8x10 photos

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Mr.Happy, Oct 2, 2005.

  1. Mr.Happy

    Mr.Happy Guest

    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]
     
    Mr.Happy, Oct 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mr.Happy

    Annika1980 Guest

    [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.
     
    Annika1980, Oct 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mr.Happy

    Guest Guest

    You're an ass.
     
    Guest, Oct 2, 2005
    #3
  4. Mr.Happy

    Robert C. Guest

    In your dreams!
     
    Robert C., Oct 2, 2005
    #4

  5. 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.
     
    Al Denelsbeck, Oct 2, 2005
    #5
  6. Mr.Happy

    Jerry L Guest

    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....
    = = =
     
    Jerry L, Oct 2, 2005
    #6
  7. Mr.Happy

    Mark² Guest

    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...
     
    Mark², Oct 2, 2005
    #7
  8. Mr.Happy

    Mark² Guest

    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.
     
    Mark², Oct 2, 2005
    #8
  9. Jon Nadelberg, Oct 2, 2005
    #9
  10. Mr.Happy

    Mark² Guest

    That was an "interracial ceremony" between a giant moth and a mystery blob.
    Nature is weird sometimes...
     
    Mark², Oct 2, 2005
    #10
  11. Mr.Happy

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, Oct 2, 2005
    #11
  12. Inherent in the words, "post links" is the digitization of both
    images.......
     
    William Graham, Oct 2, 2005
    #12
  13. 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.
     
    Pix on Canvas, Oct 2, 2005
    #13
  14. Mr.Happy

    Colin D Guest

    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.
     
    Colin D, Oct 2, 2005
    #14
  15. Mr.Happy

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 2, 2005
    #15
  16. 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
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Oct 2, 2005
    #16
  17. 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?
     
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 2, 2005
    #17
  18. Mr.Happy

    Matt Clara Guest

    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.
     
    Matt Clara, Oct 2, 2005
    #18
  19. Mr.Happy

    ian lincoln Guest

    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.
     
    ian lincoln, Oct 2, 2005
    #19
  20. Mr.Happy

    Mr.Happy Guest

    Mr.Happy, Oct 2, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.