Family Pics

Sears is OK, nothing fancy. The price is right as long as you don't buy a bunch of extra stuff. Personally, I'd look for a independent portrait studio. You won't pay that much more, and it supports the local economy.

I'm with cjhsa - look for an independant photographer.

I'm not a big fan of Sears portraits. If you feel most comfortable with a big chain type place look at Picture People (inexpensive), Glamour Shots (medium to expensive) or..... there's some new chain..... I can't think of what they're called right now...... I've heard good things about them though.... let me go look.....

I've found that our local, independent studio, though a little more expensive, gives us more sitting time and takes way more shots. That way we're guaranteed to find at least one that we like.

Heck.

I can't find it. I know they're located in malls and that they do free retouching and do these cool digital backdrops.

For years, in a 2nd story loft on the El Camino Real in Los Altos, was a photographer's studio. Her name? Emma Hooker.

I always wondered what a private session might consist of.

Thanks for writing back. These are interesting suggestions. I guess I'd rather go to a portrait studio like Sears because I can sign up for a package apparently where I don't pay a sitting fee, called SmileSaver. And since we'll prolly start going more often esp wtih my sister having kids and stuff, this would be great. And, having looked at a many of their options, it looks like they have high quality photos and good options like sepia tone, etc. Plus then I could go and get some shopping done!

Has anyone ever used their digital services? The one near me is getting digital capabilities soon which would be cool. Not for my grandparents - they don't use computers - but for other pictures I do there ?

You don't want a good photo studio, dancingnancy, you want a good photographer!!! Don't go by the work you're shown online or by friends. Go to the studio and ask specific photographers to see their work. There is often a wide difference in quality between photographers in the same studio.

Also...digital services just make it easier for the photographer. You're able to see low-resolution versions of your pictures on a monitor immediately after they're taken, so they don't waste so much time & money processing film if you don't like them. If you select one or more of the photos you see on their monitor, they print out high-resolution copies for you which takes a week or two, same as non-digital. They won't give you the digital files because those are copyright. They want you to pay them for all your prints. In fact, most now print a copyright notice on every print.

That reminds me about Sears....

The place we went, they had a digital and a film camera, both taking pictures simultaneously. They showed you the digital, you purchased based on the digital, but they gave you the film print.

The problem was that the digital version we saw was different from the film version. Because of alignment problems and parallax.

Great idea! I will likely go down and check out the photographers at the Sears near me. It would be convenient anyway because I could do other stuff while I'm there.

About digital - isn't it nice though to be able to see the photos and eliminate bad ones and choose good ones? Plus the turnaround time would be quicker too right?

It IS nice to be able to see your shots right away instead of having to wait for proofs. That's true. But it didn't affect the total time it took to get my pictures. And as DrewDad said, the final prints can vary from what you saw on the monitor, so be careful. At least with film proofs, what you see is exactly what you'll get.

If the photographer is good, you will wind up with good photos either way. Just don't believe all the hype about digital services being superior. Photo studios love to promote their latest-greatest digital services and will claim it's a great improvement for their customers. But the truth is, they're changing to this because it saves THEM time and money. So take the hype with a grain of salt.

Digital is like state of the art in photography though, right? so I don't think it's hype. We'll see - based on what I've read I'm still gonna go to Sears for the fam portrait - will let you know how it goes. Thanks again!

Color saturation is still better on film.

For good photography, I would still always go with film. Digital is certainly convenient, and fun - but the quality of the resulting photos doesn't seem to be the same yet.

As much as I love my digital camera, if it's a seriously good picture I want - not a snapshot - I'll want to use film.

I shoot magazine-quality photos and work with top-notch commercial photographers, ehBeth. We've pretty much all gone digital now. Yes, the resolution and technology have improved that much. I have a 6.1 megapixel camera, and that's not half as good as the professional digital ones. Nobody I know except "art photographers" are using film anymore, and that's just because they like certain darkroom effects more than typical Photoshop effects for their particular style.

National Geographic's staff photographers have even gone digital now, and they've always been considered the cream of the crop.

That said, it is the artist that really counts, not the tool. You can get magnificent (and revolting) work from either process.

I agree that you can get revolting work from either process, and good work from either. I'd shop around, don't understand quite why you are so keen on Sears. But that's me, and it is probably convenient and comfortable for you. Perhaps as your children grow older you might consider exploring a bit with other photographers.

I am odd, though, in that I am your penultimate cartier bresson fan and don't really like concreted posed portraits.

I guess that sounds harsh, the concreted posed part of my sentence. That is my reaction to many of the photos I get with holiday mail. I'd so much rather have a candid snapshot of my real friends not this stiff posed stuff.

And a good pro photographer can do that on purpose.

I don't get the Sear's thing either. Somehow, any studio that poses people on a carpeted box is just beyond my ..... umm..... idea.... of a good portrait.

But as to the film v. digital debate....

I switched my studio to digital about 4 years ago. I still have all of the work printed at a photo lab, on photo paper, using a photo process, and that makes a huge difference in the finished quality of the print.

The great thing about digital is that the photographer gets immediate feedback on their lighting - something you could never do with film. If you go to a studio that lights every subject the exact same way you don't have a problem - you also don't have much creativity.

Sear's does have some big money so they are probably using a very high grade digital printer which is most likely much better than the crappy paper they used to use.

That's so true about the immediate feedback on lighting. I was working on product shots for a catalog a few years ago, and when we went to digital, it saved us literally weeks of time.

I am still shopping around - will try them first and if I don't like them will go back to the drawing board so to speak and look at other studios or options. Just saying that so far, they look ok. Cost is a factor for me folks - so I'm looking for reasonable cost and good value not crappy. That's why I'm wanting a "studio that poses people on a carpeted box" as someone said (and ps they do more than that, but I can appreciate the ribbing.) I have a lot of things in my budget so I have to be reasonable with this, that's all. Again, thanks for the input.