For a wedding photographer....what are the advantages/disadvantages of having digital photography or reg. film

Question

I'm getting married next year....we have 2 wonderful recommendations for this photographer who is a "Master Photographer" (not really sure what that means), but he does not do digital photography *at all* because he feels that when you print a digital print out, "it doesn't do his pictures justice" (his words). My parents really want to go with him, they have seen his work, and I have mentioned, he was highly recommended by two sources (one a family, and the other a videopgrapher we will probably hire). Anyway, here is the "conflict" of sorts....my fiancee (who works in the computer field and is VERY into computers and digital everything) wants us to have a photographer who does digital proofs. Is there a major difference between digital wedding pics and film pics? Is price a factor? I know the best way to find someone is by word of mouth recommendations, but my parents are very reluctant to go with someone they have never heard about, & my fiancee wants someone who does digital.

So, help! I would like to see what the major differences if any are, and any of your experiences with either would be great to hear if you are willing to share.

Also, isn't digital how the future is pretty much going ot be? My friend just got married, and she sent us the username ID and password to her wedding pic website, and the pics looked great. We got to see all her proofs, and order some if we wanted. But, I don't understand how someone can be so reluctant to go digital, especially if this is how people do photos now mostly.

Just to get back to my main question again: Why would you NOT want to go with someone who will do digital wedding photos, and why WOULD you go to someone who will NOT do digital wedding photos?

Hopes that makes sense....I've just never had to plan a wedding before. This is my first, and hopefully last one!!! I've got to make everyone happy, the groom of course, and my parents who are footing the bill. And I want nice pics too of course.

Answer 1

Kind of weird, I was in an identical situation before we selected our photographer. When we compared both, we found the real decision was whether we felt either photographer knew how to use their equipment. The traditional photographer had made many negative comments about digital, how you can't see the lighting well, how you have to wait for a few seconds between pictures, etc. When we went to our digital photographer we asked her point blank about those comments. She was able to show us her pictures and explain that with today's technology those concerns are really nothing to worry about. Also, as someone previously mentioned, in digital photography they can just take and take and take because they aren't considering the cost to develop, where as the traditional photographer said " I will take 6 or 7 rolls of film..." When it came down to it we enjoyed the digital photographers personality, proofs, and professionalism so we went with her. (Not to mention she was a little bit more cost efficient.) My parents, in the end, were just fine with our decision. They know we take deep interest in our selections we are making for vendors and that we try to consider everything. Good luck with your choice! Remember it is YOUR wedding!

Answer 2

This is a dilemma I am encountering all the time...I am a photographer who doesn't use digital ( yet), preferring instead to remain with the print or slide film media. There is an aesthetic reason for this where light manipulation and maximum control of ones craft are concerned, but I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it is akin to being a master blacksmith...a craft requiring great technical skill, to be sure, but of diminishing importance the less people ride horses in the mainstream. And if I intend to remain in this industry, I am going to have to make the jump at some point to digital...it is the future of photography. For one thing, when an image is blown up made from film, there is a maximum size allowed (dependent on several factors including film speed and the format in which one shoots) before the image is rendered "grainy" (newspaper-like texture) and therefore unsuitable for portraiture. This is overcome at great expense to the artist, which is then transfered to the client. Conversely, digital imagery can be blown up to ridiculously large sizes without a loss of resolution at a mere fraction of the cost. My personal qualms against digital photos has to do with the loss of creative control of the photographic process, but as the technology improves that is less and less a factor, and as I have already admitted, I am no expert on digital craftsmanship. In other words, they may already have solved that problem. From what I have seen of digital work lately, it makes me wonder if one day it won't put the photographer out of business altogether ( everyone and their grandmother uses a digital camera nowdays and gets pretty impressive results). Proofing is also a factor: when I shoot an event, I then have to take film in to be processed and then printed into viewable proofs...this is time consuming and costly. A digital photographer, conversely, could conceiveably shoot today, and proof this afternoon with the client ...saving time and money in the process. I understand why he extolls the virtues of film, because that's what I do, too. It's the craft I know, so of course I'll play up my strengths. But digital photography is making a strong case for itself in a lot of significant ways...and that can't honestly be ignored.

Answer 3

If you select a quality photographer, they will use quality equipment. It's pretty uncommon for something to go wrong with the memory card, since it's so well-guarded inside the actual camera. Film is ALWAYS more expensive, and it is more liable to accidents. Digital will give you way more photos to choose from, it's a lot easier on the photographer (they won't have to carry around so much film) and they can be retouched a lot easier than if done with film. Digital photography has been around enough years that the glitches are worked out, and it's a fantastic medium.

