RE: A photographic weekend - ahhhhhhhh!
i wanna come too!! tan. -Original Message- From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 29 June 2004 11:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: A photographic weekend - a! -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 2:04 PM > -Original Message- > From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I talked to the DJ about this when he was waiting for a > replacement microphone to show up. I told him that there was > no way I would go out without some backup... DJ's and limo drivers, don't get me started tv Next time I am up there I am going to have to hear these stories --- over a couple of cold ones of course. Still no idea when I am headed north, Cesar Panama City, Florida
RE: A photographic weekend - ahhhhhhhh!
erm, photos please, sir?!? we want to SEE the evidence to back up your ludicrous claims! ;-) tan. -Original Message- From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 29 June 2004 3:45 AM To: Pentax-Discuss (E-mail) Subject: A photographic weekend - a! I have not been keeping up with the list - I know, tell you something new - but I actually had a good excuse the last few days. Just bear with me :-) My next door neighbor's elder daughter got married on Saturday. She is like my little sister. My, how they all grow up... Anyway, I was the official photographer. All the festivities began on Thursday - now that is the way to celebrate. Thursday was a sunset cruise into the bay. I used the *ist D for about 200 shots on the boat. It was a nice way to meet some of the groom's family. It is good to know who these people are for when you are shooting at the reception. It was a wonderful time as I was getting some nice candids, especially as the sun was setting. I found I was rather stealthy as shots were taken and no one realized I was even around. I did have to prefocus some as I talked to people - who did not like their photo taken - and shot from the hip or the chest. Friday was the rehearsal. I shot a roll of 160 NC as a test with different settings to verify lighting and such. I was using the MZ-S. The rehearsal dinner was fantastic. Some more meeting of people and a plethora of candid shots. I was using the *ist D for these and ended up with another 200 shots. Saturday I took in the test roll to my developer. They came out great! Easily correctible with a negative, but I found MY setting as -1 with the flash. I believe in minimizing any corrections by the lab. It is not because I do not trust them, but rather I want it right straight from the camera. I should know what I am doing and not have to rely on others to correct my mistakes. The lab person told me I should have had them dressed up at the rehearsal as they were lovely exposures. She says it is a dream to work with my film. She was raving over the exposure, the sharpness, the color of the shots. Thank you Pentax :-) At 1:15 I made it to the church. The wedding was at 4. I shot mainly the film camera. I had the MZ-S as my main camera (film wind) with three LXen as backups. I did use an LX during the ceremony shooting Ilford Delta 3200 at ASA 1600. I was using the FA* 200/2.8 from the back of the church for these b&w shots. I would have loved to have had the *ist D alongside to compare. The test shots with the *ist D at 1600 were very nice. I ended up shooting just over 13 rolls, that included a few at the reception. The fun part was switching the AF400T between the *ist D and MZ-S. I shot digitally for a few of the 'silly' 'fun' shots and did film for the formals. I will leave out a few of the personal things that went on - being that I am so close to the family it was the most enjoyable wedding I have done. They do have one more daughter, so I may get to experience it again. The reception was another blast. It was held at the elementary school where she taught. It made for some interesting logistics. And to top it all off we had rain. I never gave it a second thought, especially when carting the LX. I ended up taking almost 400 shots on the *ist D. The saber arch was beautiful, and their dash in the rain to the Corvette was a nice ending. I ended up shotting until about 8:30 that night. Surprised myself that I was not really tired. You really do not want to know how many cameras, flashes, lenses, battery packs, batteries, and external meters I was carrying. I talked to the DJ about this when he was waiting for a replacement microphone to show up. I told him that there was no way I would go out without some backup... Sorry for the ramble, thought some might be interested. Dropping off the film after work, César Panama City, Florida
RE: A photographic weekend - ahhhhhhhh!
