Digital vs Film - Which is better?

[ChrisLA]

I'm having a disagreement with my soon to be wife about choosing a package for our wedding photos. She wants to upgrade from the already included package deal we have in the yacht ceromony and go with digital photography.

I say we stick to the film, and didn't think there was a big difference in quality. Of course I'm no expert, but it was my understanding that film was still superior. Even from my own film photos, it looked to me as if they are better quality than with my new camera.

I also told my fiancee don't always buy into the sales pitch as its designed for those who a gullable and to get more money for something thats not necssary. Personally I do believe its not the camera, but how you use it that matters. Although I do realize there are of course better quality cameras, but even still if you don't know what you're doing with it, your photos can still be turn out awful as much of mine do.

Anyway I welcome your opinions.

[volguus zildrohar]

If it's something you'll want to preserve for a long time I'd go with film with a digital backup.

[BFHeadstone]

Food for thought

Very few companies even make film anymore. Nikon just delisted one of their top films a few weeks back.

You can always have digital printed to photo paper.

Check out www.flickr.com and search groups for wedding photos. There are plenty of companies that post there to show samples to prospective clients.
Each photo will often have the EXIF data which shows the camera used to take the photo. Most images there are digital but some post scans of film.

[1ajs]

film is a hard copy didgital is didgital

[HomeInMyShoes]

We did digital when we got married two years ago.

Quality-wise. Digital may not be as good as film, but it's gotten pretty close. Unless you are really enamoured by the feel that film can have over digital than I'd say trust the photographer and not which format they use. Many will do both, but are more comfortable with one format so ask to see portfolio work from the format you are going with and make sure you get to see at least one entire day of their work.

Congratulations on your engagement ChrisLA.

[Tony]

I've actually never seen a wedding photographer use film. Most have switched to digital SLRs.

IMO, go with digital. I don't think the difference is that noticeable and it allows for more "photoshop-ish" opportunities to go with digital (I wasn't really a fan but I admit I liked some of the stuff done for our wedding photos). Regarding preservation, afaik, digital is routinely printed to high-grade photo paper, not much different than film developed paper.

Is there really a price difference between the two?! I would have though film is more expensive for the obvious reason of materials.

[LSyd]

if it's 35mm film, then there won't be a noticeable difference from digital. if they're using medium format (which is extremely unlikely) then go with film.

with digital they'll have more freedom to get pics. there won't be the fear of "what if the film can't be developed" and other film disaster scenarios.

ask them about the equipment they're using, how many photographers they'll have, experience, where they shoot from compared to what you and your wife want, etc...

congrats on the engagement.

-

[drumz0rz]

I agree with LSyd. If medium format, you want that. Otherwise, digital is fine. It also depends on the photographer. What will they deliver to you in the end? I've shot 1 wedding using a dSLR. The benefits I think outweigh any quality loss. For example the 2 biggest things is really just the freedom to shoot and shoot and shoot, with no worries about space or waste. The 2nd was shooting in RAW mode. I ended up only delivering the JPEGs to them, in full resolution of course.

[ChrisLA]

Thanks guys, I took into account your opinions and the fact the film wasn't medium format and decided to go with digital. After meeting with the photographer, and seeing hundreds of photos. I'm confident in his ability to get the best result with a digital, and especially since our wedding will be a sunset and lighting is especially important.

[Doady]

^ Wouldn't film be better under those kind of lighting conditions? Digital has less dynamic range, and all of deficiencies in dynamic range is in the highlights... so I think a sunset would look better on film, but I could be wrong.

[giallo]

^ The new full frame digital cameras like the 5D, Mark II + III, D3 and D3X are pretty comparable to the dynamic range of a film camera- especially if you're shooting in RAW mode.


Congrats, Chris. I tied the knot this year as well.

[Waldek Dorotheus]

The other thing is that film is just more fun. There's something special about using something that you can actually touch and hold in your hands. I just like the way negatives look.

formalwear