Digital for weddings.......

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by nonamegiven, Aug 20, 2003.

  1. nonamegiven

    nonamegiven Guest

    Is there a big advantage, or any advantage, to shooting digital only for weddings?
     
    nonamegiven, Aug 20, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nonamegiven

    Paul Heslop Guest

    nonamegiven wrote:
    >
    > Is there a big advantage, or any advantage, to shooting digital only for weddings?


    Advantage is almost instant results.
    --
    Paul. (scatter like ice from the spoon that was your womb)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Not what it seems...
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
     
    Paul Heslop, Aug 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. I wrote:
    having just shot my first digital wedding (actually used both film and
    digital), the instantaneous feedback is great and got me more wedding
    bookings but ..... I was always afraid of losing the images(used a 1 gig
    microdrive), the post wedding work with digital takes way, way
    longer(you think you can fix anything whereas with film, if its junk
    then its junk) - i'm still playing with these shots and haven't sent
    them off to print the proofs yet.
    face it, digital is now but film will survive _ i find I can't get the
    deep blacks I like on film.
    harvey

    nonamegiven wrote:
    > Is there a big advantage, or any advantage, to shooting digital only for weddings?
     
    harvey steeves, Aug 20, 2003
    #3
  4. nonamegiven

    Chris Hoopes Guest

    "Paul Heslop" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > nonamegiven wrote:
    > >
    > > Is there a big advantage, or any advantage, to shooting digital only for

    weddings?
    >
    > Advantage is almost instant results.
    > --
    > Paul. (scatter like ice from the spoon that was your womb)
    > --------------------------------------------------------------
    > Not what it seems...
    > http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/


    I agree.

    1) Instantaneous results - making sure you got the right shot (seeing that
    someone blinked during formals)
    2) Being able to confirm the first shot was good and not having to take
    duplicate shots "just to be sure".
    3) Larger capacity for capturing images - not having to change film (of CF
    cards) as often. I like being able to keep on shooting rather than stopping
    to change film and possibly missing a shot.

    One other item comes to mind as well. When I shoot an event, I carry an
    ImageTank (portable hard drive) and download my CF cards when they get close
    to being full. This way, I know I have a backup copy of the image files. I
    transfer the images to my laptop as soon as possible and verify them to make
    sure I have good copies of the images, and burn a CD. By the end of the
    night, I have three copies of the raw image files. I also don't re-use the
    card while at the event, just to make sure I don't delete anything. The
    files on CF cards don't get deleted until I have my three backups.
     
    Chris Hoopes, Aug 20, 2003
    #4
  5. nonamegiven

    Paul Heslop Guest

    stubby wrote:
    >
    > I have done over 400 weddings never had a prob with digital but film I have
    > had film that had never been treated right developers have lost film and
    > you don't know until after the wedding Digital you can check as you go
    >

    Yep, though that can be a pain the but too.

    I think if I have anything against using digi and weddings it would be
    with cameras like mine, with all auto settings, if you focus on white
    you get dark images.

    --
    Paul. (scatter like ice from the spoon that was your womb)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Not what it seems...
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
     
    Paul Heslop, Aug 20, 2003
    #5
  6. (nonamegiven) writes:

    > Is there a big advantage, or any advantage, to shooting digital only
    > for weddings?


    I was at a wedding two weeks ago and the photographer ran out of film
    as soon as the bridesmaids came down the aisle. He had to run back to
    the foyer and tell the bride and her father to wait while he loaded a
    new roll of film. The audience sat awkwardly for about a minute and
    them finally the photographer came back out and the wedding resumed.
    At least he was smart enough to do that instead of missing the moment.

    Certainly, one can run out of memory as well, but given enough storage
    space, it's less likely to happen as frequently and at just the wrong
    moment. I'd also surmise one can change a memory card much faster and
    with less likelyhood of something going wrong than with a roll of
    film.

    --
    "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
    -- Sir Winston Churchill
     
    Aaron J. Ginn, Aug 20, 2003
    #6
  7. nonamegiven

    Graham Guest

    "Aaron J. Ginn" wrote:
    > I was at a wedding two weeks ago and the photographer ran out of
    > film as soon as the bridesmaids came down the aisle. He had to run
    > back to the foyer and tell the bride and her father to wait while
    > he loaded a new roll of film.


