Calling digital photography experts

Willem Fick · 11-23-2006, 10:18 PM

I have received a quote from a wedding photographer, which states:

"Images shot on a 12.6 million mega pixel Nikon D2X camera . Edited on Apple G5 and burnt to disc at 300 dpi"

Now, I'm still a bit at a loss regarding dpi, mega pixels etc, and have no idea how to relate this to image quality...

At "only" 300 dpi, would I be able to enlarge these pictures without losing too much quality? I would like to blow them up to around 30 X 42 cm, but would obviously like the end product to be of reasonable quality!

alf · 11-23-2006, 11:24 PM

I think your photographer is a little confused. 12.6 *million* mega pixles is more than the D2X or any current camera could handle. Its max res is 12.4 Mega Pixels.

I thought DPI is a measure of printing resolution not sure what it has to do with burning to a disc.

Hope your photographer is better at taking pics than describing his media.

Just get the raw files.

Joeaksa · 11-24-2006, 12:32 AM

Have to agree. He has his data mixed up.

Might think twice about using this guy... Especially for something as important as a wedding.

gchappel · 11-24-2006, 02:27 AM

Nikon d2x is 12.4 megapixels- at least mine is.
The 300 dpi comment really doesn't tell you anything. You can save a jpg or tiff at any size@300 dpi. If I save a 4x6" size file @300 dpi it is roughly a 6Meg file. If I save a d2x file directly it is 14.5x9.5 @ 300dpi, or roughly a 69Meg file. I have printed the latter at 20x30in. with no problems at all.
I would look at this guys pictures- some of the best, most artistic photographers I know do not know crap one about the specifications of their equipment. Others, like me, know all the book work- but no artistic skill. It sounds like he is new to the game though. Find out how large the saved files are. Shooting a wedding is hard work, and a good photographer is worth his/her weight in memory cards- the experienced ones can help run the show.
Good luck
Gary

Joeaksa · 11-24-2006, 02:32 AM

Gary,

Can you shoot in raw format? I can with my Leica Digilux and end up with ONE photo that is 20-30 megabites in size. The quality is unbelieveable and have enlarged them up to 10x with no pixel showing.

Really uses up a 1 gig SD memory card fast but the quality is very nice.

gchappel · 11-24-2006, 02:48 AM

On the d2x there are 2 raw file formats you can use. Raw gives a file size of about 20meg. Just about everyone I know shoots in compressed raw- gives a file size of about 12meg. Nikon claims this is lossless compression.? Some algorithims suggest there may be some slight loss in the highlights with compression- but I am not aware of anyone that has shown it to be visible in the real world. 20meg files get tough to throw around. The last wedding I shot we took over 1700 raw images. We use 8gig cards. The largest I have printed is 20x30inches, but files from this, and similar cameras, are blown up to billboard size all the time. That Leica is a nice camera- I think that is a 5-7 megapixel camera-right?
Shoot more
Gary

Joeaksa · 11-24-2006, 04:51 AM

Gary,

Correct on the size and with that massive lens, I have never had a pixel issue, no matter how large I have blown an image up, so am very happy with it.

Could go with the 2-8 gig cards but not ready to spend the bux just yet! Sounds like you do it for a living but its just fun for me!

Joe

Willem Fick · 11-24-2006, 05:42 AM

Thanks guys, you have really helped me a lot here!

Our problem is that we are getting married in a very small (but spectacular) seaside village. Our only realistic option is to use the local photographer, who is good I have to admit, but at the same time a complete prick.

Up to now my fiancee has dealt with him, and my personal view is that he has been feeding her a hell of a lot of hot air, so as to get her to part with as much money as possible.

Our wedding party will consist of 30 people only, yet he is trying to sell her packages of hundreds of pictures, at literally thousands of dollars. I feel is this not what we want, yet every query thrown his way is countered by either some technical BS or some other non-sensical answers.

By last night my fiancee was literally in tears and I think that it is time for someone his own size (well much bigger) to join the fray, and now I can at least feign some authority when I speak to him!

gchappel · 11-24-2006, 08:59 AM

Sorry, I ride Shimano.
Sounds like you need to watch the father of the bride movies.
If you don't have much choice in photographers- he knows it- your best bet may be to suck it up and pay for it. This is not the time to have your fiance upset. Some of these guys think their talents are unlimited, as are your funds. Wedding photographers are expensive- and the GOOD ones are worth it.
Good luck, don't let the photographer selection ruin the experience.
Gary

alf · 11-24-2006, 09:09 AM

I paid dearly for a wedding photographer, but found the pictures taken by my brother running around with his camera the ones that i cherished the most.

Alf

911pcars · 11-24-2006, 12:21 PM

William,
Judge this guy on the quality of the pics he takes. Ask to review his portfolio. How many people asked Picasso what size brush he uses?

Sherwood

svandamme · svandamme's Garage

just don't get married
leg it , it's not to late to preserve your freedom

StevoRocket · StevoRocket's Garage

For thousands I'll fly over with a couple of friends and take as many as you need with digital and film and video.

Steve Carlton · 11-24-2006, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 911pcars
William,
Judge this guy on the quality of the pics he takes. Ask to review his portfolio. How many people asked Picasso what size brush he uses?

Sherwood

This is the best advice here. He's got a great camera body, although the lens is probably more important. It's going to boil down to his ability to use the camera and post-processing software, his artistic sense, and his ability to manage the party. Looking at his work is the best way to judge. If his work's good, buck up and hire him. Maybe just assert yourself somewhat on the package. Like gchappel said, the good ones are expensive and worth it. Perhaps look at some websites of guys that are good to help you get a feel for nice work? This guy did my wedding (in black & white):

http://www.bruceforrester.com/photographer.htm

We also planted disposable cameras on the tables; a great idea.

Willem Fick · 11-27-2006, 02:07 AM

Hi guys,

Thanks for all the feedback!

Our issue was not with his artistic skills, but mainly with the format in which the final product was to be delivered, and then with what is expected for the day.

We agreed on a set of prints, as can be expected, but also requested a cd with all the digital images from the day, and this is where the quality issue lay that I brought up at the start of this thread.

The second issue, that of package size, came from the fact that our wedding will be a very intimate affair, with only 30 guests, and we are not keen on having a photographer around during the celebration, as we would find it very disruptive. There is nothing worse that having every bite you take lit up by a flash! For this part of the festivities we have opted for disposable cameras, as many of you also suggested.

No matter how much, and how tactfully we tried to explain this, the guy was not willing to discuss any package smaller than 250 pictures, as he sees this as his "economic breakpoint". That is now as opposed to having no assignment, and hence no income on the day, as we are getting married on a Tuesday morning! When you also consider that he lives two or three miles from the venue, and therfore doesn't even have any real travel cost, this whole "breakpoint" issue becomes quite laughable!

Ultimately this whole "discussion" has lead to his sending off a couple of very ill-worded e-mails to my fiancee, with the nett effect that he has now been sent to hell.

In his place we have decided to "import" a photographer for the day, whos work is great, but whos attitude is also just far more in tune with what we expected in the first place. She is a fashion photographer, so hopefully she can make even me look good on the day!

Joeaksa · 11-27-2006, 02:11 AM

Willem,

Believe that if you find someone that you can work with that both of you will be more comfortable and thus the result will be better.

As well I liked the idea of providing disposable camera's to the guests and letting them take candid shots. Just tell them of the times that you do not need the flash's going off and let them do the rest.

StevoRocket · StevoRocket's Garage

Here's my friends daughters site for some ideas....

http://www.photomegorgeous.com/weddings/index.php

john70t · 11-27-2006, 04:28 AM

For the same cost, why not buy a good 3ccd+ Cannon or Nikon digital 35mm?

Have the best photographer in the family "give" it to you as a wedding present and chip in whatever.

911pcars · 11-27-2006, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by john70t
For the same cost, why not buy a good 3ccd+ Cannon or Nikon digital 35mm?

Have the best photographer in the family "give" it to you as a wedding present and chip in whatever.

John70t,
The "best photographer in the family" is relative (no pun intended). Use a pro. It'll be better in the end. Capturing a scene is not the same as taking a picture. In addition, not a good time to receive, learn and use a new digital camera - right before a big wedding.

MHO,
Sherwood

john70t · 11-27-2006, 09:50 AM

Yes, you're probably right, but everyones definition of "formal" is a little different.
Except for the big lineup finale, having a couple of competant teens sneaking around and getting everyones non-posed expressions would give a lot more and truer memories of the day.

Extra memory sticks and photoshop afterwards can take care of wide-angle mistakes.