How did Digital photography affect Wedding Photography?

[elizabeth_russell1]

<p>Hey guys,<br>

I'm a student at the art institute and have a paper to write about How digital photography affected wedding photography. I'd like to get some feedback from some wedding photographers who have shot weddings in both film and digital. Or maybe some who still shoot film and why they haven't switched?<br>

Here's some questions:<br>

What years were you in the wedding photography business? (ex. 1985-present)<br>

<br /> Do you use film photography or digital photography or both?<br>

<br /> What major differences did you see in shooting a wedding with a film camera and then digital?<br>

<br /> Do you think digital photography helped the wedding industry or hurt it? If you think it hurt it how?<br>

<br /> How about workflow, do you spend more time or less on your weddings now vs. with film?<br>

Quality, do you think the quality of your work is better now or then?<br>

If you think of anything else you'd like to ad just let me know.<br>

Any feedback would be greatly appreaciated! :)</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>What years were you in the wedding photography business? </strong></em><br>

1974 / ’75, to present <br /><br>

***<br>

“<em><strong>Do you [now] use film photography or digital photography or both?</strong></em><br>

Both. APS-C & 135 formats Digital / 645 & 67 Film <br /><br>

***<br>

“<em><strong>What major differences did you see in shooting a wedding with a film camera and then digital?”</strong></em><br />The ability to manipulate ISO as the third moveable Exposure Factor on site, opened a new vista of Photography.</p>

<p><strong><em>***</em></strong><br>

<em><strong>“Do you think digital photography helped the wedding industry or hurt it? If you think it hurt it how?”</strong></em><strong><em><br /></em></strong>Technology does not hurt an industry, People do that.</p>

<p>***<br>

“<em><strong>How about workflow, do you spend more time or less on your weddings now vs. with film?”</strong></em><br>

I spend the same time “on the Wedding”. But I understand your question is directed toward “Post Production”.</p>

<p>I do not do the PP for my Weddings. It is done by an expert in that field, for a couple of reasons.</p>

<p>This is different to most Wedding Photographers’ Digital Workflow, but analogous to how Film Workflow used to be performed by many W&P Photographers.</p>

<p>In respect of TIME, which I think is the point of your question, I shoot fewer total number of frames (images) than many Colleagues, with a view to 95% keepers and little PP, mainly Sharpening.</p>

<p>I shoot RAW + JPEG (L) for everything digital, including Weddings, and for Weddings, the RAW file is PP.</p>

<p>For my personal (amateur) work I shot to claim the JPEG File for use direct out of the box.</p>

<p>***<br>

<em><strong>“Quality, do you think the quality of your work is better now or then?”</strong></em></p>

<p>Me specifically, Better. But so it should be each year, each day, perhaps. That has little to do with Technology, per se.</p>

<p>Generally Speaking:</p>

<p>The adaptation of the user to the technology and the ability of the user to exploit it for newer and better outcomes is more important than the Technology itself.</p>

<p>In this regard Digital has allowed better Photography. As one personal example – I can do more easily, and more QUICKLY with two DSLR’s (and the ability to rock and roll the ISO) what I used to do and required three or four film SLR’s (160ASA Colour / 400ASAColour / TriX Pan / Reload new roll - push to 1600ASA – put mark on film can).</p>

<p>The inverse is also true: there are many who, IMO, “update for Technology's Sake” without cause toward the OUTPUT. This IMO has the potential to make work poorer. These folk are in the business of having the latest, not necessarily using the technology to the max, for their specific output.</p>

<p>***<br>

<em><strong>“If you think of anything else you'd like to (add) just let me know.”</strong></em><br>

FYI: <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00RAvN">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00RAvN</a></p>

<p>WW</p>

[elizabeth_russell1]

<p>awesome, that helps a lot. Anybody else? The more people the better so I can back up my "theories" :)<br>

Also another question that came to mind is how many finished photo's did you use to offer with film for a wedding vs. now with digital?</p>

[rayt]

