| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/30/2006 01:53:22 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Anyone that tells me they shoot JPG for weddings is either lying or a lousy photorapher. Sorry, but I do this for a living and if you're charging people for your work you have an obligation to provide the best images you can, and JPG just ain't gonna do it, not even outside much of the time. |
Sorry, but that's just b.s. I know a number of very successful and very good wedding photographers who choose to shoot jpg. No need to make ridiculous statements about others just because you opt to shoot in RAW. |
Sorry, but I shoot and have shot enough weddings to know how WB works in teh real world - and sorry, but if they are shooting JPG they can't make the corrections necessary to get consistent color in the images. Sorry, never gonna happen.
So it could be the just convert everything to b&w, or their clientele is clueless. I have seen plenty of albums with BAD WB from shot to shot - the photogs made money I suppose, but if i were the bride i'd be testing the photogs liability insurance 'cause i'd want my money back. I've seen a white dress in one image be yellow in the next - and people (the photog and bride anyway) seem to accept this crap as good.
Try it yourself - I had a reception saturday - dark hall (log lodge) and windows on 3 sides, one with a porch, so you got sun (in varying degrees and it got more yellow as the sun set), NO white walls at all, incandesent lights, flash, videographers lights - and this mix varied as you moved from one end of the room to the other - NO WAY the WB was the same from shot to shot and NO WAY you're gonna shoot that in JPG and get matched shots.
A surgeon can remove your appendix in his offise with a bottle of whiskey and a pocket knife or in a full surgical suite with a scalpel and anestethic- if you hire him to do it which would you be expecting? Same with photography. When you hire a professional you expect more than what Uncle Harry will give you. Or else I suppose you get what you deserve.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:00:38 PM · #77 |
| Well, I guess it's up to each person to determine whose work they think is good. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:04:37 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by mk:
Well, I guess it's up to each person to determine whose work they think is good. |
Thank goodness... LOL ... I can't compare to Gary Fong, but hey I don't get $10,000 to shoot a wedding either. LOL
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:07:29 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
Originally posted by mk:
Sorry, but that's just b.s. I know a number of very successful and very good wedding photographers who choose to shoot jpg. No need to make ridiculous statements about others just because you opt to shoot in RAW. |
I totally agree with MK here, even though I mostly shoot RAW. That's a bit of a loaded comment about someone being a "lousy photographer". I know quite a few professional photographers who have shot hundreds of weddings in jpeg and their work is phenomenal. I do believe that Gary Fong shoots jpeg at his weddings, and he makes $120,000 a wedding for his "lousy" work. |
The one photog i met and spoke with that is in Fong's league, pricewise, shoots film. Why? Quality of the end product - his customers expect a certain level of quality and film gives you better skin tone (so he says anyway) and more dynamic range. All are drum scanned for furhter PP work. His color is shot on hasselblads and b&w is shot 35mm on Canons. - for $100k you'll get 4 teams of photographers covering your wedding - what does fong give you?
BTW - //www.fredmarcus.com - and Andy Marcus was the gentlemen I spoke with last week at a seminar. I saw his work, his albums. And no, he does not PP his own work, and neither does Fong.
So if you got a choice of having your wedding shot on film or jpg...what would YOU prefer the photographer use?
I know a couple or wedding photogs that shoot RAW+JPG and so yes, they can claim the shoot JPG. this is done mostly by those that do the slideshows at the reception - and most of those shoot auto WB or Flash WB - they know it won't be correct, but will be consistent enough for a slideshow (or proofs maybe depending on the wedding).
Sorry folks, but i've shot enough to know there is no way on earth JPG is gonna work indoors at a wedding, WB wise.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:44:41 PM · #80 |
| Like I said, I myself use RAW, so I am biased towards that. I just think it's a bit arrogant to call a photographer lousy if they shoot in jpeg. But, I guess you've learned more in your 6 weddings than those who have successfully shot a couple hundred in jpeg. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 09:52:31 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
Like I said, I myself use RAW, so I am biased towards that. I just think it's a bit arrogant to call a photographer lousy if they shoot in jpeg. But, I guess you've learned more in your 6 weddings than those who have successfully shot a couple hundred in jpeg. |
perhaps i have. Perhaps i want to be better, give my clients the best possible images. From some of what i've seen, not all photographers out there care much beyond getting paid. And many of the 'big name' ones are that way because they market themselves and want to be famous. Note i did not say they want to be good.
#1 most spoken about subject amongst wedding photogs is not equipment, post processing, sales, quality or albums - it's how much can you charge. Not how much value, training, knowledge or even experience - it's all about the money. Shoot JPG and hand that over without any PP vs shoot RAW and edit every image is a big difference in time, so a big difference in the bottom line. Besides, the majority of clients out there can't tell the difference.
Heck, some people here don't seem to be able to either.
perhaps lousy photorapher is incorrect - try lazy professional.
Sure, the photographer's skills are important. But would you want your wedding shot with a 1Mp p&s? probably not. how about a 3Mp p&s? No? Why not? You'd want the photog to use 'good equipment'. Fine, I can make a 1Ds shoot in some 1mp mode with max compression - will that be good enough? No? why not? Oh you want better quality...so medium jpg? Better yet? RAW! When it's important, shoot the best. When you paying some thousands of dollars, you expect the best. Why accept less?
Message edited by author 2006-05-30 21:58:23.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 10:26:58 PM · #82 |
| weddings? If I had to choose, it shall be film. No digital. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 10:45:42 PM · #83 |
actually the minimum a 1Ds can shoot is 2.747mp and that's still enough to make a decent 8x10 ;-)
oh and there's no medium rez for it either :-x
in a situation where you can't control the settings, and have little or no time to adjust, use raw. If you know you're not printing very big, and it's in controlled settings jpeg will get the job done easily.
Message edited by author 2006-05-30 22:46:44. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 10:49:11 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by crayon:
weddings? If I had to choose, it shall be film. No digital. |
Crayon, actually film is a major Pain in the arse when shooting weddings. It's almost impossible without a backup camera and an assistant. Swapping out film after every 24 shots is tedious at best. Take it from me, I've shot a LOT of weddings in film and very few weddings digital. I like digital a LOT better.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 11:15:51 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by crayon:
weddings? If I had to choose, it shall be film. No digital. |
Crayon, actually film is a major Pain in the arse when shooting weddings. It's almost impossible without a backup camera and an assistant. Swapping out film after every 24 shots is tedious at best. Take it from me, I've shot a LOT of weddings in film and very few weddings digital. I like digital a LOT better. |
hehe... I know it's a pain for the photog.
Please let me rephrase what I meant - I mean MY wedding (and someone to do it for me!) |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 11:20:40 PM · #86 |
I can't belive that this debate is still going on.
Just shoot damn it. By the time you decide what format you are going after, the opportunity will have passed you by.
Jeeeshhh.
I can't wait for DNG.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 11:38:52 PM · #87 |
RAW all the way; I know several pro. photo journalists who all say RAW.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 04:16:44 PM EDT.
