dzeanah

I've posted my take on Leicas vs more traditional equipment for wedding

photography before.  This one is a little different.<br>

<br>

For starters, I <span style="font-style: italic;">hate</span> doing

formals, so I've never really put more thought into them than required

to get an acceptable image.  I'm now at the point where I want the

formals to be on the same level as everything else I shoot (read: I

don't want to

be embarrassed if someone wants to judge my photographic ability by the

formals I've shot.)<br>

<br>

Creating more interesting groupings is something I'll need to work on,

but I'm looking for insight into how y'all light the things.  A

"normal" flash might put out enough light for an f4 exposure -- maybe

f5.6 at best.  That's marginal, and really limits the ability to

creatively pose to something like "every get an equal distance from the

lens."  I'd move to an area with better lighting, but most clients

want the same, standard, boring, photos-in-front-of-the-altar thing.<br>

<br>

So, ideas I'm considering:<br>

<ul>

<li>Buy a bigger flash and position it above the camera. 

Something like a Quantum T2 (the X2 is a little pricy) or a Metz 60CT

series.</li>

<li>Buy a tiny monolight like Whitelightning or Alienbees make. 

Set it up in a nice portable kit including a good stand and case, and

mount the thing so that it's above my head, maybe shooting through an

umbrella.  To make things easier, something like a <a

href="http://www.alienbees.com/vagabond.htm">vagabond battery unit</a>

could be thrown in so I don't need to worry about AC power..</li>

<li>Position a pair of smallish flashes on each side of the camera,

and figure out how to position them to minimize shadows and glare off

eyeglasses.</li>

</ul>

Beyond that, I'm stumped.<br>

<br>

What do y'all do to get well-lit formals in a church setting?  Or

do you settle for "good enough" and worry about the rest of the day

instead?<br>

<br>

Do you shoot the formals with Leicas (I've never had a client order

larger than an 8x10 from a wedding), or do you still use medium format

for it?  That was the other thought -- wouldn't it be nice to have

a Mamiya rangefinder with flash sync at all shutter speeds for outdoor

fill and a light permanently bolted to a flash bracket......<br>

<br>

More thoughts:

 

1) We all go through the stage where we think additional features are necessary to progress as photographers. Or at least we think technology can compensate for our shortcomings. "I'll get better exposures with matrix metering," "I would have had that shot with autofocus," "I want automatic exposure compensation," etc. We all know it's crap intellectually (a good photographer can do good work with nearly any camera, and the CPU in an automated camera has no idea what effect you're going for), but we all seem to go through the stage anyway (except those of us that have recognized the tendency in other areas.)

 

2) Right now, any 35mm camera and a normal lens will help you learn. I'd stick with one lens (you'll learn how to make more interesting photography by choosing different perspectives, rather than reaching for another tool) and manual metering (so you learn something about light) for now. There are a number of "photographers" out there (mostly in the wedding and portrait business) who don't know anything about photography proper -- just how to pilot the equipment. If you want to make expressive photographs, it helps to understand the medium. And no, I don't think the advantages addressed here will be lost in a move to digital.

 

3) Leica equipment is great, if it's what you're looking for. Odds are that you don't really know what you're looking for yet, but no-one really knows for sure. Overall, it's nice to have top-tier camera gear, but Nikon/Canon/Leica/Contax/Voigtlander/Minolta/Pentax/Konica all offer lenses that are more than satisfactory, though you may need to pick-and-choose, and the top-level glass will be expensive in any brand (though more so on the rangefinders). Kind of like you can get an excellent education at almost any school, provided you choose your instructors and courses wisely. That's not to say that choosing wisely is easy, especially when millions of dollars are spent every year to try and get you to spend foolishly.

 

4) If you're looking for a rangefinder, you're really stuck looking within the Leica M-mount cameras. That leaves the Konica RF, the Voigtlander R2, the M6/7, and the older, non-metered M-series cameras. I would say that a meter is a nice feature, even though some of my most memorable photos were taken with meter-less cameras using a hand-held meter. If you get an M4-P, you may really find yourself wishing for an in-camera meter, as the clip-on meters require you to move your head away from the viewfinder to make changes. Eventually you'll get to where you can take a daylight and shade reading on a handheld meter and compensate automatically until the light changes, but that's not the way to start.

