Medium Format Wedding gear?

[benjamin_tapper]

<p>Hey everyone.<br>

I've been missing film lately, and i've heard some guys talk about using medium format. So what's the deal? I imagine using it mostly for portrait sessions, about how many slides do you go through? What's the average cost of using one per wedding? After some research I am thinking Mamiya RB67 pro. Comments/ Answers? Thanks!</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I occasionally used MF during the last year for the Wedding Formals - usually shot on location. <br>

645 is easier to manage than 6x7 IMO. I have a Mamiya 645 kit. And also one 6x7 camera. <br>

Cost is as cheap as chips - three maybe four rolls of 120. And to buy second hand MF Film gear is a steal nowadays. <br>

You need to have a lab which still does wet work – I don’t like scanning: YMMV. <br>

Is it worth it? A 5D can get to 11 x14 easily and the 20 x 24 prints are sold way less often.<br>

<br>

Bottom line:<br>

Before you wander out to get a Mamy 67 and begin using it for Wedding work. . . I think you will have to have a business plan which has more meat on it than "I've been missing film lately".<br>

<br>

WW<br>

<br>

</p>

 

[neilambrose]

<p>Take everything following with this caveat - that you have to decide what works best for you, and not be led by mine or other's recommendations, but:</p>

<p>The RB67 is heavy and ponderous beast. It's well suited to tripod work but ill-suited to hand-held use. If you want MF quality then you probably also want fast lenses, as it's with the wider apertures that you'll really see the format at it's best. (I know conventional wisdom says fully stopped down pictures are the best test of lens quality on MF, but I disagree; almost any MF lens looks good at f22. If you want to see what they can do you have to shoot at 2.8).</p>

<p>There are a few well-renowned film shooters who use MF but they tend to prefer 6x45 to 6x7, and specifically the Contax 645 AF camera. It has SLR handling, beautiful Zeiss optics and some of the fastest lenses in MF territory. Again, YMMV, but better photographers than you or I have already considered the question, and it can't be a co-incidence that they've all gone this route.</p>

<p>I shoot lots of MF too, mostly with a Hasselblad 503 and XPan, and more recently a Voigtlander Bessa III. The 503 is difficult to use, in honesty - at least for my style of photography, as it's tricky to judge perfect focus through the WLF except in static shots. And I shoot very few static shots, preferring to work quickly and candidly. The Voigtlander is a rangefinder and works excellently, with fast focus throw and very visible focus, and ditto the Xpan.</p>

<p>There's lots of ways to embrace MF if that's what motivates you, but you should give prime consideration to handling and ergonomics, otherwise you'll be unlikely to get the most from it. And, if it were me, the RB67 is probably the last camera I'd want to take to a wedding.</p>

<p>In deference to William's remarks above, perhaps the only reason to shoot MF film is because it adds something to your style and makes you different from everyone else. If that's not the case, and your style is not yet developed or you're not likely to notice much difference in your finished work from using film, then it's difficult to see why you'd gain much from it.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>It's well suited to tripod work but ill-suited to hand-held use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's more of a personal thing than a general statement. I use mine hand held a lot and have used it for two weddings. With the left hand grip and waist level finder, it is fairly easy (for me) to use hand held.</p>

<p>It will not be suitable for everyone though so it's worth trying to find someone with one which you can try out.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"perhaps the only reason to shoot MF film is because it adds something to your style and makes you different from everyone else."</em></strong><br>

Sage & Succinct. <br>

***<br>

On the matter of tripods (or not). . . tripods (and waist-level finders) add to the elegance. <br>

But yes, I too can hand hold a 6x7, if need be.<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>I too can hand hold a 6x7, if need be..</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, I can hammer a nail with a screw-driver but I wouldn't choose to :-)</p>

<p>Yes, the RB67 can be used hand-held but it's a lesser choice in comparison to some alternatives, perhaps. It might be interesting to consider the frame of the photographer too. It can be used well by people with good grip strength and a solid frame, but is perhaps harder for those of slighter build.</p>

[William Michael]

<p> "<em><strong>I can hammer a nail with a screw-driver but I wouldn't choose to" </strong></em><br>

<em><strong> </strong></em>you crack me up... the '04 Hunter Valley Shiraz with dinner helped, too.<br>

<br>

WW </p>

<p > </p>

 

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>OK, so you've heard some guys talking about using MF for weddings.........most likely 645s or Hassys. Personally, I've never seen or have known a photographer use the RB67 to cover a wedding.</p>

<p>I like the bottom line from WW: "....you will have to have a business plan which has more meat on it than "I've been missing film lately."</p>

[gregory_c]

<p><em>""perhaps the only reason to shoot MF film is because it adds something to your style and makes you different from everyone else."</em><br />People said that about shooting digital in early 2000's. I know what you mean when you said ::"<em>I've been missing film lately</em>" All I shoot is digital while my Hasselblads sit quietly in a case. Sadly, in 5 years my digital camera; that cost close to my Hasselbalad; will be so outdated or may be inoporative due to a osolete part, while my 20+ year old Hassleblads still work perfect & is not outdated. <strong>Also, for some reason, I shot my best work on film. Maybe I knew each shot counted & cost me $$. Also there was no photoshop to correct any laziness.</strong> Call me old school, but that is OK, I was raised on a waist level finder !!</p>

[benjamin_tapper]

<p>Thanks for the input guys. And i do have a better business plan than "I just miss film" As my style develops I see MF in my future, and incorporating it into my packages. you can check some of my work here. just a small representation of what i do, but i think eventually the style would def. lend it's self to MF. @ NA i will def check out the contax camera, thanks</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>My opinion is, RB67 indeed is a beast, remember it's really a big heavy 7x7 camera that you flip the orientation of the back on, so you don't turn camera but it's bulky and I think awkward. Any 645, you're flipping, as well a other 6x7s. I much prefer using the square format Hasselblad. I don't have to turn it, compose what I want on the square and crop later, or don't crop just leave square. I prefer no extra do-dads. All mechanical, put the lens and back on focus and shoot. The 503CW is beautiful, TTL flash for fill or control level, CF 100 or 180 is incredible performance and now available at good price. Cheers, my 2 cents.</p>

[c._f.]

<p>Back in the day, we used to shoot around 24rolls with 24frames on it. Obviously number of them were redundant just to be on the safe side (i.e blinks, etc).<br>

As for gear: Bronika, Quntum flash, lumydyne batteries and roomlights.</p>

<p>Adam</p>

[picturesque]

<p>One definitely uses medium format for weddings because one <strong>wants to</strong>, not because it is the best tool today. The reasons can vary. For me, it would be for the film look, rather than something like sharpness or resolution. I would not limit it to just portraits or formals either.</p>

<p>I used to shoot entire weddings with a Mamiya C330 and then a Hasselblad 503CW, and don't feel I had any lack of candid images. I actually think the Mamiya was the fastest shooting--faster than the Hasselblad or any DSLR today. There is no mirror lag at all, or focusing lag, since I zone focused a lot of candids.</p>

<p>The cost used to average about a dollar a 5x5 proof (including cost of film and processing), but that cost is probably higher now.</p>

<p>I've seen several photographers who used the RB for weddings. It is all a matter of getting used to the gear.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"i do have a better business plan than "I just miss film" As my style develops I see MF in my future, and incorporating it into my packages."</em></strong><br /><br />You might give some thought to custom B&W. There are a couple of old threads (this Wedding forum) where we thrashed out that idea . . . I can't find them at the moment . . . they might be under sub heading "business" </p>

<p>WW</p>

[geo_martin]

<p>I would love to shoot my Hassy's again but with my poor eyesight I couldn't focus the darn things. I miss the simple square set it and forget formals on a tripod.</p>

[gregory_c]

<p>Geo Martin said it best :::"<em>I miss the simple square set it and forget formals on a tripod."</em><br>

Dude, you got that right !!! Unfortunatly squares are a thing of the past. Most of the current photographers have never touched a square format camera. If they spent time with square format, they would want a square format digital camera ( I know Hasselbald makes one, but its not affordable) But I do have to admit, I hated when people ordered a bunch of 5x7's or a 5x7 album, not a square format friendly size. I finally quit offering 5x7 albums. Not a big deal now, hassy's sit quiet.</p>

[geo_martin]

<p>That was the beauty of the square format. Regardless of the image, you could crop the square either way.....horizontal or vertical, as long as it was "in the square". And of course Hasselblad lenses were unsurpassed for image quality. And then there was the 500 flash synch without sacrificing flash depth. Sharp, meaty images. </p>

[ar_fonseca]

<p>Even though my Nikon is my main camera, I still love my Fuji GA645, I"ll shoot at least a roll at every job these days. Back around '91 when I started, the guy I learned from used his RB to do almost everything, except when he used the C220, so yes, you can do an entire job w/ an RB... but these days.... but why would you want to??<br>

If you're simply missing the feel of loading film rolls, the look of film, and of course... the taste of glue... lol Nadine has the right idea... perhaps you should try a tlr, it may prove to be a better intro to using MF in working setting, as you may find yourself overwhelmed a bit by the RB's size & weight.</p>

 

[steve_crist]

<p>Years ago I started with a Mamiya 330 setup (6x6). I later moved over to a Mamiya 645 system with 50, 80, and 150 lenses. This system (along with Metz 60 series flashes) worked well for me for years. However, compared with the digital equipment available today I wouldn't think of going back to film. The low light capability of the latest cameras is amazing. Combine that with todays high quality zoom lenses and it's much easier shooting a wedding. The ability to instantly review your shots on one-time events like weddings is invaluable. Plus there are no more negative retouching fees (since using Photoshop) thereby saving additional expenses. </p>

[geo_martin]

<p>I find digital "retouching" one of the biggest deficits in digital photography. Sure it's "fun" to make magic in PS, but time is money. The time spent behind the keyboard could be time spent networking and keeping professional relationships strong which brings in business.<br>

The idea that we would be able to control the entire job from start to finish at the concept of digital imaging sounded like a great thing, but in reality, it has made digital imaging less cost effective if one were to factor in the actual editing time spent. Most photogs don't. They look at it like it's all part of the process. <br>

Time editing, time on the internet. time working on blogs, emails, websites, and on and on and on.</p>

<p> </p>