Jim, I am fortunate to have a wonderful relationship and trust my photo developers. I have even worked behind the counter for them. I am part of the family. Therefore I have total confidence in them. I can more quickly view the prints than the computer screen when editing. I usually take three shots of each group. I can put all three together and decide which to present to the couple. I do not throw out prints nor delete files, so it is so much easier to pull out the prints to show people. It is all to my convenience. That, and I have had directories disappear on a computer in the past. It is harder for me to lose a negative or slide. César Panama City, Florida -Original Message- From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 3:14 PM Cesar, Your wedding activities reminded me of some weddings I have done in the past. I did one wedding exclusively with digital. I decided I will not longer do a wedding with a digital slr, although I could take many more exposures than with film. My reasoning is that there is a lot of post-production labor involving digital that I never did with film. Exposure corrections, sharpening, maybe some gaussian blur effect. All takes time. When it comes to film, I may have some images printed to "hot" and I return to the lab for correction. I let them correct the error. Yes, it takes time as well to do this, but I enjoy being inside a camera store looking at all the toys. Jim A. > From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:45:26 -0400 > > I have not been keeping up with the list - I know, tell you something new - > but I actually had a good excuse the last few days. Just bear with me :-) > > My next door neighbor's elder daughter got married on Saturday. She is like > my little sister. My, how they all grow up... > > Anyway, I was the official photographer. All the festivities began on > Thursday - now that is the way to celebrate. > Thursday was a sunset cruise into the bay. I used the *ist D for about 200 > shots on the boat. It was a nice way to meet some of the groom's family. > It is good to know who these people are for when you are shooting at the > reception. It was a wonderful time as I was getting some nice candids, > especially as the sun was setting. I found I was rather stealthy as shots > were taken and no one realized I was even around. I did have to prefocus > some as I talked to people - who did not like their photo taken - and shot > from the hip or the chest. > > Friday was the rehearsal. I shot a roll of 160 NC as a test with different > settings to verify lighting and such. I was using the MZ-S. The rehearsal > dinner was fantastic. Some more meeting of people and a plethora of candid > shots. I was using the *ist D for these and ended up with another 200 > shots. > > Saturday I took in the test roll to my developer. They came out great! > Easily correctible with a negative, but I found MY setting as -1 with the > flash. I believe in minimizing any corrections by the lab. It is not > because I do not trust them, but rather I want it right straight from the > camera. I should know what I am doing and not have to rely on others to > correct my mistakes. > The lab person told me I should have had them dressed up at the rehearsal as > they were lovely exposures. She says it is a dream to work with my film. > She was raving over the exposure, the sharpness, the color of the shots. > Thank you Pentax :-) > > At 1:15 I made it to the church. The wedding was at 4. I shot mainly the > film camera. I had the MZ-S as my main camera (film wind) with three LXen > as backups. I did use an LX during the ceremony shooting Ilford Delta 3200 > at ASA 1600. I was using the FA* 200/2.8 from the back of the church for > these b&w shots. I would have loved to have had the *ist D alongside to > compare. The test shots with the *ist D at 1600 were very nice. > I ended up shooting just over 13 rolls, that included a few at the > reception. > The fun part was switching the AF400T between the *ist D and MZ-S. I shot > digitally for a few of the 'silly' 'fun' shots and did film for the formals. > I will leave out a few of the personal things that went on - being that I am > so close to the family it was the most enjoyable wedding I have done. They > do have one more daughter, so I may get to experience it again. > The reception was another blast. It was held at the elementary school where > she taught. It made for some interesting logistics. And to top it all off > we had rain. I never gave it a second thought, especially when carting the > LX. I ended up taking almost 400 shots on the *ist D. > > The saber arch was beautiful, and their dash in the rain to the Corvette was > a nice ending. I ended up shotting until about 8:30 that night. Surprised > myself that I was not really tired. You really do not want to know how many > cameras, flashes, lenses, battery packs,
RE: A photographic weekend - ahhhhhhhh!
