wedding photography and DSLR?

On Sep 2, 1:48 pm, "peter" <nos... DeleteThis @nospam.com> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: 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.
 >> Stay informed about: wedding photography and DSLR? 

"peter" <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.com> 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 .

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >> Stay informed about: wedding photography and DSLR? 

On Sep 3, 8:54 am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi....TakeThisOut@gol.com> 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).
 >> Stay informed about: wedding photography and DSLR? 

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag RemoveThis @nospam.techline.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: wedding photography and DSLR? 

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag RemoveThis @nospam.techline.com> 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.

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.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: wedding photography and DSLR? 

"Scott W" <biphoto.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46db8f64$0$4112$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag.RemoveThis@nospam.techline.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: wedding photography and DSLR? 

On Sep 3, 12:54 am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi....RemoveThis@gol.com> wrote:
> "Scott W" <biph....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46db8f64$0$4112$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> > David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >> "Randall Ainsworth" <r....RemoveThis@nospam.techline.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: wedding photography and DSLR? 

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Scott W" <biphoto.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46db8f64$0$4112$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag.TakeThisOut@nospam.techline.com> 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.

I have no doubt that print from a 645 camera are much sharper then from
a 300D, when printed on A4 paper. What I question is how many people
would see the difference. In looking at the 12 x 18 inch prints from
our 20D it is hard to see how anyone could miss that they are a bit soft
and also hard to miss how much shaper the same size print from a 20MP
image is. But over and over I find that most people can't tell the
difference.

Have you tested people by showing them a few A4 prints, some from the
645 camera and some from a 6MP DSLR?

As I said it also depends a lot on the age of the people looking at the
photos, our friends are pretty much all past 50, this makes a large
difference.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: wedding photography and DSLR? 

In article <IPOdnXJ-DMxJ9kbbnZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d DeleteThis @giganews.com>, David J.
Littleboy <davidjl DeleteThis @gol.com> wrote:

> 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 never used 645 format...that was for amateurs who were too cheap to
buy a Hasselblad.
 >> Stay informed about: 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=17006104#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.
 >> Stay informed about: wedding photography and DSLR? 

On Sep 3, 10:46 pm, Randall Ainsworth <r... DeleteThis @nospam.techline.com>
wrote:
> In article <IPOdnXJ-DMxJ9kbbnZ2dnUVZ_s-pn... DeleteThis @giganews.com>, David J.
>
> Littleboy <davi... DeleteThis @gol.com> wrote:
> > 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 never used 645 format...that was for amateurs who were too cheap to
> buy a Hasselblad.

If a 645-format user is an amateur that's too cheap to get a Hassy,
what's a 10D user in this day and age?!
 >> Stay informed about: wedding photography and DSLR? 

In article <1188865065.956835.272890 DeleteThis @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, acl
<achilleaslazarides DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> If a 645-format user is an amateur that's too cheap to get a Hassy,
> what's a 10D user in this day and age?!

Four years old and owned by a guy who no longer creates images for a
living.
 >> Stay informed about: wedding photography and DSLR?