Wayne,
After having done my share of them . . . and I know there's a few others on
the list with much, much more experience than me . . . I came to the
conclusion some time back and recently reaffirmed it that anyone using
digital for wedding work had best be using the very top end gear ($$$$$)
and keep the hotline open with whatever they believe to be the Supreme
Being of the Universe for some very direct pleas if needed.
Digital gear in general is (IMVHO) dumbed down and isn't designed for
advanced lighting . . . and that is what I've found to be the biggest
technical challenge to weddings . . . the lighting. The overwhelming
majority are not designed for flash brackets either. It's as if the
designers of them have no concept of ergonomics or any idea that someone
might just want to use one with a flash that isn't mounted in the camera's
hot shoe.
From a perspective of the "candids" the first most important technical
requirement is lighting power and having enough of it to fill enormous
spaces (near zero containment), work longer distances, not have to wait
until the next millennium for the flash to recover, and be able to burn
about 350 frames (with flash) without having to worry about battery power
pooping out. Even a pair of T-32's in tandem is marginal (equivalent to a
T-45) for ISO 160.
Lighting and how it's used makes an enormous difference . . . making or
breaking a photograph and it's number one on my list of critical
elements. Mediocre posing and composition can look very good with proper
lighting use. An excellent composition looks stunning with it. Mediocre
lighting kills the end result regardless of how skillful the posing or
composition. I don't believe the digital camera designers have grasped the
concept yet that it's all about light.
BTW, now that "digital" has become sufficiently commonplace, the pendulum
is swinging the other direction and a number of high end studios are now
touting the use of film . . . which leads me to the conclusion that a lot
of the digital hoopla a couple years ago in the same marketplace was being
used much more for marketing and booking clients than for any technical
advantage, improvement in end result, or true reduction in business cost!
[BTW, I've been through the numbers again with as comprehensive an analysis
as I could put together regarding costs . . . film still came out on top,
measurable with decent confidence that it really does cost less, but not by
a huge margin. What digital really does is shift significant costs; it
doesn't reduce the total . . . not if the "hidden" and indirect costs are
captured.]
Thus endeth my rant for the evening.
-- John
At 06:21 PM 3/5/2005, Wayne wrote:
>I thought I'd share a few thoughts on a wedding I shot last evening. I did
>about half in digital with the C5050, and the rest with Kodak Portra 400NC
>and 160NC. I did shoot a bit with 120mm Ilford XP2 Super, but haven't
>received the results from that yet.
. . .
>So I guess the conclusion for now for me is, I probably either need an E-1,
>or maybe better, plan to stick with the OM's and film for a while yet for
>occasions like this.
>
>Wayne
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|