Wedding photography

[Caesar]

Hi,

I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.

I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.

I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).

I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).

Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?

Thank you for your input.

Cheers
Caesar

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

Post by Caesar
I want to jump back shooting weddings.
... Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 ... EOS 1 ... 2x EOS 3 ...

A Hasselblad or Rollie MF SLR.

Shoot black and white film.

[Paul Furman]

Post by Nicholas O. Lindan

Post by Caesar
I want to jump back shooting weddings.
... Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 ... EOS 1 ... 2x EOS 3 ...

A Hasselblad or Rollie MF SLR.
Shoot black and white film.

If you are going with film, a larger format makes more sense.

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

Post by Paul Furman

Post by Caesar
I want to jump back shooting weddings.
... Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 ... EOS 1 ... 2x EOS 3 ...

A Hasselblad or Rollie MF SLR. Black and white film.

If you are going with film, a larger format makes more sense.

Ummm, 4x5" Linhof Master-Technica, 5x7" Graflex Super-D ...?

[© James Roney]

Your customers weddings pictures are among the most precious thing they
will ever own. Your post clearly shows that you are by no means up to
industry speed.

(1) Today, the digital revolution has finally surpassed film by a land
slide, much so, that when you see a world-class print from a state of the
digital camera you're hooked.

(2) For now, the flagship of the entire digital revolution is currently held
by Canon's EOS proline devision, though some here in the group will most
likey state otherwise. Rather than take my word for it, just do the
research.

(3) Fiji and Kodak are/or already have gotten out of making film. Though
film will still be around for a while longer, you chasing something that is
dying and dying fast.

HERE ARE THE REVIEWS FOR THE 2 TOP WEDDINGS CAMERAS:

Here is your best option to date for wedding photography, HANDS DOWN:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022208canoneos1dmarkiii.asp

Here is your second best option to date:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082208canoneos1dmkiin.asp


Here is Canon's website where all these cameras can also be found directly:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111


If you expect to charge professional fees for wedding photography and pull
out a film camera on them in this day and age, your ripping them off. For
when people professional fees, they expect top quality results.

Like that of a surgeon who is no better than his equipment, so it goes with
a photographer using antiquated gear.

[Scott W]

Post by © James Roney
(3) Fiji and Kodak are/or already have gotten out of making film. Though
film will still be around for a while longer, you chasing something that is
dying and dying fast.

Both Kodak and Fuji are still making a lot of film. How long this will
last is anybody's guess, but you make it sound like they have gotten out
of the film business already.


Over all I agree that digital is a better path to take, but I do think
you are over stating the current state of film.

BTW a MF camera will give very good photos as well, it is just a lot
more work then digital.

Scott

[© James Roney]

Map.

Post by teflon

Post by © James Roney
(3) Fiji and Kodak are/or already have gotten out of making film.

Though

Post by © James Roney
film will still be around for a while longer, you chasing something that
is dying and dying fast.

Both Kodak and Fuji are still making a lot of film. How long this will
last is anybody's guess, but you make it sound like they have gotten out
of the film business already.

Hi Scott,

Both Fuji and Kodak both announced they were getting out of the film
industry. The announcement came via NPR, National Public Radio. They will be
getting out of it in two separate stages; first film cameras then followed
by film itself.


About 10 months ago, many major camera manufactures like Kodak, Cannon, Fuji
announced that they will no longer be making film cameras.
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6035_102-0.html?forumID=77&threadID=140106&messageID=1687524Fri 20 Jan, 2006 11:23 am:Today, according to CNN, Konica-Minolta have announced that they will nolonger be making film cameras, films and other products to do with filmphotography. This comes after Kodak announced last year that it was also notmaking any more film cameras.http://www.luxor4u.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4252&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=26bfae5575371751da41eae928da6a04Fall 2006:Nikon has announced that they will no longer be making film cameras exceptfor their top end F6 model and their low-end, manual focus, FM10. Thereforein the head long stampede to embrace the 'digital revolution' the camerashops are dumping their film SLRs as quickly as they can.http://www.bebo.com/Blog.jsp?MemberId=16822796Since these links above reveal the serious move to stop making film cameras,it's not that far away before film will be next. However, I strongly believethat someone will fill the nitch for years to come, but at what price andquality if the big dogs stay their course.You might want to type in Google with quotes, "the end of film" .>>> Over all I agree that digital is a better path to take, but I do think youare over stating the current state of film.>> BTW a MF camera will give very good photos as well, it is just a lot morework then digital.I agree, you do get very good results with film, but when you do a side byside comparison, there is a big difference, especially when you blow it upreal big.Example: In the fall of 2006 I was one of two independent photographers whowere called to shoot a celebrity wedding. The other photographer wasextremely well know for his wedding photography of celebrities and usednothing but film cameras, where as I used the MARK II N digital camera; nowmoving over to the new Mark III in a few weeks.When I turned in my photos to the client and saw my work they became verycandid with me and felt they did not receive professional services from theother photographer. They were so upset over the vast difference (yes it wasvast) that they gave me the key code to where the photographer had placedtheir wedding photos so I could see for myself. The biggest difference Ifound was that my photos were extremely vibrant, much so, it made hiswedding photos look dreary in comparison. The client agreed that it was thebig difference in vibrancies between the two photographer's work that setthe photos apart. They bailed on taking delivery of all of but 12 of hisphotos and ordered nearly 700 photos in all from me instead.Since then, I have paid special attention to the differences between thevery best of film cameras verses the best of digital and the dead give awayto me is the extreme vibrant quality of digital photography that film is nolonger able to match.As a professional photographer, this difference in quality should no less bepassed down to the client, all while saving the client money since dozens ofrolls of film are no longer required. With the difference being so vast,anyone who offers their client anything else is giving them less for theirmoney.Kind regards,James Roney>> Scott>

[© James Roney]

--
NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED HERE:

I found that about every sentences (even many of the words) were just about
all run together, making it very hard to read. So, I have reposted it again
below in hopes that it will not all run together again.


