Have I lost it? or do I start shooting wedding again?

[erie_patsellis]

First, some background...

 

nearly 18 years ago, I had a commercial studio, in additon to the portrait,

weddings, etc. Decided after a couple of years down the road that if I wanted to

live to see 35(seemed old then ), I needed to do something else.

 

Now here I am at 43, living for the last several years 1000 miles from where I

grew up, or as I refer to it "the middle of f'n nowhere". theres a few

photographers in the area, I know some of the better ones, and here's the rub:

There's a new kid (20 year old girl) that everyone rants and raves about her

work, so much so that she's just upped her wedding prices to over $3000 for a

basic wedding. I've looked at alot of her work, her candid stuff is ok, I guess.

Her formal work sucks, looks like she lit it with a few shoe mounted flashes,

ratios are horrible, and to top it all off, she prefers dark backgrounds, and

uses on rim or hair light. Maybe I'm being picky, but her work is a step or two

above the average amateur, but not to professional standards in my eyes.

 

I've had several people that have seen some of my portrait work, and it's far

from my favorite genre, nearly beg me to start shooting weddings. (one of them

is a florist, one of the other does balloons and tuxes, etc.)

 

here's my quandry. I hate digital, I know that there are still people shooting

film, and from what I've been seeing it's considered an 'upscale' product now.

Equipment wise, I"m about 95%, 2 F3/MD4 combos, F4, (probably get another F3 or

two, just in case) Glass wise I'm covered,

 

I've got 2 RB67's (with ust about every lens, except the silly fisheye and the

horrible 360)and way too many backs for a sane person to own for the posed formals.

 

Stuido lighting I'm ok (as long as I don't have to light a semi and do it in a

single pop), however I long ago got rid of the 4 Metz 402's I had. So what is

the best setup that doesn't cost a mint? I'm thinking scrounging up 2 or 3

60CT4's from KEH and Ebay, but what is everybody using these days? The only

other option I see is possbly the Quantum Qflash4 (don't need all the silliness

that the 5 brings to the table)

 

My tendency used to be to shoot pre-ceremony, ceremony and post ceremony shots

with VPS (though now I use Fuji NPS or whatever it's called this year) 35mm for

the church and candid shots, medium format (or 4x5 if I know they want larger

prints) for the formals. I used to use 400 speed negative film for the candids

at the reception, but haven't kept up with what films have decent skin tone

rendition these days. I've actually had a few people suggest I do a wedding in

B&W, as it is about 90% of my work for myself, and I enjoy it far more than color.

 

So, with all this rambling, I guess the executive summary is:

 

Is it feasible in this day and age to shoot film?

 

Is there still a need to shoot Medium Format formals?

 

What higher power flashes are out there today?

 

erie

[al_kaplan1]

Go for it! Medium format film, to my eye at least, beats the competition for big prints. If people love your B&W work you can charge a premium, especially for real gelatin silver prints. Good luck.

[erie_patsellis]

My thought Al was to do the formals in b/w large format (as an upcharge, of course) printed conventionally (silver gelatin). Though I have an HP 8750 I've been playing with, and I'm impressed, but I won't sell anything I can't trust.

 

erie

[jay_hern]

I am new to digital photography, and I love it.. I want to do weddings eventually.. But I know that once I have the means and the experience I will want to use medium format for the prints I want to go on canvas. I worked with a pro who used a medium format pentax system, and his large prints were beyond belief.

 

Medium format definately has a place for those huge, breathtaking prints. Go for it.

[Jochen_S]

If you're sticking to your outdated film bodies the Metz 60ct4 should be as good as a flash can be. (I don't know Quantums.) Anything later is weaker but able to cope with modern ETTL or however it's called, so it might have become popular for that reason.

 

Shooting film: If you have enough reputation and self confidence to make customers pay you besides film and processing cost, stick to it / go for it again. - I wouldn't. I'll have to start at the low end of the market and would probably end paying the additional roll once in a while out of my own purse, but I'd be more than glad making ?300 per wedding some day for delivering up to 10 CDs. Film surely isn't worse than digital, especially if prints are the desired end-product.

 

There might be a need for MF formals. Probably everything depends on the couple.

[jfr]

If you have a decent dark room workflow and don't mind being there, do it! Film is nice, but most labs can't process it properly anymore.

I'd give Fuji NPH (or PRO 400H as it is called today (what were they thinking)) or the kodak portra series a try. If you are going to go the scanning route I'd try kodak BW400CN, as a C-41 film it scans far better than conventional B&W.

B&W MF & LF is definetely a niche market!

[medina photography cherry]

The ranting and raving may be because she is 20- Us old people just arent hip, unless we dress and act like 12 year olds. I did a venue where the coordinator called me on the phone 2 days before (I never met the woman before) She was talking like a teenager. She sounded like paris Hilton, lets say that. When I met here, here was a 45ish orange woman, that looked 55 because of the leather skin. I could not stand her. Well I am an old fuddy duddy (39) going on 60, so that could be the reason.

[elliot1]

Digital is easy and fun, if you have the right equipment. I am not saying to give up film. But Digitial has its place. Get your hands on high end Nikon and/or Canon cameras and give them a try. You might find a good digital system a valuable tool to compliment your film cameras.

[afs760bf]

Well, to just answer the questions - all my opinion, of course.

 

1. Yes, it is feasable to shoot film. Many people still shoot all film. Some shoot film and digital. I personally shoot all film.

 

2. No, there is not a need to shoot medium format formals, but you'll get higher quality if you do. I normally shoot the portraits and Bride/Groom shots with medium format. Excellent.

 

3. Someone already suggested the Metz 60 CT series. That should work fine. I have a Metz 45CT5, and it works great. I've never needed any more power. Actually, my Sunpak 444D on a bracket is more power than needed for most wedding shots.

 

Best Regards

[picturesque]

Yes, you've lost it--UNLESS--you really want to start shooting weddings again. Then you should do it no matter what style or gear you have. If you're doing it just to make a buck or two, I would seriously consider dealing with digital, because shooting all film, you are placing yourself at a disadvantage if you care about the print quality.

 

1. It is becoming less feasible to shoot film because you can't get good optical prints anymore. Even if you submit a negative for printing, most labs now will scan the neg and print digitally. Big difference in resulting quality. It is also now more expensive to make prints from negatives than it is to print from a digital file. It is even more expensive to get optical prints, because now, it is considered custom. And while it hasn't happened yet to any large degree, film may become more expensive. Kodak just improved their Portra series, which is what I've used. Fuji's equivalent is great too. If you can make a market shooting 90% B&W, fine, but shooting B&W film is even harder to get good quality prints at competitive rates. My point is, if you are going to shoot weddings and offer packages as you used to, good luck. If you can manage to make a niche for yourself doing something highly unusual yet marketable to the folks in your area (is competitively priced and desirable), then maybe. The only other reason, as I said above, is if you want to do it, no matter what. Doesn't sound like that is the case, though.

 

2. I still like medium format film, but "still a need"? Probably not a need, since film technology has advanced a lot and most wedding prints aren't printed bigger than 8x10. Not a lot of 16x20 formal shots being ordered anymore except maybe by a bride's mother, if the mother is from an older generation. Still, you have the gear, so I'd do the formals with medium format. I have a Metz 45 and 60--they are great. Get a couple of used ones.

 

3. I'm confused about your question about studio lighting and higher power flashes. To me studio lighting is a corded power pack or monolight kit. I consider Metz 60s, Lumedynes and Normans portable lighting kits. If you're going to use your medium format gear, the Metz units are great, as well as the others if you want to go manual. For off camera lights, any of those are great, including the Quantums. I don't see where you'd need anything beyond the Quantum Q flashes T2 and X models.

[leo patrone]

<p>I shoot 100% film. I shoot medium format (6x6 and 6x4.5) for the formals, engagements, bridals, etc because i love the format, it is so much better when it comes to composition. And I shoot 35mm for the receptions. If you are happy with there is no need to go digital. I have several diferent cameras some of them are from the 70's and I can do a way better job than any of the top of the line digital cameras. You have to work with whatever works for you. Don't worry about the latest equipment. Some people care more about their expensive equipment than their actual work. I would recomend kodak 400uc for color film and kodak 400cn (c-41 black and white film.) If you love film shoot film. Check out these two sites: (they both shoot 100% film as well)</p>

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

<p><a href="http://www.josevilla.com">www.josevilla.com</a> <br><br>Good Luck. <a href="http://www.leopatronephotography.com"><br><br>Leo Patrone</a></p>

[erie_patsellis]

Jochen,

there is something to be said for reliable as a brick 20 year old bodies, as well as a lifetime collection of lenses, Some (600 f4, for example) are just finally being made in AF I have no intention of starting at the bottom. I compared my quick snapshots (taken with a 40+ year old mamiya super deluxe RF I'd just finished tearing down and recalibrating the RF) of a wedding my wife and I went to recently with this girls work. The B&G were surprised, to say the least. And the results, where the rubber meets the road spoke volumes.

 

Robert,

Having 2 twenty something stepdaughters and a son and daughter of my own, somehow I believe that. Funny thing, my daughter flew out to have me take her senior pics, as she wasn't happy with any of the photogs she talked to in CT.

 

Barry,

my memories of using some of the earlier sunpak flashes are not that good, have you ever bounced off a church ceiling with it and got acceptable results?

 

Nadine,

I love shooting weddings. always have, just got burnt out on it and needed a short (15+ year) break.As far as optical prints, that's not totally true, I have a great optical lab, open 24 hours a day, any size print I care to print, too, in any format to 8x10 negatives, and a 20" wide processor. Seriously, I'm about 1/2 way through setting up a color lab, myself and several of my friends that are pro photogs reached the same conclusion, if you shoot E6 and C41 today, inhouse is the only way.(talk about coming full circle) At the moment, I'm having all my c41 film processed and scanned by outsourcing, by the end of Dec, I'll be helping decommision a C41 and E6 line, and gettting paid to remove it too....

 

In reality, MF is the smallest format I'm confortable shooting anymore, even on an 8x10 there is a palpable difference, a sense of seeing into a window, instead of looking at a print.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, at the time I used Sinar/Bron products exclusively and had access to anything in the catalog on a loan basis. These days I shoot mostly with Speedotron and a few smaller Novatron units for smaller outfits. The combination of having more light than god available and between the lens shutters makes any fill flash situation easily dealt with.

 

Leo,

I'm glad to hear I'm not alone, though it's probably time for the gym if I'm going to have a couple of RB's around my neck during the ceremony, especially with prisms. I ordered a couple of pro packs of each of the kodak pro C41 films, with the exception of that abomination of b&w film you mentioned, I"ll play with those and compare to the Fuji films I have on hand. Personally, I"d love to shoot a wedding with a speed graphic and graflok 6 sheet packs. I did it once and it was a blast. (20 years ago, couple remarrying after 50 years, I knew the original photographer, lovely old school photographer, he loaned me the very speed graphic that he shot their wedding with originally)

 

erie

[picturesque]

Erie--where is this lab you talk about? And if you open one yourself, let me know. I'd feel much better about shooting film if I had a good optical lab. Your original post doesn't sound like shooting weddings is in your heart and soul. If it is, you really can't refuse so might as well just get busy doing it.

[erie_patsellis]

Nadine,

I love shooting weddings, plain and simple. But I get far more enjoyment shooting landscape and fine art type work. I make a point of shotting MF or LF at least 8 hours a week, sometimes all at once, sometimes a little here and there. It looks like it's going to be foggy tonight, so chances are I'll be shooting around 3 or 4 thismorning til sunrise, then go home get a few hours sleep and get some paying work done.

 

Once we have the lab up and going, we're going to see what our realistic capacity adn volume is, inhouse, if we have capacity, we plan on offering it to others. The biggest problem with having an inhouse lab is that when you're your busiest, so are your lab customers, and then it comes down to who's work gets done first, an uncomfortable position to say the least.

 

erie

[fotografz]

Good old time Rock 'n Roll there Erie : -)

 

I have a framed diptych of of two 11"X14" matted images of a Carousal made from 6X7 B&W

negs ... one still, one blurred with motion. Everytime I walk by that set of photos I am

reminded how far backwards we have come in the name of convenience, and so called cost

savings.

 

Go for it man !!!

[brenda_carpenter2]

<i>"I would seriously consider dealing with digital, because shooting all film, you are placing yourself at a disadvantage if you care about the print quality.

1. It is becoming less feasible to shoot film because you can't get good optical prints anymore. Even if you submit a negative for printing, most labs now will scan the neg and print digitally. Big difference in resulting quality. It is also now more expensive to make prints from negatives than it is to print from a digital file. It is even more expensive to get optical prints, because now, it is considered custom. And while it hasn't happened yet to any large degree, film may become more expensive."/i>

 

I am still shooting film and haven't found this to be true at all. I live in a small west Texas desert town (population 89,000) and even out here I have several good, and one outstanding, labs to choose from. They still do the traditional optical printing up to 12 x 18 and the quality is wonderful. I do have to use another lab, usually Burrell Pro Labs for prints up to 30 x 40, and have occasionally had to send prints back, but in the end they always make it right and I'm happy with the results. Don't worry, you can still get great quality traditional printing if you look around.

[picturesque]

Brenda--maybe it's because you live in a small town that you can still get good optical prints. I live in a suburban area to San Francisco, and don't have any good options (that are cost effective) for high volume processing and printing in the area. Everyone has gone to digital printing, and all the big pro/portrait oriented labs have done that too. Some do a decent job of digital printing from negatives, but since I know what can be done through optical printing, it doesn't satisfy me. Maybe you can give us the name of your sources?

[erie_patsellis]

JF,

I'm curious why you said "If you are going to go the scanning route I'd try kodak BW400CN, as a C-41 film it scans far better than conventional B&W" if you go to my website, www.eriepatellis.com and look in the gallery, all b&w work is scanned from 6x7, 4x5 or 8x10 negs, to date, I've had no issues with scanning, and I'm using an older Umax PowerLook III or a Heidelber Opal Ultra with a diffuser over the film.

 

 

erie

[brenda_carpenter2]

Nadine, The best in this area is Odessa Camera Center. They have a web site and will probably take mail ins. I can usually get my 120 back in 24 hours or less. George Scott, the owner, is very picky about color and won't let anything out the door until it's perfect. His largest print, 12 x 18 inches, is only $12.00. You can't beat it with a stick! Small towns do have their advantages.

[picturesque]

Thanks, Brenda.

[nicola inglis]

The thing I hear coming through loud and clear in your original post is how peeved you are that this 'twenty year old girl' is doing the business. The thing that she knows that you may or may not is that for the bride it is NEVER about the gear. It's about how she'll feel on her big day and it's about the look of the pictures. She wants a combo of PJ style and 'fashion look' images. If this 20 year old girl is delivering the goods she deserves everything she's getting. If you want to go there it's about SO much more than the gear. If I were the bride I would always choose a wonderful moment (with slight technical imperfection) over a static pose that was technically perfect. You could try educating the market but I tend to think running a successful business is about giving people what they want, not trying to make them want something different.

[mike_pallas]

i know what you guys mean when you talk about good optical labs. ihad been using a lab for about 15 years, great 10x8 packages from 35mm then about 2 years ago the results had a strange pixelated look about them. results from medium format were better but before I used to get results from 35mm that looked as good as 120 on a 10x8 inch print. i tried talking to the lab and others but you cannot get any meaningful conversation with them. its like talking to a politician they go straight on the defensive so that you just get tired and give up.

[erie_patsellis]

Nicola,

Not peeved at all, the quality of "professional" work has gone down significantly in the last 20 years. She doesn't deliver, that's the point, her work is flawed, drasticlly, technically and emotionally. Her formals are shot in a studio, no hair light or rim lighting whatsoever, and of course, a dark background. the subject melts into the background. She seems to have no sense of "decisive moment" just sprays and prays. Frankly, the B&G of a wedding I recently went to were far more pleased with the 2 rolls of "snapshots" taken with a rangefinder I just got and figured I'd play with, than her high dollar 'professional' job. (at least I got all the processional shots, she only got 1) Her colors were off, closed eyes, poor framing, etc. I've already decided that I'm going to start shooting again, I've already met with 4 couples this week alone that want something "nice" and not so artsy/fartsy.(could this bode well?) Those were just from referrals from a florist I know that told them, I might be shooting weddings again.

 

 

erie

[nicola inglis]

Then I really hope it works out for you. I think the market is wide open at the moment for photographers who can get the fashionable look but combine that with a high level of technical skill (at least it is round here) so I think it does bode well for you. All the best!