Calling all Old Timers! What was it like back in the old days, shooting a wedding with film?

<p>How many photos did you take with film versus now with digital? How many images went to the bride back then.... just curious...</p>

<p>at least times 10, but equipment is lighter no film to advance so my hands and eye are not more tired. you had the camera up and ready almost as much. <br>

The amount of pictures taken isn't the biggest difference between then and now. </p>

I've shot hundreds of weddings with film. All 6x6 with either Bronica SQa system or Hasselblads and several all manual

Lumedyne 400ws flash units. My typical MF lenses were 50, 60 or 65, 80, 100, 180.

Most were shot on Kodak VPS, or later Portra 160 and 400. Some on Fujicolor 160. I had a major problem with Fujicolor

on a job and then only used Kodak exclusively after that. I would mix usually five rolls of 220 (24 shots/roll) with ten rolls

plus of 120 (12 shots/roll) So to start that's about 200 - 240 shots, sometimes up to 300 shots. On some really big high

end money jobs, we might shoot through several rolls of 36 exp 35mm for extra PJ stuff and candids. But, all formals and

portraits would be on the 6x6 machines. Tripod was heavily used. My lights even on camera had model lights so I could

focus in the dark and set up portrait lighting. I often used a large compendium style lens hood and had various filters,

some custom made for me. I also used to shoot bridal fashion layouts and bridal fashion shows, a lot of that was on

35mm too mostly slide film. Some of that required 5x7 internegatives from the slides. That too would be much easier

today on digital.

Cool subject - No more than 8 rolls of 220 film. That translates to 24 shots per roll, medium format.

Hasselblads. The pictures were 5X5 inches, square prints. Most of the time I tried very hard to limit the

amount to 6 rolls! About 150 to 175 shots. However I did go over the 200 mark for a few of the bigger weddings.

 

I only used Hasselblads and the Metz CT 60 flash units. The flash could probably light up Los Angeles. Even back then I used White Lightnings the 3200 to light up the reception rooms.

 

I pretty much used the same film as Dave, starting with the Kodak VPS. I didn't use 35mm back then.

I think the Fuji film acted weird. For a lack of words the colors were too candy looking, the skin tones were

a tad reddish. The dresses weren't a true white, the dresses had a tint to them. This is when I went to

Kodak using the Portra ASA 400, rated at ASA 320. The pro lab I used, I still use actually, used Kodak

systems.

 

Film is still my favorite, but you can't find any in medium format film nor labs that will still develop it.

 

One of the biggest differences between film and digital was the details in the dresses. Film was so sweet!

You could see every detail of their dresses to the tiny buttons. Sadly if you are over exposed with digital the

details in the dresses are dead, Nothing is there. Just something white and shinny, it glows! I don't know about the other film

shooters, but this is a major complaint for me.

<p>I officiated for hundreds of weddings over 33 years, beginning in 1978. My memory of wedding photographers in film days correlates with comments above. I remember lots of lighting equipment: umbrellas/stands and tripods, the rush to change roll films and backs, and mostly Kodak VPS 220. As digital came in, photographers seemed to travel lighter and become younger. (Maybe I was just becoming older.) Primes were being replaced by zooms, light stands by on-camera units with diffusers. There were fewer tripods. Digital video also came on the scene. Two or three shooters would work more seamlessly among the movements of the wedding party. More spontaneity was evident in dressing rooms, kitchen, outside the sanctuary, in-between moments. Instead of one or two hundred shots, there were literally thousands being recorded. I was always glad not to be the kind of officiant who felt the need to control photographers/videographers. Rather, I tried to help everyone's role become easier. Generally, I had the impression at the end of my career that younger photographers were very skilled at handling not only equipment and photography, but also people. Finally, I noticed more female photographers on the scene. That was good.</p>

<p>When I first started shooting weddings, in 1996, I shot for a really low priced studio and they got upset if I shot more than 170 pictures with my RB67. They only promised 125 at the time. When I shot my own at that time I topped out at about 300. After that I shot for studios, and myself, at about 450 and up to about 600. That was about the most that I ever shot on film.<br>

I knew people who took 1500 pictures in the film days. They shot about 300 portraits on medium format and a thousand candids or more in 35mm.<br /><br />As soon as I went completely digital, I was over 1000 shots and now usually come in between 1200 and 1500. Rarely more but a small wedding might still only justify 700 to 800 images.<br /><br />I don't promise anyone any number of pictures. What I usually tell them is, "I will shoot whatever is requiredd to cover your wedding."</p>

<p>By the way . . . In my experience the Fuji vs. Kodak film question revolved around what lab you used. I always shot Kodak only for my work because my lab did a great job printing it and I never liked Fuji. I thought it was the film. I started shooting for a studio and the owner handed me three boxes of Fuji film. I told him that it never worked for me and he told me not to worry about it. I shot the film exactly the same as I shot my Kodak film and his lab did a great job printing it!</p>

<p>Interesting topic! Shooting film I would usually run 10-12 rolls of 120 through an RB67 and another 4-5 of 35mm. Usually shot VPS and later Portra. Moving to digital didn't increase my frame count much. I can't figure out how to shoot 1500 frames at a wedding unless it us a huge event. Every once in a while I consider going back to film for at least some wedding work not to mention a lot of my personal work.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>Depending on the wedding, on average I usually shot 10 to 15 rolls of 135 (mostly B&W), and 4 or 5 rolls of 220. However, that included bracketing some of the more critical formal shots.</p>

<p>Tended to use Tri-X Pro rated at ISO320, then later some Illford B&W film. Developed all my own B&W negs and printed in my Darkroom.</p>

<p>Used all sorts of color films, including Fuji, Agfa, Kodak.</p>

<p>Negative film has a dynamic range and heel-toe response that differs from digital, (which can be unforgiving on the highlight end).</p>

<p>Used a rangefinder for all the B&W images, some color 135 in various SLRs, and 120 or 220 in a Hasselblad V or Contax 645 Medium Format camera. </p>

<p>Here's a shot on the coast of California: Hasselblad 503CW with a Zeiss CF50 lens using Kodak Portra 160.<br>

- Marc</p>

<p> <br>

</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Old Timers? I have shoot film weddings for a couple of years before going digital in 2005. So did majority of photogs I knew then. That was only 10 years ago - no reason to call people names ;)<br>

Back to your question.....hm....what was the question?<br>

Ah! How many photos did I shoot? Sorry don't remember.</p>

<p>I started working in a commercial studio in 1964. The photographer used Tri-X 4x5 film packs and a Super Graphic, and shot three packs for a wedding--about 48 shots, sometimes more for someone important. Virtually every shot counted and was printed as a proof (developing and printing was my job). No spray and pray. Formal shots of the bride were done in the studio before the wedding, a separate job.</p>

<p>After I left, he switched to a roll film back with a 90mm Optar. He said customers expected the big camera, and didn't know he was shooting "small" film.</p>

<p>When I started shooting weddings myself, around 1973 I shot first with a Yashica, then a Century Graphic and roll back, and finally a Mamiya C2, shooting around 6 or eight color rolls for a job. Again, most were keepers, and proofed. At that time I was working for someone else.</p>

<p>Aside, in the studio the person I worked for first was shooting split 5x7 in an 8x10 Ansco view, with Kodatron strobes. We developed everything in Dk-50. I can't remember what film he used in the studio--Kodak Portrait Pan, I think. He retouched everything, and I remember him muttering to himself from time to time "Madam, I am a photographer, not a surgeon!". He had an outlying studio in a smaller town, and I still have the Graphic View II and Ilex Paragon 8-1/4" lens used in that studio.</p>

<p>I started shooting for a local wedding specialist in the '60s, as a high school kid. Always on Kodak pro color neg films, CPS at that time, always processed at portrait/wedding labs.</p>

<p>I shot 120 roll film in a TLR, mostly Rolleiflex, but occasionally a Mamiya C3. For the "budget" weddings, the boss wanted to hold it to 6 rolls (12-exp). So 72 usable shots minus a half-dozen for early film changes (if you didn't have enough left to cover the aisle shots, you had to load a fresh roll). Duplicate shots ONLY for the larger groups, or if someone blinked (you can pretty easily spot blinks through a sportsfinder).</p>

<p>It may not sound like enough photos, but remember that every shot was deliberate, framed to print as is, so there was not much <a href="mailto:cr@p">cr@p</a> to weed out - mostly just blinks or shooting errors. Probably 80% of the shots were good enough for a full album page.</p>

<p>I mostly "retired" from weddings after a few years, although my adult work life has been 100% in photography. I last shot a wedding about 15 years ago (yep, used a Rolleiflex), never did one on digital yet (but might later this year).</p>

<p>If I had to guess, I'd say I might shoot 5x more on digital. With weddings on film, I seldom shot things that didn't a) have a chance to be in the album, or b) have print-sale possibilities. With digital, the mood-type things and people candids barely add to the cost, and people like to look at them (even though they wouldn't pay to own prints). Still, I can't hardly imagine going over 500 shots or so. Even though I grew up with a photojournalistic bent, I'm frugal on the shutter button - it mostly doesn't trip if I think I can improve the shot. But I dunno.</p>

