Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Pushing the G's

  1. #1
    Senior Member peterb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Tysons Corner, Virginia
    Posts
    490
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Pushing the G's

    Got the G1 three years ago when I totally embraced what Panasonic hath wrought with its innovative approach to picture taking in the digital age. Small, high quality bodies that won't give you a hernia, small, quality optics (with the option of accessing even more quality optics, albeit manually focusing, via adapters), an incredible EVF that's big, bright and informative and the articulating LCD that has proven it's usefulness more times than I can count.

    As a result I've come to really love the G1 and now look forward (after careful deliberation that opened up the possibility of getting a Nikon D7000) to getting the GH2.

    I've taken my little G1 to the ends of the earth often through some tough terrain (which made me really appreciate its lightness and compactness all the more).

    Just curious, does anyone here think these incredible Lumix cameras could withstand the rigors of weddings, full time portraiture and other rigorous usage? My thinking is that for the price of some bigger hulking camera with a shutter that's been tested to 100K-150K cycles, I could buy TWO of these.

    Any thoughts?
    Life is an infinite series of moments called..."now".
    My job is to capture them.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    I think it depends on the scheduling and the size of your team. If you're doing one wedding per day then you'll need two post edit-bay experts IMO. If you just mean like a friend's wedding or something like that then sure, a single guy need not worry about it if he knows what he's doing and which software tools (stress on the plural) to use.

    But unless it's a family business it'll pay off financially to purchase a camera that performs flawlessly in low light... like the D700 or something. With the D700 you'll spend less than one minute (per image) editing. With the GH2, G2, or GH1, G1 you'll spend 5 to 7 minutes on each of most of the images. With only 100 "keepers" that's 500 ~ 700 minutes or about 10 hours - as opposed to the 1.5 hours for the same set from the D700.

    Unless you can sell your customers on the artistic value of sensor noise and low-ish DR, you'll spend less money in the long run by getting the best equipment up front - instead of paying salaries out every month to make up for the differences.

    The GH1/GH2 and the G2 certainly are capable of doing it tho.

    BTW, I think it's 6 or 7 cameras to one as the current ratio tho. The GH1 (body only) goes for $300 (or less) now... compared to the D700's $1.9K.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    I just did my first photoshoot the other day...mind you i am no pro. But i do agree on Tesselator that it does take more work to process the photos in post from the gh1, especially the raws. I found it easier to process the jpegs that accompany the raws as most of the look good stuff has been done in camera, mainly noise reduction.

    That said, will the gh2 be better in performance and noise compared to the gh1. I want it for the improved video noise, just hope it transfers over to stills. Enjoyed the shoot so much I am now contemplating getting a dedicated full frame just for these particular shoots like a 5d because it still has video capabilities.

    So i think i am asking the same question too, do you guys thing the lumix can do as good a job as the big boys?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    776
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by MRfanny View Post
    So i think i am asking the same question too, do you guys thing the lumix can do as good a job as the big boys?
    As good? No, definitely not. Good enough? Probably, but that depends on your expectations.
    -Dragos
    Panasonic GH1/G1, Canon FTb(n)/F-1, Mamiya C330F/RB67 Pro SD, Chamonix 45N-2, Nikon F5 + Assorted Lenses

  5. #5
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by photoSmart42 View Post
    As good? No, definitely not. Good enough? Probably, but that depends on your expectations.
    Agree, but add "processing abilities" to "expectations".

    The GH2 IMO is better at noise yes, but not enough to really change my initial comment. Then again there two other things to immediately consider in the same breath: 1) I don't own a GH2 so I may be full of it, and 2) the OP is asking specifically about the G1 - the GH2 currently carries an initial investment about the same as a used D700 - Silly Panasonic!!!

  6. #6
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Print Size

    Quote Originally Posted by peterb View Post
    Just curious, does anyone here think these incredible Lumix cameras could withstand the rigors of weddings, full time portraiture and other rigorous usage?
    This type of question always prompts the same question in return: How large do you want to print?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by photoSmart42 View Post
    As good? No, definitely not. Good enough? Probably, but that depends on your expectations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
    Agree, but add "processing abilities" to "expectations".
    (...)
    1) I don't own a GH2 so I may be full of it,
    (...)
    Quote Originally Posted by m3photo View Post
    This type of question always prompts the same question in return: How large do you want to print?
    I agree about everything;
    The G cameras are far from FF cameras thinking of pure image quality incl noise, resolution and artsy capabiltities, processing time, and print size added up.
    Sometimes I miss my 5D cameras (owned one of each generation).

