RobertBenson.com

Photographer Simon Watson describes digital photography images like this: “There is a smoothness that is so ugly and slick. It looks like a gimmick.” And another photographer says: “The world doesn’t need more megapixels.”

Whoa! What’s going on here?

Similar feelings come from a legion of professional editorial photographers out there who are quietly going about their image making business with film: the good old organic stuff. Their reasons for shooting film are similar: “It makes you a better photographer,” says one shooter. “…It’s more sophisticated looking than film…”,  “film has a richness unmatched by digital…”, and “it has a depth and painterly quality…”

I talked to some of these shooters, presenting each of them with a handful of questions, and their answers were eye opening. Among the shooters:

Bryce Duffy, there’s a lot of square images on his site: Hasselblad? Read on!
Paolo Marchesi, a photographer who “marrys old-world elegance with youthful energy.” His editorial clients include Outdoor Life, Men’s Journal, Ski, Montana Living, Outside and others.
Amanda Friedman: A fine art and editorial photographer whose clients include Newsweek, GQ, The New York Times, Budget Travel, Dwell, Fortune, Forbes and others.
Simon Watson: A staunch advocate of film. The sophistication and quiet elegance in his work is ridiculous. Check out his site.
Finn O’Hara: This is the photographer who recently got some attention with his time lapse video of a Toronto Maple Leafs photoshoot; the scope of which has to be seen to be appreciated. You think Anne does it up big? Forget about it….
Jose Mandojana: The former pre-med student is now a talented photographer, shooting for the likes of Fortune, Glamour, Inc, Money, Men’s Journal and others.
Michael Sugrue, went to his website, got sucked in by lush images, but 30 minutes later realized I was sucked in by his videos too…
David Lauridsen, shoots for Travel and Leisure, People Magazine, Worth, Sunset, Dwell, Newsweek, Money, Popular Science, and a laundry list of others.
Jeff Lipsky, “known for his easy going attitude and his ability to create a relaxed professional working environment.” Has shot more covers than I can count.
Brian Finke, shoots film almost exclusively. Hasselblad. His work is on museum walls.
Chad Holder: Environmental portrait photographer. Great blog on his site too.

Completely a film shooter?
Paolo Marchesi: Unfortunately my film shooting has gone down from 100% 6 years ago to less than 20% now.  It’s becoming more and more difficult to convince clients to shoot film.
Amanda Friedman: 60% digital, 40% film
Simon Watson: No, but almost. I’ve gone in and out of the digital thing over the years… but I always seem to return to film. I am getting more involved with digital now because it seems that that is what is demanded now, So I always try to make the digital file look like film. I’m having a lot more success at it too now. It takes a lot of playing around. All of my editorial work is film.
Finn O’Hara: No. I shoot both Film & Digital.
José Mandojana: No, I’ve fully embraced digital and am about 70% digital these days. However, I still prefer film under certain circumstances and if it’s feasible for a shoot.
Michael Sugrue: No, I shoot film for the occasional job and personal project.
Jeff Lipsky: I shoot film for my editorial clients when ever possible. I use digital on most of my commercial jobs. I believe there is a place for both.
David Lauridsen: No, at this point I’m shooting about 90% digital. less than two years ago I was only shooting about 10% digital and I honestly didn’t expect to be shooting digital nearly full time for several more years.
Bryce Duffy: Not anymore. Actually – for advertising work I almost exclusively shoot medium format digital now. The collaborative process of working on set with an art director is much easier and better in many ways. I also find that we can shoot less, and move on to the next shot, as the client feels more comfortable knowing we’ve got what they’re looking for.

