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

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

Leo

[DocFrankenstein]

Originally Posted by lakiluno

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

You'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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Citizensmith]

Originally Posted by DocFrankenstein

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.