jason hinds - columbus, oh

So I've been longing for a FF digital body to use on wedding/portrait shoots.

I like the fact that the 5D has come down in price considerably since its

release, but I've been shopping around on the 'bay, and I'm noticing that some

nice 1Ds bodies are going for about the same amount as a new 5D (~2500 USD).

This got me thinking - which would be better to shoot with? With the 1Ds, you

get a professional-level camera that can survive an explosion, but the 5D is

newer (newer sensor, better noise reduction, etc).

 

Which would you choose and why? Does anyone here still use an original 1Ds, or

have you since upgraded to the MkII or 1DMkIII in order to keep up with the

times?

So, like many other people around here, I started shooting digital a few years

ago. It seems like I'm constantly "upgrading" to new equipment, and I've had

to teach myself to get used to the smaller FOV (and less-pleasing bokeh) on the

crop-sensor bodies. Well, I've been picking up some old film bodies here and

there to play around with, and I happened upon a mint 1N with booster for next

to nothing. This thing is a tank! It makes me yearn for the 1Ds, but my bank

account keeps telling me no :)

 

I've shot a few rolls with this thing already, and the results were fabulous.

It has me seriously thinking about adding film back into my arsenal for paying

jobs. So my question is, for all you folks that have been shooting digital,

have you thought about going back to film (even partially), or have you already

done this?

 

Hopefully I don't get hooked on this stuff just as film becomes totally

obsolete!

Probably 95% of my business comes from referrals - The only advertising I do is on the side of my car. Referrals are great, because they've seen your work, heard great things about you from the person that is referring you, and they know exactly what they're dealing with. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I used a flash template from Winklet Web Designs (www.winklet.com), and I've been very happy with it. Very professional, and easy to maintain. Plus it was less than $100, which is a plus.

I'm not in the UK, but I have noticed that clients seem to be waiting longer for some reason before they look for a photographer. It used to be that I got calls for weddings that were at least a year away - now it seems like 3-4 months out is the norm. I'm not sure what has caused the shift, but it's pretty apparent that a shift has occurred.

Okay, so I've always been quite intrigued by infrared photography, and I'd love

to incorporate it somehow into my wedding photography. Closeups of the bride,

shots of the bride/groom in front of a sea of green, etc. However, I'm trying

to decide how much I want to invest in this whole ordeal. Here's what I came

up with, from least to most expensive:

 

1) Shoot digital shots, then convert in Photoshop

2) Shoot digitally with a wratten? (or equivalent) filter

3) Shoot film (HIE) and scan negatives

4) Convert one of my old 300Ds to IR-only (lifepixel.com - $350)

 

I really like the idea of having one of my old 300Ds converted, but it's quite

a bit of money to spend on an idea that may not actually take off. HIE film is

pretty expensive ($30 per roll, plus processing), and since I no longer have a

darkroom or chemicals, I'd be sending it out to a lab, and there's a good

chance they could screw it up. The wratten filter is nice, but the exposures

are quite long, which is OK for landscapes, but probably wouldn't fly when

taking portraits. The photoshop conversions are free, but I'm not sure if they

truly replicate the IR effect (of course, 99% of people might not be able to

tell the difference, including me).

 

Do any of you use IR as a regular part of your wedding shooting? Do any of

your clients buy these shots, or has anyone expressed interest in having

certain shots done in infrared? What techniques do you use? Do you use any of

the methods listed above? Just trying to figure out if I'm the only one with

this crazy idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

 

Jason

I have the 24-70, which I've used with 2 300Ds and my 30D, and I absolutely love it. It's the one lens that stays on my 30D most of the time. I used to have the 70-200 F4, and it was a very sharp lens as well, although it was a little slow for my taste. I sold it to finance a 135L F2, and I'm much happier, but that's just my preference. You really can't go wrong with the 24-70L or any of the 70-200 L zooms. It's worth the premium price if you plan on getting serious about your photography.

If they pay via PayPal, all is well. If they're asking you to accept a wire transfer, cashier's check, or other form of payment - ESPECIALLY if they pay more than requested and ask you to use the extra to pay something else for them - then run away. You can always relist the item. You'll never get your money back if they send you a bogus check or wire transfer.

Interesting...So I'm assuming, based on the Google link in this thread, that the CR-PC1 is a Polaroid unit, and the reason for two images per sheet is one for each eye. Am I correct?

Things have been quite slow for me as well. I'm using the extra time to revamp my website, portfolio, etc. Hopefully things will pick up soon. One thing I have noticed is that brides are waiting longer before they look for a photographer. It used to be that I would get brides calling about weddings that were more than a year away. Now it seems like they're waiting until only 3-4 months away.

 

In any sense, it's probably just a temporary lull...keep your head up :)

So I was perusing the online giant known as Ebay today, and I came across an

item that grabbed my attention. It was a Canon F-R camera, with what appears

to be a motor drive attached, and the whole unit is connected in the back to a

Canon CR-PC1. The item number is 130086990007 in case anyone would like to see

the two (not very good) pics on the auction.

 

Has anyone ever heard of this setup? I'm assuming it was a specialized piece

of equipment by the looks of it. Can the camera be disconnected and used as a

regular film body? How cool would that be to walk around with the only F-R

body around?

 

Just curious - I tried Googling for both the F-R and the CR-PC1, but nothing

came up. I was hoping one of the FD experts in this forum could shed some

light on this.

 

Thanks!

 

[EDIT-Changed F-M in original post to F-R]

So I just got my new edition of American Photo in the mail, and they have a

great article titled "State of the Art", which highlights the top ten wedding

photographers in the world (according to them). Pretty good read if you

haven't seen it yet.

 

However, it was the first paragraph that really got me thinking. I

quote..."Wedding photographers used to get no respect, either from customers

or from pros. It's only recently that they've been widely recognized for

their multifaceted talent..."

 

It goes on to talk about how the wedding industry, specifically photography,

has changed as of late, and that photographers today are much more artists

than just "photographers". What do you think? Do you view yourself and/or

wedding photography as an art? Those of you that have been around for a

while, can you tell an obvious difference in the demands of clients? Have you

changed your style to meet these changing demands?

 

Just curious to see how other people felt about this topic. Personally, I

feel wedding photography allows the photographer to be very artistic, and

today's flavor is far removed from the old days of standard posed shots and

formal photo albums.

Mike...

 

It's funny you mentioned that about the Sterlingtek batteries...the same thing happened to me! I bought 4, and all are too big. They go in about 3/4 of the way, and then get really tight. The weird thing, though, is that they fit on the left battery slot of my 30D grip just fine, only on the right side do they stick (also stick in both slots on my 300D).

 

Anyway, to answer your question Heartily, having just one battery may get you through the day just fine, but you'd be much better off having a backup on standby in case the first one dies. Batteries can be known for quickly deteriorating and losing their ability to properly hold a charge.

 

Good luck!

...It looks like I may have a stuck shutter. I removed the bottom plate and disengaged the rewind button, and I still can't get the shutter to fire, even when I engage the multiple-exposure lever. It's quite the bummer, as the rest of the camera is in pristine condition.

OK, so I've been on a bit of a tear lately buying old FD stuff, and I just got

another A-1 in the mail today. It seems to be in good shape, but I can't get

the shutter to fire. I just put a fresh battery in it, and the exposure

readout is showing up when i press the trigger, but I can't trip the shutter,

and I can't advance the film lever.

 

I noticed that the rewind button at the bottom of the camera is stuck, like it

never popped back out after the last roll was rewound. Could this be why the

camera is not firing? Is there any way to release this button? I already

tried moving it back through the little slit in the film advance spool (the

thin one), but no luck.

 

Any ideas?

Here's another option, albeit a rather unusual one...

 

Take individual shots of each person (ie - portrait-style head shots). Then, create a blank canvas in photoshop and tile all the images and format to the size you'd like. Example - a 24X30" print would give you 30 headshots at 4X6 each (6 across, 5 down). Plenty of detail in the faces, plus it would make an interesting conversation piece.

 

If you're looking to capture them all as one whole group, I agree with the posters above - get high above them on a ladder, and stack them about 3 rows deep (maybe 4 depending on how high you can get).

 

Good luck!

If the majority of your scene is black, then your camera/flash is going to over-compensate to bring it all to 18% grey (considered an "average" scene by all cameras/meters). This is why your lab has to bring these back down 1-2 stops to get the balance right. Try reducing the flash output in these situations where you're shooting with a lot of black/dark areas in the scene.

 

Conversely, if you're shooting a scene that's predominantly white/light, you will need to go the opposite direction and add power to your flash, otherwise your whites will look gray and the shot will be underexposed.

Definitley get the 50 1.8 - a great lens for the price. You can make your own flash diffuser - check out http://www.abetterbouncecard.com He shows you how you can make your own diffuser for just a few bucks. If you're strapped for cash, you can check out some of the older Canon flash models (420, 550), which may be available much cheaper on the used market.

 

Good luck!

I have the 135 f2L, and I LOVE it...it's truly a remarkable lens. Some argue it's the best lens that Canon makes. I wouldn't disagree with them. Beautiful out-of-focus rendition, and the 2.0 aperture allows you to shoot in the dark - a whole stop more than the 70-200 f2.8L.

 

I've heard the 200 f2.8L is a nice lens as well, although I've never used it personally.

Mike...

 

CTO/CTS is used to balance your flash to tungsten lighting. You can stack these filters, so 1/2 plus 1/4 CTO would equal 3/4 CTO. This would be sufficient in most situations, and would still leave the background *slightly* warm (pleasing effect to most).

 

Use a plusgreen filter to balance your flash to flourescent lighting.

 

In either situation, whatever you're gelling your flash to match is what you would set the WB to on your camera.

 

You can get samples from Rosco/Lee - also, I sell a "kit" that includes 1 4X6 sheet each of 1/2 CTO, 1/4 CTO, 1/2 CTS, and 1/2 Plusgreen for $8.95. Everything you need for most situations. Contact me offline if you're interested.

Steve...

 

That's only true if the lighting is the same throughout. When you mix colors (flash and tungsten, flash and flourescent, etc), you get a mix of color casts which can be impossible to correct, depending on their strength and where they're focused.

This site might be useful: http://www.garryscamera.com - $55 plus $8 S&H for the 650.

 

FWIW, I just picked up a mint 650 on the 'bay for $29. I know you'd like to keep your existing body because it was a gift, but just a thought...

If you're shooting without flash, simply set WB to flourescent. If you're using a flash, gel your flash with a 1/2 or full Plusgreen gel from Rosco/Lee (free samples available from their website). If you don't gel your flash, you'll get a weird color mix that is almost impossible to compensate for unless you merge two images with different WB settings in Photoshop.

 

Also, shoot RAW, which will allow you to tweak your WB later.

Marc...

 

It's funny that you post this now, because I have just started getting turned on to film again, and am hoping to complement my digital photography with it this wedding season. I was initially interested in shooting IR film, so I was focusing on Canon's FD line of manual focus cameras that do not have the IR sensor to count the sprockets (like all the EOS bodies do except the 650 and 1-series). However, with the price of film cameras at an almost laughable low point right now, if my little "test" works out, I may invest in some more serious film gear.

 

Anyway, the point is that there seems to be a renewed interest in film lately, and I'm sure there are other people out there that have been pondering this for a while as well. If anything else, it's good to have a film camera and a few rolls of film with you as an extra backup, and considering how cheap the gear is these days, you just can't go wrong.

 

Thanks for the post!

Wow...I just bought a mint A-1 today (with winder, too), and I'm amazed at

just how nice these cameras are. I've never shot with anything like this -

When I started photography, I jumped right into a Canon Elan 7E, and have

since switched to digital, so I never truly got to appreciate just how nice

these machines really are.

 

I bought it so I could experiment with shooting B&W IR (newer EOS bodies all

use an infrared sensor to count spockets on film advance, which is why I was

targeting a manual camera in the first place) - After handling this, and

seeing just how nice these cameras are, I'm thinking I might invest more in FD

bodies/gear. They're amazingly cheap these days, and if you know where to

look, you can find some incredible deals.

 

Not really a question, I guess, but I had to tell someone, and I figured those

that frequent this forum can appreciate my comments. I would encourage anyone

who has never used one of these (or F-1, AE-1, etc) to try it out - it will

change the way you look at photography.

 

PS - Since I am new to the FD system, would any of you be willing to recommend

some of your favorite lenses for this system?