What has happened over the past few decades is that the cost per exposure has decreased dramatically. This benefits the consumer, in that they can now get more bang for the buck. In Tom's example of the 1950s photographer, the film was most likely 8x10 sheets, with the prints being made via contact. I know my parents wedding pictures from the late 1940's were done on 8x10 and 5x7 sheets. Before roll film became widely used, the option of the full coverage wedding just didn't exist.
Medium format supplanted sheet film when interchangable lens medium format cameras started to show up in the late 1950's with the Hasselblad. Up until that time, roll film cameras were primarily folders of indeterminate quality, and were eschewed by the professional. When roll film and portable electronic flash became a quality option, the amount of coverage possible increased, and photographers started to provide coverage at the ceremony, and would take more studio pictures than a half dozen or so. 35mm dropped the cost per exposure even further, and at about the same time, mass production in the printing end became viable, along with colour prints. As the cost per exposure dropped, photographers who adopted the new formats were able to give more for less in terms of volume, and those who didn't adapt either retired or went bust. Of course, every time an "improvement" has come along, picture quality has suffered, but that is not really germaine to this part of the discussion, Digital is just another brick in the road. Now, it costs the same, whether the photographer shoots 100 pictures or a thousand. Does this mean the consumer gets a better product? In some ways perhaps, in other ways perhaps not. I was at a wedding a while back where the photographer was using a digital. He shot a heck of a lot of pictures. So many, that he became part of the wedding. So many that the continuous flash bursts and noise was a nuisance. If this is what the consumer is getting when we say we are providing better coverage, then we are doing the customer a real disservice. William Robb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > One aspect that you are not considering here is that the earlier > photographers had very poor coverage. Shooting just a few shots of an > affair that can last for many hours (4-8) isn't doing justice to the > affair. My clients normally get a proof book of all the photos along > with whatever albums and enlargements they order. There is such a > thing as wanting a better document of that important day. I look back > on my wedding album and wish I had more pictures of the event. The > photographer we had was more like your middle description. > > On top of that, having a choice between "pretty good", a "little > better" and "even better" is not a bad thing. Much like shooting a > sunset - you think, "that looks good" and take the picture. Then the > sun sinks a little lower and you think, "Wow, that's even better" and > take the pic. Then the sun drops and you think, "That's the one!" and > you take the pic. Sometimes the sun drops and the first shot is the > only good one. So if you waited, you would have no good shots. So, > was it bad editing that you just did? No, it was a change in the > situation that you didn't have control of that you reacted to. A > significant portion of a wedding is not under the photographer's > control. That portion is more like shooting the sunset - you are not > positive that you got the best shot. On top of that, you aren't sure > just what the couple/family will actually want. I have been surprised > sometimes about what shots are re-ordered. > > When I was shooting medium format, I was much more reserved in my > shooting because I had to be (cost of film/developing, speed of > changing film, etc). But I can tell you that since shooting > digital my clients are getting better and more variety than before. > When you only shoot one, your choice is obvious. > > Your statements are much like saying that anyone who buys/shoots Canon > or Nikon doesn't know how to operate a camera because they are relying > on automation. Sure, some are like that, but not necessarily the > majority. The same goes for the wedding photographer. Now instead of > only offering one shot of mother/daughter with mom blinking, you can > offer a good shot (no blinking) along with more poses and candids. > Shooting people is a numbers game to some degree. Expressions change > from moment to moment (especially unposed shots) and situations > continuously change. Not offering coverage is certainly an option as > a photographer, but it doesn't make those who do, poor at in camera > editing or lazy. > > Sorry, you touched a nerve. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Saturday, May 29, 2004, 8:07:00 AM, you wrote: > > g> Interestingly enough, this goes hand in hand with something I was just thinking > g> about the other night. > > g> Years ago (1950's - early 60's) a standard wedding package was 10-12 B&W 8x10 in > g> an album. The photographer usually shot 1.5 to 2x that many negatives, but hoped > g> some of those would sell as extras. In other words they shot pretty close to 1:1. > > g> Back in the late 80's early 90's a wedding photographer usually shot 3 rolls of > g> 35mm (108 shots), or 5-6 rolls of 120 (50-72 shots). Gave the client the best > g> 30-50 as proof to pick from. A ratio of about 3:1. > > g> Now the wedding guys on the list, are say they are shooting 600-800 shots per > g> wedding. You give the customer (who most likely can not tell a decent shot from > g> an awful one) hundreds of images to select from on a computer. If the photog > g> dumped the junk there may be 100 actually sellable photos in the batch. 8:1. > > g> So what is my point? Well, first I think that they are still getting about 24 > g> keepers. The difference is the early photograpers edited in the camera. A lot of > g> current photographers (and I am talking about commerical photographers here) do > g> not seem know how to edit their work at all. > > g> How does this connect to Bill's comments below. Simply put, it was not cheap to > g> shoot, so that early photographer was carful to shoot only sellable photos. He > g> edited out the others before tripping the shutter. > > g> -- > > g> William Robb wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Mark Cassino" > >> Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners > >> > >> > >> > >>>I'd bet that same school teaches kids writing with pencils and > >> > >> paper. > >> > >>>That's a shame. Real writing is done with reeds on clay tablets. > >> > >> People may > >> > >>>try to write using pencils, paper, pens, typewriters, or even word > >>>processors or computers. But do you really think that they could > >> > >> possibly > >> > >>>express the same thoughts that they could express with clay tablets > >> > >> and > >> > >>>reeds? Obviously not. If they really want to express themselves, > >> > >> clay > >> > >>>tablets and reeds are the only way. (Of course, if they want to be > >>>published, they should scan the clay tablets in a format suitable > >> > >> for > >> > >>>computerized typesetting.) > >> > >> > >> I realize that this is written with tongue firmly in cheek, but think > >> of this: > >> > >> If you really have to work at putting those words down, then you will > >> think more carefully of what you write. > >> You will find a way to express yourself as succinctly as is possible. > >> You will cut to the meat of the matter. > >> You will learn to express yourself more accurately. > >> > >> It is often argued that the tool (or process) doesn't matter, all > >> that matters is the result. > >> I think the tool does matter, more than most people realize. > >> > >> William Robb > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >
