professional use of 35mm

Recently I was watching some fashion photographers on FTV, and was suprized to find that some of them actually use 35mm film. Suprizing is the fact that they use film, ok, but 35mm film? That's really suprizing.

Also, I was watching some tutorial video made by a famous glamour photographer on photo.net, and he says that 35mm is mostly used in glamour photography (while medium format is more used in fashion photography)
Also suprizes me.

Then there was another photographer that worked for Vogue, using
Canon 35mm SLR

etc.

I though nobody used 35mm professionally since journalists and sports photographers mostly switched to DSLR's.

Whas is the real picture here?
How often is 35mm still used in pro photography, and in what fields?

Actually for quite a long time, 35mm was a staple in the pro ranks, it was used in sports, product, fashion and other fields, I have used it in my photography business for a great number of years now, and still continue to use it, all of the weddings I have booked for this summer will be taken on 35mm film, I will use medium format for the formals and 35mm for the rest of the wedding..but as I said 35mm has been a staple for many years in the pro ranks..I know of 5 studios here locally that are using 35mm and quite a few in Spokane, WA as well as other areas around the NW part of the US. All of my wildlife work is done on 35mm

Dave

35mm has been a professional medium since the early '30s.

It is all up to the photographer.
.

a lot of magazines still accept 35mm chromes and prints made from 35mm film. the paper i worked for still had photographer/s that shot with 35mm film - it wasn't a giant paper, but just the same it was a weekly with a fair circulation.

maybe in the fashion / glamour world it is more about standing out in sea of digital shooters. its all about doing something a little bit different these days, isn't it ?

- john

I think Ed is just surprised that 35mm is still used by a number of professionals; sometimes you get the impression that everyone, in certain fields, has gone digital. Not surprising really, when even some here tell you they "have" to use digital in order to satisfy the client.

It has been my experience, in the small amount of magazine shooting that I do, that the perceived advantages of digital pretty much disappear when working for a lot of the large magazines.

They aren't in a rush, film and processing are a miniscule part of the overall budget, and the managing photographers and editors hire people based on their "look" and if that involves film, or goats, or whatever, they don't care as long as you give them what they are looking for.

It is in advertising, by my experience, that the younger creative directors have become used to last minute, poorly pre produced, spray and pray digitography. There have been exceptions.

The other preception - or widely-known myth is that you need a certain format to shoot certain subjects, and fairly often it is "everybody uses MF to shoot fashion / glamour".

Ed_Davor said:

Recently I was watching some fashion photographers on FTV, and was suprized to find that some of them actually use 35mm film. Suprizing is the fact that they use film, ok, but 35mm film? That's really suprizing.

Also, I was watching some tutorial video made by a famous glamour photographer on photo.net, and he says that 35mm is mostly used in glamour photography (while medium format is more used in fashion photography)
Also suprizes me.

Then there was another photographer that worked for Vogue, using
Canon 35mm SLR

etc.

I though nobody used 35mm professionally since journalists and sports photographers mostly switched to DSLR's.

Whas is the real picture here?
How often is 35mm still used in pro photography, and in what fields?

Click to expand...

Rather than relying on anecdotal statements posted here on APUG, I would suggest that everyone Google the following phrase - "Kodak Pulse Poll"; leave oof the quotes. The reports of the pulse poll might be enlightening.

Don Bryant

One of the more popular motocross magazines only accepts chromes.

Its just my opinion, but an internet poll of wedding photographers is hardly an overview of pro photography, rather a distinct segment that invested in the new technology early on, and in large, finds it suited to their work.

While the impact of digital can hardly be denied, film continues to be quietly used in many applications.

Its not the film vs. digital dead dead dead horse, but rather a look at how film continues to be used in pro applications. It is absolutely still strong in the magazine market, even in many photo magazines with an obvious bias, there are many chromes to be found.

It's just an opinion, and its just my experience.

35mm is pretty rare for fashion. Not unheard of, but most of it is 645 or more likely 6x7. If it's film, that is, most of it is digital. When 35mm film is employed in editorial fashion, it's often b/c that's all the $300 a day budget allows for w/o the photographer going broke.

I don't know anyone who shoot e-6 fashion anymore. Just digital or neg.

But these are just my observations, and they're limited.

From what I've seen a great number of professionals are using 35mm in all fields of photography. Yes, there are those in Fine Art using medium and large format, yes there are some still using medium format for weddings, but as film has become better in resolution and digital has become more advanced, not to mention quicker to publish, more and more photographers are utilizing the 35mm format.
Personally, I have gone from shooting medium format at weddings to 35mm. The more traditional methods of doing wedding portraiture have given way a bit to the growing number of documentary style wedding photographers.
This I think is largely due to the rise in fame and popularity of several photographic artists who have popularized the form by producing very beautiful artistic images using 35mm film and digital as their method of capture. There is an ease of use and mobility in the 35mm equipment that lends itself perfectly to documentary work.
It is no wonder that for many decades wildlife photographers and photojournalists have been using 35mm for their fast moving and often unpredictable subjects.
In a similar way, weddings contain some of the same elements such as fast moving subjects, ever changing lighting conditions, and a variety of areas of operations, especially in larger venues where fast mobility is essential.

As with any format, it is the accuracy of exposure that contributes the most to the quality of the format. A perfectly exposed 35mm shot will yield a good resolution and create an acceptable print as well as anything.
Now, the argument starts - is a larger format going to give you a superior enlargement? Well, technically yes. But, how many huge enlargements are you going to make for every type of image?
Maybe in portraiture, if you have a possibilty of a large wall hanging photograph, you will have a nicer look with a larger format. But how big a picture will you need from a shot of a polar bear or guests dancing at a wedding reception, or your kid on a bicycle?

Anyway, there are no rules at all as to which format a professional must choose. It is purely personal. The only circumstance is when the format is dictated specifically by a publication.

There's my $.02 in the discussion.

Lou

I think Lou is very much on the money. When I started in the mid 60 in College 35 mm film quality had just gotten to the point that it was becoming acceptable for press use. I was loaned a TLR in college to use for the weekly paper, it took some doing to let the facility advisor let me use my Spotmatic. In today's world 35 mm is good enough for most work, for most commercial as I was told often "It just has to be good enough."

Paul Howell said:

I think Lou is very much on the money. When I started in the mid 60 in College 35 mm film quality had just gotten to the point that it was becoming acceptable for press use. I was loaned a TLR in college to use for the weekly paper, it took some doing to let the facility advisor let me use my Spotmatic. In today's world 35 mm is good enough for most work, for most commercial as I was told often "It just has to be good enough."

Click to expand...

In regards to Paul's point, you must remember that the offset printing industry has advanced considerably since the 60's. Presses register much more accurately. Paper stocks are much more advanced and retain color and detail better. Another thing to consider as far as magazines and catalogs are concerned is that film scanning technology has advanced also. Those 35mm images that didn't reproduce well in the old days are much sharper and have better color fidelity with today's scanners.
Ara