Best format for wedding and portrait work?
Rod Gotty
be acceptable from a 35mm slide or negative. Among the interesting
technical information, it seems the consensus was that 11x14 was about
the maximum enlargement you can do and still retain good/high quality.
Now, for someone wishing to venture into the wedding and portrait
business, it seems to me that while 11x14 is okay, being able to
produce even larger *quality* prints, say 30x40 would make the photog
more marketable and be able to get more business. The fear that I
have is that as the digital cameras get better and cheaper, people are
going to be less willing to hire a photog, especially for doing studio
portrait work.
That said, what format would you suggest to use for doing wedding and
portrait work, assuming that much of the work will be on location
(weddings) and thus a really large camera might not really be
practical? I really like the thought of digital cameras in that you
don't need to constantly buy film, worry about the quality of the
film, and the same with the processing of it. But I'm still under the
impression that the end-results that you can produce with digital
cameras is not yet achievable for high-quality large prints (i.e.
30x40).
What format would you suggest to use in these situations and why?
Thanks
-Rod
UrbanVoyeur
so that they can get very sharp enlargements.
Common formats are 645, 6x6 and 6x7. I think 645 is the most popular - it
gives a large negative, with a relatively compact, lightweight body.
J
"Rod Gotty" <rgo...@trendium.com> wrote in message
news:oc48cu444q0o8v887...@4ax.com...
PhtgrphrBn
I would suggest you understudy first and get exposure to the different formats.
John Hudson
>
> I recently posted a question as to what the maximum enlargement would
> be acceptable from a 35mm slide or negative. Among the interesting
> technical information, it seems the consensus was that 11x14 was about
> the maximum enlargement you can do and still retain good/high quality.
>
> Now, for someone wishing to venture into the wedding and portrait
> business, it seems to me that while 11x14 is okay, being able to
> produce even larger *quality* prints, say 30x40 would make the photog
> more marketable and be able to get more business. The fear that I
> have is that as the digital cameras get better and cheaper, people are
> going to be less willing to hire a photog, especially for doing studio
> portrait work.
digital is associated with a corresponding increase in the abilities of
those who use them which in turn will diminish the demand for the
skilled photographer. It's rather like suggesting that the introduction
of word processing software served to increase the literary and writing
skills of computer users or that Tiger Woods' golf videos improve the
golfing skills of weekend hackers.
jh
Rod Gotty
produced an increase in the level of ability of the novice but rather
diminishes somewhat the need for a skilled photographer.
For example, when I was going through school, wordprocessers were not
readily available to the average consumer. As a result, most people
hired typists to type their term papers and other work that had to be
typed. You can now easily get wordprocessors that make is very easy
to produce the same results of what a typist used to produce, if not
much better. This doesn't make everyone a typist nor does it make
them a writer; but, it does significantly diminish the demand for
typists. I'm not saying that the skill level of a photographer and
typist are the same, I'm just using this as an example of the digital
imaging industry, where it is becoming easier and easier to capture
and manipulate digital images. Certainly, the end result will be less
superior than if it were done professionally, but the cost is
significantly less and thus may be much more attractive to the common
consumer.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:53:39 GMT, John Hudson <jahu...@nospamshaw.ca>
wrote:
Cudo
wrote:
>I recently posted a question as to what the maximum enlargement would
>be acceptable from a 35mm slide or negative. Among the interesting
>technical information, it seems the consensus was that 11x14 was about
>the maximum enlargement you can do and still retain good/high quality.
>
You only need look at large-format contact prints to see that 35mm
fails to stack up even for 8X10 enlargements. After all, everything
looks good until you see something better.
>Now, for someone wishing to venture into the wedding and portrait
>business, it seems to me that while 11x14 is okay, being able to
>produce even larger *quality* prints, say 30x40 would make the photog
>more marketable and be able to get more business. The fear that I
>have is that as the digital cameras get better and cheaper, people are
>going to be less willing to hire a photog, especially for doing studio
>portrait work.
Since digital cameras have become au rigor I really haven't noticed
any improvement in photography in general. All the technical
innovations and ease of use aside, it still takes a real photographer
to produce a worthwhile result. The friends of the bride & groom that
bring their point-and-shooters are not in competitions with the
wedding photographer, and the results they get will make that clear
enough. Hell, you could give them all Hassleblads - it wouldn't make
any difference.
>
>That said, what format would you suggest to use for doing wedding and
>portrait work, assuming that much of the work will be on location
>(weddings) and thus a really large camera might not really be
>practical? I really like the thought of digital cameras in that you
>don't need to constantly buy film, worry about the quality of the
>film, and the same with the processing of it. But I'm still under the
>impression that the end-results that you can produce with digital
>cameras is not yet achievable for high-quality large prints (i.e.
>30x40).
>
The results from 5 mpx digitals are very impressive, but to produce
prints that exceed 8X10 in size, you must upsample the image with a
program like Genuine Fractals to reduce pixellation. At the viewing
distances one might expect to be looking at a 30X40 print, they should
be fine - getting them printed at reasonable cost is another matter.
>What format would you suggest to use in these situations and why?
Weddings are hectic affairs, and in spite of the quality and ease of
editing that a digital provides, the slowness of recovery might be a
problem. On some of them you can shoot a series of shots, maybe about
four, before the buffer loads up - then you wait, and wait some more.
Might be good reason to bring both along, you need a backup anyway.
>
>Thanks
>-Rod
Bruce MacNeil
"Rod Gotty" <rgo...@trendium.com> wrote in message
news:oc48cu444q0o8v887...@4ax.com...