<p>ps, I don't consider myself an old-timer yet.</p>

<p>To add to my previous post … "What was it like?"</p>

<p><strong>Here's what I liked about working with film:</strong></p>

<p>Less distractions when actually shooting available light candids. LCD instant review promotes an insecure tendency to chimp too many shots. Experienced film shooters trusted their instincts and the performance of the gear, and kept their eye on the events unfolding around them with less interuptive habits. While one can turn off the LCD, it is human nature not to.</p>

<p>I especially liked the tactile feel of my film cameras. I relished winding each frame with my all mechanical Leica Ms, Contax 35mms, and Hasselblad V cameras. Something reassuring about the whole process that is totally missing with auto everything SLRs and DSLR cameras. It provided a more direct connection with the tool in hand.</p>

<p>When the whole process remains analog, from shooting to neg to print … the results are truly different from digital. While I am 100% digital today, I do not think it can experientially match a shimmering silver halide print, and probably never will. Nadine O Hara and I used to discuss this aspect of the changing photographic landscape as both of us migrated from film to digital. In fact, I sold her a digital scanner some years back, and we both agreed that it was not a substitute for a 100% analog process, and we both lamented that fact.</p>

<p>Film helped keep the craft of photography more at the forefront of the creative process. It provided an experiential demarkation point between a professional wedding photographer and an amateur. Even when DSLRs became all-auto wonders, it still required knowing what you were doing to a good extent. With the advent of digital, everyone and his dog took to thinking they could shoot weddings, regardless of those elusive things called talent and experience.</p>

<p>Film tended to promote thoughtful discrimination. Knowing you had 36 shots tended to make you more acutely aware of events unfolding before you. That is less images than you'd get by putting a 1 gig card in your DSLR! Now we hose off waaaaay more images per wedding because we can … but that habit isn't free as many tend to think. We are burdened with a massive post production chore where we have become the lab and retoucher, often without being paid for it because weddings do not pay any better than when I used film. In fact they pay less. </p>

<p><strong>What I didn't like about using film:</strong></p>

<p>Film provided zero information about the "taken" image while shooting. While experience mitigated that, digital made it a LOT easier to gain that experience … allowing us learn various photographic techniques in a much shorter time frame. Lighting is one major thing that became a lot easier to understand because you could see it immediately and correct it.</p>

<p>Film was truly hard to work with in really low available light compared to the luxury we now enjoy with digital. ASA (ISO) 800 color was pushing it (so to speak:-). Lighting skills were just about mandatory, not an option… which further separated pro from amateur. </p>

<p>Most film rolls had to leave your hands and go to the lab … where anything could happen … and if you shot long enough, did happen. No back-up on your computer or a hard drive. Lose a roll and say good-bye to those images. While stuff can happen to digital files, most wedding cameras today feature dual card slots, and IF something goes south, it is usually our fault not some unknown person who doesn't have the same vested interest in the work that we do.</p>

<p>As digital progressed, finding good film labs became harder and harder to do. Many labs began down scaling their film abilities and the experienced lab craftsmen began disappearing … to be replaced by a gum chewing part-time teen that couldn't give a rat's behind about your precious wedding images. Plus all the diverse films we once could select from stopped being produced. </p>

<p>Traveling with film for destination weddings was a nightmare compared to doing so with digital. </p>

<p><strong>There are more pros and cons, but that's enough for now. </strong></p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Marc] Knowing you had 36 shots tended to make you more acutely aware of events unfolding before you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That comment would have made me snort beer out my nose had I been drinking it. After I just mentioned the 12-shot rolls through a Rolleiflex. I used to work with several guys who had done weddings with 4x5 press cameras; they would have probably laughed if I told them how limiting a Rollei was.</p>

<p>I think people have a tendency to "know" photography from when they first started. A few years back, I read an article (I think it may have been a Phase I newsletter) interviewing a few "oldsters" (in my perception). They had both worked with an oldster (to them) by the name of Wilson Todd. Wilson did vaudeville portraits and the like on one of those big ole Kodak Century cameras. The conversation went something like this, "These young guys today, who've only shot on film, don't know what they're missing. Wilson could do things with glass plates you just can't do with film." I wish I would have saved the pdf, as it doesn't seem to be online anymore.</p>

