| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2005 09:41:21 AM · #1 |
Hi!
Yesterday I went to a exposition about weddings and weddings cerimonys, and a lot of pro photographers that live of this events where there.
I was invited to do a few works like those alte this year, and some thing that I saw in the exibition left me unconfertable: a lot of them, although use digital cameras to shoot the event (wedding), they used also a middle format camera to do some shoots, to do huge prints of the grooms.
You people that have experince in this tipe of work, what do you think? have you ever feel de need of such kind of machine? How big do your prints get at how many pixels? Do they (vlients) ask for very big prints?
Thank's for the help
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 10:11:28 AM · #2 |
I do not shoot weddings as I do not feel my skills are quite where they should be, nor do I have the equipment that I feel I would need. Such as an off-camera flash bracket, battery pack, more then a few GB of Memory cards, a few more lenses and an extra body, but that is beside the point.
However, I have been wedded this past year, I have been to many weddings this past year and I looked at dozens of photographer wedding packages, I have talked to several friends that have married and one thing is fairly common. Almost everyone was offered an 11"x14" print and most people ended up purchasing an 11"x14" print of themselves.
I am unsure what resolution you would want/need to obtain quality 11"x14" prints, but one way to find out if you have the right equipment is to take a good shot and have it printed, or at least share what equipment you have available here and let those that commonly print those size images let you know how they may turn out.
Even if our photographer used nothing more then straight 35mm film cameras, we would have hired him. He was not only a great photographer, but an exceptional entertainer. He made every guest genuinely smile with his appropriate antics and personality. His equipment was nothing more then a pair of large-format film cameras.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 10:39:38 AM · #3 |
I don't personally know anyone using a medium format camera for anything, including weddings. But that's probably because 90% of the photographers I know are fairly young.
Although, my lighting professor uses medium format in his studio for portraits, he still uses a 35mm for weddings.
:-) |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 11:14:47 AM · #4 |
I saw many photographers taking the step to digital. Probably because one thing they call the "digital album", that is a album where the photos are printed directly in the album pages, mounted in several ways and in a variaty of colour effects (sepia b&w, etc). It looks very good and professional (personaly I still prefer the qualaty of tradicional printing). I think they went to digital so to be easier to get the files from the camera than to digitalize the negatives of 35mm.
But my doubt maintains: can you get a photo realistic quallaty printig 11x14 as Golberry says from a 6mp DSRL like 300D or D70? Or do you need to go to 11mp like 1Ds MarkII or Kodak dslr? ( Because the new 8mp like 20D doesen't give you that much extra resolution)
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 11:47:33 AM · #5 |
You should have no problem printing 11x17 with a D70 or 10D or even 20D (the 10D is more comparable to the D70 than is the 300D).
Again, like most cameras, the lens you're using will be a large factor in the quality of your enlargements. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 12:04:02 PM · #6 |
11x17 will be no problem if you compose carefully and factors such as camera shake and excessive noise from high ISO are avoided. Noisy images can be interesting in their own right, it must be noted. I cropped about 1/3rd off this shot:
and printed it with really nice results at 8x12. It could have gone a lot larger.
A 20D will give you bette enlargement possibilities because of both increased resolution and lower noise. Noise is a big factor in the breakup of an image at larger sizes and the 20D's sensor generates much less noise than its predecessors.
Lenses are a big factor depending on the situation. A prime lens or an L zoom will be better, as much for the increased contrast and the wider apertures as the increased sharpness. These days I tend to look at lenses as what they can do for me on a physics basis rather than on an absolute sharpness level. I have no qualms about reaching for my 28-105 over my 70-200, 17-40 or 50 if that's the focal length I require. I know that I may have to adjust contrast a bit more than the other ones, and that's a factor too if you're shooting a lot of images.
If you're considering shooting weddings seriously it's necessary to think 1-series body, though. There seems to be a lot of talk here about getting away with non-professional equipment in professional jobs. If you can't afford to drop the cash for a 1D or 1Ds and a few professsional lenses, your business model needs some evaluation.
Message edited by author 2005-01-10 12:04:42.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 02:31:31 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
If you're considering shooting weddings seriously it's necessary to think 1-series body, though. There seems to be a lot of talk here about getting away with non-professional equipment in professional jobs. If you can't afford to drop the cash for a 1D or 1Ds and a few professsional lenses, your business model needs some evaluation. |
I have to disagree with the contention that a 1D or 1Ds is a necessity for wedding pros. I know of several pro wedding photographers who use the 10D or 20D cameras and are quite successful. What specific features of the 1D or 1Ds make it so much better for weddings than the 10D/20D models? Weather sealing is really unecessary, so is 8fps. The improved AF is nice, but again, not an absolute necessity. The added bulk and weight of the 1D cameras is definitely not an asset where weddings are concerned, the 10D, flash bracket and flash unit are heavy enough for an all day event. The additional resolution of the 1Ds would be nice for formal shots that are getting printed to say 20"x30" or larger, but most couples don't order much bigger than 8x10 or maybe 11x14, so for 90% of wedding shots, the larger file size just eats up CF space.
It's not about the tools in your head, it's the one between your ears that gets the job done.
Message edited by author 2005-01-10 14:35:24.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 02:43:15 PM · #8 |
Whereas a 1Ds might not be a necessity it is also not all that expensive. I think a lot depends on whether wedding photography is going to be a weekend job for you, that helps pay for gear or whether it is going to be a profession and your main source of income.
Besides when you are using a 1Ds it looks like you have a serious camera, perception is a large part of the game. Where you really know what you are doing or not when you are holding a 1Ds or a 1Ds Mark II you just look like you know what you are doing.
Message edited by author 2005-01-10 14:57:55. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 02:56:41 PM · #9 |
| I agree with Scott. The medium format makes you look more like a pro. If you have a camera and an on camera flash that the average person can buy, ($1500 and under) you will not have the image of a Pro. However if you are using a Canon 1DS or a 1D mark ll ($4500) it is obvious to your customer that you are serious about your job. I use to use a Hassy but I switched to the 1D Mark ll for many reasons. I feel comfortable doing a 16x20 with that. I also use a Quantum off camera strobe systes. If your serious about doing weddings, pony up and get the Pro equipment. You will get more work and be able to charge a higher pprice for you work. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 03:27:27 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Whereas a 1Ds might not be a necessity it is also not all that expensive. I think a lot depends on whether wedding photography is going to be a weekend job for you, that helps pay for gear or whether it is going to be a profession and your main source of income.
Besides when you are using a 1Ds it looks like you have a serious camera, perception is a large part of the game. Where you really know what you are doing or not when you are holding a 1Ds or a 1Ds Mark II you just look like you know what you are doing. |
Last I checked, the 1Ds mkII was right around $8K, so for one of those bodies and a backup, look to spend $16K. That qualifies as expensive for most people, except maybe folks like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. Unless you are the wedding photographer of the gods, it's probably a pretty good chunk of capital.
Most people are not going to care what camera you use, certainly not most couples paying for wedding photography. They care about getting quality results for a reasonable price.
If you can make your business work such that you can afford such tools, more power to ya! If you can't, or choose to invest that capital in other areas, there's no reason you can't use a camera like the 10D or 20D.
Message edited by author 2005-01-10 15:32:11.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 03:37:05 PM · #11 |
Pity the poor, unwashed masses still shooting weddings professionally with 35mm film equipment. About $4k gets a 1Ds on Ebay these days, as the 1DsII has dropped the value quite a long way.
Bonus points for suicidal tendancies sig quotes though. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 03:38:41 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
I agree with Scott. The medium format makes you look more like a pro. If you have a camera and an on camera flash that the average person can buy, ($1500 and under) you will not have the image of a Pro. However if you are using a Canon 1DS or a 1D mark ll ($4500) it is obvious to your customer that you are serious about your job. I use to use a Hassy but I switched to the 1D Mark ll for many reasons. I feel comfortable doing a 16x20 with that. I also use a Quantum off camera strobe systes. If your serious about doing weddings, pony up and get the Pro equipment. You will get more work and be able to charge a higher pprice for you work. |
The 1D series of cameras are definitely not medium format cameras.
I NEVER would suggest that a photographer shoot a wedding with the pop-up flash. That little thing is all but useless. However, the 10D & 20D cameras are compatible with the same flash units as the 1D and 1Ds. A good flash bracket helps too.
I would bet that 99.9% of customers care more about what's in your book than which camera's in your hand.
You'll be forced to charge more for your work, because you need to recoup the additional dollars you invested in equipment.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 04:17:19 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I would bet that 99.9% of customers care more about what's in your book than which camera's in your hand.
You'll be forced to charge more for your work, because you need to recoup the additional dollars you invested in equipment. |
You are absolutly correct in your assumptions. I haven't had a single client ever say "oh, you only use a Nikon D100 and a D70?"
The truth of the matter is: customers care about what you PRODUCE not what you use to to produce it.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 04:28:56 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Pity the poor, unwashed masses still shooting weddings professionally with 35mm film equipment. About $4k gets a 1Ds on Ebay these days, as the 1DsII has dropped the value quite a long way.
Bonus points for suicidal tendancies sig quotes though. |
The first pro photographer I worked for shot with Nikon F's (1950's-60's vintage film SLR) in the late '80's when the latest and greatest was the Nikon F4. We did plenty of weddings with those and never had any complaints about either the results or the obviously inadequate equipment we were using.
