k_michael Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Today, as I appraoched a local park, I notived the usual wedding [ictures being taken. I went over to scope out the scene and noticed that 5 out of 6 photographers were using digital SLR's. The only film camera being used was a Hasselblad 503CW. Are the majority of wedding photographers going digital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 You live near a park that had 6 weddings being shot at once? In my area of NY, film is used by maybe 50% of the wedding hacks. I operate on the "if it aint broke premise". Whats wrong with film that I would need to buy a pair of $2,000.00 DSLR cameras and a pair of $1,000.00 lenses,and a $2,000.00 laptop??From where Im sitting $5,000.00 buys a lot of film & processing. Oh gee ,I forgot to mention "you have total control over your images with digital". Translation:you get to sit for endless hours with the images in Photoshop so they can be printed. Whats wrong with this picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmahler5th Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Just becaue someone is great at taking photos doesn't mean they automatically become experts at digital imaging. I am no exception. I can do a lot in PS, as long as I am working with images for display online. But there are a lot of tricky things you need to do to prep a scanned file in PS to print on a good photo quality printer. After you throw in the $2000 high res scanner, software and hardware for calibrating your monitor, printer and scanner, you are at the point of justifying the cost for at least one DSLR with accessories. But since I prefer film to digital, I am suffering myself with all that can go wrong when scanning for enlargments and proofing your own negs. <p> There is no denying that PS can be a very time consuming process for someone preping 300-400 images in a weekend. Others, who have the dough, but lack the patience or the time neccessary will have a pro lab do this work. I wish I could afford to have them do it all for me, but I am trying to be economical, and do it myself, forcing myself to learn everything that goes into this job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 ...'tis the break-even point: a very good digital camera will set you back $8,000, or $4,800 -- you have to earn that much to get to the point where you are starting to earn a profit. (And if you count the number of little data cards and the number of rolls of film, that would likely be equal....) Time is the other part of the profit-loss formula. As noted above, one can drop off the film, pick up the proofs, and you are almost good to go. Digital can be handled at home, at your office, or sent to a lab, but you have to figure out who is going to 'tweak' the exposures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colleendonovan Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 What happened to learning your camera and getting the exposure and everything right the first time? I don't understand why people spend hours in PS. Is there something I'm missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_meadows1 Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 No Colleen, you're not missing anything. Unfortunately there are a lot of photogs out there that have never handled a manual camera or even film for that matter and are relying on technology to get them through. How hard is it to shoot good exposues with a digital camera and not blow the highlights? Well... pretty easy and without the need of histograms and instant feedback. Metering is metering afterall, yes? I think many folks would do a lot better if they calibrated their meters to true ISO speed and put black tape over their LCD's. Turn on the camera, take a meter reading of the highlight, one for the shadow and start shootin, adjust up or down on the fly wherever the tones may lay. Now some people will blast me for this by saying, ah well it's ok if you are experienced. That experience comes from doing the same darn thing with film and until you start to trust your senses and use your brain (which happens to be the best light meter you've got), you will not elevate your skills beyond that of a snapshot shooter with a big bucks autowhizzbang computer with a lens on it. Rant over and sorry for latching onto your thread. Cup o tes time for this tired Englishman!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Film capture and digital capture are very different things. If you don't alter your methodology to compensate for those differences, you'll end up with sub-optimal results and inefficient workflow. As for the original question, I don't shoot most weddings, so I can't give you a reliable answer. The ones I shoot are done with film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_meadows1 Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Mike, I agree that the methodology is different but photographic principles are not. I shoot film personally (by choice) and teach digital capture and output to others. People have been shooting chromes for how long? Shoot digital but think chrome, it's not so hard really. The problems definitely arise when shooting jpegs though because one throws away so much data in the conversion. If you're off by a jot you've had it. Funny thing though... a lot of blown highlight images in wedding magazines are now sold as FASHIONABLE! Techno BS don't think and an excuse for bad technique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted May 30, 2004 Share Posted May 30, 2004 Like I tell people who want to learn B&W technique: the best way to learn how to be a great printer is to shoot and develop lousy negatives. It's