Digital for Wedding Photography?
Thom Tapp
only? I have a 5mp digital camera, and I don't know how much better the
DSLR's are, but I wouldn't go over about 8X10 with my camera. (And it is a
top rated prosumer camera.)
What about customers who want 11X14's? Or 16X20's?
I can't find any good samples of big enlargements done from pro digital
cameras locally, but I couldn't afford the new full frame DSLR cameras out
today.
Are any of you doing weddings exclusively with DSLR's today? How is it
working out?
Thom
Robertwgross
The whole point of it was conversion of wedding photographers from film to
digital. They had a number of 30"x40" prints on display, all shot of the same
subject. Some were done with different film cameras, and some were done with
different digital cameras. They did not state how much, if any, interpolation
was done to the digital shots to get them to print perfectly at that size. On
the average, the digital ones were visibly better than those from film. I'm not
sure that it proves anything, but it is just another data point.
---Bob Gross---
st...@temple.edu
> If you were starting out in Wedding Photography today, would you go digital
> only? I have a 5mp digital camera, and I don't know how much better the
> DSLR's are, but I wouldn't go over about 8X10 with my camera. (And it is a
> top rated prosumer camera.)
> What about customers who want 11X14's? Or 16X20's?
If you use Photoshop 6 or 7, you might be interested
in a plug-in by Extensis called pxl SmartScale which
allows any digital image to be enlarged up to 1600%
without any loss of quality. You can try this plug-in
for a month trial period at http://www.extensis.com
Although I haven't tried it on wedding photos, but
I have used pxl SmartScale to enlarge some 1 Megapixel
photos to approximately 8x10 with amazing results.
Stanley Krute
I don't do wedding photography, but two good friends do.
They've both gone digital, with 6 MP DSLRs.
They shoot in RAW mode for a lot of the work, due to the
wide dynamic range of black tuxedoes and white wedding
dresses.
Big blowups, 16 x 20, are just fine. Better than fine, actually.
Beautiful.
They put proof sheets on the web and on CD.
They do save on film and processing, obviously. However,
there are some time sucking holes in the digital workflow.
That will get better over time.
Another plus is that they know immediately that they've
got a shot, or not, and can reshoot as necessary.
They both have second digital bodies, for backup, and
also bring a film body. Dr. Murphy is ever-present,
and one must be prepared.
Hope that info helps. Me, I don't have the nerves or
managerial qualities necessary for wedding photography,
although I do enjoy taking candids at such events.
Stan
Jim Franks
> only?
Considering what newsgroup you are asking the question in, wouldn't you expect
most here to say yes? Now if you ask the same question on a newsgroup about
film photography, you will get a different answer than you would here.
Not to make fun of you or anything, but this would be like going to a church
and asking the people there if any of them believe in god.
Expect the answers here to be biased to the question you asked.
> I have a 5mp digital camera, and I don't know how much better the
> DSLR's are, but I wouldn't go over about 8X10 with my camera. (And it is a
> top rated prosumer camera.)
>
> What about customers who want 11X14's? Or 16X20's?
Why not print some out at those sizes and ask customers what they think of
them? Some customers might like them, others might insist on film.
Everyone is different.
Asking me or anyone here what your next customer will be happy with or like
might is not something we can know the answer to.
> I can't find any good samples of big enlargements done from pro digital
> cameras locally,
Download some from the internet, or from those CD-ROMS included with digital
photo magazines that give you samples from cameras they review and try printing
them out at different sizes.
> but I couldn't afford the new full frame DSLR cameras out
> today.
Then why bother looking for any samples then?
Randall Ainsworth
Joseph Meehan
work I would likely choose digital. Go for volume and price to bring in the
customers.
On the other hand if I were going to be the photographer I would do the
same I did many years ago and use medium format. I would sell my services
as a better quality than the usual. Do custom work at a price to pay for it
and give the customer something everyone else can't.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Thom Tapp" <thom...@cotcd.com> wrote in message
news:PPCdnbqkyOy...@comcast.com...
llywiwr
photographically printed and benefit from considerable longevity. How does
digital fare on that side?
llywiwr
range - can digital compete with it?
Randall Ainsworth
> work I would likely choose digital. Go for volume and price to bring in the
> customers.
