Film v Digital for Weddings

[Andy001z]

Hi,

over Christmas I got engaged and so the search for a photographer over here in the UK began. After looking at several and not really feeling we were going to get what we wanted, we took the plunge and booked to see a local photographer.

We had decided that a digital format photographer would be Ok, infact better given the flexability with digital for B/W and conditions on the day. Plus we want to nogicate having a copy of digital files at the end of the shoot.

The chap we met, had been working as a local wedding photographer for 25years and also shot for the press. When I asked about what format he used he said film and would not shoot in digital as the quality was not the same, even from his very nice top end Nikon that he used for his daily press work. I was very suprised at this statement, and felt it was frankly not true. Comments?

In all we did not like his work and decided to look elsewhere.

Andyh

[tim]

Film has advantages, digital has advantages, but IMHO digital is easily good enough for wedding work. If you want prints larger than A1, or A1 prints you can examine with a magnifying glass then you'll want medium format film, otherwise for most work digital is great. I shoot weddings with two 20D's and i've never had any complaints about image quality.

[DocFrankenstein]

You CAN shoot weddings with digital. You CAN get good results with it.

BUT film is a much better medium IMO. He's also shooting MF probably.

Digital may be getting there in terms of resolution, but the useful dynamic range is not even close... this makes for much better pictures of the bride and groom beside each other. Pictures have more dimension to them, because the fill flash is used less... etc etc

The guy's been doing it for 25 years.

I shoot digital mostly as a "polaroid" and to practice posing, lighting and technique cheaply. All of the portfolio stuff I prefer to shoot with film.

[dengli]

I've done lots of weddings and have 35mm, medium format and digital equipment. The last time I did any film work was nearly 3 years ago and I've never had any complaints from customers. For the size that images are reproduced then digital is more than enough.

It seems to work as I get lots of referrals and reprint orders.

[SuzyView]

I will agree and disagree with the above. I do both digital and film. I mostly take portraits in digital, my backup is film. For weddings, you don't want mistakes, but sometimes the film pictures are really good. I have a 20D, 10D, and EOS 3. Sometimes the EOS 3 is so sharp, you want to cry when you see the pictures from the lab.

Okay, this is my take on NIKON users: The ones who love their film equipment swear by them. I met a photographer here in VA two weeks ago who just changed from Nikon film to digital, but is still not convinced. He said he doesn't like learning PS. He's used to the photo lab cropping and doing the fixes instead of him. PS is really a tool that is learned through lots of experimenting.

Canon users, for the most part, jumped at the opportunity to use digital, are smarter, are braver, better looking, have more appeal and take much better pictures than that other brand. So, digital was just the next step. It's what intelligent, wise and perfectly happy people do. ;)

SuzyView
Canon and sticking to it. Because I am smarter, better looking . . . .

[Andy001z]

Thanks for you input, some interesting comments. I did think about the fact he might of been using MF.

Oh well, I am still going to get a photographer who can shoot digital well, and I might make sure they are a Canon owner, because they are smarter and better looking!! hehe

[tjburns]

For the price of an airline ticket, and a place to stay...ill come shoot your wedding for free...heck Ill even include an 11x16 no charge.

[DocFrankenstein]

Ad hominem ad infinitum...

[SuzyView]

I don't know. Those English types drive on the wrong side of the road. :)

SuzyView

[lakiluno]

umm...we've been driving on the wrong side of the road for longer than you've been having a country...so :D

Lol, you could probably get a number of the photogs on this forum to shoot your wedding for an airline ticket :D

Leo

[DocFrankenstein]

umm...we've been driving on the wrong side of the road for longer than you've been having a country...so :DYou've been driving since 1776?

Cool!

[cmM]

Andy,
Does it really matter? Today, most wedding photographers either shoot digital or if they don't then they scan the film shots. If i were you I would disregard the medium used and make your decision based on the quality of his/her work.
In the endless debate of digita vs. film it really comes down to the photographer's prefference.

[SuzyView]

I think the value of having the digital is that scanned film or negatives just doesn't make life easier. If a photographer can hand over all his/her shots with a fee, you are free to do with the data what you wish. It's a wonderful thing for people who are familiar with PS and can do all the post-processing without paying the photographer.