really a lot easier to learn to meter correctly and develop properly, but it's still good to know the "tricks" of getting a great print from a lousy negative. In the end it's really a lot easier to learn how to meter properly, know how to interpert the meter's reading for the situation at hand, and use a camera with manual shutter speeds and f/stops, than to learn all the "programs" and "work-arounds" to fool your auto wonder into doing what you want it to do. You'll quickly get to the point where you, using your fingers and your eye, can rapidly focus automaticaly. You'll learn to take a few incident readings at a location when you first get there and twiddle the aperture dial without much thought as you move about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_michael Posted May 31, 2004 Author Share Posted May 31, 2004 I kid you not! That's just what i saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medina photography cherry Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Philip, I agree with you about putting tape over the LCD, well actuall I could just turn it off, but anyway. I shot film up until last september and when I shot film I was constantly thinking about metering (normal) because I knew that the more shots I took the more expense there would be (i.e. film, developing, prints)When I started shooting with my DSLR I noticed I was just shooting away and looking at the LCD, nope to blown out, shoot again, nope to dark, shoot again, etc. The biggest problem with that is that the LCD isn't totally accurate anyway. I shot a Wedding in December with the DSLR and the flash shots looked so blown out, so I bounced the flash and the images looked great , nice light..perfect! When I put them on the monitor they were dark and the blown out ones were perfect. So I decided to make the LCD display a small image and a histogram so I could at least see how the image actually is. Again a lazy approach butthe temptation to see if you got it right is to overwhelming!!! I really just want to turn the display off completely and wait until I get home to load them up...maybe I will do that with some wildlife shots. Besides think of the battery life I could consume if I did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 I don't think it as pervasive as 5 out of 6, or anything close to that. But when they go digital it tends to an expensive decision, so it's often a total switch. By shooting both for weddings, I'm sort of a hold-out amongst my circle of photographic pals. My occasional wedding shooting partner is the official photographer to the Governor of Michigan. He hasn't shot a roll of film in three years, and doesn't even own a film camera anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbs Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Dallas arboretum had about 6 weeding going while I was there with the Homeschoolers. About 50/50. ....;)...J<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_grow1 Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 K. Michael, The issue at hand is not really digital vs. film, the reality of "wedding photography" is that the client has an expectation of a professional product. Given that, I shoot Nikon F3's and Bronica SQAI's at weddings. Does the fact that I shoot MF make me a better wedding photogrpaher than my "digital" counter-parts..... Of course not. Photogrpahy is a craft and a art. If you are a gifted photogrpaher then the method you capture it on has little meaning. What matters do you enjoy photographing weddings, are you comfortable with the medium you use, are you proud of your end product. I will say this.....if you are not a good photographer NO amount of PSing will save you, thus it really comes down to the basics of photography.. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 �Whats wrong with film that I would need to buy a pair of $2,000.00 DSLR cameras and a pair of $1,000.00 lenses,and a $2,000.00 laptop??From where Im sitting $5,000.00 buys a lot of film & processing. Oh gee ,I forgot to mention "you have total control over your images with digital". Translation:you get to sit for endless hours with the images in Photoshop so they can be printed. Whats wrong with this picture?� It�s this dinosaur attitude that will cause a huge amount of film photographers to be out of work soon. $5000 dollars does not buy a lot of film and processing, especially to a good wedding season. Most that converted, or have incorporated, digital capture to their craft have come full circle after first spending huge amounts of money on scanning at a lab. And we have done so gradually. We buy a scanner for our computer. We get the software. We learn what needs to be done for output. The output is digital, even from a neg. Someone above mentioned that you have to be careful with exposure. So true. Anyone that can shoot slide successfully and have the patience, will find digital simple. If you have shot nothing but c-41 on automatic with TTL flash, you will struggle. Further, this struggle will be compounded in a few years when gigs are lost to the digitally inclined and �film only� shooters are forced to catch up or drop out. Film photography will be really expensive and an inconvenience soon. If you�re still shooting film only, I recommend getting a good computer and Photoshop, and start playing with scanned images. The longer you avoid it the steeper the learning curve. Learn how to FTP to your lab. Get your website updated to web-dav capabilities, so you can drag and drop your images and uploaded to hidden a URL and email it to everyone involved with the wedding, an hour or two after you�ve gotten home. Imagine that? Waking up and viewing your wedding photographers images while nursing a hangover�Sitting at one�s home/studio listening to music and doing an hour of work sure beats running around town with multiple meetings a week after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 What is strange about my getting involved with digital is that it wasn't inspired by photography, but instead, my job in an ad agency. 