Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Switching from film to digital for weddings - seek advice/..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 3:43:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm finally going to make the switch from film to digital. My primary market
is weddings. However, being a long time film shooter, I have been routinely
shooting with two EOS-5 bodies, an Elan IIe body and a Konica Hexar AF body,
using a EF28-70 2.8L, and a Sigma 70-210 2.8 (and 50 1.8 and the 35mm lens
of the Hexar). My main flash set-up has been the Sunpak 120J-TTL on a
Stroboframe Pro-RL bracket (parabolic flash with camera flipping bracket).
I'm very used to this set-up and couples are very happy with the results.
Other flashes are 420ex and 430 EZ

However, I would like to shoot digital for the savings in film and
processing costs(whether I give them 8X10 proof sheets, proof prints or
small or large file CD's hasn't quite been decided), not having to load
film, usable 800 or 1600 ISO on demand - low light no flash candids)
I would also like to try using a service like Pictage or Smugmug. (With
Pictage, I could still shoot film but it would seem like an extra and
unnecessary expense)

I've always felt that a wedding photographer needs at least one backup
system but 2 EOS 20D's seem out of the question for price.
I've thought about:
1 EOS-20D and...

EOS-350D (XT) as second body to use (or emergency backup should the 20D
fail)
or the new Panasonic FZ30 as the 2nd body to use and be emergency back up)

As far as flash goes... I've really enjoyed the parabolic flash of the
Sunpak 120JTTL, but it won't work with the digital stuff except in manual or
aperture priority on the camera and Auto mode on the flash. I really do
want TTL metering and by buying the new 580ex flash I can get the new E-TTL
II metering which incorporates distance and reflectivity in the TTL readings
which I see is a bonus (if it really works!) But the 580ex doesn't really
work with the Pro-RL bracket because the flash remains horizontal
(stationary) when the camera flips to vertical (not a problem with round
parabolic flash reflectors).

My other flash possibilities would be the Quantum Q flash T4D (with E-TTLII)
but price.... yikes! (What I liked about the Sunpak is that I could take the
whole system off my tripod, leave the battery attached to the tripod and use
the 4 AA's inside the flash for a few shots... that's handy!, but I don't
think the Q flash can do this.

Lens wise: I think I might I would have to sell my 28-70 2.8L to buy a
Sigma 70-200 2.8. I love my 70-210 2.8 but it's old and won't work with the
new EOS bodies (too old to be re-chipped!) I'd probably replace my 28-70
2.8 L with the EF 17-85 IS lens. Maybe I'll spring also for an 85 1.8 or
a 100 f2.

Sorry for the long post. If you have any insights to share on any aspect of
this post, they would be appreciated.

Perhaps I should simplify and lighten my load and shoot with two Leica M7's
or Bessa R or Hexar RF's with a wide and a telephoto and let the film lab
deal with the images. That's kind of appealing as well. (I should try
making up my mind about this right??!!)

Thanks for any thoughtful advice.
David
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 5:05:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The only thing I'd suggest it that instead of the Panasonic Fz30, get a
Konica Minolta A2 or A200. They are both compatible with all of th
Konica flash system accessories I believe. One thing to note though.
All the cameras in this class so far have high image noice above
ISO400. Actually, the FZ20 only goes up to 400, and the FZ30 has been
spec'd out the same.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 5:37:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A 20D and a 350D backup is a reasonable comprimize, but so is a pair of
350Ds. Wedings don't need the 5 fps 20D speed, so the 350D would have
few disadvantages. ISO on demand is a very valuable tool in a dSLR, I
manipulate my ISO about every 5-10 images with my 20D.

Expect to invest 300 hours of time in learning how to do image and
color manipulations (and redevelop your style) to complete the
tranistion to digital. Make sure you get lots of CF cards (and rather
big ones) and lots of disk space on the computer. 200 images of 8
MBytes each is 16 GBytes/weding (5*512MB CF cards)! and you will need
another 16-50 GB of free space to do all the digital manipulations to
the intermediate files. Right now, the 300G-400G range has the best
cost structure in the disk drive market.

trading in the 28-70 F/2.8 for a 17-85 (for a weding photog) will be a
mistake (speed)
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 8:33:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>trading in the 28-70 F/2.8 for a 17-85 (for a weding photog) will be a
>>mistake (speed)

Well, sorta. The 17-85mm image stabilization makes up for loss in max
f/stop, so the loss of 1.5EV in max aperture at the long end of the
zoom range is offset by the improved ability to handhold at slower
shutter speeds. So if you drag the shutter with the flash anyway, the
background is less likely motion blurred. On the other hand, shooting
with flash at f/2.8 gets you out to longer flash distances, that IS
cannot possibly compensate for the falloff due to inverse square law of
light output from flash.

