Digital vs. Film

Which do you think is better?

I've noticed that some photographers use strickly digital cameras and they claim (which makes sense to me) that during the proofing stage they can do so much more with the picture. They can change it to B&W, they can bring it in closer, they can change the lighting, ect. to get the best possible picture.

Whereas film, once you take the shot, there is not much you can do to it. A phtotgrapher I met with that uses strickly film, no digital, claims the pictures are more professional and artistic when you use film. He says he has one photograpger that has color film and another one that has a camera with B & W film. He says that a photographer that use B&W iflm has to take pictures in a 'different' way that when you use color film.

What do you guys think? I'm going nuts with all these different sales pitches and I really need to chose a photographer already. I am totally stuck on this stage and I need to move on with my planning!!!!

Help me!!

Christine

My answer will be a little biased because I was a photography major in college. To me, as great as technological advances are, there is still no comparison to film cameras (especially medium format, the larger cameras that are common used for portraits). There is a great deal that you can do with digital shots, but there is no way you will get the same quality that you can with a traditional camera (again, medium format... 35mm cameras are comparable to digital, in some cases). So strictly speaking about weddings, I definitely think film is the way to go. While you can play around with the results of digital pictures, you can also do the same if you have a talented enough photographer. You can create digital effects onto standards prints as well.

And it's definitely true that black and white shots have to be taken differently than color. He wasn't making that up. I just love how much time and effort goes into photography, and even more so to the traditional kind. I wouldn't have booked a photographer that didn't use medium format cameras for the portraits...

So I hope that helps a little, at least from one side of the fence!!

Good luck with your decision,
Jill

Absolutely agree there's no comparison between film and digital. The technology just isn't there yet. Much higher quality with film. I've heard that repeated again & again from photographers i've met with for wedding (and in my professional life too).

Wow!!

With that being said, how come I have only met one photographer that strictly uses film!!?? I actually did like his work the best but I thought he was giving me a sales pitch about the film vs. digital.

Some phototgraphers I met that use digital were so talented though!! Why wouldn't they use film? Is it more expensive or something??

Most of them out there use the professional digital camers (they even showed them to me)???

Yes, it's more expensive, and digital pictures do not require processing. Just click, and it's on a disc. They can tweak it afterwards on a computer, but it's really much easier and faster on their part. Standard film requires the negatives to be developed, and then each print individually as well. There are so many factors to processing: time, temperature, the type of paper, etc... then the photographer has to work to make the print look perfect (sharpness, color, contrast, etc.) So the photographers that develop their own work (if anyone does anymore) are usually more expensive because it involves so much time and effort.

I miss it, though! Wish I had my own darkroom...

Go on the vendors board and ask this quesiton. I did two days ago and got some good answers. But I deleted the FM so I do have it anymore.

Bridget

think about it this way--traditional photography has been around for decades. It's been perfected over time. Digital photography is still in its infancy. They still haven't perfected digital quality (sharpness, clarity) and digital printing techniques.

Traditional photos can be always be converted to digital (I think many photographers do that to enhance with sepia tones and other special effects).

In my work in publishing, digitial cameras are often used by photojournalists--like at the Daily News who need to send photos in on quick deadline, etc. Those look fine reproduced on newsprint. But when people sit for professional portraits, they are still done with traditional camera/photography.

Bump

Wanted to get more input.....

for wedding pics, film... it lasts longer. Digital is placed onto the paper, while film is a chemical reaction within the paper, therefore, it lasts longer & is truer color (IMO).
Digi's are good for your own keepsakes, and if guests want to share, but your album is a different story.

ditto to what Lunatrek is stating.

Another thing to think about (for the future of course) is the change in technology.

Traditional negatives, you should always be able to reproduce(look at the history and how long they have been around and the same applies to 'cassettes').

But if you're given a CD with your 'proofs' on it, and a few years later CD drives are gone from computers, you would need to convert all your data to whatever the new format is.

It is also much easier for a digital photographer to 'manipulate' what they show you as a proof. Afterall, wiping out an extra foot from the shot is much much easier with digital, and well, impossible to do from a negative...

I think it depends what you want from your photos, and how much you trust the progress.

Personally, given the high cost of film development, I strongly agree that you should be paying less for same quality work if you're dealing with a digital photographer

Film is still my favorite, I think there is no comparison...yet