Digital weddings compared to film

[Snoozle]

Although not vastly experienced, I have shot about a dozen weddings during the period 2002/2003. These were all on my Bronica etrs, with 2 prime lenses 75mm & 150mm, 3 backs & 2 bodies. I would use 6 or 7 rolls of film, so about 100 shots for a 40 picture album.

I havn't been in a position to take weddings over the last couple of years, but am now considering a comeback. I was wondering how the experience compared, it certainly looks like people take a lot more shots these days, and you don't have to wait for the film to be processed to check the shots. However I'm sure there must be some negatives :) , and would welcome any feedback.

Thanks

[picturecrazy]

I have found (not weddings specifically) that I worry a lot more about equipment failure now than I did in the film days. Sensitive, complex, digital electronic equipment is so much more prone to failure than the good 'ol mechanical pieces.

For example, in my last shoot, I got an Error 99 right in the middle of the shoot. I turned the camera off, removed and replaced the lens, battery, CF card, flash, and when I'd turn it back on, it would just say "busy" and sit there. Nothing would work. Then I pulled out my backup CF card and stuffed it in and it worked, and I continued. Meanwhile, the rest of the shoot I was so worried that I had lost ALL the files that was on that card. Luckily, when I checked when I got home, almost all the images were ok, but there was a file system error on the card. When there is SO much software controlling your equipment, the chances of screwups are greater.

Even if you dropped a roll of film into a puddle, you've only lost 24-36 exposures, whereas on digital, you could potentially lose the entire DAY. I just find myself worrying a lot more about equipment.

Disadvantage #2: equipment upgrades. With film, you can use the same camera you used 25 years ago (which I still do) and still get shots just as good as using an EOS 1V. But with digital, you have sensor upgrades, software/firmware upgrades, upgrades of this and that blah blah blah. You pretty much HAVE to keep upgrading to keep up. It's expensive.

But other than that, I don't find any other disadvantages. The flexibility and control you have with digital is just so amazing it's worth it to me. The 20D is what prompted me to make the jump to digital. What a camera.

[Snoozle]

Thanks, some good points there. Yes if my Bronica was playing up I'd just hit it with a hammer until the hammer broke :), and now I'm contemplating selling the whole kit just to put towards one lens on the EOS. I don't know if I can bring myself to be parted from it.

[bpuppy]

This is why you have a backup ... and I've NEVER had any problems in 15 digital weddings.

The pros far outweigh the cons ... as long as you are prepared for the fact that there's more work involved than with film ... YOU process the shots, YOU decide the 'look' (as opposed to choosing a given film' ...

[tim]

In about a dozen wedding this past year with 20D's i've had 3-4 times when they played up. Once it was a physical issue with power, the rest of the time I dunno what it was but after pulling off power and lenses and putting it back together it worked ok. A backup is ESSENTIAL.

Digital is a lot of post production work.

[DaveG]

I have found (not weddings specifically) that I worry a lot more about equipment failure now than I did in the film days. Sensitive, complex, digital electronic equipment is so much more prone to failure than the good 'ol mechanical pieces.

For example, in my last shoot, I got an Error 99 right in the middle of the shoot. I turned the camera off, removed and replaced the lens, battery, CF card, flash, and when I'd turn it back on, it would just say "busy" and sit there. Nothing would work. Then I pulled out my backup CF card and stuffed it in and it worked, and I continued. Meanwhile, the rest of the shoot I was so worried that I had lost ALL the files that was on that card. Luckily, when I checked when I got home, almost all the images were ok, but there was a file system error on the card. When there is SO much software controlling your equipment, the chances of screwups are greater.

Even if you dropped a roll of film into a puddle, you've only lost 24-36 exposures, whereas on digital, you could potentially lose the entire DAY. I just find myself worrying a lot more about equipment.

Disadvantage #2: equipment upgrades. With film, you can use the same camera you used 25 years ago (which I still do) and still get shots just as good as using an EOS 1V. But with digital, you have sensor upgrades, software/firmware upgrades, upgrades of this and that blah blah blah. You pretty much HAVE to keep upgrading to keep up. It's expensive.

But other than that, I don't find any other disadvantages. The flexibility and control you have with digital is just so amazing it's worth it to me. The 20D is what prompted me to make the jump to digital. What a camera.


