8x10 photos

My bro just got his 8x10 photos from his wedding.
The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
a macro!).
THEY SUCK!
I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
new.
The photos look like those old black&white films that were
colored by Mr.Turner's network.
I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
technology...
....which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.

[if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
taken with film & digital, blown up to 8x10]

 

[if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
taken with film & digital, blown up to 8x10]

Been there, done that. Film is dead.

 

You're an ass.

 

In your dreams!

 

Hmmmmmm. Considering that I have two 8x10s on my desk right now
taken with a 2.6 megapixel point-n-shoot toy digital camera (Canon
Pro 90, long discontinued) that look pretty damn good - see
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/49948231, the spider's draglines
and the segmented mantis antennas are plainly visible in the
prints...


... and I have a photo in my office that's three feet high, a
joined vertical panorama, three frames, of a lighthouse taken with a
Canon 10D and allowing you to see the details of the brickwork...

...I'd be inclined to say it wasn't the camera, but the
post-processing. And/or simply a poor photographer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no champion of digital and film still rules
my stable, but there's no reason today's current cameras wouldn't be
able to produce great results for a wedding.

Hey, a wedding's too serious an event to leave to most wedding
photographers practicing today, but that's got nothing to do with
technology. In fact, the technology defines the standard, more often
than not. A lot of people think it must be better if it's digital,
mostly because, gee, it's brand new! And if the working
photographers can nab the same prices, or higher, and cut the lab
fees in half, well, they're gonna do it.

My suggestion would be for your brother to point out the flaws and
send the prints back, not accepting them until they're better. If
the examples he was shown when signing the contract (probably not
him, but his mother-in-law) don't come close to what he received,
he's got a case for fighting it. Part of the reason so many crummy
wedding photographers are out there is because people actually
accept their work. Hold firmly to a standard.

Good luck!



- Al.

 

It sounds like your 'bro' and his wife were expecting a very good
"deal" when they hired the photographer with the digital box.

Didn't they get a chance to review the guy's (or gal's) samples of
previous weddings?

Sounds like your 'bro' is a guy who may keep salesmen happy. One sure
would not want to buy a 'like-new' automobile on the Internet without a
test drive, would you?

A wedding is a one-time deal. You either hire someone with
"experience" and pay accordingly, or "save a buck" and take your
chances....
= = =

 

You mean crummy color...like this?:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/original

Or perhaps other unrealiztic detail and pixels...like this?
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47817381/original

Gosh. You're right! It DOES look like a colorized Bogart movie!
(Ha!)

Bottom line:
-Your attempts at trolling are truly sub-par...

 

The OTHER possibility is that you're not a troll...just a victim of a guy
with a brand new camera who tried it for the first time...at your bro's
wedding. Bummer.

 

Gee, what wedding were those taken at?

 

That was an "interracial ceremony" between a giant moth and a mystery blob.
Nature is weird sometimes...

 

Or just the victim of a crap photographer. There are plenty in every town
who take wedding photos. Plus, if the learning curve is so steep then why
not just shoot film. Sounds like he was not a pro at any rate with
digital or film and a good pro would have shot both one to backup the
other.

 

Inherent in the words, "post links" is the digitization of both
images.......

 

So here we go...
Earlier this year a bride who 4 years earlier had paid a "student
Photographer" and here "instructor" at a TAFE college to do her wedding,
finally found enough cash to re-enact the wedding and get the album she
had dreamed of at the start. Way too many "Wedding Photographers" should
never pick up a camera. This pair are two that fit the bill.

She came to me because I recovered many of her original pictures from
the shocking disaster this excuse for a photographer had made of the
whole thing. The biggest surprise of all was that she still fitted into
the wedding dress four years and 2 children later... That's a first to
be sure!

The picture here: http://www.ryadia.com/film-digi.jpg has not undergone
any retouching. I posed her before makeup so I could get a 5 year apart
composite picture showing her aging. Here is the result. I scanned the
original film, shot in a Nikon SLR of unknown model, in my Nikon ED 5000
film scanner. I didn't remove any noise.

The digital image was not sharpened or adjusted either. I just sliced
the images and joined them, making this composite for a true and totally
honest comparison. Before you film buffs start... A lot of the noise in
the scan could be cleaned up with neat image. A much sharper digital
image could be had by processing too but to keep it as close to 'camera
original" as I could, I did neither.

 

You are drawing too many wrong conclusions from insufficient evidence.
Unknowns are: did the photog know his camera? did he in ignorance shoot
at 1600 ISO? No new Canon DSLR has less than 8 megapixels. That is
sufficient to provide superb 8x10's or bigger, no question. But, the
camera can store images at a range of sizes and compressions. Did he
use RAW, Fine large jpg, or one of the jpg's designed for web use? I
bet you don't know the answers to any of these questions.

If you haven't exaggerated the problems, then the photog was to blame,
not the camera.

Furthermore, digital technology is not 'brand new' at all - where have
you been these last several years, doing a Rip Van Winkle? Middle to
high-end digital slr's can produce stupendous results. Anyone who makes
such a sweeping condemnation as you have is just plain ignorant. That
means you.

Colin D.

 

BS. Printed many shots at 8x12 that are as good as, even better that
most 35mm film prints at that size.

I would guess that whoever did the wedding you refer to did not know how
to expose nor how to print, or get printed, the proper results.

 

The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was

For what resolution was the camera set?

This has been discussed extensively here, but I suppose it's worth
repeating. A good print requires 300dpi, which for 8x10 is about
7.2MPix. If you shot at full resolution (the Canon DSLR's are 7MPix,
right?) the digital-ness of the camera isn't to blame for any quality
problems.

-Joel

 

The sensitivity setting does not change the pixel size. That is
determined by the number of pixels (MPs)

I would not call it brand new technology, it has been around long enough
that it is now a good tool. Maybe not the right tool for every job, but a
good one for what it does do well.

I would not say digital is a way of saving money. I supposes some
people might.

The fact is it sounds like the photographer is to blame. In fact no
mater how your cut it, it is the photographer because the photographer chose
the equipment.

My guess is he may not have digital equipment suitable for the job, or
he lacks the skill to use it properly. Good professional grade digital
equipment can produce fine quality 8x10s. Note: Critical viewers may well
be able to tell digital from silver 8x10's but today I believe you will be
hard pressed to prove that one is better than the other, both are very good
when properly done.

To take this one step further, whoever chose the photographer is really
the one you need to blame. Did they view the work of this guy before the
chose him? How much experience did he have, did they check references?

 

I've been using a D70 for some of my wedding work, and I'm not happy with
8x10s made from a crop of the digital file, but full files go to 8x10 ok.
Nothing compared to the 8x10's made traditionally from medium format, of
course, which is what I invariably compare them too, as I shoot the formals
on medium format film.

 

Heavily cropped instead of using longer focal length. shot jpeg instead of
raw. used a cheap kit zoom. saved and resaved in jpeg format thus
compressing down and introducing futher artifacts. Not really fair
comparing digital to medium format. Digital to aps. digital to 35mm.
digital to 120 and 220 rollfilm..nope.

 

"You mean crummy color...like this?:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/original "

this proves what exactly?
if you have samples of 8x10 digital vs. film prints, lets see them.