    I'm no professional photographer, but I would have thought this was an
    almost inexcusable and easily avoidable stuff up?

    Surely even with standard 36 shot 35mm film it isn't that hard to keep
    track of where you are up to, and surely most pros would be using
    equipment which accepts bulk films rolls anyway?
     
    Graham, Aug 20, 2003
    #7
  8. In article <>,
    (Aaron J. Ginn) wrote:

    > (nonamegiven) writes:
    >
    > > Is there a big advantage, or any advantage, to shooting digital only
    > > for weddings?

    >
    > I was at a wedding two weeks ago and the photographer ran out of film
    > as soon as the bridesmaids came down the aisle. He had to run back to
    > the foyer and tell the bride and her father to wait while he loaded a
    > new roll of film. The audience sat awkwardly for about a minute and
    > them finally the photographer came back out and the wedding resumed.
    > At least he was smart enough to do that instead of missing the moment.


    That photographer should not be doing weddings first off, no pro does
    weddings without back up equipment.
    Regardless of how fast you can change a memory card its not fast enough
    when people are walking down the aisle,.....that photographer will have
    ruined that brides wedding forever, lets just hope they got great shots and
    she has a forgiving heart.

    Alot of 35mm AF camera have film advance its really just as fast as loading
    a card.....all this is beside thepoint,....they "F"d up.


    > Certainly, one can run out of memory as well, but given enough storage
    > space, it's less likely to happen as frequently and at just the wrong
    > moment. I'd also surmise one can change a memory card much faster and
    > with less likelyhood of something going wrong than with a roll of
    > film.


    --
    "ANFAWFOS"
    Check out my website @
    http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Aug 20, 2003
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    Graham <> wrote:

    > I'm no professional photographer, but I would have thought this was an
    > almost inexcusable and easily avoidable stuff up?


    It is.

    > Surely even with standard 36 shot 35mm film it isn't that hard to keep
    > track of where you are up to, and surely most pros would be using
    > equipment which accepts bulk films rolls anyway?


    Yes or two cameras. Which is what I did prior to buying my Bronica
    with changable magazines.

    --
    "ANFAWFOS"
    Check out my website @
    http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Aug 20, 2003
    #9
  10. (Aaron J. Ginn) writes:

    > (nonamegiven) writes:
    >
    > > Is there a big advantage, or any advantage, to shooting digital only
    > > for weddings?

    >
    > I was at a wedding two weeks ago and the photographer ran out of film
    > as soon as the bridesmaids came down the aisle. He had to run back to
    > the foyer and tell the bride and her father to wait while he loaded a
    > new roll of film. The audience sat awkwardly for about a minute and
    > them finally the photographer came back out and the wedding resumed.
    > At least he was smart enough to do that instead of missing the moment.


    A mess either way, but this way gets the mess over with right away.
    And it doesn't show in the pictures :). But yes, when I'm doing a
    wedding I do try to plan ahead for those moments when I shouldn't need
    a technical time-out.

    > Certainly, one can run out of memory as well, but given enough storage
    > space, it's less likely to happen as frequently and at just the wrong
    > moment. I'd also surmise one can change a memory card much faster and
    > with less likelyhood of something going wrong than with a roll of
    > film.


    I can change a card much faster than a roll of film personally,
    anyway. Always assuming I have it *with* me. But the card is also
    smaller than the roll of film, so it's easier to have with me.
    (compact flash card compared to either 35mm or 120 film).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 20, 2003
    #10
  11. Graham <> writes:

    > "Aaron J. Ginn" wrote:
    > > I was at a wedding two weeks ago and the photographer ran out of
    > > film as soon as the bridesmaids came down the aisle. He had to run
    > > back to the foyer and tell the bride and her father to wait while
    > > he loaded a new roll of film.

    >
    > I'm no professional photographer, but I would have thought this was an
    > almost inexcusable and easily avoidable stuff up?


    Looks that way to me. I've only done weddings as a minor sideline,
    and *I* think to check film level and reload early before key
    moments.