Why do you shoot film?
Brian Finke: I almost exclusively shoot film, with the exception of recently starting to shoot video with the new Canon, and soon checking out the new Nikon HD camera.  More and more these days when I am on assignment I get the, WOW, reaction when I pull the first Polaroid and everyone on set sees I’m shooting film.  I am instantly seen as an art photographer, which makes by happy. I learned shooting film and love it.  I shoot exclusively with the Hasselblad, it is a great process, taking the Polaroids, loading all the backs, then while shooting taking a pause and reloading, the physicality of the camera and process are beautiful.  I also prefer the grain and depth of film and the chromogenic print, especially when viewed in a large scale, gallery environment.
Paolo Marchesi: I like the “organic” feel of film and the process.  When I shoot film is mostly large format and shooting large format makes you think about the shot more.  It makes you a better photographer.  With digital is easy to just fire away without really taking the time to take “the shot”.
Amanda Friedman: Film has better exposure latitude. Film does significantly better in low light, I get better blacks. I shot a ton of night photography and I’m still finding film to be a much better choice. I can shoot ISO 800 speed film and get beautiful results—can’t really do that with digital yet.
Simon Watson: Because it is beautiful, easy to use and it is always so much more sophisticated looking than digital. Always.
Finn O’Hara: I love the pace of shooting film, and the reality of the exposure is much more tangible when shooting film.
José Mandojana: A few reasons.  I like my medium format and large format film bodies and lenses better. I just see the frame better with these cameras vs. a digital SLR. I also shoot film because the color neg is perfect in my eyes. When shooting raw, a lot of tweaking needs to be done to get it to look like my film. It can be done, but film still has a richness unmatched by digital. Why mess with perfection?
Michael Sugrue: In addition to the look/feel of the image, I most like the workflow of shooting 4×5.  It’s a very quiet, studied approach.  A lot of the mental aspects of shooting large-format film are lost with the instantaneity of digital capture.
Jeff Lipsky: Many reasons…… For one, I love shooting my film cameras. There is something special when shooting a portrait with my 4×5. I feel digital takes the pace and feel away. I still enjoy looking at a proof sheet with a good loupe. The editing process is easier and more tangible. Digital format has yet to reach the 6×7 format.  Film is more forgiving and has more range. I can flare and backlight images and still have information in the negative. Digitally it would be lost. I actually like being the first person to see and edit my film. To many times there is a crowd of people surrounding the monitor, no matter how hard I try to hide it. I love working with 120 films. Changing a film back or reloading enables me to change things up and get more variations.  Believe it or not, it’s still more economical for most editorial jobs.
David Lauridsen: Film is beautiful. It has a depth to it and a painterly quality in the way it captures light and texture that digital just isn’t capable of capturing… yet. I shoot a lot of travel photography and like strong side light and backlight, which I think is the biggest weakness of digital. With film, I can expose for good shadow detail and just burn in the sky. With digital, the sky is just gone completely or if I expose for it then I end up with an image that is just much darker than I like. It’s recoverable to some degree in post, but it still doesn’t have that “lushness” that film has.
Bryce Duffy: I still really love the aesthetic of film. I’m not saying it’s not possible to get very similar results with digital, it’s just that in 20 years of working with film stock and polaroid, and a long standing relationship with a lab, there’s so much that is going in to achieving the aesthetic that I’m after, and other peoples expertise as well. Switching to digital means that so much more of that falls back on the photographer. In a way you’re your own film manufacturer, your own lab, your own printer. And I still really feel that there are certain lighting situations where film just “feels” more organic and digital can not replicate that as far as I’ve seen. (more on next page)

