digital vs. film photography

[janinegirly]

choosing a photographer is proving harder than i expected---and i''m hearing v. different opinions on digital vs. film. some people say digital is the way to go, others say only true film can capture the depth--especially in black and white.
any thoughts? thanks!

 

[Pandora II]

I'd go for digital - the depth depends how good the photographer is at his settings and in editing afterwards. I also like that they can check what they have as they go along and much less chance of nasty accidents with the films.

My photographer is a friend (and the official photographer for a major political party in the UK) and he is just going to give me all the pics on a cd so I can edit them myself. I used to date a photographer for 7 years and I retouched all his prints and did quite a bit of darkroom work for him. Personally I don't find a huge difference between burning bits in on a computer screen or in a darkroom except that the first is so much easier to see what you are doing and make more accurate changes.

I think some people like the nostalgia of the smell of chemicals and all the palaver that goes with film. Personally I'd rather have the flexibility of digital.

The only thing I will say is that anyone can take digital pics, not everyone can print good film prints - that takes a lot of practice and talent.

 

[ChargerGrrl]

My photographer has a blurb about this on his website. I can't seem to be able to copy & paste the info from there, so check out this page from his site: http://www.accentoflight.com/stevekeegan/FAQ.html

I truly believe that digital is the way to go. Be sure to ask about the photogs equipment- it's imperative that they use the most up-to-date cameras that translate great image quality. He also goes into this on the FAQ's page I linked above.

Good luck!

 

[cara]

There''s definitely a difference ... In the right hands both can be fabulous, and the digital people are getting better and better cameras and post-processing (altering mood and exposure range on the computer) so it can be hard to tell ... but in the right hands, with an infinite budget, I would do film. I love the feel of superb film pictures, especially in B&W, when the digital often comes out colder, smoother, more sterile.

But I hired a digital photographer. Our budget is not infinite, so not only does it reduce the costs for your photographer (who can do a ton of touch ups on the computer, take more pictures the day of without worrying about film costs, ease the layout transition if he/she wants to do album layout on a computer) but also I''d rather have digital files to print extras from afterward than negatives. Sure, you can take negatives to Walmart to get printed, but you risk dust and scratches when you handle negatives. So if I had negatives, I''d want them scanned on a high quality expensive scanner so I can play with them on my computer as I don''t have dark room access anymore. When I realized that, I decided not to splurge on a film photographer. Plus my photography tastes were already pricing us way overbudget and something had to give. So...

Hire a great photographer and don''t look back!

 

[LaLaDozier]

I would go with digital. That is because I feel like there is probably more "effects" that can be done by using digital. Ultimately, its the photographer that makes all the difference though.

 

[Fancy605]

I went with digital. I love film photography, and agree that it has a different quallity to it than digital photography, but honestly a good digital photographer can make your photographs look just as lovely. I really don''t think you can go wrong with either.