[digitaldevo]

My Wife is and still shoots film. Pentax K1000, Chinon CP-5, Chinon CP-5s, and a Yashica GSN. Mostly Weddings and Portraiture.

[Dr_Watso]

I wouldn't mind going pro, heck, not at all. But people here are pretty much idiots (sorry, it's just the honest truth), and unless you've got a BIG camera (i.e. EOS 1D) with a BIG lens (i.e. EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM or similar), nobody is going to take you seriously.
And all the magazines and newspapers who are hiring don't even want to hear about film anymore.

What? Nobody cares what kind of camera you have, least of all clients. I've never even heard of a client asking... They pay you because you know about photography, not because you bought some stupidly expensive camera. As long as they don't need enlargements that are out of the camera's range, the rest depends on the photographer and their abilities paired with their artistic and experience level. I know several wedding photographers and even Ben K. on these boards who shoots fashion professionally with the k10d. I wouldn't count myself, but I've sold prints as well, and I use the dinky "little" k100d/istDL when I do digital. It might well be a worthwhile investment to buy a camera branded as "pro" for you, depending on what you plan to shoot, but it certainly shouldn't be a requirement.

I guess my point is, if you're relying on your big fancy camera to do your talking instead of your amazing finished portfolio, you're not the type of photographer I'd hire. Despite my curiousity on the matter, I wouldn't ask to see their tools, just the finished product they produce.

[Lowell Goudge]

In another post, complaining about stupidity, I used a rather old quote that applies equally here.

The intellegence of the world is a constant, the population is expanding

[G M Fude]

I sold my Pentax Z1 to a pro about 6 weeks ago. He had DSLRs but also a need for 35mm, and had his film Pentax stolen recently. Hence he snapped up my eBayed Z1. I should've asked him what film work he did.

The Z1 was still a great camera but I'm a hack photographer and waste lots of shots. With digital, doesn't really matter so much. I thought I read that low ISO 35mm film still has better resolution than all but the really best DSLRs?

[-=JoN=-]

pro's uses different bodies for different purposes..their work camera might differ from their play camera.....or they might just have multiple bodies...

I just saw a shot in outdoor photog. magazine that was shot w/ an Nikon F5...

[Canada_Rockies]

Of course we're lucky to have some pros hanging around, but the talk is mostly about digital or (rarely) MF.

Are there any working pros here who still shoot 35mm? Pentax or otherwise? What kinds of work do you shoot on 35? What's your favourite body/lens/stock?

Just curious

Dave

I still have Fujicolor 160 NPS in the freezer. I'm not a pro, but have been known to make a few dollars with a camera at weddings, and child photography. I have a newborn shoot coming up in early February, and I will be using the MZ-S, FA 24-90, AF500FTZ wired off camera, all on my trusty Manfrotto and its Benbo side kick for the flash. I will also be using strobes with umbrellas for fill, and Fuji NPS 160. I'll take a few shots with the k10d, but it will be tricky to get the subtle gradations of NPS with digital. Each film has a feel, and although I love my k10d, it isn't the best thing for skin tones.

[lithos]

I wouldn't call me pro, but for stuff I get paid for, I have shot film.

Yes, the big Canyon camera is what's needed to put you in the pro category in the eyes of the average Joe. Sad, but true.

And, yes, there's nothing digital alive that can come close to Reala, or Kodak Portra. I love Portra.

[stewart_photo]

What? Nobody cares what kind of camera you have, least of all clients. I've never even heard of a client asking... They pay you because you know about photography, not because you bought some stupidly expensive camera. (snip)

I agree entirely with this. I don't take my camera to meet potential clients and I've never once had a client ask about my camera. They often look out of curiosity during the shoot, and might casually discuss it there, but the topic rarely comes up before that. Far more often, I get clients asking in passing why their particular camera didn't work as expected in some situation ('what went wrong with this picture of aunt 'Betty' and can it be fixed').

Actually, when it comes to advertising, commercial, industrial, or similar photography (my specialities), photography rarely stands alone as the deciding factor anyway. A good portfolio might get you in the door, but landing the contract depends more on other factors - how well you get along with the client, whether the client believes you can handle the job, how well you understand the client's requirements, whether the client believes you can reliably deliver, whether the clients trusts you, whether the clients believes you can respect his privacy (will you keep your mouth shut about his business, his product, etc), whether the two parties can agree on price, and so on.

Notice the camera was not mentioned once in that last paragraph. When considering those things, the client just does not really care all that much about how you get the final product done and will often not even see the equipment, including camera, until the day of the shoot itself. And, to be honest, I don't care about the particular equipment (camera, lighting, etc) either. If I want that contract, I'll rent equipment, buy equipment, hire people, rent locations, or whatever it reasonably takes to get the job done. Brand name (Canon, Nikon, or whatever) just isn't a factor in all this.

stewart

[filmamigo]

Lots of interesting points.

By pro, I guess I mean anyone whose been paid -- for a fine art print, for a headshot session, for a wedding, for product photography, for fashion, for editorial, for PJ, whatever.

When I was in school I shot wedding videos. Clients occasionally asked directly about the camera, and there was an expectation that my equipment would be of a higher grade than their guests had. For still photography, that's really a slippery slope. I've been at weddings in the past year where the guests have Nikon D2xs and D200s.