Some say the full frame medium format backs negate the need for film – what do you say?
Simon Watson: Rubbish, I actually think that medium format digital backs look worse than 35mm digital cameras. There is a smoothness that is so ugly and slick. It looks like a gimmick. This obsession with mega pixels is crazy and irritating. The Canon 5DII is a great example of a small camera beating the big camera. It is SO much nicer than the Leafs or Phase One backs… hands down. And the funny thing is, at ASA of 500 -800 it looks closer to film than anything else. Still miles from it, but closer than the Leafs and Phase Ones…
Paolo Marchesi: I don’t believe in Digital medium format, now days Canon and Nikon have such great cameras with so many accessories and lenses that I don’t see the advantage to going to medium format unless you need the pixels, which you rarely do.
Amanda Friedman: Not really.
David Lauridsen: Almost. They’re getting pretty good, and once the dynamic range can match that of film there just might not be a need for film anymore. I guess there will always be a place for fine art photographers who can only achieve a very specific look
through certain processes or vintage camera/ lens combinations but being mainly a commercial shooter with a pretty modern style I could definitely get by just fine if film weren’t an option for me any more.
Jeff Lipsky: No. Most medium format backs and camera systems are much slower then Medium format film cameras. More things can go wrong, and color control on set is an issue. Not many full frame medium format camera systems to choose from.
Finn O’Hara: No. Although they are a great option to utilize the great lenses and bodies of the 70’s & 80’s, they do not negate film.
José Mandojana: Not yet. I just don’t think there’s a perfect system out there.  But I’m sure it’s just a matter of time. They are also extremely cost prohibitive at this point.
Michael Sugrue: The world doesn’t need more megapixels.  Film provides a different look, which in some applications, like a print on a wall, cannot be duplicated digitally. That said, I think it’s indistinguishable in magazines, ads, and certainly the web.
Brian Finke: They are simply different processes.
Bryce Duffy: I think for many applications that might be true especially where workflow is of primary importance. I can certainly think of scenarios where that might be the case. For a lot of photographers, I think MF digital has negated the need for film. But need is a hard thing to quantify. I’ve never really gotten involved in the whole “digital replacing film” debate. It doesn’t really interest me. I just hope that there is enough demand for film that manufacturers continue to produce it and clients are still willing to accept it. I’m already seeing instances (regularly) in the editorial world where clients are not wanting to deal with the film workflow anymore.

Everyone has their own way of describing how film is different than digital, and looks special. How would you describe the “magic of film?”
Simon Watson: There is a grit to it. The colors and shadows are richer and more sophisticated. Even though modern film is less grainy now, it is the grain that gives the film a grittiness (even if you can’t see it) it affects the whole image. Digital has this milky slick look. It’s flat too. And needs tons of work.
Paolo Marchesi: Again, the “magic of film” in my opinion comes with the process of shooting film. Digital is too sharp, too perfect but if you want you can make digital look like film.  I think…
Jeff Lipsky: Film produces a much “creamier” skin tone.
Finn O’Hara: I really think the ‘magic of film’ comes down to the commitment to the image. You can’t ’spray’ with a medium format camera, like you can with a DSLR. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the slower pace of shooting film is just so enjoyable. I need more analog in my life, and film gives me that pleasure.
José Mandojana: It’s rich.
Michael Sugrue: Grain, depth, and subtle shifts of color.  It really feels like you can step into the image, or seeing exactly what the photographer saw through the viewfinder.  To me, it’s especially apparent in street photography and landscapes, which are often overly manipulated digitally.  I was going to mention some photographers I admire, but I realized that, while they shoot film, it’s their talent and style that separates them and not simply using film. It’s an important distinction that shouldn’t be considered in any “film vs. digital” debate.  It’s personal, not an argument to win.
Brian Finke: I love the grain, texture and depth of film.  If they same look and technique can be achieved with digital, please let me know, I would be very interested in checking it out.
Chad Holder: Film is softer, and digi can be too sharp and begin to look plastic.  you can save the highlights better with color neg without it looking too funky.
Bryce Duffy: It’s like listening to a vinyl record on a turntable through a macintosh tube amp through good speakers versus listening to a high quality MP3 on your ipod through a pair of expensive headphones.

