Digital vs Film Weddings

[steve_levine]

Yes this is a stupid digital vs film thread,but Im looking for honest answers.In my mind it makes no sense to change over to digital for my wedding work.I would have to layout money for a pair of cameras,and new digital ready glass,plus some new digital flashes,and a lap top.This is looking at around $6K?This will buy a considerable amount of film and processing.I would then have to start over learning how to shoot?Next issue is the way digital looks.I think comparing it to film,is like comparing video to motion picture film.It has that "too bright" flat look to it.Meanwhile my lab scans everything I shoot,and gives me hi-res jpegs CD's.This means I can perform Photoshop image manipulating etc,and send files to print using Pro-shots or similar lab software.Other than having "chimping" ability,what advantage truly is there?(I have learned to know what my film will give me in almost any lighting situation,and I can properly use my camera's viewfinder,thus negating the chimping advantage).

[karl_knize]

"So who are you gonna believe.. me or your own two eyes?"

 

--Groucho Marx --

[daniel_taylor]

"Nadine, I suspect that what is happening is that the digital captures much less information to begin with than even 35mm film."

 

*yawn*...are we still on this fallacy? How many side-by-side, zoomed-in, "you can count the grains and pixels" comparisons have to be posted on the net before this one dies? A 6 MP DSLR is an easy match for 35mm.

 

I'll grant that no DSLR has the exposure latitude of the pro portrait print films. If you feel more comfortable shooting an event like a wedding with that latitude, by all means, shoot film.

 

Having said that, I've scanned quite a bit of 35mm wedding film for some friends of mine who purchased their negs, and while I was doing it I just kept thinking to myself "I *know* I could have done better with my 10D...". The outdoor shots weren't terrible but weren't great either, they seemed flat yet didn't capture the full range (the photographer let shadow detail go). I could have let shadow detail go and gotten sharp, clean, colorful images. And the indoor images were painful, lots of grain and horrible color balance. Nothing was a sharp as I'm used to from my 10D, not even close. (The groom's brother works for this photographer, and he has gone digital since then.)

 

"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."

 

I have yet to see the 35mm frame to bury a DSLR. My TLR is a match for my 10D, not my 35mm.

 

"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."

 

My "keeper" percentage went up the day I bought my 10D. Sorry, but it's true.

 

On another note...GIGApixels...what a laugh!!! I hope that poster posts in more threads...very entertaining.

[picturesque]

The reason "film vs digital" threads get to be pointless is because people become inflamed by others' statements and start arguing, point by point, others' claims. I hope this thread doesn't de-volve into this kind of thread because, so far, there have been a number of reasonable and fairly impartial responses which still express the responders' opinions. And many statements are just that--opinions, not hard facts.

 

There is a lot to learn from each other, and in threads like this, as long as it doesn't become too frustrating, I do learn about digital and how I might implement it better. It is valuable because digital is evolving rapidly, and even though this topic gets discussed frequently, it bears being re-discussed every so often--so long as contributors keep their emotions in check.

[picturesque]

Greg, what are those tricks you use in Photoshop to enhance the skin tone? I've zeroed in as much as I can to my pro lab, as I sometimes scan my medium format (and 35mm) film and work in Photoshop on them. Come to think of it, I don't see that plastic skin look when I scan my negs and have real photographic prints made--I just see that effect when I see others' photographic prints made directly from digital files shot in the camera. Anyone want to take a stab at explaining why this happens? If it is a lab thing--what is it that they are or aren't doing?

[fotografz]

Who said you had to switch over to digital Steve? You say that you're looking for "honest"

answers ... which implies those who went through the trouble of sharing their POV are not

honest in their replies.

 

So, here's the honest answer you seem to crave... most of the virulent digital bashers I've

come in contact with are actually terrified of the new wave of innovation. It has or will rock

their world. Deep down, they know the hand writing is on the wall, and it's made up of Xs

and Os. I got that message when I watched one visual industry after another go digital.

Change of that magnitude is indeed terrifying ... especially when it's crammed down your

throat the way the imaging industry seems to be doing it. In some ways it's like starting

over, which isn't easy if you've been at this for awhile.

 

Fortunately for film lovers, (including me), there are still enough people like you Steve who

are resisting it. Which means the stuff will be around for awhile longer.... at least long

enough for me to personally enjoy it when I want to. Digital. Film. I like them both.

