Wedding photographers - is 28-75 long enough?

Chris B wrote:

Good point. Too much detail can be a bad thing! That said, if using a 35mm
camera, I'd want to use primes only. I guess if you know the characteristics
of a particular zoom, you could use it - but you'd have to be very confident
with your knowledge of your equipment.

Uhh... I'm sorry but - would you go out to do anything planned and serious
with lens you did not know well and weren't confident in? If so why?

I personally would not shoot weddings, as I shoot for my own enjoyment and
I'd consider wedding photography to be sheer stress and not much enjoyment
(at least that's what I'd get from it!). Not my idea of fun.

Me too. But for planned shots i use lens i know well and its part of the
process. if its not planned or plannable, then your best option is to
carry a good zoom you are confident in. because you are unlikely to
have time to change lens anyways.


Chris.



--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

Back in the days when I did weddings I use only 75 mm on a 2¼. Had I
started a year earlier I would have been using 4x5. One lens did it all. I
can say that the results today with a wide range of 35 mm equipment are
really no better than what we did back in the dark ages using one lens and
real flash bulbs.


Absolutely right. In the 70s I shot weddings with a Rolleicord and
(obviously) one lens. Now I shoot with two bodies and three lenses,
standard, medium tele and moderate wide angle. But I could shoot
most, if not all of the shots with the standard lens if I didn't have
the others.

Sander Vesik wrote:

Me too. But for planned shots i use lens i know well and its part of the
process. if its not planned or plannable, then your best option is to
carry a good zoom you are confident in. because you are unlikely to
have time to change lens anyways.

Yeah, sometimes (especially during cake cutting, speeches and dancing)
it's necessary to shoot in tight quarters, so a zoom is helpful.

Medium format unfortunately offers less zoom choices than 35mm SLRs.
But the pictures that most brides want enlarged are the family poses,
so if the lawn area is big enough, zooms aren't needed.

But using a Canon 10D (similar price to MF gear and more in-line with
current bride expectations), the 24-70/2.8 L would be a 38-112mm,
which might not be wide enough.

Here's another zoom-related question: which is more complementary in
a headshot: barrel distortion or pincushion distortion?

Alan Browne wrote:

Chatting recently with a wedding photog (in his office lined with about
40 - 50 large prints) he stated that the formal full figure shots of
couples in an appropriate setting were done on MF (Hassy, but recently
he's switched to Contax), but the closeups of the couple as individuals
are done on his 35mm Nikon... simple reason is that the printed images
at large size (14x11 or 20x16) from the MF were TOO sharp, revealing
minute blemishes, makeup errors, etc. (I don't know if he used a zoom
on the Nikon).

Lewis wrote:
Hi Alan:

What film does he shoot with for his 35mm shots of individuals
for 11x14" and 16x20" - I'm wondering if grain (if not
sharpness/tonality) would be a concern here for these large
35mm wedding prints...

Hi Lewis,
I can't see your post on my server, so I've pasted here.

I'm not sure which film he uses for the 35mm shots. We were
discussing generalities. He does use the expected films (Portra
160x/400x, NPS/H, etc.) The 35mm thing came up when I asked if
used MF only for weddings. He said for most of the album shots,
large prints, etc. yes; but for tight closeups he uses the 35mm
for the reason cited. I was surprised. These shots (that I saw)
were universaly outdoors in very good light, so I would guess
that he is using Portra 160x or NPC/S. I'll ask when I see him
again which should be in early July.

The prints on the wall in his office (he showed me specifically
which ones were done on 35mm) were sharp and low grain.

He has also bought a D100 but I don't know if he uses it at weddings.

Cheers,
Alan


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Chris B wrote:

Good point. Too much detail can be a bad thing! That said, if using a
35mm
camera, I'd want to use primes only. I guess if you know the
characteristics
of a particular zoom, you could use it - but you'd have to be very
confident
with your knowledge of your equipment.

Uhh... I'm sorry but - would you go out to do anything planned and serious
with lens you did not know well and weren't confident in? If so why?


Fair point, but if you're going to shoot something like a wedding, you'd
better understand your equipment well. This usually means that you'll want
to be using primes, since you'll understand it's the best way to ensure
sharp images. If you want to use a zoom, needless to say you'd know where it
works best - which is usually at one end of its zoom range with a small(ish)
aperture. Of course there are some fantastic zooms out there, but anyone who
knows their equipment would understand the benefits of a prime in a
controllable environment. The only time I'd consider a zoom would be if I
don't have time to properly frame a subject and detail is less paramount to
actually getting the shot. Of course, certain parts of a wedding could be
shot 'candidly' and a zoom may be more appropriate in those conditions, but
going back to my original point - I'd be disappointed if a paid photographer
turned up to my wedding with just a zoom.

I personally would not shoot weddings, as I shoot for my own enjoyment
and
I'd consider wedding photography to be sheer stress and not much
enjoyment
(at least that's what I'd get from it!). Not my idea of fun.

Me too. But for planned shots i use lens i know well and its part of the
process. if its not planned or plannable, then your best option is to
carry a good zoom you are confident in. because you are unlikely to
have time to change lens anyways.

Well that depends entirely on what you are shooting. Would you turn up to a
studio session with just a zoom? If so why?

Chris.

