Well, since I've been in photography as a hobby for 9 years now, I can truly say digital. Just look at my Paris photos (on my post from LI Weddings here) which people said don't even look real - that's how good digital can be. Film is awesome too for traditional wedding photography but digital is definitely the way to go for creative photojournalism.
I could list 700 reasons why, but the composition, little flourishes, and versatility speak for itself in digital art books. Just go to different photographers and ask to see their samples if you want to decide for yourself.
FM me if you want the website links where over 4000 users show why digital really is better for photography that tells a story, such as for weddings.
ETA: When you scan *** film pictures there is always a slight or even moderate loss of integrity to the image file, even in the most professional business scanners (note I'm not trying to offend anyone, just state the facts that I know with my landscape photography experience). If you use digital though, you can have a hard copy and instant access to editing your photos from your wedding with NO loss of data or need for compression- just something to think about.
LAST THING: If you do choose digital though know that not all photographers use the same equipment and that's sooo important, the UNDER 8-12 megapixel class of digital cameras is not considered 'approaching' the look of film photography so you need to be sure that you pick someone who has enough quality in the equipment to get the detail and sharpness you want.
aim325
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
Thanks that's really helpful. I'd been considering the whole digital v. film debate myself. We were leaning towards digital, but now it's settled.
When photographers say they're going to give you a CD of the photos they take, is the resolution high enough to print good quality photos? I had one photographer say that she would give me a certain no. of CDs w/ the images for us and to give to family, but that she'd give me the master file for reprints at an extra charge. Does that make sense?
jg
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
I am a photographer, and I don't care what people say, there is nothing that matches the quality of film.
Obviously not 35mm film, but medium format film which you should make sure you photographer uses.
If it is not medium format, then go with digital.
Colleen1230
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
I'm going with film. I think digital is wonderful for a lot of things, but for my wedding pictures I want film. We are having a 2nd photographer that will be shooting digital, but the main pictures will be film.
Mrs. dleeny
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
quality wise, I would say there is probably very little difference, so they're both good.
however, I prefer digital because of all the editing options and the fact that all our proofs were delivered with 2 DVD's of the original files. IMO, that is a HUGE plus! no regrets for getting digital here! our pictures are amazing!
Mrs. dleeny
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
Posted by aim325
When photographers say they're going to give you a CD of the photos they take, is the resolution high enough to print good quality photos? I had one photographer say that she would give me a certain no. of CDs w/ the images for us and to give to family, but that she'd give me the master file for reprints at an extra charge. Does that make sense?
we received 2 DVD's with all the original files on them of every single proof. the range in file size per picture was 5 MB - 11 MB!
Missladybug15
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
I never knew there was such a big difference!
RomeBride
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
I respect what everyone said but I think that the original poster should look at the facts and ask a professional for help to decide for themselves. Here is proof though that since most wedding photographers use 8-12 megapixel digital cameras that you will be able to print pics that are LARGER THAN 16 inches by 20 inches without ANY visual difference with 35 film prints. It's true.
The more megapixels a camera has, the larger size images you can print and maintain fine detail. Here are the recommended number of megapixels based on print size.
Max. print size Buy a digicam with Resolution
4x6' 2 megapixels 1600 x 1200
5x7' 3 megapixels 2048 x 1536
8x10' 5 megapixels 2560 x 1920
11x14' 6 megapixels 2816 x 2112
16 x20' 8 megapixels 3264 x 2468
ETA: I just again wanted to mention that I shot with 35mm film for years before jumping on the digital bandwagon, so I'm not trying to offend anyone but there is just a myth that the 35 mm film is the king (it simply shows more film grain in prints which digital does now too.) FM me for any other tips.
ChrissynRicky
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
FILM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lcherian
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
Posted by ChristineAE
FILM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i agree!!! although digital is still evolving, in it's current state, i dont think it produces the same quality of film. digital images often lack depth and dimension, and doesnt seem to capture light the same way film does. digital of course is more versatile and easier to manipulate, and if you get a good photographer who also edits their images to give it that film like quality, then its pretty comparable. but editing is an art in and of itself, and very few digital photographers edit their images. the only one that i can think of is angelica glass, and her pictures are amazing.
its really a personal preference, but I for one can almost always tell when pictures are shot w/film or digitally (i dont buy it when people say there is really no difference).
take a look at these two pictures. they were shot at almost the same moment, the first is in digital, the second film. you cant tell me that the film one does not look better.
i agree!!! although digital is still evolving, in it's current state, i dont think it produces the same quality of film. digital images often lack depth and dimension, and doesnt seem to capture light the same way film does. digital of course is more versatile and easier to manipulate, and if you get a good photographer who also edits their images to give it that film like quality, then its pretty comparable. but editing is an art in and of itself, and very few digital photographers edit their images. the only one that i can think of is angelica glass, and her pictures are amazing.
its really a personal preference, but I for one can almost always tell when pictures are shot w/film or digitally (i dont buy it when people say there is really no difference).
take a look at these two pictures. they were shot at almost the same moment, the first is in digital, the second film. you cant tell me that the film one does not look better.
That's only because of the compression to be viewed online... so that's not even close to a professional comparison since the parameters aren't even the same outside of the distance... REAL digital photographers wouldn't allow that to happen.... this debate is endless but the equipment used is so important. I think you're right about the fact that most digital photographers don't edit... although even research studies have proven that professionals CANNOT tell the difference when they do blind studies of film or digital taken with the SAME multiplication factor (medium format). Really the best thing is to do the research yourself with an expert... that way everyone is happy. The original poster said she was using digital, and as long as she trusts her photographer and likes their samples, I'm sure it's all good.
roxyspark
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
Rome Bride....Thanks for the photography mini-tutorial
I have been wondering about this myself, but I kept forgetting to ask.
sk1nny27
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
im going with film. all that money there shoiuld be some work involved with the developing. plus i just like the traditional look
waterspout4
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
Posted by jg
I am a photographer, and I don't care what people say, there is nothing that matches the quality of film.
Obviously not 35mm film, but medium format film which you should make sure you photographer uses.
If it is not medium format, then go with digital.
I fully agree with film. I am a photographer myself and have hired a film photographer for my wedding. Digital has many problems enlarging and the quality is normally not as good. The only thing I will miss is the ease of getting proofs online, but I'm getting around that. Hmmmm..... ease vs. quality.
littlebookworm4
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
mine are digital and they are outstanding!
FallBride05
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
Our photog used film. And also put everything on a DVD for us. My mothers boyfriend is a photog and she's his assistant. She just received a copy of the DVD b/c she's making our album for us. She won't tell me what the pics look like b/c she wants me to see them first (next week!!)
lacey&mark
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital or film??
digital! we asked for the cd of proofs that we can print ourselves (or through a website) in larger prints, so good resolution (right word?)...it cost us $300, but essentially it would be like purchasing your negatives for film. cd proofs usually are not of the quality that you could print any size pic yourself and have it look decent, you need to specify what you want to your photographer. does that make sense? ~lacey
