Medium Format Wedding Photography: Digital Alternative????

There have been so many new developments over such a short period of

time in the quality of digital photography, well, is the timing right

to start investigating/INVESTING in this medium for wedding

photography and portraiture????

 

Somehow, I don't see myself showing up at a wedding with a camera the

size of a pack of cards?? Or maybe it's just me???

 

Have any of the pros on this site done any "digital weddings"?

Portraiture??? Is film being replaced the way CD's have replaced

plastic recording or the way DVD's are replacing magnetic tape??

 

Personally, I have not yet seen digital photographs with the quality

that medium format can deliver. However, I do wedding photography

part-time so maybe I am not as clued-in as the pros doing this day

after day in the field.

 

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

 

Ray

You certainly should start your investigation. I am not ready to make the switch to digital for weddings, but for the studio, perhaps.

 

For portraiture, tonality is very important. That is why I have always used medium format cameras. I dislike the grain and lack of tonality you get with 35mm. Digital is capable of tonality every bit as good and perhaps superior to that of current roll films. Digital does not yet have the sharpness and resolving power of roll films, but this is not that important in portraiture unless you have a large group or need to crop the picture.

 

I recently purchased a 3M pixel consumer grade digital camera to eliminate the use of polaroids for proofs. I was very surprised by the quality. The tonality is as good as medium format, and the resolving capability as good as 35mm.

 

I have started the digital camera using it alot when photographing children. They really like to be able to see their picture immediately. Instead of complaining about when the pictures will be done, they become part of the process when I show them the pictures immediately. If they don't like their picture, they want to me to take more pictures. It has made it alot easier to get engaging pictures of the kids.

Ray,

 

I wouldn't say, that Digital is an alternative for real wedding photography, but a digital is an ideal supplement for a MF. Just coming back from a wedding, where we made a quick special digit-slide-show in the later evening. We used a data-projector for the digits from the day of the day. People were really excited. I really recommend the NIKON 950 or 990 Model, the usage is very similar to a MF with a rangefinder. People would not feel of being photographed, that's a very big advantage for real spontaneous shot - and the MF is for the real good-looking 10x10 living room shot.

You could say that digital photography for weddings is "Not ready for prime time yet." There are some digital backs that fit the major medium format cameras and promise ease of use for photographers seeking a digital alternative to film, however, these backs cost about $10,000 to 15,000 in America Cash Money. I use a Kodak DCS EOS 1-c at work. It's and older model (3 years old) digital camera, but produces an excellent photo. But it is HEAVY, needs a battery pack (HEAVY) ane will not fit any kind of useful bracket.

The newer prosumer cameras redress the weight problems and are apt to find a wide audience once the prices come down. I'm guessing that by this time next year, we'll have a sigificant digital camera (wediing) forum on this sight.

Two or three years ago, Monte Zucker and Clay Blackmore were using digital to supplement their wedding work and selling prints to guests at the reception or at brunch the next morning! This is where, I think, digital can fit into the current wedding business. I still think that it is a long way from displacing film for anyone selling wall portraits. If you are only doing "album" work, you might be able to get away with digital now.

 

The problem with "investigating" new technology is the risk of having it be totaly different by the time it can be cost justified. This is my view of digital for people shooters. There are some very, very expensive studio systems, but these still suffer from serious drawbacks. Wedding shooters have very diferent needs. Portabilty, compatibility with existing systems, storage, resolution, speed and so on. I just don't think that it is there, yet. When it arrives, it is likely that it will be easily integrated into your existing business (I would love to have a digital back for my RB, with a 6x7 sensor so that my lens use doesn't have to change, ISO 800 equivilent speed and a belt pack with removable media to handle 20 shots) without breaking your bank.

Hi, Mark, Werner, Marcus, Ed ...

 

Thank you for your most interesting comments and insight.

 

I must admit that I did not realize that digital had come so far so fast. I suppose that technology has a tendency to do that. Using a digital as opposed to a Polaroid back ... most interesting. And Monte using digital ... WOW!

 

I wonder if the "film scientists" will have anything to offer soon? Or maybe the R&D is all going into digital, at least, the majority of it?

 

I suppose it will all come out in the "business" wash: what's the absolute best at the least cost.

 

In any case, as my professors used to say, cameras don't take pictures, people do. I do believe that this is one statement that will endure the test of time. I'll hang on to all my "film gear" for the time being with an eagle eye out for the digitals.

 

Gentlemen, thank you once again.

 

Ray

Since I am about to start trying to gather together my own photographic equiptment, inevitably the big question of "Do I invest in the typical medium format as it's been, or do I invest in what seems like it's coming upon us quite rapidly, and may even become the new way of life- digital?"

 

Digital seems quite promising...imagine not having to change a roll of film during a wedding gig...ever again? No more frantic grasping for loaded backs. Or knowing right off the bat that your over or under exposed? Shoot with convenient confidence like never before, without wasting precious time switching to and from a polaback. Ever do a shoot and discover your back's not loaded? I've been assisting for 3 years and I've seen some pretty tense situations arise.

 

Although I love film...I cannot deny that digital is evolving very fast and they are really on a roll with it now. I am reading articles all the time now about photographers "discovering" how truly great and convenient digital is. The quality is now surpassing old unnacceptable quality. One company is mailing me a free 8 x 10 to check out and another a 16 x 20. Yet another company is mailing me a free digital wedding album CD to look at. Imagine being able to email your client's wedding pics and have them be able to view and order extras through their computer. This is going to change a lot of things. No chemicals polluting the land to develop all that film...quickly and easily retouch whatever you have to.

 

Another advantage is in low-light conditions. You can take excellent pictures in low-light and have nice colors showing up in the pictures and you don't have to worry about movement blurring a lowlight digital photo. Think of the advantages there'd be during a ceremony with low-light conditions. Digital cameras are excelling there.

 

I can seriously see the photo world becoming divided over this...the hardcore film users against those embracing the whole digital scene. So many will jump on the digital bandwagon that die-hard film users may become sought after and more expensive and will have a specific clientele. Digital will probably cost less and become more common than film. Just my opinion. Also- I don't think the pro digital cameras are going to resemble the consumer's deck of cards...I saw the Nikon 990 and it was pretty weird looking. The Kodak one is at least in a Canon 1N body so it looks halfway decent. I prefer "the look" of the traditional medium format camera and hope the digital cameras retain some of the beauty of their ancestors.

I was just a bridesmaid in a wedding where the photographer shot it all digital.The bridal portrait was a 16X20 and looked as if it was shoot with medium format but it was shot with a Fuji S1 Pro, I believe. It blew me away how good it looked. He said he does 80% digital now and the rest in medium format and large format. I was amazed how good the pics where.