>
> On the other hand if I were going to be the photographer I would do the
> same I did many years ago and use medium format. I would sell my services
> as a better quality than the usual. Do custom work at a price to pay for it
> and give the customer something everyone else can't.
I would never hire others to photograph wedding under my name/banner.
As for film, I've spent enough years giving my money to the Great
Yellow Father and color labs.
Randall Ainsworth
> photographically printed and benefit from considerable longevity. How does
> digital fare on that side?
I would still have them photographically imaged from TIFF files just as
I do now.
Randall Ainsworth
> range - can digital compete with it?
Doesn't matter if you're photographing under controlled situations. I
don't see a problem doing digital weddings.
David Dyer-Bennet
Either identically the same (things like the Fuji Frontier mini-lab
output digital originals to the same photo paper they use for film
originals), or considerably better (properly chosen inkjet ink and
paper). (Or really badly -- poorly chosen inkjet ink and paper). I
don't know what dyesub printers are like for longevity these days.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <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
> Another point I forgot to put: Film enjoys a relatively large dynamic
> range - can digital compete with it?
Yes; the preview and histogram display let you get more accurate
exposures.
MarkH
My guess it that a good D-SLR like a Canon 10D or a Nikon D100 or a Fuji S2
would be up to the task. But it would need lenses, and good ones rather
than cheap ones. You would also need at a minimum a flash that can be
aimed to bounce the light of a wall or ceiling (i.e. not the built in one).
You could start with something like this:
2 x Canon 10D (you really need to have a spare)
Canon 550EX Speedlight (probably should have a spare)
Canon 17-40L
Canon 50mm f1.4
Canon 70-200 f2.8L
Good tripod
2 x 512MB CF cards
2 X-DriveII digital wallets (copy each full CF card to BOTH)
You would also want a spare of whichever lens you used the most.
You could add more prime lenses as well.
I would doubt that your current camera is suitable for professional wedding
photography. I am presuming that your computer is up to the task.
--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
llywiwr
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m23cf4c...@gw.dd-b.net...
> "llywiwr" <llywiw...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> Yes; the preview and histogram display let you get more accurate
> exposures.
> --
But consider the problem of a white wedding dress and a black dinner suit -
if you expose for detail in the white dress, how much detail will you get in
the black suit? (I have to admit I am coming from a background of still film
and digital TV - in the latter the dynamic range you can shoot is the
equivalent of only 5 stops! How does the digital still camera overcome this
restriction?)
cliff spicer
machine. I then make my enlargements using my 7600 and produce 16 X 20s that
look better than what I was getting with my F5s. I think shooting digital
has made me a better photographer and my clients love the results.
Cliff
www.cliffspicer.com
Randall Ainsworth
> if you expose for detail in the white dress, how much detail will you get in
> the black suit? (I have to admit I am coming from a background of still film
> and digital TV - in the latter the dynamic range you can shoot is the
> equivalent of only 5 stops! How does the digital still camera overcome this
> restriction?)
Properly lit, it should be no problem. But then, I'm a highly trained
(former) professional.
Thom Tapp
digital and learn about it. Now I am thinking about what I would need to go
all digital for wedding photography. I have four Nikon 35mm cameras, one
medium format and one 4X5 now. If I get a digital SLR it would be a Nikon
D-100, or Fuji. Couldn't afford the new Kodak or Canon full frame sensor
cameras yet!!!
Cliff Spicer helped me a lot with his post. His web site is a knock-out! If
he is doing wedding photography with digital, and having good results, that
says a lot to me!
Thom
"MarkH" <mar...@atdot.dot.dot> wrote in message
news:bjo985$593$4...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
ajacobs2
anymore but go to my website and see the wedding section...
--
(B>)# I wish you well.....
Al Jacobson
Website: www.aljacobs.com
Website: http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ajacobs2 (For School Use only)
"cliff spicer" <csp...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:WCN7b.3367$fC5.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
David Dyer-Bennet
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:m23cf4c...@gw.dd-b.net...
> > "llywiwr" <llywiw...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> >
> > Yes; the preview and histogram display let you get more accurate
> > exposures.
> But consider the problem of a white wedding dress and a black dinner suit -
> if you expose for detail in the white dress, how much detail will you get in
> the black suit? (I have to admit I am coming from a background of still film
> and digital TV - in the latter the dynamic range you can shoot is the
> equivalent of only 5 stops! How does the digital still camera overcome this
> restriction?)
