Does anyone shoot film at weddings these days?

[pankaj purohit]

Hi, everybody. I am a film SLR (35mm) user and photography is just my hobby. I bought my SLR just before one and half year when about all the pro studios had started shooting with DSLRs. But I choosen film, after researching materials on photography everywhere, even on the internet too, wherver I could have done. my age is just 28. I love films. because personally I think, the photography is more subjective to the film, not to the digitals. I have wrote and read so much on this fighting between film vs digital. What we get now days (Digitals) is revolution for the press or sports etc. where results are needed fastly. for example a press photographer is in china olympic and covering a 200 meter race, needs to send result as quickly as possible to the his press headquarter which in USA, and emails his stuff through his laptop which has an wirless internet connection. On ocassions like that it is very-very usefull. But I personaly think, if talk about the art, (Wedding coverage comes in art too) then film still can'tt be compared. If shooting in low lights without flash, you will get grains in the film and noise in the digital. on many ocassion, grain adds beauty to the output, but it was seen that, many a time, digital noise misshapes and makes bad the output. I am an graphics artist and never used my photographic skill as a proffessional, I am still learning. But I prefered the traditional medium. I recently baught a scanner for scanning films and experimenting with this. I amazed to see that, a negative or a slide can be scanned in many resolutions and we get different results after every another style scanning, we can get different kind of result of the same negative for different purpose. bu in digitals, you can not get those kind of results of same frame, even after a havey and time consuming postprosesing. In the digital camera, resolution depends on the Megapixels, but in film, this depends on your skill and experience. You have shoot out more 150 weddings, han why don't you highlight this achivement, it is not a left handed game for a child (Some amature digital starters). You know you can bring the better results from film than don't loose your confident, It might be, soon you and me too, will be using digitals, One would use ot because of its quicker results, and one like me, will be using this medium because of anavailability of films and other film accessories.....! But i will always proud that I started the photography with film in digital era. If anyone realy wants to get benifits of digitalised technology in photography and is serious about that, than he should prefere films, and he should get the benifits of digitalised machines for developing, scanning and printing etc. My marriage was shoot on films befor about three and half year and the shooter was so-soo artist, and I proud on the results, may be, it would be digital in my elder brothers marriage....! one more thing, after playing with film cameras for getting finer and finer results, we get real satisfaction when we we get the final output that comes from it......

I have so mch to say on this but nobody likes to read or hear a long speach, in this digital era - where the things are going fastly without quality. film was the real revolution, digitals are only cheap extension to it.....

 

..

Regards

Pankaj

[picturesque]

I want to re-emphasize Marc's comment about the print needing to be the standard of viewing when comparing film and digital. I am always amazed at the quality, depth and general wow appeal one can see in a well done print from film (hard to get now as pro labs abandon working with film), which is not quite the same as an equally well done print from digital. I wonder if some of the young people (or even, young wedding photographers) getting married have ever seen a large print from film--say an optically printed 16x20 from a Hasselblad.

[fotografz]

Nadine, you need to send me a Hassey neg from the past, and I'll scan and print it for

you.

 

Scanning is an art unto itself, and once you learn to scan film for ink jet printing, and

use the right profiles and papers, you'd be amazed at how similar it can be to an

annalog print. But like anything else, it takes practice until you get it down.

[picturesque]

Marc--you may not remember, but I bought your Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro, and have been using it. However, I don't print myself, but send the scans to a pro lab. I like the results, and they are also near optically printed quality, so no argument there. I was just repeating your point about the print needing to be the standard. You just don't see these large wedding prints from film anymore.

[ronald_smith2]

Probably not.

 

I am overwhelmed to see the passion many have for the old-school film medium, I will continue to stick with it. I truly feel a need to develop some sort of style that is identifiable with me, or my talents will just get thrown in the same bag of others and I won't stand out in an overcrowded market.

 

The T400CN idea is workable - I normally shoot four rolls of 36-exposure - that means about 8 hours of scanning of the Coolscan V. I think that may be actually less time than processing RAW files from a with a DSLR. The costs to get that far are minimal, four rolls of film and four develop-only, that is roughly $75 with all taxes.

 

The costs of ink and paper will be the big expense - 130-odd proofs from HP Premium Plus, with a 20-sheet pack of 4x6 paper costing almost a dollar per crack. I am guessing I'd use three to four #59 HP gray tanks, at about $35 a shot. I would use at least one #57 and #58, a further $70.

