Shooting a wedding with FILM need ADVISE

<p>What have you been photographing with the RB?</p>

<p>Kodak has a new version of Portra 400 out. Be sure to check it out. That said ANY Fuji or Kodak pro color film will be more than up for the job. You're going to want a lot of Ambient light in the redwoods. The color can be unique. I applaud you shooting a wedding in film. It's hilarious to me that people get so freaked out now if they can't see the picture on the back of the camera. Only 10 years ago almost all weddings were shot on film. That said, a couple of practice rolls shot in the redwoods BEFORE the wedding would do a lot to give you confidence in your equipment and abilities. Just go for it and Burn some film!</p>

When shooting film with Hasselblads, I found that the Kodak 400NC to be better than Fuji. I am not saying Kodak has a better film. It has a lot to do with your lab. My lab was set up for Kodak. They used Kodak chemicals, paper, and printers. At my lab when using Fuji NPH the skin tones were too redish.

 

In some cases I would use the Kodak VC, but only on cloudy days or heavy overcast types of days. If you are unsure what VC is, it stands for vivid color. NC was normal color, or neutral color. On bright days NC was the perfect film because everything, such as the flowers were very vibrant. On dull days the VC film helped pop out the dull colors.

 

I used pretty much ASA 400 all of the time. I rated it at ASA 320, but you could rate it at 400 and still get OK pictures if you were under exposed. I haven't shot film in many years so I have no idea how ASA 1600 to 3200 would react. From past experiences I wouldn't touch it because it was so grainy.

Here's another thought about the weight of your camera. Instead of using a tripod all of the time rent or buy a monopod. You will feel a lot more comfortable at the reception using mono sticks. You won't be tripping anyone and you will be able to move around fairly easy.

 

In reference to the skin tones being a bit on the red side, this could also be related to the lens coatings. Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses had a different coating, creating a slight warming effect. The lenses are really wonderful. Recently I read that Mamiya RB/RZ lenses tested sharper then the Zeiss lenses, but the color was better on the Zeiss optics. My feeling is who cares, they are both fantastic lenses. When enlarging negatives this big the details in a print around 40 inches or more is simply stunning. Breathtaking is another word that fits.

I keep thinking of new things to say! Because of the recent digital era weddings have changed a lot. Most of the great studios have shut their doors and the people work out of there homes now, or found new jobs, or retired. Along with this major change is the quality. Before digital you would get orders from every wedding for large framed prints. 24X30 was pretty common. Today it is very different. I have to push clients to buy 11X14 enlargements.

 

If there was still a huge calling for huge enlargements I would have invested in a Hassy with a digital back. They sell a 50 megapixel digital back! Imagine the quality of the enlargements. Anyway, you need about $30,000 for the back, plus another $20,000 or so for lenses and a body. I can't justify buying one, although I'd surely love to have one!

 

Very recently, perhaps just 2 weeks ago, I read that Pentax has a medium format digital 50 megapixel camera for under $10,000. If I get a chance to try one at the WPPA show I will post something about it. It would work for wedings as well as nature and landscapes.

<p>Yes, you're right Mark, I'm thinking of the Wright Brothers Twin Lens site. Didn't even hit the link.</p>

<p>Nadine, the Wright brothers use 35mm, MF, 4x5, Fuji Instax, and Motion Picture films for weddings. I don't know what these other Twin Lens couple is using.</p>

<p>Lately I havent had time to photograph some of the ideas I have in mind, but heres some stuff I like to shoot. Printed and scanned out of my bathroom.<br>

--> not letting me upload images?</p>

<p><img src="http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee439/sinakhorsand/chinaskifinalresized.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee439/sinakhorsand/nickandtrain.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee439/sinakhorsand/GLR.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Oh and these were with a 645 back, didnt have 6x7 till now</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, a diffuser isn't much use outside if you are using the flash only as fairly ramped down fill.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. A diffuser is great inside where you have walls and a ceiling to bounce the light off of. Outside, most of it will end up going in the wrong direction.</p>

<p>I used a home made reflector on my 285.</p><div></div>

<p>For B&W I would use:</p>

<p>- TMAX 400 at EI 1600</p>

<p>- I use f8 for portraits with the 110mm2.8 and f5.6 with the 50mm ULD on the RZII. These are sharper lenses than the ones for the RB so I can't tell you for sure what results you would get with your system.</p>

<p>- Set the Sekonic 358 (and camera) to 1/125 and ISO 1600 and trigger your flash remotely from the subject measuring incident light with the sphere out. Play with the flash power and distance to get f8 or f5.6 - If your flash can't deliver, you may open up one stop - If your flash has room you may close down one stop.</p>

<p>- Drop a 10x loup on the fresnel and focus on the eyes (closest or in between).<br /> <br /> - You can pretty much shoot with fix setting if you keep the distance to the subject constant. If you cut the distance in half you may close the lens two stops - if you step away aprox 40% of your metered distance open the lens 1 stop.</p>

<p>- You may set a slave flash on the ground pointing to the hair behind the subject at low power to trim. Keep it low powered and no need to meter again.</p>

<p>- develop on Xtol 1:1 at 75F for 8 minutes.</p>

<p>That's it. Easy as cake.</p>

<p>As a back up you can use a 35mm SLR with the same film. It would give you different conveniences as well as a different look. </p>

<p>If you want more grain and contrast shoot TMAX 400 at EI 6400. Develop for 9 mins and pinch the curve up a bit in PS.</p>

<p>Sorry, I forgot to post the Twinlenslife site I referred to from the the Brothers Wright:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.twinlenslife.com/">http://www.twinlenslife.com/</a></p>

<p>The are solely film shooters. They write up a number of tests on different films, etc. They had a great test up on the new Portra 400, as did Steven at the Figital Revolution.</p>

<p>Please don't try to shoot this wedding with that gear without thoroughly testing your exposures first. Use the setup you plan to take, and start shooting at set f-stops, set distances, and set flash settings. Process film and closely note your results.<br>

By doing this, you can go to the wedding knowing what your exposures should be without having to re-meter anything. Then, you can devote your attention to content, composition, and emotion, and not on technical issues. If your images are boring, it doesn't matter how big the negative.<br>

Please bring two backups -- a digital SLR would be best, but if not that, a quality 35mm film SLR will also work. Get or rent a Nikon F5, a couple low-light lenses (50/1.4, or 85/1.4, pro zoom with VR).<br>

Preparation is key!!</p>

<p>1. One thing that hasn't been addressed is client expectations. I would say, on the surface, that 2 new-to-weddings photographers using an RB and digital without much flash would not have too high a chance of satisfying your <strong>typical</strong> client. I would assume this client is not your typical client, and if so, I would say do as your photographic impluses suggest. Rely on your own inclinations and visions. If the client leans more toward your typical client, I think you will need to do some different kinds of preparation and planning to accomplish this. Also, if you told them you were striving for the TwinLens look, you'd better be able to deliver it.</p>

<p>Also keep in mind that many clients who say they are interested in the not-so-typical coverage will suddenly backtrack a bit when they see the final set. This is very, very typical of the formal family pictures after the ceremony. Most young couples say they don't want them, want very little, or don't want any posing. Yet, if the photographer were to follow that exactly to the T, there will be trouble after the images are presented. It could come from the couple's families or from the couple themselves, but there will be dissatisfaction--there are cases where there won't be any dissatisfaction, of course.</p>

<p>The above is not a specific example, but an example to show that part of wedding photography is meeting client expectations--it is still a mundane effort, with money changing hands and expectations to be met.</p>

<p>For instance, while all the images on TwinLens website are wonderful, realize that many of them are examples of how wedding photography can be art. That, in itself, is great. However, we don't know if the photographers also took more 'normal' shots to satisfy client expectations--those won't be shown on the website. All the shots, for instance, with no flash at dark receptions represent very skillful use of ambient light, from photographers with excellent 'eyes'. But when it came time to photograph the typical reception events--the cake cutting, etc., did they use flash more typically? Or did they move the cake and everyone to a place where ambient could be used, or did have their partner hold an off camera light? My point is, just because you see marvelous examples of no flash images doesn't mean they were all taken that way, and doesn't mean that getting a 5DII and high ISO is going to do in every situation, particularly when you do not control much of anything at a wedding re the timeline and logistics. Were you to ask to move the cake and everyone, you may face total refusal. And then what do you do?</p>

<p>I don't say the above to scare you or discourage you. I say these things to suggest that you <em>pay attention to your client's expectations</em>. When I first read your thread, I thought you and your friend were doing this for friends. Now I see you are charging for the coverage, but of course, there could be many factors about the transaction different than just shooting and charging for a wedding coverage from total strangers.</p>

<p>2. The other thing I wanted to say is similar to R.J. Fox's comment above, re devoting your attention to content, composition and emotion. Part of shooting compelling wedding photography is being so comfortable with your gear and technique that they are second nature to you. The techniques for shooting candidly with medium format, and for shooting a dark dance floor with medium format and flash, are dependent upon the application of some basic photographic principles, and your knowing in advance, that what you are doing is going to work, combined with the skill of anticipating the moment.</p>

<p>Thank You Nadine. <br>

I just want to comment that the clients expectations are not very high. She knows that this is our first gig, and she is looking for something affordable. But, I still want to approach this in a very professional manner, so I am going to strive to do my best, and some of the photographs that inspired me were of that Twins Lens.<br>

The bride emailed me, and she said she imagines shots like this would look great:<br>

<a href="http://www.oncewed.com/38251/wedding-blog/real-weddings/romantic-garden-wedding/">http://www.oncewed.com/38251/wedding-blog/real-weddings/romantic-garden-wedding/</a><br>

I would like to address the B&G photos from the example above, when they are walking through the forest. It seems like the photographer who took those photos used a minimal amount of flash for the outdoor shots. Correct me if I am wrong. <br>

Thank You.</p>

 

You will need good flash management to get good contra lights like that.

<p>and here is part of the email the client sent us, a little more detail on her expectations:<br>

"We will probably want some photos taken before the wedding of the bridal party getting ready as well as the groomsmen (My fiance and I do not want to see each other until the ceremony). Then, we'll have the ceremony, which will last about 20 minutes (photos throughout). After, Chris (my fiance) and I would then like to take photos together while the rest of the guests enjoy a cocktail hour. We really like spontaneous, photojournalistic looking shots rather than the traditional posed stuff. Obviously, shots of people looking "spontaneous" take plenty of orchestrating I'm sure but we would probably like to take a little walk through some scenic spots to get the look we're going for. Then, we would love some pics of our families and all the guest on the steps of the lodge. Then, any time you have left would be reserved for shooting the reception, which will be a great big dinner followed by dancing."</p>

<p>In looking at the wedding images you linked to above, note that in the forest images, many have a very shallow depth of field, probably shot wide open or near wide open with a DSLR and pro zoom lens. Note how the backgrounds are completely "blown out" in some of those images.</p>

<p>To get that with an RB, you'll need to shoot at wide aperture as well, but note that you can only go to 1/500th (I think), while a DSLR can shoot as fast as 1/4,000th if needed. The best you can do with the RB is shoot a longer lens at a closer distance so you can blow out the background. On the plus side, you can flash sync at max shutter speed, and I don't know of any current DSLR that (without tricks) can sync at 1/500th.</p>

<p>It's hard to tell from those images, but I'm pretty sure fill-flash was used. You can tell by how blown out the bride's dress is in many of these images. I don't know that this technique is flattering, as many brides have spent a lot of money and time on their dress, and would love to see how beautiful it is in their wedding photos. IMO, there's not enough detail left to see in the dress.</p>

<p>Also note that nearly every image shows emotion on the faces -- surpise, joy, etc...Don't waste exposures that don't show some emotion in some way.</p>

<p>Where is the wedding going to be, Sina? Below is a link to a blog by photographer Lisa Richmond which I found just by googling 'redwood grove wedding'. You can see the kind of spotty lighting I talked about. This photographer has used the spotlight effect to her advantage, and it works well for many of the shots, but again--only the best and most successful shots get on a blog or website. However, you see that during the ceremony, where you do not have control of the situation, you may have to make decisions about what gets blown out, and what falls into blackness--the contrasts can be very great. Flash use when facing a black background can look very bad, with those awful hard shadows--you've got to be careful.</p>

<p><a href="http://lisarichmondphotography.com/blog/?p=802">http://lisarichmondphotography.com/blog/?p=802</a></p>

