One of the first decisions you need to make as you are choosing who you will trust to record your wedding is how you want your photos recorded. Many photographers are adamant that there is only one "right choice"; not surprisingly, these photographers usually only offer one choice, either film or digital photos. For the purpose of this discussion I am going to confine my remarks about film to negative (print) film, and not spend any time on slide (transparency) film. This is because there are almost no photographers who use slide film for weddings. I am also going to assume that in all cases I am talking about prints that have been made by a high-quality photo lab, not just by some drugstore or One Hour photo lab, or by someone on their home printer.

Until relatively recently I was very strongly in the "Film is better!" camp. Frankly, digital images just plain weren't as good as those produced by a good film camera until a couple of years ago. But things have changed. Digital cameras have made huge strides, and the software for post-processing of digital images has also become both better and easier to use. So why do some photographers still feel so strongly that "film/digital (take your pick) is the only way to go"?

There are advantages to both formats. For someone who knows how to properly use it, a digital camera can make photography much easier, as well as less expensive. Those are the biggest advantages of digital photography from the point of view of the professional photographer, and why so many photographers now will shoot nothing BUT digital. Numerous features such as the ability to instantly replay the image to see if you got the shot the way you wanted; to be able to effectively "change film" by just adjusting the ISO dial on the camera to adjust to lighting conditions; to be able to shoot everything in color but to change to B&W, Sepia tone or a number of other options with a click of the mouse when post-processing; the ability to make minor or major changes such as adjusting colors, burning and dodging and even the removal of unwanted items from the photos, all make digital tremendously desirable to the photographer. All of those features are either anything from a minor hassle to next to impossible for a film photographer.

Digital photography is also cheaper for the pro. He can shoot as many photos as he wants, knowing that he can throw them away later at basically no cost to him. The film photographer has to pay for both the film and the processing of the negatives and prints, even though some of those prints may be weeded out later. Either way, the film photographer has higher expenses to shoot the same event.

But this can be a two-edged sword for the digital photographer, at least for the good ones. Any digital photographer who understands what he is doing will shoot the images in RAW format. If you don't understand what RAW is, it basically records the maximum amount of information but requires post-processing on the computer using specialized software to make the final images. This means that the more images the photographer shoots, the more time he has to spend at the computer after the wedding "tweaking" the images to make them look their best. This is not a fast process, and adds hours to the amount of time spent on any given wedding. For the film photographer, if he has made a decent exposure of the negatives, the majority of the processing work is done by the lab that prints the photos (which is why it is important that your photographer uses a high-quality lab to make your prints). So while the film photographer has higher actual expenses to produce his photos, he will generally be able to spend less time working on the photos after the wedding than the digital photographer.

There are, however, quite a few digital photographers who take the easy way out. Rather than shoot their photos in RAW format these photographers record their images as JPGs, which is a compressed file of information. The problem with JPGs is that they are much more difficult to manipulate after the fact, so unless the image is recorded perfectly in the camera it may be difficult to impossible to repair it later, which means you end up with inferior prints. Many of these discount photographers will offer to simply give you a CD or DVD of the files (no prints), with absolutely no post-processing of the files first; in the photo industry this is known as "Shoot to Burn". As you are hopefully beginning to understand, this is NOT a good thing. If the files you receive need extra work to make them acceptable and you are not experienced with PhotoShop (and sometimes even if you are) you may be out of luck. You may not realize there is a problem until you get prints made. The price of the package may look really good, but the end-product (your precious prints!) may not turn out the way you expect. If during your search for a wedding photographer you encounter any "professional" photographers who shoot in JPG and not RAW, I'd recommend that you keep looking.

This is why I include 4x6 prints with ALL of my digital packages. You will not receive your prints until I am happy with the quality; if the lab gives me a result that I don't like I either have the prints redone, or I go back to the RAW files and make the adjustments I feel are necessary for a good print. You will receive a CD of the corrected files that I use to make your prints, so you will be able to get prints of equal quality when you have reprints made elsewhere. If you have digital images (and own the copyrights) it is easy to send copies of your photos to friends and family via email, or to set up your own wedding website. You can even make copies of the CD and give that to anyone who wants to make their own copies of your wedding photos.

Another important issue is the actual camera and lenses being used by the digital photographer. There are now relatively inexpensive digital cameras available that offer resolution of 12 or more megapixels. But if these cameras are used with lenses that are not professional quality, the images will not be anywhere near the quality as when shot with pro-grade glass. Pro lenses are rather pricey, and many "professional" photographers have not made the investment, so be sure you don't just ask about the CAMERA your photographer is using, but also the LENSES.

But I am getting off the topic; something that is very easy for me to do when discussing photography! Back to the Film vs. Digital debate!

Why should you consider film? Photos taken with a medium format film camera will almost always have higher resolution than photos from a digital camera. I qualify the statement because there are such a variety of both medium format film cameras and digital cameras. The resolution of a pro-quality digital camera (12 megapixels or greater) when combined with pro-quality lenses will be superior to that of a 35mm film camera, and some of the best digital cameras (like the Canon EOS 5D Mk II, which I use) now have resolution of ~21 megapixels, which is comparable to or even better than most medium-format film cameras. Frankly, even with the best medium format film cameras you probably couldn't see the difference in resolution unless you were making VERY large prints, larger than most couples would ever consider for their wedding photos.

The biggest advantage of film is that it is able to "see" and record a wider range of light than a digital camera. This is called "Dynamic Range". Film is able to record both more highlight and shadow details than digital. For many situations this may not make much difference; the times film really shows its stuff is on a bright sunny day. Exposed correctly, a photo shot using film will not only record the brightest highlights but will also show detail in the shadows. This is not the case with digital. Digital is especially weak on high light values, and if overexposed is difficult or impossible to fix. I love to shoot sunset photos, and I have not yet been able to take a sunset photo with my digital camera that captures all of the high light values as well as my film cameras can. This means that the high light values will "wash out" and just be a bright area with little or no detail or color.

The other advantage of film is more subtle. To many people a photo made from film simply looks different than from a photo made digitally. I personally fall into this category. To me, a print made from an analog medium (film) has a more three-dimensional look and feel than a print made from digital media, which can look unnaturally "flat" and two-dimensional. Some people can see this difference and others can't, so it really boils down to personal preference.

Film is a more durable media than digital. As most of us have discovered the hard way, it is very easy for digital information to be corrupted or lost. One of the first things I tell my digital clients is to BACK UP their CDs multiple times. Film, on the other hand, is not susceptible to viruses or able to be destroyed by a hard drive crash. If your film is carefully stored it will still be perfectly usable for your grandchildren and beyond.

With film, it is relatively easy and inexpensive to have all of the negatives scanned and placed on a CD, and these digital files can then be used for emailing photos or doing other online work.

The biggest disadvantage of film is that it requires a photographer with greater knowledge and skill to create the best possible images. Unlike with digital, there is no "instant feedback" available, so your photographer needs to be certain that he/she has captured the shots. The ironic thing is that until the introduction of digital photography, every photographer understood that to be certain they captured their photos that it was important to carefully meter every scene, and to take multiple shots of important photos to be sure the image was caught as they wanted. Most pros really knew what they were doing; they had to or their photos wouldn't come out very well! The advent of digital cameras has allowed a lot of people to go into business as "professional photographers" who have little or no background in photography. This is why it is so important that you carefully review the work of ANY photographer you are considering hiring to shoot your wedding. The pros who learned to shoot with film cameras and have made the switch to digital have a much better understanding of photography than the newcomers who have only shot digital.

So which is better, Digital or Film? It really comes down to you as the end-user, and what you think will be a better way both to record your wedding and to save your images for yourself and your family. I will admit that as a photographer I now prefer to shoot digital in most circumstances, for all of the reasons that I listed earlier in the section on digital. A few years ago (2007) I said on this page that if I was taking photos at my daughter's wedding, and had to decide on one or the other, I would choose film. Now with the availability of cameras like the Canon 5D Mk II that offers 21 megapixel and higher resolution, I would opt for digital (though I'd be tempted to shoot a few rolls of medium-format print film if it was a sunny day!)

If you've made it this far and would like to know more about how film and digital compare, one of the best dissertations I've read on the subject is this article by Ken Rockwell, which I would encourage you to read.

Page updated 2/8/10