Hi, I'm new - I've been finding the chat board extremely helpful - everyone here is great about sharing info and advice.
We are still in the very early planning stages, but starting to think about photographers, since pictures are a real priority for us. I've noticed that many wedding photographers seem to have switched to digital. My fiance is concerned about the durability of digital photographs. He has heard that they can fade much more quickly than photos taken with regular film. Has anyone else thought about this issue? I'd love to get your feedback...
xjulietx
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital v. Film
I think it depends on the quality of paper and the techniques used for developing. It can't be that bad if the professionals are using it.
butterfly20
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital v. Film
many photographers offer the option between film or digital... digital costing a little more, but then your proofs are on a disk(and you can always print picks out)
Jordan
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital v. Film
The quality of professional grade digital is much more superior to what we (amateurs) use. My digital pics have faded - when printed from a printer. Printed on Kodak paper, they look great.
the techniques (the professionals use) are much better than what we do...
but there is the risk that it is a new technology and we don't know how the pics will turn out in the future
HearzBellz
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital v. Film
Digital printed is less durable & needs to be in a protected environment. If the photographer used a thermo - processing, it is almost the same as actuall film development which involves an integral chemical reaction in the paper.
Best bet, ask questions & see what your vendors tell you too.
endlessluv429
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital v. Film
Digital is much more durable than film. The proofs (if developed properly are just as durable if not more so than film.) The quality when you blow up digital pictures and what you can do with them is not to be believed. The options are endless & it is so much cheaper than having to have the lab to do it (with film you can't do certain effects -with digital the photographer can do it all right in his own studio).
The other good thing is you can store so many copies of digital pictures on CD's & on hard drives, oppssed to film when you just have one set of negatives-if something happens--you're $crewed OR if the lab has a problem-you're done for it.
A lot of photographers have not taken the dive into digital because if done properly it is VERY VERY expensive between the cameras (about $10,000 each for a good quality one & they should have 2 -one for backup) & the computers and equipment! soo-i hope that helps you!
bride04
Posted:
Member since
Re: Digital v. Film
Make sure you know what you are getting with digital. Some of the photographers I looked at said they will not give you a disc with all of the digital files on it or even give you the option to buy them. One photographer said he would give me a CD with some pics on it, but they would not be of a very high resolution. That means that you will not be able to make good quality reprints or enlargements from them. Basically, you could only use them to post on the web or to email them. If you want your digital images back with a high enough resolution to be able to get prints made there is no way they would all fit onto a CD. Those are large files and if you have hundreds of them...
I have seen some very nice digital pics and I could not tell the difference between those and film pics. I was just a little leary to go with all digital if I was not going to be able to get the original size files back. Just as I did not want to go with a photographer who wouldn't give me the negatives back. You have to rely on them for reprints, which are probably more expensive and what happens if they go out of businees?