2. Occasionally, always on film only
3. Started photographing in 1968
4. SLR (Minolta, Leitz, ZeissIkon) and rangefinder (Konica) 35 mm
5. Only black and white, colour goes to pro lab
6. I strongly dislike digital "photography". For me it is a symbol of our superficial, instant-gratification society and "enhancing" images in photoshop :sick: a sign of cultural degradation. I even avoid autofocus. Photography is a craft and in some cases (not mine) an art, not a "computer skill".
7. Only thing digital can do better is a) cheaply and quickly producing a surge of images for instant consumption and b) some sorts of scientific imaging
8. If photographing on film became impossible (horrible thought), I would have to stop doing it. Making digital images is not photography for me.
10. not applicable
11. If I was less poor, could afford to buy films, paper and chemicals
The original assumption in this survey is wrong. There is no such thing as "digital photography". It is digital picture-making. Photography is, always was, and always will be the making of pictures out of light sensitive materials. The use of the qualifier "analog" is redundant. Just say photography.
1. Older male.
2. Shoot professionally? Not any more. Now I do photographs that no professional can afford to do and stay in business. Subjects? Anything with metaphoric value rather than merely illustrative.
3. When did you start shooting? I didn't start by shooting. Making photographs came in 1969. Camera-work started later.
4. What equipment? Mainly 8x10, sometimes 4x5, occasionally rollfilm in a SLR or TLR.
5. Developing methods? Traditional darkroom techniques. All photographs are made by me, start to finish, and in full, by my own hand.
6. Why do you shoot analogically? Photographs have an authority to depict subject matter based not on resemblance but on physical causation. Nothing else, not painting or drawing, not digital, has this authority.
7. Are there any particular subjects that you think that analogue photography is particularly suitable for? Yes, real things illuminated by light. Definitely no good for fictions, fudges, or fabrications. That's what digital is for.
8. Will you continue to shoot analogically in the future? Making pictures out of light sensitive substances is specifically what I do. The world is already glutted with digipix I'm not really interested in adding to or looking at.
11. Is there anything that could make you photograph analogically even more? Longer life!
There are still some very viable niches where film can do well, IMO.
There are a variety of very successful people who use film, here are a couple examples.
A few of the advantages of film is that it is forgiving, produces beautiful work, and getting professional backend work done is simple and no more expensive than hiring digital backend work done, just drop the film in the post or at the lab and it comes back ready to show the client.
The basic thing film needs to be viable in a business plan is just a little time, just enough time to run through the lab after the shoot and get back before the sales appointment.
Wedding photography is conducive to this type of two appointment strategy, portrait work can also work well, anything in the fine art range of work too. A great historical example of this business model is Henri Cartier-Bresson.
1. Male, 42 years old
2. I worked at all the levels of industry , 100000 prints with semiautomatic machine in 33 days , prepress , press industry.
3. My first camera was a Kodak Instamatic at 1978.
4. Only Leica
5. B&W Color since 1991.
6. I am finding with Leica a bridge between all classical painting , sculpture and me. If I could not be able to find that quality with photography , I would pass.
7. An well used German Summicron is a gate to Velasquez , Rembrandt and Da Vinci.
8. If they develop the same lens of 80 years old Leica and record 200 gigabyte files in one shot for 250 dollars camera , I would switch to digital.
9. 100 percent film
10. Above camera for 250 dollars
11. Alternative Processes
Hi Heli, wecome to APUG. I'm glad you posted your survey and think it's great that you considered analog photography for your project. Good luck with it!
1. Age and gender
2. Do you shoot professionally (digital and/or analog)? What subjects do you shoot in that case?
3. When did you start shooting analogically, and when did you start photographing (if you started out with digital photography)?
Then digital from 2008
Then analog again from 2012
4. What equipment (camera) do you use? If you use multiple cameras, you can write down all of them and which one you use the most.
Bronica ETRSi medium format (serious work)
Nikon D5000 (snapshots)
5. Do you develop your film yourself, and what technique do you use in that case?
B&W using Ilford ID-11 in a Paterson tank.
6. Why do you shoot analogically and what benefits do you think there is with analogue photography? Feel free to respond as fully as possible on this matter. For example, if you shoot analogically because of the appearance of the photos, please describe specifically what it is in the look that you like, etc. If there are many different reasons, please write down all.[/B] (This is the most important question)
Because I can get better B&W prints from film than from digital for same effort and cost. Better tonality and finer detail, without the colour cast you sometimes get when printing digital. And I can take full control over all aspects of the print myself, without having some bored kid or software algorithm crop or adjust the exposure or contrast to "improve it".
Because I work with computers all day and like to be able to take a break from them, and love using solidly built mechanical cameras.
Because analogue encourages me to take more time and make better photographs. It's just a state of mind.
Because I can buy "new" equipment from time to time without feeling too guilty about the cost.
7. Are there any particular subjects that you think that analogue photography is particularly suitable for, respectively not suitable for?
Analog is not great for high ISO and action. I mostly use analog for landscapes.
8. Will you continue to shoot analogically in the future?
Yes, although not necessarily exclusively.
If you also shoot digitally:
9. Approximately how much of your photography do you estimate that you shoot analogically?
About 10% of my photographs.
About 90% of my worthwhile photographs.
10. What is it that makes you not photograph only analogically?
Digital is more convenient for family pics that get emailed to relatives or when the end use is low resolution web display.
11. Is there anything that could make you photograph analogically even more?
More time and opportunity in beautiful places. Fewer distractions from work and family commitments.
66 nearly retired and Analog for the care it takes, digital for the file it makes.
The OP with the "survey" hasn't logged into the site since three days after it was posted. I will leave it going in case others find the information interesting, but please note that this appears to be the Internet version of the Flying Dutchman.
For whatever it's worth...
Heli Lehtonen Design
(Click on 'About')
(Google Swedish-to-English translation)
Thanks to everyone who have answered in the thread or sent messages, it means a lot. The project was put on ice for a few months because of work, but now I'm back on track and finishing the last pieces. It wasn't my intention to be a "Flying Dutchman" at all. Unfortunately the paper is written in Swedish, so I'm afraid it won't be of any interest for anyone here(?), but if you have any questions about the project you're very welcome to send me a message, and maybe I'll be able to answer it!
Maybe you could post a short summary in English here?
Originally Posted by HeliLehtonen