If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
wedding photography and DSLR?
Before DSLR, most pros shoot weddings with medium format cameras because
they can be enlarged more with low grain. Nowadays, many pros shoot weddings with DSLRs, some even shoot with amateurish DSLR (non full-frame sensor). What happens to the low grain requirements? Do modern customers no longer need enlargement, or does DSLR produce comparable grain as medium format camera? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wedding photography and DSLR?
peter wrote:
Before DSLR, most pros shoot weddings with medium format cameras because they can be enlarged more with low grain. Nowadays, many pros shoot weddings with DSLRs, some even shoot with amateurish DSLR (non full-frame sensor). What happens to the low grain requirements? Do modern customers no longer need enlargement, or does DSLR produce comparable grain as medium format camera? IMO, medium format was probably 'too' much for your average sized wedding prints in albums (10"x8" ?). Todays modern DSLR can easily produce the size of prints most people would want -- Clive Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take..... but by the moments that take our breath away. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
wedding photography and DSLR?
"peter" writes:
Nowadays, many pros shoot weddings with DSLRs, some even shoot with amateurish DSLR (non full-frame sensor). Do modern customers no longer need enlargement, or does DSLR produce comparable grain as medium format camera? "Grain" is a film thing. DSLRs doesn't have grain. At high ISO, you get something similar, called "noise", but a quality DSLR at its base ISO also has very little noise. For a typical "amateurish" DSLR, such as the Nikon D80, the max size you can print is determined by resolution and your ppi quality requirement. 300 ppi is usually regarded as high quality. Pixel size is 3872 x 2592 pixels, divide with 300 ppi, and you find that max print size from the D80 is 12.9 x 8.6 inches (i.e. more than 10 x 8). For more about this, see: http://folk.uio.no/gisle/photo/pixels.html#qq11 http://folk.uio.no/gisle/photo/pixels.html#qq12 -- - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS 14n, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
wedding photography and DSLR?
On Sep 2, 1:48 pm, "peter" wrote:
Before DSLR, most pros shoot weddings with medium format cameras because they can be enlarged more with low grain. Nowadays, many pros shoot weddings with DSLRs, some even shoot with amateurish DSLR (non full-frame sensor). What happens to the low grain requirements? Do modern customers no longer need enlargement, or does DSLR produce comparable grain as medium format camera? There are several things going on. As others have noted, DSLRs do not have grain. They do have 'noise' which can be controlled either through shooting at low ISO (but still much higher ISO than we used to have with film) or by processing the pictures through noise reduction software. Although this software can give a slightly soft appearance to a picture, it is exactly what most wedding customers want! Then, too, most wedding customers are eschewing the $5000 photography packages these days. They want a CD with low res JPEGS for display on their computers and televisions. That makes even the highest resolution APS sensor cameras a bit of overkill. They want a slideshow on a DVD, not a dusty portrait on the wall. The manufacturers have produced some outstanding mid-range zooms that are popular wedding lenses for APS sensor cameras. The Nikon 18-55 f/ 2.8 is an example of this. No doubt the new Nikon 25-70 f/2.8 will serve the same function on the FX cameras. Such lenses cover just about the whole zoom range you need, are fast enough to let you shoot at a reasonable ISO, and are clear with little distortion. Many wedding photographers also consider digital to be much cheaper than film, although this is highly debatable. True, you have lower processing costs, but you have higher equipment costs and much higher editing costs. In fact, you might spend so much time editing and sorting that you can shoot fewer weddings! There will always be a demand for high resolution wedding photography shot with film or digital medium format cameras. However, it is increasingly something that only the very rich can afford. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
wedding photography and DSLR?
In article 8kFCi.1968$Ov2.1690@trndny06, peter
wrote: Before DSLR, most pros shoot weddings with medium format cameras because they can be enlarged more with low grain. Nowadays, many pros shoot weddings with DSLRs, some even shoot with amateurish DSLR (non full-frame sensor). What happens to the low grain requirements? Do modern customers no longer need enlargement, or does DSLR produce comparable grain as medium format camera? I could photograph a wedding with my 10D, and you wouldn't be able to tell that it wasn't film. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
wedding photography and DSLR?
"Randall Ainsworth" wrote: Do modern customers no longer need enlargement, or does DSLR produce comparable grain as medium format camera? I could photograph a wedding with my 10D, and you wouldn't be able to tell that it wasn't film. If you can't tell the difference between the 10D and 645 in an 8x10 print, there's something seriously wrong with your 645 workflow. Or your eyes. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
wedding photography and DSLR?
"Scott W" wrote in message ... David J. Littleboy wrote: "Randall Ainsworth" wrote: Do modern customers no longer need enlargement, or does DSLR produce comparable grain as medium format camera? I could photograph a wedding with my 10D, and you wouldn't be able to tell that it wasn't film. If you can't tell the difference between the 10D and 645 in an 8x10 print, there's something seriously wrong with your 645 workflow. Or your eyes. I am pretty sure I could tell the difference, but I could tell because there something wrong with my eyes, I am near sighted. I would bet that most people would not be able to tell the difference. If one is corrected to normal reading distances, 6MP has trouble rendering textures at A4. I make a fair number of 12 x 18 prints from my 8MP DSLR as well as 12 x 18 prints from my high resolution stitched photos. To my a 12 x 18 inch print from the 8MP DSLR looks soft, when viewed closely. But very few people can tell the difference between the 12 x 18 inch prints made from 8MP images and those made from 20MP images. This might in part be due to the age of our friends, most of which are on the wrong side of 50. Or that people don't get that close to a 12x18" print. Or that most of your friends haven't seen many quality prints. But a 12 x 18 inch print from a 8MP camera has far less resolution then a 8 x 12 inch print from a 6MP camera. I would guess that very few people would see a difference between a print from 645 and a 10D. I've made a lot of A4 prints from 645 (645 scanned at 4000 ppi was my main camera for several years), and everyone I've shown them to is knocked out. The 300D couldn't get even close. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
wedding photography and DSLR?
On Sep 3, 8:54 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
If one is corrected to normal reading distances, 6MP has trouble rendering textures at A4. Rendering of textures is also a function of the sharpening applied... I've seen an online comparison of the Mamiya ZD with a 5D where the guy doing it kept going on and on about the "3D" nature of the ZD's images. The only difference of the crops he shows is that middle frequencies (so to speak, I mean 1-3 pixels wide) are more boosted by whatever it is he used to convert the ZD files... I've seen the same effect when printing images converted with DxO and Capture 1 LE. The ones converted with DxO really stand out, although they're atrocious to look at at 100% (so I imagine if you print them large enough they'll be quite bad, but I haven't managed to see that in print yet). It's hard to explain but really easy to show. In short, processing is far more important than number of pixels (above some threshold, I imagine). This is for printing: When I put photos online, I merely convert and downsize as I've found it makes little difference what else you do to them (except curves and so on, but I'm too lazy to do that if I'm not printing). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
wedding photography and DSLR?
On Sep 3, 12:54 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message ... David J. Littleboy wrote: "Randall Ainsworth" wrote: Do modern customers no longer need enlargement, or does DSLR produce comparable grain as medium format camera? I could photograph a wedding with my 10D, and you wouldn't be able to tell that it wasn't film. If you can't tell the difference between the 10D and 645 in an 8x10 print, there's something seriously wrong with your 645 workflow. Or your eyes. I am pretty sure I could tell the difference, but I could tell because there something wrong with my eyes, I am near sighted. I would bet that most people would not be able to tell the difference. If one is corrected to normal reading distances, 6MP has trouble rendering textures at A4. I make a fair number of 12 x 18 prints from my 8MP DSLR as well as 12 x 18 prints from my high resolution stitched photos. To my a 12 x 18 inch print from the 8MP DSLR looks soft, when viewed closely. But very few people can tell the difference between the 12 x 18 inch prints made from 8MP images and those made from 20MP images. This might in part be due to the age of our friends, most of which are on the wrong side of 50. Or that people don't get that close to a 12x18" print. Or that most of your friends haven't seen many quality prints. But a 12 x 18 inch print from a 8MP camera has far less resolution then a 8 x 12 inch print from a 6MP camera. I would guess that very few people would see a difference between a print from 645 and a 10D. I've made a lot of A4 prints from 645 (645 scanned at 4000 ppi was my main camera for several years), and everyone I've shown them to is knocked out. The 300D couldn't get even close. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan David, I knew digital arrtived when a photo from a Mamiya 645 was trounced by a Kodak DCS760, admitedly the Mamiya was old, and the early M 645s weren't very good. But in a photo of a minor league baseball team the 6mp Kodak pic you could see all the faces of the 50 or so members of the team, on the Mamiya it was questionable. The team owner picked an picture from the Kodak as the one he wanted to go with. He was amazed he picked the digital image. The next year he told the photographer to rent a Hassleblad and compare that to digital, yes the Hasslebled pic was better, but due to very bad weather the team pic was take late to have the Hasy pic available in printed form by opening day, so he used the digital picture again. It is like 35mm equipment some 2 1/4 equipment is better than others. But APS and 35mm sized digital comes very close to 2 1/4, anyway you look at it. I know you are an obcessive scanner, who can get the best out of a chrome, are you as obcessive a photographer with your digital? Tom |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
wedding photography and DSLR?
I could photograph a wedding with my 10D, and you wouldn't be able to
tell that it wasn't film. I am pretty sure I could tell the difference, but I could tell because there something wrong with my eyes, I am near sighted. I would bet that most people would not be able to tell the difference. I make a fair number of 12 x 18 prints from my 8MP DSLR as well as 12 x 18 prints from my high resolution stitched photos. To my a 12 x 18 inch print from the 8MP DSLR looks soft, when viewed closely. But very few people can tell the difference between the 12 x 18 inch prints made from 8MP images and those made from 20MP images. This might in part be due to the age of our friends, most of which are on the wrong side of 50. But a 12 x 18 inch print from a 8MP camera has far less resolution then a 8 x 12 inch print from a 6MP camera. I would guess that very few people would see a difference between a print from 645 and a 10D. In addition to the difference in resolution, if you look at the whole album, photos shot with medium format tend to have shadower depth of field, or more blurry background. It's nice to have this effect in at least a few photos. It's hard to match with a DSLR with aps size sensor even if you shoot wide open unless you use a telephoto or blur in editing. Speaking about editing, I recently checked out a web site that allows people to put out gigs to get bids. Some photographer asked for people to edit their digital photos, and I can't believe how cheap the bidders offers to do the job. Apparently some will be outsourced to foreign country where labor is cheap. They may do a so-so job, but 90% of the photos only need simple editing anyway. http://www.domystuff.com/rfp.php?id=...04#BidBookmark The trend for pro wedding photographers may be to shoot, send off the photos for editing, screen and edit the tricky ones. Perhaps this would spawn an industry of cheap and small photo-editing labs. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
D&G Wedding Photography | SkipM | Digital Photography | 28 | August 16th 06 08:50 PM |
Wedding photography | Cynicor | Digital Photography | 7 | June 24th 06 02:06 AM |
wedding photography | Peter | Fine Art, Framing and Display | 5 | April 25th 06 08:59 PM |
Any recommendations for a DSLR for professional wedding photography? | lisa.ireland | Digital SLR Cameras | 61 | July 19th 05 10:14 PM |
Wedding Photography | John Ortt | Digital Photography | 65 | February 6th 05 03:10 AM |