Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 6, 2003, 6:07 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 20
Default For feshion and bridal shots

Are 5mp (C5050), (G5) and (Colpix 5700) better for feshion and bridal shots?
hamid is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 6, 2003, 8:12 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

Better than what?

Anyway, those cameras you mentioned are *consumer* cameras...a pro would use at minimum a full frame Canon EOS 1ds which is 11mp...but more than likely a digital back on a medium format camera like a Hasselblad (at that range you're spending over $10,000).

Wedding and fashion photography demands the best looking images!
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2003, 7:22 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 28
Default Weddings aint cheap!

I agree with the other replier. Wedding shots require all the resolution you can afford. Most wedding photographers use medium format film cameras. Kodak and others make nice digital backs for medium format cameras, but they aren't cheap! If you're looking to make money in the wedding field, invest in GOOD equipment (and particularly some good flashes). You can try to do weddings with a consumer digital camera (such as the ones you mentioned), but you really need features that they lack: Heavy-duty outboard battery pack, external flash synch, megabytes of storage for large images, ultra-fast recycle times on camera and flash, bracketing of exposure, good depth-of-field control, etc. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news here, but I think commercial wedding photography may take more camera than you're suggesting in your post. Good luck!
Boomzilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2003, 8:58 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default Digital wedding experiments

An ex-colleague of mine and freelance professional photographer converted me to digital photography. He now uses his Dimage 7 rather than his Hasselblad for a great deal of his commercial work, because of the ease with which he can manipulate images later, in an age when many customers want a digital image anyway as the end product.

However, he has yet to attempt a 'digital wedding', because of the difficulties already mentioned in this topic. He hopes one day to do the experiment of shadowing an indulgent partner who is 'doing a wedding' conventionally, taking the same shots digitally at the same time, to see how it goes.

The essentials of external flash, bracketing, motor drive, etc., are all freely available to digital freaks now, but at a price. It's still cheaper than the full Hasselblad kit, though.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2003, 9:24 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I generally agree with what has been said.

It sounds like you are asking about a very narrow type of photography where the highest quality is required. Not just desirable, but required. The 1Ds can probably do it, but a medium format camera is really the proper tool for the job.

I know nothing about digital backs for medium formats, except that they are slow (don't they scan the sensor?) and they are very expensive.

I assume you are not asking about wedding photography, just bridal photography. If you are asking about wedding photography (which some of the answers have diped into) then I have some info (and strong opinions) about that topic which I'll gladly share.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2003, 9:32 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

Something not mentioned is the actual size of the final prints. For some jobs, the final image might be a measly 4x4" plus copy. Other times, a wedding album may need 11x14" or a 14x22" spread. In my experience in shooting weddings digitally, I find it much easier to eliminate those shots where either brid or groom blinked. And at 6 megapixels, my D100 is more than adequate for coffee table albuns (9x9") and 11x14" page spreads. I still use 35mm equipment, and the other photographers whom I work with use medium format cameras, which is great for 14x22"spreads. Also, the newer Fuji Frontier digital printers actually need less picture data to create a fairly big enlargement. I've taken a 640x480 image I got as an e-mail to a lab, and the 4x6" print, although clearly lacking detail, and showing plenty of artifacts, was way better than I had expected it to come out. So a 6 megapixel file might output to prints thought to require greater "megapixelage"
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9, 2003, 2:10 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 20
Default

First of all I would like to thanks all the members providing me a good deal of imformation.
Sorry for using "better" instead of "good".
Obviouly every body likes "Pro level digicams" but the main thing is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
and the cameras mentioned obove also means to invest 600$ to 800$. which is not a very little amount.
If 5mp image can be print upto 11x14" having great image quality using "Consumer Level Digicams" then what should I do, should I take a step? with digital or have to compromise with 35mm slr.
I would feel a great pleasure to get knowlegde obout "Wedding Photography" from Eric.
hamid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9, 2003, 10:24 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 212
Default

I don't think you'd compromising if you were to go with 35mm in lieu of digital. The picture quality would definitely be better from a 35mm SLR using good film (another discussion entirely) granted you know how to handle the camera. You wouldn't be taking 10,000 shots and choosing the best 50 or 100, which would be the biggest tradeoff.

Film is cheap. The cameras are cheap. Development techniques are very consistent at printing labs (the ones where you send them your film and receive the prints in a week, not Walmart). You ought not be afraid of film or think of it as a lesser format because it isn't new.
Lauren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9, 2003, 10:38 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I can't say that I have any great knowledge about wedding photography. I know one person very well who has done some (and now would never do it unless forced to) and I've talked to some people who do it. I've also read about it on other forums, listening to others to do it and learning about how they treat the business and all that.

I believe that none of the cameras you listed are truly flexible or robust enough to do the job. You can get away with it... they will work for some weddings and some situations. But if you want to do it for a living, that is something else entirely. Then you need a camera that will work in every situation, every time, no questions asked. The camera needs to work in low light, needs to focus very fast (and quietly), needs to take abuse, needs to handle complex flash metering, needs to produce tack sharp, detailed pictures which can stand to be printed very large. I truly don’t know if those cameras can do it (I know the most about the 5700) but I doubt any of them will do all those things every time. When you read the link given below, you’ll see why I say “every time.”

I ranted at someone awhile back when they said their girlfriend was going into wedding photography. Please read this thread before you consider this seriously:

http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...friend+wedding

Specifically read the original post, my response and the second to last post in the thread. Maybe I'm out of line in how I said it but I believe it… and from talking to some Wedding Pros, they agreed with me.

Would what you listed they do the job? They would do part of it… and maybe even enough. But they won’t get those shots that will amaze the bride and groom, and get you more business by them praising your skills. They will also break down sooner than the fancier, more expensive “pro” cameras will. And if you are a professional wedding photographer your equipment can not break down. Those cameras will break down faster (probably much faster) than even the low end DSLRs.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2003, 4:05 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 20
Default

I agree with all the replies
Definately film has its own importance but the main purpose of turning to digital is that
It is very convenient to edit and add special effects using plugins & filters to an object.
I think one should has his own style to express, Your work should be an identity for you. Reason of going digitally is due to it ease and less time taking to download your image to your pc to play with.
Anyway Film could also be scan digitally for viewing and editing, if any body tell me what is better way to scan digitally and what’s the resolution required for scanning to get 20x24”and larger. Wether a film scanned image has the same print quality as that of directly printed image from the same film.
hamid is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:15 AM.