Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,750   Posts: 1,670,570   Online: 1036
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: wedding? AHHH!

  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    From my limited experience I would have to agree. I was amazed at the quality and colour of the prints I got back. And these are just ordinary lab machine prints. Your hand produced prints must be even better.

    I wouldn't disagree with this. My argument would be that I don't want to sit in front of a computer for hours doing this when I can get the lab to do it. I would think though that the equivalent of 'post processing' in film is actually the years of development inherent in the process to ensure it comes out right without too much adjustment at the printing stage.
    If there are a lot of digital wedding photographers who are not post processing then they are probably not producing work to the highest quality they can achieve.

    That is my primary argument for film too...though I am the photographer and the lab, printing a roll of 36 is much simpler than post processing 36 raw files.

  2. #12
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Tufts University
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt5791 View Post
    My workflow is: Shoot; Process; Scan for digital proofs; hand print required shots. I find this is the easiest way to a hand printed album, without spending absurd amount of time in the darkroom. The RH Designs analyser helps for the B&W.
    Digital proofs...genius.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    I know I'm a biased film dinosaur anyway but having done these two, I still can't see how digital is easier.

    I just sent the film off to a lab, they sent back a set of prints. People can then order any prints they want. Simple.

    How is sitting in front of a computer for hours 'post-processing' digital images better than that?
    I can understand that digital gives you re-assurance that you got the shot but that is really just an antidote for lack of confidence in your abilities.
    Well, theoretically digital would be faster. But it's not. The time it takes you to print digitally (after correction, enhancement, and other digital hocus-pocus) is roughly equal to the time it takes you to develop the film (in bulk) and print it. If you want a good image it takes just as much time with each. When you send it off they just scan it in and a computer waves its automatic wand over the image to get what it is programmed to say is the correct white/color balance and exposure. This is fairly good at automatically ruining "correct" exposure and almost never giving you what you want and of course nothing close to hand optical printing.

    If you are good with photoshop you can do some REALLY cool things but when you're done you can't really say you have a photograph. Digital is too sharp, cisp, and faded at "correct" exposure for my taste. I can stand digital if it's underexposed and curved in photoshop, but hell, printing negatives is too much fun. With these outdated technologies people always say "eew, why do you still do that?" and then I show them the final product and they eat their words.
    Last edited by tiberiustibz; 05-24-2008 at 07:12 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: damn keyboard

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12



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