________________________________________

Map.

Post by teflon

Post by © James Roney
(3) Fiji and Kodak are/or already have gotten out of making film.

Though

Post by © James Roney
film will still be around for a while longer, you chasing something that
is dying and dying fast.

Both Kodak and Fuji are still making a lot of film. How long this will
last is anybody's guess, but you make it sound like they have gotten out
of the film business already.

Hi Scott,

Both Fuji and Kodak both announced they were getting out of the film
industry. The announcement came via NPR, National Public Radio. They will
be
getting out of it in two separate stages; first film cameras then followed
by film itself.


About 10 months ago, many major camera manufactures like Kodak, Cannon,
Fuji
announced that they will no longer be making film cameras.
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6035_102-0.html?forumID=77&threadID=140106&messageID=1687524Fri20Jan, 2006 11:23 am:Today, according to CNN, Konica-Minolta have announcedthat they will nolonger be making film cameras, films and other products todo with filmphotography. This comes after Kodak announced last year that itwas also notmaking any more filmcameras.http://www.luxor4u.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4252&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=26bfae5575371751da41eae928da6a04Fall 2006:Nikon has announced that they will no longer be making film camerasexceptfor their top end F6 model and their low-end, manual focus, FM10.Thereforein the head long stampede to embrace the 'digital revolution' thecamerashops are dumping their film SLRs as quickly as they can.http://www.bebo.com/Blog.jsp?MemberId=16822796Since these links above reveal the serious move to stop making filmcameras,it's not that far away before film will be next. However, I stronglybelievethat someone will fill the nitch for years to come, but at what priceandquality if the big dogs stay their course.You might want to type inGoogle with quotes, "the end of film">>> Over all I agree that digital is a better path to take, but I do thinkyouare over stating the current state of film.BTW a MF camera will give very good photos as well, it is just a lotmorework then digital.I agree, you do get very good results with film, but when you do a sidebyside comparison, there is a big difference, especially when you blow itupreal big.Example: In the fall of 2006 I was one of two independentphotographers whowere called to shoot a celebrity wedding. The otherphotographer wasextremely well know for his wedding photography ofcelebrities and usednothing but film cameras, where as I used the MARK II Ndigital camera; nowmoving over to the new Mark III in a few weeks.When I turned in my photos to the client and saw my work they becameverycandid with me and felt they did not receive professional services fromtheother photographer. They were so upset over the vast difference (yes itwasvast) that they gave me the key code to where the photographer hadplacedtheir wedding photos so I could see for myself. The biggest differenceIfound was that my photos were extremely vibrant, much so, it madehiswedding photos look dreary in comparison.The client agreed that it was thebig difference in vibrancies between thetwo photographer's work that set the photos apart. They bailed on takingdelivery of all of but 12 of hisphotos and ordered nearly 700 photos in allfrom me instead.Since then, I have paid special attention to the differencesbetween thevery best of film cameras verses the best of digital and the deadgive awayto me is the extreme vibrant quality of digital photography thatfilm is nolonger able to match.As a professional photographer, this difference in quality should no lessbepassed down to the client, all while saving the client money since dozensofrolls of film are no longer required. With the difference being sovast,anyone who offers their client anything else is giving them less fortheirmoney.Kind regards,James Roney>> Scott>>

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by Caesar
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.

The 10D came out in the spring of 2003.

Post by Caesar
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?

Well, you need some decent lights. But beyond that, since you're asking
questions like this, it indicates that you're not ready to be charging
people money to photograph once-in-a-lifetime events.

[Caesar]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Caesar
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.

The 10D came out in the spring of 2003.

Post by Caesar
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?

Well, you need some decent lights. But beyond that, since you're asking
questions like this, it indicates that you're not ready to be charging
people money to photograph once-in-a-lifetime events.

Hi Randall,

Thank you very much for your reply- much appreciated!

I apologize for misleading the NG. It should say: I still have a Canon
10D which I bought nearly 5 years ago (4.3 years ago).

I also appreciate your comment that I'm not ready for the photography
because I asked questions about the equipment I want to purchase.

Thanks again Randall.

Cheers
Caesar

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by Caesar
I also appreciate your comment that I'm not ready for the photography
because I asked questions about the equipment I want to purchase.

Fact is, if you have to ask questions about which do-dad to use, you're
not ready. The fact that you used to do them in 35mm confirms that.

[the_niner_nation]

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).
I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Caesar

Just curious as to how film photography is more cost effective than
digital...

[William Graham]

Post by the_niner_nation

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).
I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Caesar

Just curious as to how film photography is more cost effective than
digital...

If I were a professional wedding or portrait photographer, I would probably
have and use a medium/large format film camera. - But it is hard for me to
believe that digital cameras aren't fast replacing 35 mm cameras for a good
reason...

[Caesar]

Post by the_niner_nation

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).
I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Caesar

Just curious as to how film photography is more cost effective than
digital...

Our lab charges $0.70 per print (5x7) and this works out nearly the same
as the developing cost of a 36 film plus the cost of the film.

Cheers

[www.kevinkienlein.com]

I get my prints for .19 cents each at Wal-Mart, londondrugs, superstores
etc..... you are getting ripped off... kk
(I am in Canada)

Post by Caesar

Post by the_niner_nation

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).
I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Caesar

Just curious as to how film photography is more cost effective than
digital...

Our lab charges $0.70 per print (5x7) and this works out nearly the same
as the developing cost of a 36 film plus the cost of the film.
Cheers

[e***@no.spam]

Post by www.kevinkienlein.com
I get my prints for .19 cents each at Wal-Mart, londondrugs, superstores
etc..... you are getting ripped off... kk

You are getting ripped off...unless you are willing to settle for
crap that is.

[JoeT]

You get 5x7 prints for 19 cents each?

Post by www.kevinkienlein.com
I get my prints for .19 cents each at Wal-Mart, londondrugs, superstores
etc..... you are getting ripped off... kk
(I am in Canada)

Post by Caesar
Our lab charges $0.70 per print (5x7) and this works out nearly the same
as the developing cost of a 36 film plus the cost of the film.
Cheers

[www.kevinkienlein.com]

nope... ooops... I did not see the 5x7 they are $1....

step 1) remove foot... step 2) refrain from speaking-typing... kk

Post by JoeT
You get 5x7 prints for 19 cents each?

Post by www.kevinkienlein.com
I get my prints for .19 cents each at Wal-Mart, londondrugs, superstores
etc..... you are getting ripped off... kk
(I am in Canada)

Post by Caesar
Our lab charges $0.70 per print (5x7) and this works out nearly the same
as the developing cost of a 36 film plus the cost of the film.
Cheers

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by www.kevinkienlein.com
I get my prints for .19 cents each at Wal-Mart, londondrugs, superstores
etc..... you are getting ripped off... kk
(I am in Canada)

A person who is photographing weddings and charging money for it should
not be getting prints made at Wally World. There is a difference in
quality, you know.

[JoeT]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by www.kevinkienlein.com
I get my prints for .19 cents each at Wal-Mart, londondrugs, superstores
etc..... you are getting ripped off... kk
(I am in Canada)

A person who is photographing weddings and charging money for it should
not be getting prints made at Wally World. There is a difference in
quality, you know.

That's one of those things you find yourself saying following the words,
needless to say... ;)

I've yet to find any of those quickie places that will leave the white
balance etc alone, even when specifically told. They all assume they should
tweak the image seven ways to Sunday and they always screw it up as a
result.

[www.kevinkienlein.com]

I have pro photo friends who use wally, london drugs and superstore and the
quality is comparable,... london drugs is superior, but it depends on who is
on the machine and their skill and 'eye' kk

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by www.kevinkienlein.com
I get my prints for .19 cents each at Wal-Mart, londondrugs, superstores
etc..... you are getting ripped off... kk
(I am in Canada)

A person who is photographing weddings and charging money for it should
not be getting prints made at Wally World. There is a difference in
quality, you know.

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by www.kevinkienlein.com
I have pro photo friends who use wally, london drugs and superstore and the
quality is comparable,... london drugs is superior, but it depends on who is
on the machine and their skill and 'eye' kk

Professional photographers do not have their customers' prints made at
drug stores.

[Caesar]

Post by www.kevinkienlein.com
I get my prints for .19 cents each at Wal-Mart, londondrugs, superstores
etc..... you are getting ripped off... kk
(I am in Canada)

Hi,

As the old saying is- you get what you pay for.

1. Our lab looks at every photo and adjusts it to the best they can.
Try this in your Wal-Mart.
2. Chemicals are regularily changed to ensure highest possible outcome.

Cheers

[Julian.]

Post by Caesar

Post by www.kevinkienlein.com
I get my prints for .19 cents each at Wal-Mart, londondrugs, superstores
etc..... you are getting ripped off... kk
(I am in Canada)

Hi,
As the old saying is- you get what you pay for.
1. Our lab looks at every photo and adjusts it to the best they can.
Try this in your Wal-Mart.
2. Chemicals are regularily changed to ensure highest possible outcome.
Cheers

Anyone considering buying 2 cameras and their lenses to become a aWedding
photographer should totally disregard the cost of prints and get them made
at a Professional lab.

There is no place for Walmart prints in a wedding album. All prints are not
equal. The life of a 19¢ print may be as little as a few years due to
quality cutting measures used to get the cost down.

A Pro I work for costs his 10 x 15 cm (4x6) prints at $2 each and I'll bet
good money the albums they go in will look as good as new in 50 years time.

I see plenty of magenta shifted prints from mini-labs and plenty of older
wedding photos still with origianl colours.

Of course if you intend to be a moonlighter, what does quality matter if the
customer can't find you when they learn you ripped them off?

JA

[Pudentame]

Post by www.kevinkienlein.com
I get my prints for .19 cents each at Wal-Mart, londondrugs, superstores
etc..... you are getting ripped off... kk
(I am in Canada)

4x6 BASIC internet prints are .19 cents each; 5x7s from Wal-mart are a $1.59

Post by www.kevinkienlein.com

Post by Caesar

Post by the_niner_nation
Just curious as to how film photography is more cost effective than
digital...

Our lab charges $0.70 per print (5x7) and this works out nearly the same
as the developing cost of a 36 film plus the cost of the film.
Cheers

[Matt Clara]

Post by Caesar

Post by the_niner_nation

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).
I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Caesar

Just curious as to how film photography is more cost effective than
digital...

Our lab charges $0.70 per print (5x7) and this works out nearly the same
as the developing cost of a 36 film plus the cost of the film.
Cheers

I see I'm late to the conversation, and I haven't read the entire thread, so
forgive me if I repeat what already been said. Print for print, film may be
cheaper, but with digital, all you have to do is select the best and print
those. The rest go to them on a disk (actually, all of them go to them on a
disk). For me, that's between 80 and 100 prints at whatever Adorama's
charging these days, something like .19 a piece (US) for 4x6. Plus I get
some 8x10s out of those, too--they cost more, of course. The cost is
minimal, as opposed to $250 for 13 rolls of film or whatever. In addition
to the digital shots, which are mostl PJ style, I shoot the formals on 6x6
or 6x7 mf gear. You can't beat the digital for convenience, and you can't
beat the big film for enlargeability. The caveat about digital, though, is
to shoot all RAW and have the software to process it quickly.

--
www.mattclara.com

[Unspam]

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).
I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Caesar

A 2.8 100mm Macro is a great lens for portraits and still life subjects, I
use it on every job for tabletop details and group/portrait shots.

[unknown]

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).
I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Caesar

Really, how many times do ¥ou have to post this? Several times in this
group plus several others.

That being said, for Wedding photos, there is no question that a medium
format film camera in the hands of a pro will blow away full frame or
1.5(6) format digital and 35mm film. While I love the subltley of the
Kodak Portra films and the Fuji NPS, in this day and age it will be
hard to justify. Don't forget most bridezilla's and Momzilla's want
digital because they think it is better, They want the photos on
websites instantly and digially composed albums. They want
computerized slide shows with background music. Unless you can show a
clearly visably better product with film then you are wasting your
time. Every 35mm film Wedding photog I know has gone over to digital.
So have most of the medium format, although I still know a couple of
guys who are sticking to film That have a wealth of experience are
very good and market themselves to high end weddings. They also shoot
digital!

As far as the lenses go, on a bright day, it doesn't matter what the
large aperature is, its the small one that counts. In this case I
would invest in some ND filters, so I could shoot at a large aperature
to control DOF.

[Caesar]

Post by unknown

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).
I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Caesar

Really, how many times do ¥ou have to post this? Several times in this
group plus several others.
That being said, for Wedding photos, there is no question that a medium
format film camera in the hands of a pro will blow away full frame or
1.5(6) format digital and 35mm film. While I love the subltley of the
Kodak Portra films and the Fuji NPS, in this day and age it will be
hard to justify. Don't forget most bridezilla's and Momzilla's want
digital because they think it is better, They want the photos on
websites instantly and digially composed albums. They want
computerized slide shows with background music. Unless you can show a
clearly visably better product with film then you are wasting your
time. Every 35mm film Wedding photog I know has gone over to digital.
So have most of the medium format, although I still know a couple of

PS: Our lab automatically scans the film during processing and we get
the pics on CD too.

[Caesar]

Post by unknown

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).
I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Caesar

Really, how many times do ¥ou have to post this? Several times in this
group plus several others.
That being said, for Wedding photos, there is no question that a medium
format film camera in the hands of a pro will blow away full frame or
1.5(6) format digital and 35mm film. While I love the subltley of the
Kodak Portra films and the Fuji NPS, in this day and age it will be
hard to justify. Don't forget most bridezilla's and Momzilla's want
digital because they think it is better, They want the photos on
websites instantly and digially composed albums. They want
computerized slide shows with background music. Unless you can show a
clearly visably better product with film then you are wasting your
time. Every 35mm film Wedding photog I know has gone over to digital.
So have most of the medium format, although I still know a couple of

I apologize for the cross-posting into other groups.

Do you have any suggestions for good value ND-filters (77mm)?

[teflon]

Haven't read all the post in this thread, so my apologies for any repeats.

Why cripple yourself with film? 35mm is dead. Save yourself a huge pain and
go digital. And as for prints, get what YOU think are good quality. A proper
lab will give some heavy discount on higher numbers.

Or...

...have you thought of supplying a total package all on dvd? You could
arrange to collect video files (to use as clips) from family members who are
filming it - doesn't have to be oscar winning quality. You could supply a
few dozen disposable cameras for guests to use at the reception (should be
interesting), then hand back to you for processing, scanning and putting on
the final dvd.

Digital IS the future. Don't fight it.

Just my thoughts.

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by teflon
Why cripple yourself with film? 35mm is dead. Save yourself a huge pain and
go digital. And as for prints, get what YOU think are good quality. A proper
lab will give some heavy discount on higher numbers.

35mm has always been a poor choice for wedding photography, at least
for self-respecting professionals.

[teflon]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
Why cripple yourself with film? 35mm is dead. Save yourself a huge pain and
go digital. And as for prints, get what YOU think are good quality. A proper
lab will give some heavy discount on higher numbers.

35mm has always been a poor choice for wedding photography, at least
for self-respecting professionals.

35mm, by it's very nature, has always been a compromise. Though, it
certainly held it's place using the latest colour neg films.

Whatever gets the job done has always been the way imho.

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by teflon
35mm, by it's very nature, has always been a compromise. Though, it
certainly held it's place using the latest colour neg films.
Whatever gets the job done has always been the way imho.

Yeah, those 16x20s look great.

[teflon]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
35mm, by it's very nature, has always been a compromise. Though, it
certainly held it's place using the latest colour neg films.
Whatever gets the job done has always been the way imho.

Yeah, those 16x20s look great.

Are you the wedding police? 8]

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by teflon
Are you the wedding police? 8]

There's a word for people who photograph weddings in 35mm...amateurs. I
take a dim view of people who screw people doing wedding photography.
Do it right or go do something else.

[teflon]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
Are you the wedding police? 8]

There's a word for people who photograph weddings in 35mm...amateurs. I
take a dim view of people who screw people doing wedding photography.
Do it right or go do something else.

A keen sense of humour. At least I hope it is, or we're all in trouble!

[Matt Clara]

Post by teflon

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
Are you the wedding police? 8]

There's a word for people who photograph weddings in 35mm...amateurs. I
take a dim view of people who screw people doing wedding photography.
Do it right or go do something else.

A keen sense of humour. At least I hope it is, or we're all in trouble!

Randall has zero sense of humor _and_ he's a bit nutty--just ask him how
much he loves PC's...

--
www.mattclara.com

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by Matt Clara
Randall has zero sense of humor _and_ he's a bit nutty--just ask him how
much he loves PC's...

Yeah, I'm nuts. Actually, I do have a fine sense of humor. It just
doesn't extend to people doing a crappy job of photographing weddings.

