aopstudio

<p>I didn't read all the posts made here but I tried to glance through most of them. Here is my take on promoting film usage. Sponsor (pay) the big names in photography that are now working with digital that used to work in film. I remember when digital was making it's inroads, top name photographers were sponsored by Canon and Nikon to promote their digital cameras and why they were so much better than film. We were all too willing to jump on board thinking we would be the next Bambi Cantrell or Moose Peterson or.... you fill in the name( forgive me if I misspelled any names) If Kodak or any other film company could influence (pay them enough money) to say how much better their images are now that they have returned to (whatever rebranding the company would like to call the "new" film). Even if it is the same as the film always was we the public like "new and improved" things and it also gives us a reason to believe it is better. Heck look what the digital marketing has done. Cameras that came out 5 years ago that were the best of the best are now obsolete? Why, well because the marketing people said they are. Can I really see a difference in a print from a camera 5 years and one I bought today? Probably not but there must be because all those websites with the test charts show how much difference there is! So if film can get enough professional websites to show how much better it is than digital they will be right back in business. They just have to hire the right people to tell us that because if these photographers say it, then it must be, even if I can't see it. As George Castanza said on Seinfeld "it's only a lie if you don't believe it" So is the new film that's actually the same as the old film better.....absolutely!! Oh, and please try to pay attention only to the content...not punctuation and typos ;>)</p>

<p> Wow, I'm sorry but I think you guys are really tough. It seems the OP is photographing weddings for friends who know her and like the photos she has produced. My opinion is she is already over one of the biggest hurdles, establishing a personal relationship with the couple. I remember being talked into my first wedding although I tried for all the world to get out of it. I photographed it with a Mamiya RB having had only limited studio experience at the time and it turned out fine. I also contest the idea that you have to control the people at a wedding. I have always turned to the bride and the groom or even the best man to do that. Simply explaining if they wish to keep visiting and such that that is fine but we'll have to miss some of the photo ops.<br>

I have attended weddings where the photographer was very aggressive. I suppose they did get the necessary photos but talk about killing the mood!<br>

Oh well, I no longer photograph weddings. Got out of it when the digital crowd took over. Has nothing to do with digital but the way things have changed over the years, weddings started to lack emotion for me. I would never dream of asking the wedding party to run and jump and things like that. I have noticed how many of the weddings seem to be all about the fanfare and not nearly so much about the emotion. I mean hey, these youngsters are committing themselves exclusively to each other for the rest of their lives. I know as professional photographers we tend to think the photographs are the most important thing about the wedding...but are they really. To those of you who are married, when was the last time you looked at your wedding album? I used to recommend a wall portrait of the couple displayed in their home where they had to pass it everyday. That way they can remember the day they got married when all of life's little gremlins are working on them. If they can remain in love as much as they were on that day all else will work out.<br>

But I'm much too old to worry with this anymore. Just wanted to say, a lot of the advice is valid but there is no reason to scare the girl to death. I mean, how many close friends actually sue a friend they ask to do their wedding. In today's world I quess it could happen.<br>

I do believe one of the biggest mistakes I see in wedding photos today is not slowing down the shutter speed when posing at the alter thus making the background way too dark. Also perhaps putting the subjects too close to light colored walls and creating shadows even if using a bracket. Oh and also there are a bunch of instructional DVD's out there that are very helpful. Keep your technical skills sharp, but tune into your friends' emotions and you will be fine.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tim,<br>