 

Total costs - film/developing ($75), paper ($140), ink ($180) = $400

 

Time needed to scan negs is about 8 hours, to make 130 prints would be 4 hours for 12 hours total. If I add the time at the wedding (say 6 hours), that is 18 hours of total time for the job. If I pay myself a modest $20/hour, I can charge $800 for the whole package and feel OK about it.

 

That is still a bargain in my books for what you are getting.

 

Ron

[kentigern]

Well, I specifically requested some of the photos were taken on film for my ownn recent wedding. The photographer was surprised but delighted to oblige.

[cjogo]

NADINE : I have used the Minolta Multi Scan for many years. I only use the unit for fine art scans , mainly 120 ...could not afford to use the scanner for weddings. But, wonderful results ~ especially from B&W 2 1/4 > which we specialize in. <p>

 

 

RONALD : the EOS A2 is still a fine camera ~! That Canon body has been a standard , in my bag...for years.

[wogears]

Sigh:

 

All the technical discussion... We used to shoot weddings on VPS III for two

reasons. One: the lab knew how to get a perfect skin tone out of it every time. Two:

It was damn near impossible to blow out the whites in the dress.

 

Unfortunately, these no longer appear to be significant considerations. What brides

seem to ask is this. How cheap will you do it? How fast will we get it? Can we get a

DVD with a few hundred images on it so we can take it to WalMart and get prints?

 

Of course you can do gorgeous weddings with digital OR film. Technical skill is

technical skill, no matter.

[cjogo]

"What brides seem to ask is this. How cheap will you do it? How fast will we get it? Can we get a DVD with a few hundred images on it so we can take it to WalMart and get prints?"<p>

 

I believe that statement is becoming the standard for the futute, at least with digital ..... And yes, skin colour was wonderful with VPS & Pro 100 . <P> WIth digital weddings > I prefer to just shoot & sell the card at the end of the day. The B&G can be responsible for the post work - the calibration - the time factor, etc.. Just charge half price ( which keeps you competitive ) and you have made nothing but profit : for your 4-8 hours.<p>

 

I only hope labs continue to process film with quality...

[ronald_smith2]

Les hit the nail on the head - people want fast turnaround and a DVD, that's it. It seems to be a bonus if the quality of the images are good. $200, please!

 

Another factor that plays into all of this is there are fewer and fewer weddings where I reside - many live common-law. Some of these weddings are actually 2nd or 3rd timers around the block, these client's don't want anything fancy for photos.

 

The high-end wedding photos are very elusive, most just want quick, cheap and dirty. One of the best shooters around had to basically quit his full-time professional photography job and sell cars for Kia.

 

I guess we didn't touch on the fact you can get family photos done at Wal-Mart for under $10.

[fotografz]

Got it Nadine ... and I most certainly do remember selling you that woderful Minolta MF scanner ... and delighted to hear you are still putting it to good use : -)

 

I do not think we can evaluate this subject based on the low end of the economic spectrum. That is now digital for all the reasons cited.

 

But the mid to upper mid level, and higher end of the market spectrum is another matter.

 

Case in point: yesterday we shot a fairly large wedding, two highly experienced shooters. The amount of group and family shots was staggering, and where and when many of them had to be shot was problematic.

We used 2 Canon 1DsMKIIIs and a Nikon D3 ... state of the art digital tools. After editing the obvious junk in Lightroom Import Browser we have just over 1000 images total. Probably 500 to 600 of those will make

the final cut.

 

This morning I am faced with the donkey task of processing all of these images ... including maybe 150 different posed group shots, which I admit is not my bag. Endless shots that have to be worked on to bring

them to our high standards of quality... not because we don't know how to shoot, but because in the real world digital is imperfect when shot in adverse lighting and done very quickly to meet tight time demands.

 

If those were on film, they'd be at the lab, not staring back at me from my computer screen ...

[garrison_k.]

"If those were on film, they'd be at the lab, not staring back at me from my computer screen ..."

 

We should all take pictures of our eyes and see who has the darkest bags :)

[neilambrose]

<p><em>If I exclusively shot b/w weddings with T400CN and scanned the negs and made

the prints, I would have a very unique product - the time factor would be huge but the

results would be amazing.</em></p>

 

<p>A unique product? Not at all.</p>

 

<p>With respect, you'd have nothing different from what any generic consumer high street

lab offers. There's no value add to the customer if you scan C41 BW film and then print it

on an ink jet. You'll achieve nothing other than replicating what every high street photo

store already offers. Any customer can get a roll of C41 process film turned round in an

hour for less than $10.00. </p>

 

<p>If you want to differentiate with a quality product think about offering genuine silver

prints. Then you'd have something that's no longer readily available on the high street, and

more to the point a product that is now firmly associated with fine art photography and that

commands premium pricing.</p>

[mark_davidson]

As all have observed, the wedding business has changed dramatically.

