Photos - digital or film?

[AceP]

Does anyone know if there''s an advantage to choosing a photography package that gives us rolls of negatives, rather than a CD of images? I can''t quite decide if I really need to have those negatives.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

I know absolutley nothing about photography, but I''m assuming if you wanted real negatives, you couldn''t have digital film, right? You''d have to shoot with traditional film? I could be completely wrong. We definitely wanted digital because the edits are fantastic. It''s amazing what they can do!

 

[Erin]

Digital - typically cheaper, easier to ''edit'', no physical negatives to get damaged, easier to email and print

Film - just better quality photographs, imho, but if you want to scan and save or send - the image quality is only as good as your scanner

Go to a photographer who does both and ask to see his/her work


I will be using a photographer who uses film, but not 35mm, instead a medium format camera

Yields a much bigger negative with richer saturation

 

[aljdewey]

I'd always been a film fan, but something you should know.....

Even photos taken with film negatives are being converted to digital files by the pro labs these days, and the end photos are produced from the digital files. My wedding photographer said that the labs here switched to that process about 3 years ago, and they do this with medium format film as well.

That somewhat diminishes the argument for film because it will end up digital anyway.

However, if you have a lab that will agree to process directly from negatives, then there may be benefit.

Honestly.....for most of the photos, digital really is fine. Except for possibly an 11x14 or a 16x20, most of the others photos will be 8x10 or smaller, and there's not a huge loss of detail in digital at that size. Digital does offer some tremendous advantages, too: more easily shared with others and more easily backed up/archived so that your photos are replaceable in the event of loss (fire/water damage, etc.)

 

[labbielove]

Our photographers used all digital.

FI is a photography nut so inquired upfront about their equipment,etc.
and frankly we wouldn''t have it any other way.
we did receive the DVD with our high resolution digital negatives so that we can upload the photos and get prints made on our own (we did splurge on a nice album from our photogs as well).
this way we can make photo books for our families, and basically just HAVE the photos!

with over 1600 shots we got I can''t imagine choosing the 300 we''re getting in our proof book and then just not having the rest in any way shape or form, other than paying for prints.

the only thing I''ve heard on digital is that you don''t get the rich black & white shots that you can with black and white film, but I think that has also come a long way. Our photogs provided many shots in both color and b&w- it''s nice to have the ability to choose.

 

[labbielove]

Date: 11/1/2007 10:21:14 AM
Author: aljdewey
I''d always been a film fan, but something you should know.....

Except for possibly an 11x14 or a 16x20, most of the others photos will be 8x10 or smaller, and there''s not a huge loss of detail in digital at that size. Digital does offer some tremendous advantages, too: more easily shared with others and more easily backed up/archived so that your photos are replaceable in the event of loss (fire/water damage, etc.)

This is a good point, we actually asked our photographers on this, and we learned that with the digital equipment they use (they also do commercial work) you can get some amazing prints- up to huge posters- where the quality is amazing. As pp said- the likelihood of needing/wanting prints that size for a wedding is unlikely!

With either digital or film, it is also much dependent on the equipment they use. That''s why i brought DH along to talk "shop" while I could ooh and ahhh over the photos they showed us

 

[AceP]

hmm, okay - right now, we''re signed up for a package that gives us images on a CD/DVD as well as rolls of negatives - does that mean she''s probably using digital and transferring to film? or vice versa? i really know nothing about photography. I''m guessing that if I want a couple of 11x14s, I''ll just order those from her right after the wedding, anyway, so they''ll be top quality, rather than my trying to print them out or take them somewhere to be done...

 

[surfgirl]

I got my MFA in photography and I''m pretty old school about processing and printing. Last time I was in a darkroom it was a wet darkroom, so this digital thing is hard for me to consider "real" photography...until I saw our wedding photos. I realized after talking to our photographer that you can really manipulate photographs into being better than they originally were. For example, our announcement photo was amazing but in real life, the lighting wasn''t nearly as dramatic, and the greens and browns didn''t seem as saturated, but the way she processed the digital images that shot became magical. I still love the old school film and wet processing but I''m no longer snubbing digital either! It''s very cool. And we''re also getting a DVD with our full JPEG files so we can print out at home (we have a professional printer so we''d rather print ourselves). Either way you cant go wrong, but I think you''ll have a lot of fun playing around with digital files!

 

[largirl]

I''m a photographer and have shot a lot of weddings! I shoot digital but I can shoot film if desiried - I prefer not too, though. Usually I don''t even mention it unless the B&G ask. Most photographers these days shoot digital because it''s a) cheaper - no paying for developing, b) easier, especially in editing, and c) faster - no waiting for the negatives to be developed. You usually get a lot more pictures when you choose a digital package as well. You can get archival-quality CDs now that last just as long, if not longer, than actual film negatives. In my opinion, a good digital photographer will be able to take prints that are absolutely equal to a film photographer. Some people think that film produces better pictures, but in my experience that tends to be only true when you have a less experienced digital shooter or they are shooting with a camera that isn''t of high quality. As others have said, it''s much easier to print from home and share digital prints.

I would ask exactly what she means by "CD and rolls of negatives." Is she shooting with a film camera and a digital camera? Is she shooting one or the other and converting them? It may be that it''s your choice whether she shoots film or digital and she''ll provide the appropriate film or digital negatives depending on what you choose. It could be a few different things and you should make sure you understand fully.

 

[Love in Bloom]

I may be the exception and I have a "save the lost arts" mentality. From our hand chased and die-struck wedding bands and our letterpress invites, to our film photography (sounds so boring but he used color, black and white, and infrared film)... Since I''m not that traditional in my everyday life, I wanted the sentiment of tradition in the vendors we chose, if that makes sense!

I chose a photographer based on the fact that he only used film. I did so because his style and ideals matched mine (I dabble in black and white and, develop my own negatives and enlargements) and it was a weeding-out thing for me. Looking through his portfolio and having seen what he does with film, I quickly realized that this photographer had a firm grasp of the technical aspects of his art that couldn''t be fudged by digital editing. That is not to say there are not talented digital photogs out there.

Not sure what I will do with the negatives as we did pay to have the film scanned to digitals before they are cut to make them easier to share, and he also provides a book of enlarged proofs. I think the negatives would be nice to have if you choose a photographer who does use film, but I guess you don''t really need them...

 

[Pandora II]

I dated a professional photographer for 7 years. As I''m not great at composition, I did most of the developing, printing, retouching etc for his prints in the days before digital.

I do a lot of photo editing digitally in my spare time now and with the right software and a good quality picture, I find it almost more versatile than darkroom work. You can dodge and burn in areas and apply interesting techniques very easily - without spending a fortune on filters, paper, chemicals and a whole darkroom setup.

All my photos will be digital - photographer will give me all the images to choose from and then we will do a joint editing job - I quite like doing them myself as I will put way more work in than someone doing it commercially.

I know what people mean about the romance of film - and I do sometimes miss a real darkroom, but I''m not sure the quality or look is really compromised.