Ironically, I took this picture with my new G10 digital camera

UPDATE: FILM IS NOT DEAD
The argument for film photography is still very strong, even for Hawaii Weddings

At 32 years old, I'm considered a relic to my 50 year old competitors, because I am one of the few professional wedding photographers who still shoot on film. Since the invention of the digital camera, a very vocal war has raged between old school film photographers, and new aged digital photographers. The Internet is filled with forums that claim digital photography out performs film 10 to 1. Currently, the majority of film photographers have switched over to digital. Film is dead they say, I beg to differ. Here is my responses to common questions regarding the current film vs. digital debate, composed of questions asked by my clients and amateur photographers.

IS FILM REALLY DEAD?
No. If film were truly dead, the movie industry would be dead, because the movie industry still shoots most of their movies on film, instead of High-Definition (HD) cameras. Even though studios would save millions of dollars if they shot their movies in HD, they don't. And this purely a quality issue.

WHAT ABOUT THE MEGA PIXEL RACE? ISN'T A 35MM CAMERA EQUIVALENT TO An 8 MEGA PIXEL CAMERA?
No, they are not even close. Print out your best 8 Mega pixel image, and compare it to any of your 35mm prints, and tell me then if there is a difference. It will be quite apparent, with the 35mm camera winning the race by a landslide. The truth is that there is no true way to compare a mega pixel to a 35MM camera, and I'll get into that later.... Even my 15 Mega pixel G10, that I love, cannot outperform a simply disposable film camera when printed.

HOW LARGE OF AN IMAGE CAN A 35MM FILM CREATE?
Lets go back to the movie industry once again. Picture in your head the largest movie theater you've been into, and that's about the size of a 35mm enlargement. Yes, a 35MM slide film can produce enlargements up to 80feet in width, and if they are shot on medium format film, such as IMAX movies like Star Trek, then you're talking about a 3 to 4 story tall image. If there were an enlarger and photographic paper made large enough, you could theoretically create a single image of that size.

Now, you could theoretically take a digital image and shoot it on a movie screen through a LCD projector, but the artifacts of compression will appear. More so, because digital images only consist of 256 colors, it is incapable of creating a saturated image good enough to be compared to projected film image. This is why even the best LCD pictures lack a punch even when compared to a mediocre film projector.

Next time, take notice of the lack of punch, when you view movies on your computer, or a power point presentation. The pictures are just bland, and it's very apparent. Movies on your computer don't look as good as those you see in the theater....and the reason is answered with the next couple of questions.

HOW MANY COLORS CAN FILM CAPTURE?
Millions.

HOW MANY COLORS CAN THE NAKED EYE SEE?
Millions.

HOW MANY COLORS ARE THERE IN NATURE?
Millions.

HOW MANY COLORS CAN THE HIGHEST DIGITAL CAMERA CAPTURE?
256.

AH, I GET IT. SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT MOVIES SHOWN IN THEATERS ARE NOT ONLY BIGGER PICTURES, BUT A BETTER PICTURE THAN MY HOME THEATER?
Yes. Since you are seeing an image captured by light, and then created by light in a movie theater, you are seeing probably the closest thing to what the human eye would see. When you see the same movie on DVD later at your home theater or computer, you are seeing a down converted image that is only comprised of 256 colors.

DO YOU OWN ANY DIGITAL EQUIPMENT?
I actually do! Just recently, I bought a digital point-and-shoot camera, G10, which I love. The quality, ease of control, and portability is amazing. I also have a digital camera body, Nikon 3000, which I always carry just in case my film bodies go down on me. The G10, although a point and shoot, rivals the qualtiy of the Nikon D3 and the price tag between the two is around $2500.

I would recommend the G10 to every amatuer and professional photographer out there. There is a difference in the size of the CCD, between the Nikon D3 and the point-and-shoot G10, but I'm going to be straight with you here. In this case, it doesn't matter. The G10 prints are exactly of the same quality of my Nikon 3000. In fact, the G10, is less sensitive to blown out whites, than the Nikon D3. There is a difference in pixels when you zoom in, but to the naked eye, the G10, out performs the Nikon D3 in my opinion. I use the G10, for my patriot package, and not the D3. I keep that thing bundled up in the truck.

