ernie_tangalakis

I'm sorry but you can't just say, "Once you have made the layout for digital" as if that doesn't count. It's the layout that most treat as if it doesn't exist. If you spend $3500-$7000 for a camera plus all the other stuff to shoot digital, that's a h*** of alot of film. Years worth. And that is spend over time. Not credit card debt. Listen, I own thousands of dollars worth of digital stuff and use it all but please don't tell me how you save money with it. By the way, that digital camera you have will be obsolete in two years. BANG another $4000!

A wasted shot is wasted money with film. Not! That bothers you when shooting film but dishing out anywhere from $1500 for a desent digital to over $7000 for the pro model is ok. I don't want to start another film vs digital thread but I am getting tired of hearing this from digital shooters. How expensive film shooting is. I spent no where near the money on cameras and film as I have with digital equipment. Thousands more. Digital is just not cheaper. Sorry but sense I started the thread I took the liberty to take a side street. The digital is cheaper just doesn't wash.

Let face it, There is coming a day when no one who is new to photography will start with film. There is coming a day when film may not be around. I know that is hard to see but it will happen. But by then digital technology will be so advanced that it will far out do what film could. And that's the way it should be. For now however that's not the case so I feel that learning about how film works and having to think thru a shot or should I say being forced to think it thru, {no LCD screen}, just makes for a better shooter. I believe that Pro digital cameras will advance to the point of no dials, just point shoot and the equipment does the rest. Look at the camera your using now. 30 years ago they would have never thought of a camera like we have today. Then maybe we won't need to "think in thru", but now we do.

Are the new photographers coming out today, never to use film, missing

something by not first learning how film works and how to set up the

shot? I shoot both but know that a knowledge of film helps with

shooting digital. What I have seen with new photographers that start

out with digital is that they just don't spend the time to learn the

way film works and exposures etc. When I read post that talk about

which film to use and how to set up the shot right for indoor or

outdoor, I can't help but think that if you never have used film this

thinking will be foreign to you. Why, because with digital most don't

take the time to think these things through. You just take a couple of

shots until you get it right. I know people who shoot some weddings

that put there camera on P and start shooting. Just like to hear how

some of you think about this. Is a whole new generation of

photographers going to miss out on the graft of shooting? I know some

digital only shooters do take there time to really learn photography.

This is not a blanket statement, but so many do not because we can

just point and shoot. If there was no digital most all these forums

would not be around. Digital has brought people out of the wood work.

People who would not have ever bothered with photography if they had

to put the time in to really learn photography. This is just my

observation. What's yours?

Marc, should you be drinking that early. When I would click on your pictures most where identified as a digital camera. I believe the Markll. Great pictures though.

Marc, For someone who doesn't like digital you show a lot of digital stuff on this site. I would like to see more of your film photos. Or maybe some side by side shots just to compare this difference. I too see a difference with film and like it better. The truth is most customers don't see the difference and as long as that's the case I will shoot digital. Every wedding I've done they have loved the digital prints. Their paying so I will shoot digital. I would rather shoot film.

Has anyone used a polaroid back with there EOS 3 or 1N? Where can you

get one and who makes them? Are they any good?

Does the PB-E2 work on the 1N the same as on the EOS 3 and 1V?

Is anyone here still shooting weddings with a 1D 4mp. I just bought

one and shoot weddings now with a 20D, 10D with I'm going to sell, an

EOS 3 and 1N. Just curious to see if everyone has upgraded or if you

feel the 1D can still do the job.

I thinking about selling my 20D and getting a 1D. Not keeping the 20D. I have all the lenses I need for weddings.

The mark2 would be nice but I can only go the 1D 4mp's.

I have a 20D and have shot weddings with it. But the camera and the

grip together are very sloppy or loose fitting. Not the problems with

the D60 or 10D. When I put the 70-200 IS on it well it's just not a

good feel. I know the 8.2 mp's makes a difference but is it a dig

enought difference? The 1D is a camera I have wanted to get for many

reasons but I don't want to make a change if it's not a good one. I

also have a 10D and EOS 3 and 1N. I don't print bigger then 11x14 and

if I do I use film. Any comments?

The flexibility that digital gives is hard to resist. The wedding I did this weekend was all over the place in the lighting department. Sense I like to shoot without flash if possible digital is the only way to do that. I would have had to have 3 cameras all with different speed film in order to do want I had to do. As it was I used 2 digitals with different lens and even had to make some lens switches. But and a big but, I still like the looks of a good film photo. Much better than most digital ones. Digital is almost to clear, to flat for me, but I still use digital for reasons of convenience.

Your right, I did. Just forgot. Sorry

If you are scanning your wedding negs with one are you using? I shoot

both digital and film. I don't plan on scanning all my film shots,

just the ones I like. I will need to be able to print up to 11x14. Any

bigger to the lab I go. Under $1000 please.

How in the world is that 100-400 fast enough in low light no flash situations?

I want a 70-200 2.8 IS lens but can't find one used. Which prime lens

would you get instead. I have now a 17-35, 28-75, 70-200 F4L, 28mm,

50mm. I will use it for weddings.

What I got out of the article was that she takes your wedding photography very seriously. Wanting to be the best. I can admire that. This businesses takes work and we should all want to be the best photographers we can. The client deserves that.

Mark, this is why I struggle with which one to shoot with. I like film better but digital is so convenient. Even though I have hours of work after the event with digital I never have to leave my house. With film the closest lab is a hour away. Still I cut out the digital post processing end with a lab. I guess it a case by case situation.

Bruce, to me it's not just about convenience. I own a 10D and 20D and have shot weddings using both. It's just that "to me" film looks better. So, I just wanted to know which scanner works best with these types of films. I wouldn't think of scanning all the negs. But if there's a shot that I would like to crop to my taste then I could do it.

I am using 35mm. I'm not so sure about saving money having a lab put the shots on a CD. In my area it's $7 per roll. That's $70 for 10rolls on one CD. It doesn't take much to equal a scanner at that rate.

I need to hear from wedding pros on which in home scanner best works

with the Fuji and Kodak line of portra films. 160, 400, 800 etc.

How many split between using film at part of the wedding and digital

during the other part. Some seem to shoot the wedding in film and the

reception in digital. How about you?

I too am surprised at all the film shooters here. If you read this forum and others you would think that film is out. I love the look of film. Some of the best pictures ever taken where with older cameras and with film. Real Pros, not like we see today where the whole picture is done in PS not on site. Oh no, you got me started. Anyway, film still rules!

Maybe I need to sell my two digitals.

I just bought another film camera. A 1N to go with my EOS 3. I think I'm going to shoot more weddings with film from now on. I have two digital cameras that I've been using but spend WAY to much time at the computer after. So, it will be off to the lab for me. Let them get do the work and put the shots on a high res CD for me. Plus I'll still have the negatives. Oh yah!