If the photographer is wonderful, all the work flawless, I'd consider film, but if I could find someone who does digital and the work is just as good, I'd choose the digital.

[tim]

Andy,
Does it really matter? Today, most wedding photographers either shoot digital or if they don't then they scan the film shots. If i were you I would disregard the medium used and make your decision based on the quality of his/her work.
In the endless debate of digita vs. film it really comes down to the photographer's prefference.

Well said. Find a photographer that makes good pictures, don't worry about how they do it.

[Citizensmith]

You've been driving since 1776?

Cool!

You assume he was referring only to automobiles.

And you really need to remember that the Scots pretty much invented everything. I mean sure a US company may have the patent for one click online shopping but Scotland created the fundamentals of modern society. That and TV.

[tim]

You've been driving since 1776?

And here's me not finishing work until 1800 this evening, but at least I avoid rush hour.

[Andy001z]

It seems form the small amount of research I have done that Digital format photographers are more willing to be alittle more flexible with the orginal images, where as Film seem less open to new ideas. (oh no I will start something with that statement)

Anyway, we will be largely basing it on quality, after all no point just having someone that shoots and does what I want to only end up with crap photos.

Cheers
Andy
PS : Why do you think the Channel Tunnel is for Rail only? - Becuase they could not think of a way to make French or English drivers change road sides without massive pile ups of oncomming traffic. :)

[UncleDoug]

You assume he was referring only to automobiles.

And you really need to remember that the Scots pretty much invented everything. I mean sure a US company may have the patent for one click online shopping but Scotland created the fundamentals of modern society. That and TV.

You've been watching too much TV :D.

Philo T. Farnsworth invented the TV, down the hill in San Francisco.;)

[David M]

Digital may be getting there in terms of resolution, but the useful dynamic range is not even close...


digital may be 'getting there'??? wow.... I find it a little hard to believe to see a statement like this in the year of 2006 ! maybe a few years ago but now ?!?
With very clean high ISO images from today's cameras (take 5D for example) I thought these discussions were a matter of the past ! How can MF still compete with digital at let's say ISO1600 ? no way...


this makes for much better pictures of the bride and groom beside each other. Pictures have more dimension to them, because the fill flash is used less... etc etc

with all due respect - the use of fill flash has nothing to do with film/digital - it's your technique not the media used to capture the image that determines the use of fill flash

[Citizensmith]

You've been watching too much TV :D.

Philo T. Farnsworth invented the TV, down the hill in San Francisco.;)

Actually, depending on how you look at it, we're both right. Farnsworth invented the CRT display. So he can chalk up cedit for the vision part. Of course later on one of his decendants will go on to invent the smelloscope which is also pretty cool. Baird invented the transmission and recreation of a TV signal. He gets credit for the tele part. Interestingly he also invented the video recorder, just never got the player thing worked out. Only recently have we been able to play his recordings and discover it had actually worked.

[DocFrankenstein]

digital may be 'getting there'??? wow.... I find it a little hard to believe to see a statement like this in the year of 2006 ! maybe a few years ago but now ?!?
With very clean high ISO images from today's cameras (take 5D for example) I thought these discussions were a matter of the past ! How can MF still compete with digital at let's say ISO1600 ? no way...
David... High ISO RESOLUTION is better with digital.

Dynamic range of digital is... lacking compared to film.

Do you print much of your own work with an enlarger?



with all due respect - the use of fill flash has nothing to do with film/digital - it's your technique not the media used to capture the image that determines the use of fill flash
If your medium creates purely black shadows under the eyes, then the technique of using fill flash becomes somewhat compulsory.

With film it's a choice.

[David M]

Do you print much of your own work with an enlarger?


I print quite a bit of 16x20's and 20x30's. I know they would look nowhere close to what they do if I shot them with film. Sometimes I crop half the frame off and print a 16x20 (from a 12mpx file) and get a beautiful, clean print. There's simply no way this could be done with film.



If your medium creates purely black shadows under the eyes, then the technique of using fill flash becomes somewhat compulsory. [quote]

again - why would the medium be responsible for shadows under the eyes ?!? this just totally doesn't make sense - it's your use of LIGHT that creates or lets you avoid the shadows not the film or digital sensor in the camera.

