Are You Still Using Film vs. Digital ?

Of those of you who have gone digital, how many still have and use film format cameras, whether it be 35mm, medium format, or larger ? And if you use film for some work, is there a reason why you might not use digital. I do understand anything larger than MF of course, resolution and sharp image are the reason.
I haven't convinced myself as yet to give up MF at least for some portrait work I do. I just seem to have a preference to the color and range of tone it gives over digital for portraits. This may change if my Photoshop skills improve. My 35mm gear sees little use except to act as a third contingency backup during important events.

I still shoot all my weddings with film (35mm). I'm slowly adding a few digital shots into the mix but 99% is still film and I dont see that changing any time soon.

Tom

right now all my paid gigs are from digital. Only personal work are still shooting with Slide film. Wedding Couples have asked for films and not digital.. but I normally tired to convince them to using digital by showing them some enlargements 20x24 on Canvas Mount Framed and other prints in person. I also tell them that i charge ALOT more if films are being use.

Keep 'em both around.

Right, or at least preferred tool, for the job at hand.

Digi and film have their pluses and minuses.

You could go off of someones recommendation, but from your post you seem a skeptic about abandoning film. A VERY POSITIVE THING!!!!

I say keep using both untill you are convinced from YOUR OWN OBERVATION AND EXPERIENCE that digital is the way to go, exclusively.

Personally I like your comment....

"I just seem to have a preference to the color and range of tone it gives over digital for portraits."

outside classes at school, 100% digital

but if im doing a lot of black and white I def pack the 35mm in the bag

Too many evaluate on basis of 'resolution' only...that's a bit like only looking at the issue of graininess of film enlargments. The reproduction of the same subject with more grains or color clouds or pixels in order to achieve superior range in tonality gets overlooked too often in the MF vs. DSLR articles. A MF slide projected to same size as 35mm slide gets more oohs and aahs, and I think it is because of the tonality improvement that comes with larger formats.
Besides, I spend less time if I send a portrait negative out for commercial lab retouching, compared to the time I spend at the computer doing it in Photoshop, and if I do it in Photoshop it prevents me from making more money on another shoot! I don't care about the cost of commercial retouching of negatives, because the client merely ends up with it all in his bill (not further markeed up by me)! If I do the retouching, or hire someone to do it for me, in Photoshop, it is harder to justify the validity of my fees to the client, than merely saying "That's what the lab charges me, so I'm passing it on".

Oh, yeah...what I read in another thread...

If you're shooting a wedding, carrying a Medium Format camera immediately identifies you as 'the pro' and everyone immediately behaves accordingly. If I had my DSLR, I look no different that every other well-off hobbyist with a DSLR who is a guest, and it's harder to get things to happen they way I want them to happen in getting all the photos with minimal interference from guests!

i use film for personal pleasure anymore... my eos a2 has had 3 rolls of film thru it in the last 2 years, they were all done 3 weeks ago when my g/f assisted me at a wedding.

ive started to really like rangefinders and shoot a konica c35 and just picked up a rollei 35, and bought a yashica mat 124g 6x6 tlr not long ago from a potn member here

I disagree, not completely though. You are right in one case, you do look like everyone except I have learned to get around this by doing a couple of easy things like adding a battery grip, a quick flip for the flash and cord. Wha la... your a pro with a DSLR. I did 46 weddings last year completely digital for the first time ever... let people say what they will, shoot, let the guest say what they will, but in the long run, who's getting paid for the gig... you are. Another quick referance... here in Fresno there is a paticular Pro who is EXTREMELY good at her job. She is strictly a wedding photographer who shoots a Contax 645 Medium Format. I sub-contracted with her all last year as well to help her out and I shot completely digital... just last weekend I worked on a job with her and guess what, she now owns 5 20d's and only shot 3 rolls of medium format for the B&G formals only. Oh yeah, she said she would never go digital....hmmmmm.

I'm all digital at the moment and don't see changing back to film in my lifetime.
Film is great and Leica's are apart of my anatomy BUT.....
The way I like to work is to blend into the crowd. I don't want to look like a pro, I want to dissapear from that stigma. At a wedding, I look like any other guest but the important people know that I am the photographer hired to do the event. Everybody kinda lets me go like any other guest.
A good photograph should read well without the photographer's presence in the image. A good photographer knows how to blend in and let the image get captured without any interference from him/her self. At the moment, for me, digital does this better than my Leica's.
On the processing side, it's a no brainer...digital is much more efficent than film. I have a world class darkroom and alot of great photographers have printed in it over the years, but now, even most of those great photographers are using digital. so, to answer your question again.....for me, film is a relic, my Leica's are sold, my 8 x 10 Deardorff is sold, my darkroom is asleep and resting, and I'm using a few 20d's........My darkroom is now a mac and I will now dissapear in the crowd again and make images.....digitally..​.........later, don

After getting my first digital some year ago, I haven't worked with my four film cameras anymore. There are still days I remember lovely wet lab scents and the magic when image is emerging on the paper ...

Olli

Digital uses less chemicals than film, so I prefer it as being the Earth friendly alternative.

>>Digital uses less chemicals than film, so I prefer it as being the Earth
friendly alternative.<<

If you ever saw the chemicals and quantities involved with fabrication of semiconductor devices, you would be appaled at how many toxic things which are employed in order to make the LCD, CMOS chip and all the supporting semiconductors that are contained within your camera! My first job out of college was a supervisor in a semiconductor fabrication plant, and in every department I supervised there were countless chemicals being used...acids, poisons, petrochemicals, you name it! (The mildest was 100% isopropyl alcohol, which you could use as rubbing alcohol if you diluted it enough!)

I believe you! But do think those are more harmful than all of the chemicals I would be using for developing the thousands of images I take? I guess it all depends on how the waste is treated...

just packed my camera bag for a trip im leaving for in a few hours, have the 10d and memory cards, a yashica mat 124g, rollei 35 and some e-100vs for both and some tmax 100 and 400 for both and a roll of acros 120 for the yashica... should b fun