I can't believe people shoot Weddings digitally!

Peter Phan said:

But overall, the freedom to instantly review, instantly change ISO,
shoot higher ISO with much less "grain" than the same ISO with
film, are what make shooting digital a big benefit.

Click to expand...

Most wedding photographers would carry a range of film with different ISO's.

I totally disagree about the grain thing - who are you trying to fool, digital suffers the most from higher ISO's, if you've had trouble with grain in film try a different film. Low light and long exposures with digital are it's biggest draw backs b/c of the increased digital noise (it's really not even grain).....I rarely shoot with more than the lowest ISO when using digital.

Sure you can reduce the digital noise effect in post production, but that takes time, time you don't have to spend when shooting film.

brenton.

Louise Vessey said:

Oh, I could go on.....

Click to expand...

please do then....... b/c you haven't said anything i haven't heard before, that's why i asked the question to find out details not just broad run of the mill statements of how digital is better than film or film is better than digital etc,etc. People put their opinions onto this forum and they don't even have the experience to back it up, they state what they think is so but not what they actually know is so........ i'd love to here some specifics.

brenton

Mr. Stacey said:

I know the majority of you fellas are .

I have no idea why it takes you guys a long @$$ time to get your
images going.

My workflow is so d@mned refined, in 45 minutes, the d@mn pictures
are uploaded and burned.

Click to expand...

D@mn that's fast. got any d@mn examples of the quality you shoot. How many d@amn shots are we talking here. D@mn it, don't just state it, d@mn well prove it, tell us what you do, what you use etc,etc. I wanna d@mn well be convinced digital is the way to go for weddings.

cheers d@mn it,
brenton.

bs said:

Why would you scan the film when you already have the prints to
make the album?

Click to expand...

prints are not made from the film but from the scanned digital image on our digital printer. The prints are not individually printed but an 8x10 sheet containing 3-5 images (with corresponding numbers and ©)

bs said:

Also if film is scanned properly/correctly there is NO difference
in the ease at which the file can be corrected compared to a
digital shot from a camera.

Click to expand...

Au contraire, there can be a world of difference. Whether scanned on a flatbed, dedicated small format film scanner (as I used) or drum. LUTs are just the beginning and scanning negs is very time consuming to get a perfect scan. Far easier to get acceptable then finish color correcting in PS

bs said:

If you are going to print the images yourself you might as well
shoot digital, i'm talking about saving time by using a good lab
who does this for you. I mean it costs less and you'll get a more
consistent/higher quality result by dropping film off at a lab to
print than by dropping the digital camera card off at a lab and
getting them to print the images. 95% of the images from a wedding
are going to be straight shots from the camera, from film these
need no adjustments, with digital they all need to be corrected
(ie:curves,levels,saturation,contrast, resized,sharpened etc,etc)
before they are ready to get a print from. The remaining 5% of
shots that you might like to 'play' with and digitally enhance can
be scanned from the film/print and then adjusted, the same as you
would as if taken from a digital camera file. You don't need to
scan all the shots from the wedding shot with film because remember
you already have prints.

Click to expand...

rarely are the prints done in a lab just printed straight without any correction. The automation makes it easier & faster so a lab would save time. When we were doing 5-6 weddings per day, we did use an outside lab (and was their largest customer) but we have backed off that frantic pace and reclaimed our lab. Volume isn't everything

bs said:

But then I can see my results almost immediately and

bs said:

compensate if need be.

Click to expand...

you don't see the results immediately from a digital file, you see
the starting point of an image but it is always necassary to 'play'
with it to come up with the result you are happy with and desire.
With film the print is the result, and if you're not happy with it
you get it re-printed, and if you'd like to do something'special'
with it you scan just that print then manipulate it in p/shop then
get it printed.

Click to expand...

I cans see if everything worked as it should. If there was a misfire or morefire (as in other flashes going off to ruin a shot), I can quickly reshoot. Yes, it is rare that I actually miss a shot but it has happened and checking after the fact has saved a few images. Also you should always try to scan from the original and not a reporduction. Even a first generation print has lost info from the film.

bs said:

We have found that color correcting from a

bs said:

digital camera file is easier than a scanned negative.

