Anyone still shooting weddings with film?

I haven't done a wedding in a while, but I have been exploring getting back into it. I was thinking about taking a different approach

and trying film. While I know most use digital for events these days. I woulld love to hear some thoughts about using film for weddings

in this digital age. Is there any particular camera you would prefer? What about lighting? Would You use a Hasselblad? How would

you handle metering in a busy situation?

<p>Even though I grew up shooting film and manual flash etc. The thought of not being able to chimp makes my heart race and I begin to lose control of my inner well being. Afraid I can't be of much help personally :(</p>

<p>Jon,</p>

<p>It sounds like you have had some experience shooting weddings with film. Any reason you can't use the equipment you used then? Film cameras are generally very robust :) If you are a Canon man, the EOS 3 and EOS 1V are very highly regarded film bodies. Having said that, I occasionally still use my EOS Rebel G film camera to good effect. Had it for 8 years now, still never been to a repair shop. My Rebel XTi, on the other hand, has been acting up (5 years old). Similar usage on both bodies. But I digress... :)</p>

<p>The "heart race" that Jonathan mentions was actually one of my high points when shooting film :) Watching the negs develop was simply exhilarating :)</p>

<p>Shooting film for weddings can be a USP (Unique Selling Point) in this digital age. The pros who still shoot film seem to charge a premium for that. It is arguably more "labour-intensive at the back end of things (the couple will likely still want images on CD/DVD, so you would still need to digitize the images after processing the film).</p>

<p>Film is a niche market. I know of one photographer making a good living shooting weddings on film. Prints are a major source of his income and he owns his own Fuji Frontier.</p>

<p>If you're not doing your own processing, or charging less than $5k, then shooting film is a nice hobby that won't cost you too much. And before any one jumps up yelling he already has film gear and would have to buy digital, figure out the current cost of film, processing and printing a set of 300 proofs for 220 film. Figure you're real careful shooting and only have a 10% toss rate.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is arguably more "labour-intensive at the back end of things</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But you can get your lab to do the labour for you. Shoot, send off films, receive scans - easy. And no more tedious hours spent post processing.</p>

<p>I shoot a film / digital mix for all of my weddings.</p>

<p>My 5d does the flash work and all of the meaty stuff.</p>

<p>My 1N does the b&w special shots. </p>

<p>Oh, and I carry an RB67 in the backpack for some of the formals.</p>

<p>Plus, I know my 1N will NEVER die. Sometimes I'm worried about my 5d crashing someday.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In my area the film-based wedding photographers seem few and far between, especially based on what the wedding labs have to say. Most of the wedding labs long ago "went digital" due to the decline in film shooters. That was about 4 or 5 years ago... maybe more in some cases. Now most of those "digital" wedding labs are closed. I can't explain why, but they are disappearing too. I suspect it is the slow market for high quality prints and wedding albums.</p>

<p>While it is always good to revisit the question every so often, also read the previous threads on this same question. There are some fairly recent ones which cover a lot of material.</p>

<p>As a former film shooter for many years, I would only use film again for weddings if the film would not have to be scanned and become digitized, which is the usually process for film these days, and prints are made directly from the negatives, which is a lost art (with labs). I used to use a Mamiya C330f and Hasselblad system.</p>

<p>I don't feel the gains from using film--exposure latitude, wider contrast range, good skin tones, translate enough, to use it all the time. Particularly since to me--a digitally printed scan from film does not exhibit enough difference. This is IMHO, of course.</p>

<p>If you use film for weddings, you'd also better have a good 'unique selling point' built around your film use. While it is true that most people will not care what you use if they can do what they want to do with the resulting images, and it doesn't cost them any more, it would be difficult to 'hide' film use within an offering, unless it is only a small part of the offering.</p>

<p>In fact, IMHO, it would be better to trumpet film use and create enough of a mystique around it to be able to attract prospects who would pay more.</p>

<p>Lighting would be no different than for digital, except that you have to think in reverse--it is better to overexpose than underexpose, meaning your flash to ambient balance is slightly different. Since you can't preview lighting on the fly, you have to know your lighting gear's response very well, and be 'safer' with lighting. There are many 'risky' things you can do with lighting with digital since you can see the results right away. If you don't like flash, I'd say you will have to learn to like flash, because film's extreme high ISO capability is lagging behind digital, unless you like grain.</p>

