Wedding Photography

[robertwgross]

A friend of mine shoots weddings, and he uses a Mamiya 645 for all of the formal stuff, plus a Nikon 35mm for action shots. He's been at it for quite some time, purely a film shooter. He invited me to tag along on this one wedding, since the whole deal was to be eight hours long. Of course, I was carrying my trusty Canon D60, 550EX flash out on a bracket, etc.

Things went pretty well shooting in the park beforehand, and then at the ceremony, and then at the reception, up to a point. Some unknown failure happened and the Nikon could not fire its flash, and it took him 10-15 minutes to clear the trouble (hmmm, would you guess weak batteries?). Of course, Canon did the work, I got the shots that he missed, and we all live to shoot another day.

Everybody was coming up to my friend and asking him if he was shooting digital. He said "No, this is film, but Bob over here is digital." Then they all commented on how smart that was to back up the film with digital. He is going to be jerking around with the lab for a week or more, trying to get proofs out, and I will have everything digital in the can (on CD-ROM) within 24 hours.

---Bob Gross---

[cubfan]

I use both 645, 35 mm and digital at a wedding. I'm phasing out the 35 mm since processing from my lab is about 30 dollars a roll. I get digital prints from a profeesion lab for 37 cents. I send them in as jpegs on my cable modem(won't take any other format) and get them back in 2 days. I can print them myself but they have better printers and it comes back on regular photo paper which will probably last longer than my home printer. The printing of 35 mm at local labs is just pathetic...It's force me to do many more digitals.

[Andy_T]

Hi Cubfan,

did you ever think about getting a Kodak digital back for the Mamya?

What's the opinion here among pro's (apart from that digital backs are still a tad expensive)?

Regards,
Andy

[cubfan]

Andythaler

I don't have the correct autofocus model to accept the digital back nor do I have the correct sized wallet. I think it would be fantastic but I'd rather have a Canon 1Ds than a medium format slr.

[JABACo]

Bob,

This is an offshoot of another post you and I were talking. In the sports photo's I would take, I also would just burn the photo's to cd and sell them to the parents. They liked that just as well.

Bradley

[danphoto1]

I do a few weddings every now & then. I shoot 100% Digital. I use a lab and upload photos get them back in a couple of days. I use 2 camers 1D and 10D. so far So good

[lightandlife]

It looks like 1D and 10D are killing the medium format.

Perhaps this is the beginning of the end of medium and large format cameras?

[danphoto1]

I don't think that the 10D and 1D are killing medium format cameras because the big time pros are using digital backs and 22 megapixel is one of the largest size ones that I have read about. It just gives us little guys a much better means to shootand process our work flow

[Vaio]

1DS is the first of a series of Medium Format killers with or without the Digital backs...

digital is the future and Film will just fade away... its not going to be fast but it will fade away just like Cassettes from CD and DVD..


its inevitable ......

just my 2cents

[danphoto1]

i agree I have believed that for many years. Why do you need film anyway I shot a photo and can print it direct from the card on a high touch printer with no dots at 6300 dpi and it beats a film negitave processed and printed all in less than a miniute. No chemicals no fuss. what film?? Only if you want grain

[cowman345]

vaio wrote:

digital is the future and Film will just fade away...
its inevitable ......



I wouldn't say it's inevitable. They thought color would "take over" black and white, but that's never come close to happening. I would think there'll always be a certain amount of people who refuse to let go of the hands-on artistic quality that film possesses compared to digital.

(note: I've hardly ever used film myself, I'm not a digital basher.)

-dave-

[GenDEM]

cowman345 wrote:
vaio wrote:

digital is the future and Film will just fade away...
its inevitable ......



I wouldn't say it's inevitable. They thought color would "take over" black and white, but that's never come close to happening. I would think there'll always be a certain amount of people who refuse to let go of the hands-on artistic quality that film possesses compared to digital.

(note: I've hardly ever used film myself, I'm not a digital basher.)

-dave-


I don't think colour vs. black and white is the right analogy. A better one would be vinyl LPs vs CDs. As you noted there will always be those who belive that the older technology is better, but the vast majority will eventually switch. This is why Kodak is doing so poorly, and polaroid is dying if not already dead. As the original poster said, it's inevitable, once the remaining hurdles are taken care of (hurdles like the expense of digital media, the requirement of having a computer and knowing how to use it, etc etc).

[cowman345]

gendem wrote:

I don't think colour vs. black and white is the right analogy. A better one would be vinyl LPs vs CDs. As you noted there will always be those who belive that the older technology is better, but the vast majority will eventually switch. This is why Kodak is doing so poorly, and polaroid is dying if not already dead. As the original poster said, it's inevitable, once the remaining hurdles are taken care of (hurdles like the expense of digital media, the requirement of having a computer and knowing how to use it, etc etc).

So by a similar analogy, painting landscapes and portraits should be extinct since we now have better technology (i.e. cameras) to capture them. eh?

-dave-

[GenDEM]

cowman345 wrote:
gendem wrote:

I don't think colour vs. black and white is the right analogy. A better one would be vinyl LPs vs CDs. As you noted there will always be those who belive that the older technology is better, but the vast majority will eventually switch. This is why Kodak is doing so poorly, and polaroid is dying if not already dead. As the original poster said, it's inevitable, once the remaining hurdles are taken care of (hurdles like the expense of digital media, the requirement of having a computer and knowing how to use it, etc etc).

So by a similar analogy, painting landscapes and portraits should be extinct since we now have better technology (i.e. cameras) to capture them. eh?

-dave-


I think that is a poor analogy. The result of an artist painting is very often very different that the result of a photographer shooting, and it's the results I'm considering here.

The average photographer, that is the non-artiste, is concerned mostly with the photograph not the camera (at least they should be, since otherwise they are simply a technocrat), just like the average listener is interested in the music, not the media (or we have another technocrat).

Whatever is most convienient towards getting the desired result wins, and there are many examples of that; CDs trumping tapes and LPs is only one. This is also why digital is gaining on film, and will eventually overtake it in the mainstream.

But not for a while yet, there are still too many barriers for mass market penetration on the level of film cameras. But it's coming.

Film will always have a place, just like horses still had a place after they were replaced by cars, and LPs still have a place after they were replaced by CDs.

Thats how I see it anyway ;)

[DaveG]

cowman345 wrote:
gendem wrote:

I don't think colour vs. black and white is the right analogy. A better one would be vinyl LPs vs CDs. As you noted there will always be those who belive that the older technology is better, but the vast majority will eventually switch. This is why Kodak is doing so poorly, and polaroid is dying if not already dead. As the original poster said, it's inevitable, once the remaining hurdles are taken care of (hurdles like the expense of digital media, the requirement of having a computer and knowing how to use it, etc etc).

So by a similar analogy, painting landscapes and portraits should be extinct since we now have better technology (i.e. cameras) to capture them. eh?

-dave-


I think that you miss the point. In 1920 there would have been many many blacksmith shops whose clients were regular people (and their horses). Within a decade those horse service stations were replaced with car service stations. Are there still blacksmith shops? Yes but they are for a very small segment of the population that has little or nothing to do with transportation.

Portrait painters were never particularly common. Regular people couldn't afford it and that accounts for the popularity of the mid 19th century photo studios.

Through my lifetime film will exist but it will become more and more rare. In five years it will be difficult to get colour film processed as the one hour labs centralize their C41 facilities, first to half their stores, then to one store and then you send it away for three weeks.

So why would regular comsumers bother?