Wedding photographers - is 28-75 long enough?

Subject: Wedding photographers - is 28-75 long enough?
From: TP
Date: Thu, Jun 17, 2004 6:14 AM
Message-id:

(Lewis Lang) 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...


The guy's a complete idiot. Has he never heard of Softars?

If you don't use one at the shooting stage you can still soften a
print enough to hide blemishes.

Good question. Softars would work, but the 35mm gear would probably be better
for quick candids, though. Even 35mm without some sort of filtrration
softening, and shot under shade/soft light, regardless of film (most likely)
would probably be too sharply detailed for any subject except a child (or
adult) with perfect skin. Black nyllon stocking material and a good lens hood
to reduce flare might be enough to cut the edge off in leiu of a Softar (worked
on one of my "Hurrellesque" portraits when I shot it in 4x5 with tungsten light
(a nightmare, ever try to Scheimflug on a face while blasting your subject with
Lowells (1K tungsten halogen quartz movie lights)? ;-).

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. :-) ***

In article ,
Lewis Lang wrote:
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.

I usually overexpose negative film slightly. I don't rate it differently,
So it is quite possible that the relative lack of grain is only possible
if you rate the film lower.

Of course, the way you print makes a big difference. In my expience, a
decent analog print shows less visible grain than a digital print from
a 'standard' scan on my LS-4000. Digitally, you can reduce grain further,
but that is a different story.



--
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

Lewis Lang said:

The guy's a complete idiot. Has he never heard of Softars?

If you don't use one at the shooting stage you can still soften a print
enough to hide blemishes.

Good question. Softars would work, but the 35mm gear would probably be
better for quick candids, though.

But is he a complete idiot, Lewis?

--
R.I.P. Ray Charles
I've got Georgia on my mind

Lewis Lang wrote:

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

This one ... yes...

Cheers,
Alan


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

Subject: Wedding photographers - is 28-75 long enough?
From: "Dallas"
Date: Fri, Jun 18, 2004 9:59 AM
Message-id: pan.2004.06.18.05.12.13.634320@imageunlimitedwing s.co.za

Lewis Lang said:

The guy's a complete idiot. Has he never heard of Softars?

If you don't use one at the shooting stage you can still soften a print
enough to hide blemishes.

Good question. Softars would work, but the 35mm gear would probably be
better for quick candids, though.

But is he a complete idiot, Lewis?

--
R.I.P. Ray Charles
I've got Georgia on my mind



Most idiots I've met are incomplete, so I wouldn't know ;-).


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: Fri, Jun 18, 2004 3:53 AM
Message-id: coh.net

In article ,
Lewis Lang wrote:
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.

I usually overexpose negative film slightly. I don't rate it differently,
So it is quite possible that the relative lack of grain is only possible
if you rate the film lower.

Of course, the way you print makes a big difference. In my expience, a
decent analog print shows less visible grain than a digital print from
a 'standard' scan on my LS-4000. Digitally, you can reduce grain further,
but that is a different story.



Yup :-).

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. :-) ***