Does anyone shoot film at weddings these days?

[ronald_smith2]

I have accumulated a very nice, albeit old, 35mm AF SLR system over the years -

I own two EOS A2 bodies plus VG-10 grips, the EF 24-85mm f/3.5~f/4.5 and EF

70-200mm f/4 L. I own the 540 EZ and 550 EX Speedlites. The A2 is almost silent

in operation and the rewind is incredible - nobody knows the film is evening

going backwards inside the chapel. The USM lenses add to the quiet approach of

shooting.

 

With Fuji Pro 400, the Speedlites work like champs and I can often use f/8 for

just about any flash situation, lots of distance. I have the Canon external pack

with 8 AA cells, I can shoot like a demon and keep up.

 

So, how come nobody wants my services - is it because I shoot film? I have about

150 weddings under my belt over the past 20 years.

 

I hope this generation doesn't equate me with being so behind the times that I

don't have any skills when it comes to these blessed events. Long before the 1.3

MP digicams, I had cut my teeth on honing my skills. Do people simply no longer

care unless you shoot digital?

[niccoury]

Film shooters at weddings are still a HUGE market. In Monterey here, it's probably

50/50 in the wedding/portrait market.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

I recently attended a photography seminar with 400 photographers, seven still shoot film.

 

But I don't think that you're problem is film -vs- digital. I suspect the problem is related to marketing....most of the consumers don't really care if it's film or digital. However, today's mantra is: "quicker, cheaper, and better".... and that does translate to digital.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

I shoot film exclusively. I've even had a few clients "insist" on film for their weddings. However, I think that most clients don't care either way. I think that they are more concerned with the finished product. I believe that if your work is good, and your prices are somewhat competitive, then you'll get a fair amount of work.

 

Russ

[neilambrose]

<p>I've yet to meet anyone who'd care what I shot a wedding with as long as the results

were pleasing. And I shoot some film at every wedding simply because I can, and because

I like it. Increasingly I've been able to offer hand printed silver enlargements alongside my

other packages - so I suspect there might be a product line there in the future.</p>

 

<p>I've met some photographers who struggle finding work - mostly folks I've spoken to at

shows, etc. My observation was in most cases their problems seemed to stem from poor

presentation and poor marketing rather than their choice of media or photographic

abilities.</p>

[jo_dinning]

No Ronald, IMO it's nothing to do with whether you use film or digital.

 

Perhaps it is a good time to reflect on whether your presentation and packages are up to date - there has been a trend towards CD presentation as well as printed wedding books. Many clients expect online ordering now for themselves and their guests.

 

There is absolutely no reason why you can't use film as well as modern presentation and packages together, and there are plenty of photographers who still go the film scan/PS combo route with great results.

 

I do think though that it is much easier these days to market yourself - and the number of photographers who have great websites and slick advertising has increased. If you haven't kept up with this, then it's easy to get squeezed out.

 

On the other hand, most photographers rely on referrals anyway.

 

Unless you have had a number of couples commenting that using film is not what they want? But why would they care if they see good results?

 

Just my thoughts!

[William Michael]

I owned a reasonable large W&P business: it cut over to digital a year and a bit ago, prior to that still all film, 135, 645 and 6x7 formats.

 

We left the cut to digital until quite late, compared to our competition, mainly because of the capital expense: about four new full kits, including lenses (changed camera brand to Canon). Also we were still able to have quick turn around from a good pro chemical lab, close by.

 

I still use 645 for some formals.

 

It depends on the market and customer base: though the trend is quicker, cheaper, and better.... and that does translate to digital, as David says.

 

I think in most areas your services with that gear, will be an exponentially declining recourse being looked for . . . but recently I went on an evening harbour cruise / three course dinner etc (three hours): it was laden with tourists. The photographer covering the tables was using a Pentax SLR and a 28 to 80 Takumar zoom, (yep circa 1978 /1980, I think) and an old Metz on a bracket, holding the battery in with GAF tape. He jumped off at a wharf and jumped back on just before we disembarked with quite nice 5x7 prints in elegant card folders . . . I guess he is making something for the three hours work?

 

That said, there was a similar thread a few months ago, I suggested finding a niche market or a Wedding `add on`, hand finished B&W from fine grain film: how good are your darkroom skills?

 

BTW: I looked at the question as a prospective employer: the first question I thought of was nothing to do with film . . . but rather if that is your total kit, what do you do in the situation of `No Flash` during the ceremony?

 

WW

[matt_needham]

I resisted digital for a while, and shot 100% film when most of the local competition was 100% digital. I did get a few clients who valued film photography over digital. It was my perception that many more thought I was behind the times. Now I'm 100% digital and loving it!

 

There was a wedding photog on NPR today. I can't remember her name, but she was 100% film, and doing well.

[jonj]

If I shot film my price would double. Plus how could I offer a B&W and color of the same photo? I love film but to have 15 rolls of Tmax processed and proofs printed your talking just $20.00 per roll to hand process the B&W just not cost effective in the current market and terrible work flow.

[think27]

Jonathan - Tmax can be proofed on a color machine as a black and white on color paper. Charge extra for darkroom reprints. Machine print black and whites are the same price as color.

[jonj]

Mary,

 

I'm not sure what you are saying so Ilford delta 100 can be processed at Walmart? Good luck! Anytime I shoot true B&W it's hand done by a real lab.

[cabbiinc]

"But I don't think that you're problem is film -vs- digital. I suspect the problem is related to marketing....most of the consumers don't really care if it's film or digital."

 

I couldnt agree more. Most consumers wouldnt even ask, so dont tell them unless its a selling point that you can make.

 

"I think that they are more concerned with the finished product. I believe that if your work is good, and your prices are somewhat competitive, then you'll get a fair amount of work."

 

Kind of agree, but must say something. When a b/g are pricing photogs they have a budget in mind (usually). Lets just pick a number for an example. Groom says "we can spend up to $2000", bride will look pretty much at wedding packages at around $2k. You could be priced at $1500 and not even be seen. Another bride is looking for $1k photog prices. Again you would be overlooked. Its kind of a guessing game.

 

You may just use film as a selling point. Have a blurb about how film has more depth to it. How its better one way or another. You have a passion for it, so sell that passion.

 

If your business is mostly word of mouth that may be a factor. You said that you've got 20 years experience. Well if your business is pretty much word of mouth you may have tapped your market dry. You may just need to market yourself better. Just today my wife was reading a conversation where a new photog was saying that she had 1 wedding under her belt and 9 more booked before October, when asked her secret she only replied Craigslist. She knew her market, she was priced for her market, and she marketted herself on the cheap to boot.

 

Dan

[steve m smith]

I'm not a wedding photographer and I always stated that I would never photograph a wedding (my father was a wedding photographer and his stories put me off).<BR><BR>

Despite that, I have done two this month for friends. Both with an RB67 hand held on Fuji NPS160 film.

[ronald_smith2]

I have done a fair amount of advertising, and I had a firm price for this type of work - it's significantly higher than what is being offered by so-called "pros' who are more or less newbies with 12 MP DSLR's. It frustrates me to no end that people with little or no experience shoot weddings and charge next to nothing, people (at least up here) expect to pay very little for a wedding.

 

I see children of former clients aren't even asking me about such work, maybe I am just too old to be shooting these things. I find it hard to justify the expense of getting a DSLR system when I have a perfectly good film system.

 

I am glad to see film still has some standing with people.

[markonestudios]

As a recently-migrated (film-to-digital) wedding shooter, I too think it's more about how you sell your services. Until I got my 400D early last year, all I had was film. Even after I got it, I still shot film for weddings, with my 400D as a backup (until I was confident enough to shoot digital properly). Now the roles have been reversed, at least until I get my full-frame digital.

<p>In my part of the world, I can get my film prints done at a fraction of the cost of digital ones, because a lot of people still shoot film, so what I do is maintain two "client bases" if you will. I have film packages for those who can't afford my digital packages. Of course I can get the negs scanned and provide a CD with the prints if required, so I maintain the flexibility...

<p>Regarding the expense of darkroom developing for B&W film, how about using Kokak 400CN film, or Ilford's XP2. I have used XP2 and loved the results. I have a roll of 400CN waiting for me at home too ;) Both are chromogenic films, meaning you can use the colour neg C-41 process.

