Is there an advantage to strictly digital?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by stacey, Feb 25, 2004.

  1. stacey

    stacey Guest

    I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    all film or all digital?
    stacey, Feb 25, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. stacey

    Robertwgross Guest

    Stacey wrote:
    >I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    >digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    >decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    >all film or all digital?


    Yes, cost is the advantage for digital. Time is also an advantage. By that, I
    mean that there is no "developing time" for digital.

    As a general rule, a film photographer is going to have to pass on the costs
    for film and processing to the customer. A digital photographer has none of
    this.

    Printing can be an issue, but it depends. If you are seeking mostly prints from
    small size up to about 11x14, then film negatives offer very little, if any,
    advantage. As you get above 16x20, then the negative might be able to produce a
    better print. Maybe not.

    Of the people I know, prints up to 8x10 are common, and larger prints are not.
    Therefore, film negatives don't offer much.

    When I shoot weddings, we have one film camera and one digital camera shooting
    side-by-side, so we offer the best of both worlds.

    ---Bob Gross---
    Robertwgross, Feb 25, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. stacey

    Tom Thackrey Guest

    On 25-Feb-2004, (stacey) wrote:

    > I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    > digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    > decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    > all film or all digital?


    Why does it matter to you? Are you getting married inside an X-Ray machine?

    If I were searching for a photographer my considerations would be the
    quality of their work, ability to do the job, availablility and price. As
    long as they can deliver the quality I wouldn't care if they were film,
    digital or glass plates.

    Any advantages of film or digital should be reflected in the price and
    quality.

    --
    Tom Thackrey
    www.creative-light.com
    tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
    do NOT send email to (it's reserved for spammers)
    Tom Thackrey, Feb 25, 2004
    #3
  4. "stacey" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    > digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    > decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    > all film or all digital?


    Advantages to film: It's tried and true. The quality is superior if the
    photographer is using medium format. Film costs add up, and the
    photographer will pass those along to you.

    Disadvantages to film: Negatives can be lost, damaged, or improperly
    processed. Only one copy of the negatives will exist, and you have to agree
    with your photographer who will have them. Shooting film in low light
    without proper flash produces very grainy prints.

    Advantages to digital: Can have a faster turn-around time to getting your
    proofs, prints, and albums. Offers more creative options with digital
    darkrooms vs. traditional darkrooms. Images can be archived over and over
    so that you have multiple copies for safe keeping, and every copy is as good
    as the original. Digital photographers also can put large memory cards in
    their cameras so they never miss a shot changing rolls. Digital at high
    ISOs provide more appealing output (subjective call there).

    Disadvantages to digital: Quality suffers if you like prints larger than
    11x14 (compared to medium format film). There are still ways to lose
    images, through hardware failure, before the data can be backed up, so it's
    not fool-proof in that regard.

    Overall, I think it matters that the photographer embraces the technology
    they're using. More established photographers that haven't made the switch
    yet will be better off shooting film, and those that have made the leap and
    committed to learning how to most effectively use digital will be every bit
    as good. Go with a photographer based more on style of their photography
    than on the medium they use. The end result of film vs. digital is not that
    important compared to if you like a photographer's style or not.


    - Jeff Zawrotny

    http://www.forevermomentsphotography.com/
    Jeff Zawrotny, Feb 25, 2004
    #4
  5. stacey

    Mike Kohary Guest

    "stacey" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    > digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    > decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    > all film or all digital?


    IMO, from the perspective of someone hiring a photographer, there really is
    no advantage or disadvantage either way. If the photographer is good
    enough, you shouldn't even be able to tell the difference, or care much
    about what he's using at all.

    What kind of "reviews" are you talking about? Maybe if you provide some
    specific critiques, we can comment on the veracity of them.

    Mike
    Mike Kohary, Feb 25, 2004
    #5
  6. stacey

    al-Farrob Guest

    Jeff Zawrotny wrote:

    >
    > "stacey" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    >> digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    >> decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    >> all film or all digital?

    >
    > Advantages to film: It's tried and true. The quality is superior if the
    > photographer is using medium format. Film costs add up, and the
    > photographer will pass those along to you.
    >
    > Disadvantages to film: Negatives can be lost, damaged, or improperly
    > processed. Only one copy of the negatives will exist, and you have to
    > agree
    > with your photographer who will have them. Shooting film in low light
    > without proper flash produces very grainy prints.
    >
    > Advantages to digital: Can have a faster turn-around time to getting your
    > proofs, prints, and albums. Offers more creative options with digital
    > darkrooms vs. traditional darkrooms. Images can be archived over and over
    > so that you have multiple copies for safe keeping, and every copy is as
    > good
    > as the original. Digital photographers also can put large memory cards in
    > their cameras so they never miss a shot changing rolls. Digital at high
    > ISOs provide more appealing output (subjective call there).
    >
    > Disadvantages to digital: Quality suffers if you like prints larger than
    > 11x14 (compared to medium format film). There are still ways to lose
    > images, through hardware failure, before the data can be backed up, so
    > it's not fool-proof in that regard.
    >
    > Overall, I think it matters that the photographer embraces the technology
    > they're using. More established photographers that haven't made the
    > switch yet will be better off shooting film, and those that have made the
    > leap and committed to learning how to most effectively use digital will be
    > every bit
    > as good. Go with a photographer based more on style of their photography
    > than on the medium they use. The end result of film vs. digital is not
    > that important compared to if you like a photographer's style or not.
    >
    >
    > - Jeff Zawrotny
    >
    > http://www.forevermomentsphotography.com/


    The kind of answer I like, objective and really answering what is asked

    --
    al-Farrob
    --
    http://www.al-farrob.com
    al-Farrob, Feb 25, 2004
    #6
  7. stacey

    Bob Guest

    "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    news:c1j9t2$g03$...
    > "stacey" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    > > digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    > > decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    > > all film or all digital?

    >


    The traditional and still the best format for a wedding is Med format. A
    digital DSLR may be able to do the odd good 16 X 20 if viewed from a
    distance while the med format has no problem producing a perfect enlargment.
    Many Semi-pros and part timers use DSLR digitals but all the best wedding
    photographers still use med format. Of course one using digital will charge
    you half the amount. You get what you pay for.

    Note I am not saying pros don't use digital. They do, but not for formal
    weddings. Unless it is a digital back on a med format.
    Bob, Feb 25, 2004
    #7
  8. stacey

    HRosita Guest

    Should depend on the photographer.
    A good photographer would take good pictures regardless of the type of camera
    he is using.
    Rosita
    HRosita, Feb 25, 2004
    #8
  9. stacey

    Ralph Mowery Guest

    ?
    >
    > Advantages to film: It's tried and true. The quality is superior if the
    > photographer is using medium format. Film costs add up, and the
    > photographer will pass those along to you.



    The cost of the film is almost nothing compaired to the cost of the actual
    picture. It is not the film but who is putting it on the film that really
    costs.
    Ralph Mowery, Feb 26, 2004
    #9
  10. stacey wrote:
    > I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    > digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    > decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    > all film or all digital?


    For the most part, there is no overriding advantage to you of one over
    the other. Digital does a good job for almost all wedding photography
    today.

    Your real question is not the equipment he/she may be using, but how
    good the one using it is. This is far more important than the equipment.

    BTW I don't believe you can beat a really fine large format film for the
    formal bride photos. Digital is fine for the candid work.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
    Joseph Meehan, Feb 26, 2004
    #10
  11. stacey

    Flycaster Guest

    "stacey" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    > digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    > decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    > all film or all digital?


    Forget the "review" chatter and simply interview several different
    professional photographers, all of whom should be more than happy to show
    your their portfolios and spend some time getting to know you. Digital or
    film makes no difference, rather the photographer and his/her printer are
    what really count.

    Pick the guy/gal who has the best personality and the best looking portfolio
    *that you can afford.* Be VERY careful to go over all the charges,
    especially the cost of prints and re-orders (this is where they make most of
    their money). Have a budget going in, and *stick to it*. Good wedding
    shooters are NOT cheap!

    And, again, make sure you like the photographer and feel very comfortable
    with him/her. Often the best shots are taken when you feel the least
    "ready" and if the photographer is rude or arrogant (or just as bad, timid
    or lazy), you will NOT be happy with the results and you might not even
    enjoy your own wedding. It's a special day for you, and you want it to stay
    that way.

    Oh, and btw, congratulations!





    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
    Flycaster, Feb 26, 2004
    #11
  12. (stacey) wrote in message news:<>...
    > I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    > digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    > decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    > all film or all digital?



    My recommendation: Find a photographer who shoots 6x6 medium format.
    Then check out his portfollio, and ask for references. Ask him where
    he gets his film processed (e.g., Herff Jones). Ask if he will bring
    studio lighting for the formals. You will spend more money, but your
    album will be a treasure.

    Digital is not usually suitable for weddings, especially formals, IMO.
    There are exceptions. When looking through a digital photographer's
    portfollio, make sure you see albums of one wedding, not 1 or 2 shots
    from several different weddings. Check for things like consistent
    color from shot to shot. Or ask him to take a photograph of you
    indoors with flash, then outdoors without flash, and to send you the
    shots to prove he can get consistent color. You don't want to have
    one skin tone (say red) in one shot, and another (say pale) in the
    next shot. A lot of supposedly profesional wedding photographers are
    touting digital, but unless you find one that is also talented in
    photoshop (or uses a service that has talented techs), you're not
    going to be happy.
    William Wallace, Feb 26, 2004
    #12
  13. "Bob" <> wrote in message news:<c1jakl$cab$>...
    > "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    > news:c1j9t2$g03$...
    > > "stacey" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    > > > digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    > > > decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    > > > all film or all digital?

    > >

    >
    > The traditional and still the best format for a wedding is Med format. A
    > digital DSLR may be able to do the odd good 16 X 20 if viewed from a
    > distance while the med format has no problem producing a perfect enlargment.
    > Many Semi-pros and part timers use DSLR digitals but all the best wedding
    > photographers still use med format. Of course one using digital will charge
    > you half the amount. You get what you pay for.
    >
    > Note I am not saying pros don't use digital. They do, but not for formal
    > weddings. Unless it is a digital back on a med format.


    I agree. Run, don't walk if you find a digital wedding photographer
    using a 10D or 300D from Canon. These cameras are good tools for many
    applications, but wedding photography is not one of them (except maybe
    for Candids during the reception).
    William Wallace, Feb 26, 2004
    #13
  14. stacey

    zeitgeist Guest


    > I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    > digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    > decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    > all film or all digital?


    go find a photographer whose work knocks your socks off, makes you stop and
    wonder.

    seriously, why would you pay someone a significant amount of money if they
    can't do something you can't (or someone in the family) can't do themselves.
    OK, maybe you can't, nor can you trust your friends and family to, the point
    I am trying to make is that the 'average' photographers work doesn't show
    any value added skills.

    (before I get a lot of hate mail from everybody, look you are obviously not
    average cause you are here discussing and learning. I officiate weddings
    as a side line, I see a lot of photogs, but rarely do I see one from one of
    the local professional associations I belong to, I know the complete idiot
    who is using a built in flash while the subject is standing in very nice
    window light is a professional cause he just tried to give me his card to
    you know network. Sos there are a lot of people out there who have a camera
    and just started shooting weddings, many of us started that way, a whole lot
    of them stay that way, never bother to actually learn the craft.)

    so it doesn't matter what the photog uses. back when I started 'real' pros
    were smug in their use of medium format cameras, more detail, retouchable,
    yadda yadda, but then journalistic style came the rage and 35mm meant that
    they could be more spontaneous and could afford to shoot 3x as much.

    so first find a photographer worth paying for the privilege. someone who
    makes you say, how can you do that?

    lets face it, do you care what kind of pots and pans your caterer uses?

    advantage of digital, you can decide if you want any shot as color, b/w,
    softfocus, retouched. Most shooters are now offering some kind of web
    viewing so your family can see them quickly and order their own. some
    photogs are giving you a CD or 2 or 3 will all the images.

    however be forewarned about that, the photogs that started that probably did
    so cause the learning curve to album prepping is painfully high. a camera
    that shots in 2:3 format (35mm type frame for 4x6's) will give unaware
    photogs uncroppable images, a full length of the bride where you have a
    choice cut the feet or her head off, cut some guy off this end or the lady
    on the other side off a group. and lets not get started on album layout,
    story flow, and assembly. so if you want a nice album the second thing
    I'd look at is whether the guy/gal does albums and has some to look at, even
    if you are going to get all the negs/files.

    one of the reasons full service photogs are expensive is that album prepping
    and all the admin work is 2/3rds of the labor, and doubles or triples the
    expenses, so a six hour wedding becomes 24 hours or work or more. much
    more if you don't know what your doing, which is why giving the client the
    film started out to be a nice idea for some, however, when I had a studio
    I'd get a call once a month, so desperate bride can't get a professional
    album (less of problem as there are dealers online) and can't get anything
    to flow right. I tried once for a client and once for a friend and vowed
    never ever to try to straighten out a mess like that again. I mean a good
    book wholesales for about a hundred, but the pages are sold in packs and if
    you need one, you gotta buy a dozen. so it adds up to a couple hundred or
    more, so a retail mark up $500, 6? how much is a leather couch? and that
    small book is? plus a days worth of layout, now that expensive book is
    turning into minimum wage frustration.

    waddaya know, I've rambled and ranted away another fine evening. This BS
    is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com
    zeitgeist, Feb 26, 2004
    #14
  15. stacey

    mark_digital Guest

    "stacey" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    > digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    > decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    > all film or all digital?


