>Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding
>photographer and commercial photographers is?
Depends on a number of variables like location, type of commercial work in
the case of commercial photography, type of weddding coverage in the case of
wedding photography, what is to be provided the client by way of services,
and finished products, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Robert Meier
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:52 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial
photography
I have been talking with a few wedding and commercial photographers who
expressed their intention to go digital. Cameras mentioned were Fuji S1
and Nikon D1x both with 6 Mpixel. Now these same photographers, as all
others, say MF is absolutely necessary for the big enlargments. This
seems to be a contradiction as the digital cameras mentioned only
produce approx. a 6M*12bit=9Mbyte file compared to about
(2*4000)^2*36bit=274Mbytes for a 4000dpi scan or approx 1000Mbytes
assuming film has an 'equivalent' of about 8000dpi.
Assuming you want a 24x20 print @300dpi you need
24*20*300*300*8bit/channel*3channels=124Mbytes of data. The digital
camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes. This is about 124/6=20,
i.e. 19 out of 20 pixels have to be interpolated. That sounds quite
unresonable to me. Does anybody have any experience with that and
throughs their MF scannera away to go digital?
Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding
photographer and commercial photographers is?
Robert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