Mxsmanic
3CC3F809...@nospamshaw.ca...
> What I find curious is the assumption that the
> growing popularity of digital is associated with
> a corresponding increase in the abilities of
> those who use them which in turn will diminish
> the demand for the skilled photographer.
Similar predictions have been made for every new technology ever introduced.
They are usually half right and half wrong. Some skilled labor is
eliminated by new technologies (e.g., typesetters), but other skills are
often untouched, and sometimes new skills are created.
Photography is largely in the untouched category for aesthetics and
composition and some aspects of technical quality, but will see elimination
of some skills, such as chemical darkroom work, in the future, as digital
technologies eliminate some steps in the process.
However, good photographers still have to know about exposure, focus, light,
and so on, whether they are using film or a CCD. Unfortunately, the
marketing hype around digital doesn't mention this.
> It's rather like suggesting that the introduction
> of word processing software served to increase the
> literary and writing skills of computer users or
> that Tiger Woods' golf videos improve the
> golfing skills of weekend hackers.
That's exactly what some people suggestion, particularly those with money to
make from creating that impression.
Mxsmanic
2m98cucmi97e8tv45...@4ax.com...
> You can now easily get wordprocessors that
> make is very easy to produce the same results
> of what a typist used to produce, if not
> much better.
Not really true. Typists are fast and accurate. Word processing has only a
slight influence on that. You still have to touch type to be fast, and you
still have to know something about writing and typing to be accurate. I see
a lot of stuff coming out of word processors that clearly is _not_ accurate.
Stefan Patric
It's going to be a while before digital can truly match film as far as
quality and cost are concerned. Right now, go with film and if you
need scans, get a good scanner (film or flatbed with transparency
drawer).
When digital does come into its own, there will be backs made to fit
medium format, so just get a good medium format camera. It won't be
obsoleted just because digital has mostly replaced film.
Now as to what camera to get for both weddings and portraits: medium
format to be sure. 35mm just doesn't have the ability to make
excellent quality large prints. I've known numerous portrait and
wedding shooters and they chose the RB or RZ 67. Yes, it's big and
it's heavy, but it's great for portraits. You don't have to flop it on
its side to get a vertical format like 645. It's less suitable for
weddings, because of its size and weight, but is still usable and
produces wonderful negatives.
I know some who shoot weddings with 645. It's compact (relatively),
light, and fast, but you have to flop it on its side to shoot verticals
and with weddings, you tend to shoot more verticals than horizontals.
Still 645 is a viable option to do both portraits and weddings, even if
it is a pain to use it on a tripod for vertical shots.
The one 645 I thought would make the "perfect" wedding camera is the
Bronica 645 Rangefinder; however, it would be less than suitable for
studio portraiture.
FWIW, I opted for square for my medium format camera. The format is
more than big enough for quality large prints and since there is no
vertical or horizontal, there's no flopping required. (Something I've
always hated.) My initial purchase was a Mamiya C-220 with an 80 and
135 lenses. I shot many weddings and portraits with it until I could
afford a Hasselblad. Based on my experience with the Mamiya, I got a
60 instead of an 80 lens as my "normal." I used the 60 for about 80%
of my wedding candids. I use a 150 for portraits, although I find it a
little long. Hasselblad doesn't make a 135 (perfect focal length for
me) in a focusing mount. A SWC rounds out the system. Rarely used for
either weddings or portraits.
In any case, no matter what format or camera you finally choose, be
sure to get leaf shutter lenses (not a focal plane shutter). With
weddings, you'll want the ability to do unrestricted daylight fill
flash. You can't do this with the focal plane shutters in a medium
format. The flash sync speed in too slow.
Good luck. . . .
--
Stefan Patric
too...@yahoo.com
Jack Germsheid
The short answer is the 20x24 mammoth Polariod camera. Hands down great
colour, resolution and it's instant - even faster than digital. Of
course, there is no "one" best format for general people photography. If
you do a wedding you could easily (and should be) be shooting 35mm high
speed b&w or digital for candids and medium format colour film (ot
digital)for formals and maybe even some large format (4x5, 5x7 or 8x10)
b&w or colour (or digital) for large group or fine "art" shots. Same
goes for a carriage trade child, senior or adult portrait.
The biggest colour print I ever sell (as a semipro) is 20x20. I'll shoot
on 2.25 square transparency and drum scan then chemical print with
red,blue,green laser.
As for marketing, most people think an 11x14 "is" the big print. People
are so used to 4x6 prints and 5x5 proofs they think an 8x10 is the "wall
Print". So if you don't offer anything bigger than 16x20 you don't have
to worry too much about resolution. Even in b&w I do some 4x5 work but I
never do bigger than 16x20 'cause it's just easier than having all the
20x30 trays, easels, lens, etc.
However if I started it all again tomorrow I would do most of my colour
work in digital witha 5 mega pixel cam, new iMac and large Epson
printer. But I would still use silver for my B&W work.
MTB,
Jack
zeitgeist
> Now, for someone wishing to venture into the wedding and portrait
> business, it seems to me that while 11x14 is okay, being able to
> produce even larger *quality* prints, say 30x40 would make the photog
> more marketable and be able to get more business. The fear that I
> have is that as the digital cameras get better and cheaper, people are
> going to be less willing to hire a photog, especially for doing studio
> portrait work.
