At 04:02 PM 9/1/03, B.D. wrote:
1. Balancing color - getting the 'right color,' is far, far easier with
digital than with film;
Not if the lab the film goes to consistently gets it right across all rolls
from the same wedding, even with a mix of lighting conditions and a mix of
Fuji Press 1600 with Kodak Portra 160NC.
2. Anyone who suggests that shooting a wedding using digital requires
more bodies and more money is smoking some really cheap crack - Among
other things, who uses 128 mb cards anymore - try 512 or 1 gig. Second,
who works that kind of situation with a single card, requiring constant
downloads? How about 5 cards - 10 cards; after all, unlike film, you
only buy them once.
More bodies? No. That doesn't alleviate the need for backup equipment
though. More money? Yes. More of my time? Yes. I prefer film because
it's easier to handle, requires less of my time, and the overall business
cost is lower in all three categories: recurring consumables/services,
capital depreciation, and the value of my time. See my other posting.
The "cheap crack" remark was uncalled for and inflamatory. Beyond that I
won't say any more about it.
-- John
< 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 >
|