Digital for weddings.......

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

 

Advantage is almost instant results.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

It is.

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

 

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.

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).

 

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.

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).

 

(nonamegiven) wrote in

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

 

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

 

I was at a wedding two weeks ago and the photographer ran out of film

I carried 2 backs which were ALWAYS loaded and kept track of how much
was left in each one.

 

My thoughts exactly.


______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

 

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 shoot medium format weddings and I do it for a variety of reasons. But

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.

 

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 <><><><><><><><>

 

People who want 16x20 wedding shots must have lots of wall
space in the first place.