 

Now it's your turn Steve. Can you honestly say you've spent enough time shooting and

processing digital images to make the empirical, declarative pronouncements in your

initial post. (that's a rhetorical question BTW, because everyone here knows the answer).

 

Keep shooting film if you like. Absolutely no one is advocating you do differently.

[al_kaplan1]

A big advantage of B&W traditional silver based film is the ease with which one can store it for years and years. My negatives and contact sheets are kept in boxes that once held 250 sheets of 8x10 paper. I made over $2000 in July from just prints made from negatives shot in the 1960's. I expect to do it again this month and next month and on and on. The negatives are as easy to print as the ones I've shot recently. Try accessing your digital files in 40 years.

[fotografz]

"Anyone want to take a stab at explaining why this happens? If it is a lab thing--what is it

that they are or aren't doing?"

 

Nadine, this was answered already by Jeff. Most problems arise because different systems

are out of sync. Half of the digital shooters I know haven't set up their monitor calibration

as their PhotoShop Proof Set Up, or haven't chosen it for their their printer profile. As for

outside prints, I give my clients DVDs with all their images. But I send them to MY lab for

prints. He has my color profile to link up with his commercial printers. His prints match

what I see on my monitor, just like my Epson 2200 prints match my monitor.

 

In addition, far to many people use the factory default settings on their digital camera.

There are a host of custom set-ups to tailor to a person's style of shooting that never get

adjusted. Some of which are similar to making film choices for certain kinds of lighting

conditions ... except you don't have to change the film ; -)

[fotografz]

Hey Al, try buying film in 40 years.

 

Moot point. We'll both be lucky to be around in 40 years.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Yes the 40 mark is a little ways off and by then (given the current trends) Digital will be to film as sapce travel is to the Wright bros.

Thats my guess, and film shooters/shooting will likely be for nostalgia and fun.

 

It kind of stinks but things that you just feel good about (film) become the past and new things (digital) move ahead and are the future. Ah well...

[wedding-photography-denver]

BTW, the Ai of Colorado is going to teach all digital, I believe, as of this summer. No more film?

 

I guess if, like us, you in the age of transition to the digital medium/capture, you can stay with film but you will probably find it tougher as time marches on.

[James G. Dainis]

Speed and convenience defeats image quality everytime. Otherwise, why did everyone abandon their Speed Graphics for 35mm in the first place?

[karl_knize]

I think that one of the great things about the wedding market -- if

not the best thing -- is that there are clients for every

photographer, at every level and just about every style. Certainly

there are trends to pay attention to if you want to ride the big

volume wave, but even so there's plenty of room for individual

style. In my market in Chicago there are a handful of shooters

working at top rates and still delivering traditional silver prints as

their mainstay, there are tons of people shooting all digital and

stylizing the output, and a bunch of people in between. A certain

portion of the market has some inkling of the difference between

what's in grandma's album and modern dig. output, or took

photo classes or go to museums and crave tradition, and I have

little doubt that traditional B&W will be a part of the market for a

long time to come. It will never constitute the entire market as it

once did, but it seems to me that this isn't the point. The

wedding market is drastically different than it was 15 years ago

in the sense that it's much more diverse and more sophisticated

in some ways, and so much the better. Who wants to pound a

square peg into a round hole in order to work? I think if one

wanted to shoot weddings with an SX-70 and manipulate the

images -- which has been done -- that there's a small market out

there .

[aron]

"I will always consider digital cameras as low resolution toys"

 

What a brilliant statement Marc. I find that my customers are much happier with the fact that I provide complete artistic control over their digital images rather than relying on the lab, and that I tend to have at least some of their images online for proofing within 24 hours rather than fulfilling the sterotypical horror story of the 3 to six months of other mediums, and they seem to like their 20x24 canvas prints, and with software to increase resolution to any size I want with images that are beautiful and absolutley breathtaking to my customers eyes; canvas prints that I am also proud to show at wedding shows and to the photographers assistants that walk around trying to get information. You know when I talk to customers, they are usually fooled by other photographers such as yourself until I show them the truth and they are amazed at the "sharpness" and "how much better they look than the previous three photographers" that they have met with. I however have nothing against all forms of writing with light, but since I and my customers have been completely satisfied with the product, it was an easy decision. It's the same reason I haven't purchased a Mac. The benefits do not justify the cost 'for me'. But you go ahead and keep spreading that brilliant opinion about my digital "low resolution toys" and I'll keep showing people the truth about digital.

[gary_woodard]

I bought my son a digital camera, he's ten. Perfect for kids.

