digital wedding photography
MK
and that was exactly what I wanted to ask about.
I'm interested in doing weddings with a digital camera, or perhaps film to
scan to digital output. Burrell Colour has a Direct-to-Paper program, and
the setup involves calibrating your monitor to their test image (which you
receive both on CD and a photographic print). What I'm wondering about is
proofing?
I do not do proofs right now at all. I photograph the wedding and deliver a
full set of 4x5 prints in a nice album (not a proof album). If they don't
reorder, fine, no paperwork, and I get paid enough from the wedding to be
happy. But I'd like to be able to offer proofs and take orders and build
nicer albums (with higher profits), without having to deal with paper
proofs.
I know some folks offer proofs on videotape (which look kinda funky, but
apparently sell, I have a friend that was doing that up until recently). I
was wondering about proofing to a CDROM. It seems the higher-end customers
(the ones who aren't all that worried about getting family portraits at the
wedding) are more open to experimental methods (the same people that were
ordering from videotaped proofs), and more likely to have a computer that
can read the CD. And the CD (which would be built with something like
Director, so they can't rip off the pictures) would make an extra something
for them to keep afterward.
Has anyone else tried anything like this? Weddings are a sideline for me
(yes, I'm a fulltime photographer, just not fulltime wedding<g>), so I'm not
too concerned if this isn't widely acceptable to the masses, but I'd like to
"upgrade" my product without going to the expense of the paper proofs. If
you have any other suggestions, let's hear em. Brainstorm time.
zeitgeist
>
>
> I'm interested in doing weddings with a digital camera, or perhaps film to
> scan to digital output. Burrell Colour has a Direct-to-Paper program, and
> the setup involves calibrating your monitor to their test image (which you
> receive both on CD and a photographic print). What I'm wondering about is
> proofing?
you print out thumbnails on your inkjet, the quality will be poor, but
they won't copy them, and the biggest advantage is that you can place
them in album order, even in relative album sizes.
>
> I do not do proofs right now at all. I photograph the wedding and deliver a
> full set of 4x5 prints in a nice album (not a proof album). If they don't
> reorder, fine, no paperwork, and I get paid enough from the wedding to be
> happy. But I'd like to be able to offer proofs and take orders and build
> nicer albums (with higher profits), without having to deal with paper
> proofs.
continue that paradyme in digital, deliver a CD album with all their
images, the keeper of the wedding photo faq, Karen, does this, offers
all images on CD for a good fee, or paper prints for %50 more, but sells
albums and prints for a lower price reflecting the cost and time
difference between that and the entire wedding.
>
> I know some folks offer proofs on videotape (which look kinda funky, but
> apparently sell, I have a friend that was doing that up until recently). I
> was wondering about proofing to a CDROM. It seems the higher-end customers
> (the ones who aren't all that worried about getting family portraits at the
> wedding) are more open to experimental methods (the same people that were
> ordering from videotaped proofs), and more likely to have a computer that
> can read the CD. And the CD (which would be built with something like
> Director, so they can't rip off the pictures) would make an extra something
> for them to keep afterward.
I have used a photovix for years, but I don't like the video tape idea,
it is hard to see the faces well, the very low res tv tubes cause
'digital dentures" (slight variations in the teeth turn into huge gaps
and snaggle tooths, even vampire fangs)
chech out proshots.com you send the film to member labs, they send you
a cd with a slideshow type display, or post to a secure website, your
clients can order for the album, family can order their own, the program
organizes the album, displays it in sequence with images sizes relative
to the print sizes, prints out the entire project, prices it, sends the
order, including crop instructions (which can handle multiple requests)
to the lab, who retained the film on a large spool.) and it's free,
(the lab pays)
>
> Has anyone else tried anything like this? Weddings are a sideline for me
> (yes, I'm a fulltime photographer, just not fulltime wedding<g>), so I'm not
> too concerned if this isn't widely acceptable to the masses, but I'd like to
> "upgrade" my product without going to the expense of the paper proofs. If
> you have any other suggestions, let's hear em. Brainstorm time.
this reply echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at egroups.com
Rick Martin
MK wrote:
But he Fuji S-1 Digital Camera and the IBM 1 gig microdrive and a Digital wallet
to transfer the data too. Your better off that way. That's probably a chunk of
money for you but as I see that's the way to go. Printer? The Epson 2000. It's
one of the hottest printers on the market. I'm getting mine next week.
