</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Feb 27 2003, 12:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
First he would not let me bring my cameras near the wedding or reception, if I shot color. He had to inspect my film first. BUT I refused to pay him to shoot a digital camera and just print out the pictures. I inspected his equipment first. We argued long and hard about what he thought was the best pictures. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I would not have let the SOB inspect anything, or dictate what I am allowed to bring to my own kid's wedding. So long as he was getting paid what was agreed to, it's none of his damn business what you do. Like you I would have told him I want real photos, not digital printouts. There would have been no argument, either it's my way, or he is fired on the spot. Who the hell did he think he is????
That is pretty typical from a significant portion of the "pro" wedding shooters out there.
I had the (mis?)fortune of attending a fairly large number of weddings recently, so I got to see a LOT of different shooters.
Now when I go to a wedding I bring a camera. What I do is shoot the moments the hired gun is missing. Then I get the best picture of the couple printed out by hand on high quality fibre at 11x16 or 8x10 (depending on negative size). I mount it up and frame it. Voila', a great wedding gift that looks great and is something they usually can't afford themselves (most people can't and won't fork out the big $$ for a large print from the pro....many don't even consider it).
Some shooters get REALLY mad at me. I had one guy who said he wasn't going to shoot the wedding if I didn't put my Bronica in the car. My take on this was "Well, I do have 20 rolls of film in my bag here....and I am available", but the B&G were stressed as it is, so I brought out my FT2. This guy was so clueless as to think that it could not match his 35mm Canon. Proved him wrong when all was done and said. http://apug.org/forum/html/emoticons/smile.gif
Then there are the ones shooting digital. Time and again I have seen my stuff come back well before theirs does. I don't mean a few days difference. I mean a couple of MONTHS usually. True, I don't have their workload, but a couple of months for proofs? Come on. I thought digital was supposed to be faster!
I think in the future we will see a return to film. Especially for things like weddings. Right now many people skimp on the photographer at weddings. The number of times I have been asked "Can YOU shoot it for us?" is innumberable. I did that ONCE. And it was a diaster. The B&G were quoted my cost. They agreed. Then they said "Well, $500.00 is too much, we can get this guy for $250.00." Despite pointing out this was COST for me (and an estimate), and that they agreed to this, they wanted me to shoot for LESS than $250.00. Well, I'd spent $200.00 on film, so this was not gonna happen. And I hate that kind of crap. So they ended up with the "Kodak Glossy Photo Paper" wedding pics from "Cletus the Photographer" with his Coolpix.
Now, which is gonna last longer, the inkjet prints, or the stuff I took and had printed on Crystal Archive?
My prediction is that all these people spending more money on flowers than on pictures will soon find that their "special moment" has faded. Literally! The impermanence of the mediums used will result in a lot of lost photos. The smart shooters, the ones who KNOW what they are doing and still use MF and a Stroboframe, will be able to sell their services based wholly on archival quality! If you mention to t he happy couple that these images will last "60-100 years so your grandkids can enjoy them", you will get a lot of response to that.
That alone will keep the film industry going. Add to that all the artists out there who will keep working with silver and you have a strong industry. Plus there are the nations where people don't have as much disposible income. They won't be moving to digital as quickly as everyone else. Hell, I have heard that in some nations guys still take tintypes for tourists!
Film is far from dead, far from dying. And the fact is those who KNOW how to use it will be sought out in the future.
I'm not saying that film is *dying*, my vision is that for the *consumer*, they'll call it "dead". They'll go for the digital since "they can do just as good as the pro's/studios on their inkjet" or something (I've heard it already at some conferences). Just like now, the computer industry isn't "dying". Just the interest and educational aspects in it. With all the hack's who "graduated from the top of their class at _______ school (some community college)" and are taking jobs for 8.00 an hour that the experienced people wouldn't think of it, the industry is becoming a "generic" market. I think that's a better term. And of course, more hacks...
I'm saying that film will become that "generic" market, with further spreads between film and digital users. Hell, Comdex, the largest convention for the computer industry went bankrupt a few months ago! But, CES (*Consumer* electronics show) is still around...
Look at B&W now, may people are charging something like 30-50% MORE to do it because they list it in their literature as *speciality* work. Huh?
It used to be (in the computer industry) that consumer and pro users were fairly close together in equipment quality, software, etc. And the only "hacks" were the Shareware people. Now, it's more like a tennis court, spread between two worlds with a large, definitive line/net in between. The problem today is that one side is somebody whose only played tennis with a computer and you've got Andre Aggasi on the other side! "But, I've won the *hardest* level on my game!...I'm just as good." People expect the $600.00 computer to be able to do the same work as a $2000.00 box. Wrong. Doesn't work that way.
So, what I'm saying is that the consumer out there will get frustrated with their 35mm P&S (or Canon Elan somethings) because their pictures "didn't look as good as some pro's" and "I must(!) know why, this camera is just good as theirs". Of course, not understanding that it's not the camera's fault (well, it kinda is somewhat) but rather it's their fault for being non-educated on the subject. So what do they do? They go and get a digital. And Photoshop (or some crippleware image editor) and edit the hell outta their image. Then, they'll print it out and hang it on the wall (direct framing not matted..."uh, why is the picture stuck to the glass?") and tell the whole family that their image is better than some pro who spent years, much money, and mucho headaches learning the process.