[quote]With film it's a choice.

and it's EXACTLY the same choice with digital,

why I have problems with your argumentation is because you started talking about the dynamic range of film vs digital but the RAW fact is: electronic sensors have a larger dynamic range than film !

I do agree that - to put it simply - it is EASIER TO USE the dynamic range of film if your exposure is not dead on but to say that digital creates bigger shadows under the eyes is a pure misunderstanding.

[DocFrankenstein]

So you print digital 6 mp as 16*20

Have you tried printing color 135 with an optical enlarger as 16*20? The reason I'm saying it is most labs scan your negative and then print it digitally on the paper.

Did you print optically from color negatives?

[Curtis N]

RAW fact is: electronic sensors have a larger dynamic range than film!I'd appreciate if you shared your source for this information. I'm no expert on it, but it seems to contradict everything I've read on the topic.

[Citizensmith]

why I have problems with your argumentation is because you started talking about the dynamic range of film vs digital but the RAW fact is: electronic sensors have a larger dynamic range than film !

I agree, it is contradictory to what most places indicate. Digital is normally listed as having a dynamic range of around 6, behind film.

You kind of need to quote some sources with on off the wall statement like that or we'll just have to call bullsh1t on it. :) You need to remember there is a big difference between how much information a digital image can theoretically contain, and what is recorded in reality.

[cmM]

depends what kind of film you use as well. Not all films are created equal. (take velvia for example)

[Wilt]

Andy,

Some points to ponder...if you have film shots and the prints are made by a pro lab (not the corner drugstore), they will be carefully processed and last a very long time. And if you can get the negs from the photographer (even a year after the wedding, many pros just do not want to store negs forever!) you have an addition form of 'safety'.

With digital, the prints could be produced on a consumer grade home injet, and god knows whether the ink was matched with the paper brand or even if the ink uses pigments and not dyes. So 10 years from now the digital prints you have could be useless pieces of scrap paper!

I have color prints from 40 years ago that still look new. I'm not so certain about ability to look at the sam digital print created by god-knows-who on cheap paper using aftermarket ink refills!

[David M]

You kind of need to quote some sources with on off the wall statement like that or we'll just have to call bullsh1t on it. :)

here's one:

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

and a quote:

"There seems to be an urban legend that says digital cameras have less dynamic range than film. The legend is wrong. The above plot shows the comparison of a DSLR with print and slide film. The slide film records only about 5 photographic stops of information (a stop is a factor of 2, so 5 stops is 32). The print film shows about 7 stops of information. The digital camera shows at least 10 stops of information (this test was limited to 10 stops). Other tests show the Canon 1D Mark II camera has about 11.6 stops of information"

another one:

http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Rvws/Acut/pg1.html

and a quote:

"Good 12-bit digital, such as in the case of the D70, has at least another two full stops of dynamic range than slide film. The latitude is just as tight in the highlights, but with careful metering digital can handle nearly all existing light situations."

and one more:

http://www.photoseek.com/DigitalVsFilm.html

and a quote:

"The dynamic range (ability to capture detail simultaneously in shadows and highlights) is so much wider than positive slide film (and as good as negative film) that I rarely bother using a graduated nuetral-density filter anymore. (Some new digital SLR models offer adjustable dynamic range significantly wider than negative film.) "

[David M]

With digital, the prints could be produced on a consumer grade home injet, and god knows whether the ink was matched with the paper brand or even if the ink uses pigments and not dyes. So 10 years from now the digital prints you have could be useless pieces of scrap paper!

And that assumption is an argument in 'film vs digital quality' discussion ?
They can as well be produced by the same lab that used to handle your film, on the same machines and the same paper, in which case the longevity of prints is the same.

[Wilt]

>>And that assumption is an argument in 'film vs digital quality' discussion ?<<

No, merely the reality that there are a lot of people who bill themselves a 'pro' and who use non-pro techniques, both in digital and in film-based work, but we are potential victims to more amateurs who have computers and printers at home and make their prints. Few pros shooting film do the printing themselves, it is too easy to send it out to the pro photo lab rather than spend all that time in the darkroom. Just a reflection of the availability at home vs. the work to find a pro lab.

[Citizensmith]

Thanks for the links, I'll give them a read. I'd always understood that the 10 or so (I thought it was 12) stop thing was what a RAW file could theoretically store, it just never happened like that as a digital sensor doesn't respond to light in the same way as film.

[DocFrankenstein]

They can as well be produced by the same lab that used to handle your film, on the same machines and the same paper, in which case the longevity of prints is the same.
If they would bother to project it, rather than scan+print it on a laser, the results might've been different.

Answer my original question please.

[David M]

Did you print optically from color negatives?

No I did not.

[RandyMN]

I read this entire thread and I have to say that my honest opinion is that if this photographer is so worried about film verse digital quality, then he damn well better be shooting in medium or large foramt! It's really bull**** to use this argument as digital is so much better at both editing and flexibilty in taking shots at more than one ISO.

I hope he has more than one camera also...

Grant it, film is about 20 mb per negative compared to the 8 to 16 we all use. But so many more aspects allow us to process contrast, color and even knock off the bemishes, and with 35 mm this is not even possible.

Like I said, if he is cutting down digital then he better be shooting medium or large format. Otherwise the argument is moot!

[DocFrankenstein]

By "he" do you mean me?

[RandyMN]

By "he" do you mean me?

If my "he" is what you are asking, no. I am referring to the original photographer that said film is better.

[DocFrankenstein]

No I did not.
That's one good reason. Scanned negative film printed on laser paper compared to digital is one thing.

When you enlarge from the negative with a schneider lens and print on a low contrast paper... the prints just don't compare.

You get rich highlight AND shadow detail. In full sunlight you get a blue sky, and still details in the shadows of the face. Digital would've been blown out.

[Andy001z]

Well dam me if I did'nt kick off a hornets nest here. However something just occured to me, if Lord Lichfield, a very well respected (now sadley deceased) photographer, swapped to Digital for all his work, and that work included shooting the Queen of England. I guess I am happy to go with my orginal cut feeling that the orginal photographer mentioned here, was feeding me a SALES line, in order to attempt to secure my business.

Andyh
PS: Still looking for a photographer in Devon, pref one that knows Exeter. (sorry no flights included - see thread)

[DocFrankenstein]

and that work included shooting the Queen of England.
Oh of the love of!

At least she didn't say that she loved a mauve camera.

[colliewalker1]

You've been driving since 1776?

Cool!

What about horse driven coaches then?http://www.maxplugs.com/images/emoticons/00000001/00000008/00000013.gif

[DocFrankenstein]

BTT

[Citizensmith]

BTT

Basal Body Temperature? I fail to see what female ovulation cycles has to do with this? :)

[DocFrankenstein]

That's BBT

BTT is back to topic ;)

[Citizensmith]

That's BBT

BTT is back to topic ;)

Oh yeah, duh. Thanks, I did wonder what it stood for.

[kawter2]

You CAN shoot weddings with digital. You CAN get good results with it.

BUT film is a much better medium IMO. He's also shooting MF probably.

Digital may be getting there in terms of resolution, but the useful dynamic range is not even close... this makes for much better pictures of the bride and groom beside each other. Pictures have more dimension to them, because the fill flash is used less... etc etc

The guy's been doing it for 25 years.

I shoot digital mostly as a "polaroid" and to practice posing, lighting and technique cheaply. All of the portfolio stuff I prefer to shoot with film.


Are you freaking kidding me?

[CyberPet]

Intresting - the replies being shorter than the gear list... ;)

I think that the better the digital cameras are getting the more convinced those "film only" guys will be. When they realize that the dynamic range is pretty much the same, not far from film now. All photographic ideas has to be applied to digital too - difference is that you "develop and copy" the images in Photoshop instead of at a lab. Requires more skill from a photograher, who doesn't do much with his/her prints.

[DocFrankenstein]

You forgot the 8mm peleng.

No, I'm not kidding. I think film prints better because it captures more information at the very beginning.

It's like comparing a PS to a DSLR.

[Citizensmith]

Yeah Kawter, "Are you freakin' kidding me" does leave something to be desired as a thoughtful perspective on a subject.

And dude, do something about your signature, it is really annoying formatted like that.