    And then we have expectations, or demands. I'm not fully happy with my (two years old, Peter) G1. It is however good enough for 75 or 80% of the images I would like to take. Until we have full frame Live cameras I stay put.

    Just as Tesselator I don't own a GH2. I even haven't seen one in real life as silly Panasonic decided Sweden is to wait. I have read reports about the GH2 taking more heavy PP better, having less noise, better gradation and offering better ergonomics. Hmm. I would like to try one, maybe Pansonic eventually ships some body only boxes to Sweden. Summer 2011?

    /Jonas

  8. #8
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Don't feel bad Jonas, I live in Japan and all they have that I can see in the shops is a hollow plastic mockup of it. I guess they have some in boxes somewhere but no one is putting the actual cameras out on display - in Nagoya Japan (3rd/4th largest area/city)





    BTW, I don't think the print question is relevant any longer. Unless you're printing museum grade a 12mpx camera of ANY quality is good enough to print at ANY size. And I really mean ANY size! 8mpx is cutting it close... 6mpx has definite limits. 12mpx and above has no limits at all. This is somewhat dependent on the purpose and indented viewing style of the image however.

    But for weddings and so forth where the photographs are typically intended to be viewed as a single image 12mpx is now large enough to print them at any size you wish. From postcard sized all the way to up to large enough to cover all 4 sides of the empire state building. So all those old res charts that say how large you can and can't print at can be thrown out now and forever!

  9. #9
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,126
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Can these cameras stand the rigours of professional usage? To some extent - at the price discount to a 'professional' camera - does it matter? What I mean to say is you can probably justify any camera depending on the breakeven point between initial cost and payback. I suspect the breakeven point is a lot lower due to the smaller outlay with a m43rds camera. Personally, I really don't care too much if my GBP400 body of my GF-1 lasts any more than a year - although it came with a 3-year warranty which I was most impressed by. However, a GBP1600 body, for a D700 really better keep going for at least 3 years.

    This of course accepts Tesselator's point that for all intents and purposes - and especially the small print sizes of most wedding albums, you don't get much more IQ out of a FF over a m43rds if indeed the GH-2 does have the high iso performance I've seen in samples, so far.

    LouisB

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,929
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    I used the G1 from about a month after it was released (early Dec 2008) until last month when I bought the Olympus E-5. I shot several assignment gigs with it exclusively, did a heck of a lot of tabletop work with it, pursued my personal projects with it too. An excellent camera that produces fully competent, professionally acceptable results.

    Why did I abandon it and go with the E-5? Not for any lack of what the G1 can do, but for the additional things the E-5 brings to my kit:

    - more responsiveness
    - both optical reflex and articulated Live View finders
    - high-speed sequence capture
    - video capture
    - dual storage card slots
    - weather sealing
    - incremental improvements in acutance, DR and sensitivity
    - better ergonomics with my best, fast lenses (all fast, FourThirds mount SLR lenses)
    - wireless dedicated flash control capability
    - overall durability

    Some of these things will allow work the G1 is not quite up to, for me anyway, but for what you have listed the only area where the G1 might have some difficulties is for rugged conditions where weather/dust sealing potentially makes a difference.

    I thought about these things extensively over the entire time I had the G1 as I'd been considering the E-3 when I bought the G1 ... had actually been considering the E-3 since it was released a year earlier. The G1 did a lot of excellent work for me and if I hadn't already been well-equipped in lenses I like for the SLRs I'd likely have expanded the Micro-FT kit further, but for the moment the SLR kit has enough compelling advantages that I'm going to stick with it.

    I suspect when Olympus offers a pro-grade Micro-FT body and some pro-grade lenses exploiting the capabilities of the Micro-FT mount ... along with a higher level of competence and compatibility for their entire FT SLR lens line ... I'll be right there for it. :-)

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
    Don't feel bad Jonas, I live in (,,,) Nagoya Japan (3rd/4th largest area/city)

    BTW, I don't think the print question is relevant any longer. Unless you're printing museum grade a 12mpx camera of ANY quality is good enough to print at ANY size.
    (...)
    So all those old res charts that say how large you can and can't print at can be thrown out now and forever!
    Jeepers. Sweden has as many habitants as there are people living within the 50km circle around Nagoya! Watch out... we are coming!



    The noise at base ISO in my G1 images prevent super large images. Maybe it is an unusually noisy G1.

    Cheers,

    /Jonas

  12. #12
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Topaz DeNoise.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Topaz DeNoise... I never use those noise reducers. Does it work without making everything look like plastic? I won't drag this totally off topic, but a short hint, should I download a trial or something? Is Noiseware which I also heard about be better or worse, generally?

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
    But unless it's a family business it'll pay off financially to purchase a camera that performs flawlessly in low light... like the D700 or something. With the D700 you'll spend less than one minute (per image) editing. With the GH2, G2, or GH1, G1 you'll spend 5 to 7 minutes on each of most of the images. With only 100 "keepers" that's 500 ~ 700 minutes or about 10 hours - as opposed to the 1.5 hours for the same set from the D700.
    Sheesh - I'm no professional, but I occasionally do weddings professionally. Some points:

    1. if you only got 100 keepers you're dead
    2. if you need 5 minutes per shot average for post processing you lost money
    3. if you turn up with a cheap plastic camera you're dust

    Nothing against the panasonic cameras - they're fine, and of course they're completely capable of shooting most weddings.

    But Uncle Joe will turn up with a 1DMkIII
    Uncle Bill will have a Nikon D3x
    and Auntie Cam will have an M9 and a noctilux.
    Not to mention dad, who has an HD4 P65+
    and Brother in law Steve who's shot society weddings for 20 years

    and when you've finished they'll expect a book with all the guests in it.

    Seriously - I'm clutching at credentials with two M9's and an A900.

    It's nothing to do with whether it will 'do the job' . It's about whether the client believes you've 'done the job'.

    Just this guy you know

  15. #15
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonas View Post
    Topaz DeNoise... I never use those noise reducers. Does it work without making everything look like plastic? I won't drag this totally off topic, but a short hint, should I download a trial or something? Is Noiseware which I also heard about be better or worse, generally?
    I currently own all of the commercially available mainstream noise reduction products. Topaz DeNoise is the current king in several respects. None of them are perfect and all of them can over-remove noise making things look plasticky or pasty. The solution here is to fade the results. If you're in Photoshop (CS2 ~ CS5) there is a Fade tool in the Edit menu which will do this for you. So as you're building your script (you do use scripts right?!?) add the fade tool in-line after the DeNoise. I actually have fade tools added in after just about every tool-process I apply. Anyway, faded at about 80% or 90% it won't look plasticky. Two of the things that makes Topaz the current leader are it's dynamic image analysis where it analyses each image and then suggests a set of defaults (weighted to your own defaults), and it's output - as it retains more detail given the same amount of NR than the others do.


    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Seriously - I'm clutching at credentials with two M9's and an A900.
    I think you shouldn't. Just do the best you can, believe in yourself, and expect your services to be taken as seriously as you've advertised them to be.

    It's nothing to do with whether it will 'do the job' . It's about whether the client believes you've 'done the job'.
    I did weddings in Collage to pay for tuition. I think believing in yourself is the key to you clients believing in you. You're right though: Perception is a major factor - given all other things being equal it's probably the biggest factor.
    Last edited by Tesselator; 23rd December 2010 at 01:03.

  16. #16
    Senior Member f6cvalkyrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,643
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    29

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post

    But Uncle Joe will turn up with a 1DMkIII
    Uncle Bill will have a Nikon D3x
    and Auntie Cam will have an M9 and a noctilux.
    Not to mention dad, who has an HD4 P65+
    and Brother in law Steve who's shot society weddings for 20 years

    and when you've finished they'll expect a book with all the guests in it.

    Seriously - I'm clutching at credentials with two M9's and an A900.

    It's nothing to do with whether it will 'do the job' . It's about whether the client believes you've 'done the job'.
    In that case, Jono, you can still choose a SINAR p3 with an eMotion 75LV back. But, maybe, the 13 year old nephew Vladimir already has one

    Have anice day,
    Rafael
    E-M1/GH2/G1 Full Spectrum & lots of lenses
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/f6cvalk...th/9226689839/

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by f6cvalkyrie View Post
    In that case, Jono, you can still choose a SINAR p3 with an eMotion 75LV back. But, maybe, the 13 year old nephew Vladimir already has one

    Have anice day,
    Rafael
    He certainly does. When I was doing publicity stuff I used to take something huge with me, with a damn great lens on the end, then put it down on one side and shoot everything with a Leica M.

    I really think it makes life easier if you 'look' professional (I think it's sad that it's the case, but I do think it IS the case). I was talking to another wedding photographer, and he was wishing that they made great big hassleblad shaped outer cases that you could slip your little camera into!

    I can't imagine turning up to shoot a wedding with a plastic panasonic G camera - and anyway, it can't possibly be the best tool for the job.

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post

    Seriously - I'm clutching at credentials with two M9's and an A900.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post

    I think you shouldn't. Just do the best you can, believe in yourself, and expect your services to be taken as seriously as you've advertised them to be.

    I think believing in yourself is the key to you clients believing in you. You're right though: Perception is a major factor - given all other things being equal it's probably the biggest factor.
    I think you misunderstand me - I quite agree about believing in yourself - and as far as I'm concerned, it's the kit I want to use. What I meant is that you can get funny looks from the guests with their great big Canons even with my kit - I can't imagine what it would be like with a couple of G2s over your shoulder!

    Mind you - I don't ever use any noise reduction software for wedding shots - I think it makes it take too long to be feasible. IMHO you need a good DAM, a good procedure and get the shots right in camera.

    Just this guy you know

  19. #19
    Senior Member peterb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Tysons Corner, Virginia
    Posts
    490
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post

    It's nothing to do with whether it will 'do the job' . It's about whether the client believes you've 'done the job'.
    LOL so true. Perception is EVERYTHING.

    It reminds me of a very funny advertising story: Years ago, J&J came out with a revolutionary antiseptic that came in spray can called Bactine. Mind you up til then the treatments of choice were either a tincture of iodine or this vile red liquid called mercurochrome (not to be mistaken as an initial attempt at a perfect film before Kodachrome). Both of these antiseptics, while effective, when applied to even the most minor cut, STUNG LIKE HELL. And kids wailed at the thought of having to present their little scratches to their parents.

    J&J, changed all that with Bactine which was an antiseptic that DID NOT STING a whit. So they trotted out their bold new invention and what do you think what happened? It FAILED MISERABLY.

    Parents, used to the idea of an antiseptic that would sting figured it really didn't work.

    So J&J went back to their lab and decided to add an ingredient that was TOTALLY UNNECESSARY--alcohol. And whaddaya know? The fortunes of Bactine turned completely around. Because of the alcohol in the formula, the spray could deliver a little wallop just like the other stuff did. Mom's figured with a kid yowling the stuff REALLY worked. From the kids point of view it still hurt but didn't hurt NEARLY as much as the previous stuff. From the mom's point of view they bought it just for the CONVENIENCE of not having to hog tie their child in order to apply an antiseptic. And because it was a spray they could apply the antiseptic to the kid at a safe distance.

    But truth be told, the alcohol wasn't needed at all. Again it's all about perception and conditioned expectations.

    The question is, would a photographer be credible today if they showed up with a Nikon FM2? Or is substantial camera mass (and a doctor's certificate attesting to having completed a double hernia operation) the price of admission for acceptance by a client?
    Life is an infinite series of moments called..."now".
    My job is to capture them.

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by peterb View Post
    LOL so true. Perception is EVERYTHING.

    It reminds me of a very funny advertising story: Years ago, J&J came out with a revolutionary antiseptic that came in spray can called Bactine. Mind you up til then the treatments of choice were either a tincture of iodine or this vile red liquid called mercurochrome (not to be mistaken as an initial attempt at a perfect film before Kodachrome). Both of these antiseptics, while effective, when applied to even the most minor cut, STUNG LIKE HELL. And kids wailed at the thought of having to present their little scratches to their parents.

    J&J, changed all that with Bactine which was an antiseptic that DID NOT STING a whit. So they trotted out their bold new invention and what do you think what happened? It FAILED MISERABLY.

    Parents, used to the idea of an antiseptic that would sting figured it really didn't work.

    So J&J went back to their lab and decided to add an ingredient that was TOTALLY UNNECESSARY--alcohol. And whaddaya know? The fortunes of Bactine turned completely around. Because of the alcohol in the formula, the spray could deliver a little wallop just like the other stuff did. Mom's figured with a kid yowling the stuff REALLY worked. From the kids point of view it still hurt but didn't hurt NEARLY as much as the previous stuff. From the mom's point of view they bought it just for the CONVENIENCE of not having to hog tie their child in order to apply an antiseptic. And because it was a spray they could apply the antiseptic to the kid at a safe distance.

    But truth be told, the alcohol wasn't needed at all. Again it's all about perception and conditioned expectations.

    The question is, would a photographer be credible today if they showed up with a Nikon FM2? Or is substantial camera mass (and a doctor's certificate attesting to having completed a double hernia operation) the price of admission for acceptance by a client?

    Excellent
    As to the FM2 - I think so, this is based on the fact that I can get away shooting with Leica M9s.
    The doctors certificate would absolutely put you out of the running - it's no good telling someone that you have an ailment and expecting them to believe in you

    Just this guy you know

  21. #21
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I think you misunderstand me - I quite agree about believing in yourself - and as far as I'm concerned, it's the kit I want to use. What I meant is that you can get funny looks from the guests with their great big Canons even with my kit - I can't imagine what it would be like with a couple of G2s over your shoulder!

