owen_farmer Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I just purchased a Rollei 3.5 EVS (serial # 1735003) from Koh's camera on Long Island in mint condition.I have a niece who is getting married in 3 weeks, so I thought I would try a few rolls of 120 film.From what I have read Porta negative films seem to be often used for wedding pix. However, I find it easier scanning transparency film. Anything wrong with that? Also, would Ektachrome 200 speed film be OK? Thanks,Owen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Why not shoot slides? As long as you're aware of the contrast limitations of the film. I prefer the way Fuji Astia renders skin tones. Whatever you do, shoot a few test rolls under similar lighting conditions. Perhaps try a few different films to see what you like best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tin_ho Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I believe cost for the film and processing being much higher than negatives is the main reason. Cost and difficulty to print is another. These days most, if not all, commercial wedding photographers have abandoned films all together. They now shoot with digital cameras. Cost for digital cameras can be paid off quickly from deducting from income taxes. In my opinion quality of wedding photos are of course at the bottom of the scale too. Cost in shooting digital is so low. It creates an environment for low price as well as low quality competition. When a wedding photographer gives a quote of $5k you naturally will think if that is a rip off or will it really be different from those who offer $500 packages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 "Cost for digital cameras can be paid off quickly from deducting from income taxes." Only if you are actually making money with one. A better idea is including it and digital procesing in the cost of doing business and charging accordingly. Digital doesn't mean free. Those who think so often wonder why they aren't making any money. For the wedding photographers who shoot film Negative film gets chosen over transparency film as it is mosrte forgiving of exposure and color errors and has a larger dynamic range. But I agree with you about the ease of scanning , and with transparency film, what you got is what you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Wedding films like Portra NC are lowered contrast, and are made to smooth out the highs and lows of high brightness range subjects. Slide films on the other hand have very narrow brightness ranges, and very high contrast, and little latitude for exposure errors. And there isn't much more of a high brightness range than a bride in white, and a groom in black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert lee Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Print film is preferred because it has much higher dynamic range. It will capture both details in the white wedding gown and black tux. If you're going to be shooting in available light, consider using 400ISO versions of Kodak or Fuji portrait film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny_spinoza Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Are you scanning with SilverFast? It is just as easy to scan negative color film as it is to scan chromes with SilverFast. So scanning should not be the issue. Do not use slides for weddings. Use color negative film such as Kodak Portra 160NC or 400NC, the tried and true "wedding" film (at least it was used before digital took over). (Fuji also has competing products, such as 160S, etc.) Your exposure can be wrong for 160NC and 400NC, and still get useable prints. Not so for chromes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Yes, transparency film is more of a challenge. But it's manageable if you are really good at nailing exposures. You'll probably need a spot meter to ensure that you maintain highlight detail in the dress. That may mean losing some shadow detail, but it's better than blowing highlights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_williams4 Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 I would agree with what has been said above. My experience with slide film is that the exposure has to be correct and if it is off you get contrast problems. Because you are using a camera that is new to you and are shooting an event that will only happen once I would use as forgiving a film as possible and that is color negative film. Also remember that a lot is going on during a wedding and you will not always have time to check your exposure or you may forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted July 5, 2008 Share Posted July 5, 2008 I've assumed that you are a guest, and are not the primary photographer. If that is the case, it's reasonable to take a chance and shoot slides. But make sure that you understand your true shutter speeds. Often faster shutter speeds are a bit slower than advertised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen_farmer Posted July 5, 2008 Author Share Posted July 5, 2008 I am assuming that my niece has hired a photographer, but she does things her own way so I am not sure. I will be scanning with an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner. I have been using the Epson scan software. The basic version of Silverfast came with the scanner, but I haven't used it much, because the Epson software seemed simpler to use. I will be shooting in available light, wherever possible. Based on this discussion, I am inclined to go with Kodak Porta 400NC. Thanks for the help. Owen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cenelsonfoto Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 If I was planning to shoot any indoors event on film, I would select Fuji 800-speed negative film and rate it around 600, for ambient work, even under some speedlight conditions where I'd pop a tiny bit of flash to fill, setting flash manually, camera set manually or in Av mode, preferably the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonee Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I have used Chromes for weddings and found it to be too expensive and time consuming. The scanning of the slides after was even more of a hassle. Occasionally, the only film I will shoot at weddings is black and white and thats only for the expensive, high-end, artsy, packages that i have offered. But apart from that, digital is much cheaper, easier, and faster to use. Its also better to get good results that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen_farmer Posted July 10, 2008 Author Share Posted July 10, 2008 Jonathan, You are a pro and I am an amateur (and a tinkerer with old cameras). I don't own a DSLR (yet). Everything that you say, I am sure is true. Film cameras, particularly the non-automated variety, are very slow in a fast moving situation like a wedding. It has been a while since I have used a TLR, but I find that previewing an image on a large ground glass screen is wonderful and probably more important in a studio rather than the hectic environment of a wedding. My niece has hired a photographer, so I'll probably shoot just 2 or 3 rolls, and look for shots that appeal to me. Owen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now