Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,931   Posts: 1,556,958   Online: 1007
      
Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 37891011121314 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 135
  1. #121

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,474
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    My own was shot mostly on the 35mm disposables we put out on tables.
    No lie, the best pictures we got of both daughter's weddings were from the disposable film cameras. And all went onto CD's from the processor for digital distribution needs.
    - Bill Lynch

  2. #122
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,770
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    That is true, although if you want to take a lot of shots, most 120 cameras don't get a lot of images per roll, so you would need a lot of backs, and even 30 years ago, the backs cost more then many 35mm camera bodies. I would hate to see a guy try to do a wedding today with a Speed Graphic when most people expect to have a couple of million frames to look through on your iPad after the reception.... Doesn't mean you can't use an SG for some shots, there is no better tool for that poster sized print of the bride and groom to go in their new home.... Like I said though, a good photographer has more then one tool (camera), and knows how to use all of them. The key isn't the tool, it's using the tools to get what you want. With the minimum of time taken. Say you get $500 to do a wedding, you spend 40 hours on the computer to get a bunch of digital images to look like they were shot on film, your materials cost is $75, your depreciation on your camera is $10, you spent 5 hours on a Saturday doing the shoot. Congratulations you made $9.22/hr....

    Shoot the same thing on film, you spent $150 on film and processing, your time is 5 hours plus the hour to the lab and back, you made $58.33 an hour, this is why some wedding photographers are going back to film, plain and simple.
    Truly don't need a zillion shots to do a good job. An educated buyer will understand that. Modern albums typically use 60-100 shots.

    The last wedding I shot, was done on 9-rolls of 35mm. That was considerably more shots than really needed.

    Probably would have had plenty with 9-10 rolls on my RB. I've got three backs which would have easily covered the rushes and weddings normally are hurry then wait affairs, there would be plenty of time to reload.

    Of course I'd charge more than $500.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  3. #123
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,051
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    No lie, the best pictures we got of both daughter's weddings were from the disposable film cameras. And all went onto CD's from the processor for digital distribution needs.
    Same here. My daughter paid $5,000 for a professional wedding photographer. Mom and I handed out 50 Kodak disposable cameras that costs us a tad over $200 (cheapest investment of the entire wedding.) When everything was all said and done the shots from the Kodak cameras were the ones with the best results. The professional photographer obviously had a nice set of posed portraits the bride and groom, and of various members of the wedding party. But the candids were a bust. Those little disposables are great cameras. Can't find the Kodak ones anymore but I can still get the Fuji ones. Am going to hand out another batch for this upcoming Xmas.

  4. #124
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,192
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    That is true, although if you want to take a lot of shots, most 120 cameras don't get a lot of images per roll, so you would need a lot of backs, and even 30 years ago, the backs cost more then many 35mm camera bodies. I would hate to see a guy try to do a wedding today with a Speed Graphic when most people expect to have a couple of million frames to look through on your iPad after the reception.... Doesn't mean you can't use an SG for some shots, there is no better tool for that poster sized print of the bride and groom to go in their new home.... Like I said though, a good photographer has more then one tool (camera), and knows how to use all of them. The key isn't the tool, it's using the tools to get what you want. With the minimum of time taken. Say you get $500 to do a wedding, you spend 40 hours on the computer to get a bunch of digital images to look like they were shot on film, your materials cost is $75, your depreciation on your camera is $10, you spent 5 hours on a Saturday doing the shoot. Congratulations you made $9.22/hr....

    Shoot the same thing on film, you spent $150 on film and processing, your time is 5 hours plus the hour to the lab and back, you made $58.33 an hour, this is why some wedding photographers are going back to film, plain and simple.
    I do not need to take thousands of photographs to capture a wedding. I make each photograph count. Hasselblad back are much cheaper now, I generally pay about $100US per back, and I discovered that they are even reusable!
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  5. #125
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    I do not need to take thousands of photographs to capture a wedding. I make each photograph count. Hasselblad back are much cheaper now, I generally pay about $100US per back, and I discovered that they are even reusable!
    My main point is though, that of photographer time. You take the images, drop it at the lab, and let the lab do the processing and proof prints. Then pick them up on the way to visit the family, with paper prints to go through, they pick the ones they like, and you drop the order back at the lab. Your time investment is minimal, the time you spent at the shoot and going to the lab. I guess, if your old school and use your digital the way a film guy uses film, you could do similar, drop the card at the lab for printing, and then pick up prints for the meeting. A lot of digital guys, who didn't come from a film background, end up shooting 2,000 frames, and if you give the family that kind of choice, it will take weeks to decide on the 60 for the package. That means the photographer has to cut it from 2,000 to 120 or so, and that's going to take hours. Hours they could spend on getting more gigs.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  6. #126
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,192
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    My main point is though, that of photographer time. You take the images, drop it at the lab, and let the lab do the processing and proof prints. Then pick them up on the way to visit the family, with paper prints to go through, they pick the ones they like, and you drop the order back at the lab. Your time investment is minimal, the time you spent at the shoot and going to the lab. I guess, if your old school and use your digital the way a film guy uses film, you could do similar, drop the card at the lab for printing, and then pick up prints for the meeting. A lot of digital guys, who didn't come from a film background, end up shooting 2,000 frames, and if you give the family that kind of choice, it will take weeks to decide on the 60 for the package. That means the photographer has to cut it from 2,000 to 120 or so, and that's going to take hours. Hours they could spend on getting more gigs.
    What is this "card" of which you speak? The 18% gray [grey] card? Business card? Ace of Spades?
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  7. #127

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    697
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    What is this "card" of which you speak? The 18% gray [grey] card? Business card? Ace of Spades?
    Tarot card

  8. #128
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,631
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    What is this "card" of which you speak? The 18% gray [grey] card? Business card? Ace of Spades?
    A Red Card for blabbering on about digital...


  9. #129
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5

    Re: One Reason Why Film Rules

    The memory card. I think you're purposely being obtuse.


    But wogsters point is valid enough.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  10. #130
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post
    The memory card. I think you're purposely being obtuse.


    But wogsters point is valid enough.
    I was waiting to see if someone would catch on.... It's not always the tool, but often the craftsman who uses it, that makes the difference. Just because the media is cheaper, doesn't mean you need to shoot more.

    I once went on a shooting hike with a friend, we were dug into the shore of a lake off a trail, I had a 200mm lens (35mm) and a doubler on so about 400mm of lens power,
    on the big old Manfrotto, observing some birds on a log, almost on the other side, probably 200m away. I got one shot, when a group of people came along the trail, all with fancy Nikon DSLR's, the ones with massive zooms attached, talking at a volume that would drown out a space shuttle at liftoff thrust. They proceeded to mercilessly machine gun the scene. I would think it a safe bet, that the only one of the 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 or so images taken during that particular minute that wasn't crap was the one I got off before they arrived Of course afterwards, we packed up and went back to the trail head, it wasn't worth stopping, because there was no wild life for about 10km on either side, because the loud talking had moved it all to another part of the park. We saw their tour bus head left, we followed it to the next trail, they stopped, we didn't.

    Funny thing is, even with a DSLR, I don't really shoot more, if I can get what I want in one shot, why take 10 or 100 or 1,000?
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin