Messsucherkamera Posted December 4, 2011 Author Share #61 Posted December 4, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can back Ned up on the wedding stuff...during the season, I'm a hired gun / second shooter. Typically 1000 -1200 shots per gig, and if I do 2 in a weekend that's easily close to 2500 shots. I hear horror stories every now and again about so-called "Bridezillas" and/or "Momzillas" making life a living hell for the wedding photographer - and anyone else hired in any capacity for the wedding. At the risk of self-inflicted thread drift, I wonder if you or Ned or anyone else who shoots wedding runs into these types frequently? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Hi Messsucherkamera, Take a look here 100% film based photography. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Studio58 Posted December 4, 2011 Share #62 Posted December 4, 2011 In close to twenty years of shooting weddings I have had maybe three clients like that. Personally I think that 'bridezilla talk' comes from the fauxtographers out there. While there are still pro shooting weddings, the backyard wannabes have essentially take the industry over by their sheer weight of numbers. For me, I was shooting at the high end. I think there is a lot less trouble there. Fro what I have observed, it is the low end of the market that tends to be problematic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted December 4, 2011 Share #63 Posted December 4, 2011 My experiences mirror Studio58 for the most part. Getting into how the industry (wedding/portrait) has changed in recent years would indeed derail the thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted December 4, 2011 Share #64 Posted December 4, 2011 My experiences mirror Studio58 for the most part. Getting into how the industry (wedding/portrait) has changed in recent years would indeed derail the thread. You mean because of digital? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted December 4, 2011 Share #65 Posted December 4, 2011 You mean because of digital? In simplest terms, yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted December 4, 2011 Share #66 Posted December 4, 2011 I've always backed up my images by making in camera duplicates... I find it difficult to make in camera duplicates with my typical subjects. Very much on-topic, BTW: Leicaflex SL, 180mm APO-Telyt-R, Kodachrome 64. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/167666-100-film-based-photography/?do=findComment&comment=1861663'>More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted December 4, 2011 Share #67 Posted December 4, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The L.A. Times sure as heck isn't helping our cause, at least not today: Kodak's long fade to black - latimes.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pes084k1 Posted December 4, 2011 Share #68 Posted December 4, 2011 I shoot only slides. Have for more that 20 years. I have never had the desire to own a digital camera. I dont own not even one. Last week I was shooting the Rememberance Day Parade when a gentleman with a fancy digital camera asked me: Is that a Leica? I replied yes it is. He replied but its film, with a puzzled look on his face. I replied it works fine for me. Just came back from a week in Wyoming and cant wait to get the slides back from the lab. Exciting!!!!! Scanned slide (or low ISO B&W) film with proper post processing is still ahead for big prints (>12x) and projections and longer photo life. However digital photo is highly interesting for many things. I rarely print on small formats, hence still use much film scanned at 5400/7200 dpi.However I also have a D700 and a NEX-5n is coming for Leica M lenses support. Elio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted December 4, 2011 Share #69 Posted December 4, 2011 The L.A. Times sure as heck isn't helping our cause, at least not today: Kodak's long fade to black - latimes.com Thank you for the link to the L.A.Times with the write up on Kodak's past and present problems. But more problelms are just behind the bend. Earlier this week there was an article in a (probably UK) newspaper describing how movie theatres are changing to video projection so that they can also show 3-D films. Next year more than half of the movie theatres (world wide???) will use video. This will take away a very reliable and not unimportant revenue source for Kodak even if many movies will initially be filmed using analog material. What this will mean to us TMax and TriX users remains to be seen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted December 4, 2011 Share #70 Posted December 4, 2011 Earlier this week there was an article in a (probably UK) newspaper describing how movie theatres are changing to video projection so that they can also show 3-D films. Next year more than half of the movie theatres (world wide???) will use video A new 7-8 screen multiplex has just opened a couple of miles from me. It's all digital. I haven't been to see anything there yet, mainly because there's nothing being shown that I want to see, but it'll be interesting to take a look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christer Posted December 4, 2011 Share #71 Posted December 4, 2011 Here is the link. Don't keep it reel: why there's life after 35mm | Film | guardian.co.uk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted December 5, 2011 Share #72 Posted December 5, 2011 Scanned slide (or low ISO B&W) film with proper post processing is still ahead for big prints (>12x) Depending on the choice of films and cameras, a convincing case could be made that either film or digital is better for large prints. I found that for the cameras and films I was willing and likely to use the all-digital process was much more likely to result in photos I'm willing to print big (16" x 20" or bigger). This isn't something that can be covered with a blanket statement, the choice of one process or the other depends on the photographer's needs and desires. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 5, 2011 Share #73 Posted December 5, 2011 That Guardian article uses the term "Celluloid" kind of loosely don't they? Is this a common term in the UK despite it long being totally obsolete? Kodak is now making laser digital projectors for theaters including IMAX but this will never replace the lost revenue from the disappearance of theatrical prints. I bet there is a line forming for the Canon EOS C300 Canon EOS C300 = Awesome on Vimeo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted December 5, 2011 Share #74 Posted December 5, 2011 Off topic, however on topic with the link in this thread to the article about movie film. There was a comment about making a movie digitally at 48fps. I think people missed the point about recording at that high rate of speed (as apposed to 24fps.) Movies have a look and "feel" to them because of the 24fps rate (film OR digital.) There's much left to the imagination that helps give movies that magical look. Video such as a football game shown at 30fps certainly does have a different look. There's more information being recorded giving that "immediate" look video so rightly has. There's TVs now that can now create "frames" missing in movies giving motion a "smooth" look to it. All that has done to me is make movies look like I'm watching a football game and removes the film look. In fact when I see movies being presented like this...they look as if I could easily recreate what was shot by simply using a video camera. It's pure crap and makes movies look cheap. So when I read a movie will be recorded at 48fps, I can only hope it's a exception rather than what might become the new rule. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted December 5, 2011 Share #75 Posted December 5, 2011 Off topic, however on topic with the link in this thread to the article about movie film. There was a comment about making a movie digitally at 48fps. I think people missed the point about recording at that high rate of speed (as apposed to 24fps.) Movies have a look and "feel" to them because of the 24fps rate (film OR digital.) There's much left to the imagination that helps give movies that magical look. Video such as a football game shown at 30fps certainly does have a different look. There's more information being recorded giving that "immediate" look video so rightly has. There's TVs now that can now create "frames" missing in movies giving motion a "smooth" look to it. All that has done to me is make movies look like I'm watching a football game and removes the film look. In fact when I see movies being presented like this...they look as if I could easily recreate what was shot by simply using a video camera. It's pure crap and makes movies look cheap. So when I read a movie will be recorded at 48fps, I can only hope it's a exception rather than what might become the new rule. Peter Jackson Talks at Length About Using 48FPS for 'The Hobbit' | FirstShowing.net Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Muller Posted December 8, 2011 Share #76 Posted December 8, 2011 I'm like you.I spend at least 3 nights a week printing my stuff. I despise digital altough I earn a living from it. If I stack all my archival prints I'll have at least 12' high. Each print took me about 30 minutes to make. Only a real connoisseur knows how rewarding this is. Digital photographers, even the so-called experts (the same ones that never even shot film), probably never printed more then 35 inkjetprints in their life. They love to spend their time browsing thru an infinite amount of headache inducing stupid folders. Then they have to sort thousands of photographs. Absolute nightmare! Film, beyond film itself, is a craft. I am one of those 100% digital photographers, I think of myself as a bit of an expert now after 7 years. I have a 44inch z2100 and I have printed hundreds of inkjet prints on all sorts of paper, digital is a massive learning curve! ! Before that I considered myself a bit of an expert in film photography, took a diploma and many many years to get there,....had 35mm contax g, a hasselblad and a RB, but my most loved and used camera was a Zone VI 4x5 field camera. Personal stuff was alll B&W and comercial work all tranny. Printed all my fibre base prints myself and the stacks are about a meter high... I think..... really dont have the time or inclination to measure the stack....Shot portraits, architecture, studio all on the Zone VI......in fact I still have it, keep on telling myself that one day I am gonna buy a box of film and shoot a few sheets......one day....... Now it seems to me that all you are doing is convincing yourself that what you are doing is great and good and better.....and so be it, if it works for you, great........but for myself, I know what works for me and what works best......but then I guess I am no connoisseur....... as for sorting through thousands of files and ledgers.... I guess I am either stupid or something but I only have to sort through a few images at a time and select even fewer.......I didint have to shoot a lot of film to get my image then and I dont have to do it now.....but I guess thats just me.....film, digital, cameras, lenses, darkroom, enlargers, printers those are just a means to an end.....the stuff between seeing something and capturing it..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted December 8, 2011 Share #77 Posted December 8, 2011 Well I shoot most on film because I can't afford the quality of digital camera that will match my Leicas, and its not just buying the M9 but repairing it when it goes wrong and replacing it when it stops working. I print digital because I work in colour, and scanning slides and printing on an Epson 3800 produces results at least as good as and much easier than Cibachrome (which I did right from when it first came in) which was the best tradional repro for colourfilm in my long experience and IMHO of course. I have a digital camera (a Panasonic G1), used mostly for family 'snaps', but it will make some use of my M and good use of my Nikon lenses, its good enough to produce an A2 print to stick on the wall if I want to, and it was cheap enough to throw away in 5 (10?) years time when there aren't any parts left. It will sooner than that get replaced by the Ricoh GXR or sililar to make better use of the M lenses, at a reasonable price. In the end its all about the image produced, it doesn't really matter a toss how its produced, anyone who asks how it was produced, and thinks less of the image because of the method of achieving it whatever it is has an opinion of no value to me and I think to any other intelligent lover of images. Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted December 10, 2011 Share #78 Posted December 10, 2011 Well I shoot most on film ..... I work in colour, and scanning slides and printing on an Epson 3800 produces results at least as good as and much easier than Cibachrome Gerry What film do you use and what do you scan with ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted December 10, 2011 Share #79 Posted December 10, 2011 I print digital because I work in colour, and scanning slides and printing on an Epson 3800 produces results at least as good as and much easier than Cibachrome (which I did right from when it first came in) which was the best tradional repro for colourfilm in my long experience and IMHO of course. Which is good because it looks like Ilfochrome might be history... Ilfochrome Update ....which fully sucks because I have a big show to print from Kodachrome slides. Time to come up with a few grand up for my show, ooof! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted December 10, 2011 Author Share #80 Posted December 10, 2011 Which is good because it looks like Ilfochrome might be history... Ilfochrome Update I have a few Ilfochrome prints hanging at home - I will not be offering them for sale, given that Ilfochrome is soon to become extinct. Damn you to hell, digital! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.