[teflon]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Matt Clara
Randall has zero sense of humor _and_ he's a bit nutty--just ask him how
much he loves PC's...

Yeah, I'm nuts. Actually, I do have a fine sense of humor. It just
doesn't extend to people doing a crappy job of photographing weddings.

How would you know if anyone does a "crappy job"? Your own work could be
considered contrived or dated - it's all just an opinion. The only thing
that does matter is how you and your client feel about it. If you feel that
strongly about it, then show other photographers pictures to aspire to. How
good were you?

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by teflon
How would you know if anyone does a "crappy job"? Your own work could be
considered contrived or dated - it's all just an opinion. The only thing
that does matter is how you and your client feel about it. If you feel that
strongly about it, then show other photographers pictures to aspire to. How
good were you?

I have been out of the business of commercial photography for 12
years...and have no intention of going back in.

[teflon]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
How would you know if anyone does a "crappy job"? Your own work could be
considered contrived or dated - it's all just an opinion. The only thing
that does matter is how you and your client feel about it. If you feel that
strongly about it, then show other photographers pictures to aspire to. How
good were you?

I have been out of the business of commercial photography for 12
years...and have no intention of going back in.

Seems you left before 35mm reached it's peak and way before digital made
it's mark. Some wedding photographers started to shoot 35mm colour negative
instead of MF. I can only assume it made sense to them, the same as digital
makes sense now. Why make work, unless the photographer specializes in a
'fine-art' style of weddings.

Perhaps you could show a few MF examples of what you used to do to
illustrate your point, or something recent, if you're still using it.

[JoeT]

Post by teflon

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
How would you know if anyone does a "crappy job"? Your own work could be
considered contrived or dated - it's all just an opinion. The only thing
that does matter is how you and your client feel about it. If you feel that
strongly about it, then show other photographers pictures to aspire to. How
good were you?

I have been out of the business of commercial photography for 12
years...and have no intention of going back in.

Seems you left before 35mm reached it's peak and way before digital made
it's mark. Some wedding photographers started to shoot 35mm colour negative
instead of MF. I can only assume it made sense to them, the same as digital
makes sense now. Why make work, unless the photographer specializes in a
'fine-art' style of weddings.
Perhaps you could show a few MF examples of what you used to do to
illustrate your point, or something recent, if you're still using it.

I don't have any MF examples but I can surely show you some great examples
of weak wedding photography. This gallery is actually being used as an
example of "What you can do to make $1000.00 a week" with photography if
you buy this e-book... He even has special low bucks lighting tips and
uses example pics with totally blown exposure of the models forehead as
proof how well it works! It would be funny if it were tongue-in-cheek.

http://www.photogbiz.com/gallery/weddings.htm

PS if the owner of this site happens to read this and is offended by it, too
bad. You should be ashamed charging people for this quality wedding work. To
be fair a few shots here and there on the site are suitable to task (out of
the commercial and stock stuff) but I'd take you to court if you tried to
charge me for wedding photos of this quality.
My 13 year old could do better with his Kodak Z7590 for free!

lol

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by JoeT
http://www.photogbiz.com/gallery/weddings.htm

This is pretty crappy stuff.

[JoeT]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by JoeT
http://www.photogbiz.com/gallery/weddings.htm

This is pretty crappy stuff.

As was my point. Sad that they apparently think it's pro level. There were
perhaps 2 decent (although very clichéd) shots of the lot. The rest were
snapshot quality at best and that's not taking the terribly reduced
resolution for web display into consideration.

[Scott W]

Post by JoeT

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by JoeT
http://www.photogbiz.com/gallery/weddings.htm

This is pretty crappy stuff.

As was my point. Sad that they apparently think it's pro level. There
were perhaps 2 decent (although very clichéd) shots of the lot. The rest
were snapshot quality at best and that's not taking the terribly reduced
resolution for web display into consideration.

You guys are missing the point, the web site is not selling wedding
photography it is trying to sell people on how they can market their own
wedding photography. I person comes to this site and sees these really
bad photos and says to them self "if he can make money with this crap I
can as well".

What they are basically trying to sell people on is that you don't need
either the skill or right equipment, you only need to know the "Secrets"
or Marketing yourself.

And there will be enough people who will really believe this BS and buy
their worthless crap.

Scott

[JoeT]

Post by Scott W

Post by JoeT

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by JoeT
http://www.photogbiz.com/gallery/weddings.htm

This is pretty crappy stuff.

As was my point. Sad that they apparently think it's pro level. There
were perhaps 2 decent (although very clichéd) shots of the lot. The rest
were snapshot quality at best and that's not taking the terribly reduced
resolution for web display into consideration.

You guys are missing the point, the web site is not selling wedding
photography it is trying to sell people on how they can market their own
wedding photography. I person comes to this site and sees these really
bad photos and says to them self "if he can make money with this crap I
can as well".
What they are basically trying to sell people on is that you don't need
either the skill or right equipment, you only need to know the "Secrets"
or Marketing yourself.
And there will be enough people who will really believe this BS and buy
their worthless crap.
Scott

If you're correct in that they are demonstrating that money can be made
despite a lack of skill or talent then this site has some very good examples
of that indeed!

[Scott W]

Post by JoeT

Post by Scott W

Post by JoeT

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by JoeT
http://www.photogbiz.com/gallery/weddings.htm

This is pretty crappy stuff.

As was my point. Sad that they apparently think it's pro level. There
were perhaps 2 decent (although very clichéd) shots of the lot. The
rest were snapshot quality at best and that's not taking the terribly
reduced resolution for web display into consideration.