<p>I would handle metering in a busy situation the same way I do with digital, now. I still use a handheld meter in incident mode. I am of the 'take one reading per 'session' and that's it' school. Sometimes I take a reflected spot meter reading. It is just easier and faster for me, because I'm used to it.</p>

<p>My holga doesn't have a digital back... ;-)</p>

<p>I think a good question to ask, if you already own good film gear that you are familiar with, is why not shoot a wedding on film?<br>

If the client is not looking for big enlargements, 35mm gear can do a great job, and as a poster above suggested, you can just drop your film off at a good lab and let them do much of the work (process scan etc ...).</p>

<p>People shot weddings on film for the past 70+ years. Now, all of a sudden it's obsolete? No, people have gotten lazy and are used to shooting 5,000 images when 100 or less used to do the job. If you know what you are doing, there should be no fear of "failure" just different expectations.<br>

Stand out from the rest and shoot film. Some wedding photographers still do, and make a living. You could go really old-tech and go into wet-plate photography, which would be a niche market, but certainly something different from 5,000 jpgs and I'm outta here. :)</p>

 

<p>Thank you Dr. Bug.</p>

<p>It might be interesting to hear from folks who get paid to shoot human weddings.</p>

Wow thanks for all those responses!

Well, whatbi was thinking was I could possibly use film to separate myself from the masses, as someone already

mentioned.

I never shot a wedding with film. I have a blad that I use for fine art work,

I have use a anonline lab, I think it's called West Coast or something. It's $10.00 a roll 110 developed and scanned

and delivered on CD.

Just to ad, I was also considering adding a Nikon D5100 for those difficult lighting shots. Thoughts?

<blockquote>

<p>"I woulld love to hear some thoughts about using film for weddings in this digital age."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would use B&W only a couple of Leicas and process and print them, myself.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p>Last year I did a wedding using 2 Mamiya 6 bodies, one with 75mm and one with 50. Both had 220 Portra film, and that was plenty to capture the ceremony (I was able to get close). This camera is very light and easy to focus, and great for fast action. I currently have a Hasselblad as well, but I'd only use it for formals as it is much more difficult to focus quickly, and the 80 has that much less field depth for focus errors than the Mamiya's 75. However, using a 150 is much more difficult for portraits on the Mamiya. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Should be Lots of opportunities for Weddings in NY State. Film or digital ...Whatever.</p>

<p>I shoot with film, couldn't possibly imagine going back to digital. I went from shooting with a D3 (great high ISO) to now shooting with a couple of Leica MP's. Here's why:</p>

<p>More convenient than digital - I just drop my film in a bag, send it to the lab, they process, the film gets sent back, and I literally need no more than an hour to finish the job. It also comes back with a nice bound custom proof book.</p>

<p>Film just looks better - I don't know anyone that really knows their stuff that would argue with that. The colours (the scans are 16bit high res) and especially the dynamic range (no more blown hightlights or hours in PS with layermasks etc YAY!) are superior, as well as that organic look that c41 has.</p>

<p>Security - You have something tangible in the form of negatives, that your customers can keep, plus you have an extra form of backup. In twenty years, your customers can have the negatives rescanned with the latest software/scanners (assuming they are still around), to get even more detail from the neg.</p>

<p>Cost - when you take into account the built in obsolescence of digital cameras, the cost of your time with hours and hours of processing, software, data cards, batteries (both purchase and charging costs), laptops, vs the cost of film and processing, I am sure that film is the cheaper option</p>

<p>Less annoying - what could be more annoying on your wedding day than a photographer taking 2000+ photos - "get out of my face!". Film photographers are more economical and astute when capturing events......quality not quantity.</p>

<p>Disadvantages....</p>

<p>You need to be very quick at changing film, and plan ten shots ahead to allow for film change, or keep two cameras loaded.</p>

<p>Low light not as good as digital - okay, so cheap zooms won't cut it with film. you need to buy fast primes. I went for rangefinders which can be shot at slower shutter speeds than SLR's.</p>

<p>No chimping - you've got to be confident with your own ability when it comes to shooting film....it's not for the first timer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For Mark Anthony -</p>

<p>Yes I used to shoot film weddings in the 1990s. That said. I am still of the younger generation. I began shooting film weddings when I was 16 years old in 1997 with a family member and went solo when I was 18.</p>

<p>Call me a tech baby I suppose but I prefer getting home from a shoot and dumping my raw files into lightroom and having every exposure variance at my command with no more effort than turning the mouse 1 or 2 inches to the left or right for navigation.</p>

<p>I know, lazy. But I deserve it. I spent years in the darkroom and can honestly say - No thanks! (for me anyway) =)</p>

<p>Ty Mickan - lately it has been my own personal experience just the opposite of what you mentioned. Brides aren't "get out of my face." In fact 90% or more (running the risk of generating my own percentages in my own head) are the ones running me ragged with all of their great ideas they have for dozens of poses on top of anything I may have already had planned for the day.</p>

<p>Just last weekend the bridge made sure there was, count them, 5 hours between the ceremony and the reception and yes you guessed it. that time was all spent with me and the bridal party while they drove us around in the limo from location to location to do photoshoots the whole time (while they also got halfway toasted to the moon in the limo along the way of course, so the photos started looking really great 3 hours into it - lol)</p>

<p>To Brian Shaw could it be that there are so many "wedding photographers" in the market, some with oodles of money for equipment, and little knowledge, that they dont choose pro labs anymore, rather Walmart Kmart type processing?</p>

<p>I stopped using film three years ago simply because nobody wanted me to keep using the medium - everyone wanted digital files. That was back in 2008 when the economy started to crumble and now very few people even want my services, as all the guests are apparently professionals and give away their work. Oh well.</p>

<p>I miss my film as I could get nicer prints and smoother contrast using some of Fuji's best negative films plus my lab guy did a great job on them. Now, sadly, this lab does not even offer 4x6 proofing.</p>

<p>I am shooting aerials, nowadays, plus doing real estate work with my Nikon gear.</p>

<p>A few years ago i was offered a wedding. i did my pricing. Sure with digital i could shoot 4,000pix(not 5,000). Great! Of what? i don't want to edit that! How many hours making a set to show..<br>

So i figured how many main shots, how many rolls and timesed it twice. Final after calculating scans and making prints plus a series of 8x10/12 and a album. The difference was very small.<br>

i did a test run with the bride and groom. i always do that first. Get to meet everybody and see if we can work together. Sadly they were unable to pay my fee. The shoot was a gift. Really nice shots with my Pentax Spotmatic ($25) and the 50mm f1.4 Super Takumar and the 85mm f1.9 Super Takumar. One roll. Delivered in a small album. Gratis,free.<br>

Cost. film $4.oo, process and print plus scan,$8.oo Album about $15.oo. Total $27. Sure digital would have been how much cheaper? Wow $4.oo. Digital depreciation of a DSLR?<br>

The beauty of film how much more careful one is with the finger pushing.</p>

<p>I use film in two Nikon F5 bodies for about 75%+ of each wedding. It's not just the color, skintones, etc, but it is the superior workflow. The lab has dialed in exactly the look I want in the scans. I simply drop off the film and download the scans....no post processing.</p>

<p>Digital is great....but it's turned every photographer into their own lab. This is a benefit and a disadvantage. I'd rather be behind the camera, or marketing, or spending time with my family than making adjustments to hundreds of images from my DSLRs.</p>

<p>If you want to get the scoop on using film, pick up Jose Villa's new book on wedding photography. Or, go to Jonathan Canlas' site and order his "FIND" guide (Film Is Not Dead). You can also see the work of Leah Mccormick, Leo Patrone, Riccis Valladares, The Brothers Wright, among others to see what they achieve with 35mm and MF gear. Most of them send their color neg materials to Richard Photo Lab in LA....as do I.</p>

<p>Film has it's place....and you'll never worry about highlights blowing out ever again! But I'd never part with my DSLRs either!</p>

<p>Ronald....scan your film. You'll have digital files. Problem solved.</p>