I can't believe people shoot Weddings digitally!

gregY · Jul 24, 2003

AFAIC and IMHO,

Digital is the way to go for weddings. I shoot weddings freelance, recently migrating from an EOS 3 to a 10D.

I chose to go digital because of a few factors:

1. On the spot review

2. The freedom to change ISO and white balance on the fly (that means never having to worry about bringing different films for varying lighting conditions)

3. Trash bad shots on the fly

4. Total control over final output (anyone who takes pride in his work would want that)

5. Never having to worry about maintaining the quality of pro film stock ever again! Frees up a lot of space in my refrigerator too

6. Every time I change a roll mid-shoot, I worry that I might miss a shot. So if I shoot 20 rolls that day, my heart skips a beat 20 times! With digital I cut that down a lot (2 to 3 cards at the most). I know one guy who still shoots weddings with a manual SLR, you should see him frantically crank the rewind lever everytime he changes rolls!

7. Saves me the anxiety of keeping my fingers crossed that the lab doesn't accidentally screw up my negs.

Of course, having shot events for more than a year digitally using a loaned 1D, I'm not new to the amount of post-processing that is required. It's just a matter of adjusting my workflow to such an extent that it becomes second nature. And it gets refined with every new job. I record actions that I can use to batch process my shots to make life a little easier.

I do agree though that film takes out a lot of post-work out of our hands, but with so much going for digital, for me it seems worth the effort.

Greg

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.

--
An image is only as good as everyone says it is

Jacques Cornell · Jul 24, 2003

I have recently signed up with Pictage.com.

steve giron said:
Majikthize said:

For me, the following advantages are compelling:

1) Instant image review,

2) No need to carry and juggle multiple film speeds & types,

3) Ability to shoot 150 images uninterrupted (RAW on 1GB card),

4) Ability to burn/dodge, crop, precisely correct
color/exposure/contrast, add custom borders,

5) Digital files without scanning - for posting on Web and Dwight D. Eisenhower

Click to expand...

--- clip ----

--
'May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.' -
Dwight D. Eisenhower

ajs2 · Jul 24, 2003

Hi,

Jessops in the UK LOL. You can do better than that. There are proper Pro labs now that are cheaper than Jessops. and better. Jessops do have the FF 370's and they are good machines, it just the people using them are not trained. I have spoke to the jessops and they hardly knew what a TIFF was.
Alex

Roger Beckett said:
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

--
Alex
A camera is a box to capture & store light, nothing more & nothing less.

David's Digital Photography · Jul 24, 2003

David M. said:
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...

--

Yes a 10 sec. exp. along with a slight breeze hardly makes for a sharp image, I'll agree on that!

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

David's Digital Photography · Jul 24, 2003

David M. said:
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'll have to agree with David on what he states here also as digital gives the photographer abilities film photographers have to go through several steps to try and acheive if they are even set-up to do.

In your initial statement Benton I'll have to agree that working with digital during the week film does provide you a break from the norm. As far as the rest of your statment most of the posts in favor of using digital do speak in a very positive fashion and I guess the question could be asked why are you shooting digital for commericial if you feel film is so much easier?? No offense meant.

I think a lot has to do with personal preference.

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

Anthony Ward · Jul 24, 2003

Hi Alex - don't keep it to yourself - who are these pro-labs and how much cheaper than Jessops are they? Anthony

ajs2 said:
Hi,
Jessops in the UK LOL. You can do better than that. There are
proper Pro labs now that are cheaper than Jessops. and better.
Jessops do have the FF 370's and they are good machines, it just
the people using them are not trained. I have spoke to the jessops
and they hardly knew what a TIFF was.
Alex

Gillis Danielsen · Jul 24, 2003

And you dont need much post-processing!

digital100 · Jul 24, 2003

Shooting digital you cam be much more creative why? because you can afford to shoot a lot more images and end up with a much better choice of images to pick from.

It would cost you a lot to shoot 400 to 500 to 1000 images at a wedding on film. If you did shoot 1000 as many digital shooters do then you using film would not make much money at all after paying for the film.

If you don't shoot in to the many hundreds of images then you are not covering the wedding as good as you can or should and can not offer the photo quality a digital shooter can. We can take a shot 3 or 4 times to pick the best one with film if you only take one you will never know if you have all the eyes open and if not then you have a bad photo.

Collage montage prints you cant do them.

We now only offer collage montage magazine style prints. that is a print that has a collage of images on it from one to ten and many have a background image used in the background on the print . with film you can not offer thin unless you scan everything even more time plus you would still have the cost of the film..

Internet viewing

We post images from a wedding online with in a day or so after the wedding in a shopping cart system and people from the wedding can buy prints so we make more money.

We also post the collage wedding pages when done and that is how the bride and groom proof the album and can request any changes its fast and we do not have to meet with them at all.

Better photos with digitaL

dO YOU CARRY AROUND 200, 400, 800 AND 1600 SPEED FILM i do its all in my digital camera.

For low light i can shoot in 1600 or 1000 and move to the next room and shoot at 200 iso no film to change and i am ready right away.