Here is an imge done with the S-1. NOTE: I'm not interested in critiques of this
image. I'm just showing the capabilities of this camera!
http://www.rickmartin.com/costa/572a.jpg
--
Rick Martin,AFP
http://www.rickmartin.com Manassas,Va
MK
proof on inkjet, but as good as it is, the 1270 problem with orange shift
has made me leery.
But I'd really rather proof to CD, especially if I have digital "negatives."
I'm already shooting with a D1 in my day job, so I'm sold on the digital
aspect. I could create a CD presentation, and print thumbnails (say 6 up) on
inkjet. The CD would be the "elegant" sales piece and the thumbnails for
marking up.
Rick, it looks like you might be offering online proofing via your web site.
Is that the case, and does that work well?
Rick Martin
MK wrote:
> Are you suggesting proofing on the 2000, or printing the wedding? I might
> proof on inkjet, but as good as it is, the 1270 problem with orange shift
> has made me leery.
How many inks is the 1270? I'm not familiar with the orange shift. I have seen
some images from the 2000. If I like what I get from it I intend on selling
prints from it.
>
>
> But I'd really rather proof to CD, especially if I have digital "negatives."
> I'm already shooting with a D1 in my day job, so I'm sold on the digital
> aspect. I could create a CD presentation, and print thumbnails (say 6 up) on
> inkjet. The CD would be the "elegant" sales piece and the thumbnails for
> marking up.
If you have digital files you can write the CD yourself.
>
>
> Rick, it looks like you might be offering online proofing via your web site.
> Is that the case, and does that work well?
No, the thumbnails you see on my website are just examples of my work as well as
my assistant's. Kinda like an online display.
MK
BTW, I like the idea of shooting digital, and delivering all the final files
along with the album. I hate the bookkeeping part of photography, and that
inlcudes filing negatives that are only useful to one client (except my
portfolio). With digital, I can copy the negatives I want for my own use.
David Grabowski
wrote:
>
>
>MK wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting proofing on the 2000, or printing the wedding? I might
>> proof on inkjet, but as good as it is, the 1270 problem with orange shift
>> has made me leery.
>
>How many inks is the 1270? I'm not familiar with the orange shift. I have seen
>some images from the 2000. If I like what I get from it I intend on selling
>prints from it.
I know I'm probably butting in here but the orange shift is a real
problem witht he 1270 and the Premium paper . This has to do with
various gasses escapeing from the inks under certain atmospheric
conditions. If someone owns the 1270 , experiences this problem and
presses Epson about it ultimately Epson will buy back the printer.
The 1270 is a 6 ink printer , was touted as the printer of all
printers to own just a few months ago due it's being the first inkjet
with extended ink stability but then came the shift problems which is
the result of a combination of inks an paper ( extra light cyan and
the premium paper though other papers fail as well).
As to the 2000, it has its own problems as suggested by some users,
the colors are slightly muted as compared to the 1270 ( before the
shift occurs if it occurs)) and blacks are a bit below true saturation
levels. There is also a slight green cast suggested by some users
which is not so uncommon to Epson printers anyway ( I know my 1200 can
tend to lend itself to some green casts in certain images). overall
it's reprted to be a good printer, a bit pricey as compared to some
and i'm sure some of the problems have work arounds, nothing is
perfect.
Take a browse through deja or rec.photo.digital archives sometime and
visit the group now and then as well, it's all there.
David Grabowski
David Grabowski
Dave Barstow
Rick Martin wrote:
> MK wrote:
>
> > Are you suggesting proofing on the 2000, or printing the wedding? I might
> > proof on inkjet, but as good as it is, the 1270 problem with orange shift
> > has made me leery.
>
> How many inks is the 1270? I'm not familiar with the orange shift. I have seen
> some images from the 2000. If I like what I get from it I intend on selling
> prints from it.
