The F4 has an extremely quiet shutter so if you are not listening for it you won't hear it. Most of the F4's noise is the mirror and the film advance system.
Yeah, I sold my F2s when they were 'obsolete" but before they became desirable..
It probably would have shown some sort of error and wouldn;t have played back any images.
I thought Kodak had one of the 760 type cameras that were BW?
This sort of attitude just makes me mad. The guy should never have been able to get the job. Its only through ignorance that any sane person would hire a "pro" who'd feel so threatened as to not let guests take pictures. If amateurs start getting in the way of a pro's shots, then he should respectfully ask them to step out of the way. Other than that he should have no objections. He is indeed rendering a service and treating your paying customers with contempt is absolutely downright stupid no matter what product of services you're providing. Holding people to ransom with negatives, and taking advantage of their naivete is a sad way to make a living.
I think you'll get a good bit of pushback on this requirement.
Yeah, so? Several gazillion weddings (plus/minus a bazillion) have been very successfully shot on film. Digital may confer some unique advantages (and disadvantages, too) but dismissing film as "wrong" with the wave of the hand is both flippantly inaccurate and insulting to those who made their life with film.
Agreed. Bad move.
Probably. He should not concerned himself with relatives taking pictures unless they were actually in his way or interfering with his workflow. And a good wedding photog with a well-tweaked workflow will make room for relatives with the P&S. It's inevitible -- might as well work 'em in to the extent possible without losing too much time. It can be done!
Any contract is between the photographer and the hiring party, ex. the B&G -- not with the guests. No bloody photographer is going to tell me I can't snap a few casual pics (when I'm not the hired guy).
--
--
The traditional arrangement has been expliotative and restrictive. The pro should never have to wait in line - he should have the priority since he'd have the most knowledge in the room and isn't distracted by the celebration - he's at work. That's fair enough.
Why are they griping? If the shots they take aren't signifcantly better than those taken by amateur guests in their spare moments, the photographer wasn't needed and isn't adding value, and simply shouldn't be there.
Here the pro has been paid to set up the shot. If 60 people get a good shot, he's still set it up. He should be paid precisely for this then and there - not for some print made on the couple's 5th wedding anniversary. What's more the pro should be shooting reliably enough on each shot that their worst shot using professional equipement still outdoes the best shot produced by the guests using worse equipment and who have less expertise.
I agree that the pro should be allowed to do it. I also think a high cost up front is a good way to do it.
--
I just had a card that recorded all of the images, and then said it wasn't formatted and wouldn't let me access them. I had to send the card out to LC tecnologys to get the ceremony images. Two camera bodies is the way to go....
Yeah, this is my point and expanded by your above comment. There was
I don't do this any more, but I would not give ANY client raw images right off the camera before I had a chance to edit them and run them through post production.
