Wedding Photography - Film only

vintagecosmos

Hi All,

I am new to the forum. I would consider myself an intermediate photographer. I use both digital and film (35mm and Medium) and enjoy capturing the moment as opposed to the art. well maybe because my arty pictures dont quite make the cut

Anywho, I ran into a photographer recently who photographed an entire wedding in film. I thought this was quite intriguing and I became curious if anyone else has done this. What do you think would the reactions of the bride to be if you said you would use film etc.

I guess as a photographer I would be nervous, but then again couldnt as much go wrong with digital?

amdgilmore

People were shooting weddings on film for decades without any ill effects. You might see a roll lost, or damaged during development, but the odds of him accidentally ruining the 50-odd rolls he'd shoot at a wedding are pretty slim.

Personally, I'd bring a DSLR and alternate between the two as an insurance policy. But then I'm neither a wedding photographer nor even a particularly good photographer.

vintagecosmos

I have only recently gone back to shooting with film. Im using some old camera for fun like a Russian Leica (Zorki) and a Mamiya 645 and have to admit my heart skips a beat when open the envelope to see if the negs have come out ok.

Yes a policy of digital and film would be a safe bet. This video comes to mind

pullandbang

amdgilmore wrote: »

People were shooting weddings on film for decades without any ill effects. You might see a roll lost, or damaged during development, but the odds of him accidentally ruining the 50-odd rolls he'd shoot at a wedding are pretty slim.

Personally, I'd bring a DSLR and alternate between the two as an insurance policy. But then I'm neither a wedding photographer nor even a particularly good photographer.

My wedding was shot on film and I'm sure the photographer didn't shoot 50 odd rolls or anything like it. In fact I can safely say he shot no more than two rolls (35mm) if even that. Only recently we had a photographer who worked in Edmund Ross Studios give us a talk in our club. He used a Hasselblad and would shoot 36 images at a wedding. The bride then got to choose 24 for the album.

melekalikimaka

vintagecosmos wrote: »

Hi All,

I am new to the forum. I would consider myself an intermediate photographer. I use both digital and film (35mm and Medium) and enjoy capturing the moment as opposed to the art. well maybe because my arty pictures dont quite make the cut

Anywho, I ran into a photographer recently who photographed an entire wedding in film. I thought this was quite intriguing and I became curious if anyone else has done this. What do you think would the reactions of the bride to be if you said you would use film etc.

I guess as a photographer I would be nervous, but then again couldnt as much go wrong with digital?

there is something distinct about a image captured in film that i find beautiful. I would do it myself if i had a better film camera (ive a nikon f90x) I'm doing a wedding next month and plan too bring it and knock off a few rolls of bw in addition to the digital, there is a serios market for film only weddings, I'd probably want it myself if i ever got married... maybe even large format

vintagecosmos

pullandbang wrote: »

My wedding was shot on film and I'm sure the photographer didn't shoot 50 odd rolls or anything like it. In fact I can safely say he shot no more than two rolls (35mm) if even that. Only recently we had a photographer who worked in Edmund Ross Studios give us a talk in our club. He used a Hasselblad and would shoot 36 images at a wedding. The bride then got to choose 24 for the album.

I guess today some people think more is better. But 24 quality pictures for me would be cherished more than 300+. Medium format would also be amazing I'm sure. I was at a wedding recently where they used a fisheye lens for half the shots. A couple were nice, but a couple of dozen was just too much in my opinion. The classical the better, with the focus on the bride and groom.

DaireQuinlan

melekalikimaka wrote: »

...maybe even large format

Why stop there...

http://petapixel.com/2013/07/15/wedding-tintype-portraits-with-a-massive-20x24-1800s-camera/

amdgilmore

pullandbang wrote: »

My wedding was shot on film and I'm sure the photographer didn't shoot 50 odd rolls or anything like it. In fact I can safely say he shot no more than two rolls (35mm) if even that. Only recently we had a photographer who worked in Edmund Ross Studios give us a talk in our club. He used a Hasselblad and would shoot 36 images at a wedding. The bride then got to choose 24 for the album.

That's quite a hit-rate - but then again the Hasselblad doesn't really allow for fast shooting. Were they staged photos?

I was under the impression that wedding photographers usually took a few hundred pictures.

vintagecosmos

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Why stop there...

http://petapixel.com/2013/07/15/wedding-tintype-portraits-with-a-massive-20x24-1800s-camera/

Very cool. A little eerie but cool. I couldnt see many candid/reportage type shots though. how could you ignore that thing pointed at you

DaireQuinlan

amdgilmore wrote: »

That's quite a hit-rate - but then again the Hasselblad doesn't really allow for fast shooting. Were they staged photos?

A certain amount of spontaneity is certainly possible using a MF SLR , bronica in my case, but the principle is the same. The vast majority of my 6x6 shots are posed, but some are just shot off the hip so to speak.

vintagecosmos

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

A certain amount of spontaneity is certainly possible using a MF SLR , bronica in my case, but the principle is the same. The vast majority of my 6x6 shots are posed, but some are just shot off the hip so to speak.

Using the waist level viewfinder I find is a great way to take these pics. People tend to be less disturbed as you aren't gazing right at them. If you can gauge distance and your focus ring is numbered in metres you could be quite quick I'd imagine. I have trouble converting feet to metres at times quick enough :rolleyes:

amdgilmore

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

A certain amount of spontaneity is certainly possible using a MF SLR , bronica in my case, but the principle is the same. The vast majority of my 6x6 shots are posed, but some are just shot off the hip so to speak.

It's a bronica in my case now too

Can't imagine shooting from the hip with it. Although I have it on a shoulder strap and the other day it hit off my hip and the shutter fired.

vintagecosmos

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

A certain amount of spontaneity is certainly possible using a MF SLR , bronica in my case, but the principle is the same. The vast majority of my 6x6 shots are posed, but some are just shot off the hip so to speak.

Amazing photography, just beautiful. Do you develop yourself?

Have you used any other lenses besides 80mm?

DaireQuinlan

amdgilmore wrote: »

It's a bronica in my case now too

Can't imagine shooting from the hip with it. Although I have it on a shoulder strap and the other day it hit off my hip and the shutter fired.

you're lucky your hip didn't just break I don't actually literally shoot from the hip, I just meant in a more spontaneous fashion than getting everyone to line up and pose before taking the shot.

magicbastarder

i've shot four weddings (but no funeral); one was shot entirely on film, the second shot half on film.
they were the first two i shot, so not good for the nerves.

amdgilmore

Well I was carrying an RB67 for the previous three months so a bronica feels like a fluffy pillow by comparison

DaireQuinlan

amdgilmore wrote: »

Well I was carrying an RB67 for the previous three months so a bronica feels like a fluffy pillow by comparison

yeesh yes they're large. Although I've recently gotten a Mamiya Super 23. Not terribly heavy but it's the most godawful awkward camera in the world. It's designed entirely for functionality, so much so that it's nearly impossible to do something like take it out of or put it into a bag without cursing for 10 minutes as bits of it catch on things.

pullandbang

amdgilmore wrote: »

That's quite a hit-rate - but then again the Hasselblad doesn't really allow for fast shooting. Were they staged photos?

I was under the impression that wedding photographers usually took a few hundred pictures.

Well back when I got married all the shots were staged/posed. The candid - documentary style you see nowadays didn't really exist back then.

The guy that shot mine used a 35mm, not the Hassie but we got to see all the shots and it was no more than 72 pics.
The Hasselblad guy was just giving us a talk on something or other. It was him that only shot 36 pics. In fact he said he was only given 3 rolls of 12 by his boss when he went out to do a wedding so he had to get it right.

melekalikimaka

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Why stop there...

http://petapixel.com/2013/07/15/wedding-tintype-portraits-with-a-massive-20x24-1800s-camera/

ah thats pretty awesome, would not come cheap i imagine

ScumLord

I would assume from a business point of view it would be more expensive and time consuming to shot in film. From that point of view do you charge more for film or take the hit? Because the customer isn't going to appreciate the difference.

thebaz

ScumLord wrote: »

I would assume from a business point of view it would be more expensive and time consuming to shot in film. From that point of view do you charge more for film or take the hit? Because the customer isn't going to appreciate the difference.

considering the going rate for wedding photography a couple of rolls of film , would have little bearing - I like the idea of just shooting a couple of rolls of film - but, the reality today is that ther is a near expectancy to provide a minimum of about 80 shots of a wedding - and that would have little appeal to me - 20 good shots should be eneogh , but because people are paying so much, they expect quantity.

ScumLord

thebaz wrote: »

considering the going rate for wedding photography a couple of rolls of film , would have little bearing

What about the cost of processing them, the time it takes, sending off for larger prints?

You have to factor in your own time in the cost too don't you?

vintagecosmos

Good discussion folks.

Out of curiosity does anyone know if anyone did ever lose their images (film or digital) of a wedding event? How does one indemnify themselves from that. Hope it never happens to anyone.

DaireQuinlan

ScumLord wrote: »

What about the cost of processing them, the time it takes, sending off for larger prints?

Cost of processing them is negligible. I can do X rolls (where X is the amount of rolls I can fit into one tank) in about 30 minutes for an outlay of about €1 per roll in chemicals. That's C-41, B&W would be less or more expensive depending on how I was doing it. If I was set up for volume I'd very probably have one of those JOBO yokes, which automates some of the process.

Scanning them, for me, is time consuming, but again if I was doing this professionally I'd have something like a Nikon ls5000 that I could just throw an entire roll through in one go, or something like an Epson 750 which would scan at more than enough quality for wedding prints and 8x10s.

Once you have your scans you're in exactly the same position as a digital shooter WRT editing. Probably less time consuming in that regard because you'd likely have an order of magnitude more shots shooting digital.

amdgilmore

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

yeesh yes they're large. Although I've recently gotten a Mamiya Super 23. Not terribly heavy but it's the most godawful awkward camera in the world. It's designed entirely for functionality, so much so that it's nearly impossible to do something like take it out of or put it into a bag without cursing for 10 minutes as bits of it catch on things.

I really want one of those. They're very versatile.

But I think I need to just stop spending money on cameras and lenses for a while.

Corkbah

vintagecosmos wrote: »

Good discussion folks.

Out of curiosity does anyone know if anyone did ever lose their images (film or digital) of a wedding event? How does one indemnify themselves from that. Hope it never happens to anyone.

insurance !!

thefizz

This guy is highly sought after in the US and shoots his weddings on a Speed Graphic.

http://richardisraelphotographer.4ormat.com/

.

Corkbah

on the subject of wedding photography ...spotted this comment by captain midnight and thought I would see other people's opinion on it - not trying to derail thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057008737&page=2

(sorry - dont know how to isolate a single quote)

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yeah it's just a publicity stunt


TBH this smacks of the same sort of Mé Fein stuff that wedding photographers do where they hang on to the copyright so the can fleece the guests as well. :mad:

Who'd want to buy a painting if you don't get the rights to show it publicly ??

Even then we have "fair dealing" rights


Also there is no accounting for taste - are the pi

oh wait ... it's that Kevin Sharkey ... always wondered what he was up to these days :pac:

http://www.newirishart.com/irish-artists/kevin-sharkey-artist.htm


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_SharkeyThe clue is in the name

also do you think those people would have the right to sue him ?

vintagecosmos

Corkbah wrote: »

insurance !!

Equipment yes. But how about the compensation for the client?

Corkbah

vintagecosmos wrote: »

Equipment yes. But how about the compensation for the client?

its all covered depending on your insurance policy.

balfey1975 is the insurance goto guy around here (I think thats the correct username)

magicbastarder

Corkbah wrote: »

on the subject of wedding photography ...spotted this comment by captain midnight and thought I would see other people's opinion on it - not trying to derail thread.

this has come up for discussion before; i think the general consensus was that as long as the photographer is up front about his or her policy on copyright before the job, either option is fair enough.

ScumLord

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Once you have your scans you're in exactly the same position as a digital shooter WRT editing. Probably less time consuming in that regard because you'd likely have an order of magnitude more shots shooting digital.

It can be easy enough to spot the photos you want once they're on screen though.

I was just wondering from a cost point of view would you want to charge more, there are extra stages of processing, there's more stages for things to go wrong (it can happen with digital too but adding stages to the processing is going to slightly increase your risk). Do you factor in those costs or as it's the photographer that's deciding to use film is it on the photographers head because of his personal preference.

melekalikimaka

ScumLord wrote: »

It can be easy enough to spot the photos you want once they're on screen though.

I was just wondering from a cost point of view would you want to charge more, there are extra stages of processing, there's more stages for things to go wrong (it can happen with digital too but adding stages to the processing is going to slightly increase your risk). Do you factor in those costs or as it's the photographer that's deciding to use film is it on the photographers head because of his personal preference.

you would charge alot more, I would anyway, film photography is something many digital photographers just wouldnt be able to do to a professional standard, its a skill thats in short supply and results, when done right, are something that stand out of the crowd, and merit a premium

ScumLord

melekalikimaka wrote: »

you would charge alot more, I would anyway, film photography is something many digital photographers just wouldnt be able to do to a professional standard, its a skill thats in short supply and results, when done right, are something that stand out of the crowd, and merit a premium

That's what I was thinking. So would film be an option to the customer, or would you decide? I can't think too many customers would have the knowledge to know what the difference would be.

Cameraman

Just curious - but what is the difference ?

I.E. What can film do that can't be emulated by digital.

By emulated, I mean produce a print or album images where the medium is irrelevant or can't be discerned, and the result is what was intended by the photographer.

amdgilmore

From a purely technical point of view, many films have better dynamic range than digital. Medium format is also higher 'resolution', if you can call it that, than almost any DSLR.

But it's the more subjective stuff that draws people to it. The look of film (grain, tones, colour in the case of certain films) is almost impossible to emulate with digital.

melekalikimaka

ScumLord wrote: »

That's what I was thinking. So would film be an option to the customer, or would you decide? I can't think too many customers would have the knowledge to know what the difference would be.

tbh i would go with a photographer who solely did film if i was going down that route, film isnt really something you 'dabble' in to a professional standard, wedding even more so

thebaz

Cameraman wrote: »

Just curious - but what is the difference ?

I.E. What can film do that can't be emulated by digital.

the colours on film are much more natural than digital , some would argue , but to my eyes they are usually nicer or more subtle .

Black and White is usually much wonderful than any digital conversion - in fact it is really hard to get b&w right using a digital conversion -again many will disagree, but I think it is black and white where film wins hands down.

amdgilmore

Completely subjective, but still on the topic of the advantages of film, I've found that I do very little post-processing on film photos (although if I'm bored I occasionally do some physical manipulation, like scratches).

With digital, the shot you get straight out of the camera is a sort of inoffensive middle-ground, with bland, lacklustre colours. It usually needs post-processing to make it look good. When I was mostly using digital I used to spend ages tweaking photos in Lightroom, and I never seemed to be able to get them to look the way I wanted them to look.

With film I find the developed photo is usually pretty close to how I pictured it when I took the shot. As I mentioned, there is more than a little subjectivity in this, but it's also important to remember that literally decades of research and expertise went into creating the colour reproduction of films like Portra and Ektar.

magicbastarder

i dunno. i think the expectation that RAW files need to be processed gives people more 'licence' to do more processing on them; plus, when i'm scanning, i often adjust scanning parameters to produce the best result - which is not too different from tweaking shadows/exposure/etc. when processing RAW.

amdgilmore

magicbastarder wrote: »

i dunno. i think the expectation that RAW files need to be processed gives people more 'licence' to do more processing on them

I'd agree with that, and I do think some people have a tendency to go overboard with it.

I don't want the above post to read as 'film is better than digital', though, even if I do prefer it.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that because certain films are tailor made for certain situations, there's firstly a conscious decision by the photographer to use that film for that specific purpose, and secondly a consistency of results. The combination of those factors usually means that photos come out looking close to the way I visualised them and need less post-processing.

eas

Been a while since I posted anything here, this discussion is quite interesting. I've been curious about the market for film only wedding photography in Ireland myself, not necessarily because I'm considering a step in that direction, but just professional curiosity (I work full time as a wedding photographer).

There is a strong resurgence of MF wedding coverage in other countries and to a smaller degree in Ireland as well. The markets in places like the US and Oz are much different than here, and in particular they are large enough to support niche services as film only coverage. I know of one person who has since left Ireland who promoted herself as a "film photographer" and sold the advantages of film very well. There are currently a few others who do hybrid coverage where they'll use a roll or two of 120 for the portraits but digital for everything else. I've started bringing a MF to some weddings if I feel there'll be an appreciation for it.

Ultimately, from a business perspective the cost of dev & scanning at the level required and the exclusivity of the service itself does require a premium and at the moment I don't think there are enough people in Ireland willing to pay it. Also, as mentioned, peoples expectations are so different now with regards to how many photos they'll get.

If you can put a face on the resurgence of film based wedding photography it would probably be Jose Villa. http://josevilla.com/

A.Partridge

Interesting post.

I shot 2 weddings in 2010 using a Hasselblad and Pentax ...all film images.

The couples loved them.


One thing to notice about film is that the pictures can look different for two reasons. Obviously, shooting on film can deliver a very uique 'look' to the images. But the biggest difference is the equipment used. The Hasselblad forces you to work in a more formal way, which is not necessarily a bad thing IMO.

Kazujo

I got married 6 years ago and the photographer shot it all on film with a Hasselblad and a Nikon, something that I did not truly appreciate at the time as I was only getting into photography myself.

I have a few old film cameras now and I'm always amazed at the results I get from them. I find the color and dynamic range from the film cameras is much better than digital and the metering seems to be more accurate alot of the time.

elven

The premium that people pay for film based wedding photography is often less to do with the processing overhead (although I've listened to US podcasts where film photographers say they use pro labs and it can cost them up to $800 dev/print per wedding, they usually include a box of proof prints which may cost more to produce than a DVD/USB key) or perceived risks and more to do with the implied* extra skill required to shoot on film, and the speciality nature of the market. As a 'wedding trend' I'm not sure if it's going to keep growing and reach Ireland in volume, or stay as a particularly niche thing. In general though, the people who specifically look for a film based wedding photographer are looking for a particular look that you get from the guys who shoot film, plus that whole high end 'fine art' quality over quantity type package which does include a level of exclusivity, luxury branding and excellent customer service that often goes along with the film wdding photography market. Of course there are non-film shooters who provide that stuff too, it's just very unusual to see a film photographer who doesn't have that whole thing down.

I personally haven't gone back to film (beyond polaroids), because i saw it as a magical thing but the big gap between shooting and developing killed me, and I hated the flatness of C41 prints - I was addicted to velvia For a wedding, I'd hate to have to carry a separate body for different speed films or colour/bw, and not have the option of having the option of converting to my own taste afterwards. I know people rave about film bw compared to digital but i always hated shooting bw film in the first place!

*I say implied because lots of people think that if you shoot on film you're automatically a better photographer, but there's poor film photography out there and there's very impressive digitally based stuff. I've seen too many film wedding shots where they haven't nailed the focus but OMG IT'S FILM SO IT'S AMAZEBALLS! The format doesn't necessarily dictate, and the vast quantities of poor digital photography out there shouldn't take away from the skill of the people who are doing it well. (In no way am I saying that's me btw!)

Snowie

A.Partridge wrote: »

. The Hasselblad forces you to work in a more formal way, which is not necessarily a bad thing IMO.

Oh god next thing yout going to say is that you like looking at couple shots of very dim and unexpresionless faces with there hands bye there sides :pac:

melekalikimaka wrote: »

you would charge alot more, I would anyway, film photography is something many digital photographers just wouldnt be able to do to a professional standard, its a skill thats in short supply and results, when done right, are something that stand out of the crowd, and merit a premium

man i know 4 or 5 good wedding photographers and they all say the same film is not cost effective. In this day and age your more likely to end up selling your self very short in terms of an actual income which effectively means your going to need a second job.

I agree with you I just don't think its cost effective these days.

melekalikimaka

Snowie wrote: »

man i know 4 or 5 good wedding photographers and they all say the same film is not cost effective. In this day and age your more likely to end up selling your self very short in terms of an actual income which effectively means your going to need a second job.

I agree with you I just don't think its cost effective these days.

its only not cost effective if you try to market it against digital, its not, and it is a more expensive process and as such should have a higher price tag. 30 shots buy a digital wedding tog and 30 shots from a film tog imo should not be in same price range.

Snowie

melekalikimaka wrote: »

its only not cost effective if you try to market it against digital, its not, and it is a more expensive process and as such should have a higher price tag. 30 shots buy a digital wedding tog and 30 shots from a film tog imo should not be in same price range.

I'm sorry, but its not cost effective and your being a romanticist!

magicbastarder

did he not just agree with you?

andy1249

Used to love film myself , still do , had my wedding done on MF film by a guy using a couple of Contax 645's.

However , the hassle involved getting some films developed these days is just too much. My favourite used to be fuji velvia , but the circus I had to go through to get my last rolls done put me off completely.
Most dont do it anymore , those that do charge an arm and a leg.

Recently, I found 7 rolls of film lying around , decided to dig out the old camera and use them. 2 rolls of ilford and 5 rolls of color. Processing costs and 7 x 4 prints cost 100 euro plus.
This for approx 150 shots.

At those prices , film is dead for me. I'll stick with my dSLR's.

For a Wedding photographer , and considering the amount of work involved in preparing for and shooting this single event , Film is going to be at a very high premium I should imagine.

thefizz

andy1249 wrote: »

Used to love film myself , still do , had my wedding done on MF film by a guy using a couple of Contax 645's.

However , the hassle involved getting some films developed these days is just too much. My favourite used to be fuji velvia , but the circus I had to go through to get my last rolls done put me off completely.
Most dont do it anymore , those that do charge an arm and a leg.

Recently, I found 7 rolls of film lying around , decided to dig out the old camera and use them. 2 rolls of ilford and 5 rolls of color. Processing costs and 7 x 4 prints cost 100 euro plus.
This for approx 150 shots.

At those prices , film is dead for me. I'll stick with my dSLR's.

For a Wedding photographer , and considering the amount of work involved in preparing for and shooting this single event , Film is going to be at a very high premium I should imagine.

I doubt any photographer would have shot weddings on transparency film.