17mm on 350XT/20D is equivalent to shooting with 27mm FF, which is a
nice limit to wide angle without too much subject distortion (that you
could encounter with 24mm lens on FF). The 28mm focal length on 20D is
like shooting wedding with 45mm lens, not wide enough! If you keep the
28-70 f/2.8, you could supplement with a 17-40mm f/4 L lens to get out
wide enough for a single lens for most shooting at the reception. (My
experience with Medium Format has 55-90mm is a nice single zoom for a
lot of 645 wedding reception coverage -- 30mm-50mm range on 35mm FF.)
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 12:49:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David Bindle" <david.bindle@usask.ca> wrote in message
news:D e2hb8$fof$1@tribune.usask.ca...
> I'm finally going to make the switch from film to digital. My primary
> market
> is weddings. However, being a long time film shooter, I have been
> routinely
> shooting with two EOS-5 bodies, an Elan IIe body and a Konica Hexar AF
> body,
> using a EF28-70 2.8L, and a Sigma 70-210 2.8 (and 50 1.8 and the 35mm lens
> of the Hexar). My main flash set-up has been the Sunpak 120J-TTL on a
> Stroboframe Pro-RL bracket (parabolic flash with camera flipping bracket).
> I'm very used to this set-up and couples are very happy with the results.
> Other flashes are 420ex and 430 EZ
>
> However, I would like to shoot digital for the savings in film and
> processing costs(whether I give them 8X10 proof sheets, proof prints or
> small or large file CD's hasn't quite been decided), not having to load
> film, usable 800 or 1600 ISO on demand - low light no flash candids)
> I would also like to try using a service like Pictage or Smugmug. (With
> Pictage, I could still shoot film but it would seem like an extra and
> unnecessary expense)
>
> I've always felt that a wedding photographer needs at least one backup
> system but 2 EOS 20D's seem out of the question for price.
> I've thought about:
> 1 EOS-20D and...
>
> EOS-350D (XT) as second body to use (or emergency backup should the 20D
> fail)
> or the new Panasonic FZ30 as the 2nd body to use and be emergency back up)
>
> As far as flash goes... I've really enjoyed the parabolic flash of the
> Sunpak 120JTTL, but it won't work with the digital stuff except in manual
> or
> aperture priority on the camera and Auto mode on the flash. I really do
> want TTL metering and by buying the new 580ex flash I can get the new
> E-TTL
> II metering which incorporates distance and reflectivity in the TTL
> readings
> which I see is a bonus (if it really works!) But the 580ex doesn't
> really
> work with the Pro-RL bracket because the flash remains horizontal
> (stationary) when the camera flips to vertical (not a problem with round
> parabolic flash reflectors).
>
> My other flash possibilities would be the Quantum Q flash T4D (with
> E-TTLII)
> but price.... yikes! (What I liked about the Sunpak is that I could take
> the
> whole system off my tripod, leave the battery attached to the tripod and
> use
> the 4 AA's inside the flash for a few shots... that's handy!, but I don't
> think the Q flash can do this.
>
> Lens wise: I think I might I would have to sell my 28-70 2.8L to buy a
> Sigma 70-200 2.8. I love my 70-210 2.8 but it's old and won't work with
> the
> new EOS bodies (too old to be re-chipped!) I'd probably replace my 28-70
> 2.8 L with the EF 17-85 IS lens. Maybe I'll spring also for an 85 1.8
> or
> a 100 f2.
>

>
> Thanks for any thoughtful advice.
> David
>
>
>
>
This is what we use:
Canon 20D (2)
Canon D30 (1)
Canon 1N (1)
Canon Elan II (1)
Quantum T4d/battery pack (2)
Stroboframe Pro-T flash brackets (2)
Lenses:
Canon 24-70 f2.8L (2)
Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS (2)
Canon 16-35 f2.8 L (1)
Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS (1) (Depending on need.)
100 f2 (1) (ditto)
15mm f2.8 fisheye (1) (ditto)
We've found that the 420EX doesn't have the "throw weight" to get consistent
results, nor does the 580EX, at least in all situations.