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
Lewis wrote:
What film does he shoot with for his 35mm shots of individuals
for 11x14" and 16x20" - I'm wondering if grain (if not
sharpness/tonality) would be a concern here for these large
35mm wedding prints...

I'm not sure which film he uses for the 35mm shots. We were
discussing generalities. He does use the expected films (Portra
160x/400x, NPS/H, etc.)

Portra 160NC should be fine a 16x20".




--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

That'll be fine. What you want on the wide end is at least a 28mm for
the closeup, wide shots you can't get with a longer lens. Comes in very
handy for many situations.

As for the longer end, 75mm is decent for what you have if the furthest
distance you'll be shooting from during the wedding isn't that far.
Often, as a photographer, you can get right up to the two during the
entire wedding, so unless you're farther away than a few dining room
tables, I wouldn't worry.

Thankfully, the Tamron 28-75mm XR lens has a wide f/2.8 for those
important low-light shots, and you'd rather have a fast lens than one
with a slower ap. & longer zoom. (Otherwise, too much shaking due to
long exposures, even with 400 speed film.)

Also, if you have the latest films developed on a digital printer such
as the latest Noritsu QSS film printers, you don't have to worry so much
about faster speed film grain and so forth vs. an analog print because
it'll have digital ICE (noise, grain, etc. reduction) to help improve
prints even at 8x10" sizes.

---

Naturally, the very best way to ensure a lens is what you need is to
simply take your camera into a shop loaded with film, ask to test the
lens of interest, take a few shots of various things in the store up
close and far away, print them and see if the lettering on various tags
& books are sharp enough for your use (here, text substituting for
sharpness in hair, eyes, etc in an actual shoot with the bride and
groom).

You can compare with any lenses you already have and prefer, too, at the
same time.

---

Recently, I did an entire wedding with a Tamron 28-200mm 2nd ed. series
on 400 speed Fujifilm Superia in panoramic mode, and the prints came out
decent and quite acceptable for the 'unique' feel I was trying to
achieve. (Here, the wide feel rather than a tack sharp print.) The
slight softness of this super-long zoom helped keep the 'uglies' away
(pimples, blemishes, etc. -- sometimes, it's better to be less sharp for
a wedding so they don't see all of the flaws in crisp detail).

I'd say a 28-75mm Tamron XR should easily be able to give even sharper,
better results without any problems for 8x10" enlargements (in my case,
the 4"x12" panoramics print size at full frame would be 9.6"x12"
enlargements, so I was looking at prints 20% larger than regular 8x10"
prints). esp. based on the good reviews of this lens at
http://www.photographyreview.com/

Chris B writes:

Well that depends entirely on what you are shooting. Would you turn up to a
studio session with just a zoom?

Yes, if I needed more than one focal length.

If so why?

It provides a convenient range of focal lengths without changing lenses,
and it doesn't require that I take the risk of hauling around expensive
extra lenses.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Subject: Wedding photographers - is 28-75 long enough? --Lewis
From: Alan Browne
Date: Thu, Jun 17, 2004 1:12 PM
Message-id:

Alan Browne wrote:

Chatting recently with a wedding photog (in his office lined with about

40 - 50 large prints) he stated that the formal full figure shots of
couples in an appropriate setting were done on MF (Hassy, but recently

he's switched to Contax), but the closeups of the couple as individuals

are done on his 35mm Nikon... simple reason is that the printed images

at large size (14x11 or 20x16) from the MF were TOO sharp, revealing
minute blemishes, makeup errors, etc. (I don't know if he used a zoom

on the Nikon).

Lewis wrote:
Hi Alan:

What film does he shoot with for his 35mm shots of individuals
for 11x14" and 16x20" - I'm wondering if grain (if not
sharpness/tonality) would be a concern here for these large
35mm wedding prints...

Hi Lewis,
I can't see your post on my server, so I've pasted here.

I'm not sure which film he uses for the 35mm shots. We were
discussing generalities. He does use the expected films (Portra
160x/400x, NPS/H, etc.) The 35mm thing came up when I asked if
used MF only for weddings. He said for most of the album shots,
large prints, etc. yes; but for tight closeups he uses the 35mm
for the reason cited. I was surprised. These shots (that I saw)
were universaly outdoors in very good light, so I would guess
that he is using Portra 160x or NPC/S. I'll ask when I see him
again which should be in early July.

SNIP

Thanks, Alan :-). I hope you get to see this reply...

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Subject: Wedding photographers - is 28-75 long enough? --Lewis
From: (Philip Homburg)
Date: Thu, Jun 17, 2004 5:09 PM
Message-id: coh.net

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
Lewis wrote:
What film does he shoot with for his 35mm shots of individuals
for 11x14" and 16x20" - I'm wondering if grain (if not
sharpness/tonality) would be a concern here for these large
35mm wedding prints...

I'm not sure which film he uses for the 35mm shots. We were
discussing generalities. He does use the expected films (Portra
160x/400x, NPS/H, etc.)

Portra 160NC should be fine a 16x20".



I've seen it (160NC) at 8x12" and, for me, that would probably be maximum size.
Sharpness is there, nice colors, real nice skin tones, but the mid tones are
slightly (though not too) grainy. This could be because my friend shot the
protrait session (mother & child) at 160 instead of E.I. 80 or 100 which would
have reduced graininess becaus ethe dye clouds in the darker tones would have
overlapped more reducing the appearance of grain in the nid to darker tones.

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***