Interesting....2 of you that are digitally enabled choose to still use film for the important have to get it right images. There is no doubt that film still does have it's advantages. In our society where time is everything, letting the labs do it has it's own good points vs. the general advertised big plus of digital giving instant images. The fact that shooting digital is much like slide film in exposure sensitivity may backfire somewhat in promoters faces..maybe...the question is by the time the public figures out how great film really is, will it and services to handle it still be there?
I was going to sell off a bunch of my film stuff, and had it on the stands taking pictures to promote said sale, but this created excessive fondling and...sigh...I couldn't do it! > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 3:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: A photographic weekend - ahhhhhhhh! > > > Cesar, > Your wedding activities reminded me of some weddings I have done in the > past. I did one wedding exclusively with digital. I decided I will not > longer do a wedding with a digital slr, although I could take many more > exposures than with film. > My reasoning is that there is a lot of post-production labor involving > digital that I never did with film. Exposure corrections, sharpening, > maybe some gaussian blur effect. All takes time. > When it comes to film, I may have some images printed to "hot" > and I return > to the lab for correction. I let them correct the error. Yes, it takes > time as well to do this, but I enjoy being inside a camera store > looking at > all the toys. > > Jim A. > > > From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:45:26 -0400 > > To: "Pentax-Discuss (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: A photographic weekend - ahhhhhhhh! > > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:44:46 -0400 > > > > I have not been keeping up with the list - I know, tell you > something new - > > but I actually had a good excuse the last few days. Just bear > with me :-) > > > > My next door neighbor's elder daughter got married on Saturday. > She is like > > my little sister. My, how they all grow up... > > > > Anyway, I was the official photographer. All the festivities began on > > Thursday - now that is the way to celebrate. > > Thursday was a sunset cruise into the bay. I used the *ist D > for about 200 > > shots on the boat. It was a nice way to meet some of the > groom's family. > > It is good to know who these people are for when you are shooting at the > > reception. It was a wonderful time as I was getting some nice candids, > > especially as the sun was setting. I found I was rather > stealthy as shots > > were taken and no one realized I was even around. I did have > to prefocus > > some as I talked to people - who did not like their photo taken > - and shot > > from the hip or the chest. > > > > Friday was the rehearsal. I shot a roll of 160 NC as a test > with different > > settings to verify lighting and such. I was using the MZ-S. > The rehearsal > > dinner was fantastic. Some more meeting of people and a > plethora of candid > > shots. I was using the *ist D for these and ended up with another 200 > > shots. > > > > Saturday I took in the test roll to my developer. They came out great! > > Easily correctible with a negative, but I found MY setting as > -1 with the > > flash. I believe in minimizing any corrections by the lab. It is not > > because I do not trust them, but rather I want it right > straight from the > > camera. I should know what I am doing and not have to rely on others to > > correct my mistakes. > > The lab person told me I should have had them dressed up at the > rehearsal as > > they were lovely exposures. She says it is a dream to work > with my film. > > She was raving over the exposure, the sharpness, the color of the shots. > > Thank you Pentax :-) > > > > At 1:15 I made it to the church. The wedding was at 4. I shot > mainly the > > film camera. I had the MZ-S as my main camera (film wind) with > three LXen > > as backups. I did use an LX during the ceremony shooting > Ilford Delta 3200 > > at ASA 1600. I was using the FA* 200/2.8 from the back of the > church for > > these b&w shots. I would have loved to have had the *ist D alongside to > > compare. The test shots with the *ist D at 1600 were very nice. > > I ended up shooting just over 13 rolls, that included a few at the > > reception. > > The fun part was switching the AF400T between the *ist D and > MZ-S. I shot > > digitally for a few of the 'silly' 'fun' shots and did film for > the formals. > > I will leave out a few of the personal things that went on - > being that I am > > so close to the family it was the most enjoyable wedding I have > done. They > > do have one more daughter, so I may get to experience it again. > > The reception was another blast. It was held at the elementary > school where > > she taught. It made for some interesting logistics. And to > top it all off > > we had rain. I never gave it a second thought, especially when > carting the > > LX. I ended up taking almost 400 shots on the *ist D. > > > > The saber arch was beautiful, and their dash in the rain to the > Corvette was > > a nice ending. I ended up shotting until about 8:30 that > night. Surprised > > myself that I was not really tired. You really do not want to > know how many > > cameras, flashes, lenses, battery packs, batteries, and > external meters I > > was carrying. > > > > I talked to the DJ about this when he was waiting for a replacement > > microphone to show up. I told him that there was no way I would go out > > without some backup... > > > > Sorry for the ramble, thought some might be interested. > > > > Dropping off the film after work, > > > > C�sar > > Panama City, Florida > > > >
