Postal_Boy
Veteran
Nov 30, 2005, 11:18 AM
Post #3 of 11
(1026 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Re: [Storm Crow] Pros and Cons for Digital/Film in Wedding
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The only advantage that I see...if it really is an advantage...is that with digital you don't have to change film out. But then, a good photographer would always keep track of remaining pics, and wouldn't machine-gun the wedding with film anyway, so it houldn't really make that big of a difference.
As far as quality, I don't know that there is a realistic quality comparison that says one is better than the other, especially since they pics go on photo paper in the end anyway, and the digital cameras now days are such high resolution that I would say it would be absolutely impossible to tell if a still was taken on a digital or film camera.
The disadvantage, most digital photographers (or many, anyway) machine gun the wedding because "hey, it ain't like I'm wastin film or nothin"...in other words, they may be more intrusive - film photographers have been known to jump in the middle to get that "perfect shot", but they aren't as likely to lurk or linger in the middle, blinding people with rapid fire flashes.
So, the advantage isn't so much in the technology, but the mentality of the people using the technology. Having 1200 stills to choose from is no advantage if only 50 of them are even worth looking at. If someone is good and shoots 100 stills, and 75 are worth having, I would say that is the better "deal" for a bride.
So, ask the question - How many stills do you shoot during the wedding? If the anser is above 800, ask "how many do people usually purchase on an average" and you can figure out how much of the work was worthless, regardless of numbers.
Quantity does not mean quality.
-Postal
__________________________
PD-170, Dual athlon 2200+, 1gig ram,, Vegas, Combustion, Photoshop, dual monitor (ashamed of the video card, so I won't mention it), Samson wireless, and a couple of one-chippers (sony) just for the heck of it. - And an IRIVER
|