4 or so years ago I didn't even know how to start a computer. I bellowed my distain along with a few other stubborn folks there. My business partner started showing me where things were headed, or already had gone, and it woke me up. The way I totally immersed myself was through my photography. Did I like it? NO. Do I now that the steepest part of the learning curve is behind me? YES. The other folks that resisted it are now unemployed. I'm not advocating the abandonment of something you love, just the gradual adoption of something new to keep from falling to far behind. Many of the struggles you read about are from people who recently switched to digital. I, for one wouldn't council a total switch like that. It's to much to absorb at one time. It takes a lot of practice and patience. Frankly, I see digital as a fresh breeze, and I know quite a few photographers who have been invigorated by the challenge. I do fear for the future of film. There are fewer and fewer good labs. Getting someone to process real B&W film has become a challenge in itself. I know there are labs out there. Plenty of them. Just like there were typography houses serving the ad industry not that long ago. Then, suddenly, there were none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_woodard Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Most people who are shooting film will be homeless and broke in a few years, and suffer health and marriage problems, while those shooting digital will be successful and wealthy, and drive large 4wd Hummers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Let's start up a fund for the future disenfranchised lovers of film. We will take them off the street and help them gently into the golden digital domain... even though they will be screaming " I'm not an animal!" at us through their rotting teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Funding? Are you kidding Marc? You, I, and everyone else have had to do it the hard way. The writing is on the wall, it�s up to them to be left behind or not. I imagine it will be the first question of query from the bride in a few years. �Do you shoot digital?� Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Actually, I get that question now. Just had a client sign after seeing the work, and then asking me that very question. She is a portrait photographer. Most young people are computer savvy these days. But let's not get carried away. All kidding around aside, I'd lament the demise of film just as much as anyone here. And I don't think I'd feel the same if digital went by-by tomorrow... except for the huge financial loss it would represent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_noble4 Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Actually, if you think about it, with the rapid advancement of digital capture, photomanagement software. etc, it may be amatuer consumers armed with these digital technologies at weddings that pose the greatest long term threat to the professional wedding photographer. "Do you do digital?" is one of life's 'dumb blond' questions akin to asking someone who you met at a bar and slept with, "What did you say your name was?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
think27 Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I'm not saying I won't eventually shoot some digital..... However.... When I asked a top Canon Rep at a week long workshop in Cape May - When he felt Canon would come out with the perfected top of the line Digital Camera with all the bugs worked out...He said - two to three years from now.. That was last Spring. <p> I'll wait just like I did before switching from manual to Auto. I worked with the Canon F1N for 10 years and held back from going auto until the Canon 1V came out. <p>Also, interestingly enough I do occassionally get the question "Do you shoot digital?" When I say no - it has not translated [yet] to lost business. One <p>The time will come, I'm sure - but the time is not now for me. When I do - I'm sure I'll come here with questions galore ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I LOVE the Canon F-1N !!!! Now that was a great camera. It was my first real SLR. That and a black FTb. They were built like tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberwolf1 Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 The wedding photographer I ran into this last week uses 100% film.. I agree. By the way, Epson is coming out with a $500 scanner that will do 35mm to 6x17cm, it has no glass, it appears to use mounts. It is called the F-3200 I believe. It is being sold in Japan and can be found on google.com If I wanted an occassional negative scanned, I would be doing some real retouching. So, I could use this unit to do that retouching. So far, the pros I have talked to use film. They are concerned about reliability and they like the overexposure latitude of color negative film. My style is not to take 1,000 pictures and then throw 70% of them away. Rather, if I take 300 pictures, I throw 5-6 away maximum. Therefore, film works great for me, at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 The question is Timber, how many shots don�t you take because you have film loaded? Most film shooters are conservative with their trigger finger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now