Anyone use their D60 for weddings?

Quote Wcapald

"If you really take a look at where the new ideas are coming from they aren't the hasselblad or bronica brigade. For a start they couldn't move fast enough.

If you look at two of Australia's leading Master Photographers in 2002 presenting at WPPI in Las Vegas next week they are totally digital, dropped film 12 months ago. And they charge £4000-£5000 for a wedding in the middle of Sydney.

The slide rule is dead, we use IPAQ's for calculators..."

Reply...

Funny how one of Scotlands most coveted wedding photographers went from S2s back to film after a year thinking Digital was the be all and end all... 600 shot weddings the lot...just like you.
Seems you are impressed with "How much you can get for a wedding" £4000-£5000 weddings are one offs and in my opinion fairy stories to impress the likes of you, very few customers in the UK will spend this on a photographer, they will split the cost between Photo-video. People are not stupid when they book a photographer above £1000 they want quality NOT QUANTITY.
£1400-£2500 for a top wedding photographer is the norm...THE AVERAGE WEDDING NO FRILLS WORKING CLASS WILL PAY £600. (These prices are less reprints).
I like yourself work in the top end of the market place and use digital, I don't have the same outlook as you fortunatly, there is a place for film and digital. It seems to me you like to hurry along and get as many shots in the can as possible, not the calibre I want to aspire to.
Mabe your destiney lies in video, 25 frames per second,
you could give them an 6 hour video !

You are out of touch big time...

I charge £2500 for my wedding coverages and I have 30 booked this year already....

And just in case you can't read...

GraphiStudio also personally congratulated me for one of the best wedding books in 2002, both in terms of my PHOTOGRAPHY and location.

I have clients moving their wedding dates in 2004 to book me as their photographer. Ask yourself why?

There are people that do £600 weddings and those that shoot £2500 weddings, because of the style of their photography not how much we charge. Seems you have a hang up about it. Every TV has an on/off button on it, everyone can choose what they want to watch or not..... if you don't like digital shoot on film but don't lecture people who are successful at what they do!

Quote Wcapald

"don't lecture people who are successful at what they do! "

I only have your word for this...As usual you miss the whole point...Who mentioned I don't like digital...you assume far too much, I seem to have your attention, you come accross as a "knowitall", Mr Digital...As you have no idea who I am you are not in any position to lecture me or my professionalism.
Nor are you in a position to call into question the professionalism of top fellow wedding photographers...film or digital. Until the 1Ds there has not been an D-SLR camera produced to match medium format for quality...You seem to relish the fact that you can take 800 shots at a wedding...I think this says more about you as a wedding photographer than anything else you care to have mentioned...I was only making some general perceptions but you seem to have taken it personally.

QUOTE...

"GraphiStudio also personally congratulated me for one of the best wedding books in 2002, both in terms of my PHOTOGRAPHY and location. "

www.graphistudio.co.uk

Lets not get carried away here Graphi bind and sell wedding books to...........wedding photographers...they have good PR...don't see any of your pics in their gallery !

Just out of interest where do you work from (England, Scotland etc.)

The point you made was that, and I quote:

"I have been in the Scottish wedding scene for over 15 years and know who produces what...the chaps who are the cream of the crop are still using Hblads, Bronicas or have moved back to film, you must be the exeption."

In fact, as far as wedding photography is concerned, the trend here (Australia), and in the US as well, is towards digital, and with good reason. There are more photographers moving into digital than back toward film. I am among them.

You assumed that just because a handful of Scots moved back to film (I have to take your word for that), that everyone else must be an exception. So what? They also wear skirts (and they get upset when someone calls it that! ), and it's damn cold in Scotland, so the Scots don't always do the logical thing...

Rudi, unlike our American cousins the Scots ar'nt easily offended and can take the odd joke or too.

Perspective...

One top wedding photographer went from a year with digital back to film.

The majority of wedding photographers in Scotland during 2002 were using medium format or 35mm film.

Those who were using digital were taking far too many pictures and admitting to it.

Most wedding photographers using digital are unhappy at the amount of time spent post production ie. in front of the computer.

Main fear with all pro digital photographers is corrupt CF card letting them down.

Comment...

I am in no doubt when the technology gets better and lets not kid ourselves D-SLRs are in their infancy...when more full frame cameras hit the market and the reliability factors get better we will see a far greater uptake of Pro-Digital.
Certain people in this forum can't see past their nose and forget there is life beyond digital. Many people both amateur and pro are more than happy with film.
Digital so far has made certain photographers sloppy, instead of getting their head in gear and treating the subject matter the same as they would with 36 exposures, they seize the new oppertunity of 204 exposures per 512 CF card and reinvent the wheel calling it "Reportage". Don't get me wrong theres nothing wrong with shooting extra but extra with a genuine purpose in mind from what I have witnesed so far the digital-pro is becoming a glorified wedding guest.
Good photography requires basic rules, we all learned our skill thanks to film, we must never loose sight of that. Embrace the technology with the same skills learned from film don't snap for the sake of it.

Canon-1Ds,

The only thing that I disagree with you on is the fact that most wedding photographers are sticking with, or going back to film. Towards the end of last year I saw a lot of wedding photographers seriously taking up digital. And it seems to be the progressive thinkers, the guys (or gals) who shoot a little differently, the ones on the cutting edge of the art.

I agree that digital should not replace basic photography skills. FWIW, I used to shoot around 10 rolls of film (around 360-400 frames) before taking up digital. Now... I average around 400 digital exposures (maybe a few more, if you take into account the handful that I delete immediately because I can see straight away that they are no good).

My keeper ratio is slightly higher, because of the fact that I delete the dozen or so which are no good. Other than that, my shooting habits haven't really changed at all. Just so you know where I'm coming from: I use a handheld incident meter for the really important shots, because I believe in getting the shot "right" the first time. Reviewing the LCD is a great backup, but there's nothing better than doing it right in the first place...

Good to here Rudi...keep up the good work...!

Good photography is about quality...not quantity

Excellent point but also common sense if you care about your business and reputation goes along the lines of
"Never bolt a door with a boiled carrot"
I'll carry on working in Medium format but also adding some candids with my D60 until I can speed up the post production side then possibly, i'll consider doing all my Weddings on digital.