[kawter2]

You forgot the 8mm peleng.

No, I'm not kidding. I think film prints better because it captures more information at the very beginning.

It's like comparing a PS to a DSLR.


Film might have a little more Dynamic Range, but I used to shoot chrome and it was about par with digital..

For weddings I don't even shoot a 20D on JPG L the whole day and definately not my 5D.

Please quantify "captures more information at the very begenning..

BTW how many weddings do you shoot per year

(p.s. Im in a disturbed mood today, apologies in advance)

[flyfishnj]

Interesting article on this topic.
http://www.shutterbug.net/pointofview/0303sb_point/index.html

[CyberPet]

(p.s. Im in a disturbed mood today, apologies in advance)


WOW! I could not tell at all.... you're so subtle. ;) :p :D

[DocFrankenstein]

Film might have a little more Dynamic Range, but I used to shoot chrome and it was about par with digital..
Please read my post carefully before you reply.

I never refer to slides as "film" and I am not comparing digital with slides.

Digital right now has dynamic range of slide. But not the DR of negative color film... and is FAAR away from silver halide.

Please quantify "captures more information at the very begenning..
It's nicely quantified in the film response curves. Film has both a "shoulder" for highlights and a "toe" (or whatever) for shadows. In other words, it's an S shaped curve on a log scale.

Current CMOS sensors are chopped off in the shadow department.

BTW how many weddings do you shoot per year
Never shot one.

How many wedding albums have you seen OPTICALLY printed from color negatives?

[Wilt]

>> difference is that you "develop and copy" the images in Photoshop instead of at a lab. Requires more skill from a photograher, who doesn't do much with his/her prints.<<

The 'wide lattitude of color neg' is also different from 'dynamic range'...you can underexpose -2EV and overexpose +3EV and you can still get a reasonable quality print from the film, AND (important!...) the photographer spends NO TIME AT THE PC in order to get that print...the lab takes care of it in the printing process!!!

[DocFrankenstein]

Wilt speaks from experience.

With digital over/underexposure of 1EV almost kills the shot.

[Wilt]

>>With digital over/underexposure of 1EV almost kills the shot.<<

If you shoot RAW you can rescue far worse sins that that. But you have to have a RAW convertor which you can use via histogram editing, and you need good noise removal software to pull the noise out of the photo, and TIME AT the PC! I'd rather let the lab do my 'rescue work'.

[tim]

With RAW 1 stop over can be rescued but usually doesn't look perfect. 1 stop under is no problem at all if you're using ISO100-400, but any higher ISO and you get a lot of grain. I once had an ISO200 or 400 image from a 300D that was 3-4 stops underexposed, I managed to rescue it, it wasn't perfect but it was pretty dang good considering!

[kawter2]

Interesting you ask.. First of all yes I have seen SEVERAL wedding albums shot on color neg. My personal album was shot all on Fuji NPS in adition I have seen/produced several (in tthe 20's) albums of the like,... I have also seen hundreds of digital albums.. and honestly I can not optically see a diference. I can see the diference in 20x30's


DOC: I do respect your technical knowledge and your contributions to this forum.. That said (with all due respect) I find it dificult for you to make a vast generalization regarding shooting weddings and the equipment needed when you have never shot

It makes me wonder why the world's "TOP" wedding photographers shoot digital
Jeff Ascough
Joe Buissink (does shoot some 35mm film, but also shots in "P" mode)
Mike Colon
Yervant
Denis Reggie
Martin Schembri

(they average $10k per wedding with a resume of the worlds largest celebs)

BTW I shot 31 weddings this year, all digital..

[DocFrankenstein]

Interesting you ask.. First of all yes I have seen SEVERAL wedding albums shot on color neg.
I know most labs scan them first and then print them with a laser. You can shoot on film... but then if you digitize them before printing, it's not the same.

When you see the optically projected prints... it's a whole different ballgame.

I find it dificult for you to make a vast generalization regarding shooting weddings and the equipment needed when you have never shot
You just have to trust my ability to extrapolate then. :lol: ;)

I do shoot different subjects with film and digital, so I would imagine that blown out highlights behave the same with a given medium. Or do you think the dynamic range will change depending on whether I'm shooting a bride instead of my classmate.