Click to expand...

Time to employ a better scanner operator then.

Click to expand...

Don't think that is an option and, again, it didn't matter who scanned or on what scanner, the image is translated differently

bs said:

One wonderful thing about shooting weddings digitally is not having to

bs said:

reload or advance film (manual cameras). We have always had an
in-house lab; it just feels better to do it all yourself.

Click to expand...

Digital isn't a totally automated process either, you have to
reload memory cards and download to computers (not quicker or
easier at all). IMO

Click to expand...

Did not say it was ultimately faster, just different.

bs said:

I'm still keen to be convinced that digital for weddings is the way
to go.

Click to expand...

If you like film, stay with it. It will always be around. I enjoy the digital world because I am no longer a mushroom (though I do miss having my own music-in the back office there are now 2 of us and so no music). Adjustments are much faster and more easily seen with digital (Photoshop) but it takes a different type of thinking from traditional darkroom techniques. We switched to a digital camera because it would save me time in regular shoots, which it has. I lost half of my photographic team and my most senior color corrector when my wife died. The switch to a digital camera has allowed me to be almost as productive as before. Yes, I could still shoot film and use an outside lab but I like doing it all myself.

brenton said:

Most wedding photographers would carry a range of film with
different ISO's.

Click to expand...

I used to come to weddings with several ziplock bags full of Fuji Reala (ISO 100), NPH (400, usually shot at 320) , NPZ (800, usually shot at 640), as well as Ilford XP2 Super (400) and Delta 3200 (shot at 1250 or 1600). I know PLENTY about carrying "a range of film with different ISO's." It was a royal pain in the butt. Any you still can't change ISO's on the fly.

bs said:

I totally disagree about the grain thing - who are you trying to
fool, digital suffers the most from higher ISO's, if you've had
trouble with grain in film try a different film.

Click to expand...

I've tride LOTS of different films. After all, that's why I would come with five different films to a wedding. And those were the five BEST films I had selected from experience and tests. Also, you can get rid of digital noise quite easily. It's much harder to get rid of grain. Run a high noise, high ISO digital image through software like Neat Image and it does incredible things for the image. Run a high grain, high ISO film image through Neat Image and you get what look like ice crystals on glass. Not very attractive, particularly for people shots.

bs said:

Low light and
long exposures with digital are it's biggest draw backs b/c of the
increased digital noise (it's really not even grain).....I rarely
shoot with more than the lowest ISO when using digital.

Click to expand...

Like this? This shots is 1 second at ISO 400. More seconds would not have added any appreciable noise. There's little to no noise as it is. You can definitely expect more noise from the same shot with ISO 400 film.

bs said:

Sure you can reduce the digital noise effect in post production,
but that takes time, time you don't have to spend when shooting
film.

Click to expand...

ISO 1600 on the Canon 10D looks ten times better than ISO 1600 on film. Run it through Neat Image or Capture One's noise reduction, and it looks more like ISO 400. I don't hesitate shooting ISO 1600 on the 10D. But on film, I shoot ISO 1600 with great trepidation. First of all, it usually means more expensive film. Secondly, it means more expensive push processing. Third, results can be very inconsistent even from my pro lab I sent my film to.

BobTrips said:

George Law said:

I began shooting in 35mm, went to medium format (6x7), set myself
up for digital,but have returned to 35mm.

For the product that I provide my clients, I have found that it is
not only less time consuming but also less expensive to shoot on
film. A little explanation; I provide my clients with 4x6 size true
photo prints of all their originals (I do cull the bloopers......a
few failed strobes and an occassional out of focus..........way
less than 1%..........I just shoot 333 shots last weekend and
culled 6 prints).

Click to expand...

Member said:

I use a pro lab here in Muskegon, Michigan
(Radium) and they are very very good. Nine rolls of film costs me
$63.00 and $72.00 for processing and printing, for a total of
$135.00. The same 333 shots on digital would cost me $166.50 for
the same 4x6 prints. I saved $31.50 in real money and I no post
processing time myself.

Click to expand...

Your lab charges you $0.22 per 4x6 print when they process and
print your film. They charge you $0.50 to simply print a 4x6 from
a digital file. Do I have that right?

