# How often do commercial photographers use digital?



## Dacino (Aug 25, 2010)

I have an idea that has not been attempted.  It could greatly help out professional photographers that shoot digital.  My question is out of all the photographers that shoot for magazines and before and after pictures for products(weight loss, acne), what percentage use digital?  Examples of magazines are anything from People, Enquirer, National Geographic.  I am slowly looking into the idea and don't want to share quite yet.

THANKS ALOT FOR ANY INPUT!!


----------



## AdrianC (Aug 25, 2010)

I'm pretty sure almost no one shoots film any more, if thats what you wanted to know.


----------



## Dacino (Aug 25, 2010)

Thats what I was wondering.  Thanks!


----------



## ann (Aug 26, 2010)

most commerical shoots these days are digital for the client, but many still use film for themselves and have even been known to sell the client on film


----------



## Mustlovedragons (Aug 26, 2010)

The 3 magazines, one newspaper and 3000 or so product shots I've done for website catalogues have all been digital format. I can't talk about those (thousands) with more skill than me but I would imagine pretty much everything (not all) is geared for digital these days.


----------



## KmH (Aug 26, 2010)

Few commercial clients still accept images on film.

Arizona Highways was one of, if not the last magazine, to abandon film and only accept digital image files.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 26, 2010)

Arizona Highways had a small, inbred list of shooters who supplied them with images...their magazine was so stale and repetitive that all one needed were the issues from 1980 to 1990...it got to be merely the same old $hi+, issue after issue....I got sick of reading it,and cancelled my subscription years ago...

Their dinosaur-like refusal to accept digital images was humorous (in the sad, pathetic way) to watch. The death of film among top shooters meant that the editors at AH had to step outside their comfort circle and accept work from more than a handful of shooters...


----------



## John27 (Sep 7, 2010)

Anymore, the advantages of shooting digital go way beyond just the convenience.  The quality is better, it is phenomenally more economical, you can get the same effects of using film using the right digital SLR, and even the point and shoots are starting to see some amazing quality images.

Really, you have to ask yourself why shoot film?  For sentimental/purist reasons?  Fine, but not on a commercial scene, something just to do for fun I guess.  The college I attend teaches exclusively film, no digital classes (digital editing yes), but they require the students to have a 35mm film SLR and a couple lenses, and learn to develop their own film.  It's utterly pointless.  Any of them who intend to have a photography career will be immensly underqualified and underprepared.  They won't keep their head above water if they use film because it will be costing them more money, AND their shots won't be as good.  On top of that, since they can't use / aren't taught anything on the digital side of things they aren't going to be prepared to work in a competitive market.  It's ridiculous and my college is certainly not the only one who does that.  They say everything you learn in your first year is obsolete by your fourth, so whatsup with using a hundred-year old and ten year obsolete technology?

However, that is your film SLR market.  College kids buying cheap film SLR's to get through their photography classes.  They do learn composition and what not, and alot of useful skills, but techniques specific to DSLR they will learn on their own.  Not to mention they won't get to carry over any of their college equipment investment (though some schools loan out cameras and lenses), a friend of mine just sold 5 old film SLRs he had on campus like that, they all need 'em.


----------



## SanDC (Sep 7, 2010)

I think National Geographic still only uses film. Sometimes they have digital photography competitions, but when shooting for the magazine I think that film is required.  I guess it is to keep it authentic, or keep the same look...i dont know.  but maybe the rules have changed.


----------



## epp_b (Sep 7, 2010)

> I think National Geographic still only uses film.


No, definitely not.  Though, I wouldn't be surprised if they still had a few film shooters kicking around.


----------



## Overread (Sep 8, 2010)

I think they hung onto film possibly a little longer than some other to preserve the authenticity of film shots over digital (trying to ride out the "you can photoshop it all" wave) but I'm sure that now they are using both film and digital and I greatly suspect that its the end product and not the medium its produced upon that is important to them (as well as of course ensuring that the end product is authentic and not over edited)


----------



## ann (Sep 8, 2010)

i need to go find an article that was recently published about this very thing with interviews from photographers using both.


