To give some idea of the conditions I was shooting in, here is a picture in
the Inn of the dining room lighted by candles and a small lamp - picture
hand held with flash turned off, using the C5050. The entire downstairs area
where the wedding was held was lighted about the same.
Other than resized by Camedia software (which will destroy any picture :-),
the picture is as it came from the camera.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3175400
Trying to focus with the OM's was a challenge, but not quite as embarrasing
as trying to get the C5050 to focus. With manual focus SLR, I always try to
focus on the eyes, and everything else will usually fall in place. That is
not an easy thing to do with the C5050 in these conditions.
This basically applies to this kind of situation only, but I can't imagine
being a professional and having to have an orange focus assist light shining
on someone's face every time you want to take a picture. It was rather
embarassing, especially when trying to take pictures during the ceremony.
Since all DSLR's have dimmer viewfinders, I doubt any of them would have
been the answer either, as I'd still have had to rely on auto-focus.
Here is a picture of the bride and Bismark, who is a permanent resident at
the Inn.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3175402
Again, shot on the C5050, and as it came from the camera, excepted resized.
I also shot the same pose with the OM2s and Kodak Portra 400NC. As you can
see, the bride's white dress is about right, at least to my eyes, but
Bismark is almost blacked out. There is almost no detail in his coat at all,
and the walls behind him are as dark as his coat, although they were
wall-papered in a much lighter color. The candle lighting can again be seen
in the background. Of course it can be lightened up, to show detail in
Bismark's coat, and the papered wall, but then the bride is washed out.
In contrast to this, the Kodak Portra film rendered the bride and her dress
perfectly, as well as amazing detail in the various shades of Bismark's
coat, and even shows clearly the pattern on the wallpaper and wallpaper
border behind.
Besides this, the Portra film rendered the skin colors perfectly, not with
reddish-pinkish hues as the C5050 did. For darker skinned people, perhaps
this is not a problem.
I realize all this can perhaps be manipulated in PS, but my question might
be, what pro wedding photographer would want to spend their time
manipulating 300+ photos in PS, when it is so much easier to just use Kodak
Portra?
As to color balance and the developers, I use a local Kodak Image center
that is about 12 kms from where I live. I know the people, and the few
weddings I've done, I am sure to stress to them that these are wedding pics,
so I don't want a one hour lab job done, nor am I interested in saving a
couple dollars. They printed each of these photos one to a time, taking
special care to blow dust off each neg, etc., you get the idea. But still
they got them to me the same day, quite amazing. Again, I just can't imagine
a wedding pro not using a service like this, as it is so cheap in
comparison. You'd have to work in PS with your digital pics for 50 cents an
hour to compete.
Perhaps in different circumstances it would be different. I can't speak for
shooting an outdoor wedding in mid afternoon on a summer July day, or
shooting a wedding of people who have darker skin color, etc. But in this
particular circumstance, film is clearly the winner. Perhaps in a day or two
I will get some of the digital pics printed in 4x6, and will be able to make
a fairer comparison. But I'm kind of dreading even the cropping of them all,
let alone any manipulating.
I think I said once before, it is not a matter of film versus digital for
me, but learning which is best for the particular situation. This time film
wins by far.
Wayne
>
> Even a C5050 can perform very well in shadow area, try to pull up the
shadow
> with curve tools, you will be amazing on the details inside, there is at
> least 1.5 stops more then you have seen without manipulation. But first of
> all you have to check the grey chart to see if your monitor can identify
all
> the blocks:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusc8080wz/
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > Wayne said:
> > I haven't yet had any of the digital pics printed, but based on viewing
> > them on the monitor, digital does not have near the range of capturing
> > detail in the darker areas as does the the Kodak Portra. I'm not sure if
> > that would hold true if I had an E-1 or other DSLR with a bigger sensor.
> > But based on what I shot last evening, I wouldn't want to abandon film
> > if I were a "real" wedding photographer.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Anybody going from film to digital should read and understand this:
> > <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml>
> >
> > Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|