46. Started with film and motion picture film. Shot a bunch of b movies on 16 and 35mm. Expanded into commercial still photography when I got tired of the movie biz. At the time it was still all film, and digital was an expensive joke. Gradually incorporated digital as client (agency) demand dictated. Still offer clients both formats. Majority of food still shot on film (4x5), it's a reputation thing.
Catalog work and web work has of course gone all digital.I have found offering clients a choice is good business no matter what they choose, but my clients (agency art directors, etc.) are generally more sophisticated photography wise than if I did portraits, etc. I have dabbled in portraits/weddings that and found the client taste to be rather cheap and pedestrian, but that may just be the market I'm in. I did find the efficiency aspect of computer imaging to be superior, meaning throughput ability, but as it evolved people expected more for less, so it became sort of a wash, again, my market, being full of unsophisticated soccer mom "photographers" and other unwitting competing money losers is I feel a large part of the culprit. I learned to virtually ignore messages from client direct that asked prices before even speaking in person.
Almost everything I do for creative expression is shot on film, but that is because I consider myself a printer when it comes to analog first and foremost, and I get little satisfaction from making inkjet prints from an art and craft aspect. I have never been impressed with persons who cite technical "quality" as a decision maker, because both formats are adequate in the hands of a talented and trained person. I strive for "qualities" instead. Digi processes to create prints that mimic analog leave me absolutely bored to mononucleosis like levels. I like working with my hands and "making" something, rather than a process I "guide" while something else does the work. If that doesn't make sense it simply means your brain is different than mine, nothing more. I simply have preferences, not convictions. People who try to argue me out of my analog preference might as well try and convince me that I like brussel sprouts and dislike female breasts, so unless I suffer a blow to the head I'll continue to shoot film whenever requested or preferred.
I feel this sentiment of mine is the main reason I and most people continue with film, why film will continue as a viable product albiet on a reduced level from past choices, and why debate or worry, particularly on APUG, is rather inane.
Last edited by JBrunner; 06-13-2012 at 03:39 PM. Click to view previous post history.
46. I started in college in my 20's when I took photography as an elective. Got hooked (having Keith Carter for my prof didn't hurt!). Stayed until I had my masters.
Now I infect young minds in the college classroom. Thanks to supportive administrators, we have a newly remodeled darkroom (from 7 to now 18 enlargers), larger classes that fill up, and new film users of all ages, but mostly in their early 20s.
"So I am turning over a new leaf but the page is stuck". Diane Arbus
26, and started in about 2001 with my dad's AE-1. I think he started me thinking about film; loved Kodachrome, never shot Ektachrome, and I'm grateful to have many slide carousels of he and my mom's early vacations before the kids.
I've always been interested in photography as I've seen it in museums. In those places, analog still rules, and that level of quality has always enticed me.
I'll gladly buy a digital SLR when I can have one that handles exactly like a 60s/70s SLR. Shutter speed dial, aperture ring on lens, manual focusing, simple meter.
24 - been shooting film on and off for 3 years. Currently using my Canon 60D as a light meter and 'sketch pad'!
Bought a Hasselblad in 2009 after being inspired by David Ward's landscape work - wanted to go LF, but settled for the happy medium.
I was enamored with transparency for a while, but only made the occasional image while at university.
It's only been since graduating last year that I've been taking photography seriously - which very much means shooting film.
Unfortunately, I'm spending far too much time thinking photography than making images at the moment.
For financial and motivational reasons, it's been tough to get out and put the hours in.
Trying to sell my little used Zeiss 250mm Sonnar (Hasselblad) in order to fund a CLA for my 80mm and back. Then I hope to get working on a project.
If anyone is in the market for the lens, please PM me.
They're great - and they come from Brussels, not Brussel!
Originally Posted by JBrunner
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
No help for this cause from me directly - I'm 48 and got into photography at about age 10 or 11 (forget exactly) - developed my first film at 12 or 13 I think. The memory is still very vivid but the date and my age are not.
My wife is 33 and loves that I do film and emphasize craft and process, though. She's pretty connected to some of the art scene here in Atlanta having attended Oglethorpe and her best friend being an MFA and working artist. Most of her art friends are also intrigued or at least quite understanding that I prefer film, at least the three I've met.
We have a friend who's 29 who has become fascinated with film and came over this past weekend to sit in on a (unfortunately way too short) printing session. She has some kind of AF wunderplastik Canon 35mm camera, and had been at a weekend convention shooting color neg. I gave her a roll of Tri-X (well, Arista branded Tri-X) and told her to shoot it, have fun, and I'd show her how to develop and proof it and eventually print from it.
The majority of younger folks don't seem to really understand the appeal, and that's ok and frankly to be expected. What I do find encouraging is that a very sizable minority DO find it appealing, and seemingly beyond the "it's different and retro" way.
I'm 40. I've always been somewhat interested in photography and artistic in nature, but all I was given as a kid was a pocket 110 and a Polaroid One-Step, neither of which enticed me. Although I got my first digi-snapper in the early 2000s, it wasn't until I had a sort of mid-life crisis in 2008 that I decided to pursue it seriously. I nearly went back to college for it, but the local college bureaucracy was crushing and I figured I could do better by keeping my day job and using the money to buy gear and books. I did just that, my husband helped me to buy a Nikon D80, and I taught myself the basics. I thought I would never have a need to venture into film.
Before long, though, I figured I should give myself an honest college sort of education, and teach myself film and darkroom, which I did in early 2010. I haven't looked back. It was like I was internally daring myself to push further and further. First I taught myself to shoot 35mm and 120. Then came developing B&W. Then came developing color. Then came shooting large format. Then came enlarging and printing! Now I'm hearing the siren's call of alternative processes. I still shoot digital for much of my color work and for instances where I have to land the shot, but shoot film for everything else, including my own personal artistic expression. I find it so much more satisfying. I've dumped the "professional" photo magazines and the gear-based digital magazines, and now subscribe to and read Aperture, American Photo, and other magazines that stress the image instead of wanking over the latest technology.
23....became fairly fanatical about the chemical processes in early high school and loved the aesthetic of BW. I think I have a soft spot for nostalgia (I am quite the luddite most the time).
After experimenting with lots of cameras and gear (including some digital), I realized less is more and simplified all of my processes to focus more on the images themselves and now have 1 4x5, two MF, and 3 35mm.
That said, darkroom BW and lith is blast because it's so peaceful and creative. I do believe that alt-processes will survive healthily because of digital negs. Printing PT/PD and other styles with digi negs is great fun and the quality is excellent--all without the need of a giant camera. I think our generation will usher in a few masters of those techniques.
6 cameras in three formats - and you call that simplifying? I guess with only two cameras altogether, I'm a simpleton.
Originally Posted by Klainmeister
...and yes, I'm a little bit bitter.
Well, yes I think so. Each camera has a very specific purpose too. But really, the simplification came in process more than gear: I stick to 2 films for BW and 1 for color. One developer. Papers change depending on subject. But ya, that's somewhat simple I think....
Originally Posted by batwister