>
> That said, what format would you suggest to use for doing wedding and
> portrait work, assuming that much of the work will be on location
> (weddings) and thus a really large camera might not really be
> practical? I really like the thought of digital cameras in that you
> don't need to constantly buy film, worry about the quality of the
> film, and the same with the processing of it. But I'm still under the
> impression that the end-results that you can produce with digital
> cameras is not yet achievable for high-quality large prints (i.e.
> 30x40).
>
> What format would you suggest to use in these situations and why?
>
*IF* your main emphasis will be the wall decor market then the most obvious
choice (to me) would be the Mamiya RB 67 with the 150 soft lens. I base
this opine on the fact that a majority of the images that hang in Kodak's
Epcot gallery, hang at PPA competitions etc, are created with that bod and
lens. And a lot of photogs do use it at weddings, usually the tripod
everything while doing portraits on location type photog ala Monte Zucker
type.
the biggest portion of your decision is your working style, the equipment
can shape your style or get in the way of your natural inclinations, IE: the
above combo would work against journalistic shooting.
A lot of photogs have built a career around the square format. Before
computerized matte cutters made every other page in a Queensbury album a
polyglot of sizes and shapes for a true magazine layout style, the
preferred album of quality was one of those custom hand bound leather albums
from the three NY makers, Leathercraftsman, Capri and Zookbinders. For
about $150 you could have a stunningly beautiful album made with flush
mounted images, real gold leafing on the edges. This cost was not that
much more than other top of the line albums when you consider the cost of
covers, pages and inserts AND the financial cost of maintaining an inventory
of them (IE Art Leather would have a 3 month lead time in the 80's and
minimum orders so if you wanted a particular page you needed to order a
dozen of them, or a gross of them, and you needed to order a season's worth
of books well in advance or deliver albums months after the wedding.)
oh, there was a point that all that, with a square format you could offer a
book with 18 or 24 10x10's, in a very nice custom leather hand tooled book
that looked totally better than any other album out there, I mean you could
'see' the money in your hand. and the cost in the flush mount was
competitive with the clunky thick page matted behemoths. (I'm sorry but I
flinch at paying 50 to 90 bucks for vinyl covered newspapers.) With
square format you didn't have to worry about vert/horizontal, square was
square. a slick polished monied look. (but once you got into multi-format
magazine pages, the cost of the book rocketed...) So a lot of folks would
shoot portraits at a wedding, have them retouched and mounted in the book
and charge as much as a small new car.
cost of shooting medium format will alter your style or your marketing. I
figure a buck a shot for film and transproof/paper proof/ or proshot digital
file, (I also include about a nickel a shot for depreciation of the gear,
another long post) I went to video proofing to save money (only film
and develop only which worked out to fifty cents a shot) but the sales
styles altered and in the end the actual cost of business was the same
(another long post, do a search for it at google or the archives of the
z-prophoto mailing list.) so a portraitist shooting a hundred or so images
aiming to fill a 24 image package plus another dozen extras for the bride's
book and extras for the family can more likely afford the format than a pj
shooting close to a 1,000 frames.
35mm shooters don't save all that much if they proof at a pro lab, they save
on film costs but the 4x5's cost the same, though as you go down into the
competitive levels of under $1,000 wedding packages, a lot of photogs are
having work printed at costco/walmarts.
digital, considering the number of medium format shooters that have totally
converted digital already, I'd say the point is moot, or the market has
changed. I'm planning on getting a prosumer camera to start with on small
jobs etc to get used to the work flow and use it as a personal camera later,
but with the roll out of newer stuff every other month I'll wait to see what
the new foveon chip will offer, but frankly I would be loath to invest in a
new medium format system these days....
UrbanVoyeur
J
"Bruce MacNeil" <br...@brucemacneil.com> wrote in message
news:Ea0x8.5719$Bp3.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Mxsmanic
uc9k1c...@corp.supernews.com...
> I've known numerous portrait and wedding
> shooters and they chose the RB or RZ 67.
> Yes, it's big and it's heavy, but it's great
> for portraits. You don't have to flop it on
> its side to get a vertical format like 645.
Why not?
Jeremy 1952
> have is that as the digital cameras get better and cheaper, people are
> going to be less willing to hire a photog, especially for doing studio
> portrait work.
The high-end market will still be there for pros, but the low end (i.e. the
under $500 wedding) will probably disappear.
The trend began in the 1970s, with the advent of SLRs and excellent optics
for amateurs. If you were getting married and were on a budget, there was
always someone you knew that had a Nikon, Canon or Pentax that could shoot a
few rolls of candids--especially if he was an invited guest, and would be
present anyway.
From a marketing standpoint, people are going to be reluctant to pay big
bucks to a photographer that arrives on the scene carrying the same kind of
camera that the guests have at home. For that reason alone, I would not
consider using digital if I expected to make any money doing the shoot.
Even though 35mm is my first love, it seems prodent to appear at the wedding
with a couple of Hasselblads, a large handlemount flash, a professional
quality tripod and an assistant, to lug the stuff around. Even though you
could do most of the job in digital, you need to LOOK like a professional.
Remember, I'm suggesting medium format because of its appearance to the
customer, not necessarily because it is that much better than 35mm or
"prosumer" digital.
Being a professional wedding photographer is, in large part, image. You
won't be respected if you shoot with a Hewlett Packard 3.3 megapixel
point-and-shoot . . .
Jeremy 1952
> fails to stack up even for 8X10 enlargements. After all, everything
> looks good until you see something better.
All things being equal, you are correct. But lots of us just can't afford
getting into medium format in a big way, especially if we have a large
investment in 35mm.
