-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Minolta & weddings
- Thread starter PekkaT
- Start date
dsl
Senior Member
but i was not the paid photog, just a back up. but more than pleased with my results (A1)
--
Simon
Check out the face behind the text at http://www.pbase.com/image/27670744
On fotopic http://gallery55230.fotopic.net/
--
Simon
Check out the face behind the text at http://www.pbase.com/image/27670744
On fotopic http://gallery55230.fotopic.net/
Don't do weddings any more. When I did, I used Nikon and Hassalblad, then Leica gear. Have now moved to an A2 and am getting rid of all my film gear.
Thoughts on plusses and minuses of using an A2 for a wedding:
+) Minimizes the amount of gear you need to bring, as you won't need to deal with lens changes.
-) You really need a wide-angle adapter, as IMHO a 28mm equivalent isn't wide enough for documentary style wedding coverage. Not a deal killer, but adds to the complexity.
+) The wireless flash is WONDERFUL. It's not instant, and seems to have more lag than the 1/30s my Hasselblads used to have, so might create some issues with "blinky" brides, but 3 5600 flashes would ROCK for portable wedding lighting. Really -- don't underestimate this.
+) Anti-shake means it'll be easier to use longer lenses and tighter crops. For low-light Leica-style shooting, 1/15s reasonably sharp photos are do-able with 35mm and 50mm lenses, but it'd be nice to be able to shoot 1/15s at longer focal lengths. In my experience, it's hard to find moments that last longer than that (1/6s might be shake-free, but you're gonna have to deal with subject movement).
-) It seems there's more lag between pressing the shutter release and the time the lens stops down and actually takes the picture. I haven't done any testing here, it's just the way it "feels."
+) Image quality is as good as with 35mm, even with higher ISOs (compare 800 ASA to Fuji NHG-II whick is considered "excellent" grain at 800 ASA -- you digital guys are spoiled.)
+ -) Depth of field is a mxed blessing. It's easier to get wide DOF for shots with everything in focus, but it's much harder to use selective DOF to isolate a subject against an ugly background you have no control over. Maybe photoshop is a way to compensate. Right now, it looks like this means that the procession shots can be done well at wide apertures (versus the f8 required on a Hasselblad), but there's nothing to compare with an 85/75mm f1.4 shot wide-open for really short DOF portraits. Personally, I really like the short DOF effect.
-) Buffer is limited to 3 RAW shots in a row before they need to be written to disk. That's not bad, but there are times when you'll want to shoot faster than that (even with manual wind). You'll need to teach yourself to only use that 3rd shot on the rare occasion when it's actually required.
+) Cost. Film and processing ain't cheap. Digital (once you get past buying the camera, flash cards, computer, printer) is. I used to spend over $1,000 per wedding on lab fees.
+) Flex focusing. Nice to be able to focus anywhere on screen, versus the F5's 5 focus points (or the Leica's one).
+) Low-light EVF. I like the B&W low-light composition. Beats a dim view of the scene any day.
+) Autometering. Better than the F5 offered; few occasions where manual seems to work better. I guess incorporating the live histogram into the metering algorithm really helps.
-) Image storage. You're going to need something (preferably 2 things) to store shot images. It's hard to beat throwing the shot film cartridge in a 1 gallon zip-lock bag.
+) Silence. Turn off the gimmicky "shutter noise" and you'll have a silent camera. Nice for ceremonies and toasts and whatnot.
Thoughts on plusses and minuses of using an A2 for a wedding:
+) Minimizes the amount of gear you need to bring, as you won't need to deal with lens changes.
-) You really need a wide-angle adapter, as IMHO a 28mm equivalent isn't wide enough for documentary style wedding coverage. Not a deal killer, but adds to the complexity.
+) The wireless flash is WONDERFUL. It's not instant, and seems to have more lag than the 1/30s my Hasselblads used to have, so might create some issues with "blinky" brides, but 3 5600 flashes would ROCK for portable wedding lighting. Really -- don't underestimate this.
+) Anti-shake means it'll be easier to use longer lenses and tighter crops. For low-light Leica-style shooting, 1/15s reasonably sharp photos are do-able with 35mm and 50mm lenses, but it'd be nice to be able to shoot 1/15s at longer focal lengths. In my experience, it's hard to find moments that last longer than that (1/6s might be shake-free, but you're gonna have to deal with subject movement).
-) It seems there's more lag between pressing the shutter release and the time the lens stops down and actually takes the picture. I haven't done any testing here, it's just the way it "feels."
+) Image quality is as good as with 35mm, even with higher ISOs (compare 800 ASA to Fuji NHG-II whick is considered "excellent" grain at 800 ASA -- you digital guys are spoiled.)
+ -) Depth of field is a mxed blessing. It's easier to get wide DOF for shots with everything in focus, but it's much harder to use selective DOF to isolate a subject against an ugly background you have no control over. Maybe photoshop is a way to compensate. Right now, it looks like this means that the procession shots can be done well at wide apertures (versus the f8 required on a Hasselblad), but there's nothing to compare with an 85/75mm f1.4 shot wide-open for really short DOF portraits. Personally, I really like the short DOF effect.
-) Buffer is limited to 3 RAW shots in a row before they need to be written to disk. That's not bad, but there are times when you'll want to shoot faster than that (even with manual wind). You'll need to teach yourself to only use that 3rd shot on the rare occasion when it's actually required.
+) Cost. Film and processing ain't cheap. Digital (once you get past buying the camera, flash cards, computer, printer) is. I used to spend over $1,000 per wedding on lab fees.
+) Flex focusing. Nice to be able to focus anywhere on screen, versus the F5's 5 focus points (or the Leica's one).
+) Low-light EVF. I like the B&W low-light composition. Beats a dim view of the scene any day.
+) Autometering. Better than the F5 offered; few occasions where manual seems to work better. I guess incorporating the live histogram into the metering algorithm really helps.
-) Image storage. You're going to need something (preferably 2 things) to store shot images. It's hard to beat throwing the shot film cartridge in a 1 gallon zip-lock bag.
+) Silence. Turn off the gimmicky "shutter noise" and you'll have a silent camera. Nice for ceremonies and toasts and whatnot.
Vance Zachary
Veteran Member
Frankly, I would not recommend using digicams. Though the A series would do a little better, it still has the following problems:
Shutter lag
High noise above iso 200
Does not look competent (guests will have better cameras)
Less ability for shallow depth of field
If you plan to photograph weddings on a regular basis, a true DSLR with an APS-sized sensor is important to have. Overall low light performance is better, image quality is better, and so on. Such cameras can now be had for less than $1000.
Having said that, I think that knowledge of photography and proficiency in camera use are more important than what camera you use but the higher end DSLR's will give you significantly better tools to work with.
Here is an example of an image I took with my 7HI at a wedding about a year ago using the built in off camera flash ability. In other words, on board flash fill with off camera main:
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
Shutter lag
High noise above iso 200
Does not look competent (guests will have better cameras)
Less ability for shallow depth of field
If you plan to photograph weddings on a regular basis, a true DSLR with an APS-sized sensor is important to have. Overall low light performance is better, image quality is better, and so on. Such cameras can now be had for less than $1000.
Having said that, I think that knowledge of photography and proficiency in camera use are more important than what camera you use but the higher end DSLR's will give you significantly better tools to work with.
Here is an example of an image I took with my 7HI at a wedding about a year ago using the built in off camera flash ability. In other words, on board flash fill with off camera main:
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
Thanks, both of you for replies 
Dzeanah:
I counted ten "pro"s and five "con"s.
Quite promising, may I say...
Oh, I'm not any real pro, BTW.
Every now and then I'm invited to peoples weddings to take photographs. This says they don't want to pay big pile of cash for the pictures. They accept the fact that I don't have studio gear.
But, and I am pleased to say, they have been happy with the results
Take care,
Pekka
Dzeanah:
I counted ten "pro"s and five "con"s.
Quite promising, may I say...
Oh, I'm not any real pro, BTW.
Every now and then I'm invited to peoples weddings to take photographs. This says they don't want to pay big pile of cash for the pictures. They accept the fact that I don't have studio gear.
But, and I am pleased to say, they have been happy with the results
Take care,
Pekka
Er...
... yes.
I'm very seriously thinking about D70, but wanted to check the other possibilities too.
Oh yes, even D70 is so-so. And maybe it isn't any real professional tool, but I'm not any real (whole time) professional either. My "customers" accept this fact (look my other reply).
Thanks for the info!
Pekka
... yes.
I'm very seriously thinking about D70, but wanted to check the other possibilities too.
Oh yes, even D70 is so-so. And maybe it isn't any real professional tool, but I'm not any real (whole time) professional either. My "customers" accept this fact (look my other reply).
Thanks for the info!
Pekka
Frankly, I would not recommend using digicams. Though the A series
would do a little better, it still has the following problems:
Shutter lag
High noise above iso 200
Does not look competent (guests will have better cameras)
Less ability for shallow depth of field
If you plan to photograph weddings on a regular basis, a true DSLR
with an APS-sized sensor is important to have. Overall low light
performance is better, image quality is better, and so on. Such
cameras can now be had for less than $1000.
Having said that, I think that knowledge of photography and
proficiency in camera use are more important than what camera you
use but the higher end DSLR's will give you significantly better
tools to work with.
Here is an example of an image I took with my 7HI at a wedding
about a year ago using the built in off camera flash ability. In
other words, on board flash fill with off camera main:
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
John Fagerberg
Leading Member
Loved your comments. I felt they were right on the money, even the "you digital guys are spoiled" comment. I can remeber shooting existing light with a Nikon FTN & HS Ektachrome, which I then pushed to ASA400. You want to see grain! That was at the Old North Church in Boston. Because I didn't use flash, the pastor gave me free run of the loft, which was full of 4-5' hand carved figurines. I wish I still had that film! Before I mentioned to him "no flash", he was explaining to me why he didn't allow photographs in the church.
I too shot Nikon and Hassalblad for weddings. I don't miss lugging all that stuff around. I guess the shutter lag does not bother me as much as changing between three cameras, so I didn't have to change lenses or film.
BTW, up until a couple years ago, I swore I'd never go digital, but I also quit carrying a camera bag all the time (too much weight). Now I carry my bag all the time again.
--
John Fagerberg
http://www.pbase.com/jafent2002
I too shot Nikon and Hassalblad for weddings. I don't miss lugging all that stuff around. I guess the shutter lag does not bother me as much as changing between three cameras, so I didn't have to change lenses or film.
BTW, up until a couple years ago, I swore I'd never go digital, but I also quit carrying a camera bag all the time (too much weight). Now I carry my bag all the time again.
--
John Fagerberg
http://www.pbase.com/jafent2002
I should probably throw in a disclaimer as well:
I went from this kit:
Nikon F5 and F3hp, 16/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.4, 200/2.8, SBwhatever, Hasselblad 500C, 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, loads of filters, etc.
to this kit:
2 Leica M6's, 15/4.5, 35/2, 50/2, 90/2.8, manual flash (first a 285HV, then a Metz 45CT-1) where I mostly shot available light.
For ME, it was a great change. Other wedding pros thought I was crazy.
In the end, it comes down to what works best for YOU. Me? I think SLRs and multiple lenses aren't worth the bulk and hassle. I preferred a small 35mm kit to medium format for the same reasons, even though the medium format produced "better" results. The 35mm was good enough, and I chose based on other factors.
I took the same thinking to digital. For MY purposes, the image quality of the A2 is good enough. For others, anything less than a 6 megapixel DSLR is insufficient. They're not wrong either -- for their purposes, they need that level of image quality, just like there are film photographers who are unhappy with anything smaller than 4x5 or medium format. So be it.
The biggest limitations of an A2 for weddings are 3 shot max in raw, max aperture (2.87 is kinda slow), and the (perceived -- don't know numbers) shutter delay (feels comparable to my hasselblad -- much slower than a Leica M, but still usable if you pre-focus). I didn't see an issue with "pro appearance" with Leicas which most guests thought were point 'n shoots, and in fact found they allowed me to get better unposed work than a larger camera or big pro-looking flash, where people were always conscious of my presense.
Basically, there's no right answer here. There are likely to be as many opinions on this issue as there are wedding photographers -- you have to figure out what your style is, then choose gear that best enables you to work in that style.
I went from this kit:
Nikon F5 and F3hp, 16/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.4, 200/2.8, SBwhatever, Hasselblad 500C, 50mm, 80mm, 150mm, loads of filters, etc.
to this kit:
2 Leica M6's, 15/4.5, 35/2, 50/2, 90/2.8, manual flash (first a 285HV, then a Metz 45CT-1) where I mostly shot available light.
For ME, it was a great change. Other wedding pros thought I was crazy.
In the end, it comes down to what works best for YOU. Me? I think SLRs and multiple lenses aren't worth the bulk and hassle. I preferred a small 35mm kit to medium format for the same reasons, even though the medium format produced "better" results. The 35mm was good enough, and I chose based on other factors.
I took the same thinking to digital. For MY purposes, the image quality of the A2 is good enough. For others, anything less than a 6 megapixel DSLR is insufficient. They're not wrong either -- for their purposes, they need that level of image quality, just like there are film photographers who are unhappy with anything smaller than 4x5 or medium format. So be it.
The biggest limitations of an A2 for weddings are 3 shot max in raw, max aperture (2.87 is kinda slow), and the (perceived -- don't know numbers) shutter delay (feels comparable to my hasselblad -- much slower than a Leica M, but still usable if you pre-focus). I didn't see an issue with "pro appearance" with Leicas which most guests thought were point 'n shoots, and in fact found they allowed me to get better unposed work than a larger camera or big pro-looking flash, where people were always conscious of my presense.
Basically, there's no right answer here. There are likely to be as many opinions on this issue as there are wedding photographers -- you have to figure out what your style is, then choose gear that best enables you to work in that style.
We must be related somehow.
Photography just isn't fun when your back is screaming from carrying your gear for 8 hours...Well, what it comes to "professional outlook", I want to say this:
There was a time when I had Canon A-1 with motordrive (which took twelve AA-sized batteries(!)), three lenses and the "other equipments".
My "hammer" flash took six AA-batteries and the smaller one four.
Then there was about four years brake. During that I "updated" my equipments to (don't laugh) Minolta 404-Si with two zoom lenses (28-80 and 70-300).
I looked much more professional with my Canon (with motordrive).
No matter
Pekka
There was a time when I had Canon A-1 with motordrive (which took twelve AA-sized batteries(!)), three lenses and the "other equipments".
My "hammer" flash took six AA-batteries and the smaller one four.
Then there was about four years brake. During that I "updated" my equipments to (don't laugh) Minolta 404-Si with two zoom lenses (28-80 and 70-300).
I looked much more professional with my Canon (with motordrive).
No matter
- it was HEAVY
- it was "manual focus only"
- film rewind had to do manual
- a couple of other facts I don't want to remember anymore
Pekka
Hey guys,
I too shoot weddings professionally.
I use a film, max 7, 800si and fast prime lenses.
I use a 85 1.4 and a 50 1.4 most of the time. Then a 28 2.0 for some group shots.
I just ordered an A2, had an A1, but I think I will use the A2 for some shots, my wife may take some shots while I'm doing others.
My style of shooting is where I need the out of focus backgrounds look you get from the fast lenses.. my favorite is the 85 1.4. Plus the conisistnacy of film.
I may go more digital when the D7 comes out. I will wait and see.
I keep to cameras around my neck and I don't mind changing a lens once in a while. I have a 24-105 that I break out latter during the reception where I use a 2 flash setup for dance shots, etc. But I prefer the primes.
Craig
I too shoot weddings professionally.
I use a film, max 7, 800si and fast prime lenses.
I use a 85 1.4 and a 50 1.4 most of the time. Then a 28 2.0 for some group shots.
I just ordered an A2, had an A1, but I think I will use the A2 for some shots, my wife may take some shots while I'm doing others.
My style of shooting is where I need the out of focus backgrounds look you get from the fast lenses.. my favorite is the 85 1.4. Plus the conisistnacy of film.
I may go more digital when the D7 comes out. I will wait and see.
I keep to cameras around my neck and I don't mind changing a lens once in a while. I have a 24-105 that I break out latter during the reception where I use a 2 flash setup for dance shots, etc. But I prefer the primes.
Craig
Don Dement
Leading Member
These are good points, and I agree, but the negatives can be worked around. I shoot weddings (for pay) with my A1, and it works very well for me.
Here's my comment on the negative side of the list below:
It's all positive for me - except for some shutter slowness, and I'm working on beating that one by zone focusing. Good subject to discuss.
Don D
====
Here's my comment on the negative side of the list below:
I've never needed more than a 28 - this is why I bought the Minolta. For me, non-problem. Lower FL means getting into distortion control. But I can get a good quality 22mm attachment or so if I need it for less than $200.
