I think not . . . starting with color accuracy . . . I've seen too many
questions on other forums about "how do I fix this" after the automagic
camera fails to do so. It's not just getting pleasing colors or skin
tones, it's getting very exacting ones and having them consistently the
same across hundreds of proofs. Don't underestimate a bride's ability to
remember *exactly* what color *everything* was at her wedding, including
the color of the church floor and the draperies on the reception hall
windows. She **will** complain and demand rework of everything that
doesn't match exactly. Some of them have been planning the event down to
the very smallest of details since they were three years old. There's
enough "back end" work as it is handling hundreds of proofs without having
to spend enormous amounts of time trying to color balance 30-50 digital
images and make all the colors look exactly the same across all of them
*and* all the rest of the photographs.
Even with professionally rated film if you want exacting color balance it
is advisable to take a sample of the object to the printer to
match. Digital requires slightly more setup on the front end for this
but is easily balanced in the professional world on the back end.
Working available light inside some of these places is not that easy and
digital falls down completely in low light. Many are deceptively *dark*
inside. Press 1600 is OK most of the time but I've been in places where
TMax P3200 (or Ilford Delta 3200) at Push 2 may not be quite enough speed
if someone is in one of the darker corners. Opening up beyond f/2.8 is
asking for trouble with depth of field. Most of the photographs are done
with focal lengths longer than 50mm which demands a minimum 1/60th shutter
speed for a reasonable yield rate. The E-20N has a max ISO 320, and
that's definitely, without any doubt, not enough speed . . . 2-1/3rd stops
slower than 1600 and 3-1/3rd stops slower than 3200.
A problem with digital similar to earlier days of film. Will wait to see
what happens here.
I've read several books on "digital" weddings and the work flow presented
in each of them includes assistant*s* (emphasis on plural). At least one
is required as a "grip" on site handling memory, batteries, file downloads
and backup on a laptop. 128MB of memory will hold 32 images (1:2.7 EXIF
JPEG) and I wouldn't think of using an incredibly lossy 1:8 compression
EXIF JPEG to cram 80 images in. At least one more "master printer" is
needed to handle "back end" work with the files afterward. The
alternative is BIG $$$ for a pro lab to do this with each proof made from
a digital file. Everything I've been able to work out for a "digital"
work flow at least doubles the price simply to recoup all the labor and/or
lab costs, and that's minimalist.
A single photographer using multiple memory cards can do the same
thing. In addition, using digital, the photographer can check the results
of a particular setup immediately and be sure of not blowing a shoot.
For me, using a digital for anything at a wedding is a very expensive, big
**loser**.
-- John
Can't argue with opinion!
gregg
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|