You guys are missing the point, the web site is not selling wedding
photography it is trying to sell people on how they can market their own
wedding photography. I person comes to this site and sees these
really bad photos and says to them self "if he can make money with
this crap I can as well".
What they are basically trying to sell people on is that you don't need
either the skill or right equipment, you only need to know the
"Secrets" or Marketing yourself.
And there will be enough people who will really believe this BS and
buy their worthless crap.
Scott

If you're correct in that they are demonstrating that money can be made
despite a lack of skill or talent then this site has some very good
examples of that indeed!

I am more saying that they are trying to sell the dream that money can
be made despite a lack of skill. They are not trying to make money
selling photograph, but try to fool people into thinking they can, even
with out skill or talent

This is sort of like the old scam of the drawing contests, where if you
won they would try and sign you up for their correspondences course. And
of course everyone won.

Scott

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by JoeT
If you're correct in that they are demonstrating that money can be made
despite a lack of skill or talent then this site has some very good examples
of that indeed!

The photographers I used to know who drove Mercedes also produced the
crappiest images.

[Unspam]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by JoeT
If you're correct in that they are demonstrating that money can be made
despite a lack of skill or talent then this site has some very good examples
of that indeed!

The photographers I used to know who drove Mercedes also produced the
crappiest images.

But they drove a Mercedes.

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by Scott W
What they are basically trying to sell people on is that you don't need
either the skill or right equipment, you only need to know the "Secrets"
or Marketing yourself.

The secret is that there are no secrets in photography (at least I'm
not telling you mine). :-)

[Unspam]

Post by Scott W

Post by JoeT

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by JoeT
http://www.photogbiz.com/gallery/weddings.htm

This is pretty crappy stuff.

As was my point. Sad that they apparently think it's pro level. There
were perhaps 2 decent (although very clichéd) shots of the lot. The rest
were snapshot quality at best and that's not taking the terribly reduced
resolution for web display into consideration.

You guys are missing the point, the web site is not selling wedding
photography it is trying to sell people on how they can market their own
wedding photography. I person comes to this site and sees these really
bad photos and says to them self "if he can make money with this crap I
can as well".
What they are basically trying to sell people on is that you don't need
either the skill or right equipment, you only need to know the "Secrets"
or Marketing yourself.
And there will be enough people who will really believe this BS and buy
their worthless crap.
Scott

I think you have to ask yourself, what kind of person would pay for that
level of skill?

[JoeT]

Post by Unspam

Post by Scott W

Post by JoeT

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by JoeT
http://www.photogbiz.com/gallery/weddings.htm

This is pretty crappy stuff.

As was my point. Sad that they apparently think it's pro level. There
were perhaps 2 decent (although very clichéd) shots of the lot. The rest
were snapshot quality at best and that's not taking the terribly reduced
resolution for web display into consideration.

You guys are missing the point, the web site is not selling wedding
photography it is trying to sell people on how they can market their own
wedding photography. I person comes to this site and sees these really
bad photos and says to them self "if he can make money with this crap I
can as well".
What they are basically trying to sell people on is that you don't need
either the skill or right equipment, you only need to know the "Secrets"
or Marketing yourself.
And there will be enough people who will really believe this BS and buy
their worthless crap.
Scott

I think you have to ask yourself, what kind of person would pay for that
level of skill?

The kind that doesn't mind creating crap if it nets them a Mercedes? lol

[Dennis' Newsgroups]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by JoeT
http://www.photogbiz.com/gallery/weddings.htm

This is pretty crappy stuff.

Holy Sh*t - that is horrible - I would be appalled to pay for that if it was
my wedding! My 8 year old with his digital P&S does better than that!







Dennis

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by teflon
Seems you left before 35mm reached it's peak and way before digital made
it's mark. Some wedding photographers started to shoot 35mm colour negative
instead of MF. I can only assume it made sense to them, the same as digital
makes sense now. Why make work, unless the photographer specializes in a
'fine-art' style of weddings.

35mm has always sucked. The negatives are just too small for
professional work. Might be fine for the magazine guys, but no 35mm
makes much of a portrait camera.

I switched to digital for my personal photography in 2003 and would
never consider going back to film.

Post by teflon
Perhaps you could show a few MF examples of what you used to do to
illustrate your point, or something recent, if you're still using it.

http://users.techline.com/randya

[Scott W]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
Seems you left before 35mm reached it's peak and way before digital made
it's mark. Some wedding photographers started to shoot 35mm colour negative
instead of MF. I can only assume it made sense to them, the same as digital
makes sense now. Why make work, unless the photographer specializes in a
'fine-art' style of weddings.

35mm has always sucked. The negatives are just too small for
professional work. Might be fine for the magazine guys, but no 35mm
makes much of a portrait camera.

I totally agree with this, I would be very unhappy to see a wedding
photographer show up with only 35mm camera, I can't say the I remember
ever seeing this happen at the wedding I have been to.

Post by Randall Ainsworth
I switched to digital for my personal photography in 2003 and would
never consider going back to film.

Good move.

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
Perhaps you could show a few MF examples of what you used to do to
illustrate your point, or something recent, if you're still using it.

http://users.techline.com/randya

Hey, some nice photos you got there.

Scott

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by Scott W

Post by Randall Ainsworth
I switched to digital for my personal photography in 2003 and would
never consider going back to film.

Good move.

I spent too many hours in the darkroom doing both B&W and color (mostly
color for customers).

Post by Scott W
Hey, some nice photos you got there.

Thanks...I just do it for myself these days. It's been 12 years since I
closed the studio and I still get people asking me to do weddings and
general portrait work.

[Unspam]

Post by Scott W

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
Seems you left before 35mm reached it's peak and way before digital made
it's mark. Some wedding photographers started to shoot 35mm colour negative
instead of MF. I can only assume it made sense to them, the same as digital
makes sense now. Why make work, unless the photographer specializes in a
'fine-art' style of weddings.

35mm has always sucked. The negatives are just too small for
professional work. Might be fine for the magazine guys, but no 35mm
makes much of a portrait camera.