Of course, most folks that I know (consumer types) think in exactly the opposite way. Use digital for important stuff since you can see your result. After all, you may have blurred that shot or cut a head off, etc. For consumers, there is no fancy "post processing " with digital. They print it off just like film, except they only print the ones they want and do some cropping. The only reluctance I see to digital is the decision to spend the money on a new digital camera. As for the others, most of the wedding photographers I know now use digital and don't give it a second thought. I really do understand the point of your post. There are advantages to film. It's just that I always grab my *istD these days. This week for the first time I began to think about selling my film bodies, which would be the first time I've sold anything. I suspect that this will be come a more realistic option once I get a second digital body. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/04 04:46PM >>> Interesting2 of you that are digitally enabled choose to still use film for the important have to get it right images. There is no doubt that film still does have it's advantages. In our society where time is everything, letting the labs do it has it's own good points vs. the general advertised big plus of digital giving instant images. The fact that shooting digital is much like slide film in exposure sensitivity may backfire somewhat in promoters faces..maybe...the question is by the time the public figures out how great film really is, will it and services to handle it still be there? I was going to sell off a bunch of my film stuff, and had it on the stands taking pictures to promote said sale, but this created excessive fondling and...sigh...I couldn't do it! > -Original Message- > From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 3:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: A photographic weekend - a! > > > Cesar, > Your wedding activities reminded me of some weddings I have done in the > past. I did one wedding exclusively with digital. I decided I will not > longer do a wedding with a digital slr, although I could take many more > exposures than with film. > My reasoning is that there is a lot of post-production labor involving > digital that I never did with film. Exposure corrections, sharpening, > maybe some gaussian blur effect. All takes time. > When it comes to film, I may have some images printed to "hot" > and I return > to the lab for correction. I let them correct the error. Yes, it takes > time as well to do this, but I enjoy being inside a camera store > looking at > all the toys. > > Jim A. > > > From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:45:26 -0400 > > To: "Pentax-Discuss (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: A photographic weekend - a! > > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:44:46 -0400 > > > > I have not been keeping up with the list - I know, tell you > something new - > > but I actually had a good excuse the last few days. Just bear > with me :-) > > > > My next door neighbor's elder daughter got married on Saturday. > She is like > > my little sister. My, how they all grow up... > > > > Anyway, I was the official photographer. All the festivities began on > > Thursday - now that is the way to celebrate. > > Thursday was a sunset cruise into the bay. I used the *ist D > for about 200 > > shots on the boat. It was a nice way to meet some of the > groom's family. > > It is good to know who these people are for when you are shooting at the > > reception. It was a wonderful time as I was getting some nice candids, > > especially as the sun was setting. I found I was rather > stealthy as shots > > were taken and no one realized I was even around. I did have > to prefocus > > some as I talked to people - who did not like their photo taken > - and shot > > from the hip or the chest. > > > > Friday was the rehearsal. I shot a roll of 160 NC as a test > with different > > settings to verify lighting and such. I was using the MZ-S. > The rehearsal > > dinner was fantastic. Some more meeting of people and a > plethora of candid > > shots. I was using the *ist D for these and ended up with another 200 > > shots. > > > > Saturday I took in the test roll to my developer. They cam
Re: A photographic weekend - ahhhhhhhh!
So go out and buy some film. David Miers wrote: snip. I was going to sell off a bunch of my film stuff, and had it on the stands taking pictures to promote said sale, but this created excessive fondling and...sigh...I couldn't do it!
Re: A photographic weekend - ahhhhhhhh!
your wedding lab should be able to do all the same things for you at the same cost per image, if it is a decent professional lab. Herb - Original Message - From: "Jim Apilado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 3:13 PM Subject: Re: A photographic weekend - a! > My reasoning is that there is a lot of post-production labor involving > digital that I never did with film. Exposure corrections, sharpening, > maybe some gaussian blur effect. All takes time. > When it comes to film, I may have some images printed to "hot" and I return > to the lab for correction. I let them correct the error. Yes, it takes > time as well to do this, but I enjoy being inside a camera store looking at > all the toys.
Re: A photographic weekend - ahhhhhhhh!