It's the tool between your ears that gets the job done, not the one in your hands.
Message edited by author 2005-01-10 16:33:07.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 05:07:48 PM · #15 |
Thank's guys. I feel like you said: if the "thing between your ears" don't get the job done right, doesn't matter the camera you use, it will always be a poor job. But your other guys are probably right too. If you look expensive you probably will charge expensive too, regarding if you know how to take full advantage of your equipment.
But for me is just for passion for know. A part time to pay the equipment and, at a close by future a business for real. My thoughts where in the Nikon D70 because the quality is much beside the price, but the things I saw about large prints leaved me with some doubts and fears. But the future will tell I guess.
Thank you all that gave your oppinion.
By the way... No one ever tryed the Kodak DSLR?
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 05:31:40 PM · #16 |
| When clients are coming to your studio or find you online, they are going to choose you based on price, then on what your portfolio looks like. They are NEVER going to say, "Oh by the way, what kind of camera do you use?" |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 05:47:02 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by photomayhem:
When clients are coming to your studio or find you online, they are going to choose you based on price, then on what your portfolio looks like. They are NEVER going to say, "Oh by the way, what kind of camera do you use?" |
I agree with everything you said except the "never" part. LOL. The order is totally right on, price, portfolio, etc. But I'd say about 50% of my clients ask about my equipment (hehehe that sounds dirty). When I start rhyming it off you can see their eyes glaze over. I checked out a bunch of wedding websites and they all suggest that couples ask their photographers about their equipment. Come on.....how is the average joe-blow supposed to have any inkling about photography gear?
I use big words and scare them off.
Message edited by author 2005-01-10 17:47:21. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 06:23:59 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I use big words and scare them off. |
That is too funny... I can do the same with my equipment :) Plus I do videography professionally for a couple years and I've never had anyone ask me about my video gear (Canon XL1S and tons of accessories)... But I am a software developer by trade so I can be picky about my video/photo assignments. |
|
|
|
01/10/2005 07:35:40 PM · #19 |
As far as print size, if you do not crop, the D300 will print 11x14 with less than no problem. I printed some 16x20 and even a 20x30 resampled using the 5% method and they came out perfect.
M
|
|
|
|
01/10/2005 07:37:27 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
But I'd say about 50% of my clients ask about my equipment (hehehe that sounds dirty).
|
Do you just tell them about it or do you whip it out and show them your equipment?
|
|
|
|
01/12/2005 12:21:14 AM · #21 |
| I have seen plenty of web sites for Brides and they are loaded with questions for her to ask all the parties including the photogrpahers. Questions like what kind of cameras to use and do you have back up equipment. If you ignore this you will end up paying for it in the long run. Besides how can you charge $3,000 to $5,000 for a wedding if the Brides' brother has a camera just like you do? |
|
|
|
01/13/2005 03:06:28 PM · #22 |
| I see where alot of people talk about there equipment being the most important thing shooting a wedding. I agree that your equipment is important but you the photographer is more important! Your eye is the most important! You need to know what looks creative and what doesn't! |
|
|
|
01/13/2005 04:24:19 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
I have seen plenty of web sites for Brides and they are loaded with questions for her to ask all the parties including the photogrpahers. Questions like what kind of cameras to use and do you have back up equipment. If you ignore this you will end up paying for it in the long run. Besides how can you charge $3,000 to $5,000 for a wedding if the Brides' brother has a camera just like you do? |
My wedding photographer used a Nikon F2, I had a Nikon F3 at home in my bag, didn't worry me a bit. I was more interested in results.
Any knob with more money than sense can buy a top of the line camera, but it's the resulting images that matter most.
BTW, I looked at the wedding stuff on your site, very nice!
If a client is more interested in what camera I use than what images I can produce, maybe they need a different photographer. Some clients are a lot more trouble than they are worth.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2005 04:45:42 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
I have seen plenty of web sites for Brides and they are loaded with questions for her to ask all the parties including the photogrpahers. Questions like what kind of cameras to use and do you have back up equipment. If you ignore this you will end up paying for it in the long run. Besides how can you charge $3,000 to $5,000 for a wedding if the Brides' brother has a camera just like you do? |
If the brother is a professional photographer, hardcore enthusiast or semi-professional, one should expect him to have equipment similar to, if not better then the wedding photographer. How often does that happen though? |
|
|
|
01/13/2005 04:49:00 PM · #25 |
I see lots of guests at weddings these days with D70's and stuff like that. I'm not worried about it..maybe they ARE great photographers. Then they could have their OWN business and charge whatever they wanted and I wouldn't feel threatened. Or maybe they just THINK they're great photographers. Either way, it's not the size of the equipment that matters: but how you use it.
I think that's been more than established. |
|
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: 08/09/2025 08:47:56 AM EDT.
