Does anyone still shoot film at weddings anymore

<p>I was reading the forum and I noticed almost everyone is shooting Digital... Does anyone shoot film anymore.. During my last wedding the bride wanted some black and white photos of her wedding. So I agreed and instead of shooting digital only I carried along my old Nikon N90s with some Tri X film to take the black and white photos. I still used my D1X for the rest of the wedding. I have to say I did not relize how much I missed shooting with film. The images came out great even better than taking them with my D1X. The client really liked them. I am thinking of shooting more film in the future. It makes you stop and think of your picture taking more... The only problem I had believe it or not was finding a lab to develop Tri-X...</p>

 

<p>I still do occasionally. Mostly it's just for fun, but sometimes by request. I shoot Tri-X, Tmax, Neopan. Although I can get decent B&W in PS manipulating the color channels, I find there's still nothing like a REAL B&W.</p>

<p>Also some color like Portra NC and VC usually MF sometimes 35. The Portra comes in handy on very contrasty days and can help avoid a lot of editing time. I'll even shoot some Astia or Provia for kicks sometimes and scan them.</p>

<p>I always include a film body or two with various films in my backup, backup gear.</p>

<p>This can be a real selling feature for your business. There's a whole crop of newer photographers who've never used film and have no clue how to. And there's 2nd marriages or parents of B&Gs that remember and appreciate what film has to offer.</p>

<p>If finding a lab is troublesome just get the mailers or buy the chemicals to do it yourself from B&H. This is not difficult to do these days. The modern chemical kit's make it very easy.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Todd</p>

<p> Film is all that I shoot for weddings. The modern C-41 color and B/W films are fantastic. For B/W weddings snaps, I burn Fuji Neopan 400CN or Ilford XP-2. Both are B/W C-41 films that give fantastic tonality and flesh tones. It's easy, cheap and the brides love the resulting prints from them. I rate them at 250.</p>

<p>Russ</p>

<p>The last wedding I went to (it's been about a year ago now), the professional photographer hired to do the job shot only film, only manual focus. She used a Nikon F3 plus a couple of Hasselblads. She said they produce beautiful results, they have no surprises left in them, they're fully depreciated, and cheap enough to replace that she can accept the risk of not carrying any insurance on them. She mentioned that she had lost a DSLR at a rowdy reception due to a spilled drink, and that incident drove her back to film for any event where alcohol and guests were going to be present.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure <a href="http://www.josevillaphoto.com">Jose Villa</a> still does. And <a href="jonathancanlasphotography.com">Jonathan Canlas</a>. I'm sure there are more but I can't think of their names off the top of my head. I love both of them...</p>

<p>Todd -</p>

<p>Not to rain on the film parade here - I happen to love shooting it...but when I'm doing a wedding and 300-400 images - it'd be too expensive for me to do unless requested specifically by the couple. Also - Any 35mm worth it's weight with decent lenses will beat a D1x hands down. Keep in mind the D1x was 1st or 2nd generation digital and we're now at least 3 or 4 revisions beyond...</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What you say is true about the D1x but I will put my images taken with this camera up against any other camera out there.. I love the image quality of this camera and the ruggedness is hard to beat. I had a Nikon D70 and it lasted about 4 month before it quit on me one day in a light rain. I went directly back to my D1x after that. <br>

You are correct about film though... The Black and white images did look better out of my N90s than out of my D1x digital... I was presently surprised and the Bride loved the B&W images.. I think I will shoot more Black and White film in the future...</p>

 

<p>To each their own, but I haven't encountered a bride that could tell the difference between B&W film and an digital image processed B&W. Not saying there isn't a difference. When we first switched it was under the pretense of saving money. Well it's a continuous cycle of of software upgrades, computer upgrades, camera upgrades, never ending need for storage and so on, I am not sure I am saving any money! However, immediate exposure feedback (though I still carry my light meter!), the ability to change ISO & WB, not having to switch rolls of film and so on, keep me firmly in the digital camp. Although I like the idea of carrying a film body for just B&W. I will have to consider that.</p>

<p>Here's a couple of prior threads:</p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00PeLd">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00PeLd</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Gf0G">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Gf0G</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00G773">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00G773</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00JFyA">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00JFyA</a></p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>There was a seminar of Joe Bussink here in Kiev, Ukraine - he mentioned that one of his camera (out of four) is filled with 35mm IR film and gives great portrait work together with canon 85mm f/1.2L. The rest of the cameras are 5d2 and still two 1V (still films, BW).<br /> I do have Pentax 645N with FA 150mm f/2.8 and 75mm f/2.8 LS and use this kit when it calls for it, some special projects, pre-wedding photosession, or when the film is requested.

<p>Sure, I shoot plenty of film at weddings. Always have done simply because I like the aesthetic.</p>

<p>I noticed a fair bit of interest in my film stuff so decided to offer an entirely film-based package for anyone who wanted it. When clients ask for a certain look to their pictures I point them there. Everything is shot on Ektar, Neopan, ProH and Tri-X. It's proving surprisingly popular.</p>

<p>I was the back-up photographer at a wedding not too long ago. The main photographer used a medium format camera and shot film only. I used my Digital 35mm camera. While he was loading and unloading the film, I was able to catch some shots that he otherwise would have missed, which is what he wanted me to do.<br>

After the shoot we compared pictures. He had his scanned by Co$co and placed on a disk. There wasn't that much of a difference, only that the film seemed to handle mixed light sources a little better than digital. </p>

<p>Film is all I shoot! I love the look and feel and so do my clients. I think it also set me apart from other photographers, but the only downfall is finding a good lab...which I am still looking for.</p>

<p>I shoot 95% film, both 35mm and medium format, and LOVE it. I shoot between 300 and 700 images a wedding, and I figure that the cost I pay to have the rolls developed, scanned, and printed at the professional lab I use would be the same for me to pay someone $5.55 an hour to scan, do some corrections, and print digital images. Seems like a bargin to me, since I don't have to sit in front of my computer for hours. I do shoot some digital, typically of the open dancing and just other stuff.</p>

<p>Either one is great, but mixing film and digital can become a logistical nightmare because of skin tones, numbering systems, ordering final prints, etc. The list goes on....-Aimee</p>

<p>I haven't shot film in over seven years. Working at a newspaper as my day job, we jumped into digital once the Canon 1D was announced. Once photo labs caught up with digital I haven't looked back. I do miss making my own b/w prints occasionally, but I get over it very quickly. </p>

<p>i do!!! i mainly shoot digital i carry my leica with trix or tmax..... and because i'm a bit of an artsey geek i carry my holga with slide film which people seem to love! there is an extra fee for additional film photography though, but people love the look of my black and whites so most dont have a problem with it :)</p>

<p>Here, in Russia film shooters are completely misunderstood by clients. Unless he (or she) is a BRAND, a famous fotographer. Plus, with film I felt totally unable to compete in terms of economical effectivity.</p>