[khitrovg]

Nadine,

 

I have send you an email explaining how i adjust for skin tones.

 

Best regards,

Greg

[cjogo]

You can still have both "worlds" Shoot with film and have the negs scanned and deliver prints on photo paper and a CD ...No work for you in PS and the latitude of film is on your side. We actually have four request for next years calendar---We just charge $50/per roll additional for a CD (4.6 bitmaps) ...the clients gets "digital" and we have no time on the PC !

[fotografz]

For many very accomplished photographers of my acquaintance, digital has served to

renewed their enthusiasm for photography. It placed control of their creative vision back in

their hands. It provided new challenges and opportunities to expand their creative

horizons that required laborious and tedious tasks once before. It has promoted

experimentation and innovation at a furious rate. I've watch as it has seemingly done the

same for people here on PN.

 

Frankly, it has done it for me also. I never boxed myself in as an artist, nor cared if I was

categorized as a photographer just because photography was the medium I happen to use

at any given time. To think that the creative process ends when the shutter button is

snapped, is an abhorrent concept to me. Maybe it's because I come from an art

background, where the process is ongoing and fluid to the end.

 

What once took days to accomplish in the darkroom (which I still have), now takes me

minutes. For most applications, digital provides more than enough everything to do the

job without compromising anything I once provided via analog processes. Yesterday I had

a location portrait at 1PM. At 4:30, I deposited the check after providing the client with a

proof sheet, and seven 8X10s of seven different shots. Printed on my Kodak 8500, she

didn't have a clue it was digital, nor did she care. She didn't want to know how the sausage

was made. All she cared about was how she looked, and then raved about the creativity

employed for her publicity shot.

 

Here's a take on the archival issue. A former wedding client called and told me that her

Mother-in-law had lost her DVDs. I have an exact duplicate of every client's wedding

images. Today she will have the replacement. Had it been negs that were lost, it would've

been lost forever. This is the real world of what really happens, not a theoretical one

dreamed up for the sake of promoting an agenda.

 

Still love film folks. Yet digital is a revelation.

[matthewkane]

Here is my HONEST ANSWER ABOUT DIGITAL! BTW Marc well put. I agree

with basically e verything you said. Except that I am no longer a film shooter

and can't say I love film a nymore after I have switched to digital. lol, I still

respect it. But would never consider g oing back.

 

Digital has ARRIVED whether you acknowledge that or not and is extremely

capable. Many film shooters like Marc said are intimidated by the switch and I

was to initially. There are many reasons not to cost, steep learning curve, etc.

Maybe being 24 and h aving only shot film for 3 yrs before digital it wasn't as

hard for me to let go of. My POV on it was simply the ship has left the harbor.

Digital is the wave of the future. You can either get on board or wait behind at

the shore and wave.

 

The statement about digital having poor latitude is simply not true. Yes it may

not h ave a four stop range like some print films but why would you need that

much? With the advent of the histogram which is the greatest thing since

sliced bread IMO! I feel more confident in my exposures now than I ever did

with film. Especially if you s hoot RAW! The highlight recapture ability in

Adobe RAW is pretty remarkable. I have had very little trouble with exposure

latitude. If you shoot RAW and understand p hotography and your equip this

will rarely pose a problem whatsoever. About the digital flat skin look I can't

say I agree with that either. Look at Greg Gormans portraits. He is one of the

best in the world. Even he shoots digital now. Coming from a guy that has

been that well respected for so long shooting film and to switch mediums and

still maintain the the quality he has speaks volumes. He made the switch from

film within the last couple yrs. Believe it or not he doesn't even shoot a digital

back either, good ol' DSLR. Yes 11mp 1Ds but still. You get the idea.

 

This may sound prudish but... "It seems that wherever you go, the best and

most creative minds are at the forefront of technological change while the less

adaptable cling to the past."

