I am surprised by some of the generalizations made. I would not try to
shoot a wedding with an Epic Stylus and your lighting statements would
seem to apply to the digital equivalent of such a point and shoot. The
lighting systems usable with DSLRs are not essentially different from
those of film SLRs. Dumbing down is not a function of digital vs. film.
It is a function of consumer vs. professional/advanced amateur
equipment. As for cost, film and processing for 50 rolls of film will
pay for a very capable DSLR. Shooting would be essentially free after
that.
I can certainly understand an argument of taste because of a preference
for the look of film, or an argument that negative film would be
preferable to slides or digital because latitude might save a situation
you did not foresee, but this is just puzzling.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Mar 8, 2005, at 9:00 PM, John A. Lind wrote:
> 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
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|