I usually do not weigh in on these debates but I do find this interesting. Even as I read your comments I could almost guess your age. I too will be hitting 60 June of this year. Now perhaps is my lack of ability in selling my expertise as a photographer but things from a client standpoint seems to have changed dramatically in the last 5 years or so. I used to work with Mamiya RZ's. Working outdoors I would set up my composition, lighting and all, create a Polaroid for review by the client and then go on with several different poses from there. (The majority of my portraiture is high school seniors and families) I was pretty happy with the results and most of the clients were delighted. Along came the digital revolution which I never thought would be accepted by the professional photography community. I kind of ignored the medium which to me was a bit like working with 35mm film at the time. I kept working my way, I also insist on pre-bookings with all clients so I know what they have in mind. I watched my sales numbers decline in spite of what I thought was a more creative and soul capturing portrait. So I did a little checking with the students I was working with and found this out. I had become the one who did really nice work but was not cutting edge and I quote "I took like forever". I used to love it when I would here parents say "you did such a nice job of capturing my (son daughter, family) which is what I thought a Portrait is supposed to do, not make them look like something they saw on TV. I have since gone completely digital. Yes I can still do the same work I did with the Mamiya but I now have the option of going crazy with program and AF and all of that. Is that a good thing? Well the artist in me is not very happy but the accountant in me is much more pleased. Again, maybe I just bought into it but it seems things have to be done much faster to keep the clients happy. I look at prints from years ago and they are very different from what I am doing now but sales are slowly coming back from the brink. I realize I have rambled here but I guess where I am going is, I use fill flash and back lighting, kind of a quick and dirty setup and most everybody, but maybe me, seems very happy with it. Would I be criticized by another photographer? Maybe but they don't pay my bills. I have been doing this as my only source of income for the last 22 years for whatever that may be worth from a credability standpoint.</p>

<p>I can't help but make a couple of points here although I like to stay out of these things. First good photography is entirely in the eye of the beholder. If someone does a wedding or portraits and the clients think he or she did a great job that is all that matters. You may look at blown out highlights, poor posing, ond on and on but who cares what you or I think? We didn't hire them and we didn't pay them. I have looked at photos from established and respected photographers that I thought were garbage but the clients were extremely happy so I repeat what does it matter what I think either about the quality or how much they paid.<br>

Now all that being said I do get irritated with the uneven playing field. I do this full time for a living. I have a full set of insurances, collect and pay sales tax, and file income tax. So along with trying to create photographs that sell, I have to run the business and keep an iron clad set of books. Therefore after paying income tax along with both halfs of social security tax i.e. self employment tax I believe those of us doing this legitimately are only able to use about 50 cents of every dollar of profit we make to pay the bills. Meanwhile those doing it "on the side" keep every dollar and do not worry with sales tax or paper work. This does indeed make it unfair to the professional. I believe clients need to realize this is one reason there is such a vast difference in pricing from a professional. If everybody were made to keep records and pay taxes I believe most of the competition would be long gone! </p>

<p>Isn't it kind of a shame how effective marketing is? Sometimes I think the marketing gurus realize how little self confidence many of us have today! "If you have the latest________,fill in the blank, you will have the respect of all." I have analyzed my own buying habits and have found this to be a problem of my own, and a very expensive problem it is! When I compare actual prints from what I gave up 5d, 1dsmkII, and others to go to medium format digital do I see a difference? Yes as a photographer scrutinizing the image as a photographer I do to a very small degree. Do my clients looking at a portrait of their child see a difference? No and certainly not a difference they are willing to pay that much more for, to justify my expense for the medium format. My advice, if you are happy with the print quality of the images you create with your current camera, stay there. If you go off chasing what the "marketeers" convice you is the best, you will end up with a very empty bank account and nothing but a camera that, nobody but another photographer, pays any attention to anyway. Ummm yes this is the sad voice of experience speaking. Now, if most of your photography is of other photographers, then the latest and greatest may make sense! </p>

<p>I prefer scanned 120 over my 1dsmkll. A lot more work but, and this is only an opinion, I prefer the results printed mostly up to 16x20. I agree with the John Henry analogy but it is not digital chasing film it is digital chasing professional photography! I think if we can revive film we have an outside chance of keeping photography as a potential full time profession. Many of us have already become more graphic artist than photographer. I don't think digital will kill film but I do think it may well kill the profession. Again, just my opinion and probably not a particularly popular one.</p>