Obviously the film/digital decision has to be swayed toward film
from a purely business stance.

What I have to question is why they are charging so much for a
digital print? From what you've posted it sounds like they are
simply printing the file, you're doing the editing.

Sounds like they haven't caught up with the real world. You may
have to shoot film for a while longer out of respect for the bottom
line.

(Or use someone else to print your digital files.)

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, even our local WalMart is priced the same way. I'll stick with my local pro lab however, because they are that good. Very helpful too with any issue that I might have. I've never encountered such a friendly environment anywhere else.

George

I think it depends on when you start timing yourself...

Even with firewire transfer speeds, you are talking 6 minutes per 1gig card you offload to your computer. Say you shoot 800 images at a wedding with a 6mp camera, that is 4.8 gigs, so you are at 25-30 minutes just to offload them.

Then you have to rotate them if you are not lucky enough to have a newer camera that does this for you... say 10 minutes?

Then there is always some adjusting that needs to be done... maybe another 10 minutes?

Editing... weeding out the good from the bad.... maybe 15-20 minutes?

Then you have to get from RAW to jpg or tif... sure, you can walk away from it, but at 20 seconds each (and this is probably fast, at least using the kodak software) you are talking about 3 per minute to open, convert, and save... that is 4 1/2 hours!

now it is time to archive... just the raw files take either 8 cds @ 6-8 minutes each + verify time =~ 1 hour or a dvd perhaps half that time. Say 30 minutes just for fun.

Now it is time to make a slide show or however else you are going to show your images... perhaps upload to the web, or send to a company for handling. Hard to guestimate this amount of time, but you certainly have to count it.

Then the fun really begins when your client orders prints... you get to crop, perfect the images for contrast, etc, and archive these to send to the lab too! I would say we average perhaps a minute on the typical image we have to handle to print... opening it up, doing a quick brightness, contrast... perhaps a little touch up to fix some digital artifacting. If a client orders 100 prints, you are talking about 2 hours minimum at that pace, which isn't REALLY slow, considering 20 seconds of that time is open and save. And of course there are always the few problem prints that take 5-10 minutes a piece, so you are realistically looking at 2-3 hours in my opinion.

Show me how to do it in 45 minutes! I don't see how.

classici

brenton said:

Mr. Stacey said:

I know the majority of you fellas are .

I have no idea why it takes you guys a long @$$ time to get your
images going.

My workflow is so d@mned refined, in 45 minutes, the d@mn pictures
are uploaded and burned.

Click to expand...

D@mn that's fast. got any d@mn examples of the quality you shoot.
How many d@amn shots are we talking here. D@mn it, don't just state
it, d@mn well prove it, tell us what you do, what you use etc,etc.
I wanna d@mn well be convinced digital is the way to go for
weddings.

cheers d@mn it,
brenton.

Click to expand...

Sorry, it's not the sharpest shot. It was taken with a monopod propped up against an electical box, held in place with my photo backpack.

Peter Phan said:

brenton said:

Most wedding photographers would carry a range of film with
different ISO's.

Click to expand...

I used to come to weddings with several ziplock bags full of Fuji
Reala (ISO 100), NPH (400, usually shot at 320) , NPZ (800, usually
shot at 640), as well as Ilford XP2 Super (400) and Delta 3200
(shot at 1250 or 1600). I know PLENTY about carrying "a range of
film with different ISO's." It was a royal pain in the butt. Any
you still can't change ISO's on the fly.

Peter Phan said:

I totally disagree about the grain thing - who are you trying to
fool, digital suffers the most from higher ISO's, if you've had
trouble with grain in film try a different film.

Click to expand...

I've tride LOTS of different films. After all, that's why I would
come with five different films to a wedding. And those were the
five BEST films I had selected from experience and tests. Also,
you can get rid of digital noise quite easily. It's much harder to
get rid of grain. Run a high noise, high ISO digital image through
software like Neat Image and it does incredible things for the
image. Run a high grain, high ISO film image through Neat Image
and you get what look like ice crystals on glass. Not very
attractive, particularly for people shots.

Peter Phan said:

Low light and
long exposures with digital are it's biggest draw backs b/c of the
increased digital noise (it's really not even grain).....I rarely
shoot with more than the lowest ISO when using digital.

Click to expand...

Like this? This shots is 1 second at ISO 400. More seconds would
not have added any appreciable noise. There's little to no noise
as it is. You can definitely expect more noise from the same shot
with ISO 400 film.

Peter Phan said:

Sure you can reduce the digital noise effect in post production,
but that takes time, time you don't have to spend when shooting
film.

Click to expand...

ISO 1600 on the Canon 10D looks ten times better than ISO 1600 on
film. Run it through Neat Image or Capture One's noise reduction,
and it looks more like ISO 400. I don't hesitate shooting ISO 1600
on the 10D. But on film, I shoot ISO 1600 with great trepidation.
First of all, it usually means more expensive film. Secondly, it
means more expensive push processing. Third, results can be very
inconsistent even from my pro lab I sent my film to.

Click to expand...

brenton said:

I work full time as a commercial photographer. I also shoot
weddings. 90% of my commercial work is done digitally. 100% of my
wedding work is done on film. Why? Because it is so much easier
and quicker. I drop the film off at the lab on Monday, pick up the
prints on Wednesday, deliver the images the following weekend.
Post processing time is the time it takes for me to drive to the
lab and back.
How do people cope digitally? The post processing would take
almost as long as the shoot.

brenton.

Click to expand...

--
Hi Brenton,

Last year through no fault of my own I had to use digital for half a year and film for the other half. (portraiture and weddings) My experience has been mostly negative about digital. Why??? So called workflow, post-processing and "amature" digital cameras pretending to be a professional tool. The FujiS-1 generally took over the tempo of the session and I hated the .tiff workflow, the images at times were very good, at other times the files looked like hell whithout any reason. The K760 had other image quality related issues that I did not like. PhotoDesk with it's "canned" looks and sharpening was "ahead" of it's time, but it made the portrait and wedding files look cheesy, digital and specially it's "portrait look" was my favorit for what I started to call "dead people" photography. The tool had become the most important element in the photographic process. This is of course not the philosophy that I subscribe to.

To go as far as contradict the theme of this forum... at the end of the day prints put side by side left the digital prints wanting in many areas.
The prints delivered to the clients just did not have a $15,000 difference.
IMO, Digital imaging just want so badly to be like film...

So, I went back to film... same sales, better service to the clients, and much less post processing. Digital artwork was still an option.

This year the difference in tools is making this, the film vs digital a more difficult issue to resolve, but at the end of the day the question remains, ...why do I have to invest 20.000 or 30,000 again into my business, just to acomplish the "same" result that I can do with present film equipment?

I have a signature portrait (16x20) from a test run on a Kodak14n, total cost of system about CN$18,000 with coputer upgrades and other acessories...similar portrait from a 15 year old film sytem about a $100.00

The numbers just do not compute for me. I realise savings using film, digital proofing, digital viewing and traditional wet chemistry custom printing and able to selectively scan negs for digital artwork.

My experience and observations mirrors other's who have responded to your post. I have a 24x30 75% crop B&W image from a K760 and it is amazing. I also have several same size and larger images from my 2 1/4 negs and the "amazing" fades reather quicly into the backround as a technical curiosity.

There is a very real and compelling reason to use digital workflow for many aplication and some would not even exist without it.

My cost on post exposer artwork from film is marginal compared to the over all cost of digital post processing.
All the best

Tony K

Abe,

I could see us going round and round in circles for a long time - i think you have totally misinterpreted my initial question. All i was asking is how people cope with the digital work load when doing weddings. I wasn't initially trying to make a statement that film is better quality than digital all i was saying is that in my experience it is easier and quicker to get to the final print stage using film.

Let me state - I DO NOT DO MY OWN PRINTING - i drop the film off at a lab it is processesed then i pick up the prints. End of story. That is my point i don't have to do any corrections, adjustments, etc,etc. After they're exposed i don't spend any time on the images, until i pick up the prints. The point of my question is that i spend 5 days a week working with digital images, if i started to shoot weddings digital that would end up adding a lot more time i'd be spending at the computer, something i don't want to do. Then i started thinking are all digital wedding phtographers doing this? Wouldn't it be easier to stick with film shooting and getting lab prints or have they got a fool proof system to cope with a large number of digital files? You'd need a time efficient system, that's cost effective, and gives the desired quality -satisfying both you and the clients expectations. So what is it? How do you cope? Give me a simplified run down? That's what i was asking about.

In the end you've given me no answers and no insight into your process to dealing with digital, only a reaction because you thought i was dissing digital cameras like they are so precious, but don't worry you're not alone. There have been quite a few statements regarding digital is better b/c of this and b/c of that but no actual response to my initial question.

you said that:

Abe Evans said:

The switch to a digital camera has allowed me to be almost as productive as before. Yes, I
could still shoot film and use an outside lab but I like doing it all myself.

Click to expand...

So are you saying that film is more productive but the gains in control you have with digital outweigh this drop in productivity. That's what i'm trying to explore the efficiency of digital when shooting weddings.

Brenton.

Peter Phan said:

Like this? This shots is 1 second at ISO 400. More seconds would
not have added any appreciable noise. There's little to no noise
as it is. You can definitely expect more noise from the same shot
with ISO 400 film.

Click to expand...

Rubbish, Using a film like Fuji NPH400 there'd be no "noise" grain if it was exposed properly. So what was you're workflow to get this image as is....assuming you had to put it through neat image (or some other such program), what time did that take and how selective would you have to be if you had 500 such images to process? Can you just do them all the same and hope for the best or do each one individually to get the optimum output? Are you sure the softness is from camera shake or is it a result of the noise reduction software. You are going to sacrifice some sharpness in the process of removing the digital noise.

brenton.

You obviously don't do alot of post-processing, are not an exacting Photoshop user, and leave all the work to a lab instead of to your own demanding tolerances.

What exactly separates and defines the difference between the commercial work and wedding work? Does one not need the processing of the other? And if so, why?

I can't see how anyone would want to shoot a wedding with FILM anymore! Digitally, tethered to a laptop or simply using one to instantly review images on, one can be utterly precise with exposure and compositional demands and needs, and you have the added benefit of proffing on the spot afterwards if desired. Plus, you cut your film wastes to a considerable degree.....shots that did'nt turn out do not need to be developed or printed.
I have suspicions that this inquiry has alterior motives, but I won't go there!

brenton said:

I work full time as a commercial photographer. I also shoot
weddings. 90% of my commercial work is done digitally. 100% of my
wedding work is done on film. Why? Because it is so much easier
and quicker. I drop the film off at the lab on Monday, pick up the
prints on Wednesday, deliver the images the following weekend.
Post processing time is the time it takes for me to drive to the
lab and back.
How do people cope digitally? The post processing would take
almost as long as the shoot.

brenton.

Click to expand...

brenton said:

Mr. Stacey said:

I know the majority of you fellas are .

I have no idea why it takes you guys a long @$$ time to get your
images going.

My workflow is so d@mned refined, in 45 minutes, the d@mn pictures
are uploaded and burned.

Click to expand...

D@mn that's fast. got any d@mn examples of the quality you shoot.
How many d@amn shots are we talking here. D@mn it, don't just state
it, d@mn well prove it, tell us what you do, what you use etc,etc.
I wanna d@mn well be convinced digital is the way to go for
weddings.

cheers d@mn it,
brenton.

Click to expand...

--

As pointed out in previous posts digital has a great many advantages over shooting film. For one example I can switch from Color to B&W from shot to shot as desired with only a couple of button pushes! I can also change the iso setting as desired just as easily. You can't do that with film!

I shoot with the Fuji S2 and comming from a film background I make every attempt to get the exposure right-on to begin with as I don't care to spend a lot of time with PS to correct things yet if it should be needed its a very simple process on the computer and no scanning required, that's time and effort saved too.

