Digital vs Film Weddings

I own and use digital cameras for many things,but weddings isnt one

of them.For me, film is still my primary image recording medium for

wedding work. I believe it to be superior to digital photography on

several levels. There are many benefits and conveniences with

digital photography,and of course film & processing savings.Digital

photography however, does not have anywhere near the exposure

latitude or lowered contrast that film photography does ,(and it

won't for quite some time according to what Ive read!).It is still

much like working with transparency film. There is just not much room

for error, particularly in the highlights.Metering & worrying about

contrast and exposure, arent on my radar screen with pro portrait

films. Just as with a blank negative,Photoshop cant help whats not

there. If there is no information in a overexposed highlight area of

the image,you are screwed. I feel way more comfortable shooting

weddings,(with their often tricky lighting situations),with a medium

that has some "give" in the exposure dept.Then there is the post

production issue.If I had to sit in front of a computer to tweak 1000

images a week in PS,Id rather have a couple root canals.If you are

running a completely digital,sucessfull wedding business you have my

respect.

It surprises me that you are raising this question when it's been talked about so much on

this forum. I've read a number of threads from digital wedding photographers and they all

seem to agree that it's a matter of work flow. If you shoot raw, have the right software,

batch it and use actions in Photoshop, your not actually tweaking thousands of photos, the

computer is. <p>

I'm not a wedding photographer and I shoot mostly film as well, but if I was a wedding

photographer, I wouldn't be to worried about unlimited time in front of the computer, I'd

be more worried about spending thousands and thousands on computers, monitors,

printers, programs, D-SLR's, etc., but that's just me. <p>

Look through Marc Williams posts, he's described effective digital workflow very

extensively in the past. <p>

Kipling

I think this will be a subject of debate for a long time... I had my wedding shot by a friend who insisted on digital. I found many of the outdoor shots to be flat and the greens to be on the blue side. I found the shadows to be muddy and tans looked dirty. My ivory dress and my daughter's white dress were great - no blown highlights and I was impressed with the detail. The indoor shots during the dancing were shot in a very dark room - the results were better than film and the colors were rich and when the photographer dragged the shutter you could see wonderful details in the room with lots of ambient light. <p>On another issue though -- It took me three and 1/2 days to go through every shot and make my 150 print choices for an album. That is not including any correction. My lab gave me 4x6 prints because I wanted to see how they came out on paper vs my monitor before I picked my final images and sizes. I used the same lab I use for film. The prints are not anywhere near as vibrant and smooth as my film images..especially in the skin tones. My friend shoots very similarly to the way I do when I'm shooting a wedding.

Pretty much the only difference between us is that she uses digital. If I had it to do over. I would have insisted on Reala outside. I would have been ok with digital indoors though.

IMO, it is a matter of developing new skill sets. Many people switching to digital are faced

with a step learning curve, and one that is a moving target at that.

 

Years ago, my first explorations into darkroom work were just awful compared to what I

was able to print later on. I've found the same to be true concerning digital. Frankly, my

first attempts at digital work were embarrassing. So, while learning, I stuck with film for

weddings until I felt I had attained a level of processing skill necessary for wedding work.

And even then I slowly integrated it into the process. To many photographers jump

straight to it before they are really ready.

 

As to all the pronouncements in the initial post. I have found in practice none of them to

be empirically true ... including latitude. It's just different from what we are used to with

film. So, new thinking has to accompany the new medium.

 

Mary, flat images outdoors is the fault of the operator, not the medium.

In the past, about 25 years ago, I remember that I saw wedding photographer only use medium format cameras, 6x6 or 6x7. Then some years later, I saw photographer use 24x36mm SLR, and I remember being very disapointed! Now they use digital photography! We will soon see them using $9.99 single use plastic camera toys! I have been invited in weddings where I have seen "paid professional photographers using Nikon SLRs when the familly or guests are shooting with Hasselblad or Leica!

I will always consider digital cameras as low resolution toys, as long as digital cameras are of some Megapixels. When we will be speaking of HUNDRED of Megapixels or GIGApixels, then perhaps I will consider them as cameras! If I compare film of 150 pairs of lines/mm resolution , that is 300 lines/mm, or 300 pixels/mm, so a 6x6 (56mmx56mm) negative or slide will be equivalent to 16800 x 16800 = 282.24 Megapixels. If I compare Kodachrome 64 or Velvia 50, we are well into GIGApixels. For now, with 8 Megapixels, we have the quality of a 16mm frame, so why not shoot with a 16mm Minox?

I'm actually moving to just watching the wedding and delivering rough charcoal sketches

later. As my skill progresses, I anticipate not even having to go to the actual wedding.

Marc,

 

Well that's great! What an advantage you have! You will be able to enlarge the photo to something like a 300x200 inch print (what the size of a wall?) and I will only be able to do a 24x16 (about as big as I can print at 6mp and still look good).

 

Doesn't seem to be a good trade for the flexibility, unlimited shooting, ISO changing on the fly, immediate feedback of the image's levl histogram, virtually zero post processing/film costs, on and on and on and on.

 

I don't know about you, but I have yet to sell anything larger then an 11x14. There is PLENTY of resolution to print that size with a 6mp + sensor.

<I>It is still much like working with transparency film</i><P>Interesting, considering that's pretty much verbatim how one of my local pro labs has referred to the dilema. They've been one of the longest running regional labs in terms handling professional wedding and portrait shooter accounts, and were among the first to transition to and court digital photgraphers. They would prefer to handle several rolls of professional print film -or- submitted files than capture cards from professional accounts. Too many of their accounts that are used to shooting print film and assuming the same lattitude *without* looking at their results first.<P>As per your comments, the decreased lattitude with digital capture in regards to formal events is far more tricky than just shooting print film. Unlike studio work where you have controlled lighting, or general street/sport/journalistic shooting where consistent frame to frame exposure is not mandatory, wedding phtography is the worst of all worlds. You rarely have full control of the lighting, and yet frame to frame color/contrast/density has to be perfect. Not impossible, but certainly more difficult with digital capture, and somewhat akin to shooting a wedding with slide film.<P>I've got no arguements with the greater control with digital shooting and other workflow advantages, but I also agree that loading up with Portra NC and taking the film to a professional lab is a whole different ball game with a lot more elbow room.

What matters is the final product. Use whatever you want to acheive the perfect print.

Of course posts like ....<P><I> If I compare Kodachrome 64 or Velvia 50, we are well into GIGApixels</i><P>.......make me more embarassed to have anything to do with film. Digital may have limits, but at least those limits are quantified vs hysterical 'gigapixel' rants about Kodachrome. Just toss your 4x5's out the window everybody because 35mm Kodachrome has more resolution.

Ha ha ha ha, gotto love this...

 

I think your skill in shooting and the mediums used are to be combined for a given purpose. Do what you like, just be sure you know you can deliver the results with it.

 

Or.... get a sketch pad and some pastels... LOL.

 

Fun stuff this is.<div></div>

Of course the true irony is that there are legions of sports shooters who used to have to

shoot chromes all the time in situations where they had even less control than a wedding,

who are now ever greatful for having MORE exposure latitude and the ability to see blown

out hightlights on the LCD.. Not to mention being able to wrench stuff out of a raw file

that you could never get with a chrome.<div></div>

I still shoot film for weddings but sometimes use digital to do corporate headshots and other non-wedding sessions, especially if the images are for publication or website use. The thing that really holds me back from shooting digital weddings is the "dead skin" look that I see on prints...not on monitors--on monitors skin looks great, but on prints, somehow, it looks plastic, with not as much depth as film can produce. I don't know why this is, and I have seen some prints from digital that were OK, so maybe it is a "lab thing". Or is it lack of grain?... Or does film still capture more information and digital will catch up when it is capturing umpteen megapixels?...

 

This question has appeared on photo.net from time to time, and never gets truly answered (the "why"). Most digital shooters vehemently deny there is even a problem. I'll probably be flamed for this, but there it is. Granted, you don't see it much on smaller prints, but on, say, an 8x10 close-up of the bride's face, I'd notice, and these do frequently appear in a wedding album.

One of the issues that has not been mentioned is film reloading.

 

When I used to weddings with film it was a balancing act to have enough exposures left on the roll to capture significant events, such as the bridal procession. Yeh, I had two cameras (mostly in case one breaks), but I would have needed to change flashes from one camera to another. It was easier to load the film and tye to plan.

 

Now with digital I can take 100+ pictures without worrying about changing film. If I have to change memory it is a simple operation, much faster than film (no opening a container, threading into the takeup, etc.) I also do not have to be concerned with batteries for the motor drive, exposure compensation is a breeze, and you can see if the lighting is correct. I can also change the ISO without changing film. All things I could no do with film.

 

I also find that I can take 300 pictures for the same price that I can take 5 pictures. My time is the cost factor, not the film. I can also store images forever without worrying about image degradation.

 

Using the right digital camera (as in SLR with little shutter lag) weddings have become much easier than they were with film as resources are easier to manage. Image quality is just as good with digital as film unless you get to very large sizes.

Nadine,

 

YOu have just hit the nail on its head. I shoot mostly digital now for wedding using a very high quality instrument, and my clients and I love the results that I produce. Altemately, it does not matter what equipment you use as long as everyone is satisfied. The bottom line is yes, there is a problem with transfering digital images that look fantastic on the screen but come out looking different on the paper. My advice is when using digital 1. Make sure your monitor is callibrated, you can get the ICC profiles from the pro lab to make sure you can preview what the print will look like when they print it. Now, I don't have any problems at all.

 

There are certain tricks that you can use to enhance the skin tone in photoshop but that takes practice. I feel that after 7 years using digital media I am able to deliver products that are very hard to distinguish from medium format film.

 

Best of luck to all and keep on shooting, do what you do best, no need to argue here.