I can shoot over one hundred images on one CF card i use and change it with in seconds to a new one. When you are changing your film i am still shooting photos not missing anything.

I can fix any lighting problems on my digital image and control all aspects of the work flow and out put.

We give every wedding customer a slide show Cd of images also and they love this we sell many extra CDs to family members for $40

I love being all digital and will never go back to film. Print only what you need not everything just to see it.

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.

--
D100 user

Peter Phan · Jul 24, 2003

Brenton, this image is STRAIGHT FROM THE CAMERA, with only a bit of unsharp mask applied! There was no noise to remove! And anyone who has a 10D can easily vouch for the very low noise 10D images have, if any.

Mr. Stacey · Jul 24, 2003

That's the best point a Canon user has ever said.

--

Michael Packer · Jul 24, 2003

Brenton,

If you tell us what you typically present to a customer (just pick a past example), and tell us how long it takes you to prepare the package and what it costs you, we can in turn tell you how much time and money it would take us digitally to give them the same thing.

ericrf · Jul 24, 2003

I got my Kodak DCS back for my Mamiya about 3 months and haven't looked back.

YES, there is more post production work involved with a digital wedding. I figure I spend an additional 1 - 3 HOURS per wedding correcting, ripping and burning each wedding. Time I did not spent before.

This extra time is 100% worth it because:

1) The instant preview of digital almost guarantees that if I shoot 200 shots, I will have 200 good shots reducing waste.

2) I can upload the digital files immediatly to the web allowing my customer to preview their wedding while on their honeymoon (Some honeymooners I am told, don't spend all of their time tied to a bedpost).
3) I have not spent a single $ on film in 3 months.
4) I pay the same for printing digital as I did for film prints.

5) When I create my wedding album, I send my CD (s) with a list to the lab. That's it. NO negative pulling, no masking, no glassine bags.

How much time do you spend in post production pulling negs?

Good luck,
Eric Fernandes
http://www.rowesphotography.com

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.

bs · Jul 24, 2003

OK Michael that sounds fair......i've asked people specifics earlier in the discussion and no one has had the courtesy to come up with the goods which suggests to me they are giving a biased opinion favouring digital just b/c they think i'm against it, not giving me a realistic view of what is really achievable, they're only fooling themselves if they think they can up load an entire wedding at a high quality in 45min.

NB: these are estimated times and costs only.

1. purchase 2 packs of film (5 rolls in each/36 frames each roll), one pack Fuji NPH400 (color), one pack Ilford XP2 (b&w): 10 min. $150

2. shoot wedding, using 2 film cameras, one for color, one for b&w: 10hrs.

3. drop film off at lab with printing instructions. (5x7 proofs on matt paper with black/fuzzy boarders, print warm (as i use an 81C filter on all color shots), b&w with sepia tone) nb: get triple copies of all shots (works out much cheaper when couple requests re-prints for their parents), only costs an extra $8/roll rather than a few $ print later, also proof sheet of each roll: 15min $400 (max)

4. pick up prints: 15 min

5. scan and up load 24 images as a sample for on line album/upload, mount images in proof album (culling unacceptable shots as i go): 1 hr 30min

6. bride/groom pick up proof album, select images for enlarging: 1hr 30min (could be longer, just depends.......?)

7. ring lab with required enlargements, they print them (they file negs. for me there until i've done all re-prints required): 10min ($ depends entirely on the images selected by couple)

8. pick up enlargements/re-prints and negs from lab: 15min.

9. mount images (approx40) in final album: 1hour. ($ depends on album selected)

(10. also if required i will make a montage kind of shot, scan desired images only and manipulate in p/shop: time can't be predicted b/c who knows what i may need to do to the images?

11. Take order of re-prints for other family members (rember you already have 2 spare copies of all images from original printing): time could vary say 1 hour (max), $ depends on what is requested....., organise extra printing with lab).

I guess that's a broad guide to what i'd do for a standard wedding, at a very simplified level i suppose i like to think of my time as being worth about $50/hour for a wedding.

hope that's pretty clear,
brenton.

Michael Packer said:
Brenton,

If you tell us what you typically present to a customer (just pick
a past example), and tell us how long it takes you to prepare the
package and what it costs you, we can in turn tell you how much
time and money it would take us digitally to give them the same
thing.

bs · Jul 24, 2003

p.s. forgot to back up the kind of shooting i do, feel free to see wedding samples at my pbase site:

http://www.pbase.com/brenton

you will see that i'm not afraid of digital and use it quite extensively for my commercial work, but the wedding samples i have there have all been shot using film, and are direct scans of prints delivered to clients (no re-touching/ other than run auto color in p/shop so they look OK on the web)

cheers,
brenton.

brenton said:
NB: these are estimated times and costs only.

1. purchase 2 packs of film (5 rolls in each/36 frames each roll),
one pack Fuji NPH400 (color), one pack Ilford XP2 (b&w): 10 min.
$150

2. shoot wedding, using 2 film cameras, one for color, one for b&w:
10hrs.

3. drop film off at lab with printing instructions. (5x7 proofs on
matt paper with black/fuzzy boarders, print warm (as i use an 81C
filter on all color shots), b&w with sepia tone) nb: get triple
copies of all shots (works out much cheaper when couple requests
re-prints for their parents), only costs an extra $8/roll rather
than a few $ print later, also proof sheet of each roll: 15min
$400 (max)

4. pick up prints: 15 min

5. scan and up load 24 images as a sample for on line
album/upload, mount images in proof album (culling unacceptable
shots as i go): 1 hr 30min

6. bride/groom pick up proof album, select images for enlarging:
1hr 30min (could be longer, just depends.......?)

7. ring lab with required enlargements, they print them (they file
negs. for me there until i've done all re-prints required): 10min
($ depends entirely on the images selected by couple)

8. pick up enlargements/re-prints and negs from lab: 15min.

9. mount images (approx40) in final album: 1hour. ($ depends on
album selected)

(10. also if required i will make a montage kind of shot, scan
desired images only and manipulate in p/shop: time can't be
predicted b/c who knows what i may need to do to the images?

11. Take order of re-prints for other family members (rember you
already have 2 spare copies of all images from original printing):
time could vary say 1 hour (max), $ depends on what is
requested....., organise extra printing with lab).

I guess that's a broad guide to what i'd do for a standard wedding,
at a very simplified level i suppose i like to think of my time as
being worth about $50/hour for a wedding.

hope that's pretty clear,
brenton.

Michael Packer said:

Brenton,

If you tell us what you typically present to a customer (just pick
a past example), and tell us how long it takes you to prepare the
package and what it costs you, we can in turn tell you how much
time and money it would take us digitally to give them the same
thing.

Click to expand...

David A Melges · Jul 24, 2003

The last wedding I shot, I shot the equivalent of 22 rolls of film....in film and developing thats $440 to me...instead I only printed the 150 finished products which cost me $46. Thats a savings of $394.

I spent approximately 6 hours processing my images....ummm, errrr, thats like paying myself $65/hour to do that work. During the week, when I didn't have another photo job, thats extremely good money.

Of course I had to suffer through providing my customer with absolutely PERFECT images, light years better than I would have come up with blindly trusting the lab, but you can't have everything!

dave

ps honestly no offense intended, but this is a no brainer....heck pay some college kid $20 hour to do it and your still banking royally!

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.

--
Amazing what we can do with just three crayons, red green and blue!
http://yourbattlecreek.com/dave/

Rob Duke · Jul 24, 2003

I do spend a lot of time post processing and it is tedious work but....I do love digital....

I guess that is the bottm line....if you love digital like I do it...I am hooked

RD

C.Frank Powell · Jul 24, 2003

Digital for 3 yrs.
Post processing time 2 hrs.
drop CD off at lab.
pick up proofs in 2 days.
.
Control of image, preview at wedding to make sure of no missed shots.
return the CD to lab with order sheet.

Film bodies for sale;-) why sure!

Frank-O

TonyK_in_Texas · Jul 24, 2003

First there are issues of the lab one uses. If you have a good lab and they maintain their equipment, then that helps.

And I think most pros who shoot weddings digitally may have assistants to help ease the workflow. If not, then they may price in the time they take to process the images and not being available for other jobs. It really depends on the flow of the business.

I have a work flow that allows me to process a lot of images in short order. And I am looking at a gig in the next year that will require less than 24 hr turn around time from image to print. I could not do this with film and still maintain a competitive price structure.

What I know is I would not go back to film EXCEPT if it were a special case where digital could not handle the job.

Take care,

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.

--
TonyK

TonyK_in_Texas · Jul 24, 2003

1) load images on to system
1b) burn CDR if desired of original images.
2) Open BreezeBrowser or C1LE depending on mode and effort desired
3) review images selecting images for processing

4) process images. In C1LE I can do more color correcting and even crop to 8"x10" (everything falls from there).
5) open in PS for any final work, which should be only crop and size.
6) save work to zip disk / cdr / etc. Burn to CDR as desired for archiving.
7) drop off for printing
8) pick up prints and media
9) drop off prints, collect payment.

This is how I worked last Christmas doing a special assignment for a friend. (I used BB as C1LE was not out).

Once a workflow and tools have been assembled and learned, the time is really not that bad.

Take care,

brenton said:
....
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.

--
TonyK

TonyK_in_Texas · Jul 24, 2003

Depending on the number of images and the workflow, not very long, really.

When we went to Scotland (05/2001), I reviewed 340 images and processed a large number of those images in less than 1 day and had them posted. I then spent 1 day printing for the photo album.

It took the lab longer to process the 18 rolls of film I delivered to them ( I shot both digital and film in 2001).

Of course I am not a pro so my opinion may not count.

Take care,

brenton said:
Well digital is probably the way to go for them.....but my point
wasn't meant to be how quickly you get the final print back from
the lab, just how much time you spend on the images getting to the
final print. This is the important factor in my situation, and
because i have access to excellent labs isolation isn't a factor.

brenton.

--
TonyK

I can't believe people shoot Weddings digitally!

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Gillis Danielsen

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts