As an occasional wedding photographer I have never trusted autofocus for important shots. It is always manual focus. I test all of my equipment a week before a shoot to make sure sync is correct, synch cords are OK with the strobe, etc. My film lab was chosen because it has a good reputation among pros and amateurs. I live in Portland, OR where there are many good labs.
Jim A. > From: Brian Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:13:51 -0500 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Weddings, film, digital, Pentax > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:17:45 -0400 > > New list member, finally got signed up to reply to a thread from a week or so > ago: > > --- > > I did one wedding with a Minolta 600si which had trouble auto focusing on the > bride and dad as they came down the aisle. �It focused on people behind them > instead. My own fault, since I had turned off the side focus sensors to > avoid it focusing on pews nearer than the couple. I then pondered the merits > of manual focus, read 6 books on wedding photography, bought a bunch of used > Pentax gear plus strobes and radios, and did a second wedding which turned > out MUCH better. > > See both results at: > http://www.soltec.net/~bd > > --- > > The Pentax gear is two K1000s and a ZX-M. �I find that the ZX-M is hard to > work with because, at a glance, the central split image looks sharp even when > it isn't in focus, and I'm aiming at people instead of straight lines. �The > K1000s seem to be better for focusing on faces, or focusing quickly. �The > ZX-M is quieter to trip the shutter during the ceremony, but has a fierce > rewind sound. �The K1000s sound like major head turning KER-PLUNK but can be > rewound silently. > > ---- > > About digital vs film, the bride chose Wal Mart instead of the pro lab, to > save money, and I had Wal Mart make some scans for me. �$3.84 for 25 images > and I didn't have to scan them myself. > > Wal Mart negative scans (Fuji Frontier machines) are not as good as their > slide scans. �I think they knock down the resolution to speed the process, > even though the end result is still 1200 x 1800. �It just looks blocky when > you zoom in, unlike their slide scans at the same resolution. > > Meanwhile, the prices seem to be $0.33 per image for film, developing, and > two sets of prints, CD is $0.14 extra for 1200x1800 scan. > > If you do the digital thing, and want a full two sets of prints, it is $0.29 > each image per set, or $0.58 per image for two sets of prints. �This actually > costs more to make two prints from CD than to do film, developing, and two > prints from the scan they make after developing. �Probably just a pricing > structure thing. > > You can say that you only print the good images with digital, but in truth > they want them all, and I want at least half of them for my own copy to show > the next couple. > > The Wal Mart CD is fine for 4x6 and probably 5x7 reprints. �I charged them > for the CDs, and kept the negatives. �The couple says they'll be placing an > order for 8x10s. > > As for the safety of Wal Mart film handling, I did test runs which turned out > ok, and dropped off the wedding rolls a few at a time and checked the > negatives carefully before dropping off more. �Wal Mart did gash one > negative, but everything else seemed ok. �They cut the negatives in a stright > line without cutting into any images, and the images look nice although too > contrasty. �I asked during testing about their 'all soft' low contrast mode, > but they don't know what that means. �Let them do their automatic thing and > you get tuxedos which are a little too dark. > > Other labs: > > Wolf ( Fuji machines ): Cut negatives on angles, even lower rez prints > because they were 4 hours behind and had to catch up, more $, glossy instead > of matte finish. > > Meijer ( Noritsu machines ): wierd colors, and some light leak onto the > negatives while in the changing bag. > > Some outside lab from a photo store: Unbelieveable dust, bad analog prints, > strange colors. > > Another local lab: Analog prints, poor colors. > > Local pro lab: big $, they promise great colors and film handling. �Their > 'high rez' scans are still only 1500 on a side. > > --- > > For pricing, I did the first wedding as a gift, and for the second I priced > it to pay for film and developing and prints, plus a decent amount for my > time. �Next time I'll charge more. > > --- > > I'm finding the paperwork to set up an actual business is rather bizzare. �To > report a little bit of sales tax I have to set up a registered business name, > sign up with the state sales tax people, be harassed four times a year, and > also file another form when tax time comes. > > This is after I figure out all the accounting stuff with fixed asset > depreciation and such. �All those lights and radios and stands and backdrop > and lenses and such cost some decent money! > > <update> It turns out I don't have to register with the state sales tax > people because services are not taxed, and the prints are sold at such a high > mark up, i.e. there is only a couple of dollars of tax per wedding. > > --- > > The manual focus Pentaxes did fine, but I handed my wife the auto focus > Minolta ( with all autofocus sensors turned on! ) so that she could grab a > bunch of candids, which she did a great job with. �I'll be putting her flash > onto a bracket next time. > > --- > > Amazingly, I didn't notice any other SLR cameras there. �The whole night it > was people with lil' ole' point 'n shoots, either throw away or film or > digital, with dinky flash units. �I had a Vivitar 285HV (GN120) on a flip > bracket, plus a second 285HV on a lightstand, both in auto, and the couple is > amazed at how great the pictures are. �You'll see the lighting in the images > on my website. �Compare with the first wedding which is only the shoe mounted > (but big) MInolta flash and some slow sync. > > --- > > One of the K1000's PC connector is flakey, so I don't trust them any more. � > The silly hot-shoe to PC adaptors which mount on top of the camera point the > PC cable towards your forehead instead of away, which can bump you pretty > good just over the eye if you bring the camera up too quickly. > > > Brian Dunn > http://www.soltec.net/~bd > Email address is on the website, along with some nature, people, and pet > photos. >