I totally agree with this, I would be very unhappy to see a wedding
photographer show up with only 35mm camera, I can't say the I remember
ever seeing this happen at the wedding I have been to.

Post by Randall Ainsworth
I switched to digital for my personal photography in 2003 and would
never consider going back to film.

Good move.

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
Perhaps you could show a few MF examples of what you used to do to
illustrate your point, or something recent, if you're still using it.

http://users.techline.com/randya

Hey, some nice photos you got there.
Scott

Where are the portraits?

[teflon]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
Seems you left before 35mm reached it's peak and way before digital made
it's mark. Some wedding photographers started to shoot 35mm colour negative
instead of MF. I can only assume it made sense to them, the same as digital
makes sense now. Why make work, unless the photographer specializes in a
'fine-art' style of weddings.

35mm has always sucked. The negatives are just too small for
professional work. Might be fine for the magazine guys, but no 35mm
makes much of a portrait camera.
I switched to digital for my personal photography in 2003 and would
never consider going back to film.

Post by teflon
Perhaps you could show a few MF examples of what you used to do to
illustrate your point, or something recent, if you're still using it.

http://users.techline.com/randya

An nice example of Randall Ainsworth the landscape photographer.

Not really what this is about - and, I suspect, we'll never know.

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by teflon
An nice example of Randall Ainsworth the landscape photographer.
Not really what this is about - and, I suspect, we'll never know.

I don't have any of my old weddings or portraiture scanned. Let me just
say that I earned my Associate Fellow of Photography from the
Professional Photographers of Washington and was about six or seven
merits shy of earning my Craftsman from PPA when I quit.

[teflon]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
An nice example of Randall Ainsworth the landscape photographer.
Not really what this is about - and, I suspect, we'll never know.

I don't have any of my old weddings or portraiture scanned. Let me just
say that I earned my Associate Fellow of Photography from the
Professional Photographers of Washington and was about six or seven
merits shy of earning my Craftsman from PPA when I quit.

Lots of work involved and probably highly deserved, though meaningless
without pictures. Let's hope other members of the PPW teach by example.

[Unspam]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
An nice example of Randall Ainsworth the landscape photographer.
Not really what this is about - and, I suspect, we'll never know.

I don't have any of my old weddings or portraiture scanned. Let me just
say that I earned my Associate Fellow of Photography from the
Professional Photographers of Washington and was about six or seven
merits shy of earning my Craftsman from PPA when I quit.

In my experience qualifications mean nothing.

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by Unspam
In my experience qualifications mean nothing.

Guess you don't have much experience.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Unspam
In my experience qualifications mean nothing.

Guess you don't have much experience.

I think he meant _certifications_ mean nothing.

[Unspam]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Unspam
In my experience qualifications mean nothing.

Guess you don't have much experience.

I think he meant _certifications_ mean nothing.

That's exactly what I mean

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by Floyd L. Davidson
I think he meant _certifications_ mean nothing.

I know what he meant.

I don't have access to a scanner and have no intention of posting any
of my old studio images. I am no longer in business and do not do any
kind of portraiture...and I'm not trying to sell anything to anybody.

But just to throw a little fuel on the fire, I also had some articles
published in the PPA's official journal - The Professional Photographer
and was mentioned once in The Rangefinder.

[teflon]

Post by Randall Ainsworth
I don't have access to a scanner and have no intention of posting any
of my old studio images. I am no longer in business and do not do any
kind of portraiture...

Surely, some pictures would make your point, far better than telling them?

Telling people you're published, have awards, experience, cannot replace the
impact of even a single picture. You're here to help others - aren't you?

[Randall Ainsworth]

Post by teflon
Surely, some pictures would make your point, far better than telling them?
Telling people you're published, have awards, experience, cannot replace the
impact of even a single picture. You're here to help others - aren't you?

Sorry, the motivation factor just ain't there. My current photography
site has relatively current images of mine. Portraiture there would
serve no useful purpose. If you can't tell that I know what I'm doing
from looking at those images, then your sense of discernment needs some
work.

[teflon]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
Surely, some pictures would make your point, far better than telling them?
Telling people you're published, have awards, experience, cannot replace the
impact of even a single picture. You're here to help others - aren't you?

Sorry, the motivation factor just ain't there. My current photography
site has relatively current images of mine. Portraiture there would
serve no useful purpose. If you can't tell that I know what I'm doing
from looking at those images, then your sense of discernment needs some
work.

You know your way around a camera - if only that were that simple!

A missed opportunity.

[SteveB]

Post by Randall Ainsworth
Sorry, the motivation factor just ain't there. My current photography
site has relatively current images of mine. Portraiture there would
serve no useful purpose. If you can't tell that I know what I'm doing
from looking at those images, then your sense of discernment needs some
work.

You're lucky. If you could tell what I REALLY do from looking at MY photos,
I'd have to kill you.................

Steve ;-)

[JoeT]

Post by SteveB

Post by Randall Ainsworth
Sorry, the motivation factor just ain't there. My current photography
site has relatively current images of mine. Portraiture there would
serve no useful purpose. If you can't tell that I know what I'm doing
from looking at those images, then your sense of discernment needs some
work.

You're lucky. If you could tell what I REALLY do from looking at MY
photos, I'd have to kill you.................
Steve ;-)

Yeah photography sure makes it easier to explain away the occasional high
power spotter scope on a tripod eh?

[Unspam]

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by Unspam
In my experience qualifications mean nothing.

Guess you don't have much experience.

Guess again

[dadiOH]

Post by Unspam

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
An nice example of Randall Ainsworth the landscape photographer.
Not really what this is about - and, I suspect, we'll never know.

