<<SNIPPED>> > > Hi! <<SNIPPED>> > > > > 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. >
Hi Hugo, I don't know where you are in the world but the standard wedding format here in the USA since the dawn of time (40 years or so that I can remember anyway and I'm pretty sure well before what with the TLR's or old), has been 6x6 for all of the actual wedding images, set poses and family shots. Recently (the last 20 years or so), pre-wedding, usually 35mm candid using available light for bride, groom and wedding party dressing. Most will also use 35mm (lit with available light or flash on camera), for candid at banquet or reception and pick up any missed shots with the 6x6. Lately (last 10 years or so), with lowered expectations of image quality, improved 35mm film, the advent relatively affordable high quality 35mm AF gear and the high cost of a traditional professional wedding photographer and his assistants many young people facing the reality of a 50% average divorce rate and looking at a $5-$10K (much higher for large events), photography bill are opting for 35mm photographers over traditional 6x6 shooters at a lower rate claiming it looks more "vintage" or artistic. If you had trouble keeping up with an AF 35mm camera then you must not have done your part of the planning of the event. A good wedding photographer is usually involved at least to some degree, while the events are being planned. This allows everyone to know what will happen, when it will happen and what to expect in terms of execution and pace during the event. The photographer should point out potential situations and the time he needs while the event is being planned that will allow him to get the shots the bride and groom expect to see in their book, which should have been discussed prior to or concurrently as the event is planned. The reason the photographer should be involved from the beginning is so that photography of the event will not be disruptive, but an integrated component of the event when and as it occurs. This also ensures that both he (or his assistants), and the right parties will know when and where to be to get the images the B&G want to put in the book. A good wedding photographer should be working with the wedding planner/co-coordinator, professional or not. A successful wedding event is a complicated, live production that is best planned executed by a script. Once the event starts many random issues can come up and this is where experience is handy to have paid for. Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