What has happened is just as in *many* industries...instead of the consumer being better educated on what they are doing wrong, they are getting dumber and dumber because the devices they use are doing it for them ("I got this camera with 2 zillion point autofocus and 9 trillion programs..." (look at Nikon with their "image database that matches the exposure to the scene" in the F100) without them understanding the concepts. This, of course, leads them to think that they're getting better (falsely) and makes life for the rest of us living hell.
David, I have all the color equip somewhat because I can do it faster than a lab (not for production prints, but rather for custom work). Plus, I get to keep honing my skills in color, so when they do screw up or something, I can communicate with them better. There has been quite a few times where the lab printed an image (quite well) for what the operator saw, but I had seen the image differently and felt that the image had more feeling differently. So, I did a guide proof of it in my lab and sent it to the pro lab. They corrected the images for what I saw and were far less b*tchy when I called them and told them "I was including a guide print". I use one of the larger labs in the country and they are all great people. (It's kinda like doing every job as a competition job, with guide printing and all, it's easier for the lab to *see* what you want rather than having to *mentally envision* what you want) And, sometimes, I'll do my negs up for C-41 (an hour after the shoot) and contact sheet. Then, I'll pre-crop the images and send them to the lab for finals. It cuts down from having to wait for the proofs to come back on time critical, "need it in a week" jobs without the rush pricing!
I guess this whole thing ties into the discussion at hand (on building a REAL darkroom) because I'm saying that before you go digital for any reason, understand the concepts of real photography behind it first. (Look at how many people use Photoshop, but don't understand why the "dodge" and the "burn" tool work like they do! Or, "what's a mask?" When the day digital becomes the "common" thing, you'll understand better! I just see it as a change in the tool, just like the change from seeing handtools in a garage to seeing air or electric tools...people are still using both, but the *consumer* tool-time-man will have every pneumatic, hydraulic, and electric tool in his arsenal, yet won't have a clue when his Milwaukee 6HP ____ won't fit into the space to cut something. (I have a ""friend"" who is this stupid...owns almost every Mac tool, but can't use half of them to save his ass)
We are getting off track here, but as someone who shot a few hundred weddings in a previous life, the fact of another camera intruding on the wedding coverage is very annoying. I don't want to get into a discussion of your rights to shoot at a friends wedding but the following is a few reasons that it is distracting.
1. It is my living, and you giving or selling prints cuts into it.
2. I want the B&G and family to pay attention to me. If they are looking around at other photographers when I'm posing or shooting, the picture quality suffers considerably.
3. At the church amateurs will step in front of me while I'm trying to shoot. Shots that can't be redone.
4.Time is precious and if they are posing for you, you are stealing valuable time.
5. The B&G saw my work previously and that is why I was hired. They already know the prices and the quality. An amateur getting in the way and undercutting is hurting my business.
I'm sure that whatever you occupation is, you would not be impressed with someone coming in and hurting your work product or disrupting your work.
Anyway, just another point of view.
Thankfully I paid my penance and have not shot weddings for years.
BTW, Aggie, I'd love to come out sometime and join all the LF's out there! (I shot an 11x14 for a while and a SpeedGraphic and had an 8x10 Deardorf...) I just didn't have the time to dedicate to all the LF work and I got into color printing and Cibachrome about then...
Let me know on what day ya'll decide (I live in Indiana in case ya'll didn't know...) Hopefully, this software project I'm on now will be near completion by then...
David, from someone who just set up a very small darkroom after many yrs, do it! I figure, there's not too many things most of us do for fun and relaxation, and that's it' psychologically healthy to enjoy life when we can, doing what's relaxing, and to express ourselves in whatever way we choose, within limits of course lol And a darkroom can help with this goal. good luck!
And Aggie, I too would be up to meet with Lee. I arranged recently a Zone VI and some lenses, but the guy squaked. Looking at possibly a Wisner Traditional, but then I have to piece meal the rest and that's more expensive in the end. But I really like the extra bellows. Anyway, still shopping, but count me in.
That's what I was thinking...there are very few things we do for ourselves. It's kind of like someone who outfits a garage to work on cars.
And Aggie I would come up too, if you're planning something. I am from Sacramento and am up north all the time.
Michael (blansky), thanks for putting forward the other side of the argument. You have valid points there, that I frankly had not considered. But, all the same, if someone hires a professional, she should expect and demand more than a point-and-shoot / epson printer operation. She should have been allowed to choose the photographer herself if she wanted to. The wedding photographers I have seen (the real professionals, not the hacks) used a medium format, usually Hasselblad or Bronica, and produced both good proofs and GOOD final prints, which will last her lifetime and beyond.
Anyway to get back on the original subject, I haven't tried my own color yet, but I might. For now, black and white and all the variations of it keep me busy. By the way, I understand black and white is back in fashion for weddings.
For anyone setting up a darkroom, I would give what has become the stock answer....
Get an enlarger that is bigger than you think you will need. It should at least cover both 35mm and 120 film. If you have the cash, get a color enlarger so you have the option of working in color in the future. Or if you are broke and never ever intend to do color, get a black and white medium format condensor (dirt cheap right now).
Whoops! It mean't squawked. "I'm still too emotionally attached""...this after putting it on ebay with reserve not met, and then emailing me asking if I was still interested! lol Oh well, I'll find something eventually.
I also enjoy music and home theater. I've spent a fortune there too. All for music lol Also, there's the always faithful knowledge of knowing we're getting older and that we can't take it with us hehe Enjoy!