Search in your own words. Describe what you need or ask a wedding planning question.
I have started looking at photgraphy today. I realize technology has changed pretty much to digital. Is this how it is for most photography companies? Or do some prefer and still use film. I am trying to sell my mom (who is 73) on the idea of digital technology and it isn't working. It is so much more cost effective but she doesn't get it. To her, change is not good. Any input would be appreciated.
Well, tell her this (which my photog had to tell me to sell me) most, if not all film is developed digitally. So even if the photog shoots film, the prints will be digital prints. Why not do the digital shots so that you can have them on a CD and fix any errors? Save yourself the trouble by going digital, I guess...hope that helps.
I told her about the CD thing and about how you can do things yourself. It doesnt fly with her at all. She wants all proofs printed so she can touch them and compare one next to another. The idea of video and computers scare her. She has this comfort level that she is willing to pay for even if it is more expensive. I can't tell her how to spend her money. The last wedding she made was 15 years ago and she used one of the most expensive photography companies on LI. We simply cannot afford them this time around. I may have to make an appointment with them just to appease her so she can see that we just don't have the funds.
some photographers use both. Mine is using digital for the color prints and film for the black and whites
My mom was the same way and so is DHs mom! They just dont get it. So out of our 900+ proofs - we are going to print out 300 or so (the best ones) and give them to the parents so they can 'touch' them!
We are using a photographer that uses film. We looked at photographers that use both and had a very hard time picking a photographer. Out of the 7 or 8 we saw, only two use film and we just happened to like their pictures the best. But it is costing more money. I do wish we liked the digital better, but the film just looked different to us.
I still think film is better and many photograhers agree with me. Some palces will shoot fi;m and then scan the negatives. So you get the best of both worlds, the richness of film and theversatility of digital. I don't and never will believe digital is the gold standard for photography. It just isn't. It is inherently limited and inferior. It's also usually not any cheaper than film. Honestly for most people they won't notice the difference, but I like film. I read trade maagzines on photography and the reasons cited for using digital over fi;m are all about convenience, not quality. For me, I notice the little halos you sometimes get with digital, I notice the pixelation vs grain, I notice that there is a significant lack of depth in black and white photos. Also, I believe even in the most advanced models, digital cameras have a short delay, so the best shots can be missed (this is SO minute though with professional equipment). I think for most people though, either way won't matter to them and they won't ntice it at all. I spoke about it in depth with some wedding photographers, and I was actually stumped on one amazing photo. It was a gorgeous 20x24 print which I swore was film. Nope, it was digital. However, I really love the idea of the studios who scan the film into the comptuer and do the effects digitally. To digitally doa sepia tone takes 2 seconds and costs nothing, wheras to do an actual sepia print takes a lot more time. If you want the ALL fi;m , all old fashioned approach, you can try Franklin Square Photo. They develop photos right on site, which I love, but they are VERY pricey. The photographer I like so far is Artisan. They shoot fi;m but convert it to digital so they can make corrections and effects (free!) and so magazine style albums. You get actual negatives and proofs as well as proofs on a CD. Keep in mind that even if your photographer does not do this, it's realtively simple to get negatives scanned
Posted by agentangel
Like the past poster, if you choose film you have to make sure the studio prints the bw as prof bw prints - not on color paper. Otherwise its pointless.
If its a good photographer (good eye) with good equipment and uses a prof lab - then there's no difference between 35mm color film and digital. Go with the cheaper option! You can always have proofs - digital or not.
However, digital does not compete with medium format film and black and white is never as rich. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I'm a photo editor and my job is to compare quality and there are still some marked differences.
why are you trying to convice her? is she paying?
Our photographer uses film....
Posted by MCDO15
why are you trying to convice her? is she paying?
Posted by marymoon
I still think film is better and many photograhers agree with me. Some palces will shoot fi;m and then scan the negatives. So you get the best of both worlds, the richness of film and theversatility of digital. I don't and never will believe digital is the gold standard for photography. It just isn't. It is inherently limited and inferior. It's also usually not any cheaper than film. Honestly for most people they won't notice the difference, but I like film. I read trade maagzines on photography and the reasons cited for using digital over fi;m are all about convenience, not quality. For me, I notice the little halos you sometimes get with digital, I notice the pixelation vs grain, I notice that there is a significant lack of depth in black and white photos. Also, I believe even in the most advanced models, digital cameras have a short delay, so the best shots can be missed (this is SO minute though with professional equipment). I think for most people though, either way won't matter to them and they won't ntice it at all. I spoke about it in depth with some wedding photographers, and I was actually stumped on one amazing photo. It was a gorgeous 20x24 print which I swore was film. Nope, it was digital. However, I really love the idea of the studios who scan the film into the comptuer and do the effects digitally. To digitally doa sepia tone takes 2 seconds and costs nothing, wheras to do an actual sepia print takes a lot more time. If you want the ALL fi;m , all old fashioned approach, you can try Franklin Square Photo. They develop photos right on site, which I love, but they are VERY pricey. The photographer I like so far is Artisan. They shoot fi;m but convert it to digital so they can make corrections and effects (free!) and so magazine style albums. You get actual negatives and proofs as well as proofs on a CD. Keep in mind that even if your photographer does not do this, it's realtively simple to get negatives scanned
With digital, it is so much easier to get rid of a blemish or imperfection in the picture. Also, I think, you can make any picture black and white after it is taken, or leave it in color. With film you have to choose beforehand whether the picture will be black and white, or color (at least I think that is how it works.)
Posted by marymoon
I still think film is better and many photograhers agree with me. Some palces will shoot fi;m and then scan the negatives. So you get the best of both worlds, the richness of film and theversatility of digital. I don't and never will believe digital is the gold standard for photography. It just isn't. It is inherently limited and inferior. It's also usually not any cheaper than film. Honestly for most people they won't notice the difference, but I like film. I read trade maagzines on photography and the reasons cited for using digital over fi;m are all about convenience, not quality. For me, I notice the little halos you sometimes get with digital, I notice the pixelation vs grain, I notice that there is a significant lack of depth in black and white photos. Also, I believe even in the most advanced models, digital cameras have a short delay, so the best shots can be missed (this is SO minute though with professional equipment). I think for most people though, either way won't matter to them and they won't ntice it at all. I spoke about it in depth with some wedding photographers, and I was actually stumped on one amazing photo. It was a gorgeous 20x24 print which I swore was film. Nope, it was digital. However, I really love the idea of the studios who scan the film into the comptuer and do the effects digitally. To digitally doa sepia tone takes 2 seconds and costs nothing, wheras to do an actual sepia print takes a lot more time. If you want the ALL fi;m , all old fashioned approach, you can try Franklin Square Photo. They develop photos right on site, which I love, but they are VERY pricey. The photographer I like so far is Artisan. They shoot fi;m but convert it to digital so they can make corrections and effects (free!) and so magazine style albums. You get actual negatives and proofs as well as proofs on a CD. Keep in mind that even if your photographer does not do this, it's realtively simple to get negatives scanned
You guys rock - yet again.
Posted by glinda_goodwitch
With digital, it is so much easier to get rid of a blemish or imperfection in the picture. Also, I think, you can make any picture black and white after it is taken, or leave it in color. With film you have to choose beforehand whether the picture will be black and white, or color (at least I think that is how it works.)
Posted by bride2b2817
some photographers use both. Mine is using digital for the color prints and film for the black and whites