Are there editors out there who prefer film or do you shoot film to satisfy your own needs, or to get your own look/identity?
Paolo Marchesi: Recently I am starting to feel that I have been loosing my identity by shooting digital and it’s something I have been evaluating seriously. So to answer your question, film gave me the identity that I am try to keep while shooting digital and it’s more complicated than I though…
Jeff Lipsky: Both. You would be surprised how many editors still love to work with film shooters. Many editors prefer to receive a final print order, rather then a digital file.  I’m able to make my digital shoots look like my film. It just takes some time.
Simon Watson: Both, yes there are editors (many) who prefer film. It seems though that its the corp. side of magazines that are demanding digital. To save costs…hmmm….. Digital seems expensive too. And without a doubt, it’s more work. I like to shoot film to satisfy my own look. However, I am getting better results from digital now than I was a few years ago. It’s a learning curve.
David Lauridsen: There are definitely editors who prefer film although those numbers are quickly shrinking. I’ve got to say, the main reason I don’t shoot film right now is not the cost or even convenience of digital, it’s about delivering the highest quality product possible and for me right now, i can best accomplish that by shooting digital even though it’s got it’s own drawbacks. I’ve had two labs shut down on me over the past couple of years and the one I currently use which is really the only pro lab left in my town, which is a big town, honestly doesn’t do a great job with their film services any more. Their priorities are on other things these days and they still offer film services but I think the quality has gone way down, below what’s acceptable for me. So I shoot digital because I have the best control over what leaves my studio.
Amanda Friedman: I do work with editors that prefer film and don’t let me shoot digital but they are becoming few and far between. I shoot film to satisfy my own needs and get my look and identity. My style has a lot to do with shooting 4×5 and getting that large format feel. It’s hard to get that same feel with  the long framing of the 5d. With my night landscapes work, I never shoot digital.
Finn O’Hara: There are some editors and some publications that prefer film, but they’re way in the minority. The realities are that publications don’t have the same production schedules like they used to (with the film production equation built in), and have slid all the way into the digital workflow. I often have to turn around images in a few days time, and digital has become the only solution.
José Mandojana: Editors usually let me decide unless it’s a deadline issue.  Some magazines actually do still request film. I try to always shoot film for personal work, even if it’s just to supplement the digital.
Brian Finke: I developed my visual style shooting film and have continued shooting film because it is the process I learned on and it is just so second nature.  At the end of the day the technical process is not important but the end result of the image, technically however you get there is fine.
Bryce Duffy: There are definitely editors who prefer film, sometimes it’s because they like editing contact sheets, other times it’s because they know how things are going to look in the mag but I’ve just always shot film to satisfy my own aesthetic and workflow. I also really like the fact that it’s a much simpler process. When I’m shooting without lights, I don’t need any power at all – not even batteries for the camera (which is completely mechanical). I can do a pretty good job of guessing the exposure if they light meter stops working. Everything I need to take a picture can fit into one small bag. With digital you have all these other technical challenges to overcome with computer equipment, software, batteries to be charged for everything. I think it can get in the way of making spontaneous pictures.

With the publishing industry in hurt, do editors cringe at the extra expenses associated with film (processing, scanning, cost of film)?
Jeff Lipsky: In most cases film can be more cost friendly. It all depends on how many shots are needed. Most editors want digital because they believe they will get the images faster. Image quality goes down when digital images are not rendered properly.
José Mandojana: Not to my knowledge.  Good editors just want to give their photographers the ability to do the job right.  I’m equally fit to shoot digital or film,  but if a certain project would benefit from the use of film, I’ll make that recommendation.
Finn O’Hara: It totally confounds those that have never worked with film before. It also confuses them when you try and recoup those production costs with digital. Digital = free.
David Lauridsen: For me, it’s really not any cheaper to shoot digital than film, unless I’m on a shoot where I’m shooting 100 rolls a day. Now that digital has taken over, the photographer has essentially become the lab with all the adjustments, retouching, processing of images, archiving. All that work now falls on me and often times it’s as much or more time than I spent on the shoot itself. I charge for that time, and I don’t think what I charge for digital is outrageous, but it my invoices pretty much come out the same as if I’d shot film.
Paolo Marchesi: I don’t think it’s the cost, it’s the practicality of having the images right away.  It’s about how quickly they can get the job done.
Amanda Friedman: Yes. It’s much more cost effective to shoot digital, although I’m finding myself now doing the work my lab used to do, and I’m not really enjoying that aspect very much.
Simon Watson: I think experienced editors know that the cost is about the same for both digital and film if they want quality.
Michael Sugrue: I’m not sure they cringe at the extra expenses because digital is actually much more expensive.  At least photographers should be billing accordingly for the upkeep of digital equipment.  Editors and clients may believe digital is cheaper. The problems occur when we as photographers let them believe it.  The volume and turnover of digital equipment far exceeds the upkeep necessary to shoot film.  These costs of doing business should absolutely be written into invoices.
Brian Finke: This is a tricky, sometimes shooting film is cheaper, sometimes digital is.  If film has to be rushed then film gets expensive but at the same time a large digital capture with technician is really pricey.
Bryce Duffy: I haven’t encountered this yet. If anything – I find MF digital can be more expensive than film on smaller (ie – magazine) shoots if you’re renting gear or recouping your capital costs.

