Film for Weddings?

[russ_butner___portland__or]

<p> You kidding? Film is all that I shoot weddings with. I've even had a few clients insist on the use of film. Love the look and ease of film.</p>

<p>Russ</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Hi Daniel,</p>

<p>I poked around at apug.org and found a thread about wedding photographers who use film.<br /> <a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/forum53/69199-5d-mkii-photog-dabbling-film.html">Here</a> is the thread, and below are some links to sites where the photographer uses film</p>

<p><a href="http://canlasphotography.blogspot.com/">http://canlasphotography.blogspot.com/</a><br /> <a href="http://filmisnotdead.blogspot.com/">http://filmisnotdead.blogspot.com/</a><br /> <a href="http://www.weddingphotographydirectory.com/wedding-photo/for-wedding-photographers/professional-articles/love-for-traditional-film-photography.aspx">Traditional Film Photographers</a><br /> http://www.erichegwer.com/category/wedding-stuff/film-weddings</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157622744267707/">Here</a> is a friendly discussion about using film for weddings. On Flickr</p>

<p>Also, I attended a wedding last winter and noticed that the photographer used a combination of a 35mm sized dslr(s) and a Contax medium format camera. She was a hip young lady from Southern California. I used to know her URL but I've forgotten it.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Yes, I'm covering soon for a studio photog having surgery that will be out for a month or so. When he called I warned him I am new to digital and feel not fully comfortable with using it on a wedding. He told me on first call he wants me to use Hasselblads and film and not to worry about any digital, he's buying plenty of film for me, just do my thing and he'll be totally relaxed about the whole thing so he can focus on his health, the lab will do the rest. It will be all Kodak 160 NC like I'm used to using in the past. I too will be relaxed, I would be very stressed using digital, shooting with my regular equipment and film will be very nice.</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>Hi Daniel!</p>

<p>I don't use film anymore for weddings. At least for my clients. It's not a part of my workflow anymore. Every so often, I will bring along a medium format camera once in a while just to have some black & whites that I create with film. I have a Nikkormat 35mm camera I bought when I was in the military during the 1970's. I just replaced the gaskets, including the mirror bumper with a die cut set from Jon Goodman. <br>

Nikkormats are wonderful cameras. </p>

<p> </p>

[scrivyscriv]

<p>Film compliments my digital work but doesn't dominate my wedding workflow. It's not cost effective, and even if I charged more, I'd still have a small profit margin compared to primarily digital.<br>

I shoot 135 and 120 both. Usually it's Tmax 3200 or 400 and in a body slung around my shoulder under my 20d strap, with a 17-40 mounted on it to take advantage of the ultra-wide that my 20d can't.<br>

Even developing it at home, I still incur a USD$8/roll scan charge to get decent quality TIFF's from a local pro shop, which is a basic cost I can't cut out for any professional event with film.<br>

Once I move to a full frame body I probably won't shoot film much anymore at weddings except to take advantage of the TMX 3200.</p>

[sutan.siagian]

<p>Hi,<br>

I'm still use film along with digital. I understand that each method has their own advantage. Digital is so convinient, film has 'soul' (IMHO). The feeling of waiting the actual image after processing is so thrilling.<br>

In my wedding gigs, digital is used for documentary purpose, where responses is critical. No brides will ever tolerate to lose any single moment of their ceremony. Sometimes they dont really care whether its technically correct or not. One person is responsible to it. Then, the other is person (which is me) is pulling my 35mm camera and take some artistic work. Something that add 'spices' to the overall wedding album.</p>

<p> </p>

[alex_sokoloff2]

<p>Last wedding I went to, 2 years ago, the professional photographer, who seemed very experienced, shot digital and film (black and white).</p>

[steve george]

<p>I'm another sometime-film user. It's been a while since I shot a wedding entirely using film but even on a digital wedding I'll still sometimes use a bit of film too.</p>

[photographicsafaris]

<p>I shoot 4 weddings a year with about 3 rolls of film per wedding; from which I usually end up with 6 images that really challenge the digital ones. About 85% of my shots are Digital. <br>

As for all the bull regarding the hassle of film processing... clearly whoever wrote this doesnt shoot film. You hand it in, pay and walk away smiling.<br>

I dont shoot commercially, but I do get paid to shoot my weddings and offer a very personal service. I would feel I had short changed a client if I were not to give them some film as well as the Digital extravaganza.<br>

Additionally it becomes a completely different spin on backups, as whatever is crashing your ultra reliable digital camera is very unlikely to affect your film camera.</p>

<p>Kodak E100G - Stunning low light bounced flash images awesome flattering tangible skin tones - and projected are in a class of their own something that Digital cannot touch. Dragged images (when they work) are so full of life, whereas Digitally they loose that oomph.<br>

Kodak Portra 800 - An alternative for lower light work. I will not dispute that Digital definitely has the upper hand in High ISO work, and the likes of the D700 being twice as good as film, but this one has a certain saturated feel provided you get the metering right. (I cant be bothered [now] to learn the Fuji press 1600)<br>

Kodak Portra 160nc - For no effort whatsoever this film produces the best portraits imaginable. No post processing necessary, and gorgeous tonality. The VC is also awesome if you want to spice things up and go for a pastel effect.<br>

Fuji Delta 1600 - With what you are getting from Digital and converted to B&W there is little reason to mention this, as anyone can recreate the grainy effect - but film has a certain dimensional edge, and a hand processed B&W print takes allot of beating. Its a mood thing<br>

I would never feel confident if I had to shoot a whole wedding with film, I need the security of seeing the results.<br>

My primary requirement of film, is Projected images, the NC sort of came to me as my back up alongside the two faster negative films and though I dislike Negative film, these have stuck.</p>

<p>

<p>Lastly I have a 5x4 field camera that I occasionally break out. The resultant images are magnificent and blow away anything else.<br>

I guess its a case of the right medium for the right subject. Plus changing to film forces you to think, which is a good thing right?</p>

</p>

[caleb_santos]

<p>I admit I'm a newb. I got a used EOS3 on ebay but almost sold it after experimenting with it a bit. I didn't realize cheap kodak film + walgreens had that much affect on the final image. Just shot my first roll of Reala 100 and got it developed from a real photography store. I'm really glad I didn't sell the camera... The point is, whenever I shoot my first wedding, I will definitely have film with me, maybe even 2 bodies along side digital....</p>

[dawn_kelly]

<p>I shoot all my weddings in film and my clients LOVE it. To produce an image strait out of the camera takes skill, and little post-processing. I like it a lot. I have fun.</p>