The issue is not whether film or digital is better but rather what has impacted the

business to affect the OP's revenue.

 

First, there are a ton of photographers out there now. Some are good, some are

great and some are awful. The prospective b&g have no real way to know who would

be a good choice other than looking at online portfolios, and referrals. They don't

know or care if your MF print has depth or if you use L glass on your 1Ds3 or Leicas

or Rodinal. All they know is these two guys/gals seem good, who is cheaper?

 

Second, Digital has spawned so many wannabees that many pros have turned to

dramatically enhanced images and new products that are available because of

digital. Yes, you can scan and make any of those things from film but that is not the

point. They range of styles and effects demanded form photographers came from

the competition in digital and digital media is the best tool to make these products.

 

Third, Quality. Do not be deceived by the claims by clients saying they want the

best. All things being equal quality may be the determining factor in the sale but

things are not equal. Many studies have shown that consumers say they will pay

more for quality but rarely do. Price and convenience trump quality everyday. I am

not arguing for lower quality, I am saying don't waste too much time and energy

tooting that horn. Even the hacks say they are quality driven.

 

All those gloomy things apart. There are clients in the world who will happily pay a

premium price for excellent work. Your job is to identify them and create the demand

for your work among them.

The wedding business is a business. Yes there is creativity but do not be so smug

as to feel that other less "artistic" vocations lack creativity. Any person who has

owned a small business will tell you that they have never been so inventive as when

they urged their business to life.

 

The fact is that businesses fail for many reasons but the most common one being

the people running them were not operating them as a business.

 

Adversity is there to teach us. Learn what is succeeding and become successful.

[ronald_smith2]

I must admit this thread has taken on a life of its own, great commentary.

 

Marc, you site one of the big reasons why I begrudge shooting digital - the time factor involved to process files - does anyone actually ever get paid for their time on such tedious things? Honestly. I used to work in a mini-lab about 15 years ago, I used to print all my own work and the finished album was perfect - it easily took several hours of painstaking effort in the lab, then I had to assemble the album.

 

We somehow have convinced ourselves shooting digital is cheaper - how can that be? There is the investment in gear plus time to spend behind a monitor. I do like the idea of controlling all the variables from the get-go, that has universal appeal - with a lab, you have to work with your printer person and get the results you want.

 

As I said awhile back, I am pretty much out of this business. I can pick and choose the odd job that I would like to do, such as family shooting or something fun. I just offered to shoot 15-year-old girl's prom pics; she's gorgeous and I know this would be far more enjoyable than a boring wedding filled with record shots.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

I shoot film exclusively. For $3.00 per roll, my lab soups, "high res" scans, and put the snaps on-line for me. For B/W I use Neopan 400CN and Ilford XP-2. Both are C-41 process films which deliver very nice results. For me, this works. I shoot the wedding, drop off the film, and I'm done. The on-line prints are printed on a high quality paper and the clients love them. I just don't care to be messing with memory cards, dust, post-processing etc. It all comes down to what works for the photographer.

 

Russ

[think27]

Thanks Josh.... Point taken... I misused my words when I said "processed" -- what I meant was "proofed"...

[ObiWon]

I do far fewer weddings these days than 20 years ago. In fact I don't actively seek Wedding work it finds me. My selling point is that I shoot on film and offer a 'Traditional' service. All marketing hype I know, but the clients love it and I enjoy getting the Bronica 645 kit out. I also offer to shoot the documentary shots on 35mm film too. Shooting interior shots on a really fast 35mm B&W film with no flash and getting contrasty prints made gives that old press style that some clients really go for. Yes I could probably get the same results with digital, but that is missing the point, this is all about perception, which means I can charge just a bit more than the Pro-Am guy with his Nikon D80 kit.

 

Jim

[ronald_smith2]

Russ, I need to see if I can find a lab in Nova Scotia that can do that for T400CN. Thanks.

[nancy s.]

Marc Williams Said: "If I did not HAVE to use digital capture for commercial work, and have to use them for other work to justify the expense, I'd shoot weddings on film and take back my summers instead of grinding away in the dark at a computer."

 

Amen.

 

If you're not married already, I would marry you. :)

[steve_justice]

<p>I know a photographer who only shoots 35mm film at a wedding, she stays very busy and she is 27 years old. I am 24 and made the switch from digital to film. It looks better for weddings IMHO. And the workflow is much nicer.</p>