[beauh44]

<I>"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them."</i> . . . Ansel Adams, The Negative, (1981)

[beauh44]

Another quote by A.A. after seeing the latest (at the time) results from laser drum scanning - a digital process: <I>"The result is exceptional image resolution and greater control of the tonalities. The dot pattern created by the laser beam is distinctly sharper than that of a contact screen in a process camera. The scanner also permits selective enhancement of values; it is possible to reveal subtle separation of values at either end of the scale which may even exceed those attained by the photographer in the original print! Of course, the result is subject to the skill and taste of the operator, and, if possible, the photographer should be available to suggest appropriate value controls during the printing."</i> Ansel Adams, The Print, (1983)

[steve_levine]

I have owned & used digital cameras professionally since 1999.I have had the good fortune to have shot many phone book "cover shots".My digital work,has appeared in hundreds of thousands of homes & business'.I have also used dig-cams for other commercial work,and for some quickie portrait work.I dont think a process's popularity is an indication of its image quality?Kodak was always in the business of ramming crap down the public's throat.The 1960's started with people shooting 120,127,620 etc roll films.The 1960's ended with the 126 instamatic cartridge cameras.The 1970's saw the 110 cartridge arrive,with its even tinier negatives!By the end of this decade Kodak was selling the "disc" camera,with a negative smaller than the 110's postage stamp size image.Meanwhile,Kodak has contunually ripped the heart out of all its B&W films ,by continually reducing their silver contents.Ever look at B&W prints done in the 1920's,and try to replicate the quality?Good luck,B&W films & papers now days have a fraction of the AG,they once had.My contention is that digital is the next generation of crappy imaging,being rammed down our collective throats.Yes digital will soon replace film,bit will it ever be better?Or is it simply what they want to sell us?Im not a luddite,or chicken little,nor a Kodak stockholder.I just feel sorry for people today,having video & digital photography,instead of motion picture film,and the once ubiquitous "slide projector".As for those that are burnt out,and lost their creative ways,Im glad that the digital medium has re-sparked their career/hobby.In my case,I just think that hi-tech,complicated processes can stifle creativity more than help it.

[fotografz]

Digital arguments aside, the reduction of B&W quality is where I DO agree with you

Steve! As you say, first came the reduction of silver content. Then the first RC papers

touted as a miracle were actually deplorable, and had the archival properties of a

newspaper left outside. I do own some vintage prints, and there is no current paper I've

used that can match the richness of those prints. I used to use the Zone VI, B&W double

weight fiber based papers when Fred still owned the company. Then Calumet bought

them, discontinued the paper, then brought it back as a new and improved "Brilliant"

which it most certainly was not IMO.

 

I hold on to my favorite film cameras, and maintain my darkroom in the hopes that B&W

film and papers WILL become a cottage industry with people who actually care about

things like silver content and archival properties. But I'm not holding my breath, nor do I

cling to the past that is no more.

 

BTW, the "accomplished" photographers I referred to are hardly burnt out, but instead

vibrant creative photographers ever looking for new challenges and ways to explore new

visions. They are constantly growing and expanding rather than waxing poetically about

the way it once was.

 

And while video has come a long way, it has hardly supplanted 35mm motion film for TV

commercial or motion picture work. Digital HAS however revolutionized the editing

process (thank God).

[ericwarnke]

Here is my own .02 USD. I am an amature photographer who has done digital fover the years.

 

I would not say that digital images are flat in any way, in fact I would call the results from raw conversion to be "predictable". I think the hurdle that many film people don't understand is that the choice of film for "style" is something that get pushed into PS. In PS is where stylization is done where you have a predicatible linear image and by appling stock actions you can emulate many of the more popular film styles.

 

Digial degridation is one thing that I have to chime in on. Yes, all digital media degrades, but so do negatives. At least with digital you can make a perfect copy and spread the risk that all will be destroyed. I make 2 copies of each backup disk and one goes to my father ( another fan of digital photography ). Yes, in a desade I will have to recopy them all to new media. This is a risk that I will take. I also use QuickPar as insurance against small errors on the CD ( error correcting codes can replace degaded or missing blocks on the CD ).

 

So.. I know I had more to say, but it's gone poof. I hope that people will take this post for what it is, an open and hones discussion of the pros and cons.

[karl_knize]

It occured to me last night what it is that keeps me shooting film

rather than shooting dig., although I'll be incorporating dig. for

color and group. It's black. BLACK. Sure, there are some other

issues for me which go more to my age, my history, craft and

personal satisfaction, technique, etc., but it's the prints that keep

me going and it's the jet black in a good silver print that lights my

wick. Sound crazy? May be. But having printed with Cone

Editions quad tone carbon, Epson matte on a variety of media, I

think the results are terrific but side by side the blacks don't have

the same density and feel. I think this is why I made the previous

comment about so much of the digital output I see as being a bit

listless. Lord knows the gamut is there, the saturation is good,

the sharpess is dandy, but the way a black tux looks is close but

no cigar. Anal? I suppose.