At 01:42 PM 05/16/2001, you wrote:
>But seriously, don't wedding photogs normally shoot negative film?
99.97% in my experience.
>Of course TTL (as you imply) is going to be influenced by the wedding
>gown. It seems to me that this is a good thing because it guarantees
>that the highlights of the gown are not blown out. I've seen this in my
>own wedding "work" (uncle-with-a-fancy-camera syndrome <B^). Of
>course you have the serious enlargements made by a printer who
>knows how to place the white gown at at max brightness in the
>print, almost but not quite blowing out the texture of the gown.
That'd be lovely if it was cost effective, but most wedding pros I
know have their proofs made by machine printers. If the final stuff is to
sell, the proofs have to look good, so the shooter has to deliver negs
which are as easily printed as possible. The lab I use, Burrell Colour,
even has two levels of finished prints -- machine and hand. If my negs are
well exposed enough that I can get away with machine prints, I make money
and my kid gets new ice skates. If I louse up the exposure and the only way
to retain detail in gown & tux is for pricier hand work, the client's happy
and the kid's toes are squished.
Anything I can do in camera to insure good prints is one less
thing I havbe to worry about or pay for the day after the event. Measure
twice & cut once. These words should be inscribed on the soul of every
photographer who ever wanted to be thought of as a pro or who ever took a
dime for a shot, IMHO.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