[kristian_.]

Yep.

 

Canon t90's and F1n's.

 

Sometimes even a (God help me) Mamiya RZ.

 

 

 

Kris.

[kristian_.]

I still offer a black and white hand printed service (Ilford multigrade Warm Tone fibre based and selenium'd in a Jorgensen album) that several couples have gone for!

 

Kris.

[matthew_newton]

My wedding photographer shot film (and only shoots film) and my wedding a year and a half ago. I shot film for my brother's wedding...though it is the only wedding I have ever shot. One of these days I want to try to get a periodical job as a 2nd shooter and I will only shoot film.

 

When I looked around my area I found at least a handful of photographers who only shoot film.

[golden]

I have never done a wedding, not sure if i really want to or not but i do shoot portraits and hand process and print on fiber paper. ppl love them. to them its like getting there portrait painted.

[caycec]

A lot more than equipment has changed in the wedding photography business in the last 20 years. Brides, in my experience, expect a modern, updated look to their photos. You don't have any photos posted, or a website listed, so I can't comment on your style. But that might be the problem.

 

It's not necessarily that you are viewed as "too old to be shooting these things," but it could be you're viewed as too out of date. Have you changed your style in the last 20 years? Do you follow the current trends in wedding photography?

 

Many people resist change based on current fashion and still believe that classic style will always reign. That may be true at a certain age level, but those aren't the people getting married right now. The generation getting married today has spent their entire lives inundated with modern imagery and that's what they want their photos to look like.

 

I may be wrong on this where you are concerned, but if you've stopped getting work, it seems the most likely answer.

[kristian_.]

..........but those aren't the people getting married right now..........

 

far too general, and rather patronising if you ask me.

 

I meet as many different wedding couples as there are wedding photographers.

 

Kris.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

"Regarding the expense of darkroom developing for B&W film, how about using Kokak 400CN film, or Ilford's XP2. I have used XP2 and loved the results. I have a roll of 400CN waiting for me at home too ;) Both are chromogenic films, meaning you can use the colour neg C-41 process."

 

Quite true. I've been using Fuji's Neopan 400CN and Ilford's XP-2 for wedding work, and getting excellent results. Both are C-41 process films, and get processed and scanned along with my color negative film. Very easy and economical.

 

Russ

[caycec]

It wasn't at all meant to be patronizing, just realistic. Yes, there are people of all ages and types getting married, but the average age of a bride is currently between 27 and 30, depending on your source for statistics. If you want to be successful as a wedding photographer, you have to take their taste into account. And, the fact is, brides and grooms of all ages want what is current.

 

I'm 45, btw, so I'm not coming at this with a 20 something perspective.

 

If Ronald is sincerely trying to determine why he's struggling with his business after 20 years as a successful photographer, then looking at shifts in style is at least as important as asking the film vs. digital question. In fact, it felt to me like the elephant in the room of this particular thread.

[surfidaho]

Howdy!

 

What is this thing you call "film"?

 

Just kidding, I'm pushing 50, not 15, so I know what film is. But every photographer who refused to switch to digital in my area is out of business.

 

It happened really quickly. Four years ago, film photographers still got top dollar. Now, they're all gone.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[hjoseph7]

Digital is quicker for sure but, I'm not throwing away my film cameras any time soon. Some people still prefer the film look especially when it comes to B&W. Of course there are digital software packages that eumlate this look but could you imagine the Post processing time to do this ?

 

Another thing, Double Exposure shots. Of course you can allways go into Photoshop and emulate DE, but why bother when all you have to do is press a button on your camera.

 

Infrared - You can load your film camera with infrared film and save some big bucks as well as saving your back-up digital camera for somethhing else.

 

Big portraits - I think that a Medium format camera loaded with 120 film can still out perform a Digital 35mm when it comes to pictures that are blown up to 20X24 or greater.

 

Ronald I wouldn't sweat it. I recently assisted a photographer friend of mine who shoots weddings with a 645 Mamiya and 220 film. Everything went pretty smoothly, it wasn't like I had crowds of people surrounding me just because I had a digital camera.