I don't have any of my old weddings or portraiture scanned. Let me
just say that I earned my Associate Fellow of Photography from the
Professional Photographers of Washington and was about six or seven
merits shy of earning my Craftsman from PPA when I quit.

In my experience qualifications mean nothing.

That's not true. It means that someone learned and followed The
Rules.

[Unspam]

Post by dadiOH

Post by Unspam

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
An nice example of Randall Ainsworth the landscape photographer.
Not really what this is about - and, I suspect, we'll never know.

I don't have any of my old weddings or portraiture scanned. Let me
just say that I earned my Associate Fellow of Photography from the
Professional Photographers of Washington and was about six or seven
merits shy of earning my Craftsman from PPA when I quit.

In my experience qualifications mean nothing.

That's not true. It means that someone learned and followed The
Rules.

It means nothing in terms of style and quality. It means you passed a
reasonable level of competence.

[teflon]

Post by Matt Clara

Post by teflon

Post by Randall Ainsworth

Post by teflon
Are you the wedding police? 8]

There's a word for people who photograph weddings in 35mm...amateurs. I
take a dim view of people who screw people doing wedding photography.
Do it right or go do something else.

A keen sense of humour. At least I hope it is, or we're all in trouble!

Randall has zero sense of humor _and_ he's a bit nutty--just ask him how
much he loves PC's...
--
www.mattclara.com

And he thinks he has standards?

[Sam I am]

little things make a big difference. I shot weddings with both 35m and
medium format, depending on the subject. several things are as important as
negative size. The day you send the negs for C41 makes a big difference.
developer works best when freshly mixed and unused. Shooting two stops down
from full lens opening makes by far the sharpest photos. Fresh film is
important too, buy pro film and keep it in a cooler. I have 16X20 blow ups
of 35mm that would rival medium format and in fact have won international
awards. Bridal photos need not be sharp. In fact they are often purposely
diffused.unless the bride happens to have the skin of a super model. I have
a gold custom made diffusion filter for that purpose. 35mm is useful also
for your assistant to carry for those unexpected "gems" for the album. My
camera of choice for weddings is the pentax 645 with the roll film back.
Never a need to stop the action for reloading. I stay with film for the
reason Ansel Adams stayed with B &W. I know the processes and have been
successful with them.

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).
I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Caesar

[none]

Go to www.photochimper.com and ask erik he would be glad to help you

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).
I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Caesar

[HDAGHL HMACKENZ]

Post by Caesar
(price, time consumption and quality).

switch to digital at the peak of digital
(no aargx, agx forever)
you at least got a little X in you

[Rich]

I think digital is a way better way to go. film is great but I wouldent do
it for the cost factors

Online camera club of friendly photographers
http://www.photochimper.com/forum

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).
I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Caesar

[DBLEXPOSURE]

Post by Rich
I think digital is a way better way to go. film is great but I wouldent do
it for the cost factors
Online camera club of friendly photographers
http://www.photochimper.com/forum

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).
I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Caesar

++++++++++++

Post by Rich

Post by Caesar
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).

Trying to avoid Film Vs. Digital debate, I suppose it is inevitable...

Firstly, Cost...

Initial investment in a couple of good, Pro, Full frame DSLR's is going to
set you back a little cash but in the end will be a good investment. You do
plan on doing this for a while?

With Digital you can shoot literally a couple thousand exposures on a
wedding-day shoot. How much would the film cost be for that, Film stock and
processing?

Time... I can prepare a 30-minute slide show set to music after the
ceremony and it is ready for presentation during the reception. How fast is
that?

Two weeks ago I did an engagement shoot, 600+ exposures. 5 days later I
had a $500 print order. I am almost certain that had that been on film I
still would be waiting to see the images.

Quality can be debated, and has been over and over again, But I will say
this. My main camera body today is the Canon 5D. I can shoot at ISO800 and
get amazingly clean images. If I do miss an exposure, (happens often), it
can be cleaned up nicely with NIK's Define software. Not to mention the
having +- a stop and a half of correction when shooting RAW.

Benefits: being able to change ISO on the fly. Instant review (it is nice
walking out of the reception knowing I have the shots in the can),
Flexibility ( being able to offer value added services such as the reception
slide show is a definite edge in today's competitive market). Ease of use,
I don't have to change film every 36 exposures.

Price, time consumption and quality... ?

[Chris Hills]

Post by Caesar
Hi,
I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.
I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).

I would say go digital. I have the interesting experience of seeing a
pro photographer at a formal dinner. He did the pictures of people
being presented on arriving. Just before we went in to dinner he
discovered a problem with the memory card. He was reviewing things on a
laptop.

We all had to line up and be presented again on the way into dinner.

My point is that had he had the equally unlikely failure with film he
would not have known until the following morning when it would have been
far too late and there would have been no pictures..

As they had a laptop and projector there after dinner we could see (and
order) our prints. Also it prompted some people to have additional
pictures taken with friends.

As was pointed out by the poster with the slide show: With digital you
can show/check the photos (and get some orders) as soon as they are
taken. This gives you the opportunity to rectify any problems.

It is amazing what can happen outside your control at these events.

As for quality.... a 10/12Mp Canon or Nikon et-al digital back will give
the required quality. You may be able to tell the difference if you blow
the image up to 6foot square but I about any of the quests would even if
you point it out to them.

You could buy a film and a digital back, use both and I bet that after a
couple of months the film back won't come out of it's box.

[Chris Hills]

Post by Chris Hills
As for quality.... a 10/12Mp Canon or Nikon et-al digital back will
give the required quality. You may be able to tell the difference if
you blow the image up to 6foot square but I about any of the quests
would even if you point it out to them.

Typos abound...

"But I doubt any of the guests would even if you point it out to them"
.....

Lets face it so many pros (and others) use digital successfully for
weddings and other major events that the quality issue is a non starter
for the real world except among the annaly retentive.