fotografz Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Just back in from shooting a Sunday wedding just outside of LA. I must say, what beautiful scenery you west coasters have to work with. It was clear as a bell (which I know is not always the case), at a public golf course that rivals some of the better private clubs. Right on the ocean. WOW. The lighting was exactly what I had feared, super bright and contrasy with the ceremony at 1PM. 95 degrees and zero shade on an all white overlook where the ceremony was held (except, under the gazebo where the B&G were). Since I've shot in California before, I opted for film which is more expensive for me and a lot of scanning to do. But I just didn't want to fight the contrast with digital capture. Fuji 400 NPH for MF work, and some Portra 160NC for 35mm Canon stuff. I used T-Max 400 CN in the Leica's. All the film and proofs are processed and just a few of the formals look to be troublesome due to incredible contrast between the shaded areas and the background. A lot less PS work than similar conditions with digital in my experience. Anyway, hope I get to shoot out there again. Beautiful. I'll post a link later on when I get the scans done, in the meantime here's one from my " California Dreamin' " shoot...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melisa Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Beautiful!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colleendonovan Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Wow!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_c. Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Ha ha... I told you Marc.<br> Remember my "sweating bullets" posting a few months back?<br> Now you got the taste of it, I'm loving it.<br> Can't wait to see the pictures.<br> Take care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WM Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Wow Marc ! Can't wait to see the rest ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodolfo_negrete Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 congratulations on one more beatiful picture. I did read your post last were you mention going to LA and Also that you were only taken filma based equipment.then I also remenber you taking about maybe going back to film, are You? "But I did not want to fight the contrast with digital capture" ?? ... could you elaborate on this. I can not wait to see your pictures. Do you think that you could had taken this picture with a digital cmaera(the above posted) and if so what lens? Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahams Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Bravo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 """I opted for film which is more expensive for me and a lot of scanning to do. But I just didn't want to fight the contrast with digital capture""". Marc,there might be hope for you yet!!! (Have you ever thought of having your lab scan these)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_ferguson1 Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 That's a magnificent portrait. It takes an insightful eye, and real photographic confidence, to back right off and frame a portrait so grandly. Thanks for sharing, a shot like that is a real inspiration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikonboy Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Love it ... can't wait to see some more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_clark___minnetonka_mi Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Beautiful Marc! You're an artist. Have a wonderful week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_au Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Great shot Marc. Must have been nice to have such good stuff to work with! Are the colors in that shot jazzed up at all in PS? I've been growing increasingly dissatisfied with NPH lately - the colors are coming out lifeless, pasty, and blah. I'm trying to figure out if it's my lab or if I've grown too used to the punchier Reala/NPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted September 8, 2004 Author Share Posted September 8, 2004 Thanks all. Yes Rodolfo, I could've shot this with a digital camera. But experience has taught me that it would require underexposing most of the high contrast shots and therefore require more steps in PhotoShop to adjust them. While scanning does take time, I only have to scan 40 images and tweak them, as opposed to correcting 400 RAW shots, half of which would involve the extra steps to correct the underexposures ... which, BTW, are difficult to write a universal PS action for. Steve, the lab scans just don't cut it, or they're too pricey per shot. I'd just get regular prints made before paying for scans, and then tweaking them, and then printing them. Good argument for good old analog prints ; -) William, I don't use much Fuji NPH 400, but it seemed pretty good on the proofs from the lab. I do punch up flat colors when scanning and tweaking in PS. In this case not much was needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 William, I use NPH as my 'general use' color film as I'm usually shooting people and NPH is very forgiving with skin tones. Have your lab scan your negs when they process them (it's cheap!) and then you can play around with the digital file to punch up the color, if you like. It still won't be as smooth as Reala or Portra UC, but you can alter the look a bit.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Sorry, William, I should have mentioned that the 'cheap' scans I'm talking about are small files (1500 pixels on the horizontal, I believe) and are only good for small prints, or use on the web, which is what this shot will be used for. Ask you lab, though, and see what they're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewkane Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Yea it's funny how everyone is so convinced that the LA area is such a hellhole huh. T here are many beautiful places near LA. Makes me miss SoCal. Nice shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted September 8, 2004 Author Share Posted September 8, 2004 Yes, beautiful places. But it's share of big problems also. Traffic is enough to give a NY cab driver a nervous breakdown. And everything is so far apart, you have to drive. I don't think I could live there. But I do love visiting often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodolfo_negrete Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 I live 2 houres away from there.And alot of peopple are moving to Bakersfield(small town north of LA )and were getting lots of rude drivers that are always in a hurry,and so inmpatient,when you signal they will not give you the right away and drive pretty fast.Kind of unsuall for peopple from here considering that takes you 20 minutes to cross town from side to side. Marck were are so lucky to have you here in Photo.net Thank you for being so kind and generous.I am sure I would became a millionare If I were to make a book of a coopilation of all your suggestions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casey mcallister Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 Beauty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 We are many miles ( 6+ hours) and many problems away --up in Carmel. There are some wonderful places in CA. Great shot! >> wish we could use our Hassy.....our B&G just won't spend the extra $. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted September 9, 2004 Author Share Posted September 9, 2004 I hear you C JO. The film, processing and proofs for this wedding was over $500. And I'm finding that it is taking me almost as much time to scan 40 to 50 prints high resolution as it does to correct 4 times that many digital images... and my film scanner is pretty fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_clifford Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 Marc, beautiful photo. What film scanner do you use? 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