A video I shot of how the Canon buttons work

[Overread]

It doesn't cost anymore to shoot 800 digital pics than it does to shoot 200. Back in the film days each shot you took had a upfront cost and a processing cost.

There is still processing cost, and the photographer's time to go through the extra images, and of course he should be charging for that time. Digital equipment(cameras, memory, processing software and computers, etc) also costs $.

The costs may be incurred differently than they would be with film, but they're still there.

Sort of true, but, at least for me, it only takes a short while to cull away the duff shots from a set. You don't have to edit them out from the RAW at all to tell a good shot from a bad, all that is needed is to review them and pick out the good ones.
The only time it would take longer is if you messup a key shot and have to start choosing from a lesser version (of which there might be several) and then try editing them to get the best possible result.

As for the older method it does have its bonus sides and one method often used to help teach new photographers now is to limit them to (say) 30 shots for a shoot to teach and trian them to think before shooting. Sure they will still take those 800+ shots at a wedding, but they will put more thought behind them (one would hope(

 

[inTempus]

It doesn't cost anymore to shoot 800 digital pics than it does to shoot 200. Back in the film days each shot you took had a upfront cost and a processing cost.

There is still processing cost, and the photographer's time to go through the extra images, and of course he should be charging for that time. Digital equipment(cameras, memory, processing software and computers, etc) also costs $.

A camera must be purchased anyway, you don't have to buy more "camera" to shoot more pictures.

You will have more than one CF card if you're doing things right anyway. If you don't use them, it's not saving you money.

Processing software is a must have regardless if you shoot 1 picture or 1000.

Computers are necessary as well regardless of the number of shots you have to process.

It doesn't matter if you're shooting film or digital, you have images to sort through anyway. You don't have to process all 800 images, you only process the ones you like and the others are ignored. If the argument is it costs more to shoot 800 digital pictures than it does 200 film, I must say that's a pretty big stretch.

The costs may be incurred differently than they would be with film, but they're still there.

There's costs there, but the ones you outlined really make little difference. About the only argument you could make is the time argument if the photog were to process every image he/she shot. But then most photogs I know would rather have multiple shots vs. one of each critical moment/event and hope there aren't any closed eyes, screwed up lighting, uncle bob doing something stupid in the background, etc.

I've yet to hear a compelling argument against digital and shooting any many shots as you deem necessary because you're not constrained by the amount of film you have or by time with regards to reloading your camera.

 

[inTempus]

I still can't figure out how to change the ISO on my D300s with one hand

The force Luke.

 

[fiveoboy01]

You're right tharsmen, I was thinking in terms of digital vs. film and that wasn't your argument.... Don't know why the hell I was thinking that, maybe I was just too damn tired last night from spending most of the weekend in the Dells. Or maybe your reference to the film days screwed with my brain's polarity, lol.

There IS the time thing there for editing, but I suppose for a photographer who's got his workflow nailed down it's not that much of an issue.

 

[inTempus]

No problem man, I know how it goes with those late nights.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Most experienced photogs of a certain age (like mine maybe) will tell you to delete before you shoot. If that photo is to be deleted later, it was not worth shooting.

There's nothing wrong with that approach, certainly we would all like to shoot 100% perfect "keepers" every time we touch the camera, but I suspect even an old pro such as yourself has more than a few OOF, not so hotly composed, lighting sucked, shots.

Someone recently asked on this forum why wedding photogs today are shooting around 800+ photos per. Very good question considering that a wedding has not changed in the last 15 years. There are only so many photos that sell.

Simple, because they can. It doesn't cost anymore to shoot 800 digital pics than it does to shoot 200. Back in the film days each shot you took had a upfront cost and a processing cost. You were also limited to X number of shots before you had to do a film change - which meant you had to be more careful so you didn't waste film and time things poorly thereby missing a critical moment.

With digital those old concerns are out the window. So photogs can shoot more. I don't see it has being a bad thing. I can see how an old timer might use it as a cudgel to batter the new whipper-snappers and to ramble on about the "good old days"... but in reality I don't see what the fuss is about. It sounds like sour grapes to me when I hear the issue brought up (not saying your post is sour grapes).

I shoot with a 13 year veteran of weddings and he shot for many of those years using film. He's an amazing photog. Today he shoots 800+ shots at a wedding.

Absolutely true. Some things you cannot control very well. When doing portraits for example, one can be sure that the subject is going to close his/her eyes at the wrong time or make a face because of a itch in the nose or... And those events get multiplied by the number of subjects. Pro models help in the sense that they are quite good at masking some problems but they are still going to blink once in a while.

Our biggest problem in the film days was the lab. Especially for those of us who used Kodachrome that only Kodak labs were processing. I once went to the lab in Rockville, MD when one of the photogs I was assisting delivered a speech to the staff about the quality of their work. We brought a particularly bad batch of films as part of the show-and-tell. When I got the films back I had put close to half away because of dust and scratches...

Pro labs where better but they still were not perfect.

This is where digital has a serious advantage over film.

As for weddings, yes, I react in function of what I know. Absolutely true. And to be honest, after getting the book from my son's wedding, if those books are popular, I can see the need to shoot more. Several images in his book were used in several different places. I would think that means the photog didn't shoot enough.

 

[mrodgers]

Haven't read the whole thread yet.....

Here's the thoughts of a user of neither Canon nor Nikon, or even a dSLR for that matter. Thus I have no bias towards any camera other than my little cheapie superzoom.


This wraps my thoughts up in an instant with my limited playing around with friend's/family member's cameras as well as in the stores.

• Nikon - right hand index finger on the shutter at almost all times. Thumb on back wheel and middle finger on front wheel.
  
  Canon - must lift finger away from the trigger to change anything.

That's it. If/when I am looking for a dSLR, that will stick in my head. With a Nikon in my hand, the index finger will always be sitting on the shutter release ready in an instant. The control wheels and the shutter release are the most important controls of the camera. All the Nikons I have played with, they were always under a finger/thumb and the camera was always at the ready to be shot with a separate finger at the ready on the shutter release.

 

[epp_b]

You must have a big left hand
​

 

[Village Idiot]

I went to the beach this weekend.

 

[harleyrider]

i have a 50d i would like to know how to change the f stop from the front wheel????i have to click up on the on and off button and turn the back wheel.must be a 40d thing.he seems to want to pick on a 40d