There is a case to be made for using high quality lenses and shooting with a
tripod, as much as possible. Using a really sharp emulsion, like
Kodachrome, helps narrow the gap between 35mm and medium format, too.
The bigger negative of medium format certainly has its advantages, but there
are an awful lot of us that get a high degree of satisfaction from amateur
photography that would NEVER have gotten into the hobby at all, had there
not been 35mm.
Paul Ferrara
Paul
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sobx8.143438$GS6.14...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Paul Ferrara
Paul
Rod Gotty <rgo...@trendium.com> wrote in message
news:2m98cucmi97e8tv45...@4ax.com...
Paul Ferrara
see that medium format shooters are converting to digital in droves. Apart
from instant feedback, the cost of film and processing pays for the camera
in no time.
As far as comparing digital with 35mm, there really is no comparison. I
bought a Canon G2 not many months ago and sold my EOS 3 a couple of months
later. I never got results from 35mm that I get from digital. Through the
magic of interpolation, I get sharp prints up to 24x30. Try that with 35mm.
Now then, the G2 is not a camera you couild use for weddings but the D60 and
D100 are both in the $2K price range and have half again as much resolution.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are a ton of wedding
photographers that never sell a print bigger than 11x14. The money is in
the albums.
Paul
http://www.paulsportraits.com/
Rod Gotty <rgo...@trendium.com> wrote in message
news:oc48cu444q0o8v887...@4ax.com...
Bruce MacNeil
Though I personally use the Field camera for weddings.
"UrbanVoyeur" <nos...@nospam.urbanvoyeur.com> wrote in message
news:_K7x8.16871$t65....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Jeffery Harrison
Jeffery S. Harrison
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sobx8.143438$GS6.14...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Jeffery Harrison
when you find a spelling mistake. Likewise, once you have it all 'typed' on
the computer you can save the file and rework it easily without having to go
through the pain of typing it all again after you figure out a better way to
say it. So the computer/word processor does wonders for your 'typing'
abilities regardless of your actual skill with a keyboard.
Jeffery S. Harrison
"Paul Ferrara" <pa...@nospam.columbusoft.com> wrote in message
news:_Ajx8.14925$lV6.4...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
UrbanVoyeur
Semi-seriously, I have seen photographers who do formal wedding portraits
with 4x5 and 8x10 in studio, or in rare occasions, on locations.
And about 15 years ago I worked as a scut monkey for a studio where one of
the photographers always took a graflex (speed or crown) with a ready load
pack of 4x5 in addition to his medium format to every wedding job. He did
posed shots and occasional candids with it. The quality was extraordinary,
and prints were always ordered.
J
"Bruce MacNeil" <br...@brucemacneil.com> wrote in message
news:%lkx8.41093$QR1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
RDKirk
rgo...@trendium.com says...
> I wasn't implying that the increase in popularity in digital cameras
> produced an increase in the level of ability of the novice but rather
> diminishes somewhat the need for a skilled photographer.
>
> For example, when I was going through school, wordprocessers were not
> readily available to the average consumer. As a result, most people
> hired typists to type their term papers and other work that had to be
> typed. You can now easily get wordprocessors that make is very easy
> to produce the same results of what a typist used to produce, if not
> much better. This doesn't make everyone a typist nor does it make
> them a writer; but, it does significantly diminish the demand for
> typists. I'm not saying that the skill level of a photographer and
> typist are the same, I'm just using this as an example of the digital
> imaging industry, where it is becoming easier and easier to capture
> and manipulate digital images. Certainly, the end result will be less
> superior than if it were done professionally, but the cost is
> significantly less and thus may be much more attractive to the common
> consumer.
>
I'd still strongly disagree. In your typist analogy, the typist doesn't
bring any creativity to the process, unlike a professional photographer.
The task of simply converting text from one format (handwritten) to
another format (typed) is precisely the kind of job that *deserved*
elimination by a machine. Things like spell checkers and grammar
checkers, as people who must write as part of their jobs know, don't
remove the necessity of a person actually composing the document and
making sure the automatic services have done their jobs correctly. To a
computer, "I hit a Yellow Cab" and "I hit a Yellow Cat" are equally
correct.
In terms of cost, digital is not and won't be cheaper than Instamatics
were, nor will it produce better results than Instamatics in the hands
of casual snapshooters.
The difference is not merely the ability to produce a technically
competent image,which even a photosurveillance camera can do but also to
produce an aesthetically pleasing image, which even the most
sophisticated camera cannot do.
--
RDKirk
"It's always socially unacceptable to be right too soon." -- RAH
John Hudson
>
> Ahh as I suspected. That would make hand holding easier.
>
> Semi-seriously, I have seen photographers who do formal wedding portraits
> with 4x5 and 8x10 in studio, or in rare occasions, on locations.
>
> And about 15 years ago I worked as a scut monkey for a studio where one of
> the photographers always took a graflex (speed or crown) with a ready load
> pack of 4x5 in addition to his medium format to every wedding job. He did
> posed shots and occasional candids with it. The quality was extraordinary,
> and prints were always ordered.
"scut monkey" .............. ? What's that?
UrbanVoyeur
Cudo
real secretaries to deal with correspondence, type reports etc.
Nowdays each is expected to do his own work, secretaries are few and
far between, and can anyone remember what the steno pool was?
So you may be seeing a trend here as you say - but photography isn't
typing, it's more of an art form. All the digital conveniences in the
world aren't going to make good photographs, and they're not going to
change us into Westons or Ansel Adams lookalikes. Have you witnessed
a higher level of photography since digital cameras have become
popular? Didn't think so.