 

Cheers,

Greg<div></div>

You know, Nadine, I really agree with you that many of the prints

I see from dig. capture have a certain flatness that I can't quite

put my finger on. I think it may have more to do with the

combination of camera / on camera flash and sensor size than

potential quality, as the prints I make from my medium format

capture back have much more depth to them but also have much

different lighting. In the wedding/ candid/ 35mm platform mix

though there remains something just a bit listless about prints I

see. Not in all cases but in the majority. But also, I think the

reality is that every day of every week, the population is

becoming accustomed to whatever differences there are and

this is a specious argument for the most part. Even with the

younger commercial clients I do work for, although their title is art

director and the assumption is that they have at least a small

grounding in classic advertising, the huge difference between

photographing something with a 360mm lens on 8x10

transparency film versus hires dig capture with a 100mm lens is

simply lost: they've learned to "see" digitally and this is their

expectation. Not necessarily a horrible thing, just a different way.

Nadine, I suspect that what is happening is that the digital captures much less information to begin with than even 35mm film. The camera then "sharpens" the image. Any information that's actually captured can be "sharpened" like edges, but the itty bitty little fine details that the the lens can resolve and the film can resolve just aren't there to "sharpen" in the digital image. You're really viewing a computer generated aproximation of what the program designer thinks you might find makes for a pleasing image. The textures and subtle nuances that shout "reality" aren't there. And almost nobody gives a damn. The only mantra that seems to count is "Think of the money I saved on film!" And if the pictures are lousy? "I can fix 'em with Photoshop!"

Raymond, ALL your digital images that you're storing are degrading as we speak. The industry recomends copying to new media every few years.You gonna do that? Then they keep changing the media. Reel to reel, big floppies, little floppies, CD's, now DVD's, what's next year? Even if the information remains stable, will you have the hardware to read it in 20 years?

 

And the elusive savings in film costs? You're blowing it on hardware. Cameras and fancy zoom lenses, autoexposure and autofocus, cameras with ever greater pixel counts. Nobody wants to actually learn how to operate a camera, focus a lens, take a proper meter reading, or calculate correct flash exposure anymore. Nobody cares because if the camera screws up you can "fix it with Photoshop". Of course the cost of upgrading all your cameras and lenses and computer stuff year after year is free, right? Doesn't cost a thing? If you ran the figures you'd most likely discover that you would have been money ahead using film. You might not have made 800 exposures at the last wedding either, but since you would have actually put some thought into what you were shooting, your "keeper" percentage would have been much higher. With two bodies there's no need to ever run out of film, and a flash should be on that second body two. Like cameras, flashes break too. Cords fail. Batteries die.

Digital printing is different than printing from film. As a result, a lot of prints don't look as good as they could, because the printers are still on their learning curve. Many haven't figured out that some papers work better than others for certain types of images, just like with traditional printing.

 

A friend entered a competition and won a prize. At the reception, the judge, a master printer working in black and white fibre printing, pointed to my friend's print when asked about digital printing. He said that this print was an example of what could not be done with digital printing. My friend kept his mouth shut - it was an inkjet print from a digital original.

 

There's two points in that anecdote. One is that high quality printing comes from a printer knowing how to work with the materials. The seoond is more important - take advice from people who have worked in both mediums. People who haven't worked with digital printing really don't know what can be done.

hey al, have you ever used a digital camera?

WHen our B&G can afford digital---We will produce from digital--Does not seem likely in the next few years. >> It's great ^^ if one can shoot with a 5-8 pc camera and take those 300+ images and clock those hours on the computer--and the client is willing to pay. We charge $125 per hour for computer time and that is in addition to the wedding package! Charge for you time!! Don't be including these services,to your clients,,,Offer digital in your packages but, at almost twice the price, of traditional film. The simplicity of shooting X amount of film and spending $200+ on processing ..sending the negs/film to the B&G...Is just too easy,,,,,and our method for the past 10 years! Digital is here but,should not be taken for granite. We scan all day with our ( 16 bit /4800 dpi film scanner) of 2 1/4 negs {about 45 min per }..I know how much time can be added to your day/night. If you are experienced, like Mary & Marc & others here on the Forum, and really have your actions/steps keyed-in for efficiency..then maybe~~ with compensation.

"hey al, have you ever used a digital camera?"

 

 

It doesn't matter. This is another stupid film vs. digital thread.

are u his lawyer?

Nadine, I know exactly what you are talking about. A few friends of mine seem to get the

same results on their digital prints.. flat, plastic like. Like Mike said, they haven't

perfected the disciplines. Yet anyone that's worked in a darkroom knows there are

disciplines you have to master there also.... or you also end up with less than optimal

results.

 

Assuming Labs, even ones that were previously excellent at analog printing, are digital

masters just because they now offer digital printing is erroneous. Many of them are

actually pretty new to it all themselves.

"<I>He said that this print was an example of what could not be done with digital printing. My friend kept his mouth shut - it was an inkjet print from a digital original. </I>"<P>

 

Why didn't your friend say anything? Fear of embarrassing the judge? <P>

"Er, Judge, that is an injet print."<BR>

"Look, all I know is an inkjet can't look as good as a silver gel print even though this one does."