Is there a difference in digital photography vs. film?

Hello ladies!!! Is there a major difference in photography using film versus a digital format? I'm trying to weigh the pros & cons.

TIA!!

this may not be the major difference and certainly not important in the long run.......but with film, it seems to take a lot longer to get your proofs.

or rather, with digital, perhaps it takes the same length of time to get the actual proofs, but they can email you or post some digital files in the meantime.

All I know is, I am tortured waiting for my proofs to see what kind of shots they got and sarahradio had her profesional shots posted the day after her wedding!

With digital the photographer can check the pics as he go along to check for things such as closed eyes, etc.

With film if you take color pics they have to be color and if you take Black and white they have to be that way and digital there is more of a flexibility.

Having done both way of photography myself I understand how easy it would be to screw up a roll of film while developing

With film photography if they need to make correction they will first have to scan them in and make correction and then print so that can cost more

Getting proofs will be a lot quicker with digital and they can easily be put on line.

Personally I like digital b/c there is so much more flexibility in what you can do.

HTH

---

Posted by moonlitee

With digital the photographer can check the pics as he go along to check for things such as closed eyes, etc.

With film if you take color pics they have to be color and if you take Black and white they have to be that way and digital there is more of a flexibility.

Having done both way of photography myself I understand how easy it would be to screw up a roll of film while developing

With film photography if they need to make correction they will first have to scan them in and make correction and then print so that can cost more

Getting proofs will be a lot quicker with digital and they can easily be put on line.

Personally I like digital b/c there is so much more flexibility in what you can do.

HTH

---

thanks!!! this is really helpful!!

the photographer I met with that uses film said they would scan all my pics and give them to me on a disc, but I doubt they will be available for online viewing.

Might not be true, but I heard that no one really knows how long pictures (in hard copy) in a digital album will last before fading.

But now they scan alot the film photos before putting them in the album. So you have the same problem

Also you can solve that by reprinting your album if your pictures fade after 50 years.

---

Posted by winterwhite

Might not be true, but I heard that no one really knows how long pictures (in hard copy) in a digital album will last before fading.

But now they scan alot the film photos before putting them in the album. So you have the same problem

Also you can solve that by reprinting your album if your pictures fade after 50 years.

---

Digital pics are printed on the same acid free paper as traditional so they have the same life expectancy

My DH is a photographer - film has a grain that is just not in digital... althoug some digital photog are trying to give pics that grainy film look....

Most processing company that photographers send the films to are actually scanning them. They become digital. A lot of processing/developping Cies also are converting to digital.

You can still print digital into paper, get a 'real' album and everything. For best quality you need the 'raw' version. It very high resolution (untouched). That's the equivalent to a negative.

Most photographers will give you the JPEG version. I would ask for both the RAW and the JPEG (easier to read on a computer.... RAW takes a lot of space/memory).

---

Posted by Smiles111

this may not be the major difference and certainly not important in the long run.......but with film, it seems to take a lot longer to get your proofs.

or rather, with digital, perhaps it takes the same length of time to get the actual proofs, but they can email you or post some digital files in the meantime.

All I know is, I am tortured waiting for my proofs to see what kind of shots they got and sarahradio had her profesional shots posted the day after her wedding!

---

This isn't always true...at least not in my case. My pics were digital and I am still waiting for proofs more than 12 weeks later.

actually thats not true at all about if you shoot in color you only can have color, black and white on black and white. if you have a dark room, anything is possible. i took 2 years worth of photography classes and we used color film for black and white photos, etc. theres a different sort of depth with color film than b & w. with black and white, you can process the photo, then use certain type of pencils to make it color and it looks gorgeous. yeah, its time critical, but the ending result is beyond words.

film to me is still worth it. even if im using a digital photographer (i think they might use a film camera too) grain is a whole different issue too. grain is only acheived to its fullest with film rather than putting grain there in photoshop. to me, its alot more to it and talented if you use film. the creative possibilities are endless. most people have no idea how many different effects you can use with film. so i wouldnt say no to a film photographer without weighing in the pros too. the only reason im not using a film photographer is because they use digital, if they were strictly film, i'd hire them either way.

and winding the film?? photographers do it so often, it'll take 2 seconds for them to put new film in their camera before anything happens. as long as they're quick and have a good assistant. most assistants already load cameras up with film and quickly hand it to the photog right after they run out. ok now im rambling.

in addition, with digital photography, you can do touch-ups, make certain aspects of the picture stand out more than another.

you can digitally alter pics.