----------



## flea77 (Sep 8, 2010)

John27 said:


> Anymore, the advantages of shooting digital go way beyond just the convenience.  The quality is better, it is phenomenally more economical, you can get the same effects of using film using the right digital SLR, and even the point and shoots are starting to see some amazing quality images.
> 
> Really, you have to ask yourself why shoot film?  For sentimental/purist reasons?  Fine, but not on a commercial scene, something just to do for fun I guess.  The college I attend teaches exclusively film, no digital classes (digital editing yes), but they require the students to have a 35mm film SLR and a couple lenses, and learn to develop their own film.  It's utterly pointless.  Any of them who intend to have a photography career will be immensly underqualified and underprepared.  They won't keep their head above water if they use film because it will be costing them more money, AND their shots won't be as good.  On top of that, since they can't use / aren't taught anything on the digital side of things they aren't going to be prepared to work in a competitive market.  It's ridiculous and my college is certainly not the only one who does that.  They say everything you learn in your first year is obsolete by your fourth, so whatsup with using a hundred-year old and ten year obsolete technology?
> 
> However, that is your film SLR market.  College kids buying cheap film SLR's to get through their photography classes.  They do learn composition and what not, and alot of useful skills, but techniques specific to DSLR they will learn on their own.  Not to mention they won't get to carry over any of their college equipment investment (though some schools loan out cameras and lenses), a friend of mine just sold 5 old film SLRs he had on campus like that, they all need 'em.



Haven't been shooting long have you? 

The only things that does not carry over from film to digital is actually loading the film in the camera. ISO still works the same, focus, depth of field, shutter speed, aperture, lighting, yada yada yada.

Quality is better? I'll put my MF, LF and even my 35mm rangefinder against your digital any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. And if we are talking B&W, some of my customer get very excited when I tell them I only do B&W on film because they agree that film looks better than digital for that (their words, not mine). I can get over 14MP from Ilford Delta film on a good 35mm camera. 

Cheaper? I can get a film camera, load it with Delta 100 and have a 35mm SLR at about 14MP for about $100 off ebay. What does a 14MP DSLR cost? If I bulk load I can get a 36 exposure roll for about $3 and process it myself for like $1. 

I wont disagree digital has some great advantages and I have a lot of digital equipment, and it is my primary working equipment. But you seem to be trying to compare current DSLRs to 110 pocket cameras or something.

Allan


----------



## Overread (Sep 8, 2010)

also don't forget that film still has the dynamic range advantage over digital - digital sensors are getting better, but they are not quite yet at the range that film can achieve (at least in the commercial 35mm market - large formate digital sensors might be, but even for working pros many of them are still far to expensive to justify the upgrade


----------



## Buckster (Sep 8, 2010)

The thing about learning on a film camera is that you really have to learn about everything to pull it off without wasting a ton of time and money. You have to really understand before you press the trigger what it is you're about to capture, how, and why. It forces you to think about each shot, to be selective about what you're shooting and how and why. You have to understand what you're doing enough to pre-visualise the results.

You take notes about your shots, and have to wait to see the results, even if you develop them yourself. You're limited to how many shots you can take before you have to change out your film, and since each one has a dollar amount attached to it, you learn to be more selective and concentrated on each.

With digital, there's a tendency to use a shotgun approach. Just shoot at every aperture and shutter speed and with every lens you have at your disposal, then choose a keeper or two from maybe hundreds of shots, without really understanding or caring what made those particular keepers work. Instant review means shooting hundreds of photos one after another doesn't require much thought at all, especially since it won't cost a penny more to do so. You can throw out 10,000 photos without blinking an eye because it didn't cost a single extra dime.

I love what digital allows me to achieve. But still, there's something to be said for forcing photography students to learn with film, IMHO. It forces them to actually take the time and make the effort to truly understand it all at a gut level until it becomes instinctual, and the knowledge and understanding gained from the process is the very best foundation for an aspiring photographer to build upon.


----------



## ann (Sep 8, 2010)

here is one link, it isn't the one i read last week but another
Associated Press: Shutterbugs Ditching Digital For Film  The Phoblographer


----------



## epp_b (Sep 8, 2010)

> ...but there is a *recent trend* of shooting with film again...


Aaaand, there you have it.  It's _trendy_ and that's why most people are doing it.  That's what hipsters do: follow the trends like zombies follow living people for flesh.