You can't get more than 5 stops into the print anyway. But working
digitally, you can easily compress whatever you capture into what can
print. It's much more versatile than darkroom printing.
And a good digital camera does a couple of stops better than that in
raw mode. With good lighting, as for formals at a wedding, no
problem.
MarkH
> Actually - I got the digital camera I have now to get my "feet wet" in
> digital and learn about it. Now I am thinking about what I would need
> to go all digital for wedding photography. I have four Nikon 35mm
> cameras, one medium format and one 4X5 now. If I get a digital SLR it
> would be a Nikon D-100, or Fuji. Couldn't afford the new Kodak or
> Canon full frame sensor cameras yet!!!
>
> Cliff Spicer helped me a lot with his post. His web site is a
> knock-out! If he is doing wedding photography with digital, and having
> good results, that says a lot to me!
If you already have a good selection of Nikon lenses and accessories then
either the D100 or S2 should be a good choice. You could start with taking
both the digital and a couple of film bodies.
Tom Monego
data you look at. Yes there is Fuji Archival paper, but you won't get that out
of standard wedding printing labs.
2. You can get LightJet or Lamda prints made, but you'll pay a custom print
prices. Again unless the lab uses Fuji Archival (better chance here) you will
still only get 13-20 year life.
3. A good professional inkjet print is 25+ years life. Epson Ultrachrome Inks
give 65+ years, HP & Epson pigments 200yrs
4. More choice of substrates, real canvas, water color papers.
Tom
In article <m27k4gc...@gw.dd-b.net>, dd...@dd-b.net says...
Tom Monego
>Canon 550EX Speedlight (probably should have a spare)
Not enough punch here you still need a potatomasher flash. Metz makes auto
flashes, but don't discount a thyristor or nonauto flash like a Lumidyne. If
you use one with film, why not digital.
>Canon 17-40L
>Canon 50mm f1.4
>Canon 70-200 f2.8L
>Good tripod
>2 x 512MB CF cards
>2 X-DriveII digital wallets (copy each full CF card to BOTH)
>
good choices
Tom
llywiwr
"Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:100920031629095883%r...@nospam.techline.com...
> Properly lit, it should be no problem. But then, I'm a highly trained
> (former) professional.
I don't doubt your professionalism for one moment. However, most of the
wedding sessions I have ever witnessed have been shot out-of-doors with
frontal flash only. How does your controlled lighting system work? In order
to reduce the dynamic range of a white dress and black suit you would have
to light the suit and not the dress next to it, wouldn't you? Do you use a
spot-light with barn doors outside the church?
Jankins
My wedding was June 21st this year - and was done exclusively with the Canon
D30. The results were incredible. . .even the 16x20 of my bride. . .and the
20x30 hanging in the studio. . .
The detail in pictures (even 4x6) were markedly better than I've ever seen
from any wedding photos I've looked at (shes 28 - we dated 6 years - and
we've watched all her friends get married - so I've looked at a lot of
wedding pictures). . .very vibrant and detailed.
On a side note. . .her best friend was married 2 months prior. . .her
photographer called with the bad news that NONE of her wedding pictures
turned out (broken lens, all outta focus). . .film camera. . .
I was apprehensive about using a digital photographer, then her friend's sad
story happened. . .my apprehension disappeared. . .
Lastly, this is pretty cool. . .I took my 10D to the reception for candids
and our photographer gave me his 'L' lens and a 550EX to use (he saw my
pathetic built-in flash and standard USM II lens and felt sorry for me). . .
Anyway - in the hands of a pro, the 10D can and will produce FANTASTIC
results.
Dan
"Thom Tapp" <thom...@cotcd.com> wrote in message
news:PPCdnbqkyOy...@comcast.com...
Randall Ainsworth
> wedding sessions I have ever witnessed have been shot out-of-doors with
> frontal flash only. How does your controlled lighting system work? In order
> to reduce the dynamic range of a white dress and black suit you would have
> to light the suit and not the dress next to it, wouldn't you? Do you use a
> spot-light with barn doors outside the church?
In the Pacific Northwest, outdoor wedding are not common. In the
church for formals I used two 6" lights; one off axis for modeling and
one next to the camera for fill; 2:1 lighting ratio.