dzeanah

<i>Hi, sorry to hi-jack the post, but does anyone have any links to a review/test of the nikon v sigma v tokina?</i><p>

Try <a href=http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/review.html>here</a>. It's been a year or so, but I believe that's the one you're looking for.

Ok. Raise your hand if you're surprised you get more depth of field at 8mm (on a P&S) than you do at 50mm (35mm) or 80mm (6x6).

Anyone? No?

Cool then. Just so we're clear...

If you can get your film developed, proofed, <i>and</i> get a usable scan of each image for anywhere close to $0.30 per frame, then you're in great shape - figure you buy pro packs at B&H for $4 per roll and you're still at just $0.41 per frame.<p>

Not bad at all. <i>If</i> you can make that kind of a hybrid approach work, at that price level, and with a quality your clients accept, then more power to you. <p>

Unless things have changed more than I think over the last few years though, your situation is far from the norm.

<i>2. Spend a few hundred dollars on a quality second film camera. Spend free time getting more business, shooting more, or having some time off. Have less technical hassles when shooting, no post comptuer time, get consistantly great product that pleases client.</i><p>

OK, not to get <i>too</i> involved in the whole "film is obviously the cheaper way to go" debate, but what would it be worth to get entirely away from carding negatives? What about being able to drag all your shots from your most recent wedding into your album design software, design your album, and have your album manufacturer print and assemble the entire thing for you?<p>

I'm just getting into the whole wedding photo scene after a few years away from it, but if you've got the skills to handle the digital workflow the time savings for a wedding photographer make digital seem like a no-brainer. Especially when you look at the option of online proofing if your clients are cool with it (versus paying $1/frame for paper proofing from my old lab -- maybe $0.75 for 35mm), or proof prints at $0.08 - $0.15 each from digital files.<p>

The big "savings" to me comes in post-wedding work. It's hard to imagine more time involved with digital than with film -- remember the old 30-40 hours per wedding estimates? Sure you can go nuts with Photoshop, just like you could have everything printed by hand before -- doesn't mean you need to, or should.<p>

Don't get me wrong -- I <i>love</i> shooting weddings with a pair of Leica M6's. I just don't believe it's as practical a choice for most photographers as a newer DSLR. If it was an F5 versus a S5Pro? What's the compelling argument for 35mm again?<p>

(Note that if I was charging $10,000 - $15,000 per wedding I'd have no problem with a film-based workflow. Of course, I'd also have <i>employees</i> to help out...)

I'm not going to recommend you don't buy a digital body, or that you throw away all of your lenses and switch systems.

I will suggest that you take a look at the Fuji S5 Pro. It's a D200 with a Fuji sensor and different firmware. It looks to be *the* "Nikon" camera to shoot weddings and portraits with: Nikon flash metering, same basic features as the D200, better colors, better high ISO performance, better latitude, superb auto white balance (lots shoot jpegs in camera rather than RAW -- seems crazy to me, but...), probably lower resolution (6 megapixel - do some searches on it before you rule it out), huge RAW files, slower shooting speed, same battery witha different chip so you need to buy Fuji branded ones (even with the MB200).

Seriously, give it a look. I don't know that you'll find much on this site though.

If you're being honest, don't charge. Just say "enjoy" and be done with it.

If you want to make money doing this, discuss money with your "client" ahead of time next time.

Somewhere around a decade ago I was looking at which film-based camera system to buy into, and the answer was to play with both of them at a well-equipped rental shop with the lenses I thought I'd use. At the time an F5 with an 85/1.4 was fast and dead-on, while the Canon EOS-1n was significantly slower to focus with (admittedly faster) 85/1.2. I bought a Nikon outfit.

Eventually I gained enough confidence that I was using 2 Leica M cameras and 4 lenses. Now that I'm getting back into wedding photography, I went for the Nikon platform again -- primarily because the interface is much more intuitive than the Canon to *my* hands.

Of course, I'm using Fuji modified bodies...

With regard to your question, I'd suggest that you can find superb photographers who use Canons to photograph weddings, and you can also find superb photographers who use Nikons (though there are less of these than a year ago, as they all seem to be moving to the Fuji S5). Both platforms are good enough in this role, so the question becomes "which do you prefer?"