Why won't the 70-210 work? As far as I know, any lens that works with the
EOS 5s will work with any other EOS body...
You probably will be disappointed with the image quality from the 17-85 IS
as compared to the 28-70 L, I know there's a big difference between the
24-70 and the 28-135 IS.
We give our clients a CD of proofs, and what we call a "proof catalogue," a
set of 8x10 proof sheets.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 12:54:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"wilt" <wiltw@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1124408015.813700.245480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>trading in the 28-70 F/2.8 for a 17-85 (for a weding photog) will be a
>>>mistake (speed)
>
> Well, sorta. The 17-85mm image stabilization makes up for loss in max
> f/stop, so the loss of 1.5EV in max aperture at the long end of the
> zoom range is offset by the improved ability to handhold at slower
> shutter speeds. So if you drag the shutter with the flash anyway, the
> background is less likely motion blurred. On the other hand, shooting
> with flash at f/2.8 gets you out to longer flash distances, that IS
> cannot possibly compensate for the falloff due to inverse square law of
> light output from flash.
>
> 17mm on 350XT/20D is equivalent to shooting with 27mm FF, which is a
> nice limit to wide angle without too much subject distortion (that you
> could encounter with 24mm lens on FF). The 28mm focal length on 20D is
> like shooting wedding with 45mm lens, not wide enough! If you keep the
> 28-70 f/2.8, you could supplement with a 17-40mm f/4 L lens to get out
> wide enough for a single lens for most shooting at the reception. (My
> experience with Medium Format has 55-90mm is a nice single zoom for a
> lot of 645 wedding reception coverage -- 30mm-50mm range on 35mm FF.)
>
At the long end of the zoom range, that's more than 1.5 stops, that's more
like 3 stops, the maximum that IS is supposed to compensate for. And like
you say, the flash distance weighs in at that point. We had terrible
problems with the 20d and our 28-135 IS lenses coupled with 580EX flashes.
There's just not enough available aperture to get a good exposure in some
lighting situations at less than f2.8.
Also, there is a drop off in image quality between the 28-70 and the 17-85,
or at least there is between the 24-70 and the 28-135, lenses of similar
repute and ability.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 12:58:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <kFcNe.1482$sw6.813@fed1read05>, Skip M
<shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> We give our clients a CD of proofs, and what we call a "proof catalogue," a
> set of 8x10 proof sheets.

Can't we get past the word "proof?"
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 1:04:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:180820052058224770%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <kFcNe.1482$sw6.813@fed1read05>, Skip M
> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> We give our clients a CD of proofs, and what we call a "proof catalogue,"
>> a
>> set of 8x10 proof sheets.
>
> Can't we get past the word "proof?"

Why? The only other commonly used alternative would be "contact sheet,"
which is wildly inaccurate in this application...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:49:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <PScNe.1487$sw6.1308@fed1read05>, Skip M
<shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:180820052058224770%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> > In article <kFcNe.1482$sw6.813@fed1read05>, Skip M
> > <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> We give our clients a CD of proofs, and what we call a "proof catalogue,"
> >> a
> >> set of 8x10 proof sheets.
> >
> > Can't we get past the word "proof?"
>
> Why? The only other commonly used alternative would be "contact sheet,"
> which is wildly inaccurate in this application...

"Proof" carries negative connotations with the public. Of course, most
people alive these days have never seen the old style proofs which
darken with age. But it's still an unprofessional term to be using.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 3:42:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:190820050549309549%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <PScNe.1487$sw6.1308@fed1read05>, Skip M
> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
>> news:180820052058224770%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>> > In article <kFcNe.1482$sw6.813@fed1read05>, Skip M
>> > <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> We give our clients a CD of proofs, and what we call a "proof
>> >> catalogue,"
>> >> a
>> >> set of 8x10 proof sheets.
>> >
>> > Can't we get past the word "proof?"
>>
>> Why? The only other commonly used alternative would be "contact sheet,"
>> which is wildly inaccurate in this application...
>
> "Proof" carries negative connotations with the public. Of course, most
> people alive these days have never seen the old style proofs which
> darken with age. But it's still an unprofessional term to be using.

"Unprofessional?" Hmmm, there's a lot of unprofessional professionals out
there, then. I've never seen a negative reaction to the term, it just seems
to be what the item is called, no more, no less.
What term do you suggest as an alternative?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 11:07:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
>
> This is what we use:
> Canon 20D (2)
> Canon D30 (1)
> Canon 1N (1)
> Canon Elan II (1)
> Quantum T4d/battery pack (2)
> Stroboframe Pro-T flash brackets (2)
> Lenses:
> Canon 24-70 f2.8L (2)
> Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS (2)
> Canon 16-35 f2.8 L (1)
> Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS (1) (Depending on need.)
> 100 f2 (1) (ditto)
> 15mm f2.8 fisheye (1) (ditto)
> We've found that the 420EX doesn't have the "throw weight" to get consistent
> results, nor does the 580EX, at least in all situations.
>
>

I'd just love to see the camera bag you carry this lot around in!

--
Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 11:07:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don't forget, that's for two people! <G> but it's usually spread among
three bags, we plan out what we'll need for the ceremony, for instance, and
load a bag accordingly. Then reload it for the reception, if necessary.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"pixby" <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43064a30$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Skip M wrote:
>>
>> This is what we use:
>> Canon 20D (2)
>> Canon D30 (1)
>> Canon 1N (1)
>> Canon Elan II (1)
>> Quantum T4d/battery pack (2)
>> Stroboframe Pro-T flash brackets (2)
>> Lenses:
>> Canon 24-70 f2.8L (2)
>> Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS (2)
>> Canon 16-35 f2.8 L (1)
>> Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS (1) (Depending on need.)
>> 100 f2 (1) (ditto)
>> 15mm f2.8 fisheye (1) (ditto)
>> We've found that the 420EX doesn't have the "throw weight" to get
>> consistent results, nor does the 580EX, at least in all situations.
>>
>>
>
> I'd just love to see the camera bag you carry this lot around in!
>
> --
> Douglas,
> You never really make it on the 'net
> until you get your own personal Troll.
> Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 3:04:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 05:49:30 -0700 in rec.photo.digital, Randall
Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> "Proof" carries negative connotations with the public. Of course, most
> people alive these days have never seen the old style proofs which
> darken with age. But it's still an unprofessional term to be using.

no, it's not. why would you say it's "unprofessional"?
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 2:10:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <op9gg1h827lsh77gtuebq6cqh2il8bjva9@4ax.com>, Dennis P.
Harris <NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 05:49:30 -0700 in rec.photo.digital, Randall
> Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
> > "Proof" carries negative connotations with the public. Of course, most
> > people alive these days have never seen the old style proofs which
> > darken with age. But it's still an unprofessional term to be using.
>
> no, it's not. why would you say it's "unprofessional"?

"Proof" harkens back to the days of the old B&W process that would fade
after a couple weeks. In the backs of their minds, people still
consider proofs to be worthless. It's tough to sell something that
people consider to be worthless. In 20+ years of professional
photography, every seminar I went to the instructors would preach using
a different word.

It just has negative connotations.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 1:22:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:210820051010418523%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <op9gg1h827lsh77gtuebq6cqh2il8bjva9@4ax.com>, Dennis P.
> Harris <NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 05:49:30 -0700 in rec.photo.digital, Randall
>> Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Proof" carries negative connotations with the public. Of course, most
>> > people alive these days have never seen the old style proofs which
>> > darken with age. But it's still an unprofessional term to be using.
>>
>> no, it's not. why would you say it's "unprofessional"?
>
> "Proof" harkens back to the days of the old B&W process that would fade
> after a couple weeks. In the backs of their minds, people still
> consider proofs to be worthless. It's tough to sell something that
> people consider to be worthless. In 20+ years of professional
> photography, every seminar I went to the instructors would preach using
> a different word.
>
> It just has negative connotations.

You still haven't suggested an alternative. And most of my clients are way
too young to remember the connection between the images you are talking
about and the work "proof." I don't even really remember those, and I'm 52.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:54:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d%cOe.2034$sw6.1985@fed1read05>, Skip M
<shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> You still haven't suggested an alternative. And most of my clients are way
> too young to remember the connection between the images you are talking
> about and the work "proof." I don't even really remember those, and I'm 52.

Everybody I know in the biz uses "preview", which I also used in my
studio days. (And I'm 55).
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 9:24:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:10:41 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
<rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article <op9gg1h827lsh77gtuebq6cqh2il8bjva9@4ax.com>, Dennis P.
>Harris <NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 05:49:30 -0700 in rec.photo.digital, Randall
>> Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Proof" carries negative connotations with the public. Of course, most
>> > people alive these days have never seen the old style proofs which
>> > darken with age. But it's still an unprofessional term to be using.
>>
>> no, it's not. why would you say it's "unprofessional"?
>
>"Proof" harkens back to the days of the old B&W process that would fade
>after a couple weeks. In the backs of their minds, people still
>consider proofs to be worthless. It's tough to sell something that
>people consider to be worthless. In 20+ years of professional
>photography, every seminar I went to the instructors would preach using
>a different word.
>
>It just has negative connotations.

I remember proofs.
The people who thought negative of them were the people who were
trying to get over on the photographer by taking the proofs (to look
over in their leisure, of course) and never going back, thinking the
proofs were good enough.
When they didn't last, they thought they'd been had by the
photographer.
This wasn't a feeling that was widespread, just among the cheats.
Among honest folks, who understood the concept of proofs, there was
(and remains) no negative feelings that I can find.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:58:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:220820050854025766%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <d%cOe.2034$sw6.1985@fed1read05>, Skip M
> <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> You still haven't suggested an alternative. And most of my clients are
>> way
>> too young to remember the connection between the images you are talking
>> about and the work "proof." I don't even really remember those, and I'm
>> 52.
>
> Everybody I know in the biz uses "preview", which I also used in my
> studio days. (And I'm 55).

The only previews I've run into are the ones on a laptop or monitor...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 1:18:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:10:41 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
>>
>>"Proof" harkens back to the days of the old B&W process that would fade
>>after a couple weeks. In the backs of their minds, people still
>>consider proofs to be worthless. It's tough to sell something that
>>people consider to be worthless. In 20+ years of professional
>>photography, every seminar I went to the instructors would preach using
>>a different word.
>>
>>It just has negative connotations.
>
>
> I remember proofs.
> The people who thought negative of them were the people who were
> trying to get over on the photographer by taking the proofs (to look
> over in their leisure, of course) and never going back, thinking the
> proofs were good enough.
> When they didn't last, they thought they'd been had by the
> photographer.
> This wasn't a feeling that was widespread, just among the cheats.
> Among honest folks, who understood the concept of proofs, there was
> (and remains) no negative feelings that I can find.
>

I have a proof or two that's fifty years old, and the full prints made
from the same negative. The most distinguishing difference is the word
PROOF on the Proof, and it's rather more sepia than the final.

I am sure some studios didn't wash 'em, or washed the prints only
briefly in order for the Proofs to not last. Or were there other
techniques?

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:49:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It's been a long time, but I think I used to use a bromide paper
for that.

John McWilliams wrote:
>
> I am sure some studios didn't wash 'em, or washed the prints only
> briefly in order for the Proofs to not last. Or were there other
> techniques?
>
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 7:19:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:18:59 -0700, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:10:41 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
>>>
>>>"Proof" harkens back to the days of the old B&W process that would fade
>>>after a couple weeks. In the backs of their minds, people still
>>>consider proofs to be worthless. It's tough to sell something that
>>>people consider to be worthless. In 20+ years of professional
>>>photography, every seminar I went to the instructors would preach using
>>>a different word.
>>>
>>>It just has negative connotations.
>>
>>
>> I remember proofs.
>> The people who thought negative of them were the people who were
>> trying to get over on the photographer by taking the proofs (to look
>> over in their leisure, of course) and never going back, thinking the
>> proofs were good enough.
>> When they didn't last, they thought they'd been had by the
>> photographer.
>> This wasn't a feeling that was widespread, just among the cheats.
>> Among honest folks, who understood the concept of proofs, there was
>> (and remains) no negative feelings that I can find.
>>
>
>I have a proof or two that's fifty years old, and the full prints made
>from the same negative. The most distinguishing difference is the word
>PROOF on the Proof, and it's rather more sepia than the final.
>
>I am sure some studios didn't wash 'em, or washed the prints only
>briefly in order for the Proofs to not last. Or were there other
>techniques?

I dunno; I didn't do proofs, not being a pro, but I know many who did,
but I didn't watch them do their proofs.
They weren't meant to last, just to be 'samples', so to speak, that
the clients could choose their final prints from; so it was no big
thing if they didn't last.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
!