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!