If the bar has been raised, it only suggests that pros must also raise
their quality standard. Instead of clicking off a bunch of 120 rolls
and simply sending them out to be printed, maybe now there will be a
need to do some serious in-house editing to achieve these higher
standards.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:15:07 GMT, Rod Gotty <rgo...@trendium.com>
wrote:
>I wasn't implying that the increase in popularity in digital cameras
RDKirk
Koo...@podunck.net says...
> Since digital cameras have become au rigor I really haven't noticed
> any improvement in photography in general. All the technical
> innovations and ease of use aside, it still takes a real photographer
> to produce a worthwhile result. The friends of the bride & groom that
> bring their point-and-shooters are not in competitions with the
> wedding photographer, and the results they get will make that clear
> enough. Hell, you could give them all Hassleblads - it wouldn't make
> any differenc
>
Sure it'd make a difference. They'd be less likely to come back with an
image at all.
Mxsmanic
"Paul Ferrara" <pa...@nospam.columbusoft.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: _Ajx8.14926$lV6.4...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
Mxsmanic
rsgx8.671$607....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Remember, I'm suggesting medium format because of
> its appearance to the customer, not necessarily
> because it is that much better than 35mm or
> "prosumer" digital.
It is orders of magnitude better than digital. That point is difficult to
dispute. The real question is whether clients really want or need such high
quality in their photos. I can't answer that, since I don't do weddings.
PhtgrphrBn
>It is orders of magnitude better than digital. That point is difficult to
>dispute. The real question is whether clients really want or need such high
>quality in their photos. I can't answer that, since I don't do weddings.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
In my town it is rare that you come by a client w/ a "eye" for images. Even
less often the mind behind the "eye".
W Bauske
>
> So you may be seeing a trend here as you say - but photography isn't
> typing, it's more of an art form. All the digital conveniences in the
> world aren't going to make good photographs, and they're not going to
> change us into Westons or Ansel Adams lookalikes. Have you witnessed
> a higher level of photography since digital cameras have become
> popular? Didn't think so.
>
Not true. I can guarantee my shot is the way I want it with a digital
camera and if it's not, I can immediately alter my technique to get
what I want because I can see the results in a couple seconds. I don't
guess when I take a picture anymore. I take a couple test shots, change
settings on the camera, and off I go, occasionally checking the output
to make sure nothing has gone wrong. Doesn't make me an Ansel Adams but
sure does help me generate better photos.
Wes
John Hudson
>
> Assistant/pack mule.
>
> J
Like a swamper in the trucking industry .......... a gofer?
UrbanVoyeur
J
"John Hudson" <jahu...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3CC780DF...@shaw.ca...
Lee Hunt
I have good success enlarging 35mm up to 16x20 using fine grain negative
films and good technique.
Tripods, middle range f stops and good lenses... no cheap junk lenses from
3rd party makers.
Lee
Rod Gotty <rgo...@trendium.com> wrote in
Rod Gotty
whether to go to stay with 35mm (of which I have the equipment
already) or to invest in medium format or all-digital in order to do
portrait and wedding photography. Although I've heard that wedding
photography is really just portrait photography on location, the real
test is what are the customers buying. According to posts here, it
seems that the emphasis is on the wedding album and that the largest
photo generally is 11x14 which can be achieved very nicely with 35mm.
Given this, I would presume to stick with 35mm format for doing
weddings. But, what about going all-digital for weddings? Is the
quality of the all-digital cameras, such as the Nikon D1x capable of
the output required for a high-quality wedding album with some 11x14
shots? I believe that If I shoot 35mm film and scan it with a 4000ppi
film scanner that the quality of the output is better than what the
digital camera can produce, which only has about 3000x2000ppi. But is
that significantly better, and even more important, is it even
noticeable? It seems that the convenience of all-digital is very
powerful. You don't have to worry about film and whether it is a good
batch. You don't have to worry about the processing and whether the
lab screwed it up. Just bring enough flash cards and digital wallet
and your set. But, is the quality really there - is it something that
you would be proud to show to your best customers? Will they be
willing to pay top dollar for it?
I still believe that portrait work does require a larger format - I'm
leaning toward 6x7 but if someone can make a strong argument for 645 I
would love to hear it.
-Rod
>I recently posted a question as to what the maximum enlargement would
>be acceptable from a 35mm slide or negative. Among the interesting
>technical information, it seems the consensus was that 11x14 was about
>the maximum enlargement you can do and still retain good/high quality.
>
>Now, for someone wishing to venture into the wedding and portrait
>business, it seems to me that while 11x14 is okay, being able to
>produce even larger *quality* prints, say 30x40 would make the photog
>more marketable and be able to get more business. The fear that I
>have is that as the digital cameras get better and cheaper, people are
>going to be less willing to hire a photog, especially for doing studio
>portrait work.
>
>That said, what format would you suggest to use for doing wedding and
>portrait work, assuming that much of the work will be on location
>(weddings) and thus a really large camera might not really be
>practical? I really like the thought of digital cameras in that you
>don't need to constantly buy film, worry about the quality of the
>film, and the same with the processing of it. But I'm still under the
>impression that the end-results that you can produce with digital
>cameras is not yet achievable for high-quality large prints (i.e.
>30x40).
>
d...@null.com
Rod Gotty <rgo...@trendium.com> wrote:
>The purpose of the original post was for me to get input to decide
>whether to go to stay with 35mm (of which I have the equipment
>already) or to invest in medium format or all-digital in order to do
>portrait and wedding photography. Although I've heard that wedding
>photography is really just portrait photography on location, the real
>test is what are the customers buying. According to posts here, it
>seems that the emphasis is on the wedding album and that the largest
>photo generally is 11x14 which can be achieved very nicely with 35mm.