I agree - putting several wireless flashes on tripods gets you into totally portable (no power wires, no signal wires) operation. It's great. Only threat is that people trip or knock them over, so I have to put chairs next to them, which usually - not always - works. Depends on the amount of champagne around.
No question there's lag and it's a serious problem at receptions when they're dancing in the near-dark. I go to manual focus and try to get at least f/7 because the lens tables show that I can handle the DOF I need for a range of about 7-25 feet, and that avoids autofocus lag. Next is the flash lag, which I haven't found out how to reduce, but it's pretty small if you try to pre-do most everything. My 3600HS does the job, camera-mounted while working the dance floor.
I shoot at ISO 800 in the church if I have to and use NeatImage carefully on the grainy result - it works and I avoid motion blur (which is the only alternative - slow shutter). Non-problem. Some people like grain.
Short DOF can be had by using the Blur tool in Photoshop - I do it all the time, and I can have as much or little as I need. Non-problem. If the background is really bad, takes more editing.
I don't see the slightest advantage in shooting a wedding in RAW. I use Fine or Extra Fine and have all the image manipulation I could possibly need in Photoshop. I spend the processing time instead of on RAW by working the best out of my JPGs. Much better results, less time. Work the white balance correctly, and it's a non-problem.
I copy the files from the card to a portable storage drive whenever I get the chance - mainly to make a 2d copy right away, but also to get some card room. With JPG and 512 cards, I can shoot all I need all afternoon and with the drive, I have unlimited space. Non-problem. Put the current card in the drive, and while it writes put another card in the camera.
I won't shoot weddings in film any more, mainly because of the need for reliable capture - I can see the image on the screen and not bite nails waiting for the film to be processed. Also gives me a no-work, fast display on my Website for the clients and parents to make choices. I can look for blown highlights on a satin dress, too, and fix it onsite.
It's all positive for me - except for some shutter slowness, and I'm working on beating that one by zone focusing. Good subject to discuss.
Don D
====
Vance Zachary
Veteran Member
Again, I do not advise using digicams as a primary camera for weddings. It never hurts to use the best tools that you can afford. And make sure, if do use a digicam as your primary camera, to have a back up camera if you photograph weddings seriously.
Having said that, here are two more wedding images that I have taken with my 7HI.
Good luck to all of you who photograph weddings.
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
Having said that, here are two more wedding images that I have taken with my 7HI.
Good luck to all of you who photograph weddings.
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
Joseph_Farrugia
Well-known member
...shooting weddings. Ther is a difference in shooting a couple (or even a hundred) pics, & be the official photographer of the event, paid or not.
This may seem strange coming from a person (me) who preaches "it's you not your equipment", but fact is, you can compete in Formula One with a VW beetle.
Some posters will answer:
"oh yeah, I've shot weddings",
when they really mean (or rather, have)
"shot PHOTOS at a wedding"
There's a big difference.
--
JF
--
'earthbound or not, he's still a troll.'
Oh yes, I think you answered my question on the other forum too. I was there stupid enough to step on your real professionals toes. I'm very sorry, I regret it and I won't write there ever again. Again: I'm sorry. Forgive me.
But, it just happens to be so, that some couples here are total satisfied with my "snaps" and even give some film- and gasmoney.
Pekka
Pat Watson
Active member
On looking professional.
I have shot textbooks professional for over 20 years. While not weddings my clients still expect a Professional as can your clients in a wedding. Many moons ago I was shooting the top pediatric nursing textbook in one of the most prestigious children's hospital in the country (a very editorial style of grab while you go and work quick and with compassion considering your client). The gear was typical of many pros-3 Nikon bodies-several lenses from 20-180 , two flashes and battery packs. Plus one Olympus Stylus PS in the side pouch with color negative film. By the way all my shoots were shot with Kodachrome 64.
As you can guess most of the good shots happened when the Nikons where tucked away and I would grab the PS camera. After the half the shoot was done we reviewed images and could hardly tell Nikon from PS only that the PS were spontaneous. The rest of shoot I left the SLRs and used the PS whose images are still being picked up to this day.
The client was very happy with pictures-the subjects were not intimated by the equipment and I am still considered a professional even when I use a small PS camera. I am the professional not the camera.
A "good" camera with an integrated lens like the A2 in a wedding setting will not embarrass one if one does not embarrass oneself.
Best of luck.
Pat
Effective technology works.
I have shot textbooks professional for over 20 years. While not weddings my clients still expect a Professional as can your clients in a wedding. Many moons ago I was shooting the top pediatric nursing textbook in one of the most prestigious children's hospital in the country (a very editorial style of grab while you go and work quick and with compassion considering your client). The gear was typical of many pros-3 Nikon bodies-several lenses from 20-180 , two flashes and battery packs. Plus one Olympus Stylus PS in the side pouch with color negative film. By the way all my shoots were shot with Kodachrome 64.
As you can guess most of the good shots happened when the Nikons where tucked away and I would grab the PS camera. After the half the shoot was done we reviewed images and could hardly tell Nikon from PS only that the PS were spontaneous. The rest of shoot I left the SLRs and used the PS whose images are still being picked up to this day.
The client was very happy with pictures-the subjects were not intimated by the equipment and I am still considered a professional even when I use a small PS camera. I am the professional not the camera.
A "good" camera with an integrated lens like the A2 in a wedding setting will not embarrass one if one does not embarrass oneself.
Best of luck.
Pat
--
Effective technology works.
M
Michael Offe
Guest
You can look like a mini pro (may trick many people anyway) by getting the BP-400 Battery Pack/Grip, and a decent flash unit + or course the lens shade (lol).
It really does make the A2 look like a mini D100 or other SLR.
But as if that's not enough, from a practical point of view, you can have two Li-ion batteries in the grip, and get 6hrs of constant shooting out of them.
But then again, if you need to do what Pat had to do... drop the BP-400 and lens shade. lol
On a side note, believe it or not, I've actually been the main photographer at a mate's wedding. Used my Nikon 990 and PZ-5000AF flash unit with mini soft box.
They were even quite pleased with the photos!
But thank God it was a very casual wedding. ;-)
Yours sincerely,
Michael Offe,
South Australia.
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.ntfmembers.com
NTF Challenge Admin (very absent atm though) http://www.termotronic.com/challenge
Personal Gallery (rather out of date though) http://www.magicbracket.com/michaeloffe
It really does make the A2 look like a mini D100 or other SLR.
But as if that's not enough, from a practical point of view, you can have two Li-ion batteries in the grip, and get 6hrs of constant shooting out of them.
But then again, if you need to do what Pat had to do... drop the BP-400 and lens shade. lol
On a side note, believe it or not, I've actually been the main photographer at a mate's wedding. Used my Nikon 990 and PZ-5000AF flash unit with mini soft box.
They were even quite pleased with the photos!
But thank God it was a very casual wedding. ;-)
Yours sincerely,
Michael Offe,
South Australia.
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.ntfmembers.com
NTF Challenge Admin (very absent atm though) http://www.termotronic.com/challenge
Personal Gallery (rather out of date though) http://www.magicbracket.com/michaeloffe
M
Michael Offe
Guest
Except for still getting used to the white ballance on my new A2 (Nikon 990 was always spot on when left on auto WB)... the A2 would be much, much easier, faster and nicer to use if I had to do a wedding again!
Yours sincerely,
Michael Offe,
South Australia.
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.ntfmembers.com
NTF Challenge Admin (very absent atm though) http://www.termotronic.com/challenge
Personal Gallery (rather out of date though) http://www.magicbracket.com/michaeloffe
Yours sincerely,
Michael Offe,
South Australia.
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.ntfmembers.com
NTF Challenge Admin (very absent atm though) http://www.termotronic.com/challenge
Personal Gallery (rather out of date though) http://www.magicbracket.com/michaeloffe
Joseph_Farrugia
Well-known member
I beg your pardon...? Time to take that chip off your shoulder, methinks...
What are you talking about? Did I try to slam any post of yours, or ask you not to write "here" or "there"?
Somebosy else might have done that, but then again, I'm not somebody else.
Whether the couple is satisfied or not is beyond the point. I was discussing the benefits of using more adequate gear for a pro service. Read again, I even said that high end P&S are good for taking pictures at a wedding (read that again: "taking pictures at a wedding").
regards,
--
JF
--
'earthbound or not, he's still a troll.'
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum