Photography Updates

[quasigeostrophy]

Shot our first formal traditional wedding today for DKA Productions. I was going to write about it in more detail, but soaring_phoenix gives a pretty good overview here. I haven't gotten all of them together yet, but I think I went through 10 (Edit) 12 rolls of film (24 exp.) in 5 1/2 hours of work, most of them completely (I sometimes changed before the end of a roll rather than worry about missing a shot if timing was close and I didn't want to risk it - yes, a disadvantage of film over digital). Another disadvantage is, even though I think we did a good job executing the shoot, and I'm fairly confident in the composition and exposure, I won't be able to tell until the proofs come back. That's one I've learned to live with for enough years that I don't worry about much, though.

Tomorrow I have to tag and drop off my four entries to the 2004 Indiana State Fair, and next week I need to work on prints for a TFP model shoot I did a couple of weeks ago. I just got her list of requested reprints. I've got to mount and mat my infra-red cemetery shot for the gallery contest soon as well.

Once I get the proofs back from today's wedding, I'll be able to beef up that part of the business web site with more examples. I know that's what's held back that arm of the business - lack of decent portfolio. I have good portfolios for several other types of photography, particularly scenic/nature, but that won't necessarily land a wedding.

Comments

[origamislayer.livejournal.com]

I wonder, could a camera incorporate both film and digital, so you can proof as you go but still get very high-quality prints? I would expect something like this to require two lenses to do properly.

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

I think there are such things in medium and possibly large format, but I'm not sure there are for 35mm. I think they just split the image with some sort of prism like the viewfinder of a 35mm uses to redirect it.