"Caesar" <caesar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:MPG.21000bce52b3e7ab98968a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <46915ca6$0$16404$88260bb3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> the_niner_nation@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>>
>> "Caesar" <caesar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.20fb46b0e7a3d3a9989682@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped
10
>> > years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
>> > photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself
>> > since
>> > I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
>> >
>> > I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
>> > option and would be only a back-up.
>> >
>> > I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might
>> > think
>> > why go "backwards" and not digital.
>> > Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
>> > (price, time consumption and quality).
>> >
>> > I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
>> > use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
>> > Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
>> > Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available
>> > here)
>> > it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
>> > shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright
sun
>> > light and sand).
>> > Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS
3
>> > be sufficient?
>> > No s****ts photography here so I don't even want to bother with the
PBE2
>> > (minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
>> >
>> > Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
>> >
>> > Thank you for your input.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Caesar
>>
>> Just curious as to how film photography is more cost effective than
>> digital...
>
> Our lab charges $0.70 per print (5x7) and this works out nearly the same
> as the developing cost of a 36 film plus the cost of the film.
>
> Cheers
>
I see I'm late to the conversation, and I haven't read the entire thread,
so
forgive me if I repeat what already been said. Print for print, film may
be
cheaper, but with digital, all you have to do is select the best and print
those. The rest go to them on a disk (actually, all of them go to them on
a
disk). For me, that's between 80 and 100 prints at whatever Adorama's
charging these days, something like .19 a piece (US) for 4x6. Plus I get
some 8x10s out of those, too--they cost more, of course. The cost is
minimal, as opposed to $250 for 13 rolls of film or whatever. In addition
to the digital shots, which are mostl PJ style, I shoot the formals on 6x6
or 6x7 mf gear. You can't beat the digital for convenience, and you can't
beat the big film for enlargeability. The caveat about digital, though,
is
to shoot all RAW and have the software to process it quickly.
--
www.mattclara.com
|
