my wedding equipment

I typically use a Nikon F4 (50mm f1.4 man. focus lens) with colour

neg film and SB24 on a flip bracket, and a Mamiya 6 (75mm) with HP5+

and Vivitar 283. I use the F4 handheld for candid shots and mount

it on a tripod for staged shots of individuals, the couple, and

groups. The Mamiya 6 is hand held only, good setups are re-done in

B+W after the colour shot is taken, and I try to get artsy B+W

candids with it as well. Last week I added a new camera, a Konica

Hexar AF (non-removable 35mm f2 lens) with colour neg film and its

dedicated flash. I used this for casual shots at the reception and

I was very pleased with how it handled and the results. (It is much

lighter than the F4 with that extra battery grip.) I could now be

even less obtrusive while taking candid shots.

 

Question: Does anyone else use a smaller rangefinder 35 type camera

at weddings?

Yes. For unobtrusive, low-light photography, there's nothing

better.<div></div>

Frank, I've used a Canonet g3 for yrs. Also have Leicas but that little g3 is hard to put down.

Don't forget the leaf-shutter Canon QL-17 iii. Leaf shutters are very quiet; great fill-in tool.

What Kevin said.<div></div>

I've worked as a lab mngr for company that does wedding and I can honestly tell you as far as customers go and weddings the best thing to do is get them nice and posed with plenty of lighting and please none of that trying-to-capture-natural-ambience-lighting. Honestly they don't really care about the fine points, you should concentrate more on people positioning and such.

Unless you were hired specifically to shoot that way Dimitrije.

 

Most of my clients reviewed multiple photographers before determining they wanted that

natural ambient look and feel.

 

The lab I work with constantly complains to me about so many so called "Pro" wedding

shooters that overdo the flash and expect lab techs to pull off a miracle. They actually like

my "ambient" exposures because the are properly balanced well with-in the latitude of the

films I'm using.

Yep, I don't use anything else...<div></div>

Dimitrije,

 

Just so you don't become frustrated by Marc's comment, let me say that I agree with you

from a business and technical lab point of view. It has been a long running comment from

lab's all around through the decades that the "craftsmenship" of the photographer really

matters when it comes to color balance. In the days of Ektacolor, Vericolor I, it was really

quite an issue with color proofs and the lab's policies. Lab's made personal statements

that directed the responsiblity for color balance on the photographer's shoulders. They

wanted photographer's to quit mixing amber ambient light with flash, and to use a proper

amount of outdoor flash fill to eliminate bluishness. If the photographer created these

mixtures of ambient colored light with flash, the lab flatly told the photographer that he is

not adhering to "good craftsmenship". Naturally, the lab doesn't want to be rude and lose

business to these so-so average photographers with unverified abilities and average

equipment. So, they had to give this message to the photographers in their

literature with a velvet padded pillow fist.

 

Marc's artistic attraction to ambient light, however, is a high standard and all well and

good in my mind. I like ambient light, too. But I always ask myself whether it is really

necessary, REALLY NECESSARY, to mix amber light with "white" flash light. Out of doors,

you have fill in to eliminate blue sky light. Blue sky light leaves a very cold look to skin

tones if not filled-in with flash.

 

And then I understand the lab's problem: if the photographer is partially filling-in

sometimes and others he isn't, the skin color of the person is varying from alittle

bluishness to more bluishness, for example. This means that the lab has difficulty in

keeping the skin color of the person consistently the same. I think that those who will be

using digital retouching will be more aware of these subtile color changes, and the

subsequent time it takes to adjust the coloration for partially fill-in scenes with flash. It is

time consuming and someone has to pay for this work. Or to put the challenge out: "Is it

OK to give your customers prints with bluish faces or amber faces because the

photographer doesn't want to take the time to filter it out or to use fill-in flash?"

 

I disagree with Marc that a heavy fill-in of flash will create an unacceptable look. It is

acceptable to the customer. And I agree with the lab guy that says that customers aren't

so sensitive to care about these details. Rather, I believe that the customers are caring

more about their expressions and their general appearance during their activities.

Lighting is sort of secondary issue to them. Photographers may o-o-o and ah-h about

ambient light, but customers don't. They may complain about too much oil on their face,

that's about all. And I am talking here about photojournalistic pictures, not portraits, only.

 

LEGAL

 

I would never state that all of my photographs are going to have a "certain look" of

ambient mix with fill flash." I would not make this a style issue or a reason for them to

hire me.

 

RANGEFINDER

 

To further answer the rangefinder question: If you place a small rangefinder on a good

bracket, like a Stroboframe, the camera is so small that the whole combination may feel

unbalanced. This forces you to use a smaller bracket. When you use the smaller bracket,

you will have shadows cast against walls because only the Stroboframe R7, Pro, R4b have

the vertiflip function; and a few other brands have a camera flip feature.

 

To me, seeing black shadows cast by a side mounted flash unit is alittle ugly. If I do not

use a bracket, then I may get "red eye" with the close to the camera body flash unit. So, if

I were to use a rangefinder, I would want some weight to it, and I would be using it more

for natural light pictures. It would be a camera to use during the ceremony when all

cameras are generally banned from flash useage.

 

As for "being less obtrusive"; I don't think that at other times a rangefinder has any

advantage. why? Because the way to be unobtrusive is to simply walk away from the

subject immediately after you have taken the shot. As a result, they don't know what you

have taken a picture of; they have only heard the "click" of a camera doing something.

