Shandra Stark wrote:
Film= much, much, much different, for the model.
Working with a film photographer is not very dissimilar from sitting for a painter (sitting super, super still for potentially a long period of time), but requires even a bit more, since everything needs to be so unbelievably precise, and in a painting, a small movement doesn't matter.
Every time I work for a film photographer, I feel honored, because it feels like you have to REALLY have a certain skill set to move and sit so precisely- not for beginner models.
I mean, obviously people who shoot film do shoot everyday people who've never modeled, but if they want something specific...they need to/should go with a pro.
Different photographers work differently.
Dean Collins, great photographer and teacher, would have a precise plan do one or a few similar poses and be done. He would have a great shot.
Francesco Scavullo , known for his Cosmo covers, always said you NEVER got anything good from the first TEN rolls (approx. 100 to 120 shots) and would spend the day to get one cover shot.
Both great photographers and IMO neither would change how they shoot in a digital age.
I know film photographers who measured the success of a shoot by how many rolls of film they burned thru, others who measure success by the few good images they capture. Film or digital IMO does not matter...the style and attitude of the photographer does.