Digital Vs. Film Photography

My photog uses both....I asked her about this...she said she doesn't shoot all digital b/c the digital camera technology isn't up to par with the quality of film cameras. She also said the gap is closing, and by the time I get married (over a year away) she just might be shooting all digital.
I've seen albums w/ digital and film photography, and I personally can't see the difference. It's easier for a photog to shoot digital b/c the equipment is lighter, you can downlaod images immediately, so there is little to no chance of images being lost, and you can change the color, and edit pics easier.
It's a little harder with film.

I didn't really care if she shot one or the other, as long as my pics comes out good!

I agree both Digital and Film look great and there are certainly positives and negatives to both.

Something to be wary of for Film Photographers, some will try to sell you on their print quality being better if its film. Its only better if they print it the traditional way (meaning in a dark room). If they send it out, then all labs I spoke with said they print film and digital camera pictures THE SAME! Therefore print quality is only different if they are not scanning the negative.

Digital is great because usually the photographer ends up with a lot more pictures and they know if they need to take it again right away. One thing to note about digital photographs: If you are getting the negatives, make sure to negotiate for the High Resolution Negatives and not just the Low Res file. there is a difference. The Low Res file emails better but the High Res file is the only one that will come out in the best quality in printing.

Print quality up to 16x20 is the relatively the same for digital versus film. If you wanted bigger than that, right now, film is better from what I have seen. I didn't want any bigger than 16x20 though so I was happy with the Digital and went with the photographer who I felt most comfortable with (I didn't care what type of camera they used).

Also, someone tried to sell me film because according to them negatives last longer. I did my research, typically, from what I read, they last 20-30 years tops. So either way, I would request a digital negative file (with film they just scan the negative).

Hope this helps,
franni

Not many people can tell the difference btwn the two just by looking at the prints...film adds a bit more of a dimension to it.

Im going with digital because I think it is much more convienant to have a CD with ALL of my images already on it, then a pack of negatives, which depending on the type of film the photog uses can't always get developed in all photo labs. This way I can make copies of any photo whenever I want!

---

Posted by liwinebride

I agree both Digital and Film look great and there are certainly positives and negatives to both.

Something to be wary of for Film Photographers, some will try to sell you on their print quality being better if its film. Its only better if they print it the traditional way (meaning in a dark room). If they send it out, then all labs I spoke with said they print film and digital camera pictures THE SAME! Therefore print quality is only different if they are not scanning the negative.

Digital is great because usually the photographer ends up with a lot more pictures and they know if they need to take it again right away. One thing to note about digital photographs: If you are getting the negatives, make sure to negotiate for the High Resolution Negatives and not just the Low Res file. there is a difference. The Low Res file emails better but the High Res file is the only one that will come out in the best quality in printing.

Print quality up to 16x20 is the relatively the same for digital versus film. If you wanted bigger than that, right now, film is better from what I have seen. I didn't want any bigger than 16x20 though so I was happy with the Digital and went with the photographer who I felt most comfortable with (I didn't care what type of camera they used).

Also, someone tried to sell me film because according to them negatives last longer. I did my research, typically, from what I read, they last 20-30 years tops. So either way, I would request a digital negative file (with film they just scan the negative).

Hope this helps,
franni

---

Franni,

THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR EXPERTISE!!!

---

Posted by cjb88

Not many people can tell the difference btwn the two just by looking at the prints...film adds a bit more of a dimension to it.

Im going with digital because I think it is much more convienant to have a CD with ALL of my images already on it, then a pack of negatives, which depending on the type of film the photog uses can't always get developed in all photo labs. This way I can make copies of any photo whenever I want!

---

That is true. I never thought of it like that. I'm sure I'll be emailing my pics everywhere!

Thank you guys for this post I am in process of looking for a photographer and trying educate myself with what is out their:

One more difference exist between traditional film cameras:35mm and medium format cameras;first, is smaller and produce smaller negatives up to 8 by 10 if larger, this negatives can produce pictures that are grainy(disadvantage), but it is a quick action resulting in better candid- style pictures(adv)

Second type, medium-format cameras produce picrtures that have richer depth and contrast and much clear photos when prints are enlarged! I think photographers who still use them do charge

it all deepens what is important to you

---

If you are getting the negatives, make sure to negotiate for the High Resolution Negatives and not just the Low Res file. there is a difference. The Low Res file emails better but the High Res file is the only one that will come out in the best quality in printing.

---

What is considered high res and Low res. My Photographer is giving us 300 dpi files. Is that good or bad?