EDIT: I just watched that video.  It's hipster crappery everywhere.  Avoid like the plague.


----------



## ann (Sep 8, 2010)

well that may be true of this link, but not the other one.

and digital wasn"t a trend a few years ago?


----------



## magkelly (Sep 8, 2010)

I mostly agree with this as someone who had to step backwards to be able to afford to learn more advanced techniques. I do believe I really started learning when I got my first SLR. The process and the cost has definitely slowed me down and made me think more, using film. But that being said I don't know that had I gotten a DSLR already I wouldn't have been able to say the same thing. I might not be shooting quite so carefully, so few shots, I think, but in the end it's definitely been the process of changing out lenses and coping with figuring out the correct settings and all with them that's really been most helpful to this stage of my development as a photographer. Using film is interesting and even satisfying in some way I can't really explain, but I still don't think I'd turn ever down a DSLR just to shoot film cameras. I want to do both. They both have their advantages and disadvantages, and I think I can learn from either process really. 





Buckster said:


> The thing about learning on a film camera is that you really have to learn about everything to pull it off without wasting a ton of time and money. You have to really understand before you press the trigger what it is you're about to capture, how, and why. It forces you to think about each shot, to be selective about what you're shooting and how and why. You have to understand what you're doing enough to pre-visualise the results.
> 
> You take notes about your shots, and have to wait to see the results, even if you develop them yourself. You're limited to how many shots you can take before you have to change out your film, and since each one has a dollar amount attached to it, you learn to be more selective and concentrated on each.
> 
> ...


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 8, 2010)

Overread said:


> also don't forget that film still has the dynamic range advantage over digital - digital sensors are getting better, but they are not quite yet at the range that film can achieve...



I've wondered about this...  the dynamic range.  Does anyone know about how it shakes out in printing?  Paper has a lesser range than film.  Has modern sensor caught up to the dynamic range of papers?

The thing for me is...  I'm not making many conventional prints these days.  Since most of my stuff is commercial, it goes to the printer for color seps.  But for those portraits I _am_ making, I often feel there's something "off" when I get the prints from the lab.  I dunno.  Maybe it's just the power of suggestion.

-Pete


----------



## epp_b (Sep 8, 2010)

> and digital wasn"t a trend a few years ago?


No, digital was just a logical evolution of camera technology.  Sure, it helped popularize photography because the accessibility it provided, but I wouldn't call it a trend.

Thankfully, all those hipsters running around and getting in the way with their kit-lensed Rebels are losing interest because they never had any interest to begin with.

I use digital because it works for me.  If digital didn't exist and I needed to use film, I'd do that instead.



> also don't forget that film still has the dynamic range advantage over  digital - digital sensors are getting better, but they are not quite yet  at the range that film can achieve...


This only applies to print / negative film.  Slide film and digital are more comparable, in terms of dynamic range.



> Does anyone know about how it shakes out in printing?  Paper has a lesser range than film.


I think it's a matter of dodging and burning the film until you get the DR within the range of the paper and ink.


----------



## flea77 (Sep 8, 2010)

Overread said:


> also don't forget that film still has the dynamic range advantage over digital - digital sensors are getting better, but they are not quite yet at the range that film can achieve (at least in the commercial 35mm market - large formate digital sensors might be, but even for working pros many of them are still far to expensive to justify the upgrade



I would agree that film has better dynamic range, especially in B&W. Large format sensors may have better dynamic range than small ones (honestly I don't know) but then they have to contend against large format film. If you have ever seen a large format contact print, well, it will take your breath away.

Then again photography has never really been about the best result, it is always been "acceptable" results, speed, cost and convenience. If that were not the case no portrait photographer would ever use anything smaller than an 8x10 view camera if they were delivering 8x10 prints. 

Allan


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 8, 2010)

flea77 said:


> Then again photography has never really been about the best result, it is always been "acceptable" results, speed, cost and convenience.



Ain't it the truth!  And in this digital age, the bar keeps getting set lower and lower.  And I'm not talking about only the image quality, but also the composition.  It's my observation since digital imaging is less forgiving than negative film, the camera exposure technology had to become better and better until SLR cameras have become glorified point-and-shoots, making it easy for virtually anyone to achieve "acceptable" results.

-Pete


----------