    > Surely even with standard 36 shot 35mm film it isn't that hard to keep
    > track of where you are up to, and surely most pros would be using
    > equipment which accepts bulk films rolls anyway?


    Bulk 35mm backs are very rare, I've never seen one actually in use.
    And an awful lot of wedding photographers are using 120 roll film
    rather than 35mm. (What would actually make sense for them was a 70mm
    back).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 20, 2003
    #11
  12. (nonamegiven) wrote in
    news::

    > Is there a big advantage, or any advantage, to shooting digital only for
    > weddings?


    Strange question. In some few years we all shoot digital.

    Whats so special with weddings BTW. Lots of people have
    asked nearly exactly the question you ask. All projects
    where you photo people or animals or other non stationary
    objects, it is good to be able to check the result fast.


    Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 20, 2003
    #12
  13. In article <Xns93DDD03DDE886rolandkarlssonchello@130.133.1.4>,
    Roland Karlsson <> wrote:

    > Strange question. In some few years we all shoot digital.


    Maybe.


    > Whats so special with weddings BTW. Lots of people have
    > asked nearly exactly the question you ask. All projects
    > where you photo people or animals or other non stationary
    > objects, it is good to be able to check the result fast.
    > Roland


    Basically they are the same as any important assignment
    its the skills of the photographer that will be judged,
    there is a good deal of money that can be made in weddings like anything
    else. But the difference is that with most other types of assigment it not a one time occurance
    where the shots cannot be repeated if needed, wedding budgets range from 5K total
    to 50K total possibly more so it becomes an important issue to brides when they spend the money for
    photography, that the photographer is competant.

    --
    "ANFAWFOS"
    Check out my website @
    http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Aug 20, 2003
    #13
  14. "Gregory W. Blank" <> wrote in
    news:kcP0b.202$:

    >> Whats so special with weddings BTW. Lots of people have
    >> asked nearly exactly the question you ask. All projects
    >> where you photo people or animals or other non stationary
    >> objects, it is good to be able to check the result fast.
    >> Roland

    >
    > Basically they are the same as any important assignment
    > its the skills of the photographer that will be judged,
    > there is a good deal of money that can be made in weddings like anything
    > else. But the difference is that with most other types of assigment it
    > not a one time occurance where the shots cannot be repeated if needed,
    > wedding budgets range from 5K total
    > to 50K total possibly more so it becomes an important issue to brides
    > when they spend the money for
    > photography, that the photographer is competant.


    OK - I understand - or at least maybe understands :)

    There have been some rather peculiar questions regarding
    "wedding cameras", "wedding software", "wedding etc" here.
    OK - it is important - but the (American IMHO) view that you
    shall have a tool that fits the job, instead of simply
    a good tool - is rather strange sometimes. There do not
    exist any "wedding software".


    Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 20, 2003
    #14
  15. > I was at a wedding two weeks ago and the photographer ran out of film
    > as soon as the bridesmaids came down the aisle. He had to run back to
    > the foyer and tell the bride and her father to wait while he loaded a
    > new roll of film. The audience sat awkwardly for about a minute and
    > them finally the photographer came back out and the wedding resumed.
    > At least he was smart enough to do that instead of missing the moment.


    I carried 2 backs which were ALWAYS loaded and kept track of how much
    was left in each one.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 20, 2003
    #15
  16. nonamegiven

    George Kerby Guest

    On 8/20/03 5:19 PM, in article 200820031519313629%,
    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote:

    >> I agree. Actually, the photographer was a long-time friend of mine
    >> and the bride. He actually has pretty good equipment - his main body
    >> was an F5 - but he really made a serious gaffe here. I had a good
    >> view of the whole entrance of the bridal party, and he kept checking
    >> his available exposures after he took one. I think he knew he was in
    >> serious trouble after about the third bridesmaid entered.

    >
    > Mmmm boy...35mm weddings...

    My thoughts exactly.


    ______________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Aug 21, 2003
    #16
  17. nonamegiven

    David Grandy Guest

    I shoot medium format weddings and I do it for a variety of reasons. But
    there is a place for a 35mm film or "DSLR" wedding. My work is pretty much
    formal and static. But I have no doubt in my mind that I could throw a 35
    mm camera around and get better candid images with that, than I can with my
    Mamiya Pro-TL. 35 mm systems offer longer, faster (and frequently zoom)
    lenses. Their autofocus and flash TTL designs are a generation - or two -
    more advanced than MF and offer focal plane shutter synch speeds much higher
    than non leaf shutter MF cameras.

    All of this comes back to what the client wants. If they are looking for
    hundreds of proofs then a 35 mm shooter should be their choice. If they
    require fewer proofs but of a higher technical quality, then I'm their guy.
    But one isn't right and the other wrong, it's too meet the needs of the
    clients.
     
    David Grandy, Aug 21, 2003
    #17
  18. > I shoot medium format weddings and I do it for a variety of reasons. But
    > there is a place for a 35mm film or "DSLR" wedding. My work is pretty much
    > formal and static. But I have no doubt in my mind that I could throw a 35
    > mm camera around and get better candid images with that, than I can with my
    > Mamiya Pro-TL. 35 mm systems offer longer, faster (and frequently zoom)
    > lenses. Their autofocus and flash TTL designs are a generation - or two -
    > more advanced than MF and offer focal plane shutter synch speeds much higher
    > than non leaf shutter MF cameras.
    >
    > All of this comes back to what the client wants. If they are looking for
    > hundreds of proofs then a 35 mm shooter should be their choice. If they
    > require fewer proofs but of a higher technical quality, then I'm their guy.
    > But one isn't right and the other wrong, it's too meet the needs of the
    > clients.


    My needs when I did wedding photography was to make money. And I
    couldn't do that by selling little prints. Almost everything was on a
    tripod with 2 lights and very few candids. Couldn't sell to many
    16x20s if they had been taken with 35mm.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 21, 2003
    #18
  19. nonamegiven

    George Kerby Guest

    On 8/21/03 8:35 AM, in article iU31b.59805$,
    "David Grandy" <> wrote:

    > I shoot medium format weddings and I do it for a variety of reasons. But
    > there is a place for a 35mm film or "DSLR" wedding. My work is pretty much
    > formal and static. But I have no doubt in my mind that I could throw a 35
    > mm camera around and get better candid images with that, than I can with my
    > Mamiya Pro-TL. 35 mm systems offer longer, faster (and frequently zoom)
    > lenses. Their autofocus and flash TTL designs are a generation - or two -
    > more advanced than MF and offer focal plane shutter synch speeds much higher
    > than non leaf shutter MF cameras.
    >
    > All of this comes back to what the client wants. If they are looking for
    > hundreds of proofs then a 35 mm shooter should be their choice. If they
    > require fewer proofs but of a higher technical quality, then I'm their guy.
    > But one isn't right and the other wrong, it's too meet the needs of the
    > clients.
    >
    >

    I agree with most everything you say. However to keep it profitable for the
    shooter, the limitations of the 35mm negative produce very bad images if any
    cropping must be done. All 35mm cropping is "custom" and the shooter pays
    3X-4X the price of a machine "cropped" (masked) negative that can be
    severely "cropped" before showing any similar degradation.
    In addition, the "auto" features you mention are what separate a true
    shooter from a "snapper" who wouldn't know the first thing about guide
    numbers and prefocus zones. Personally, I haven't done a wedding in years,
    but maybe all that auto stuff might be of benefit to my "old" eyes.
    :)


    ______________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Aug 21, 2003
    #19
  20. People who want 16x20 wedding shots must have lots of wall
    space in the first place.

    In article <210820030710192636%>,
    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:

    > My needs when I did wedding photography was to make money. And I
    > couldn't do that by selling little prints. Almost everything was on a
    > tripod with 2 lights and very few candids. Couldn't sell to many
    > 16x20s if they had been taken with 35mm.


    --
    "ANFAWFOS"
    Check out my website @
    http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Aug 21, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jack

    Large Group Family Weddings

    Jack, Mar 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    568
    George Kerby
    Mar 7, 2004
  2. jason

    American Weddings NR question

    jason, Jan 31, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    387
    Mike7883uk
    Jan 31, 2004
  3. David Bindle
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    675
    Bill Funk
    Aug 23, 2005
  4. mysticmdjservices
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    327
    mysticmdjservices
    Nov 9, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,532
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page