Although I know better, I just can't resist. I have been making my living from photography for 20 years. I resisted digital for as long as I could not because of the "look" but more because of what I perceived as the implications. I felt as long as "professional" photographers stayed with their medium to large format cameras and film, the public would always perceive them as being able to do something the general public could not. Thus the professional could charge an appropriate amount for it. Now with digital and the ability to create as many images as you would like, with the only additional cost being time, more and more people are hanging out their professional shingle. And again, in my opinion, given a decent digital camera, most with a little practice and a lot of photos can fill the needs of many of the public. At one time I was offering traditional B&W portraits processed in the darkroom with custom printing along with traditional marshall oil hand tinting. This can be fairly well duplicated in photoshop at a fraction of the price. At least to my clients, this was an easy decision to make, and now I do it all digitally. I find it interesting that one thing so many of us are willing to "give" away is our time when in reality it is our most precious commodity because we have a limited supply. How limited none of us know but it is limited for sure and thus valuable. Now film or digital, it is actually a more even playing field than we think if we throw the value of our time into the mix. There it is, my rant, I feel better and I hope I have managed to through some insight into the sublect.

Hello Jared,

Let me add my two cents. I never know what some consider a lot of weddings but I quess I photographed over a hundred of them over the years. I finally quit doing them entirely for the very reason you stated. I would get all of these requests, usually after some of the quests would see the posing, for all kinds of extended groups that were not discussed in pre wedding meetings. I have close to zero amount of assertiveness so would try to accomodate everybody. As a result we took way too much time at the church making quests wait too long (in their minds) for the reception to start. Then I would hear the comments " well the photographer wanted to take all these pictures" What???? So like some of the previous posters said, if you don't like that, get out of the wedding business. I agree, and I did, but I do understand where you are coming from.

I have been using the 55-110. Let me give you a couple of suggestions if I am understanding your post correctly. Remember the front ring is not really a push pull zoom like some of the Canons. Rather it is the clutch for manual or AF. If you have it set for manual focus this ring becomes the focus ring, if it is set for AF then you cannot manually turn this ring. The zoom ring is actually the norrower ring on the lens closer to the camera. Also if you are trying to manually focus I think it is best if you have the switch on the front of the camera set to MF. Hope this helps.

Hello, I had the same problem a while back. I think if you look up bronica on the internet ( I believe the are owned by Tamron now) you can, through their site request info on the darkslide. If I recall they sell them for $27.00 but I am not sure. Sorry for not being more definite but it was a while ago. I think the Bronica site will help you though. Good luck.

Roland

Just a thought, not sure if it will work with digital. How about using modeling lights only or actually most any standard light bulb will give warm cast to daylight film, making it look like candle light. Of course you would still have the candles burning. If you need more concentration then use grids to give light more direction. Or so I am constantly being told, just take the photo and build it in photoshop??

Roland

Hi Darren,

I use the same setup you do. I believe the setting you are looking for is on the flash. It is on the upper right hand corner where the word "sync" appears. There are four settings on that slide one for standard flash, the next for rear curtin sync, then the next is for fill flash it has two little lightning things followed by a >. This is for daylight fill. I use it all the time and it seems to work very well. The next setting to the right is sb which I think is just to assist autofocus without flash. Hope this helps

Roland

I just went through the same thing with the same lens, even went so far as to call Mamiya for advise. I ended up using a pair of ordinary rubber gloves like you use for dishwashing and was able to free the cap easily. Hope this helps.

Smitty

I have recently acquired a Polaroid remote transmitter/receiver which

was advertized as being for a Mamiya RZ camera. I have not been able

to figure out how to connect it to my RZ. I contacted polaroid about

it. They said it was for a polaroid spectra camera and they could not

help me. I called Mamiya they said it was not a Mamiya product so

they could not help me either. I have checked into the Mamiya remote

but it is very expensive. My question is: can this remote be used

with an RZ and if so how. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Roland