HELP? digital versus film

Anyone know the differences? Do digital photos really fade? Why is film better (or is it better than digital?)

I am starting to think about photography and don't really know much about digital beyond loading my digital camera pics onto snapfish & shutterfly. LOL

They are printed on Kodak paper so does it matter that they are digital. Will they fade?

I just don't want to worry about wedding pics fading.

Help!!

Thanks much.

Call me traditional, but I am going for film...not for any other reason than I want film...LOL

Digital is nice if you have it on a nice printer, but I just like how film comes out

I was told that digital pics fade due to the quality of the ink and the paper. The better the quality, the more fade-resistant.

If this is wrong, someone please correct me, but this is what I heard....

I met with a photographer that only shoots digital. On her site- she has all these facts about digital film-- check it out.

www.karenscape.com

BTW-- we decided against only digital plus while I loved this photogs work- it was more cost effective to go with Glenmar who did film and digital plus video.

This does not make sense to me... There is no 'digital film.' Digita photos exist as a file. And what makes a photo fade over time is not what kind of camera took it, it is the paper, ink, storage, etc...

IN THEORY a digital photographer should be cheaper than a traditional one, since the majority of expense of photography is the film and processing!!

I posted my question on the vendor board and this is what I learned.

---

Posted by Dan Wagner Photography

As a professional photographer and adjunct professor my opinions are as follows:

'What is the difference between film & digital?'

There are many differences between film & digital. Here are a few: Film has more exposure latitude. This means that film is more tolerant/forgiving of an over or under-exposure. However, when in doubt one can use the RAW setting on a digital camera -- this allows for exposure compensation when the RAW file is processed later, and is a great aid in fixing an over or underexposure. Some may argue that film is better for making very large prints. However a print is best viewed from a distance equal to about twice the diagonal. The larger the print, the further you should be when viewing it. The further you are from the print the less critical sharpness becomes. Besides which the higher quality digital cameras create very large file sizes which are more than up to the task of creating large prints.

With digital one can shoot in color and convert to black & white or sepia very easily. One can also retouch blemishes and save money and time when preparing a magazine style album.

I use a Fuji S2 Finepix which produces amazing results. I've used this camera for magazine covers. I also own various medium format film cameras. I find that I take many more photos at a wedding with the digital camera. In addition I can be more creative with lighting due to the fact that I can monitor the photos as they are taken. It's also nice to not have to reload with digital. Within two months or so the Fuji S3 Finepix is coming out. I plan on buying two. This camera will have improved exposure lattitude. It will also provide several setting to emulate the distinct look of several popular films.

When I shoot digital I don't have to worry about the lab ruining the film. I also save on film costs. This savings is negated when one factors in the extra cost of staying current with digital equipment.

Of course there are more differences between film and digital. The most important factor is the skill, craftsmanship, and creativity of the photographer. A good photographer can do beautiful work with film or digital.

'Do digital photos really fade?'

I think what you mean to ask is do prints from digital files fade. I have all my prints from film or digital printed on high quality photographic paper. Some people have voiced concern regarding prints made with an inkjet printer. There are studies that have found archival inkjet printing inks, papers, and printers to have superior lasting qualities over photographic paper prints. Whether or not the inks will stay on the papers for a very long time is up to debate. Either way, it's always a good idea to limit the amount of time photos are subjected to sunlight.

'Why is film better (or is it better than digital?)'

I believe that the great majority of wedding photographers will go digital (if they haven't already) within the current year. The only thing delaying things for some of the larger studios are workflow issues.

I hope this helps answer some of your questions.

Best regards,
Dan Wagner
http://www.danwagner.com

By the way, I've been asked by art directors and magazine editors whether or not certain prints were digital or film. Even these experts couldn't tell!

---

From what I was told, digital produces more crisp pictures, while film has more depth and dimension.
I was told that my photographers preferred to work with film, even though they do both.

---

Posted by ThongLori

This does not make sense to me... There is no 'digital film.' Digita photos exist as a file. And what makes a photo fade over time is not what kind of camera took it, it is the paper, ink, storage, etc...

IN THEORY a digital photographer should be cheaper than a traditional one, since the majority of expense of photography is the film and processing!!

---

Well- I wrote digital film because I was writing fast.. Yes, one of the benefits of having digital pics, is that you can have them on your hard drive and send to people, be able to print your own, etc.

In regards to price- it was cheaper for me to go with one vendor, as opposed to two.

I am ALL about film. The latitude in fi;m is always better. The color depth and richness is always better. And digital pictures are made with inks that have not proven to be archival. The black and white and sepias are not TRUE b&W and sepia, so you lose the depth and richness of those processes.

It's true, digital files do not fade, but negatives, kept in adry dark place won't fade very much either. Yes, it takes a lot of work to do touch ups, etc on a fi;m print, but for me it's totally worth it, because it's the 'real' art. It's like the difference between a piano and a keyboard

Our digital photos were printed at a professional photo lab, not on a printer in the back of the photographers studio. I am pretty confident that our photos will last as long as prints made from film photography.

I'm also 'old fashioned' when it comes to thee things. Our photographer is using color and black and white film. He automatically has them developed in negatives AND disk, so we cna have them on the computer if we want anyway...and they can be 'touched up' then.

The problem I have with digital...is that the people who do it don't charge less...even though you'd think it would cost less, because the process is SO EASY compared to film: where there is developing, and printing and all. Digital,is a whole other art i think. They use a camera..and a memory card..and while there is still teh art of photography in terms of seeing the shot and the moment happening...they don't have the art in the equipment the same way.
THe art with digital, seems to come from the printing itself; formats and borders and wacky things they can do to digital pics. THey can also zoom into things that were ALL THE WAY in the distance. There are benifits to both..but I am going with film.