 

Really, your camera choice doesn't matter all that much unless you're doing something that requires certain equipment -- Leica M gear excels in handheld people photography in available darkness. But it really sucks if you go through a phase where you're trying to emulate John Shaw's macro work...

In the past I've done my own darkroom work, and farmed out the bigger

stuff like 30x40's to a company on the west coast that's always done

fabulous work. I've only used them for 16x20's and larger though. I

just got back my most recent order and am a little disappointed.

 

Some negs were printed backwards, some were printed with an odd crop,

on others they printed the wrong frame...

 

I'm wondering who y'all use, or at least, who you would use if you

didn't have access to a darkroom. Looking for black and white and

color work (though I may stick with my wedding lab for color work if

the prints I've seen most recently are an example of "custom" work...)

 

Thanks.

I owned one for a while, but ended up getting rid of it also. Images were great, and it's probably the world's best camera for IR shooting (add a "real" IR filter (the opaque kind)) and set the camera to tell it to focus for IR and you're good to go.

 

In my case, I just didn't like the AF, and I was looking for a go-everywhere camera. With the size, I'd prefer an M6. Of course, a Leica costs a fair amount more...

Now I'm something of a novice at wedding photography compared to Marc, but I see it differently. I'm most concerned with minimizing the number of hours associated with each wedding. Used to cost about 40 hours per back when I was trying to do digital proofs (read: scanning on a Fotovix or using a flatbed with a lightlid to scan negs) -- bad idea, regardless of the money spent. Now I've reduced that to about 2 hours after the wedding dealing with proofs, plus the standard album design time (assuming they want an album). The technique?

 

Paper proofs. Beautiful -- send the film off to the lab on Monday and have a big stack of (numbered) 4x6 proofs in-hand on Thursday, ready to go into albums. Of course, this brings the cost to shoot + proof (film cost, dev cost, shipping, album) to somewhere around $0.65 per frame (using Miller's), but it comes down to how I value my time. I'd *much* rather spend my time shooting, rather than sitting in front of a computer.

 

Now, that doesn't mean I'll stay that way. I've got a Jobo ATL-1000 (thanks, Jack) that I'd love to use for developing. If I could dev, dry, then scan a roll at a time (say in a Nikon 4000ED) and print decent sized proofs on an inkjet affordably and with a minimum of effort then I'd probably jump at the chance. Or if someone came out with a digital body that took M-lenses -- assuming minimal work on my part, again.

 

How do y'all track time when thinking digital vs film? If it takes you an additional 10 hours to do it digitally, how much do you have to save to justify the additional effort?

 

And do you find clients happy with digital proofs? I've tried Proshots, but the image quality IMHO just isn't there. I've looked at Pictage's sample proof sheet, and the images are too small to really judge what the final image will come out like. I've had clients (when I proofed in a comparable way) complain that they (with 2nd weddings) or their parents couldn't see the images well enough to make anything out. Then there was the problem of color balance...

 

I'd love to find a better way, but as far as I can tell Film has still got digital beat from a time-based perspective.

Are you going to host this yourself, or do it on someone else's box?<p>

 

If you're going to host it on your own box, you might as well get an Opensource OS up and running (Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD), put Apache on it for http, add in Qmail or the equivalent for mail, and go from there. There are some applications out there like Gallery that do a good job of hosting web-based images, doing a lot of what the photo.net software does (resizing images on the fly, etc.)<p>

 

For web page design, I'm a huge fan of Dreamweaver, but it's far from free. <p>

 

Feel free to ask questions and we'll go from there. Are you gonna host your pages off of a box that you control, or are you going to rent space on someone else's server? I can help with the former...<p>

 

Oh yeah, <a href=http://www.derekzeanah.com>my site<a> is far from perfect (still in the design stages, actually), but it's built as follows:<p>

1) Gateway server I bought cheap over a year ago. A PII-233 was doing it prior to this, but that machine finally gave up the ghost.<p>

2) I'm using Mitel's (formerly e-Smith) <a href=http://www.e-smith.org>SME Server<a>, which is available as a free download. Took half a hour to configure everything, and it's running 3 domains with mail, news, and some other stuff.<p>

3) I installed Gallery (free and opensource) -- don't have a URL handy, but it's a free PHP-based web photo management system. You can click <a href=http://www.derekzeanah.com/gallery>here<a> to see the default interface, or click <a href=http://www.derekzeanah.com/gallery/slideshow.php?set_albumName=zaleski>here<a> for a sample slideshow -- again, the software does this as a built in feature. Allows each user to upload/delete/manage images, and seems like a full-featured product. This took me about a half-hour, because it was late and I couldn't follow directions. Should have taken me about 10 minutes. Most should be able to do it without much difficulty.<p>

4) I took a friend's advice and bought a Dreamweaver template for that site. The design cost $30. Much easier than doing it all from scratch, but it's not unique. That's the trade-off.<p>

5) Avoid frontpage unless you have a strong reason not too. It makes icky code.<p>

Don't know what else to tell you. Don't know what it costs to have a page hosted nowadays, and don't know what someone like Earthlink or Interland would think about you trying to install Gallery on their servers...<p>

I'd say the tone of the forum has changed since becoming a part of photo.net, but at least the occasional "anonymous" trolling has disappeared.

 

I think a lot of what we're seeing now is related to image posting. I think it would help if we had a set of standards that critiques should be held to. Because honestly:

 

1) Most of the images posted to this forum are of a level far below what most of us strive for.

2) Every photographer is always fighting to increase their (or develop a) style, and is always trying to grow but sometimes reaching a plateau. It's reasonable to assume that we'll anways have beginners in our ranks -- those who haven't put in the work required to be able to distinguish good work from bad/boring/pointless, etc.

3) Criticisms like "just a snapshot," "I don't like that kind of work so it sucks," "everything posted here is crap (though I won't share my own images)," and the like aren't useful for helping forum members grow.

4) There ought to be a way to do an online critique that actually helps the person being critiqued, though I think it's impossible to take all of the sting away. Maybe something like:

 

a) Do you like the work?

b) Is the work ok from a "technical" standpoint?

c) What do you like about the work?

d) What do you dislike?

e) If you were to go back in time to the place/time where this image was being captured, what advice would you give to make the image stronger?

 

Or not. Hell, I don't read everything in this forum either.

Wish it was digital. Would *love* a digital RF camera, especially if it would take M lenses...<p>

 

<img src="http://www.k-repair.net/images/962.jpg"><p>

 

<img src="http://www.k-repair.net/images/964.jpg">

To me, a great photograph is something that stays with you. It's something memorable, and it conveys something to the viewer.

 

I know that's a bad definition, along the lines of "I know it when I see it," but it's the best I can do right now.

Got a chance to take a look at it...<p>

 

I wonder if it wouldn't be a good experiment to take your favorite 5 images, post them online, and try and sell prints of them. Something like <a href=http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leicaprints.html>Doug Herr does</a>.<p>

 

Doing so might allow you to gauge the demand for your work, before you invest much in production.<p>

 

Having said that, after looking at the images and doing something else for a while, I found that <i>none</i> of them stuck in my mind. I guess that means that I'm not your potential audience though, not a direct reflection on the work.<p>

 

How many stick in <i>your</i> mind, Alfie?

OK, I've got a link. Click <a href=http://www.derekzeanah.com/temp/Postcards_of_an_Existentialist.pdf>here</a>.<p>

 

Note that this is a 768k SDSL line, and I've got the bandwidth for http transferrs capped at somewhere at 500-kbit. The file is 5.75MB. Everyone ought to get it, but it won't be instant.

OK, I've got a link. Click <a href=http://www.derekzeanah.com/temp/Postcards_of_an_Existentialist.pdf>here</a>.<p>

 

Note that this is a 768k SDSL line, and I've got the bandwidth for http transferrs capped at somewhere at 500-kbit. The file is 5.75MB. Everyone ought to get it, but it won't be instant.

Again, I'll be happy to host the pdf file for you. I've got about half of a T1 sitting idle here. ;)

Here's the <a href=http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/fa/20020311.fa.ram>link</a> the the NPR broadcast referenced above.

Damn, I need to stop posting over there. I promise I'm not trying to be confrontational, but some people are really negative about Leicas and the people who choose to use them.. Anyone know why?

 

Better, could someone proof my posts there (towards the end, there are 5) and see if I'm encouraging this? Was trying to offer a rational opinion...

Also getting the same error message when trying to access it. I've got a (mostly unused) three-quarter magabit pipe here -- would be easy to host it and post a link in this thread (if that's what you want, Albert).

I did what I could for you, but it looks like the thread really started to slow down before my 2 posts.

 

<p>In general this isn't something to spend much time on -- some people will never understand, <i>especially</i> if they're of the sort that defines "value" based on a feature matrix in a magazine. "Of <i>course</i> the F5 is a better camera, just look at the <i>features</i>..."

Actually, I think Rob was referring to the editing done to this thread. Since edits can't be performed by the people who posted the comments...

Now, after resizing and re-posting and what-not, I don't think I like it.

 

It looks like sunset on the east coast, with a west-coast sunset chopped in later. The lighting just seems a little contrived (look at how blue the light on the sand and people is -- doesn't work with the orange background.)

 

Maybe I'm being too critical though; it's got much more interest than the standard sunset picture.

Resized it and saved at 30 quality. Makes it easier for all to read.<p>

 

(No offense intended, William. Trying to increase the # of eyeballs that see your work. ;) <p>

 

<p align="center"><img src="http://www.derekzeanah.com/photos/wmc-image.jpg" width="500" height="387"></p>

Peter: surprisingly, no -- I didn't miss the motor drive. It would have been a convenience, but nothing more. I still instinctively take the camera from my eye when winding unless I'm thinking about it -- more practice and it won't be an issue at all.

 

The problem with a motor drive is that it really pushes you to burn film. That's not a big deal when you process/print yourself (I can't because the H2O where I live absolutely sucks -- not good enough for rinse water IMHO), but when you're looking at $1/frame to buy the film and have someone else proof, it really adds up. And yes, I am using paper proofs now -- less effort and quicker turnaround than the digital experiments I've tried, believe it or not.

 

Chandos: the highlights look right on 2 monitors in my house. It was *really* foggy that day -- read that as "we were shooting from inside a cloud." It was so bad all the wedding party were getting dripped on from condensation, as the altar/gazebo was on the edge of a cliff leading down to the water, and the fog was blowing in directly from the ocean.

 

Having said all that, I got proof prints made (sprayed by the lab) and accepted the default settings on my flatbed scanner. That might be what you're seeing as well.

 

I'm glad y'all like the images. It was a fun time for me.

Whoops -- the hazards of trusting math you do when tired. The above should say <i>700</i> frames instead of <i>1500</i>.

<p>I used to carry an F5 kit for available light (F5, 16mm, 35mm,

50mm, 85mm f1.4,

180mm, SB26), and a Hasselblad outfit (500C, 50mm, 80mm, 150mm,

Sunpak 120J,

flash bracket) for the formals and for flash photography. The

images were good,

but the experience wasn't -- a sore back, complete exhaustion, and

the additional

stress of working with multiple outfits at the same time was just

too much.

I wasn't enjoying it any more.</p>

<p>So I switched.</p>

<p>My new daylight kit is an M6, 15mm, 35/2, 50/2, 90/2.8:</p>

<p align="center"><img

src="http://www.derekzeanah.com/images/newkit.jpg" width="300"

height="225"></p>

<p>Yeah, it's a crappy picture, but it gets the point across. This

kit and 1500

frames of film fit into a tiny bag, and my back loves the change.

To turn it

into my evening kit, I throw in a Vivitar 285HV with a Battery1+

and an Omni-bounce.

