KevinShaw
Veteran
Jul 18, 2005, 2:53 PM
Post #6 of 14
(1794 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re: [Sparky] How much do clients care about digital or film?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I did have one bride question me about the longevity of the prints from digital. These days it's all about paper and the ink. So yeah ... if I'm running prints off my R-200, don't expect them to last very long. But even Sams and Wal-Mart are using Fuji printers and they should last about as long as anything else.
The longetivity of a print has nothing to do with whether the source image was film or digital, and everything to do with how the print is made. I would argue that digital photography has a huge advantage in terms of longetivity, because in theory you can maintain the exact full quality of the original image forever, or at least as long as someone maintains a copy of the file in a format which can be read on available hardware. With film both the negatives and prints will inherently deteriorate from the day they are created, with no way to stop this short of scanning the images to digital. Plus there's no easy to way to make a good duplicate of a film negative for purposes of storing safely, so if your negatives get burned in a fire or something you're out of luck. With digital you can easily and inexpensively replicate all of your originals as many times as you want and store them in multiple locations for maximum security, so if you're paranoid about that sort of thing digital gives a great answer to that.
Personally I can't see any reason to use film any more except for very specific purposes where you're sure you can only get the image characteristics you want that way. For typical wedding photography it seems rather pointless, and if I were hiring a photographer I'd prefer someone who shoots digital. It's more environmentally friendly too, at least on a per-picture basis.
|