<p>The link the bride posted is for a wedding not in a redwood grove? The environment is not what I would expect with a redwood grove. Plus it is somewhat overcast, so even if some very low power fill flash is used, it need not be used to even out contrasts, as you would if you were photographing in the redwood grove in the link I posted.</p>

<p>As for her e-mail to you regarding the photos, that sounds very typical of what a young bride would say about not wanting posed photos. What do you know about their families? More than once, dissatisfied family members have convinced the young couple after the fact, that the photographer, being a professional, should have known to take such and such photo. Again--not trying to scare you, and it may very well be that you will be fine, just make sure. It is good that she realizes that spontaneous looking images may involve some small bit of direction, though.</p>

<p>RJ, blurred background even in full daylight is not a challenge for the RB. You are confused.</p>

<p>You can shoot 100 iso negatives at f8 in full daylight at box speed at 1/250 sec.</p>

<p>You can also shoot 100 iso negatives at f4 in full daylight at EI25 at 1/250 sec. Very thin DOF with a 110mm lens at 30 feet away.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I wouldn't be so worried about spotty lighting when shooting film because it always looks much better on film than it does on digital. The highlights are not so intrusive, probably because of the gradual highlight compression and overexposure tolerance of the film.</p>

<p>Yes, Sina, most of that work looks to be available light with contrast controlled in post. If not, then it is very minimal flash. I shoot a great deal of available light at weddings, mostly using a Leica rangefinder ... for which I usually don't even have a flash with me.</p>

<p>Just time your candid shots when they walk into shade. I'd also advise having both lower contrast film and higher contrast film ready to deal with the ambient conditions of the day ... if overcast with flat lighting then you can use a higher contrast film ... etc.</p>

<p>I also would seriously NOT use color film and convert to B&W. If you want to shoot B&W then shot it for real ... conversions pale in comparison to the tonal gradations and dynamic range of B&W film. It is still the one area where film still outperforms 35mm digital ... especially if it's 6X7 : -)</p>

<p>When you say the client's expectations aren't high, and then provide a link to that <em>once wed.com</em> site as an example of expectations, it seems the expectations are indeed high. That photographer is a professional fashion and commercial photographer.</p>

<p>The "Twin Lens" example is also setting high expectations (which is cool IMO.) however, he litterally does use a Twin-Lens camera ... which is designed for mobile hand-held work far more than an RB/RZ.</p>

<p>So, I'd seriously advise getting/renting a mono-pod. While a tripod slows you down for sure, a mono-pod doesn't. I use a mono pod with my Medium Format wedding camera all the time. What is cool about the RB/RZ cameras is that you don't have to turn the camera on its side for portrait oriented shot, just rotate the back ... so a mono-pod works really well.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The two 400 speed Portra films are discontinued. There is now simply Portra 400.</p>

<p>With 6 months to go, you have lots of time to do tests to figure out how you're going to shoot the wedding. If you can, go to where the wedding will be taking place, or someplace similar, and do test exposures. Get a good idea of what your settings will be by bracketing (take copious notes!) Do this in late May/early June when lighting conditions will be close to what they will be the day of the wedding. Take someone as a test subject, or use a tripod and use yourself as the subject, so you can determine the best flash fill. Bring something black and something white, if those colors will be worn by the B&G, and take test shots of them.<br>

Especially if you are right near the coast, or in the mountains, there is a possibility of an overcast day or one with a lot of clouds, which would even out light, but reduce its level. Be prepared to meter for those conditions if you don't encounter them beforehand.<br>

Practice your techniques. Get extra backs and if possible, an assistant. Rent or borrow a backup camera/lenses/flash. Make sure your camera and lenses are in good shape. If not, get a CLA, but don't wait till the last minute, as sometimes repairmen foul up. Take more film than you think you're going to need. Bring extra batteries. Stay in communication with the customer, so if something changes you won't find out at the last minute. Find out what the plan is if it rains; where things will be moved to, and be sure you know how to get good results under those conditions.</p>

<p>In short, know what you're going to do, before you have to do it. Be prepared for any situation you can foresee. The worst that can happen is you're caught short by an equipment failure, running out of consumables, i.e. film or batteries, or not knowing how to handle something that comes up.</p>