    This is a question best answered by a photographer you're interviewing
    for the job. He or she can tell you who will be doing the post-processing
    and give you an estimate on how long before you recieve your pictures.
    I can fully understand why you heard mixed reviews. There are
    assumptions flying all over the place about either film or digital, but it's
    not until you sit down with a photographer you can find out about his or her
    capability.
    There are very few really good photographers around these days. Good
    luck in your search.
    mark_digital, Feb 26, 2004
    #15
  16. Robertwgross wrote:

    > As a general rule, a film photographer is going to have to pass on the costs
    > for film and processing to the customer. A digital photographer has none of
    > this.


    No, but a digital photographer will most likely spend a lot of time
    doing post-processing, and that time isn't free, either, so those costs
    will be passed up to the customer instead. Which is cheaper in the end,
    that I cannot say.

    -JP
    Jukka-Pekka Suominen, Feb 26, 2004
    #16
  17. stacey

    Mark Johnson Guest

    (stacey) wrote:

    >I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    >digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    >decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    >all film or all digital?


    It's not just the medium, but moreso the photographer. The equipment
    might get in the way of a good photo. But it is the photo that
    matters.

    As others have suggested, the best bet is to look at the
    photographer's book. Can he capture the emotion? Does he get just the
    right shot? right moment? angle? and so on. And if he uses both
    digicam and film, then that's just what he uses.
    Mark Johnson, Feb 26, 2004
    #17
  18. stacey

    Ed E. Guest

    > As a general rule, a film photographer is going to have to pass on the
    costs
    > for film and processing to the customer. A digital photographer has none

    of
    > this.


    A digital photographer DOES need to amoritize the more expensive digital
    equipment like memory cards, portable storage devices, DVD's and the like.
    But my digital stuff does cost less and takes less time because I don't have
    to scan the film using a $700 film scanner then run everything through
    NeatImage. Either course, I end up working with TIFF files in the end and
    that's what my proofs and enlargements are made from. The negatives get
    scanned and stored.

    > When I shoot weddings, we have one film camera and one digital camera

    shooting
    > side-by-side, so we offer the best of both worlds.


    Glad I'm not the only one that does that. I'm finding that I'm favoring
    using digital as my primary medium and film as my backup now. It took a
    little while to get comfortable enough with the digital workflow tools to
    make that transition, though. VueScan spoiled me.
    Ed E., Feb 26, 2004
    #18
  19. stacey

    Roger Guest

    I'm answering as a photo knowledgable person who's just weathered the
    marriage of our daughter a few years ago and more recently our son.
    Our daughter's marriage was photographed on film, our son's wedding
    was strictly digital. Film was a combination of MF and 35mm. The
    digital was done exclusively with a Fuji S2 with a third party zoom
    and a hugh single Quantum flash.

    I could go on and on about the difference in working style. The
    digital photography led to a very stylish proof book of multiple
    images per page. The results were 400 marginally exposed and
    marginally composed prints.

    The digital camera had much poorer people skills that the film camera.
    The film camera, because of age, obviously had a lot more experience
    and charisma. Just by looking at the studio window displays and at
    sample proof books, one could tell that the film camera was far
    superior at the business of wedding photography, innovative portraits
    and dealing with mixed groups, skin tones as well as reducing
    difficult lighting situations to manageable studio and outdoor
    settings.

    The listening and photo appreciation skills of those hiring the film
    camera where much better than those hiring the digital camera. There
    was a lot of "if it's digital, it's got to be better" being discussed
    at the dinner parties and other gatherings.

    The film camera produced a fold out "center fold" group portrait of
    the wedding participants and guests that records the faces of everyone
    attending the wedding. The digital camera produced a 8x10" photo of
    dark suits and light dresses of everyone attending the wedding.

    The digital camera was not able to take pictures of extended family,
    in fact the digital camera did not even find out who the grandparents
    were until yanked by the strap. After one of many delays for battery
    changes and messing with rechargers in faulty outlets, some of the
    aunts and uncles were pressed to pixels.

    The film camera met with people before the wedding and laid out the
    shooting order and schedule for the photographs including getting a
    list of extended-family shots to be included in the final book. The
    film camera also brought it's relatives, a total of four bodies, three
    flashes, a few small portable studio strobes on stands. The digital
    camera was so new, it's relatives were still to be bought after the
    current wedding provided the cash flow.

    The father of the bride admired what the film camera taught him about
    the business of photographing the wedding and the father of the groom
    took the digital camera in tow to show it how to photograph wedding
    candids. While we learned from each other, I don't think my son got a
    discount for teaching the digital camera how to make his wedding book
    more of a success.

