Film seems to be less work than digital?

[Wade_Gardner]

Hmmm. Maybe its because I never used film (in my own business) and when I used film, I wasn't a pro...so it cost a crapload of money (and time and storage space (physical...neg sleeves)

I shot weddings on film for a couple years for a studio, and at first, it sucked as I didn't know what I was doing exactly, and I shot manually (most of the time) with portable studio lighting and non TTL flashes. I still don't really know how to use a guide number, which I think is a handicap, but I can chimp now and tell for certain that I have over or underexposed all the group shots (hey, i had to refund the whole wedding on that one. Digital would have SAVED MY ASS, but so would knowledge)

You are basing this decision on five or six weddings? Did you have your film workflow down pat after five or six weddings? Or have you refined it over the years...and are you not still refining little things? If you did, wow, you rock. If you didn't, I would rethink the title of this post. Maybe "At first blush...film cheaper and less expensive than digital."

Another thing. Film is cheaper (maybe) if you shoot a certain number of shots, say keep the total shot number around 350-400. This sounds more along the lines of a "more traditional" photographer than I am. I would never be able to shoot the number of images that I do, 800-1200 per wedding at least, on film. It takes longer to change film than CF cards. (especially iff you add it up, 36 shots per roll, into 1200 shots equals 33 1/3 rolls. Takes me about two minutes to change film, thats over an hour of possibly missing a shot. If I get 80 shots on a card (15 cards), I can switch cards in thirty seconds, thats 8 minutes not looking for a shot. If I download rightaway (from the camera, it takes about 2 minutes to download 80 from my D1x) that means I am not shooting for 30 minutes)

Anyway.

I am just 100% more confident in myh images when I chimp the histogram every once in a while, than I EVER was when I waited for three days to find out I moved the shutter speed dial. Crflap.

[Marcos_Netto]

About a year ago I made the move from film to digital. I knew it was not going to be easy nor cheap, but I took my chances and...

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Why?
higher quality, faster workflow, huge savings, better images, less mistakes, more creativity, sales increase (yes!).

My humble suggestion: try to shoot right and do not spend that much time on post production and image adjustment. That sounds too obvious, but once you get to know exactly the strong point and limitations of the digital equipment you use, you´ll be able to get the most of it.

[Kevin_Saitta]

For BW where the clients wants large prints I use film still mainly MF as it produces better results but for the majority of wedding images I will shoot digital. Why? Because I like that I can quickly check the image to make sure the eyes didnt blink. This is a major reason I like digital for weddings especially on large group shots.

But for BW film is very hard to beat especially with all the control you have from the processing to the printing. Again I process my own film so is give me control that digital cannot touch.

So I guess I am a film / digital guy and jsut scan the negs after processing.

Best of both worlds.

Also I like the fact that I control what gets printed and how it will look. I take more pride inmy prints than any pro lab will. So in a way film may be cheaper but digital giuves me more control.

Toss up really.