matthopp

Well since we save marriages and solve the problems of the world here at DTR, I thought I would put my dilemma out here. I am currently receiving photographer bids for my December wedding and I think we have it narrowed down to two. Both are in the same price range, do good work, the main difference is film or digital. Are there any photographers out there with opinions on film vs. digital? All opinions appreciated.

Hoss

Just my opinion here....but for my wedding I think I'd be more inclined to go with the traditional film. However, digital has many advantages if the photographer knows what they're doing. Don't know if that helps or not.... :-

Lary Ellis (Top)

Not on topic, but....Did you know that you can buy a nice bass boat for what many people spend on a wedding? ;D

Also I think it is best to pick the photographer you are most comfortable with, If they are good at what they do, either format will be just fine

Mule Skinner

I use both film and digital for work. Look at both film and digital and decide from there how you would loke to look back at the best day of your life. I am on second marriage 16 yrs and would not trade for anything. Good luck

FiverBob

It depends on how good the camera is. If it is a 5 megapixel imager, the digital would be fine if they have a very high quality color printer. It not, stick to film. You will want to blow up some of these pics pretty big - - the digital image from smaller imagers will start to fall apart. You can always create the digital pic from the regular picture which I would highly recommend in this day of technology.

matthopp

I already had a boat picked out and yes it is actually cheaper to get the boat--Since I am gettin the bill anyways, should of gotten the boat instead

apc

I would definetly go with traditional film. most pros will use a larger format than 35mm and it will take enlargements better.
Some will take photos and transfer to cd for an extra cost giving you the option of reprinting on your own or e-mail.

RamDan03

I would also say traditional film, unless of course they have one of those 6+ megapixel SLR body digital cameras.

Suburbanite

I'd opt for digital, assuming the photog was using a mega-mega-pixel camera, for the medium's stability/longevity. What I'm trying to say is: Digital images stored on a CD or DVD will more likely stand the test of time without any sort of special storage needs. Of course, if you opted for film, you could always have the negatives/prints scanned digitally(sp?) & then transferred to CD/DVD -- just an extra step (one that may be subject to some image loss).

Good luck & congrats.

May you have many happy years together.

Shovelhead

Why not both?

matthopp

2 different photographers = Lots of $$---Each photographer shoots only one or the other--they both say theirs is the best way. : :

sdscuba

Film

Larger Reprints, longer lasting prints.
Film can be scaned and then you have a digital also.
Have them shoot both Color and B&W.

Mostwanted

I vote digital.

We had our photographer use digital so we can get everything on DVD. (Sorry Grandma ). I like the idea of being able to use editing software and make diffrent versions. ;D. Our photographer had a real nice camcorder. I am not sure what the ratings are, but I know that picture quality on a digital camcorder isn't measured in megapixal (i.e. 5megapixals) but in resolution (ie 1200dpi x 3200dpi). I believe that digital cameras are measured in megapixals thou. We had plenty of faamily members there to take pictures with old school cameras to get reprints on film too.
Just my expieriance- MW

jweir

Having done weddings for years, I will take the old-fashion view and recommed film. Digital has some good points, but I still prefer the "look" of film for weddings, especially with a good medium format film.

There, now ya have my $0.00002 worth ;D

Jim

tanderson2002us

Can't the SLR (film) be scanned with a GOOD scanner and converted to sn equivalent of 5+ megapixel or no? ???