<p>I have used film since 1972 to do weddings, converted to digital in 2002.</p>

<p>Digital has opened up many new avenues in post processing that were not easily available in film. Removing unwanted elements, selective adjust exposure areas, white balance in all kinds of light to keep the dress white, white, white. Higher ISO than film where 400 was considered fast in the 70's now 100 is the minimum for most cameras and 800 is easily done and can be changed at a whim.</p>

<p>The ability to capture 100+ images without having to change exposure media. Film would max out at 36 exposures and generally required two cameras or careful planning. Now that limitation has been removed.</p>

<p>Image stabilization that gives you another couple stops of light. Automatic focus that is really quite reliable. No more waiting a week to see the final result of your efforts.</p>

<p>One downside is the weight of the cameras. Digital cameras are heavier than film cameras because of the demand of the electronics and the batteries required. This makes handholding more difficult</p>

<p>Another downside is that digital has produced "shotgun" wedding photography amateurs where a four hour wedding will result in 3000+ images. I rarely take more than 400 images and in my mind that is a lot of images. I try for quality from the start rather than random chance.</p>

[shawn_mertz]

<p>I worked as a news photographer and did weddings on the side starting back in 1985. At the newspaper we shot bw and printed our own work. Doing color wedding work was frustrating because of depending on the lab to do the printing. Unless you were willing to spend money on custom prints $ 3.50 for a 4x6 10 for an 8x10 there was no burn or dodge someone else made all the color, contrast, and density decisions for you. <br>

First scanning film and then to an even greater degree digital bodies gave us much more freedom to control the final product. Getting a top quality custom retouched, cropped, perfected image to or own taste is easier, faster and cheaper than ever before. Customers can get a better product at reasonable prices than before. With the exception of the rare customer that wanted lots of BW in the old days I spend more time working on photos now than with film, that is my choice. I could easily outsource post work, the bean counter part of me says to do that, but I don't want to give up so much creative control.<br>

I have probably tripled the number of photos I take at a wedding. I shot a lot of film 300-400 photos always taking me over my film processing and proofing budget. Even shooting that amount I would throughout the day think to myself hey that would make a good photo, but not shoot because it was not on the basic list of photos and had to pass to save money. I spent hours at receptions just sitting there waiting for the handful of big moments. Seeing opportunities for photos but not shooting, I could have shot my way out of business. It cost about .75 to $1 every time we shot a picture. Pro proofing was expensive. No I can shoot much more knowing that it now costs about 10 cents to shoot a picture and proof online. One mistake many make is they think there is no cost in making a digital photo. <br>

One of the downsides to digital photography that has begun in the last 2-3 years as the cameras and memory became much less costly is there are many new "professional photographers" popping up. There have always been some people of very marginal skill in this business but now it is much worse. Just read the posts on this forum, I have seen folks with websites advertising themselves as experienced photographers asking questions like "what lens should I use at a reception?". "What flash should I buy for my first indoor wedding?" Many of them have some talent but not the discipline to learn what they are doing before calling themselves a pro.<br>

You are doing it the right way. The Art Institutes have for a long time produced many good photographers. </p>

<p>Also using only one camera for multiple ISOs and both bw & color saturated or softer is a great advantage.</p>

<p> </p>

[edrodgers]

<p>What years were you in the wedding photography business? (ex. 1985-present)<br /> 1990 - 2008<br /> <br /> Do you use film photography or digital photography or both?<br /> Film until 2005, then all digital.<br /> <br /> What major differences did you see in shooting a wedding with a film camera and then digital?<br /> The most extreme freedom gained from digital is the number of shots I can take before loading another back. I used to shoot 120 medium format and had to ration what shots I took severely. "Let's see, 5 minutes to the first kiss, 4 shots left.. Do I load a new back, or be stingy and try to get the kiss and recessional in 4 shots?"<br /> Secondary, I would say the ability to "chimp" the screen to make sure my lighting is good has helped tremendously.<br /> <br /> Do you think digital photography helped the wedding industry or hurt it? If you think it hurt it how?<br /> I think it has helped the industry overall, but there are some down-sides. Some photographers now think that because there is no film to buy that shooting is free. They think they can make money charging $100 to do a wedding. Silly people. Digital equipment is very expensive. Calculate the cost per shot and realize how expensive it really is. Digital equipment gets updated much more frequently that analog. Now there are more people than ever losing money in the market, and forcing us to explain to clients why some photographers are so cheap. Digital has opened up photography to more people, and the learning curve is not as steep on the basics with the help of quality gear, histograms, and immediate feedback.<br /> One big help has been that people are getting used to cell phone camera quality. That ups the wow factor when they see quality work.</p>