It makes me wonder why the world's "TOP" wedding photographers shoot digital
Jeff Ascough
Joe Buissink (does shoot some 35mm film, but also shots in "P" mode)
Mike Colon
Yervant
Denis Reggie
Martin Schembri

(they average $10k per wedding with a resume of the worlds largest celebs)

BTW I shot 31 weddings this year, all digital..
They simply can't find a lab which will print the negs the way they want them. :D ;)

Seriously... digital is very convenient. Control, cost, processing...

[Wilt]

>>It makes me wonder why the world's "TOP" wedding photographers shoot digital<<

The customer want things FAST. Digital is faster than waiting for commercial lab to ship results back!

The customer wants things touched up cheaply...and Photoshop allows things to be removed easily (pimple goes away in a few seconds editing time) rather than retouching neg or print.

The customer does not have to eye to appreciate improved image quality...or else the world would not have accepted the inferior reproduction of VHS videotape over Beta videotape, or they would not have accepted 35mm film over medium format film decades ago.

When you shoot thousands of exposures, digital has no incremental cost (until you wear out your gear), whereas film carries significant incremental costs (film, processing)

Digital can help you recover from greater sins with ease, and you can selectively brighten areas and darken other areas of the same photo with far greater ease than getting it done in the darkroom (especially when you can't be there to direct the darkroom worker).

Denis Reggie has always liked to shoot FAST even when he was using Hasselblad. He must be happier than a pig in sh*t with a digital on Continuous! ;-)

[JohnnyG]

umm...we've been driving on the wrong side of the road for longer than you've been having a country...so :D

Leo
And your point is...... It's funny but even you admit it's the wrong side of the road!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I've been to Australia and the wrong side of the road scared the heck out of me!!!

[kawter2]

This is like arguing Religion, and Politics..

There will be no convincing either side.. only each of us (us includes me) spewing our philosophies..

We agree to disagree

[kampphoto]

I shoot digital... you shoot film... i take the bus... you drive a car... i like beer... you like rye... i like blondes... you like brunettes... i like burgers... you like hotdogs... i like canon... you like nikon... i like iPods... you like CD's... i like coke... you like pepsi... i like OS X / Macs... you like PC's / Windows...

do we all see a trend forming here? people like what they like... personal preference, it's part of being human... like what you like, and don't hate people for enjoying what they like.

cheers.

[Andy001z]

Are but your not refering to my orginal topic... is Digital any better or worse for shooting weddings. And I guess it will remain one of the mystrys of the universe.

Andyh

[kampphoto]

the film people will say its better then digital... the digital will say its better then film... its impossible because its a circular argument... each have good and bad points...

use whatever you like more... thats the best answer i have.

[CyberPet]

When I started taking photo's when I was only 8 years old, I shot only in positive film. Then I got lazy - plus curious, so I shot only in b/w negative film. Since I didn't like developing my own color film, I either shot positive film or negative film and kept hoping the lab would do a good job. At that time - when I was in my 20's it was seen as sloppy to shoot negative film, you weren't a photographer if you didn't shoot positive film.

Sounds like the evolution of photography will always be like that.... you're not professional if you shoot digital... you're not professional if you don't shoot RAW... hmm... sounds familiar doesn't it?

[kawter2]

Are but your not refering to my orginal topic... is Digital any better or worse for shooting weddings. And I guess it will remain one of the mystrys of the universe.

Andyh


I don't think in this context (referencing existing line of topic) anyone can tell you which is better, I think we can tell you the pros and cons of digital and film for you to make an educated opinion

[Wilt]

>>I don't think in this context (referencing existing line of topic) anyone can tell you which is better, I think we can tell you the pros and cons of digital and film for you to make an educated opinion<<

I agree 110% with the above statement. There is no 'better' there are only pro's and con's and each of us thinks a different set of characteristics is most important, and the decision for each of us is driven by that. If you are smart, you recognize when a tool has more advantages for a specific job and choose that tool even if it is NOT the normal tool we prefer to use! You do not try to turn a Phillips head screw with a flat head screwdriver all the time, do you?!?!?

[tim]

I'd say it's best to use the tool you're most comfortable with.