There are lots of wedding shooters who shoot all digital. It's a workflow efficiency issue that is developed with knowledge and experience. Many folks can go through 1000-1500 images and come up with a set of files for proofs in a couple of hours. The key is batch operations and not getting fancy on proofs. Save the custom tweaking for the pictures that go in the albums or enlargements. Since you're working with digital files there isn't any need to go driving off to a lab. Just up load images to places that print them out and then send them back to you. People weren't fast and efficient the first time they printed in a darkroom, digital is no different. BR > > From: Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Your wedding activities reminded me of some weddings I have done in the > past. I did one wedding exclusively with digital. I decided I will not > longer do a wedding with a digital slr, although I could take many more > exposures than with film. > My reasoning is that there is a lot of post-production labor involving > digital that I never did with film. Exposure corrections, sharpening, > maybe some gaussian blur effect. All takes time. > When it comes to film, I may have some images printed to "hot" and I return > to the lab for correction. I let them correct the error. Yes, it takes > time as well to do this, but I enjoy being inside a camera store looking at > all the toys. > >
RE: A photographic weekend - ahhhhhhhh!
I think you are right if you're talking about experenced users. Most people give their films to industrial labos which really give you back only crap. It is not very difficult to switch to digital in these conditions. However if usually use a little pro-like labo then, of course, it can make a huge difference. My 2 cents. Thibouille -Message d'origine- De : David Miers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : lundi 28 juin 2004 22:47 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : RE: A photographic weekend - a! Interesting2 of you that are digitally enabled choose to still use film for the important have to get it right images. There is no doubt that film still does have it's advantages. In our society where time is everything, letting the labs do it has it's own good points vs. the general advertised big plus of digital giving instant images. The fact that shooting digital is much like slide film in exposure sensitivity may backfire somewhat in promoters faces..maybe...the question is by the time the public figures out how great film really is, will it and services to handle it still be there? I was going to sell off a bunch of my film stuff, and had it on the stands taking pictures to promote said sale, but this created excessive fondling and...sigh...I couldn't do it! > -Original Message- > From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 3:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: A photographic weekend - a! > > > Cesar, > Your wedding activities reminded me of some weddings I have done in > the past. I did one wedding exclusively with digital. I decided I > will not longer do a wedding with a digital slr, although I could take > many more exposures than with film. > My reasoning is that there is a lot of post-production labor involving > digital that I never did with film. Exposure corrections, > sharpening, maybe some gaussian blur effect. All takes time. > When it comes to film, I may have some images printed to "hot" > and I return > to the lab for correction. I let them correct the error. Yes, it > takes time as well to do this, but I enjoy being inside a camera > store looking at all the toys. > > Jim A. > > > From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:45:26 -0400 > > To: "Pentax-Discuss (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: A photographic weekend - a! > > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:44:46 -0400 > > > > I have not been keeping up with the list - I know, tell you > something new - > > but I actually had a good excuse the last few days. Just bear > with me :-) > > > > My next door neighbor's elder daughter got married on Saturday. > She is like > > my little sister. My, how they all grow up... > > > > Anyway, I was the official photographer. All the festivities began > > on Thursday - now that is the way to celebrate. > > Thursday was a sunset cruise into the bay. I used the *ist D > for about 200 > > shots on the boat. It was a nice way to meet some of the > groom's family. > > It is good to know who these people are for when you are shooting at > > the reception. It was a wonderful time as I was getting some nice > > candids, especially as the sun was setting. I found I was rather > stealthy as shots > > were taken and no one realized I was even around. I did have > to prefocus > > some as I talked to people - who did not like their photo taken > - and shot > > from the hip or the chest. > > > > Friday was the rehearsal. I shot a roll of 160 NC as a test > with different > > settings to verify lighting and such. I was using the MZ-S. > The rehearsal > > dinner was fantastic. Some more meeting of people and a > plethora of candid > > shots. I was using the *ist D for these and ended up with another > > 200 shots. > > > > Saturday I took in the test roll to my developer. They came out great! > > Easily correctible with a negative, but I found MY setting as > -1 with the > > flash. I believe in minimizing any corrections by the lab. It is > > not because I do not trust them, but rather I want it right > straight from the > > camera. I should know what I am doing and not have to rely on > > others to correct my mistakes. > > The lab person told me I should have had them dressed up at the > rehearsal as > > they were lovely exposures. She says it is a dream to work > with my film. > > She was raving over the exposure, the sharpness, the color of the shots. > > T
RE: A photographic weekend - ahhhhhhhh!
