digital wedding photography

Is anyone out there shooting weddings with consumer digital cameras?

I am not a professinal, but a competent enthusiast who normally

shoots 35mm B&W. My cousin will be getting married next year, and to

save money, they have asked me to be the photographer. Fine, until I

told them it would still cost several hundred dollars for film and

processing. (Both my cousin and I are rather poor.)My idea is to rent

something like the Nikon Coolpix 5700 for the day. However, what

about memory and storage. Would I really need to shoot everything in

RAW format for good pictures? Any advice would be appreciated.

No. Consumer digital stuff is too slow for anything but posed portraits, and profession digital stuff is too expensive.

I don't know how cheap you can rent the digital stuff for, but here in SF Bay Area Canon EOS-1D outfit costs $150/day (includes 28-70L, 550EX & 1GB storage). Compact flash is $25/512MB/day.

 

Don't forget a couple of ink jet cartridges ($45) and paper, and hours of frustration balancing the color if you are not an expert at this.

 

On the other hand, film plus professional processing at local minilab cost me about $20 per 36 frames.

If they can't afford to pay you for standard film and processing then I wouldn't bother. (And they're not financially ready to get married!)

Shoot film. You'll be disapointed with amateur digital. Right now Target has 200 speed Kodacolor negative four-packs of 24 exp. film for $5.99 and you should be able to get it processed 4x6 for about $7.95 a roll. This is "amateur" film and processing but it'll beat the hell out of digital.

<p><i>... (And they're not financially ready to get married!)</i></p>

<p>Like that ever stopped anyone before ... and it's really not our business. Love and commitment don't need a price tag -- or our approval.</p>

<p>Anyway, the other posters are correct. Consumer digital suffers from shutter lag, generally bad red eye and noise in low-light situations.</p>

<p>The other issue is that some shops might not rent consumer-level cameras.</p>

<p>If I were in your shoes, I'd probably do it in b/w or color and give them a book of snapshots, about three or four nice 8x10 shots and one really great 16x20. I think they would like that.</p>

... (And they're not financially ready to get married!)

 

I second Mike Elek's post on this. I respect those couple who know what they can or cannot afford. I assume they will be paying their own wedding & reception, more brownie points from me compared to those who has their parents paid for theirs(and still complained).

 

Anyway, I agree with everybody's opinion regarding film. Costco has one hour developing for $4.99(24 exp. 4x6 and mini proof/contact sheet), thus making the cost for film & print about less than $9/24exp. They use Fuji machine that everyone seemed to find qualities in its printing result. In addition to that, I brought Costco prints once to get reprints, they say that coming from Costco, the prints are pretty good.

 

Another is to cut down the pictures that are not so great, by shooting film and sending them to ofoto.com. Not only will they have their photo developed and put online for less than $3/roll, but they will only print the pictures they think are great.

Lemme clarify what I was saying above:

 

When I brought Costco printouts to a Professsional lab, they say that they're rather surprise how good the prints come out. The only lacking thing is the flatness of the pictures because it was printed from a digital scanning of the negative, NOT straight from negative they way professional labs do it.

I am going to oppose most answers given her. Yes, use the Coolpix 5700! Be sure to get a powerful, dedicated external flash with a Sto-fen diffuser on it. Get a big memory card and if that is not enough, shoot in the best quality JPEG mode instead of raw. If the wedding is not too far away from your/their/a friend's place with a PC, take a quick drive there to dump the images on a PC during a break. Or get two cards and a card reader and send someone else. (or bring a laptop if anyone has one)

 

Yes, there will be shutter lag and it will make you miss a few shots. However, in cost, it does not matter if you shoot 1 or 1000 frames during the day and the only ways to save money when using film is shooting less frames or using inferior film and processing.

 

Be sure that your camera has enough juice, though. The internal batery won't last the whole day, so be sure to get some 2CR5 lithiums, make sure the store you get them from will take them back if unused and still packed.

 

On a final note: get the camera not just on the day. Make sure you shoot with it for a couple of hours to get to grips with it.

 

Wedding photos are about memories first, quality, creativity and originality comes second by a long way.

 

Have fun,

If I understand Bas Scheffer's post correctly, you can save money by buying or renting one of the more expensive cameras, use a powerful flash, get extra memory cards, ideally carry a lap-top with you, and have plenty of expensive spare lithium batteries on hand. Sheeesh! I hope that was tongue-in-cheek! Use film. It really is cheaper.

I am sure Francisco has done the math, otherwise he would not have brought it up. But lets see:

<p>

<pre>

Digital solution:

Camera £50

Flash £14

extra 512Mb card: £30

Bateries: £20

50 7x5 prints for album: £32

Total: £146

 

Film solution:

20 rolls Kodak Portra: £100

20x *Quality* processing: £140

50 7x5 prints for album: £50

Total: £290

</pre>

<p>

So how is film cheaper?

I'd like to thank everyone for their input. I've decided to foot the bill myself as a wedding gift. I know very little about digital photography, but my cousin's fiancee, who is a computer whiz, suggested it would be a cost effective alternative to film. I'm not convinced the results would be up to "wedding standards," especially if they want 8x10s or larger. I'm going to ask a friend of mine to print a snapshot from his top of the line Sony. If it looks good, I may borrow it for the day (although the comment about red-eye does put me off somewhat).

Yes, pros use digital SLRs for weddings. No, you shouldn't. There is no real savings. If they are poor, shoot less. Make your shots count! You should be able to shoot a wedding with $50.

I would be very carefull on this one if I were you... I own a Leica digilux 1 .... I love this camera, great lens and an extemely short

shutter lag time. I've printed 8X10's on my epson printer that are stunning. BUT.....Last week I was shooting just for the fun of it.. and my brand-new Sandisk memory chip failed after 44 shots. When I say failed I mean KAPUT! Luckily, Staples replaced it that same day no questions asked. Now if this had been a wedding shoot....I'd probably be on the next train out of town! Digital is fine, It's getting better all the time, but when it comes down to an Absolutley Gotta Get It RIGHT situation like a wedding, FILM is the only (almost) sure thing, in my humble opinion. Rent a good film camera and shoot away! If the film and print costs are a problem, have them develop a few at a time.... Some pics are better after a little time has past.... good luck!

I know this is an old thread, but I just wanted to thank everyone for their answers and give you guys an update (as if you remember).

 

I shot the wedding with a Nikon F50 and a 35mm f/2 lens. I used TMAX 400 film, and everybody was very happy with the results. I only shot four rolls though. The total for film and processing was about $100.

 

The sad thing is the bride took both the prints and the negatives! I don't have copies of my "babies."