Answer 4

I am a photographer who doesn't use digital. For some people, they were trained with film and is their medium they prefer to use. I use film and I like it better because when you enlarge pictures for weddings (such as a bridal portrait to 16x20) even the best digital cameras can make it look very grainy and pixely. And with film, the enlargements don't have the pixely stuff to it, sometimes they can be grainy the bigger you get, but usually they are not. Anyway with film nowadays you can get them put on cd and look at them that way now too.

On the other hand with digital, I have only used it once and everything, I mean EVERYTHING from the wedding I shot had to be touched up in photoshop (ie light, color, contrast). And when I printed the pictures bigger, they looked very grainy and pixely.

I help this helps a little bit.

Answer 5

The previous two responders have done an excellent job weighing the pros and cons...I glanced through, I don't know if they mentioned the "ease" of storing digital pics...i.e, having all your wedding pictures on one CD, v. boxes and boxes of prints! But, as for your dilemma, I would recommend (in fact, to anyone) getting TWO photographers...pricier, yes, but then you could get a second one who could take digital pics, and, when you have two photographers you have a much better chance of fully capturing the wedding and maybe have one catch moments that the other misses, or get the important shots from more than one angle. Of course, make sure that both are aware the other will be on site and that they don't have any personal objections to the set up! Might want to have them both come to the rehearsal to plan where each will stand, etc.

Answer 6

I got married last year, and to me the choice of photographer was the second-most important one of the entire wedding -- right behind choosing the girl, of course.

I've had the opportunity to work with some of the world's top photojournalists -- not as a photographer myself, but setting up events all over the country that they covered. The men and women I got to watch work every week were the same ones whose photos you have seen in Time, Newsweek, US News and in every major newspaper. As a group they've won just about every award for photography and photojournalism that has been given, including a few Pulitzers.

And while it didn't happen overnight, they have all switched over to digital. And that includes one guy who was shooting nothing but black-and-white film on a little Leica camera while all his competition lugged about big Nikon digital SLRs.

If folks like David Hume Kennerly and P.F. Bentley are comfortable that they can get great shots with digital cameras, so am I. My wedding photographer, who shoots regularly for National Geographic (not a magazine know for poorly lit photos), shot everything in digital and we couldn't be happier.

The photographers who have a knee-jerk negative reaction to digital are the ones that haven't invested in the new equipment (yet). They often claim that the art of photography is too important to be trusted to computers, or that they can get a much better result with film. I respect them as artists, but unless you have a whole team of photographers covering your wedding, you don't want someone who considers themself an artíste... they will not shoot enough photos during the event for your taste. Most people want someone with more of a photojournalist's mindset -- be ready for THE BIG MOMENT and be sure you capture it with your camera. If they means taking six shots where one might do, so be it. But it especially means you don't want to be caught unawares rewinding film when something photogenic happens!

But I'm biased. My photographer was:

http://www.joannabpinneo.com

Here's an article that explains, technically, how digital photography is already surpassing film:

http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08365

Whatever kind of photographer you choose, make sure when all is said and done YOU OWN THE PHOTOS. You should get the negs or the high-resolution images on a DVD. The traditional business model of the wedding photographer that charges you a lot of money to shoot your wedding, then charges you exorbitant prices to print your photos (check out the price of prints on Shutterfly!), and has the gall to claim copyright of the images and never gives you the negatives of YOUR OWN WEDDING is going away, and it's because digital is so much less expensive to work with.

Good luck!

Answer 7

I am getting married next year also, there are pros and cons to both, my brother got married last year and their photographer was all digital, it was awesome because we could see all the ceremony photos at the reception, he had a laptop setup for everyone to see the photos, they got alot more pictures all on dvd, and the photographer gave them the disk of all the pics over 800 of them. The prints were beautiful as well, and they got to preview them on a personal website, and family could order pics they wanted, I got some of my son as he was the ringbearer.

A traditional photographer tends to limit the pics you get, it takes a while to get the proofs, I know a friend who waited almost 6 weeks for proofs and even longer for her photo books, she didnt get to keep all the proofs, and therefore some of the shots they didnt keep.

Its really personal preference, some photographers just dont like digital they are used to the medium they learned on and are not satifisfied with digital prints.

Personal I like the digital prints they seem brighter and truer in color than regular film, and there are many things they can do digitally to correct photos.

Good luck and congratulations

Answer 8

If your parents are footing the bill for the photographer then by all means go with their suggestion. You can also have a photographer take digital pics as well. The advantage of the digital is you get the pics faster. The choice is yours.

Answer 9

I used digital for my wedding and I loved how they came out. The biggest advantage was that we got a CD in our package that had all the pic's he took (over 1000). He knew right away what came out well. If someones eyes were closed or someone was not looking he would take it again. We priced both out and found digital to be MUCH cheaper. Good Luck

Answer 10

1