>
I'm not a wedding photographer, but one thing you might want
to consider is the ability to crop from your negatives. If
you use any of the pro wedding labs, you will only be able
to use the A crop for your negatives - no option to make
horizontal from a vert or vert from a horizontal. In
addition, if you want to make a square crop from a 35mm neg,
you lose a lot of the original frame, and your 11x14 or
10x10 in this case, won't look as good anymore.
I think lots of people are using the Proshots software with
their wedding labs to produce albums. I've tried it once
with 35mm, and believe me,it's a pain in the butt to lay out
an album when you are constrained by the orientation of your
original shot - it's nice to be able switch orientation on
the light table because there are only so many mat styles
from your album manufacturer. The Proshots software is
great. It works best with medium format negatives. It makes
album design so easy.
You can of course use digital 35mm with Proshots, but I have
no experience with this.
RDKirk
rgo...@trendium.com says...
Take a look at www.zuga.net, which has major wedding input from Monty
Zucker (the "zu" of zuga). He's gone to digital, but I believe he's
using a digital back on his Hasselblad.
Wedding photographers have been going to digital faster than advanced
amateurs, at least for some part of their product line. As far back as
1996, the biggest name in my city of 500,000 was actually conducting
digital classes for local wedding photographers.
That said, I still prefer the square format for wedding pictures.
Keith Wiebe
> All you have to do is check out some of the wedding and portrait forums to
> see that medium format shooters are converting to digital in droves.
Apart
> from instant feedback, the cost of film and processing pays for the camera
> in no time.
>
Funny, I don't know of any pros in my area that have converted to digital!
Maybe the ones that use the computer a lot play with it some, but all the
wedding photographers around here still use medium format.
Keith Wiebe
PhtgrphrBn
>photography is really just portrait photography on location, the real
>test is what are the customers buying.
with that attitude you might as well sell used cars, doritos, fritos, coke and
or cocaine. I live in texas and i hear people are buying oil so go get a job
with enron.
Mxsmanic
20020426012017...@mb-fx.aol.com...
> with that attitude you might as well sell used
> cars, doritos, fritos, coke and or cocaine.
Yes. As a matter of fact, "that attitude" (namely, give customers what they
want) works for making money in just about any business.
If you are independently wealthy, of course, you may not need to make money,
and in that case you can do whatever you want.
Jack Germsheid
least the formals (posing, lighting etc). The candids are photo
journalism (on location) and the cerimony is a tribal anthropology (on
location).
When you are "qualifying" your customer you are a car salesman
(qualifying is a "sales" term where you find out how much money they
have, what they want and how much they are actually going to spend and
order). "Why Miss. Jones I think that Pontiac Grand Am (Or Jag OR kia)
is just the car for you." Which is really studio selling on location.
Cocaine anyone?
Of course the car salesman on cocaine is another matter. Dorito anyone?
Give the people what they want, or at least what they can afford.
If a photo journalist isn't thinking about the light as well as the
action she's missed out on bringing another facet to her work and if the
wedding guy isn't ready for the action it'll all be alter returns and
formals at the studio or park with no spontanious moments captured
(yawninf on location).
So I'll ask this, and please, please, give us a detailed and elaborate
answer, What is wedding photography if not portrait work on location?
Your critisisms, opinions contributions are welcome here. Any good
teacher offers the correct answer after saying the students' is wrong. I
really don't know everything yet and am eager to learn. Wedding ritual
anyone?
(yours' on location),
jack
Rod Gotty
I like your response and your attitude.
I want to be prepared to offer potential clients what they want, with
regards to quality and size. Certainly, my ability as a photographer
plays a significant part of the quality. But other factors such as
equipment and format also play a role. Furthermore, wedding
photography, at least for me, will be a business endeavor - I plan on
making a living out of it. Therefore, I need to find ways to separate
myself from the average wedding photographer in order to acquire
business. But I want to do so in the most economical and practical
sense - one that will provide me with the highest return on my
investment in both money and time. If the average wedding photog is
only producing up to 11x14 and I can produce much larger, perhaps I
can use this as a selling tool to increase customers or increase
profits. Maybe this makes sense or maybe it would make better sense
to streamline the costs using digital - if it indeed does that.
I've got film 35mm right now. Is this enough? Do I need to go to
Medium Format for the size? Should I go to digital - if so, which
format? These can be expensive questions to get wrong. So, I'm
soliciting the help of this group.
-Rod
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:52:20 GMT, Jack Germsheid <port...@shaw.ca>
wrote:
Felix J. (Studio 143)
On 26-Apr-2002, Rod Gotty <rgo...@trendium.com> wrote:
> I've got film 35mm right now. Is this enough? Do I need to go to
> Medium Format for the size? Should I go to digital - if so, which
> format? These can be expensive questions to get wrong. So, I'm
> soliciting the help of this group.
>
> -Rod
Hi, Rod.
35mm, properly exposed with 100/200 speed film can handle up to 11x14.
Is there grain? Yes, but, your average viewer doesn't see it.
My first five weddings were shot with 35mm. As long as the enlargement
wasn't over 11x14, I never had a problem with anyone complaining about
quality.
Is the image from medium format sharper? Oh, hell yeah !
One wedding where I shot all medium format, the bride's father commented on
how unusually "sharp" all the 4x5 images were.
Do all clients recognize quality when they see it? No.
To some people, a "pik-shur" is a "pik-shur". <sigh>
I understand your concern about the cost of Medium Format.
It's not cheap, but, it IS wonderful for the results you can achieve.
My Mamiya 645 Super handles almost as easily as my 35mm.
The way I see it, if you shoot a wonderful portrait and the client wants it
enlarged to 16 x 20 for their wall above the fireplace, the limitations of
35mm will become clear.
I've been there, done that. One of the first questions you get is "why is
it so spotty?" (referring to the grain).
My 35mm serves mostly as a "grab shot" camera during the reception ( I hate
to waste the ability of MF on a snap shot, but it DOES happen occasionally).
From what I've experienced so far, nobody has asked for anything larger than
5 x 7 from the cake cutting, toasting and other activities that happen
during the reception.
There IS one "danger" to medium format and that is dropping the roll.
I've only ever done it once while loading. Heaven help me if I ever do it
while UNloading.
Also, after sealing the roll, you have to protect it from ANY bright light
source.
Otherwise you may get light leaks around the edges of the film, especially
with 220 film.
That's why I keep preloaded inserts in my bag, and put inserts with exposed
film in a changing bag so that I can unload them safely later.
And when I deliver the rolls to the photo lab, I keep them in a tight black
bag all the way.
Digital is almost "there", but the high end cameras are SO expensive.
At a bridal show, I've seen an 8 x10 from one of the 5 Meg Nikon digital
cameras.
Although it was a nice, smooth portrait with no visible pixelation, there
was something about the quality that made me think it was made digitally.
Perhaps it was just the paper it was printed on, but I think your average
bride might not notice if it were framed and mounted.
Bottom line, if you:
1. need to choose one format
2. will be using it for wedding photography
3. are not concerned with a "photojournalistic" style
4. want the ability to offer 16x20 or larger images with good quality
5. need a fairly easy to handle camera without too much bulk
6. can live with a shooting speed of one frame per second, or slower
7. have a purchasing budget/credit line of $2000 to $3000
then a 6x6 or 6x45 format would be a good investment.
Some 6x7s are small enough to handle easily, but you get less frames per
roll.
Personally, I am comfortable with 30 images/roll with 220 film in a 6x45
format.
If you can, I suggest that you rent one.
Or if you know someone with one, ask to see images on a side by side
comparison with 35mm vs MF.
When you decide to get medium format, be sure to discuss the virtues of
focal plane vs leaf shutter lenses.
=o)
--
Felix J. (Studio 143) Ft Worth, TX
"sometimes you have to stop and realize
how wonderfully the world revolves around you." - Felix J.
Keith Wiebe
>
> There IS one "danger" to medium format and that is dropping the roll.
> I've only ever done it once while loading. Heaven help me if I ever do it
> while UNloading.
> Also, after sealing the roll, you have to protect it from ANY bright light
> source.
> Otherwise you may get light leaks around the edges of the film, especially
> with 220 film.
> That's why I keep preloaded inserts in my bag, and put inserts with
exposed
> film in a changing bag so that I can unload them safely later.
> And when I deliver the rolls to the photo lab, I keep them in a tight
black
> bag all the way.
I don't think dropping a roll that isn't tapped yet would spell disaster. It
automatically wants to roll up and will stay rolled up without the sticky
paper but I wouldn't want to ship it that way! I also am not too concerned
for light leakage. I have exposed rolls left out for days without any
fogging. 220 film might be more sensitive to this. I have only shot 220 when
doing a few weddings yrs ago but concentrate on 120 film now.
Keith Wiebe
Felix J. (Studio 143)
On 27-Apr-2002, "Keith Wiebe" <kei...@southwind.net> wrote:
> I don't think dropping a roll that isn't tapped yet would spell disaster.
> It
> automatically wants to roll up and will stay rolled up without the sticky
> paper but I wouldn't want to ship it that way! I also am not too concerned
> for light leakage. I have exposed rolls left out for days without any
> fogging. 220 film might be more sensitive to this. I have only shot 220
> when
> doing a few weddings yrs ago but concentrate on 120 film now.
> Keith Wiebe
For my needs, 220 is the only way to go.
It means more frames between changing inserts.
I'll agree that a sealed 120 roll isn't as sensitive to light leaks as a 220
roll, but I don't take ANY chances, especially with wedding photos.
The one roll I dropped was when I first started with medium format and I was
just plain doing it wrong and the roll slipped out and unwound slightly when
it hit the floor.
Did it get exposed? I'm sure some of it did, but why take a chance?
I tossed it and started with another one.
--
Felix J. (Studio 143) Ft Worth, TX
"You can't have everything.. where would you put it?" - Steven Wright
Lewis Lang
PhtgrphrBn
Back in my photo assisting I was working for a fairly well known photog on a
gig for the Sunday LA times magazine. I had put the lens into the Hassy body
and I swear to god it clicked. I took my hands away and plonk right on the
floor it started rolling across the studio floor. I could do nothing since I
was frozen w/ fear. The lens was fine (also it did not hurt that it was
rented) and the shoot went off fine.
Felix J. (Studio 143)
On 25-Apr-2002, Rod Gotty <rgo...@trendium.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> I still believe that portrait work does require a larger format - I'm
> leaning toward 6x7 but if someone can make a strong argument for 645 I
> would love to hear it.
>
> -Rod
1. You get more frames per roll with 6x45 (15 with 120, and 30 with 220).
2. A typical 6x7 slr is bulky and has noisy mirror slap.. However 6x7
rangefinders are quieter and less bulky.
3. You get more frames per roll with 6x45. Did I mention that already?
4. Most 6x45 systems handle very much like 35mm.
5. You don't lose much of the image in an 8x10/16x20 enlargement.
6 Some 645 systems have interchangeable backs, including the use of digital
backs.
Hope this helps.
Jeremy 1952
> their quality standard. Instead of clicking off a bunch of 120 rolls
> and simply sending them out to be printed, maybe now there will be a
> need to do some serious in-house editing to achieve these higher
> standards.
But, photographers that spend hours editing can't get out and make any money
shooting photographs.
I shot 43 digital images on Saturday morning, and I wasn't done editing them
till Sunday afternoon. What a waste of time!
I would have done better by shooting on film and letting the lab do all the
work. Admittedly, it would not have been "perfect," but my time is worth
too much to waste doing digital darkroom work.
It's one thing to edit just couple of photos. It's something else to edit
50-100 of them!
Mxsmanic
Dofz8.14$Zj...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I shot 43 digital images on Saturday morning,
> and I wasn't done editing them till Sunday
> afternoon. What a waste of time!
Is this really connected with digital vs. film, though? I spend way more
time editing than I'd really like to, no matter what I shoot. Whether it's
film or digital, there are always way more images than I care to wade
through ... I sure don't remember taking that many! And the editing is just
as slow whether it is on a light table or in an editing program. And very
often they both end up digital, anyway, either straight from a digital
camera or scanned from film. So no matter what, you end up spending hours
trying to sort through them.
> I would have done better by shooting on film
> and letting the lab do all the work.
How would the lab have known what to do?
> It's one thing to edit just couple of photos.
> It's something else to edit 50-100 of them!
Well, shoot digital if you want, but pretend it is film and very expensive.
It _is_ very expensive, if it is costing you that much time to edit the
results.
David D.
about 30 minutes. I have my lab process only all the rolls and use little
sticky dots to cover duplicate images,eyes closed soft focus etc..... The
lab prints only what is untouched. I come back in about 2 hours and pick up
all my 5x7's. Cost me about $40.00 to do this. Beat that.
Felix J. (Studio 143)
On 30-Apr-2002, "David D." <sun...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> On an average wedding, I shoot 10-12 rolls and I can edit all of them in
> about 30 minutes. I have my lab process only all the rolls and use little
> sticky dots to cover duplicate images,eyes closed soft focus etc..... The
> lab prints only what is untouched. I come back in about 2 hours and pick
> up
> all my 5x7's. Cost me about $40.00 to do this. Beat that.
What a good idea !
You do the selecting process while you're there at the lab?
Are you using medium format film or 35mm?
Felix J. (Studio 143)
On 30-Apr-2002, "David D." <sun...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> On an average wedding, I shoot 10-12 rolls and I can edit all of them in
> about 30 minutes. I have my lab process only all the rolls and use little
> sticky dots to cover duplicate images,eyes closed soft focus etc..... The
> lab prints only what is untouched. I come back in about 2 hours and pick
> up
> all my 5x7's. Cost me about $40.00 to do this. Beat that.
Ok, I don't mean to sound like a doubting Thomas, here.. but I have a
question about the math in your post.
If you shoot, say 10 rolls, wouldn't the lab charge you at least $3 a roll
to do this?
Even if they charged $1 a roll, that's $10 already.
Now, you're gonna get 5x7's. Let me be generous, and say that some lab will
print a 5x7 for $1 each.
That's only 30 prints out of 240 ( 24 exp X 10 rolls).
How do you explain such a low "hit" percentage?
Rod Gotty
Do you shoot neg or slides?
-Rod
On Wed, 01 May 2002 02:00:47 GMT, "David D." <sun...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
Rafprop
to worry about vertical vs. horizontal shots. I like the 5x5 proof because it
sets me apart from all the 35mm photographers providing 4x5 proofs. It gives me
more shots per roll than 6x7 and the camera doesn't weigh a ton. Enlargements
look great at 20x24. I considered a 645, but I really didn't see any advantage
over the 6x6 except of few more shots per roll. I'd consider a 6x7, but the
main advantage is the larger negative. Since I rarely sell a photo larger than
16x20 the hassle of dealing with that large and heavy of a camera and the
expense just didn't seem worth it.
Mark
Jeremy 1952
> > and letting the lab do all the work.
>
> How would the lab have known what to do?
>
I should have been more specific in my original post--my digital camera
invariably underexposes, resulting in dark photos that must have major
increased gamma to become usable.
Of course, once you start increasing gamma, you have to adjust brightness,
contrast, saturation, etc. It is VERY tedious, and I really can't stand it.
I am very disappointed in digital photography, and am sure glad I didn't
chuck my 35mm equipment!
As if I didn't already have enough "do-it-yourself" projects--now I am
expected to spend my weekends tweaking photos . . .
Long live film!!
Mxsmanic
> I should have been more specific in my original
> post--my digital camera invariably underexposes,
> resulting in dark photos that must have major
> increased gamma to become usable.
Get a better camera! That sort of thing has nothing to do with digital
technology.
> I am very disappointed in digital photography,
> and am sure glad I didn't chuck my 35mm equipment!
You have to make the same adjustments to scans.
In fact, in many ways, it doesn't really matter whether you shoot digital or
film, because the bulk of your time and money may still be spent on other
parts of the workflow, and they don't change.
> Long live film!!
I'll use whatever gives the best images, preferably at the lowest cost.
Right now that is film, and I don't see any sign of that changing any time
soon.