Interesting2 of you that are digitally enabled choose to still use film for the important have to get it right images. There is no doubt that film still does have it's advantages. In our society where time is everything, letting the labs do it has it's own good points vs. the general advertised big plus of digital giving instant images. The fact that shooting digital is much like slide film in exposure sensitivity may backfire somewhat in promoters faces..maybe...the question is by the time the public figures out how great film really is, will it and services to handle it still be there? I was going to sell off a bunch of my film stuff, and had it on the stands taking pictures to promote said sale, but this created excessive fondling and...sigh...I couldn't do it! > -Original Message- > From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 3:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: A photographic weekend - a! > > > Cesar, > Your wedding activities reminded me of some weddings I have done in the > past. I did one wedding exclusively with digital. I decided I will not > longer do a wedding with a digital slr, although I could take many more > exposures than with film. > My reasoning is that there is a lot of post-production labor involving > digital that I never did with film. Exposure corrections, sharpening, > maybe some gaussian blur effect. All takes time. > When it comes to film, I may have some images printed to "hot" > and I return > to the lab for correction. I let them correct the error. Yes, it takes > time as well to do this, but I enjoy being inside a camera store > looking at > all the toys. > > Jim A. > > > From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:45:26 -0400 > > To: "Pentax-Discuss (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: A photographic weekend - a! > > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:44:46 -0400 > > > > I have not been keeping up with the list - I know, tell you > something new - > > but I actually had a good excuse the last few days. Just bear > with me :-) > > > > My next door neighbor's elder daughter got married on Saturday. > She is like > > my little sister. My, how they all grow up... > > > > Anyway, I was the official photographer. All the festivities began on > > Thursday - now that is the way to celebrate. > > Thursday was a sunset cruise into the bay. I used the *ist D > for about 200 > > shots on the boat. It was a nice way to meet some of the > groom's family. > > It is good to know who these people are for when you are shooting at the > > reception. It was a wonderful time as I was getting some nice candids, > > especially as the sun was setting. I found I was rather > stealthy as shots > > were taken and no one realized I was even around. I did have > to prefocus > > some as I talked to people - who did not like their photo taken > - and shot > > from the hip or the chest. > > > > Friday was the rehearsal. I shot a roll of 160 NC as a test > with different > > settings to verify lighting and such. I was using the MZ-S. > The rehearsal > > dinner was fantastic. Some more meeting of people and a > plethora of candid > > shots. I was using the *ist D for these and ended up with another 200 > > shots. > > > > Saturday I took in the test roll to my developer. They came out great! > > Easily correctible with a negative, but I found MY setting as > -1 with the > > flash. I believe in minimizing any corrections by the lab. It is not > > because I do not trust them, but rather I want it right > straight from the > > camera. I should know what I am doing and not have to rely on others to > > correct my mistakes. > > The lab person told me I should have had them dressed up at the > rehearsal as > > they were lovely exposures. She says it is a dream to work > with my film. > > She was raving over the exposure, the sharpness, the color of the shots. > > Thank you Pentax :-) > > > > At 1:15 I made it to the church. The wedding was at 4. I shot > mainly the > > film camera. I had the MZ-S as my main camera (film wind) with > three LXen > > as backups. I did use an LX during the ceremony shooting > Ilford Delta 3200 > > at ASA 1600. I was using the FA* 200/2.8 from the back of the > church for > > these b&w shots. I would have loved to have had the *ist D alongside to > > compare. The test shots with the *ist D at 1600