For me it's just the opposite. I no longer have sleepless nights as I wonder if the film stuff actually worked. I shot weddings with Mamiya Pro-TL's for about seven years and was always left wondering: Did the the X-synch work? Was the exposure correct? Did the film get fogged? I'd put the camera away after the reception and when I took it out to remove film I'd glance at the shutterspeed and if it was on 1/1000 instead of A I'd get a chill down my back. I shot one wedding about three months after I got the camera and while the dad was bringing the bride down the aisle I thought that the camera "sounded funny". After a couple of additional shots I realized that the mirror wasn't blacking out (that caused the funny sound) and since the mirror wasn't moving, it was blocking light from the film. More to the point I had NO idea as to when this failure occured. It turned out that it happened right when I noticed the noise, but I sure lost sleep over that one.

With digital I KNOW that I have it in the field. No longer am I in the prediction business, I'm in the review business. The flash did work, or if it didn't I take some more. Oh look the exposure is way off, I better adjust that. No longer do I use a special lens to soften portraits. I shoot sharp, and introduce softness during post production and the B&G get BOTH variations. I do spend more time on the computer but I also keep a LOT more money in my pocket rather than sharing it with Fuji or Kodak.

[As a completely side comment, I was at the Professional Photographer's of Canada national meeting this past weekend. I only went to the trade show and guess what, Kodak wasn't there. Hmm ...]

As far as digital being delicate I think that the Mamiya was a lot more fussy. I had to be extremely careful when I mounted a lens to make sure that the lens/meter pin engaged properly. I also had some problems with the contacts between the metering prism, the body and the film backs. I'd get wonky exposures and I'd freak. Finally the device that made the Pro-TL work well was the Metz SCA adapter and that was a kludge if there ever was one. Mine never failed but I thought that it could at any second! One synch cable, one TTL cable and one cable that went to the flash! All coming out of this module that went into a hotshoe on the side (?) of the camera!

If someone had come out with a six to eight MP 645 digital back three years ago for say $4500 or so, I have no doubt that I'd still be using the Mamiya. If that fantasy digital back had come out three months ago (before I sold all of my Mamiya gear) I wouldn't have purchased it since I have discovered the joy of the Canon zooms! I shot a wedding last summer on a sailboat and without my 10-22 it would have been impossible! With the Mamiya my longest lens was a 150mm so it's been a complete joy to use a 70-200 f2.8 which yields (effectively) a 320mm focal length. So from being 85mm long to 320!

I have no doubt that the medium format 22 or 39MP backs will make a better image than my 5D will; but I wonder if they make a better picture. The MF zooms are few and slow and expensive and fall apart - at least the Fujiblad 55-110 apparently does! In any case I just couldn't use prime only any more.

The speed of the Canon zoom lenses is wonderful as well. So too is being to use ISO exactly like shutterspeed or aperture - you change it as you need to!

I did have the 20D/vertical problem last summer but it seems to be OK now after a trip to Canon. And my 5D shows no sign of ANY problems like this at all. My biggest fear is a card failure but in the last three years I've had none, not one card failure. And card failure stikes me as being in the same ballpark as a lab losing film. It was always a fear but never happened.

[Wilt]

I shot weddings with Bronica ETRSi outfit, using Metz flash units on TTL control. Used the flash in mini softboxes to soften the light, still under TTL control.
Absolutely dependable flash photos, and in ambient light conditions requiring synchro sun I could also get auto fill flash with utmost dependability.
Then I tried shooting with my 20D and ETTL2. Flash was dependable only in the sense of being dependably variable in results...opinion, it sucks with Canon flash. Then I got Metz 54MZ and that made the flash control dependable once again. The downside...I could not use minisoftbox on the Metz under ETTL2 because the Metz implementation put a sensor in the head! That was the downside.
The upside of the 20D...using Rawshooter Premium and Corel Paintshop Pro, I could get higher quality photos under lower light conditions that, with film, were almost hopeless. Less dependence upon flash. ISO1600 got photo that film could not hope for, and Painshop Pro made them noiseless. Rawshooter allowed me to adjust exposures and fill light with flexibility I could never find with film. Net impression...ultimate quality might be (arguably) higher with medium format film, but digital makes the impossible (with film) easy to achieve.

[PIXI_666]

I love digital, i have never had a problem with any of my digital camera's that i use, all of the equipment has been great, and the only 1 problem i did have was with a dodgey 4gb microdrive card. Well that just says it all really? So i learnt my lesson and got 1gigs instead of a full on 4gb!!

I just enjoy it a hell of a lot more than film....i have soo many reasons that i cant put them all down (I dont have the time hahaha!)