Taken on my Canon G10, with 100% fill flash. Nice shot, but lacks a "pop."
This is touched up, and color also added.

SO YOU'RE SAYING DIGITAL IS NO GOOD?
I love my digital cameras. They are fun to play with, and their quality is good, just not as good as film when it comes down to overall picture quality. I love the portability of digital cameras, especially when travelling. No more hand checking film. And digital is great for newspapers and magazine publications. For high quality prints though, I still prefer film, especially large format slide film.

Taken on my G10. Not too shabby..but again, no "pop."
Touched up with color added.

Film has a look to it. Notice the "pop?"

WHY STILL SHOOT ON FILM?
Time, price, and money. It probably takes a $10,000 digital setup to come somewhat close to a point and shoot 35mm camera. Also, I'm not into touching up photos. I just like to point, click, and develop my photos, then to hand it to my couples. No touching up in the computer needed. In the long run, shooting on film saves me a lot of time, and time in many cases is money.

Digital pictures always have to be touched up to look decent...remember that.

Also, film, in my opinion, just has a better look to it. The colors are brighter (naturally) there's more contrast, and to me, film looks 3-dimensional, and digital looks rather flat. Film has sharper edges than digital, yet it's smoother in areas where it should be, such as the skin. This means that even if a subject has bad complexion, I can choose a different type of film to make her look softer, yet I'll still get a sharp image, without having to touch up the photos on the computer.

And with film, there is such thing as color correction, which is done during printing. But with digital photography, it's not a matter of color correction, more so...it's color CREATION.

Paxton and Shelly, photo shot on film. Note the details in the whites,
details in the shadows, and 100% blacks, and natural sunset colors.
The photo just pops. No color correction needed.

They are the next couple I'll be blogging about!

STEVE, I'VE SEEN THE COMPARISONS ON THE INTERNET. THE DIGITAL PICTURES LOOK GOOD.
Ever try to print out your digital photos that you take on your point and shoot and wonder why it doesn't look as good as what shows up on your preview screen? That's because your resolution, like your computer screen, is very low, around 72 dpi to be exact. Film, if scanned properly, can display a resolution of 20,000 dpi. Digital on the other hand shoots at around a 180dpi image. What does this mean? Basically, if you compare film vs. digital on a monitor, it's not a level playing ground, since you will be drastically down converting film and somewhat down converting digital images to 72 dpi.

If you truly want to do a side by side comparison between film and digital photographs, you can do this on your own. What you need to do, is to have similar images printed in their native format. This means, taking one digital photograph, with no touch ups, and printing it out.... and then take one film photograph, with no touch ups, and printing that out. The difference will be more apparent, in fact, night and day.

Think this is impressive? You should see the actual print.
This image only shows 256 of the millions of possible colors in the print.

THE FINAL WORD
Overall, it's the photographer, not his equipment, that determines the quality of his work.

I do though, have some trouble with many digital photographers, because a lot of them are not true photographers. The digital photography era has given birth to the new type of professional photographer who just points and clicks. I have a lot trouble with that photographer who doesn't take the time to understand exposure, and yet has the ego to jump into the wedding industry, without really knowing how to produce consistent shots. These amateurs existed when film photography was the norm, they are more in abundant now.

I remember at a wedding, a friend of the wedding couple kept telling me, "You can't shoot into the sun Steve, don't you know that! You'll get a white sky! See!" He insisted while showing me his shot. He then continued and said, "And you should turn off your flash, all your whites will get washed out."

I looked at him, "That's why I shoot on film."

That friend of the couple was blown away when he saw my shots, and went out the next day to purchase his first film camera.

Every now and then, I run into other digital photographers at our local lab, and they look at my pictures and ask me, "Wow, how did you get these shots on your camera? What type of camera are you using?"

I tell them, "I shoot on film."

And they smile and say, "I had no idea film looked that good..."

Personally, I believe film will come back strong in the next few years as many professionals will try to differentiate themselves from the over saturated digital wedding photography industry. Plus, they will have to finally admit, that film is not dead.

Here's a great article about film photographers who are sticking to the traditional medium. READ THE COMMENTS ON THE PAGE AS WELL

Steven Young
The Hawaii Wedding Czar
http://www.dreamweddingshawaii.com/