<p>How about workflow, do you spend more time or less on your weddings now vs. with film?<br /> Quality, do you think the quality of your work is better now or then?<br /> I spend probably about the same amount of time now as then. I take more shots which are post processed by me, but I don't have to handle negatives or printing. There is no more searching for negative 3 on roll 18, clipping it out, masking it and dropping it off at the lab for a cropped print. I used to have to do proof books, now I do a web gallery. Now the customers can order prints directly, crop themselves, and all I have to do is cash the quarterly checks from the lab.<br /> I'd say the quality of my work has grown more quickly because of digital. It has renewed my interest in photography and brought back some of the obsession that was waning after shooting film for a couple of decades. Because I'm also a computer geek, I love digital work flow and the technical side of post processing.<br /> I started out printing in a lab, and now I can use those skills, my photography skills, and my geek powers in one field, and I love it.</p>

[think27]

<p><em>What years were you in the wedding photography business? (ex. 1985-present)</em><br>

1991 to last summer (just retired)<br>

<br /> <em>Do you use film photography or digital photography or both?</em><br>

<br /> I used film only.<br>

<br /> <em>"What major differences did you see in shooting a wedding with a film camera and then digital?"</em><br>

All I can tell you since I did not ever use digital (although my wedding was shot digitally and my assistant shot digital) is that I personally had no desire to do post production work. I enjoyed turning my film over to my excellent lab as they did amazing work on my prints. I preferred to spend my time doing reprint orders and assembling albums or doing commercial shots and family shoots in my spare time.... I also preferred to put my proof books together on my comfortable couch while watching Cspan rather than sitting in front of a computer. That's just me. I will also mention that I wish I had insisted my wedding be done with film. Reason is - I have 3 CD's sitting in a drawer.<br>

<br /> <em>Do you think digital photography helped the wedding industry or hurt it? If you think it hurt it how?</em><br>

I think you'll find most photographers will say it has helped the wedding industry. You will find an amazing number of newcomers to the field though as a result of digital which has hurt the industry. Many (not all) photographers no longer care about the after market and shoot a wedding and do a little post processing and turn the files over to the bride and groom. I suppose if you are the couple you could think that is a good thing because you end up spending less on reprints and albums. I'm not sure 30-40 years ago they will think it was a good thing. Will they be able to put their CD in a CD or DVD slot? For instance, now you have to have a custom computer if you have floppies. Will the quality change 20 years from now when viewing today's digital files? Turner Classic Movies have re worked old movies from film and the quality is awesome.. but you can't get quality from shows like "Welcome Back Kotter" which was shot digitally many years ago. Just some things I wonder about... I could be wrong but who knows. I do believe that digital is amazing with regard to low light photography. There are many well respected and very talented photographers that are shooting digital with great success and I personally respect the ones that are also producing albums for thier clients. I have...not a bunch of files or negatives of my mother's wedding... but a fine and memorable, good quality wedding album that I treasure as do my children. Young couples I suspect will wish they had an album later in life (the ones getting just the files).<br>

<br /> <em>How about workflow, do you spend more time or less on your weddings now vs. with film?</em><br>

I also can't answer that but by the time my assistant brought me the prints from his files - I could have finished my proof albums in the time I waited. It took me 3-4 hours to edit and finish my proof albums for the couples. I put my time towards other income producing work.<br>

<br /> <em>Quality, do you think the quality of your work is better now or then?</em><br>

I think that depends on the wedding photographer. I did have an interesting situation where the sun was shining through the window on a brides dress and my assistant and I were using the same settings. Mine had detail in the whites and his were blown. Probably there are some really talented shooters that would have known how to handle that contrast but many don't.<br>

<em>If you think of anything else you'd like to ad just let me know.</em><br>

No question that digital is here to stay. I think film shooting will cease to exists years from now except, perhaps for fine art black and white. The demand for digital is strong and those shooting film will close their doors if they don't switch. I'm just luck enough to be one year away from my husband's retirement and decided I'd rather quit than switch ;-)<br>

 

[picturesque]

<p>1. About 1983-present.</p>

<p>2. Digital for weddings.</p>

<p>3. Hard to answer since the film camera I used was medium format, not 35mm, so you have a format difference on top of film vs. digital.</p>

<p>For film consideration only, you can shoot more without penalty, experiment more, take more chances with digital. See what you got on the spot. Use riskier and harder to control lighting because you can see what you got. Have more control over desired results because you can switch ISO so freely. High ISO digital quality is nicer. However, more computer work with digital.</p>

<p>On the plus side for film is a pretty big plus--film quality is just different and nicer (my opinion). However, you just can't get good processing/printing anymore (not scans, but prints directly from negatives). Not having to chimp (at all) is a great tool to help you concentrate on what is going on. It's getting better, but film cameras responded faster--my Mamiya C330 had zero lag time, and combined with zone focus, I could photograph faster than any digital today. No computer time afterward. However, retouching is not easy without scanning, and then you lose the direct print quality mentioned above.</p>

<p>4. Both. Digital helps advance the industry faster artistically, but client expectations tend to run amuck because of it. Clients expect instant results, more and perfect pictures, instant and cheap retouching, complete control over what they view as 'their' images, and they want it for less money--an overall devaluation of wedding photography in general. Also causing an influx of people without much experience and technical skill to try to become wedding photographers (many times without the usual assisting period before jumping in)--more part time wedding photographers, some doing it for the 'fun', in addition to what they view as close to pocket money. Also a new kind of wedding photographer, who does not have that much technical skill in the shooting, but knows how to turn what they shoot into salable images in post manipulation. I don't resent them, but it has changed the wedding photography landscape toward the (mostly) negative side. As has always been, some of the latter have genuine talent and drive and will go on to become the experienced and visionary wedding photographers of tomorrow.</p>

<p>5. Negative handling was swapped for computer time, but one spends more computer time than one ever did handling negatives.</p>

<p>6. Better, of course, but that may or may not have to do with digital.</p>

[elizabeth_russell1]

<p>Thanks for all the help guys, I'm still writing so if anyone else has something to ad that would be great. I'm going to post my paper on here after I'm done, you'll find a lot of qoutes from you guys. :)</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"how many finished photo's did you use to offer with film for a wedding vs. now with digital?"</strong></em><br>

Fractionally more with digital maybe 10 - 15%. - I think mainly because: <br>

. I now work with a second, more often.<br>

. I am not thinking “film” - I do not mean cost – I mean needing to think, ”I have 15 x 645 loaded and 24 x 135 loaded; the second 135 has 12 taken – I must have a clear 8 frames when they get to the alter, because I cannot change rolls before then, without difficulty.” <br>

. there is more scope to shoot more, e.g. the manipulating the ISO as mentioned.<br>

WW</p>

[picturesque]

<p>On the last question, I used to shoot about 300-400 medium format images. Now I shoot between 500-1000 digital, depending upon the situation. I don't put a limit on what I give to the couple--whatever 'came out well', but I do edit similar shots or a sequence of action, etc. Otherwise, I don't have that many throw away shots.</p>

[elizabeth_russell1]

<p>Hey guys I just finished my paper and turned it in if you want to read it. Again thank you so much for all the responses.<br>

here's the link:<br>

http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/vBUuf</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thank you. I read your paper and views with much interest.</p>

<p>WW</p>