>
The 1270 uses 5 color inks + black (a composit ink). The orange shift problem can
be severe, and fast. I returned my 1270 to Epson. I now have a Epson 2000P, and am
thrilled with it. I have made some 8x10 portrait prints that look great and are
truly of pro quality. I used the 62# UltraPro Satin paper from Red River Papers.
This paper is almost exactly like the traditional "E" surface. Red River has an
excellent sampler pack of papers for the 2000P. The 2000P is kinda slow for use as
a proof printer, INMHO, but will make a superb production printer for album prints.
>
> >
> >
> > But I'd really rather proof to CD, especially if I have digital "negatives."
> > I'm already shooting with a D1 in my day job, so I'm sold on the digital
> > aspect. I could create a CD presentation, and print thumbnails (say 6 up) on
> > inkjet. The CD would be the "elegant" sales piece and the thumbnails for
> > marking up.
>
> If you have digital files you can write the CD yourself.
>
> >
> >
> > Rick, it looks like you might be offering online proofing via your web site.
> > Is that the case, and does that work well?
>
> No, the thumbnails you see on my website are just examples of my work as well as
> my assistant's. Kinda like an online display.
>
> --
> Rick Martin,AFP
> http://www.rickmartin.com Manassas,Va
--
Please visit my Home Page at:
http://users.sedona.net/~davedoes/
OR...
My Photography Web Site at:
http://www.davebarstow.com
MK
intense (very photographic), but the light cyan will fade under high ozone
conditions (and not just on the Premium Glossy either) that causes a
distinct orange shift. The 2000 uses pigment-based inks that should be more
archival (Epson is claiming 200 years with their materials), but the gamut
is not as wide. But I think for wedding/portraiture it should be fine. Some
folks have complained that prints have a different tint when viewed under
different light sources, but how often do you look at your wedding pictures
out in the backyard in sunlight?<g>
But at this point, I'm still more interested in the Direct to Paper for
general printing. I'd rather promote the inkjet prints as a more
specialized, art kind of printing.
Tim Mathers
or you have been hiding under a rock and aren't aware of what's
going on in photofinishing (maybe membership to PPofA will help?).
First off, IF your market is toward "high end computer owning
customers", the they will expect some minimum image quality.
Right now, the Nikon D1 is about the "best game in town" for
digital capture in the "under $20,000" price range. You DO have
at LEAST 2 cameras when you're doing a job, right? I'm sure you
carry at least 2 sync cords. You better start thinking about
having 2 computers - each with PCMCIA card readers and CD Writers
because if your only computer "hangs", you're kind of out of
business aren't you. Were talking some SERIOUS up-front money.
"Out there" in the Wedding Photography photofinishing world,
there are labs that you send the film to. They process it and then
"post" all of the images to a WEB site and notify you that the proofs
are "ready". You then log-in and edit to you little hearts content.
When you're done, you set a "password" for the "album" and notify
the bride & groom, parents, aunts , uncles .... who ever. The images
will be "up" for 30 days from when you "prepare" the "proof album"
(the computers do it all automatically).
After 30 days, they're gone!
The lab has the negatives all this time. Anyone with the "account
name" (something like http://www.terrible-prints.com/mwkeller/janedoe.html)
and the password can view the images. They can "click" on them to
"add them to their shopping cart". When they're done, they select
the method of payment and the lab does all the dirty work. They
"charge" the "shoppers" based on YOUR prices. They deduct from that
what they charge (and something for film developing and handling fee
for the scanning and WEB posting - the "shopper" pays
the postage & handling). After 45 days or so, the lab sends you the
$$$$ difference and the negatives.
It's a "done deal" ..... everything is over.
Gone are the days of "my mother has the proof album and she went to
see aunt Minnie in Georgia and then 3rd-cousin Vinnie in Seattle wants to
see it ........ blah, blah,blah. Well, a year goes by and now the
bride can model for blimp photos. The discretionary income they once
had is now directed towards the soon-to-arrive addition to the family.
You're not going to make a killing on extra print sales!
After the WEB images are gone - they gone. Anyone that wants prints
has to TRACK YOU down, come to you and pay money to order. You don't
have to look for anyone.
I'm not going to apologize for the length of this - I'm just telling
it like it is in the real world.
****************************
Is there ANY wedding photographer reading this that disagrees with
any part of this? However, only replies from people that have been
in business OVER 6 months AND have taken MORE THAN 2 weddings THAT
WERE NOT FOR family members will be honored! I would like to contact
you about presenting a program to the Professional Photographer's
Society of New York at their annual convention. We'd all like to know
you secret!
Timmy (serious response's to: tmat...@rochester.rr.com)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WedPhotog
>> or you have been hiding under a rock and aren't aware of what's
>> going on in photofinishing (maybe membership to PPofA will help?).
>
>years (I'm employed as the Director of Photographic Services for the
>Division of Culture and History in West Virginia),
That explains a lot. Forgive me, but that is the funniest line I have read in a
long time.
WedPhotog
MK
news:2Q5G5.18782$JS3.3...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> I'm confused. Either I'm not comprehending what you've written
> or you have been hiding under a rock and aren't aware of what's
> going on in photofinishing (maybe membership to PPofA will help?).
Weeeellll, let's see....I've been photographing professionally for twenty
years (I'm employed as the Director of Photographic Services for the
Division of Culture and History in West Virginia), and I've been doing
weddings for 16 years, plus commercial and industrial work. I do anywhere
from 5 to 10 weddings a year, all without any advertising on my part. In
fact, a local photographer has decided to get out of weddings (his portrait,
commercial and artwork are all he wants to do now) and is sending all his
clients my way. He's the guy that was doing the video proofing, and his
clients are all pretty high end, but the style they look to is journalistic
(if that matters).
Yes, I always carry two cameras, two flashes and overlapping lens choices.
Plus many spare batteries, plus changing all the batteries in the gear just
before the wedding so I know I'm fresh. BTW, I already have five computers
here, so I think I'm covered, although a laptop would be nice.<g> However,
there are a number of ways of going digital, as I mentioned at the
beginning: digital camera, film scanned to digital, etc.
I know what's going on in photofinishing, a local lab here (that handles all
my E6 work) has been looking at the scan and print minilab system, plus
another lab has a one-stop Fujix (scan and print) for enlargements. I'm also
aware of the upload to the web choice. Another item to check out. However,
I'm also looking at things I can do myself. I know it sounds crazy to you,
but I'm looking at various options, not just things someone else has already
dreamed up.
As for PP of A, thanks but no thanks. And as for "real world," the real
world is a big place and there's lots of different ways of doing it. Telling
people to log onto a web site is interesting, but offering them something to
hold in their hands (even a CD) is something else.
David Grabowski
wrote:
Anyone who has been shooting people or commercial for any amount of
time at all and deals with "real" wedding/portrait/commercial labs(
regardless of full time or part time status but " professionally")
will be aware of the online services that are offered today. You can
go online to any of the larger professional labs sites and read about
this. In concept it's great, however in practical terms for weddings
and portraits I like your statement that the "real " world is a big
place, because in actuality it turns out that in some areas it's
difficult to get the general consumer to flow toward digital proofing
with CD only ( no paper proofs at all) , never mind online proofing. I
also like what you say, that people want something in their hands and
in our case around here it seems they like to touch paper proofs and
while we ( my wife and I who make up our small photo business and who
shoot more than family members and for more than a few months but
rather several years) offer CD proofing and do computer reworking of
images to be output via digital printing , still find that customers
want to feel paper proofs. We don't hand them over as in a proof book
but set up appointments to lay these out in the order of the big day
or event and then show crop options and a few custom options on the
computer monitor. We will have printed out a few of our concepts of
what we feel the clients may like via inkjet as well ( usually 8x10
custom reworked with a saved file in case they want the "real" print
printed in silver halide).
Perhaps in the not so far off future New England and more specifically
Cape Cod will catch up, but right here as of right now Timmy would be
hard pressed to get full support from a customer base for online
proofing. I've spoken to the main lab I use which is a popular full
service national level east coast wedding/portrait and commercial
wholesale lab, about the digital concept for proofing, including
online. Their claim is that the largest base of their customers (
professional photographers submitting for printing from the lab) still
do it the old fashion way and digital output for proofing is still in
its infancy, though digital output for final prints with custom work
is by large the biggest offering they have and use ( LightJet and
Frontier) be that reworking within the lab ( customer knowing it or
not)or scans for customers to do the reworking themselves and
resubmitting for final output ( custom enlargements). If you submit
for custom work from this lab in color negative film or in E6 or via
CD/ Zip file you are getting back a digital print on silver halide
paper and I think you will find the same is true of most larger
nationally recognized wedding labs around the country. Machine prints
are machine prints and still done in the traditional manor .Smaller
labs ( some of which are very good for standard printing ) may not
even know what we are talking about in this thread.
My experience with customers is that some don't know anything at all
about anything photographic but others don't even want to hear of
digital anything, one client told me specifically they didn't want
digital prints or digital reworking, someone did a lousy job for them
with digital printing and she didn't want that to happen with her
family portrait session we were shooting for her. So around here speak
softly about how the clients images will be printed ( kind of a
traditional base here). I've asked around and some potential clients
may have one family member thats computer oriented at all or one
member, maybe themselves that is online at all and others have
computers but they have no savy. On the other hand some people expect
you to know all about digitial but online proofing goes over as a
novelty item at best with our New England customer base, from what
I've seen anyway or it could be that I too have been hiding under a
rock and simply need to join the PP of A to get myself up to speed !
In my "limited" experience , one thing I do know is that I don't like
being talked down to by other photographers and while some are very
experienced people ( certainly more so than I ) they at least respect
another photographers position but of coarse this is usenet and we get
em all here.
Best regards,
David Grabowski
Cliff Hawker
Wonko The Sane <nz...@ZAPHODxtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:OhoG5.5146$yigc.5...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> >>Weeeellll, let's see....I've been photographing professionally for
twenty
> >>years (I'm employed as the Director of Photographic Services for the
> >>Division of Culture and History in West Virginia),
>
> >That explains a lot. Forgive me, but that is the funniest line I have
read
> in a
> >long time.
>
> It never fails to amaze me... EVERYONE who posts in a Newsgroup has a
fancy
> title and a great job.. They are either Dr's. Sirs. CEO's, Directors,
> etc.. But in the real world they just sit in their Trailer parks,
alone,
> with their PC's.
>
> WONKO THE SANE ...... occupation.... Telephone Sanitiser.
>
>
>
Wonko The Sane
>>years (I'm employed as the Director of Photographic Services for the
>>Division of Culture and History in West Virginia),
>That explains a lot. Forgive me, but that is the funniest line I have read
MK
as if you have to have qualifications to have an idea?
WedPhotog <WedPhoto...@newsguy.com> wrote in message >
> That explains a lot. Forgive me, but that is the funniest line I have read
in a
> long time.
>
> WedPhotog
>
MK
about. I don't post with that title (it is a dumb title, but hey, it is also
a real fulltime job), that's why I just post MK. Oh, I don't live in a
trailer park, we actually have houses here.<g>
Wonko The Sane <nz...@ZAPHODxtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:OhoG5.5146$yigc.5...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
Wonko The Sane
talking
>about. I don't post with that title (it is a dumb title, but hey, it is
also
>a real fulltime job), that's why I just post MK. Oh, I don't live in a
( I'm not really a Telephone Sanitizer ) dammit !
MK
don't have to logon to view the results. I doubt that it's actually a good
idea to tell the client if you go "negativeless"; it's probably better just
to talk about the efficiency of digital proofing, yadda yadda. And
Pictography prints are still photographic prints, so if the client asks "but
are these REAL photographs..."<g>
It's interesting that there have been a number of ideas tossed out here,
good possibilities. Some folks are obviously interested in creating their
own "new thing."
zeitgeist
Try deja.com on the subject's keywords, also I know she has posted about
it in wedpro, one of those egroups.com mailing lists.
zeitgeist
> image. I'm just showing the capabilities of this camera!
> http://www.rickmartin.com/costa/572a.jpg
>
is that a straight image? no photoshop? it has a longer range of
contrast than I expected for digital.
Rick Martin
zeitgeist wrote:
Straight image. No PS