The consensus seems to be that the 5D has better resolution, better high-iso performance, and a higher price. The S5 apparently has more pleasing (film-like) noise in its higher-iso shots, better color, better dynamic range, better flash, and comes with what's essentially a 6 megapixel sensor that resolves about like you'd expect an 8 megapixel camera to resolve. The S5 is also slow if you like to shoot a lot of RAW images in a hurry -- it's got a more reasonable buffer if you're shooting jpeg (and apparently the camera is quite good at producing usable jpeg images at weddings -- go figure).

There's no "right" answer here. I'd say play with a couple of cameras and see what works best in *your* hands. Shoot some images (or download some full-sized images others have shot) and see what you think of the performance of the sensor. Then decide.

Film is also an option, but I don't know that I'd go that route. To be honest, if I never have to card another negative it'll be too soon. Having to design an album with 180 images and figure out how to card all the negs first (and realizing why photographers used to say a wedding involved 30-40 hours of work) is probably an experience you'd prefer to avoid.

I think he was referring to Leica M's abilities with flash. <a href=http://www.derekzeanah.com/images/kzwed25.jpg>This image</a> was shot with an M6 at 1/50s using a Vivitar 285 set to Auto on the flash shoe mount. No bracket, no diffuser -- this is about as "bad" as it'll get.<p>

Personally I like the image despite the lighting, but a photographer friend reviewing my web site suggests I lose it entirely because "direct flash doesn't imply professionalism."<p>

With regard to Leicas at weddings, they work well. I personally preferred a 15mm (Voigtlander lens), 35mm, and 50mm with a 90mm in my bag that I <i>very</i> rarely used. I especially like how light the equipment can be while you're running around -- it's very refreshing to have a small kit for an event as long as a wedding.<p>

The big caveat is you can't moderate contrast on bright days with fill flash, so hope for overcast days for your early weddings.<p>

As I try to restart my wedding photography business, I'm leaning much more strongly toward DSLRs. Workflow issues and the cost of film are pretty large issues to me. Well, that, plus I can't afford an M8 outfit + backup yet...

Agreed - download the demo version, go to http://www.whibalhost.com/_Tutorials/Photoshop_LR/01/index.html and watch a couple of hours of video tutorials, and try a batch of your images.

See what you think.

OK, I'm confused, but then I haven't been paying attention for over a year.

Isn't the concept here that dye-based inks like used in most OEM inksets produce better blacks, at the cost of reduced print life. Pigment-based inks (like the MIS inks) are supposed to offer a more archival print (as is appropriate for artwork), but are still catching up on the "best looking print" front.

Isn't this what most folks expect? Or is my understanding just off?

I think a big part of it depends on your clients, and the kinds of weddings you're shooting. I tend to get there before the caterer (and catch everyone arriving), and stay until it's over or (more commonly) everyone's settled down to drink and hang out until the early morning hours, and I'm just exhausted.

1,000 frames over a 10 hour period isn't really all that much.

So, if albums aren't selling, and few folks are buying prints, does this mean that (at least in your markets) brides nowadays are looking for someone to provide a DVD of jpegs that they can take possession of? I guess the fees for the shoot are a bit higher than they used to be then.

Marc: I'd absolutely love another Leica M. From what I can tell Leica did a good job with the M8, but the price is horrifying. Maybe after another dozen weddings or so...

> You gotta be pulling my leg? $1500 would equal roughly 60+

> rolls of 120 and 35mm bought/shot/developed/proofed from my lab.

> probably more.

I shot a touch less than 1,000 frames, film bought from B&H, processed and proofed at Miller's. Scanned the 35mm on a Sony scanner I purchased for the purpose (now resold), and had the 6x7 scanned locally for something like $1/frame. I don't remember the specifics of the cost, but I believe it was around what I stated.

I haven't done any wedding photography in the last few years, and

haven't pursued it seriously for over five.  I'm finding

myself drawn to wedding work again, and a quick look around shows that

things have changed almost everywhere I look:<br>

<ul>

<li>Digital is mainstream.</li>

<li>There are tools out there like Lightroom and Bridge that

seem to really help with the post wedding workflow</li>

<li>Album manufacture seems easier (my sample pack from

Queensberry makes it clear that the preferred way to have an album made

is to have them print your images and install them in your album

directly.</li>

<li>Album options have become quite a bit more complex.

 Do people still want matted leather albums any more?</li>

</ul>

For the most part, this seems to be a good thing.  I shot my

last wedding with 2 Leica M's and a Mamiya 7 for more formal stuff, and

paid somewhere around $1,200 - $1,500 for film development for

proofing.  Digital gets rid of that, and removes some of the

need for multiple cameras (at least, there's no need for dedicated

color and B&W bodies).<br>

<br>

The bigger issue from my perspective is workflow improvements -- I've

only been playing with Lightroom for a few hours, but I can honestly

believe organizing/proofing/album design can now be done in a single

day.  Album order looks simple as can be (hooray for the

elimination of negative carding and inserting proofs/prints into

albums!), though I don't know how much retouching will be required on

images before shipping them off to the album maker (I'd assume 6-10

preset actions in Photoshop would take care of the majority of issues,

but I really don't know for sure).<br>

<br>

So, things look easier technically.  What else has changed?

 I'm assuming photojournalistic coverage is more accepted (is

PJ still the preferred term?), and I'm guessing most pros shoot a mix

between that and what used to be called 'traditional' photography.

 Have prices changed much, as we seem to have moved away from

the '40 hours after the event' model?  Are there better ways

to market oneself than talking to other photographers, wedding

shows, and magazine ads?<br>

<br>

What's become more common that I haven't thought of?  Please

tell me there's a drive toward well done B&W imagery (pretty

please?)

I used to shoot with an F5, 16, 35, 50, 85, 180 combo. I felt the most used lenses were the 85/1.4 (a *wonderful* lens), the 35 (though mine kept breaking -- oil on the blades and multiple repairs), and the 50/1.4.

The 180 saw use when I was shooting with a second photographer, but mostly it just sat in my bag. A great lens, but a little long for wedding work IMHO.

Now that I'm playing with digital bodies zooms seem more usable if that makes more sense. I'm looking forward to paring the kit down to a couple of lenses...

Lex:

The arguments against film (at least from me) boil down to this: cost, and time.

Shooting 6x6 and 35mm, my cost per frame for film, developing, and proofing was something like $1 per frame. Shooting 35mm only it's probably $0.70 per frame. Figure 10-12 hours on site and 1,000-1,200 frames, and that's a big chunk of change that disappears in consumables.

Ouch.

Then, there's the issue of designing albums with paper versus finding a way to scan the images for album planning software. Then the time spent carding negatives to be sent to the lab. The best I came up with was to scan the 35mm on a Sony bulk film scanner, scan the MF on an Epson flatbed, and design from there. But carding's still a royal PITA.

I'd rather do it digitally. I haven't yet, but the S2 Pro looks more than up to the task. :)

Me? Nah -- the shots you're seeing on that site are film. I'm in the process of converting to digital, and am finally becoming comfortable with my post-processing ability (it's taken 6 months, and I'm a geek).

Everything on my site was scanned from film on either a 2450 flatbed or a Sony bulk film scanner.

So far digital is showing a lot of promise -- especially with color, and the ability to crop things exactly for wedding albums (versus H crop cards at Miller's). Still a lot to learn, but I don't have any regrets.

Get the newer version of that book -- the one with CS in the title.

Actually, I might have ended up with two...

Thorpe:

It appears that 2 serial number ranges are prone to early CCD failure. Fuji is apparently now repairing them without charge (which wasn't the policy a few months ago).

There are a few people on the dpreview forums that occasionally post full-res images in their pbase portfolios (I'm thinking of someone who posted images taken from an S3 and a 1DSII for comparison). It might be worth downloading an image from a camera you're interested in and sending it to mpix.com for a big print and see what you think.

How else will you know?

There's no right answer here.

I once sold a 40x60" print from a 35mm neg, and it came out surprisingly well. The buyer was very pleased with it, and I was shocked at how good it looked.

Now, ask how big one can print reliably from a 35mm Delta 100 neg (the film I used) and you'll probably hear "11x14" max" as the common response.

So, what are your standards? What's your subject matter? Are you one of those who finds grain in film prints objectionable, or is it just part of the image?

To answer this question, solicit some sample files from 6 megapixel cameras, and print them yourself at mpix.com or ophoto.com or Sam's Club, and see what you think.