You cannot be totally transparent at a wedding or event. The taking of pictures is

expected! And then there is the issue of getting the right angle. To get the right angle

probably will require the photographer to make his presence quite known. So, what is you

choice: a bad angle and sneaky procedure; a great angle and expression and picture, but

they know you were there?

Oh, I like Jeff's picture above very much. Really, it is an unusual view of a bride and the

diagonals are very striking. And of course, fill in light would have spoiled the view. But

this is black and white. He doesn't have to care about light color mixtures here.

**Oh, I like Jeff's picture above very much. Really, it is an unusual view of a bride and the diagonals are very striking. And of course, fill in light would have spoiled the view. But this is black and white. He doesn't have to care about light color mixtures here.**

 

Even if I had taken the shot in colour, I wouldn't have cared about shooting in mixed lighting at all. I certainly wouldn't have used any flash, she would have known I was there as soon as it fired.

Timber, we all have to accept that there are different schools of thought concerning

wedding photography. It's all a matter of opinion, and the clients benefit from all the

choices.

 

But is it seemly to constantly infer that others are not professional or lacking in

craftsmanship because they don't subscribe to your opinion?

 

As far as the legalities of selling to clients; neither you or I are intellectual property, or

business contract lawyers. However, if you show samples of your style, isn't

there is a reasonable expectation on the part of the client to get that style.. not something

completely different?

 

In the end, the proof is in the pudding. Jeff posted the pudding instead of posting a

bunch of words. An approach I also subscribe to.<div></div>

I think there are some images that would be very difficult to replicate, with a

handheld slr, the image below only works because of the softness of the light

on the boys face, which is entirely from the screen of the gameboy.<div></div>

The is an Escher-like quality to "Cinderella Has a Slice" because it is not instantly obvious whether the dear bride is experiencing food on the way in, or food on the way out.

 

A powerful statement either way, but certainly not the SAME statement either way.

 

I love all the photos in this thread and would be giddy if I managed to take one as good.

 

Be well,

Well Watson, deductive reasoning applied tells us that the food is on the way in. There is

not a bite out of the slice - Marc "Sherlock" Williams

Robert,

What exactly about that image makes it difficult to replicate with an SLR? I guess you'd have to be in the right metering mode before actually taking the image, but I'm otherwise hard-pressed to see what you mean.

 

allan

I think it's called "Mirror Slap" Allen.

 

Rangefinders are particularly suited to low light work because you generally can hand hold

them at lower shutter speeds than SLRs. Mainly because there isn't any mirror vibration

like there is with a SLR. Thus the 35mm lens on a M being held at 1/15th, yet producing a

sharp image.

Marc - thanks for clarifying. I didn't get the impression from

Robert's post that it was an issue of being able to use slower shutter speeds that made the shot. The comment about the soft light from the gameboy (or whatever it is) confused me. I'm very aware of that particular benefit of rangefinders.

 

I actually got to play with a Leica (m6, I think) for the first time yesterday, because the local store had a Leica rep there. Wow, that is an amazingly bright viewfinder and rangefinder spot. Certainly kicks the ass of my vintage RF's :-).

 

cool.

allan

I think the "soft light only from the Gameboy" indicates he shot using available light not

flash. That required a slow shutter speed and steady hand without added vibration from

SLR mirror slap.

 

Each tool has it's strengths and weaknesses. The Ms strength is lower available light work,

especially with faster lens apertures that perform well even wide open @ f/1.4. In addition,

that bright viewfinder you mentioned makes it almost as easy to focus in really low light as

a modern AF camera ... once you get the PJ type focussing technique down pat.<div></div>

"hand held slr" means it's not on a tripod.

 

duh

With all due respect, I know what it means for a camera to be handheld. I'm no pro, but I'm not stupid, either.

I just got confused by Robert's post, that is all. He was, I now understand, essentially saying 2 things. 1) you can get certain shots with an RF that you can't with an SLR (because of the mirror slap), which I completely understand. And 2) this particular picture was hard because of the lighting.

 

Read together as one big point, it's confusing. Read separately as 2 points, it's clear.

 

I apologize for not getting it. Thanks to Marc for clearing it up for me. I'd certainly like to know more about the actual technique for shooting PJ style with a rangefinder. Is it specific to the clarity of the Leica viewfinders? Is it a technique above and beyond the type of shots you look for? IE - is the technique the shots, or something special about how you use the camera?

 

allan

Alan, nothing special. A technique for focusing that can be used for any manual focus

camera, but specifically useful when coupled to rangefinder type focusing where you bring

the two images together.

 

After every shot you flip the focus ring to infinity. Then when you go to focus again, it is

always in the same direction, and usually not very much movement of the focussing ring is

necessary. Just look at a lens barrel and you'll see that most of the distances are a short

throw from infinity, only getting longer when quite close to the subject. But for average

shots it's a very short and quick movement. Once made habit, this technique reduces or

eliminates back and forth "hunting". It's even faster with rangefinder lenses compared to

manual SLR lenses, because the lenses are so small.

One of these days I'll spell your name correctly Allan. Sorry.

Marc,

 

Thanks. That'll be useful for me when I'm walking around town with my old RF's as well as when/if I ever actually do any wedding photography. I haven't had much luck getting assistant-ships with area photographers, so I've taken to just using this forum as my learning grounds...not ideal, but at least everyone is helpful.

 

thanks,

allan

No problem Marc. it's the least common spelling so I long ago stopped caring. But I was getting a kick out of how you spelled it a number of different ways :-)

 

allan