Btw, I shoot JPEG's and I take the opposite approach of most and shoot 3.5mp files as that is more than sufficent in most all cases, if exposed properly using the right settings in the S2 I can make a quality 20x24 and probably even a 24x30. If you don't believe me go to Gary Fong's web site, DP.net and in the discussion forum section you will find a gentleman by the name of Claude Jodoin [Professor Pixel] who also writes articles all the time for the PPA magazine The Rangefinder. In one article he stated that he had a friend who shoot aireal shots with a 6mp camera, he didn't say which one though although Claude prefers the S2 also, and says that his friend routinely makes 44x66" prints that in his words, 'Look Beautiful' which I have no doubt of!

Something else you mentioned and seem to be missinformed about is digital noise, and some cameras do have more of it than others. My experience has been with the S2 and I haven't experienced any noise at all even shooting at iso 1600 for 10 sec. by Moon light.



I believe the resolution of the current digital cameras such as the Fuji S2 far exceeds the ability of film.

I also like the control digital allows me over film and the beautiful images and detail it captures seem to far exceed film IMHO.

Time & Images share one common basis. In a moment they're gone!
Capture the moment!
David Smith, Digital Photography

David M. said:

You obviously don't do alot of post-processing, are not an exacting
Photoshop user, and leave all the work to a lab instead of to your
own demanding tolerances.
What exactly separates and defines the difference between the
commercial work and wedding work? Does one not need the processing
of the other? And if so, why?
I can't see how anyone would want to shoot a wedding with FILM
anymore! Digitally, tethered to a laptop or simply using one to
instantly review images on, one can be utterly precise with
exposure and compositional demands and needs, and you have the
added benefit of proffing on the spot afterwards if desired. Plus,
you cut your film wastes to a considerable degree.....shots that
did'nt turn out do not need to be developed or printed.
I have suspicions that this inquiry has alterior motives, but I
won't go there!

Click to expand...

What motives, why won't you go there? This is a forum for expression so don't leave me in the dark, let it out, i'm blatantly trying to find out some information i thought i had made that clear without needing to state it here again.
Like i said to Abe earlier:

The point of my question is that i spend 5 days a week working with digital images, if i started to shoot weddings digital that would end up adding a lot more time i'd be spending at the computer, something i don't want to do. Then i started thinking are all digital wedding phtographers doing this? Wouldn't it be easier to stick with film shooting and getting lab prints or have they got a fool proof system to cope with a large number of digital files? You'd need a time efficient system, that's cost effective, and gives the desired quality -satisfying both you and the clients expectations. So what is it? How do you cope? Give me a simplified run down? That's what i was asking about........in fact a detailed run down would be better!

Don't just accuse me of alterior motives when it's a genuine inquiry, read through this thread thoroughly and you'll see i've been pretty consistent all the way through.

The difference between commercial and wedding is that the end product is so different, the use of the images can't be compared.

My question has nothing to do with the differences between the two but the way people cope with the digital post processing. Have you any experience in this area, and once again can you give me a run down of what you do?

brenton

I can understand your desire to pay a premium for the personal attentions of a pro-lab, but I am very confused by your comment that your "local Walmart is priced the same way."

I am based in the UK so I hope you forgive my ignorance of Walmart's pricing structure. It's just that the power of the internet combined with the ability of online processors to offer a worldwide service should be driving prices down dramatically. My company offers a service to the US from http://www.bonusprint.com/us at 18c for a gloss 4x6 and $1.99 shipping. I do not see why you should have to pay 50c a print. Anthony

George Law said:

Interestingly, even our local WalMart is priced the same way. I'll
stick with my local pro lab however, because they are that good.
Very helpful too with any issue that I might have. I've never
encountered such a friendly environment anywhere else.

George

Click to expand...

Hi Brenton.

You seem very set on staying with film. So do that. I'm sure your clients are happy.

I think a lot of photographers who've gone digital think that photography has again become FUN! At least it has for me. And I'm happy I get to spend time in post processing, because it's FUN!

I also think that the ability to control the product quality a bit further appeals to a lot of pros. If you get a bad print back from your lab is it then because you've done something wrong or because they have? If you've done all the processing and maybe even the printing, you know who's to blame - and can hopefully correct it.

Also - as has been pointed out - digital can open new possibilities for you if you're inclined to do so.

• on the spot printing
• on the spot slideshow
• widely disperse the proofs on the net, so guests, distant relatives and friends can order prints and increase sales.
• easily use the images on your website for advertisement purposes. Thus getting more jobs.
• digital allows you to experiment and lets you learn what works and what doesn't in an efficient manner. You seem to know all the techniques you need, so this probably doesn't apply to you.

If you hate the thought about using Photoshop, then don't. If you hate the thought about learning to exploit digitals possibilites, then don't. Stick with film and use the time you save on something that you think is fun

Cheers,
Hans

brenton said:

I work full time as a commercial photographer. I also shoot
weddings. 90% of my commercial work is done digitally. 100% of my
wedding work is done on film. Why? Because it is so much easier
and quicker. I drop the film off at the lab on Monday, pick up the
prints on Wednesday, deliver the images the following weekend.
Post processing time is the time it takes for me to drive to the
lab and back.
How do people cope digitally? The post processing would take
almost as long as the shoot.

brenton.

Click to expand...

What a load of Bull* it...... a wedding job processed & fixed in the album in 45 minutes........Prove it!

Hey Mr. Stacey.... you'd better d@mn prove it, or you'll p@ss for a d@mn @$$ like fool.



regards,
--
JF

http://www.jfphotostudio.com
[email protected]

Mr. Stacey said:

I know the majority of you fellas are .

I have no idea why it takes you guys a long @$$ time to get your
images going.

My workflow is so d@mned refined, in 45 minutes, the d@mn pictures
are uploaded and burned.

Click to expand...

brenton said:

I work full time as a commercial photographer. I also shoot
weddings. 90% of my commercial work is done digitally. 100% of my
wedding work is done on film. Why? Because it is so much easier
and quicker. I drop the film off at the lab on Monday, pick up the
prints on Wednesday, deliver the images the following weekend.
Post processing time is the time it takes for me to drive to the
lab and back.
How do people cope digitally? The post processing would take
almost as long as the shoot.

brenton.

Click to expand...

As a pro photographer who has hand printed most of his own work since I was 9 I am amazed that some commercial photographers, who have never set foot in a darkroom or even read a book on photographic printing, attempt to produce their own digital prints. Not only does it take them hours to do what a lab can do in minutes (I can colour/exposure correct about 100 prints an hour) but very often the results are sub standard...always the fault of the equipment of cause.

The biggest problem for the labs is that with film you know what filter values (CMY) you need to dial in for that film and all you have to do then is make additional adjustments for the light source or reflected light, green wedding dresses from grass for example. With digital files even the best cameras don't produce original colour values, although some are now very close, so you have to do that before correcting WB. There is the added problem that the photographer may well have used "auto WB", a nightmare! or changed WB settings half way through a shoot. No computer software can correct an image accurately to produce a perfect print, it comes down to a skilled operator to finish it off.

Cost of digital prints in the UK now match "wet processed" prints. So if you can accept prints that look OK leave it to the labs. I am told that many pro photographers are using "Jessops" and are very pleased with the results. I think a lot of photographers will return to using the labs.

However if photographers want prints that look outstanding they will still have to pay someone to "hand print" just as you do with a lab, or take time out to improve their own skills.

A big plus with digital is that if there are some prints you want to "work on" you don't need a darkroom. Cropping is so much easier, 10 seconds in photoshop instead of making masks or drawing a guide on a photo.

I went full digital over 3 years ago and have not set foot in my darkroom since then. No smells, no darkness and no health risk!

--
Roger

I apologize for my "alterior motives" comment. It was un-called for and I hope to be forgiven it.

What I meant to say really was that perhaps you are already seemingly dead-set against digital for wedding and event work, and merely came on with your original post to make a point of it. Obviously, I was wrong and again I apologize.

As far as a workflow or other such "rundown" of what I do or others much better than I do, it really depends on how much you already know about Photoshop, and how much you are willing to learn. My experience has been that at first, when transitioning from a film only background, I was also quite frustrated with post processing myself, and had many doubts also as to it's true utility and efficiency. That was until and after I fortunately kept at it, extended and built upon my own knowledge of Photoshop techniques and workflows, as well as the use of RAW format shooting, color management and archiving.

I understand that the differences in client demands between commercial shoots and wedding work exists, but the end results should be no more different in total image quality, color rendition, sharpness, composition, or any other important aspect involved in the production of high quality image files. I am of the belief that the same principals in post processing apply equally to both for excellence in results. The two of course have differing aesthetic needs, but these are more cosmetic or dependent on individual client expectations really than overall image quality is concerned. In other words, you are going to have to apply some amount of post-processing to both to achieve the effects and outcomes you desire.

So using that philosophy, approach post processing wedding images basically the same way as you would your commercial work at first.....and merely apply the final aesthetics as the finishing touches. You will soon find that you will fall into a time honed and tested workflow which will become almost as second nature. Open the image in Photoshop, and immediately go to your color correction and balance, hue and saturations, levels and/or curves, diffusions, blemish corrections or removals, sharpness levels, etc, etc. On many images, you will find that it is quite possible to batch process many images at once (providing you have a faster CPU with capable memory). Will your lab make minute and detailed corrections such as acne removal on faces or make slight and subtle tonal and contrast adjustments to a groom's tux? Something that you can easily do in Photoshop, much to your client's potential happiness and satisfaction, not to mention something to which you can boast within the scope of your proferred services portfolio? They may be able to, but in the time it takes for you to specify such detailed corrections/enhancements to your lab tech, you could have already done so yourself to half of them, either through workflow or the use of .ATN's or plug-ins, but also to an exacting degree of preciseness of which only YOU could achieve to the high levels of you or your client's own demands.

These are only a few of the reasons I believe film to be dead before too long in the professional wedding photographer's arsenal. It is simply just too wasteful, too un-exacting, and too impersonal inasfar as post processing desires go.

Again, I wish you luck with whatever you do choose to utilize, and I apologize again for my original post's arrogance and rudeness.

I agree whole-heartedly with your post David.....
But that flag pic is making me go cross-eyed...

David's Digital Photography said:

brenton said:

Mr. Stacey said:

I know the majority of you fellas are .

I have no idea why it takes you guys a long @$$ time to get your
images going.

My workflow is so d@mned refined, in 45 minutes, the d@mn pictures
are uploaded and burned.

Click to expand...

D@mn that's fast. got any d@mn examples of the quality you shoot.
How many d@amn shots are we talking here. D@mn it, don't just state
it, d@mn well prove it, tell us what you do, what you use etc,etc.
I wanna d@mn well be convinced digital is the way to go for
weddings.

cheers d@mn it,
brenton.

Click to expand...

--
As pointed out in previous posts digital has a great many
advantages over shooting film. For one example I can switch from
Color to B&W from shot to shot as desired with only a couple of
button pushes! I can also change the iso setting as desired just
as easily. You can't do that with film!

I shoot with the Fuji S2 and comming from a film background I make
every attempt to get the exposure right-on to begin with as I don't
care to spend a lot of time with PS to correct things yet if it
should be needed its a very simple process on the computer and no
scanning required, that's time and effort saved too.

Btw, I shoot JPEG's and I take the opposite approach of most and
shoot 3.5mp files as that is more than sufficent in most all cases,
if exposed properly using the right settings in the S2 I can make a
quality 20x24 and probably even a 24x30. If you don't believe me
go to Gary Fong's web site, DP.net and in the discussion forum
section you will find a gentleman by the name of Claude Jodoin
[Professor Pixel] who also writes articles all the time for the PPA
magazine The Rangefinder. In one article he stated that he had a
friend who shoot aireal shots with a 6mp camera, he didn't say
which one though although Claude prefers the S2 also, and says that
his friend routinely makes 44x66" prints that in his words, 'Look
Beautiful' which I have no doubt of!

Something else you mentioned and seem to be missinformed about is
digital noise, and some cameras do have more of it than others. My
experience has been with the S2 and I haven't experienced any noise
at all even shooting at iso 1600 for 10 sec. by Moon light.



I believe the resolution of the current digital cameras such as the
Fuji S2 far exceeds the ability of film.

I also like the control digital allows me over film and the
beautiful images and detail it captures seem to far exceed film
IMHO.

Time & Images share one common basis. In a moment they're gone!
Capture the moment!
David Smith, Digital Photography

Click to expand...