<p>I never shot glass plates (aside from a one-time batch of surplus 10x10" plates), but I first learned flash with flash bulbs and non-sync shutters. You used a solenoid that had to be adjusted to coincide with the "class" of flashbulb. You picked the guide numbers appropriate to the shutter speed, and the only way to verify exposure was to do some test shots and develop the film. To me, electronic flash opened up the field to just about anyone. The guide numbers were right on the money - nothing to it. You could even get a flash meter and not bother with guide numbers. Then those inexpensive flash units with thyristor controls - that's when event photography, in my mind, got so easy anyone could do it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Marc] While I am 100% digital today, I do not think it can experientially match a shimmering silver halide print, and probably never will.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You just haven't been around enough. (I've got quite a lot of serious lab experience and even I wouldn't say "shimmering.") I had an eye-opener a bunch of years back when Kodak wanted to sell inkjet paper to my company (not "mine," just the place where I worked). They set up some special firware in one of our inkjet printers so we could try out their special 'E' surface paper. We literally could not distinguish it from silver-halide paper (via unaided human eye). I realize that you didn't know who "we" are/were, so all I can say is that we had color correctors who were second to none in the business.</p>

<p>ps: if anyone wants to try looking up that "glass plate" pdf, my recollection is that the discussion was between photographer Clifford Martin and an old-time sales guy named "Rufus." As I recall, the author had overheard their conversation about Wilson Todd. To me it was hilarious to read, as it was a case of same 'ol, same 'ol like we hear today.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>That comment would have made me snort beer out my nose had I been drinking it. After I just mentioned the 12-shot rolls through a Rolleiflex. I used to work with several guys who had done weddings with 4x5 press cameras; they would have probably laughed if I told them how limiting a Rollei was.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My father was given ten glass plates when he was sent out to do his first wedding. He was sent on his way with the comment <em>"don't waste any"</em> !!</p>

I cannot imagine what the cost would be if digital was the same cost as film! No CD's, no photoshop

and the prices of digital would remain the same as the film days!

 

Some people shoot 2000 images, some as high as 6000. In the 70's, 80's, 90's and part of 2000 the

prices were around $1 per shot. $6000 for a wedding just to break even with digital! You have to laugh.

 

One time Burt Renolds got married and his wedding bill was about $100,000. There were about 10

photographers there. All film of course. A photo made the front cover of the "Times" magazine. Rumor

has it that the photographer got $10,000 just for this one shot. Then of course there were the inside

pages of photo's. In one wedding the photographer probably made $500,000. Lucky guy!

 

It would be so cool to get the front cover of any magazine back then. The back covers also lead to a lot

of money.

 

Something not talked about was finding a really good lab that took care of you. The lab would have all of

the past weekend weddings done by Friday, so you could make sure that everything with your cameras

worked fine. Trust me things went wrong. It's not a huge list of problems, but enough to screw up part of

a wedding. One time a friend from way back forgot to reload a film back. He was shooting without film!

That wasn't pretty. Back then you would blame the labs! Those poor lab owners!

 

The film back then, well it hasn't changed, was called C 41, a type of chemical processing. Another

type was for slide film called E 6. One stupid lab processed one of my rolls of C 41 with E6. They

wrecked the roll. Everything went blue. Thankfully it wasn't any of the formal shots. The couple never

found out about it. It was a reception. The cake shots were fine, the flower throw, the garter, the first

dance was processed perfectly. I lost a few of the table shots and the candid dance shots. I was so

lucky.

 

Sometimes it was very stressful. Every shot had to count. You have to laugh. There's digital now. So what if you make a mistake You have 6000 more tries to get it right! No one will ever know.

 

I still like the quality of film better compared to digital.

<p>Great stories Bill.</p>

<p>When I mentioned silver prints, I meant B&W. I did all my own processing and printing in a Zone VI equipped darkroom printing using special papers they had made in France with a much richer level of silver content than the mass produced stuff (thus the "shimmering" term for lack of another). When they lost that source of paper, the replacement papers were just not the same.</p>

<p>I have a collection of iconic B&W prints from famous early photographers, and still marvel at the depth of blacks that retain detail, and the subtile highlight areas in their prints. I've read that those papers were also much richer in silver content than later paper. </p>

<p>I must say that using a Rip with an inkjet printer and printing on double weight Crane's Museo Silver Rag ink jet papers, I've been able to get close to a silver print.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Marc] When I mentioned silver prints, I meant B&W. I did all my own processing and printing in a Zone VI equipped darkroom printing using special papers they had made in France with a much richer level of silver content than the mass produced stuff (thus the "shimmering" term for lack of another).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ahhhh.... my mistake. It never occurred to me that you meant B&W. I can't really talk too knowledgeably as most of my B&W experience was my own, prior to about '70 or '75, before I knew how (or had the discipline?) to do serious testing. But I've done a lot of work with tonal response curves from about the mid '90s, and wouldn't be surprised if most of what you might attribute to higher silver content is just well-shaped tonal response. For some reason, color papers seem able to reach much higher densities than B&W paper, which in my experience is often less than 1.8 max, and seldom over 2.0. So it's probably not D-max givng the look (just my guess).</p>

