Film vs. Digital decision help

[number2]

I am so torn between the choice of using film or digital...

I called my photgrapher and they said they would recomend digital becuase they can take more shots and in their opinion the quality is the same between the two - unless you were going to blow the picture up to poster size than film is better....

What has everyone else used or will use....

Any input would help...

 

[TravelingGal]

I''m normally a digital fan, but we are going film. There''s just something about film that I love.........

 

[Selkie]

Digital, because I really wanted to have all the files available to do whatever I want with. We will have one physical album made for us by the photographer, but it''s so easy to share the pictures online this way, and to make up less formal albums for ourselves.

 

[dani13]

We are going with film. In our opinions, the quality is just better. Yes, you definitely have a couple more hurdles to go over with film, but in the end it is worth it. We will still get the negatives and be able to reproduce as many pictures as we want through a local studio...

 

[curlygirl]

We were fortunate to have both. My photographer is a huge advocate of film (as am I) but he enjoys experimenting with digital. So he and his assistant (wife!) had 3 cameras between them and we got the full spectrum of film and digital photos. I actually love all of them, although there is something "special" about film. We were also lucky that our photographer scanned EVERYTHING on to discs--including all the film shots--plus we got the negatives from him. I made my own albums so it was great to have the freedom of making as many prints as I wanted.

Lots of people are leaning more towards digital these days as it''s less expensive and easier for sharing. You really can''t go wrong with either format, IMO.

 

[snow_happy]

film but with digital CDs as well. Our photographer said that when she sends the negatives in for printing the printer can also make a digital CD for us so we can photoshop to our hearts content. She is also giving us the film negatives. We chose film because unless the digital person is really good (and I mean really really good) at photoshop, it doesn''t have the same romantic, real quality as film. Most of the photoshop work I''ve seen takes care of lighting issues but if your photographer is really good then digital + minimal Photoshop would turn out ok too Our photographer also shoots professional size film

Good luck!

 

[Mara]

we went entirely digital and were extremely happy. our photographer had 10MP cameras, so in reality the quality was just as good as film, even if we blew them up to 20x30 or larger. we got numerous 9x12's for matting and framing for around the house (mostly landscape and artistic type shots, not actual us/wedding shots), and they were amazing quality. i think many times digital packages are cheaper too than film?

oh yeah and for us digital was a godsend as our photographer spent a few DAYS photoshopping out everyone's mosquito bites, the wedding was in hawaii and the mosquitos loved the fresh californian blood...hahaha.

 

[TBeck2000]

We''re leaning towards digital because of the sheer volume of photos that are possible. One photographer said that we would have 500 to 600 photos taken of the ceremony and reception. Not bad for only $600.

We also like the fact that we can make as many prints as we want for very little money. At Wal*Mart, you can get 4x6 prints (to include in your thank-you''s or whatever else) for $0.12. Link Even 8x10 photos are reasonable at $1.96.

 

[firstbase32]

I haven''t talked to anyone about photo''s yet...but do most people get the negatives if they go with film and then get a CD with ALL of the pictures if it''s digital?

 

[TBeck2000]

Date: 7/20/2006 1:40:08 PM
Author: firstbase32
I haven''t talked to anyone about photo''s yet...but do most people get the negatives if they go with film and then get a CD with ALL of the pictures if it''s digital?

The one film photographer that we spoke to would not give us the negatives. We had to go through him to get any additional prints made. You will probably find that most photographers (film and digital alike) charge $10+ for prints. My one friend was getting a reprint done of one of his wedding photos (to give as a gift to his grandmother) and his wedding photographer wanted $75 for just the print. He balked and the photographer dropped the price to "only" $50. This was only for an 8x10 photo as well.

 

[Mara]

our photographer kept the photos and files for a year (we had to buy through them at that time) and then gave us a cd with all the images after the year was over. they typically charge $700 for the file CD but they didn''t charge us. so i think it just depends on what you can negotiate...and what the package entails. many places will charge for files and prints etc.

 

[FD21Bride]

All I can say is THANK GOD FOR DIGITAL FILM! Our photographer forgot to take more than one picture of my DH and I together

(long story) and thankfully enough for digital film he was able to cut people out to create photos for us....

Just my $0.02

 

[codex57]

Film is nice cuz if you blow up those giant sized posters, the quality should look better if you''re RIGHT in front of it. Course, it won''t matter to most people cuz you look at a giant picture like those from far away.

We had all digital. Even tho the photog had a Nikon D2X (12 MB camera), he used the low quality setting when taking the pics. We know that''s what he used cuz the digital negatives were 1 MB or smaller. Everything still turned out great. For 4x6 pictures, you really only need a 1 MB camera. Beautiful pics are actually more about the person behind the camera and the lens they''re using rather than the number of megapixels a camera has. That''s why the hardcore photo people can get better pics out of a digital SLR camera like the Nikon D70 even tho it has less megapixels than many of those point and shoot cameras out there.

Oh, and the main reason I liked how they had digital: we got like 1400 shots. The guy just kept snapping away. Didn''t miss having a videographer cuz we had so many sequential action shots.

 

[flopkins]

We did all digital. IMO, it''s pretty much the same, if the photog has a professional camera. And we got a hi resolution CD w/all 700+pix, for us to print out as we please, at must lower cost to us... so IMO it''s a money saving thing too.

the final decision is, of course, personal. IMO, what matters most is how good the photographer is, not necessarily the media he/she uses!!

 

[snow_happy]

talking to both digital and film photographers in the LA area the number of pictures they take per hour was pretty much the same so I think it depends on who you talk to. the negatives thing is also different depending on who you hire. i couldn''t stomach the idea of someone I hire having the rights to pictures of me and all the negatives for a year. also with all the online places now where you can make your own 8x10s for a few dollars who wants to pay a photographer$100 for one?! anyways, it just wasn''t a financial move that I was comfortable with so I found a great photographer who gives the rights immediately (yes they can be found!)

as for the negatives question above, my understanding is that film produces the standard negatives which in the printing process can be converted to digital files (for your computer or whatever), for digital shots there are only CD/digital negatives.

i''d say whether it''s film or digital find a photographer you like with a budget you are comfortable with!

 

[codex57]

The film to digital conversion usually isn''t quite good. That''s cuz most people, including the pro wedding photogs, don''t have the equipment needed to do a high quality transfer. Plus, the technology still isn''t that great.

To be honest, I really don''t think it''s too much to worry about. Film might give you better quality, especially in the bigger sizes. Digital photogs might take more photos since they don''t have to worry about film costs and don''t have to stop to change out their "film" as often.

 

[Gypsy]

We are doing film. While digital is advancing everyday... I still can tell the difference between the two and just prefer the ay film looks. But if it''s a cost thing-- our photographer offered to shoot X number of rolls of film during the ceremony, cake cutting, toast-- and for the formal pics and do the rest of the reception pics digital. We didn''t choose that option, but it was offerred to us.

 

[snow_happy]

digital photographers have to "dump" their memory cards to hard drives to reshoot unless they have several GB worth of cards

 

[ChargerGrrl]

Our photog does both, but we''re going with digital.
Check out his website- he mentions the qualities of each format:

http://www.accentoflight.com/