My love affair with the Fuji X-Pro1 continues, so much so that I haven’t shot a single roll of film for the last week. I feel bad, but I think that this is the way it’s going to stay – I don’t mean I’m never going to shoot film again, I’m just going back to the way I worked a year ago – shooting both.
Canada was a bit of a turning-point for me, shooting that project on film was difficult, I have to say – ordering 200 rolls of film in New York, having it sent to Yellowknife, the hassle of getting it all back to the UK, through security and X-ray machines and then the anxiety of getting it to the processors. Scanning takes a long time, but I love scanning, so that’s not a bad thing. The biggest drawback, and the most obvious, is the cost – about £12 for every roll of film bought and developed. That’s a wedge of cash that I could be spending on other projects, especially when 90% of my clients don’t know, or worse still, care if that photograph they are buying off a stock library was shot on a top of the range modern digital SLR or a 1968 Hasselblad medium format. Do photographers like the look of film because it was shot on film? Or is it because they know it was shot on film?
I know what people are thinking – “Phil Kneen, you sell-out!”. Not so – over the next few months I’m shooting a project in Wales, an album cover, several portraits and an entire wedding, all on film. I’ve said it before – as long as I can buy film, I’ll shoot film.
Oh, by the way – one of the black and white images, above, was shot on Kodak Tri-X film…