Wedding Photography - Film only

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.

magicbastarder

there's only one place in ireland (well, in the six counties anyway) which still processes E6, that i know of - the fuji centre on abbey street. and they charge through the nose.
i know gunns had considered it, but i think physical space was a big issue.

ScumLord

Snowie wrote: »

man i know 4 or 5 good wedding photographers and they all say the same film is not cost effective.

I've found in Ireland "not cost effective" means, "I can make more money doing it another way". Maximising profits is ingrained in Irish people to such an extent they see no other way of doing things. It leaves no room for niche or even quality in some businesses.

vintagecosmos

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's only one place in ireland (well, in the six counties anyway) which still processes E6, that i know of - the fuji centre on abbey street. and they charge through the nose.
i know gunns had considered it, but i think physical space was a big issue.

I heard recently that they may not be replenishing their chemicals. A friend got back fairly faded 35mm slides.

I have 120 slide film which I want to use. Anyone know of a good place to develop it in the UK?

Cameraman

melekalikimaka wrote: »

30 shots buy a digital wedding tog and 30 shots from a film tog imo should not be in same price range.

Of course not - obviously whoever took the 30 best photos charges more

melekalikimaka

Cameraman wrote: »

Of course not - obviously whoever took the 30 best photos charges more

joking aside i think the medium deserves a premium

Cameraman

melekalikimaka wrote: »

joking aside i think the medium deserves a premium

I wouldn't agree - I don't think that the fact that film was used deserves a premium as such. It's the end result that counts.

However, I do think it's possible to use it as a marketing differentiator, and possibly be able to charge more, or get more business as a result - which is a different point.

magicbastarder

if a client specifically wants film, then a price premium is justified. if the photographer prefers film, then (s)he will be hard pressed to justify a price premium for it to the customer.

melekalikimaka

Cameraman wrote: »

I wouldn't agree - I don't think that the fact that film was used deserves a premium as such. It's the end result that counts.

Of course end results are important... personally I can see myself looking at a film wedding if choice was given, and would happily pay the premium it merits

ScumLord

Cameraman wrote: »

I wouldn't agree - I don't think that the fact that film was used deserves a premium as such. It's the end result that counts.

It deserves a premium because it costs more. The end results may be virtually identical to the lay person it doesn't negate the fact it's a more expensive process.

I think given the choice many might like to plump for the more expensive film shoot for weddings (in particular) if the differences are explained to them beforehand. If they are made to believe the best results will be with film they might want to go for it seeing as it's supposed to be a once in a lifetime event.

I can appreciate the difference between film and digital but I think digital is a better medium. I started with photoshop and got into photography from there so I'm always going to want to take a photo into photoshop before I'll even consider it finished. So to me a film picture feels pretty useless.

Cameraman

ScumLord wrote: »

It deserves a premium because it costs more. The end results may be virtually identical to the lay person it doesn't negate the fact it's a more expensive process.

I would have thought it did (negate the justification for charging more) - IF it's the end result which counts (which is what I believe).

I don't accept that the end result will (necessarily) be better with film - different maybe, but not necessarily better. And, before someone points out that you can get a look with film that you can't emulate with digital :

(a) I'm not convinced that's true - by the time you actually scan/edit/produce a print

(b) I don't aim to emulate a given film look anyway - I am trying to emulate reality, and the version of it I see in my head and am trying to achieve :-) That's where I put my learning efforts.


I suppose, the only reasons I see to use film are (a) Because you like it and (b) As a marketing differentiator. Both valid reasons BTW - but nothing to do with the quality of the end result (which depends more on the photographer).

I used film for years - B&W and transparencies - and if I thought it would produce better results - I'd use it (I still have a many of my old film cameras).