Film VS. Digital

Preface

Every photographer has both film and digital cameras. We use them every day, study them every day and examine the results every day. We scientifically study, in a controlled environment, the difference between digital and film photography. We have been utilizing both platforms since 2001. We are experts in our field and highly qualified to give expert advice in the use and consumption of both digital and film photography products. As owners of both digital and traditional film-based equipment, we will honor any special requests, preferences or requirements you may have for a specific technology. Ultimately, we are obedient servants and will take your direction - if you have one. However, we do have opinions and qualified observations that we would like to share with you.
We would like to caution you from accepting advice from non-experts and non-digital users. Accept, only with skepticism, advice from anybody who does not own and operate both professional film and professional digital equipment. Put bluntly, anybody who tries to convince you that digital photography is without merit is speaking out of ignorance and fear. Ignorance of the technology and ignorance of the benefits. Fear of the unknown, fear of learning something new and fear of losing business to more technically advanced photographers. In general, we find that most skeptics are older, stuck in their ways (in a rut) and resistant to change.

Comparing Apples with Apples
If the debate is between film and digital then all other factors and variables must be removed. Do not compare $500 consumer grade digital cameras to $5,000 professional grade film cameras. Do not compare 35mm digital cameras to medium format film cameras. Only compare the quality and results of professional grade 35mm digital cameras to professional grade 35mm film cameras. Only compare the results of professional grade medium format digital equipment to professional grade medium format film equipment.

Advantages of Film
Forgiveness. One of the clearest advantages of negative film is its latitude for over exposure. Negative film (as opposed to transparency film) is much more forgiving when a photographer over exposes his subject. Beautiful prints can be salvaged from film that is shot 2-3 stops over exposed. With digital photography, you must be much more accurate and precise with your exposure - you must know what you are doing. Most digital cameras will not tolerate much more than about 1 stop over exposure or else the highlights, i.e., textures in white or light-colored things, will get blown out.