Do you scan the film yourself?
Paolo Marchesi: I do scan the film myself.
Amanda Friedman: No, my lab does.
Simon Watson: Yes, we do scan a lot of our film. Both prints and negatives. But we also send it out.
Finn O’Hara: Yes.
José Mandojana: I either scan myself or have my lab – The Icon in LA – drum scan.
Michael Sugrue: No, I have it scanned at a lab in San Francisco.
Jeff Lipsky: Sometimes. I see a noticeable difference when I have it scanned professionally on a wet mounted drum scan.
David Lauridsen: not usually for clients. I do for my portfolios, but I use a Hasselblad scanner and they’re notorious for dusty scans so it’s much cheaper in terms of time to send it off to a lab where they use a drum scanner and don’t have the dust issues. If something is running fairly small and I don’t have to get every speck off I might scan it myself but it’s rare.
Bryce Duffy: No. I experimented with that but could never achieve the results of a drum scan with a $100,000 scanner. I also don’t really love sitting in front of the computer.

Can you briefly describe your workflow?
Simon Watson: I load the camera and start working. film goes to the lab. We get contact sheets back. I mark my selects and send them to the client. They chose whatever they need. The lab makes beautiful prints (usually perfect first time). We scan the prints and send them on to the client.
Paolo Marchesi: I shoot C-41 neg, get everything scanned at low res (I don’t do the low res scanning).  Make quick overall adjustments and send client for picks.  Once images are picked I scan same image high res and finalize the image.
Amanda Friedman: Shoot, drop off film at lab, they process and proof, I do a quick edit and send off to the editor. They make their selects and send a print or scan order.
Finn O’Hara: I use a Flextight X5, and try and keep as much information in Phocus as possible. I leave it to Photoshop to do any tweaking.
José Mandojana: When shooting film I do the job,  send film to the Icon, get proof sheets back,  make my selects, send selects to AD or PE, they give me their picks, make a high res scan, retouch, match print, fedex.
Michael Sugrue: I haven’t even mentioned Polaroids yet, or Paranoids because I tend to fall in love with them and the film never looks as good.  After making the exposure on a Polaroid, I rate the film accordingly and include the Polaroid in the box as a reference to the lab.  It’s simply an exposure reference, including how much (if at all) to push or hold the film.  I have it scanned as clean as possible, somewhat flat and unsaturated, then I take it into Photoshop to add those things back in to taste.
Brian Finke: I am very traditional, my work flow for magazines is develop, and contact.  I mark up my selects and submit the contact sheets and make repro prints as final art work.  If I’m shooting advertising I simply bring a small Polaroid scanner on set so the art director can scan the image and start working with the layout.
Bryce Duffy: Shoot (fuji)roids, shoot film, film goes to lab, two sets of contacts come back to me, I edit on the contact sheets and send a set to the client. Then they email a print order, I mark that up on my set of contact sheets with printing instructions and send those to the lab. Print(s) get delivered to the client.

