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.