Advantages of Digital
1. Low-light conditions. With film cameras, your ability to shoot properly exposed images depends significantly on the speed of your film. Most photographers carry only one speed of film: 400. Some photographers may carry a couple extra rolls of high-speed film (ISO 3200) in their camera bags in case they encounter low-light situations. A few photographers might carry slow-speed film (ISO 50) for extremely bright situations.
With digital equipment, changing the speed of your ISO is as simple as rotating a dial on your camera (ranging between ISO 100-3200). Or, you can have your camera automatically detect the speed of light required for the shooting situation. With film, you have to interrupt a roll of film, possibly unwind and waste a portion of film, locate the proper speed film from your camera bag, load it, advance it, ensure your camera is set for the new speed of film and then continue shooting. The probability of missing a critical shot during this situation with film is very high. The probability of forgetting to reset your camera's ISO settings for the proper film is also very high which would result in images being so over or underexposed that they are rendered useless.
2. Color of light. Have you ever noticed the color of the sky? The sky is typically blue and the light from the sky (on a sunny day) is also blue. In order for colors to be rendered correctly in daylight, it is critical that you have daylight-balanced film.
Have you even noticed the color of the sunset? It is typically warm tones of yellow, orange or red. Incandescent light bulbs (the kind that you see in a normal reading lamp or table lamp) are also a warmer tone of yellow, orange and red. The light bulbs that are often found in churches and temples are the color of candles, which also contains warmer tones.
If you use daylight film in incandescent settings then the skin tone will not render itself properly. White dresses will look yellow or orange. White cakes will look yellow or orange. White skin will look yellow or orange. Rarely will photographers pay the premium price for tungsten-balanced film and carry them in their camera bags for these situations. Consequently, many of your pictures will contain improper colors, which may be difficult, if not impossible, to correct.
With digital equipment, changing the white balance of your camera is a simple as rotating a dial on your camera. Or, you can have the camera automatically detect the color of light and automatically adjust for the proper lighting condition.
3. Black + White versus Color film. Most clients today request some black + white photography. Some clients request 50% black + white coverage. A few clients request 90-100% black + white. How are we to choose, in the heat of battle, which shots to take in color versus which to take in black + white? How easy is it to confuse, in the heat of battle, which camera or film back has the color versus the black + white? What happens if you are in a situation where you cannot change the camera or film and must shoot a scene with whatever camera or film back you happen to have in your hands?
With digital equipment, a photographer doesn't have to worry about any of these questions. He or she simply needs to focus and concentrate on their job at hand: getting phenomenal images. Shoot everything in color and then convert everything to true black + white and then you have perfect copies of both. You don't have to decide until you see both images side by side. Then you can choose.
4. Instant Gratification. Even with 10 years experience as a professional photographer, sometimes I still cross my fingers and hope that the pictures turn out the way I envision them to be. Often, I have to wait 3-4 days, sometimes longer, to see the results of my images. By then, it's often too late to fix or correct a condition. The wedding is over, the people are gone, and the opportunity no longer exists.
With digital photography, I am able to constantly see what my camera is doing. I know if I have a blinker (somebody who blinks too much) on my hands. I know if my flash is reflecting in the wall, mirror or glass across from me. I know if my lights are working properly or improperly. I know if all my camera and equipment is functioning, as it should be. I know that if I don't have what I want from my equipment then I can immediately correct the situation before I go home.
5. Immediate Results. Perhaps another way of saying instant gratification. With film, I need to get it processed. If I shoot an event on Saturday and get the film to the lab on Monday, it won't be processed until Tuesday or Wednesday (maybe). It won't be proofed until Thursday or Friday (maybe). It might not even be done before I shoot my next event. Then, it takes time to edit and prepare for presentation the images in a meaningful way. It might take weeks before my client can see the images from their event. If they are not local to my area, it will also take considerable time and expense to get the images into their hands.
With digital photography, I can shoot an event on Saturday and have images on the web by Sunday. If a client is extremely impatient, then I can burn a CD-ROM of the images and deliver to them Saturday night before I leave the event. Results are immediate, gratification, instant. Time and expenses are reduced dramatically.
6. Expenses. Professional film is expensive. It costs at least $7 per roll (plus tax). Processing is expensive - at least $5-$10 per roll. These are purely consumable expenses which, in my opinion, is a wasted expense passed on to my client. Further, once you get the film developed, you cannot see the images unless you either burn them to CD-ROM or make paper proofs. Paper proofs are expensive - sometimes as much as $1 each. So, a typical roll of film that produces 30 images will cost at least $30 by the time you buy the film, process it and make proofs or burn to CD-ROM. Again, these material and consumable expenses are passed directly on to the consumer.
If a photographer is working on a fixed budget, i.e., the photographer is getting paid a fixed price for an event then he is typically conscious of the amount of film that he and his team are shooting. He knows that if he is working on a $3,000 contract, for example, and he has perhaps $1,000 in personnel expenses, $750 in album expenses, $250 in marketing expenses then there is perhaps $1,000 left over for film, processing and proofing. As he shoots, knowing that every time he presses his finger, every time he takes a picture, it costs him $1. As he approaches the 1,000-picture mark he knows that he is also closing in on his $1,000 expense budget.
At this point, he really needs to stop and consider whether every picture he takes is worth shooting. If he exceeds 1,000 pictures then he is cutting into his own pocket and paying for the privilege of shooting somebody else's event. He is subsidizing his client. At this point, it becomes a hobby, not a profession. He is no longer a professional photographer because he is no longer getting paid for it. Too many jobs like this and he will not be able to afford equipment, mortgage, childcare or his future. He is doomed to failure and bankruptcy. Alternatively, he will simply refrain from shooting what ought to be shot in the name of efficient and cost-effective business.
Fortunately, with digital there is virtually no limit to the amount of pictures that a photographer shoots. The money that he would have spent in on one wedding will afford him enough CompactFlash memory to shoot 5,000 pictures at extremely high resolution. With digital, a photographer will never have to stop and consider whether a picture is worth shooting. Just shoot it and delete it later if you don't like it. This literally liberates a photographer artistically. It gives the photographer artistic freedom to explore every aspect of his creative curiosity. It's a benefit for both photographer and client.
7. Noise versus silence. In the dead of silence, between vows, imagine a film camera at the end of its roll. Imagine that his camera automatically rewinds at the end of that roll. Imagine the shock and disruption that can occur as you listen and wait for that film camera to rewind while somebody waits to continue their prayer.
What a horrifying thought!
This can only happen with film cameras. With digital cameras, there are no motor drives, there is no film to advance or rewind, and there are virtually no camera noises. A digital camera is almost as silent as a motion picture camera or video camera. And with the ability to shoot 300 images on a single CompactFlash card, chances are that the entire wedding ceremony can be shot on the same card. Further, in the case that it does run out or fill up, the photographer can quickly and silently change compact flash cards in a fraction of the time that it takes for him to change film. There is simply no comparison.
8. State-of-the-art-technology. The industry is moving, at light-speed, towards digital. Research, development and innovation are focused on digital technology. Advances are simply not happening with film or film-based equipment - development has been arrested.
Every 3-6 months a new digital camera is introduced by one of the big four camera makers: Kodak, Nikon, Canon and Fuji along with advances by secondary manufactures: Sigma, Minolta, and Olympus. Each new product comes with newer generation sensors, meters, focusing mechanisms and technology that simply does not exist and will never be incorporated in yesterday's film cameras.
It's comparable to anti-lock brakes and airbags. Camera manufacturers, like automakers, are moving forward with their innovations and not worrying about or wasting resources retrofitting these older models. So, if you want the best, most consistently reliable equipment used for some of the most significant events that can happen in a person's life then you should demand the most recent, innovative, state-of-the-art technology that exists.
9. X-Ray machines. We all know that X-Ray machines - especially the ones that have been deployed since 2002 will corrupt images on exposed film. If your photographer has traveled by air to photograph your event then there is a significant risk that his film will be X-Rayed on the way home - even if he checks in his baggage. Even if the photographer is local, often he will FedEx or ship his film to a mid-West lab for processing. Cross-country shipping is now at risk for X-ray machines as well.
10. Archival quality and backups. Film is vulnerable to dust, light, heat, humidity and a plethora of other natural elements. It is just as important to archive negatives, as it is to properly archive prints. Many people often say that if their house were to catch on fire, one of the few possessions that they would attempt to save would be family photos - especially wedding photos. My recommendation is to leave the film, take the kids and the dogs.
With digital photography, you can make exact duplicates of the original images on CD-ROM. CD-ROMs cost about $1 each. Make half a dozen copies. Keep one in your safe deposit box, give one to each set of parents, keep one at your office and keep one at home. Most likely, the photographer will also keep a set in case you lose or destroy yours.
In effect, digital photography is infinitely more archival than either film or pictures. It will last forever and can be replicated exactly and precisely without sacrificing image quality.

The Future is Now
Accept it. Digital photography is inevitable. In the current economic environment, where research and development budgets around the world have been reduced, the opposite is true in digital imaging. Developments and innovation in digital photography have been speeding along at an incredibly fast pace. Every 4-6 months, manufacturers raise the standard with regard to more sophisticated chips, resolution, firmware and software. In fact, the earliest digital cameras were based on highly sensitive chips used extensivively in weather and spy satellites. In a matter of 18-24 months, most photographers will be digital ... it's only a matter of time. In fact, research and development on film-based cameras and technology has been completely arrested.
Digital Labs. The lab industry has also gone digital. It doesn't matter whether we shoot film or digital, most photographic labs that make pictures and reprints now utilize hybrid printing systems. Even if you input film into the system, it will become digitized before it gets printed to paper form. In fact, the digital chip in a digital camera actually receives it's signal in analog form (similar to that of film) and then gets converted to digital. The primary difference between film and digital is when it gets converted to digital. It is going happen either in camera or at the lab - either way - the image gets converted to digital prior to paper output. Now the question becomes, do I want my print to be first generation or second?

Conclusion
Do you think we are biased towards digital? You bet! Admittedly, we are addicted to it. We can't imagine living or surviving without it. Any time I travel or shoot for my own personal use, I use exclusively digital equipment. Given a personal choice, wanting only the finest quality, with the resources and ability to shoot any format that I wish, any camera that I wish, I will always choose digital because to me, it's superior to film.