    I know this is filled with tongue-in-cheek and sarcasm, but IMO it's
    the photographer that counts. But for some shots (strictly) digital is
    the wrong media for all of what can happen at a wedding. I recently
    attended a wedding where the photographer worked exclusively in MF.
    The results were stunning. I watched the photographer anticipate the
    shots. The moving shots (e.g. coming down the aisle) were all zone
    focused, standardized, dead on. She had even marked a pew where she
    told the Bridesmaids and Groomsmen to be aware of the camera. She
    didn't depend on chance. There was only one shot each. All were
    showroom quality. At another wedding, the photographer was
    multi-bodied digital. We were family of the groom. She was a friend of
    the bride's family, but was so involved in the wedding that she forgot
    to take some pictures. Many of the relatives were left off. She missed
    the first part of the procession and "woke up" when other flashes
    started going off.

    Check out what you want and talk to photographers well in advance. If
    in a church, talk to the minister and see if there are photographers
    she/he particularity like to work with and then see if the minister's
    opinion is based on quality of results or working style based on what
    they believe may be "intrusive" to the ceremony. Either way it makes a
    difference. Check the results of the photographer based on where the
    wedding will be held (e.g. church, civil, outdoors, back-yard, etc.).
    If your wedding party is wearing kilts, ask if the photographer has
    any experience with the dress. A photographer that can catch "wardrobe
    malfunctions" before they get on film is experienced. If you have a
    large wedding party, check if the photographer balances the
    photographs by couples, dress (e.g. brides vrs. groomsmen), height.
    What do you want and be interactive. If you have friends that have
    just been through this, ask them, ask anyone you can that works with
    the wedding process and then carefully check out their work. The
    photographer can be a hugh asset, but you are in charge. Give them a
    check list of what you want covered as part of the discussions.

    Sorry for the long (and preachy) post. The memory of the success and
    disappointments are fresh in my mind. The last several years have seen
    my children and the children of my friends get married. What a
    wonderful and exciting time and your list must seem very long. IMO
    experience outweighs equipment. Properly exposed film actually has a
    better dynamic range than digital which makes capturing the range
    between black and white formal wear easier to deal with.

    Best regards,
    Roger

    On 25 Feb 2004 14:46:19 -0800, (stacey) wrote:

    >I am getting married within the next year and am searching for an all
    >digital photographer. I have received mixed reviews about my
    >decision. I was wondering if there is an advantage to dealing with
    >all film or all digital?
    Roger, Feb 26, 2004
    #19
  20. stacey

    Ed E. Guest


    > I agree. Run, don't walk if you find a digital wedding photographer
    > using a 10D or 300D from Canon. These cameras are good tools for many
    > applications, but wedding photography is not one of them (except maybe
    > for Candids during the reception).


    While I'm not disagreeing that MF offers better enlargement options, I'm
    noticing around here (northeast Ohio) that more and more wedding
    photographers are using the less expensive DSLR's and 35mm film bodies. I
    believe it's partly due to the economy - people are going for the less
    expensive option. For prints up to 8x10, the picture has mostly to do with
    the photographer (i.e. lighting and composition) and much less to do with
    the camera/format. Some use both - 35mm/DSLR for the reception and MF for
    the wedding.

    Personally, I will be shooting with a dRebel, backup A2 film body and mostly
    L glass for weddings in the near future. I've had the opportunity to
    compare my results with other area pro's who do shoot MF, and up to 12"x18",
    mine looked every bit as good (based on others reviewing the pictures).
    Above 16x20, I can't compete and I tell my prospective clientele that as
    well.

    One other thing I've noticed is that a MF photographer goes for fewer
    pictures than someone less concerned about film expense and the timing of
    changing a roll. So the photographer that is using a tool that can capture
    more images without stopping has the chance to capture something that a MF
    photographer would otherwise pass on, yet the couple finds to be "a perfect
    shot of so-and-so."
    Ed E., Feb 26, 2004
    #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. Jonathan Wilson
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    331
    Alan D-W
    Jun 23, 2004
  2. (Pete Cresswell)

    OT: TV Antennas, strictly line-of-sight?

    (Pete Cresswell), Jan 16, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    448
    Tony soprano
    Jan 18, 2005
  3. Tommy
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,726
    Mr. Arnold
    Nov 29, 2007
  4. Gasser

    Question STRICTLY for Nikon D experts only...

    Gasser, Dec 12, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    372
    Paul Furman
    Dec 13, 2008
  5. David Woolley
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    684
    David Woolley
    May 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page