Of course choice of camera and medium should be immaterial to the quality of work you do. It's interesting to hear whether folks feel the tools and workflow of 35mm are still up to your standards.

It seems like it's never been easier or cheaper to get great quality 35mm work done. Shooting Portra or any C41 film, processing and scanning is fast, cheap, and good quality. With the scans, you can post process digitally and not lose any of that flexibility. There is an additional day of turnaround for processing and scanning (compared to digital) but if your clients aren't demanding the photos on the spot, that shouldn't affect anything. For headshots, portrait work, weddings, etc. the added time is meaningless.

I would think 35mm actually has an advantage when it comes to shooting things like a photojournalist-style wedding. C41 film can really take a punishing amount of under and overexposure before the image falls apart. If you are two stops off, you often can't tell the difference looking at prints or scans. Only by examining the density of the negative can you really see the difference. Compare that to shooting RAW my *ist DL -- if I miss the exposure by two stops, it's simply too dark or too light to recover a top-notch print. It's salvageable, but not up to standards. I would think that the kind of insurance offered by shooting negative film would be invaluable to a pro who sometimes works under stressful, once-in-a-lifetime situations.

BTW, I'm not a pro but I love Portra! I'm going to shoot my first set of portraits for a band, and looking forward to shooting a mix of 35mm, digital and MF (Yashica).

[filmamigo]

My Wife is and still shoots film. Pentax K1000, Chinon CP-5, Chinon CP-5s, and a Yashica GSN. Mostly Weddings and Portraiture.

Cool selection of cameras to shoot with. Are the Chinons her primary cameras?

[digitaldevo]

K1000 is her primary film, lol. She fell in love with them in school and never got away from them, rofl. The Chinon CP-5 is her secondary film with the powergrip. K10D is her primary digital.

[ftpaddict]

f course choice of camera and medium should be immaterial to the quality of work you do.

I went to a wedding last summer, and the hired photographer had a Nikon D70. The kit seemed pretty impressive, but when I got the pictures he had made, on DVD, I was thoroughly disappointed. Poor guy didn't even know about flash balance or blurring out the background for portrait shots. And he got money for it.

What? Nobody cares what kind of camera you have, least of all clients.

Here in Romania, if you show up with an EOS 1D or D3 to a club or press conference, they don't even ask for an ID; they just let you in. However, if you use anything smaller...

[Tom M]

I can relate to ftpaddict's frustration regarding the perception that a big Canon or Nikon is some form of validation.

What I will say is this, your portfolio speaks for itself. If it's of high quality and attention grabbing, you'll go far. Focus on the images, not the tools.

As a side note: I thought that American publications were particularly bad in biasing their reviews to favor the advertisers. HOLY CRAP, Was I wrong! It seems the European publications are far worse AND, they don't even try to hide it! UK publication Digital Photo has for the last 12 months ONLY featured a Canon on the cover, or a Nikon WITH a Canon. They have ONLY ever praised a Canon. It's so bad that in the December issue's P&S shoot-out, the Canon Ixus 950IS (I think it's our PowerShot series) wins the shoot-out and top honors for ISO 1600 images when clearly, in the printed images, at least half of the other contenders blew it away. It's right there in print yet they praise it.. lol

[Kaimarx]

Depends what industry your talking about. Down here in NZ 35mm is not considered a 'professional' format by Saatchi or Colenso or any of the other big budget advertising firms. At least not when it comes to clients like international sports brands, product brands or car manufacturers. Though digital has come a long way most agencies still prefer to use medium (film or digital) and large format film. Digital apsc and 35mm is more likely to be used for catalogue and brochure work here in nz. Still, to get the most out of 35mm film you need to get the negs drum scanned which can cost time and money so digital is obviously the effecient choice of medium for designers. On the other hand, there are still a whole lot of wedding photographers down here who still use 35mm film either as the primary or the back up to a medium format rig. I dont think it has anything to do with the clients preference for format, but more to do with the 'look' of film and the photographers style not to mention being able to charge a hefty fee.

[filmamigo]

I went to a wedding last summer, and the hired photographer had a Nikon D70. The kit seemed pretty impressive, but when I got the pictures he had made, on DVD, I was thoroughly disappointed. Poor guy didn't even know about flash balance or blurring out the background for portrait shots. And he got money for it.

I've noticed the quality of wedding photography my friends receive is slipping pretty badly.

I was married ten years ago (ahem, yes I married young ) and we spent a little bit more to get a competent commercial shooter and a lovely handmade album. We gave him free reign, and he shot some beautiful work in MF with a Hassy and a Rolleiwide. At the time, most of our friends were receiving lovely MF portrait and wedding work. Even the budget-level photogs shooting two or three weddings a year used Mamiya C220/C330s and provided nicely printed and bound albums.

In the last couple of years, I have been truly surprised by the lack of quality that friends and family are receiving. Admittedly, they are probably paying hundreds less than we did ten years ago -- but the general level of work is not good. There is little attention to lighting. Shallow-depth-of-field portraiture has disappeared (as they mostly seem to use superzooms and big flashguns.) The prints are mini-lab quality, and I've seen three different albums that I would be embarrassed to hand out as a professional --- cheap 8x10s slipped into plastic covered sleeves in a vinyl album. Of course, they all receive a CD and web access to their pictures.

With competition like that, it would seem that well-photographed 35mm taken with fast primes and good film would compare nicely.