever better results - film already cannot match any quality factor of digital last generation cameras and this includes medium format (e.g. 50MB Hasselblad) the only exceptions are big formats yet (e.g. street posters) where you still have the size and resolution advantage of (big format) sheet film - but for how much time?
In Germany they are developing sensors a 1000x times more sensitive than the actual used ones.
Imagine the impact on cameras!
September 17th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
It's true "Soñar no cuesta nada" but you know film will still be around very little, but it will be around, just like printmaking. It's a fine art.
And besides with film you compose, you light, and you live with it, end of story. And you don't spend countless time in front of a computer trying to get the color right.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:30 am
There still is a large group of people around the world that uses film. Lomography has people logging in from all around the world. Lomography is a website that sells film cameras and many rare and expired films. To me using a digital camera ruins all the fun when taking pictures because you already know what the picture looks like when you take it. But when you get your film developed, its a surprise everytime. To see if the picture came out and whats on the next frame is most exciting part and the digital cameras just ruin it.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:26 am
There is no doubt that the masterpieces of photography are almost all on film and in black and white.
I have a photography manual with pictures made by Timelife photographers from 1975, all the pictures are shot on film and are outstanding examples of film art. I have yet to see any modern day photographer, using digital, who creates such atmosphere, mystery, wonder, depth and ( using a word I hate in its now daily use for everything) awe!
Having said that, we run exclusively with a Nikon range of digital that meet all of our needs professionally, with alacrity.
I can't see a change back happening; only that digital will go on improving. It is after all the person behind the camera not th equipment itself. If you have no eye for composition than no camera will help film or otherwise.
Thanks for my negative comments to a positive enlightenment. The Baldchemist
January 5th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
The big change in my mindset came when National Geographic changed to digital photography. I now shoot film for fun/hobby but shoot digital professionally since there is so much at risk and human nature just forces clients to blink, twitch and create professional challenges. With digital, what you see is what you get and most people are satisfied with that in this busy world.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
I use both film and digital and found both to work well with me.
I use digital for event work where time is of the essence and no one's looking for "fine art" quality images; and I use my digital point & shoot to take with me on the street and on holiday. This is where, to me, digital has it's strengths.
Film is greater for fine-art or outdoor imagery where I have time to seriously compose and shoot. Eventhough I've used digital as well, film's more forgiving than digital and has greater density than what's on a sensor. Plus you still have greater resolution with higher speeds on film than with digital.
I don't see the "demise" of film as many feel. Kodak and Fuji still have their yellow and green boxes. Toy cameras are still being made. Digital will get better in time, but not in the immediate future.
The final analysis is really the person behind the camera; whether shooting digital and/or film. God gave you the best photographic gear you'll ever have: creativity with eyes and brain.
'Nuff said!
May 16th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
16 1350MAY2009
Have been using Nikon F since mid 1970s, owned a Bronica ETRS system in the 80s, sold it..
Went to Nikon D40 and D300 when they first came out. Shoot a few portraits and weddings now and then.
Recently felt my work was missing something. Purchased a Bronica ETRS system on E-Bay, a Nikon N80, and a Beseler 23CII enlarger, all very cheap.
I notice on a roll of 120mm with 15 shots I get about 10 keepers. My technique slows down when using film. After making my first "silver gelatin" prints on the enlarger I am again hooked again on black and white printing.
I think after I retire from the Army next year, that I can differentiate my work from the digital competitors. I suspect I will shoot weddings mostly digital, with some MF film for the formals which are most likely to make 16x20 prints for hanging.
Purchased a Seal 210M dry mount press from Craig's List, can now shoot, develop, print, and mat my own prints, very satisfying.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I have a Canon G10 and Nikon D3, and the quality generated by both of these cameras still does not compare to my trustworthy F100 Nikon film camera. I still shoot all of my weddings on film, and the quality of the shots cannot be compared to those shot on digital.
I don't understand the mega pixel comparision with digital and film. Even the highest quality digital camera that produces 50mb images, is still only capable of capturing 256 colors, while film can capture millions. That right there should tell you something.