(Closed) Film vs. Digital Photography

posted 7 years ago in Photos/Videos
Post # 3
Member
2398 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: April 2010

Why is he so insistent on film?

Post # 4
Member
1326 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2011 - Tre Bella, Mesa, AZ

I don’t even know if you can find a photographer who will do film. It’s much more expensive, and I can’t think of any benefits to it for a wedding (only drawbacks).

Post # 6
Member
1326 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2011 - Tre Bella, Mesa, AZ

That shouldn’t matter. You can put older lenses on newer DSLRs, and a pro photographer will be shooting in raw format (not point-and-shoot jpg). I’m sure if you start talking with photographers, he’ll realize that film is way more expensive (and only really used artistically any more, from what I understand).

Post # 7
Member
659 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: May 2011

they both have their ups and downs.

personally, film is so classic… but you have to get a really good photographer. i prefer the look of fujifilm over kodak, but that’s just me. with a film photographer, chances are they know what they are doing. they know their lighting well and don’t rely on fancy computers to alter what they couldn’t do.

a digital photographer… well is a digital photographer. everyone these days calls themself a photographer if they have a camera. photos can be easily “photoshopped.” i am a graphic designer, and i personally hate all these ameteur photographers that just rely on photoshop. it is so ugly!!!!!

digital you can produce over n over n over again really fast… film, you have to get the negatives to get them printed… which most places have digital printers now… so it kinda sucks and the ones that actually do it the classic way is a bit more expensive. but you can also scan pictures too… it’s just more time.

i wanted jose villa for my wedding, but he cost 8k when i contacted him last year. his photos are beautiful!!! he shoots purely in film and everyone of his shots come out amazing.

I researched photographers during half of my engagement… can you believe that! LOL from december-to august when i finally booked one. and i ended up with a digital photographer… something about her photos i just love, and it gives me that somewhat feeling that jose villa’s photos does.

 but if i had unlimited money, i would go film for just the way they look. it’s so different from digital.

 

look up jose villa!!

Post # 8
Member
1667 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: May 2011

We went with film, despite what people in digital camp say, there is a big difference in the end resulting picture. Film has a saturation of color that cannot be exactly replicated with digital.

On the con side though: if you go with film, it is almost always more expensive, and you need to make sure your photographer knows what they are doing, because there are no “ok that one looks bad, take 23” moments for film, the shot needs to be right the first time.

We are happy we went with film, but it’s not for everyone.

Post # 11
Member
241 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: June 2010

I kind of agree with your husband—film is so so beautiful. There is a depth with film that you will almost never be able to get with digital.

That said, finding someone who still does film and does it well, is expensive. We went with digital and I didn’t even look at anyone who shot film—I assumed they were out of my budget. Plus film has to be scanned in if you want electronic copies, etc. etc. You could ask someone who does digital to see if they can shoot a roll with film in the wedding.

Post # 12
Member
1405 posts
Bumble bee

@olive25:  I would only go with film if th photographer was using a medium format camera.  Using an SLR (small format) I don’t see many advantages.  Film has an advantage with dynamic range, so it has more stops of variation it will show between black and white.  This is why when using digital, the sky many times looks white and not blue.  Also, the look of high speed B&W film (grain) is umatched by any digital editing program.  Other than that digital is cheaper, faster, more forgiving, and you get the images in digital format to do other things with instead of getting useless negatives.

Image quality is a wash and so is resolution when it comes to large prints.

Post # 13
Member
241 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: June 2010

Yes, I definitely think black and white film has a look that is unmatchable with digital—if you look at people’s wedding photos, photos from the 50s and before, even snapshots, shot in black and white have a light and quality that is just amazing.

Photos (snapshots and such) from the 70s and 80s though, I have to say, often do not hold up well because regular color film just doesn’t have that same depth. Look at the difference between your grandparents wedding photos and your parents—the black and white has such a different quality to it.

I love Robert Frank’s The Americans and look at this photo at a wedding at City Hall in Nevada: http://aseattlephotographer.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/the-americans/

But you’re not going to have Robert Frank shoot your wedding, so compare different photographers in your price range and see which one you like best. Your husband might find that he prefers the work of someone who shoots digital to someone who shoots film.

There’s a part of me that always thinks that people make a too big deal about wedding photographs—don’t get me wrong, I LOVE mine—but they’re going to be special to you primarily because of the memories and the people in them, and only secondarily because of their artistic merit.

Post # 14
Member
26 posts
Newbee

Film, namely larger formatts such as 120, 4×5 or 8X10 offers a much better range between lights and darks. Both the pure sheer white of the dress and the deep black of the suite can show up well. They allow for wonderfully beautiful optical prints and even at high sensativity, the grain is much more pleasing than digital noise.

 

However, the practical drawbacks far outweight the aesthetic qualities. Digital really has taken over. Film is worth it when you have the time, but weddings are not notorius for extra time.

Post # 15
Member
32 posts
Newbee
  • Wedding: May 2011

I HIGHLY recommend Katie Stoops (who shoots in both formats).  She’s based out of Virginia, but travels a lot for weddings.

Post # 16
Member
394 posts
Helper bee

See if you can find a photographer that offers both options (we do it, so I am sure there are others). Perhaps look for a photographer that can offer a second shooter or team, and see if one can shoot digital and one shoot film. This way you get a mix of both, and perhaps wont be as expensive since the entire day wont be film, just the one photogs perspective.

The topic ‘Film vs. Digital Photography’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors