"Bologna"
Oh, I agree!! I was more than a little surprised that a pro photog
would put that on his web site - it's so blatantly uninformed.
-p
pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
----- "Paul Sorenson" <allarou...@earthlink.net> wrote:
According to the web site of one local wedding shooter. He says...
*"Film or Digital? Don't be fooled - newer isn't always better.
Digital is wonderful in the studio - under controlled lighting and
from
short distances - but definitely is not suitable for weddings.
Digital
is finicky and requires precision exposure that is difficult to attain
under the wide variety of conditions and involved in wedding coverage.
Basically, digital wedding photographers are always adjusting their
cameras and reviewing their work when they should be taking pictures.
At this point, digital simply is too risky. Many studios have
switched
to digital for one reason - to save money - whereas we don't mind
paying
a little extra for the quality and consistency of film. We can
provide
you with all of the "special effects" and retouches being touted by
digital wedding photographers."*
He does admit that MF is dead 'cause all his shooters use 35mm.
Food for thought...
Bologna
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.3/2075 - Release Date: 04/22/09 17:25:00
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
