bruce_t

<p>I also think L L R is best.</p>

400UC is being discontinued soon. However, there are better films than Gold 200 for today's scan and print labs. The portra line of films does skin tones justice with fine grain and, if you pick the VC version, good saturation. The dyes in portra are engineered to scan easier than the older tech films like Gold 200.

I'm about 95% sure that the 3 inch Walmart prints are still optical, because they have a distinctive look and because Walmart medium format prints are also on 3 inch paper. The quality seems better than the average 1 hour Walmart prints but inferior to the best that optical prints had to offer.

It looks far more professional to state 6 weeks in the contract and then deliver the goods early than it does to say 3 weeks and get them out a week late.

I agree that a film SLR is a great starting point. New manual film SLRs like the V3800n can be found new for around $150 and used ones like the Minolta SRT-101 can be had on ebay for under $40 with multiple lenses. Then get him a load of cheap slide film and some Fuji mailers. The exposure technique for the slides is similar to that for digital and should prepare him well for any future camera.

What are your priorities? Economy or quality? A&I may give good quality, but I think $16.75 for developing and prints (mailers from B&H) is a bit high if you are trying to shoot a lot of film and learn photography. Walmart does handle dev/prints from traditional b/w if you are willing to use their drop boxes, and the price is reasonable.

Rollei Tech Pan review - http://www.blackandwhiteslide.com/atp.html

My guess would be one of the c-41 B/W films like bw400cn or XP2 super. I can get bw400cn at almost any drugstore, supermarket, or walmart. That kind of market exposure would make it the most popular.

Wal-mart still does 3x3 prints from 120. In fact, I think that's the only size you can get from them.

I'd go to the Fuji website and look at the data sheet for T64. It should have information about the film's pushability.

35mm Cooke triplet

Walmart, Fuji Mailers, and DR5.com

HDR is nothing new. Photographers in the 19th century used to have negatives of clouds which were combined with the images where the skies were overexposed. This was necessary because the spectral sensitivities of plates made this a frequent problem.

Mr Harrington - Do you also scan realist format slides?

I'm curious if anyone finds a compact camera useful in the wedding business. Note that I'm not asking if you

should use one for a primary wedding camera (which would seem foolish for most), but if there are situations

(i.e. cramped, crowded receptions; last ditch back-up; etc.) where you've found them handy.

Fisherman's Friend is a rather powerful kind of cough drop that would be worth a try.

There is always the old adage that the sharpest lens you can buy is a tripod.

Just a thought - http://www.umbrellahat.net/

I'd set up some candles in your house and snap some test photos and see what works with your style. See how high an iso you can use to produce good photos and have a friend or family member model so you can see how much motion blur you'll get from slow shutter speeds. A forum can't give a definitive answer of what will work for you because everyone has their own tastes and standards. Only testing can tell you what you need to know. If it were me, I'd strongly consider a tripod. A good tripod can be used as a monopod by extending one leg but a monopod can't be a tripod.

I think they generally look good. I would have done the following differently:

 

Photo 6613342 - I'd have composed the shot to include her feet.

 

Photo 6613340 - I'd have picked up that annoying branch.

 

Photo 6529217 - I'd have included their feet and then tried to tame the highlights. (fill flash and exposure compensation - see http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fixing-dynamic-range.htm)

"1.)How many weddings has your photographer photographed as the head hired shooter?"

 

With the way you word that question, there had to be a time when you were the first starting out and would have had to answer "none" to that very same question, even if you had assisted other pros for years.

I'm just starting to think about trying a digital camera. It is my understanding

that, sensor sizes, iso ratings and software being equal, a dslr with a high

megapixel count will have more noise than one with a low mp count. However, if I

were to buy a dslr with, say, 10mp and then downsize the output to 6mp in

photoshop or gimp, how would the noise compare with the native output of a 6mp dslr?

Possibly of use - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/photoshop/pushing-iso.htm

That's all fine and well if you have a high speed connection, but 44% of internet users use telephone lines for their internet connections. Do you really think someone is going to sit and wait several minutes for a flash site to load? I know that I won't. There's nothing wrong with flash, but give people a choice to use html if they wish.

The Ultimate Exposure Computer is a useful site that received mention in that thread. http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

 

I've also heard people recommend the Black Cat Exposure Guide, although I think it's a bit expensive.