A Hasselblad with a digital back would be more than good enough to meet any commercial needs. The DSLRs, at the higher end of pricing, will be called for in some commercial situations. Alamy, the stock agency, for instance, specifies that they only want images from certain types of camera models, and will not accept scanned films.
That said, for fine art work, I would imagine you could use any tools you want. I was blessed with securing a generous grant contract some time ago; all of the work that secured that contract was shot with a Pentax 645 and a Pentax K1000. I recently saw a museum exhibit done with a Holga. Half of that was shot in HP5+.
On the viewer's side of things, I believe the final image appearance is part of what drives their decision. Film does carry a certain weight with some viewers and purchasers. Larger companies that buy images will be inclined to top-end, latest equipment in digital. In face to face dealings with people, they ask about film; I see that they want mastery. If you've mastered film to a reasonable degree, that's a point in your favor.
Sometimes people will be inclined to be interested in film photography because it has more of an aura of finality about it. Yet, what I think the viewers who inquire are looking for is skill. Skill demonstrated in terms that they understand. Skill in terms that you can explain to them; and, often, purchasing decisions about what camera or media it was, those won't go over too well. It won't be about: I bought this camera, therefore, I made that picture. Instead, their questions will be more about, What can you do? What are you doing? How did you do this?
Like for the project contract, I noted what was used for what image, but I was never really asked directly "What camera?" I was asked about process; I had to answer other questions about other processes; I felt, overall, people want to know that they're making an investment in a person who is pretty much stable and proficient in what they are doing. They want to know the object is well made, durable, has some reasonable value to its structure.
So, for the camera choice in the arts applications, I would say, ground your investment in media that you have used successfully in the past. Continue to grow your tools and skills. When I purchased equipment over the past year, the purchases were mostly (I'd say at 80%) on film equipment and related supplies. However, in there, I also purchased a DSLR. At the time, I felt pushed and pressured and didn't like it. The people who cared about me basically told me that I was over-specializing, and that I needed to get at least some of the newer technologies, so I did. Months later, even though I use the DSLR infrequently, it is still helping me to communicate.
For example, there's an instructional aspect to my project; by including some DSLR based examples, I will be able to show people more how some of my project ideas can apply to what they may have on hand. In that respect, I was kind of able to turn the situation around. Once things were more exploratory and constructive, that's when I got more interested.
So, there are many ways this can play out. What's going to happen is that whatever it is, you will have to use it; use it a good deal; carry the projects through to completion, to those viewers. And, you're going to have to pick what you are going to use to get you there.
Few people ask what paintbrush a master painter used. With cameras, it's a little bit different; but, I think it's fair to say that you are going to encounter a fair number, probably a majority, of viewers who will not know and will not care what brand of camera that photo was made with. They'll want to know it was made well, but I doubt they'll be picky about the nameplate.
, Jun 25, 2009; 12:57 a.m.