<p>I was once going through old company archive photos with some intent I don't remember, but I recall finding one "punchy" portrait and thinking, ok, this one will have pretty good density. But when I measured it, I was astounded that it only reached something like 1.5 or 1.6 (which is pretty low). So the whole impression had to be coming from how the very limited range was used. I'm sure that if I overlaid it on something with high density the difference would have been obvious, but by itself, it sure gave the impression of having good solid blacks.</p>

<p>Anyway, hope you keep enjoying the collection of older photos.</p>

<p>Oh you young whippersnappers. I was a newspaper photographer in the early 1960s and quite often the Society Editor (for women's interest pages, back then) would let the photogs know somebody phoned her and said they had a wedding real soon and didn't have a photographer. So I'd load Tri-X b&w film into my Rolleiflex and take a few rolls.<br>

I hate to tell you guys this but from what I see (including in Rangefinder Magazine) nobody shoots weddings any more. They shoot "Princess For A Day" photos, not holy matrimony.<br>

I remember one striking photograph of a bride in her wedding gown floating on the surface of a small pond. Clever, but not Holy Matrimony.<br>

Back in Iowa we used to slop the hogs. Now a lot of folks slop the Internet with zillions of not-so-hot alleged photographs.<br>

As for Photoslop -- don't get me started.</p>

Wayne, great story! How times have changed! I vaguely remember my father taking a few shots when you'd

have to change the bulb after every shot! He's use a cloth of some sort to remove each bulb so his hands

didn't get fried; burnt!

 

Now we get anoid if the batteries die after 200 shots!

There was an established old hand in NJ who was still using 4x5 well into the 1980s. That's how he worked and the

people loved him.

In the late 70s, early 80s shooting 35mm, 10 rolls was a lot. Bride got about half that many proofs or maybe two thirds depending on how good you were at not wasting shots. Nobody shot a thousand frames or two thousand like we hear arbout now. MF was king, so shooting 35 was either "amateur" or "cutting edge" depending on your point of view. Exposure was manual, as was focus -- you prefocused on a spot along the aisle rather than relying on AF. Flash exposure could be manual or maybe you had an "auto aperture" flash but no TTL, and you ran the risk that auto flash would be fooled by the white gown or black tux. You bought a good camera and it lasted for the rest of your career rather than having to be upgraded every other year. Shots were more standardardized and even candids were posed to some degree. No oddball little detail shots of the back of the third bridesmaid's hairdo. Yes their were amateurs looking to break into the business and part-timers, but you didn't have everybody who'd spend $300 on a "good camera" claiming to be a professional.

Bunch of 20th century hipster posers with your

new-fangled film. Real wedding photographers

took one shot with wet plate collodion. Or they

died for their craft making Daguerreotypes.

 

http://petapixel.com/2013/07/15/wedding-tintype-

portraits-with-a-massive-20x24-1800s-camera/

<p>LOVE this stuff.</p>

<p>When I shot with film (35mm and MF) it was all with the album in mind. Not the coffee table bound books with 100+ images or 1,000+ images plastered up on the internet … everything was shot for the big glorious slip in type wedding albums with 20 to 35 silver prints … all of which I hand crafted and archival selenium toned in my darkroom (except a few color shots that went to the lab). I vividly recall my whole studio floor covered with drying screens and prints.</p>

<p>Frankly, I don't miss it all that much. What I do miss are discriminating clients.</p>

<p>The FaceBook/Twitter etc. generation doesn't seem to value longevity … more "here today, gone tomorrow" immediate need. The first question out of today's client (after "How Much will this cost?"), is "How many photos will I get"? </p>

<p>Album sales have fallen off the cliff also. It seems the value of such an iconic family herloom no longer is deemed necessary. I even have clients that pre-paid for a deluxe 60 page bound album which I designed and sent to them, and they have never responded. Not a peep.</p>

<p>I was discussing this with the lab owner who prints and binds my albums, and he confirmed my observations. In fact, he has participated in seminar/discussions where historians and documentarians are concerned that there will not be the material to draw upon to depict life today because no one is saving images or printing anything to be found later in storage, or in family albums.</p>

<p>In that sense, digital has been a "Cultural Catastrophe".</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>