Hi!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Ravensdale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:05 AM
> Why are you looking at digital? I am not a wedding photographer myself,
but
> I am just curious, having recently spoken to a wedding photographer, who
has
> rejected digital and is firmly committed to analogue.
A professional should never take firm sides over technique or tools they
use. Tools evolve and pros must use what is required to get the job done. If
customer wants digital (for what ever reason), and photographer firmly stays
with film, then he is very likely to loose a client. Can the pro
photographers afford to loose clients?
> ==================================
>
> Most wedding photogs over here in the UK seem to use medium format
(6x4.5 -
> 6x6)
> rather than 35mm (except maybe for a few candids at the reception)
You probably mean studio work. Sure, in studio one is supposed to pose. So
being fast isn't that important. Madium format is ok. (Except that with
digital the photographer could show the subject(s) what the last photo just
looked like and what he'd like to do differently. I've heard that it's much
easier to get the poses that you want when you can work with the subject
like this...).
But seremony and receptions... I've never seen anybody trying to shoot the
ceremony or reception with medium format. I guess it can be done, if the
seremony or reception is interrupted for posed shots... but I would not do
that as a photographer. Specially not during the seremony. I believe the
photographer must be out of the way and as invisible as he can. He is not
the object of celebrations there. Using 35mm enables the photographer to get
good enough shots from fast situations. Heck, I even had trouble to keep up
shooting the couple as they walked avay from the altar. They don't walk that
fast, but even with EOS-3+AI servo + preselected AF point (at the side, on
bride) + 70-200 2.8L I had trouble to get the shots. Maybe that was becouse
I didn't have the IS version and was using monopod (trying to get some
quality into the photos) and that slowed me down already too much.
Digital would not have helped in that situation, as if the photos were not
good, I could not have done them again. But then suddenly I'm outside with
totally different ISO requirements... Of course, this can be handled with
another camera, where the film just ended...
But as were seeing digital catch up with film (D-30 & 1D vs. film - some say
that digital is better. And the upcoming RGB Faveon...) why would a pro not
go digital in this situation? (Other advantages have all ready been listed
in other emails). Specially when the digital photos are not limited to ink
jet outputs (which are quite good). If you output the photos to photopaper,
the clients will never even know they were taken digitally.
Just a few cents from my limited wedding experience (countless weddings, but
photographer only at two)...
Bye,
Hugo.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
