Film wedding photographer in Southern California

<p>I'll second the vote for Leah</p>

<blockquote>

<p>things I liked about the picture (the softness, vibrance, dreamy look)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, I believe you are looking for a particular style of wedding photography, it's not a film vs digital discussion.</p>

<p>I'm curious to know is you've ever seen <a href="http://www.jeffascough.com">Jeff Ascough's</a> or <a href="http://www.marcusbell.com">Marcus Bell's</a> work?</p>

<p>They're two of the world's top wedding photographers and AFAIK neither shoot film any more, but I could be wrong.</p>

<p>Jeff and Marcus have both done interviews with photo.net:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photographer-interviews/jeff-ascough/<br>

http://www.photo.net/photographer-interviews/marcus-bell-wedding-photographer/</p>

<p>Is this the "feel" you want? If so, I may be able to point you in the direction of a photographer you will like.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>Richard, if you look at Jose Villa's images, and then Marcus Bell's images, you'll notice that the color look is completely different between them and Jose Villa's. I've been trying for years to mimic the look of Fuji 400H, rated at iso 200, exposed for the low midtone to shadow region, and scanned on the Frontier....I have yet to be able to do it. Why? Because with film, overexposing it moves the midtones up, creating that creamy look in skintones. Because of the tremendous latitude of film, you can get away with many stops of overexposure without blowing the highlights. You can't expose digitally this way. In order to expose with backlight and maintaining the highlights, one needs to meter for those highlights....pushing the skintones down....needing to be brought back up in PP. The look, at the end of the day, is thus different between them.</p>

<p>One isn't necessarily better than the other....they're just different. If you are however looking for those skinones and highlights you see in Jose Villa's images, you will not see them from a digital shooter. You can get close, but you won't get the same look of film in MF on a DSLR. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.....but after discussing this with a few of the top digital shooters around, I have yet to be shown a method of exposure and PP that works.</p>

<p>If it's Jose's colors and look from film that you want, you will only get it from a film shooter.</p>

<p>"the reasons I like film pictures is that I think film pictures, especially pictures in natural light, look very soft and romantic with colors really popping." What you are describing there is a matter of lighting and style, not film vs. digital.<br>

To someone with a trained eye (or just observant) there can be some subtle differences between film and digital. But not to the point where the average person -- even some photographers -- could tell. We are way beyond the point where one is technically better than the other. The differences are more the difference between Kodak and Fuji or one Kodak/Fuji film vs another Kodak/Fuji film.<br>

Back in the early days of digital when wedding clients were hesitant to accept digital, a few photographers would show a prospective client maybe half a dozen prints and ask them to pick out which were digital and which were film. Client would go either one of two ways -- Most had no clue which was which. Others would insist this one was film and that one was digital. Then they would find out that all six were film or all six were digital. :)<br /><br />Bottom line -- if you can tell the difference and have a preference, go with what you like. But if you like the style of a particular photographer who happens to shoot film, don't assume that the style and the use of film are locked together.</p>

<p>Craig, could you post your method for getting the highlights and skintones to look like Jose Villa's....from a DSLR. Maybe if you could show what method of PP you would do in LR to get this color look, I'd appreciate it. Or if you could direct me to some digital shooters sites that have the same look, I could go from there as well.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>By the way, a good example of this I found was from Jessica Claire in Style Me Pretty Magazine. I saw a photo of a couple and knew Jessica shot digitally. I emailed her about it and asked how she obtained it. She replied that it was in fact a film shot on Fuji 400H.....as it was the only way to obtain this look. I'd say she is pretty knowledgable in this regard.</p>

<p>Check out the image of the couple here....image on the right:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stylemepretty.com/2010/04/26/wedding-photography-by-jessica-claire/">http://www.stylemepretty.com/2010/04/26/wedding-photography-by-jessica-claire/</a></p>

<p>I was going to say what makes the film look different; however, Dave did an excellent job of explaining it. I can get the look close to film (but not quite), but it takes too much time and every scene requires a different techniques, ruling out Photoshop actions or LightRoom presets. In addition, plug-ins from DXO, Nik, and Alien Skin do not achieve the look the OP is looking for, they simply boost contrast, de-saturate reds, and add fake grain. They cannot create the latitude that negative film has when it comes to preserving the highlights on overexposed images. Overexposed images in digital kill all of the detail and trying to recover it on raw will make the colors look dull. Digital photos look best when properly exposed, and then playing a little with curves to get the look one wants. The same is not true with C-41 film, which actual looks best overexposed, just the same as C-6 looks best slightly underexposed. Before anyone says that I am wrong for saying that film is better than digital, please note that I shoot both digital (98%) and film (2%) and each has there purposes. Digital is my mainstay, but I will never do away with film. </p>

 

<p>That's the main point Manny....each lighting situation is different so the processing would be different for each. For the film photographer, they just drop the film off to Richard Photo Lab and download the scans. The client doesn't see any of this, but as the photographer, I know it's better to be behind the camera than to spend countless hours trying to acheive the same thing in PP.</p>

<p>But none of this is relevant to what the OP wanted in terms of obtaining a look. Take a look at the work of Leah Mccormick in the SF Bay area....she is superb and may be available. </p>

<p>Jonathan Canlas is based in Utah and shoots film. He travels. He rocks.</p>

<p>He does rock Colleen. If we're going as far as Utah, then we could include Leo Patrone as well.</p>

<p>What about thebrotherswright.com?</p>

<p>In any case, I think if Leila wants the colors and look of Jose Villa, she needs to get Jose Villa. Use of film, just by itself does not necessarily give 'soft and romantic'. Some of the portfolios of the photographers mentioned so far show excellent work, but some of it is definitely not 'soft and romantic'.</p>

<p>film,, what is film ? just kidding, I was raised on a waist level finder !<br>

I do agree that flesh tones are better & smoother with film, I do shoot all digital, but they still do not match the beautiful 16x20's I would get from my hasselblad film camera.</p>

<p>I seems that if you read photographer blogs there are lots of discussions about softness. But it is usually complaining about their lens being too soft so they need the newer version and VRii instead of VRi, or their camera does not have enough resolution to crop, etc.</p>

<p>It is nice to hear that from the wedding client perspective, soft is good. Well with film, you get more dynamic range and latitude which is great for outdoor shots. And, you get more soft shots. Lower iso means slower shutter speeds. You may even get more poorly focused shots compared to modern the modern DSLR with lightning fast AF and even micro AF adjustment. But once you have scanned the film and find out it is slightly misfocused, you can always blur more of the background and make it work.</p>

<p>Hi Darya,<br />I don't know if you are still looking or not, but I would recommend Stephen Pappas (<a href="http://stephenpappasphoto.com">http://stephenpappasphoto.com</a>). I know that he uses the same camera, film, and style as Jose Villa--even the same lab (Richard Photo Lab). I would recommend sending him an email...probably only about 1/3 of the price too.<br />-Jess</p>

<p>Seems to be a very good suggestion, Jessica. However, even though Stephen uses the same camera, film and lab, there is a good bit of difference in the outcome, IMHO, which just goes to the fact that one's style is one's style--not easily copied.</p>