    Mind you - I don't ever use any noise reduction software for wedding shots - I think it makes it take too long to be feasible. IMHO you need a good DAM, a good procedure and get the shots right in camera.
    Oh, I see what you're saying. Your reply to f6cvalkyrie clued me in.

    Yeah, I suppose you're right. Especially if it's some high profile type wedding. But common folk get married too. I think I charged like $500 to $600 for a wedding back when I was going to school. And then prints beyond the his & hers set were separate. Of course that was a looooooog time ago but... The weddings were at friends houses, small community churches, public parks, or in someone's backyard - I shot one at Temple Square tho. Usually there were between 20 and 50 guests if you count the kids. Usually no one else had an SLR - certainly not at the ceremony anyway. I could book 3 to 6 of those a week during vacation. I was assuming the OP was performing or considering performing a similar caliber of service. I mean if it's high profile I guess he's not going to be asking about Panasonic cameras... This assumption is why I misunderstood your post as well.



    Quote Originally Posted by peterb View Post
    The question is, would a photographer be credible today if they showed up with a Nikon FM2? Or is substantial camera mass (and a doctor's certificate attesting to having completed a double hernia operation) the price of admission for acceptance by a client?
    I think it depends on your reputation, your salesmanship, and your portfolio. If your portfolio and rep are good you can get the customers. And we all know you can sell people on just abut anything if your salesmanship (marketing) is on game. Heck, people are now paying more for tap water than they do gasoline and no one complains a bit about it. Someone is an awfully good salesman! Of course if you're shooting high-profile gigs costing your customers thousands and thousands then rigging and "presence" is important too so the Panasonics in that case are for sure better left at home - capable or not!
    Last edited by Tesselator; 23rd December 2010 at 14:15.

  22. #22
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,126
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Peter

    After following the discussion it reminded me of Terry Richardson who promotes himself as only using a cheap Yashica p&s for his fashion photography (not sure if this is strictly true).

    He also seems to get a bevvy of pretty girls to work with him so perhaps there are benefits to working exclusively with kit like the G series?

    Advisory: if you are offended by pretty things in bathing suits, do not watch this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8i3VETLflk

    LouisB

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by Tesselator View Post
    Oh, I see what you're saying. Your reply to f6cvalkyrie clued me in.

    Yeah, I suppose you're right. Especially if it's some high profile type wedding. But common folk get married too. I think I charged like $500 to $600 for a wedding back when I was going to school. And then prints beyond the his & hers set were separate. Of course that was a looooooog time ago but... The weddings were at friends houses, small community churches, public parks, or in someone's backyard - I shot one at Temple Square tho. Usually there were between 20 and 50 guests if you count the kids. Usually no one else had an SLR - certainly not at the ceremony anyway. I could book 3 to 6 of those a week during vacation. I was assuming the OP was performing or considering performing a similar caliber of service. I mean if it's high profile I guess he's not going to be asking about Panasonic cameras... This assumption is why I misunderstood your post as well.
    I see what you mean, but I think you'd find now that time changes everything, nowadays everyone and their dog have dSLR cameras, and it might be that it was actually easier to get away with a G2 at a smart wedding (anti-snob - see Louis' post above) . . . . . as long as it wasn't ONLY a G2!

    Just this guy you know

  24. #24
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Yeah, probably true. And also that Youtube is mostly (completely?) BS (stunt?) too. I know Terry and he must have a million dollars of high-end gear!

  25. #25
    Senior Member peterb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Tysons Corner, Virginia
    Posts
    490
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by biglouis View Post
    Peter

    After following the discussion it reminded me of Terry Richardson who promotes himself as only using a cheap Yashica p&s for his fashion photography (not sure if this is strictly true).

    He also seems to get a bevvy of pretty girls to work with him so perhaps there are benefits to working exclusively with kit like the G series?

    Advisory: if you are offended by pretty things in bathing suits, do not watch this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8i3VETLflk

    LouisB
    Louis, believe it or not I'd actually seen that video before! Perhaps I should figure out a way to fashion a digital sensor on the back of an oatmeal box with a pinhole at the other end.
    Life is an infinite series of moments called..."now".
    My job is to capture them.

  26. #26
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Pushing the G's

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    It's nothing to do with whether it will 'do the job' . It's about whether the client believes you've 'done the job'.
    nayer a truer word said

    especially when so many clients seem to not know much about stuff. Uncle bobs dark shots "can be fixed in post" (to look ****e) while your images which were bang on each time will be regarded as having been touched up professionally (cos they do that) with hours of loving attention to detail.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •