Which wedding camera delivers best images?

[SteveWhittaker]

I regularly photograph weddings with a Canon 10D + 28-135IS plus
other lens and I'm struggling with the quality compared to when
film was used. My images are 'flat' laking 'contrast' and 'colour'
when downloaded and viewed on the monitor, which incidentally is
calibrated regularly with a Spyder. I've tested the quality by getting
the lab to print as shot to verify.... not impressed.

Whilst a lot is written in the magazines about how digital can
transform your images with the help of Photoshop, I find taking in
the region of 2-300 images and then working on them in PS is not
quite what I'm wanting to be doing after the wedding. I'd like to
print (near perfect) out of camera previews, then work on the brides
selection for album presentaion.

I also own a Canon G6 Powershot that produces perfect (well
almost) images that require very litle human intervention. Nice
camera but hardly a pro camera to turn up with at a wedding!

Anyway, to the question. I'd like to know which camera
would you 'rate' as the best for a wedding photographer to deliver
colourful images with that 'WOW' factor, straight out of the
camera?

Am I expecting to much?

[Nikolay_Abadjiev]

Actually 28-135IS is not the best lens for DSLR shooting it has some serious sharpness issues. Get a 24-70/2,8L and you'll be amazed by the difference.

Point-and-shoot cameras have much more "in-camera" image processing - sharpening, saturation etc. That's why they are delivering more contrasty, sharp and colorfull images right away.

DSLR RAW files on the other side are usually kind of dull right from the camera. Creating an action in Photoshop for saturation, contrast, sharpening, tonal correction and everything else you may need is an easy job. Running it in "batch processing" mode on your image folders is even easier! :-)

[KevinWeatherly]

Steve, you have the option to record a jpeg file along with a RAW for each shot with the 10D so why not try recording a decent sized jpeg at whatever camera settings you find give the best "quality" and use the jpeg as a proof and as a later reference for your processed RAW, then work on the RAW image when your bride chooses her photographs? RAW files do look flat and horrible which is why they need post processing, jpegs are processed in camera but don't have the latitude for post correction.

[Doug_Kerr]

Hi, Nikolay,

[ QUOTE ]
DSLR RAW files on the other side are usually kind of dull right from the camera.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand. One cannot view a raw file "out of the camera". They must be "developed" (to use a metaphor) and there is considerable flexibiliy available in most raw file converters to vary the appearance of the resulting image in much the same way that the camera offers flexibility in varying the appearance of the image that is presented in JPEG form.

Certainly, getting the final image appearance the photographer or editor wants for various purposes can often be best done, regardless of the image delivery format from the camera, by further processing in Picture Publisher or another image editor, such as one of the Photoshop products.

[Mark_Farrell]

I suspect Steve is shooting large JPEG and not RAW and may not want to if he's trying to avoid post processing of 200-300 images. I found the 20D similiar in that the images weren't as vibrant as a P/S type cameras. Following advice of others I played around a bit with the Parameters for Contrast, Sharpness, and Saturation in the camera and came up with some settings that were an improvement and I'm reasonably close to what I had with a P/S camera. For the shots I deem particularly important during a wedding I will switch to RAW to ensure that if something needs a tweak I can do it later in Photoshop. This also avoids chewing up memory cards quickly.

Mark........

[Nikolay_Abadjiev]

[ QUOTE ]
One cannot view a raw file "out of the camera". They must be "developed" (to use a metaphor) and there is considerable flexibiliy available in most raw file converters to vary the appearance of the resulting image

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually i was refering to a RAW file converted without serious utilization of the flexibility you're talking about. You'll be amazed to know how many people are using their RAW converters with "all default" settings. That's what i mean by saying "RAW out of the camera". :-)

They just load RAW files, click OK... and than the complaints begin, most of them being related to "dull colors", "poor contrast" etc. Thats why every time someone is dissapointed by DSLR files /compared to PS camera files/ i tend to believe thats because of the "default RAW conversion" approach.

p.s.
Actually i'm not a guy who needs to be persuaded about advantages of RAW files and post-processing.

[Ben_Rubinstein]

For wedding work in ACR, shadows=3 contrast=40 saturation=14 when working with the 10D. That was applied as default and worked from there.