In the commercial photography world, fashion, advertising, etc, does experience with film cameras and the darkroom matter? Will a photographer be considered more skilled if he knows how to use fully manual cameras, develop film, make wet prints, even if asked to do everything digitally, or is simply just ignored?
It seems that in those sectors, the photographer just presses the shutter in the fully automatic camera while the art director, photoshop guy and assistants do all the real work.
Do modern commercial photographers know their fstops and exposure techniques?
Does analog experience give you any sort of advantage?
__________________
aristotelis grammatikakis www.arigram.gr black & white film is sexy
My clients all want digital images and they all wanted to see my portfolio or needed to know that I had the skills/eye/creativity to do the job. There are a few publications still standing that prefer transparencies and the odd client who wants something only film can do, but no one has ever asked me if I could operate a manual camera of if I knew how to develop or print my film. They have asked if I could remove the fire hydrant in PS or add a light or some other similar digital only item.
Up until recently I only shot film and the use of digital in more recent work has, I believe benefited by that experience and knowledge. Film to me is an artistic medium, commercial work is about production first and art second, 3rd or even further down the list if it exists at all.
the only clients that i have that care whether or not
i can operate a manual camera and do wet darkroom work
are those who need archival prints. while they aren't commecial clients
( advertising &C ), but archives/ library of congress/ HABS/HAER ...
that being said, some of the states now, ask if i can do d- and
inky prints ...
There are still a lot of commercial shooters using film, and I would say the better ones certainly know their f-stops and shutter speeds. And understand the properties of different films. I think the best ones would know there way around photoshop, too... but not to "fix" things, but to use it as a creative tool. And I'd agree with John, knowledge of film, processing, and the darkroom will lend itself well to mastering photoshop. And knowledge is a good thing when you want to make it in as competitive a world as commercial photography is.
In the commercial world, the clients have for the most part been conditioned by marketing. Most erroneously believe anything with the word digital in it must be the best because thats what the salesmen have been beating their heads with. It's almost to the point of brainwashing. OTO, beyond that, they largely don't worry about the tech at all, and assume you as a professional will do what is needed and best for their project.
However, many of them are now used to leaving a studio session with their shots on a disk, ready to go to the graphics people. If you have a project with them, that is just begging for film, they need to know there is some turnaround.
FWIW Arri, I have never gotten a job off my resume, not once, they simply aren't interested in where you went to school or what camera you use. They want to see the portfolio. If it has tear sheets of famous people, and hopefully, a shot like what they want (no matter how simple or stupid) they will hire you. If you wish to be successful as a commercial photographer, knowing what you are doing, no matter the medium, is still very relevant. Non of my pure digital qualified competition shoots on "auto" They mostly know what they are doing, shoot RAW, and know how to light. We all face competition from the "button idiots" but you generally don't want the clients that are happy with that level of work, and it trades on price alone.
Food, and anything black and white are the easiest up-sells to film.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
Iw'll try to write while I am burning with fever.
It sounds dissapointing.
I have close to twenty years experience with computer graphics, yeah
when I was a kid I had a C64 with a graphic tablet.
I bought DigiView for my Amiga and had the most powerful Amiga in Greece for sure.
Before Photoshop 3.5 I used many other graphic programs, 2D, 3D, animation.
I studied Computer Animation and Multimedia in Pittsburgh but gave up on my "Dream" to
be an animator because it sucked.
After Photoshop I have been learning FOSS programs. I am skilled in many.
But I don't want to do that.
I like film and my Hasselblads and BW and everything.
I though I could curve my own destiny, make art with my photography,
even if it was fashion and advertising and distance myself from the digital cheapo masses.
I see their work in greek magazines and photo stores and its awful.
Oh well.
I guess there is no place for me in the real world.
__________________
aristotelis grammatikakis www.arigram.gr black & white film is sexy
It's not the equipment they use, and if it is a awful as you say, it's not the skill set. So, you have the skill set and the equipment, so you have to ask yourself what is it?
I can tell you, but you already know. We've talked about it. So go do it. Maybe you'll get Greek hate mail, and some monopoly money.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
Recently I've been offering the "traditional" experience to folks for whom I make portraits. I've gotten some good bites from people who want to set themselves apart from the digi-snapping masses. I sell them the square Hassleblad, or vintage press camera, or ultimate 8x10 experience. They seem to enjoy the attention and the process and the thought that they're getting something most people aren't – a handmade object, like a fine piece of cabinetry.
That being said, it's not exactly commercial work and it's not exactly making me rich either.
Analog experience in the commercial world 
Linear Mode