Does shooting film speed up or slow down your post processing time?
Jeff Lipsky: It’s the same.
Paolo Marchesi: It slows down the process quite a bit.
Amanda Friedman: Shooting film eliminates post work. With digital, it takes forever for me to edit, retouch + process.
David Lauridsen: Flm is much slower for me. I’m really meticulous about the way I do things and the system I have for editing film is really slow. If I do a three or four day travel shoot it will take me almost that much time to edit the proofs, after the two days that it takes to process and proof it all. with digital I can edit that same shoot in half a day.
Simon Watson: Shooting film does not slow me down. But with digital, I sometimes speed up…so it is important to slow down. I’m used to looking through 4×5 or 8×10 or an RZ and I can operate very fast with all these formats. But with digital, I’m looking through a tiny little hole at a tiny screen and the high ASA and mobility of digital cameras make it tempting to speed up…but it is always worth while to bring the tempo down. When I do slow down the quality is so much better.
Finn O’Hara: Scanning slows it down a little bit.
José Mandojana: Slow down for sure.  Digital provides immediate ability to edit.  With film there’s some wait time, scan time, etc…   Faster isn’t always better.
Michael Sugrue: My post time is much slower with film, simply because I can get a film job (at least an editorial one) out the door, usually in one day. Waiting on a lab derails that.
Bryce Duffy: Well it all depends on how busy I am (or how much I procrastinate). Digital can definitely speed up the post production, but much more of the post production needs to be done by the photographer (whereas the lab is doing much more of it in the film world) so if I’m busy or working on multiple shoots sometimes it can actually take longer for me to find the time to do the post production when working with digital.

Since polaroid is gone, how do you “chimp”?
Paolo Marchesi: I have a stack of Polaroid that I bought before Polaroid went down.  I have also used a digital camera to test, usually if I am using lights. The nice thing about shooting C-41 is that you have quite a latitude and using Polaroid is not as critical.  When I was a poor photo student I shot E-6 4×5 without Polaroid because I couldn’t afford it, makes shooting C-41 easy.
Amanda Friedman: Polaroid now exists as “FUJIROID” so no issues there.
José Mandojana: I use Fuji FP instant film
Brian Finke: I thank for Fuji for their pack film, keep it coming!
Jeff Lipsky: Sometimes I shoot a “digital” Polaroid.  And when shooting things other than portraits, does the “slow it down and be more careful” mentality come into play when using film over digital?
Amanda Friedman: I have no choice but to shoot slowly when shooting 4×5. 6×7 is a bit quicker but I’m always on a tripod. With digital, I find I shoot much faster and that often times hinders the look of my work. I’m trying to now slow down with the 5d and pay closer attention to how I compose my images as I don’t want my work to have that photojournalistic style.
Michael Sugrue: I still have a bunch of polaroid saved.  Occasionally I’ll use the digital camera and judge histograms though.

If you’re on a short fuse deadline what do you do?
Paolo Marchesi: Shoot digital
Finn O’Hara: Panic! Hahaha. I think you’re asking if the deadline is tight, do I revert to digital? Of course. I work with my editors to come up with a tool + workflow that will meet both their aesthetic and production needs and desires.
José Mandojana: Labs can rush orders.  They always have.  The reality is that on rush jobs,  I mainly am shooting digital these days.  It’s the jobs with distant deadlines that allow more flexibility.
Michael Sugrue: Shoot digitally.  The deadlines have become much shorter because client’s patience has declined, along with their budgets.  I’m not complaining, I like to get jobs out the door as soon as possible. To use a tired cliché, you can’t unring the bell. Once people got used to faster and cheaper, it’s impossible to go back.
Brian Finke: I would rush film or shoot digital depending on the client and budget.
Jeff Lipsky: Digital. It still takes time process; retouch and color correct the image though.
Bryce Duffy: Rush the processing at the lab and overnight the proofs. Sometimes if there’s not even time for that we’ll process and low res scan every frame and post those online for viewing.

Anything else?
Simon Watson: The tonal range of a good c print is huge. So far, digital is years away. Digital has its applications and is a great step forward, but really it cannot hold up against film yet. It will.
Finn O’Hara: Film is dead! Long live film!
José Mandojana: Remember,  these are just tools. Whether film or digital, use the tool that best allows you to create your images.
Michael Sugrue: It’s much easier to smuggle boxes of 4×5 film through airport security than expensive digital cameras and computers.  And rarely has anyone been detained for taking pictures with a view camera and a lupe around their neck.
Jeff Lipsky: Shoot a roll of TXP with a leica; print the image in a darkroom and you will understand the power of film.
Bryce Duffy: I’m a fan.