For formals I have a Rollei 3.5E, but I'm not sure I'll really use

it as I've

never had a bride request a large print from the formals.</p>

<p>Anyway, the only issue was whether it could get the job done. I've

decided

(after looking at the proofs) that it did the job admirably. The

wedding was

in Ragged Point, CA (about 200 miles south of San Jose, along Hwy

1) and I live

in Jacksonville, so the flight made me too tired to do my best

(left Friday

evening, arrived back home Monday at 2 AM, various problems along

the way) but

I think the results are still reasonably representative. I didn't

need to shoot

the formals, or the table shots and buffet line (a <a

href="http://egpictures.com">friend

of the groom</a> volunteered to do all those), and I went to bed as

the dancing

was starting up, but I've got a feel for how shooting with an M6

compares with

a more "standard" outfit. here's my take on it:</p>

<ul>

<li>The kit is so much lighter it isn't even funny. I can throw a

second M6

around my neck and carry the flash kit at all times and it's

still much easier

physically than carrying around just the Nikon part of my old

kit.</li>

<li>No-one really noticed me shooting. One of the groomsmen was

confused as

he heard I was one of the "official" photographers for

the event,

and the M looked like a point and shoot. I had to explain the

whole rangefinder

concept. Overall I was making much less of an impression than

either the F5

or the 500C/stroboframe/flash would have created. IMHO this was a

good thing.</li>

<li>I let my wife repack my bag, and the Omni-bounce didn't make

it. After looking

at the proofs and comparing them to the last job I shot with this

kit (my

family reunion), I see a big difference. Maybe not a huge

difference in this

case though, as the roof of the reception hall was basically

window glass

-- not that good for bouncing flash.</li>

<li>I looked more professional as I wasn't sweating like a pig as a

normally

do.</li>

<li>I was more energetic towards the end of the thing, even without

taking into

account the fatigue from travel. It's easier to talk yourself

into staying

in a good location and being ready for the shot when you're not

required to

lug around 40lbs to be ready..</li>

<li>I shot 20-30% less than I would have with the other kit (600

frames with

the Leica), after taking into account the portions I didn't

photograph. My

wife (she's more objective than I) says the number of images with

technical

problems has dropped way down (below 5%), though I didn't see the

problems

she's referring to in the first place. Overall I'd say I had 50-

100% more

"keepers" than I did before. Probably directly

attributable to increased

attention to detail. Regardless, IMHO it was my best wedding yet

(even on

3 hours of sleep!)</li>

<li>The lack of a fast flash sync didn't hurt me, as there was fog

everywhere.

If there hadn't been, I don't know how well I could have filled

with the 285

and 160VC film. It's probably worth looking into a neutral

density filter

in the appropriate sizes, or finding slower speed films to shoot

with.</li>

<li>The 400NC I shot had <i>beautiful</i> colors -- much more

subtle than I

would have expected.</li>

<li>The Ilford XP2 that was shot at 200 ASA had an almost IR

quality with the

Leica glass -- very nice, in a subtle way. Don't think I can

explain this

more, as I'm judging from proof prints.</li>

<li>I got a <i>wonderful</i> 7-frame sequence from the cake

cutting/fight, and

found that there was no disadvantage at all with not having a

motor wind.

Anyone want to buy a like-new Winder-M?</li>

</ul>

<p>More images are <a href="http://www.derekzeanah.com/kz-

wedding">here</a> --

basically scanned representative images from the proof prints from

the first

part of the wedding late at night after my sister begged me to.

Will probably

do more later. Example of the nice colors I got from NC400:</p>

<p align="center"><img src="http://www.derekzeanah.com/kz-

wedding/images/File0020.jpg" width="550" height="394"></p>

<p>Notes on specific lenses: the 35 Summicron did a wonderful job in

strongly

backlit situations:</p>

<p align="center"><img src="http://www.derekzeanah.com/kz-

wedding/images/File0011.jpg" width="327" height="550"></p>

<p>The 50 Summicron was a little more glare-prone in the same

situation (give

or take 10 minutes):</p>

<p align="center"><img src="http://www.derekzeanah.com/kz-

wedding/images/File0008.jpg" width="550" height="392"></p>

<p>The 15mm showed some distortion, but not enought to be noticable

in any significant

way:</p>

<p align="center"><img src="http://www.derekzeanah.com/kz-

wedding/images/File0002.jpg" width="550" height="392"></p>

<p>Overall I'm impressed with the utility the small rangefinder kit

offers. That's

saying a lot, as I'm been considering trying this for about the

last 5 years

or so. </p>

<p>If you've been considering it, it's time to give it a shot. Odds

are, you'll

kick yourself for not trying it sooner.</p>

I've never owned either of the systems you're considering, but I've been through my share of camera systems (Bronica ETR & SQ, Hasselblad 500C, Rolleiflex TLR's, Canon FD bodies, Nikon F5, Konica Hexars (AF and RF), and Leica M4P M3 and M6) -- not as many as some, but enough. Right now I've pared everything down to redundant M6 and Rollei TLR setups, so now you know I'm not the biggest SLR bigot in the group...<p>

 

My first question is what you plan to use the camera for. That really dictates the rest of the answer.<p>

 

Short answer: <ul>

<li>You'll be happy with the Bronica lenses if my experience is a guide (all were great, though there is some light fall-off on the oldest ETR lenses). Sharp and contrasty, and the electronic shutters are accurate.

<li>The ETR is going to offer you interchangeable backs and WL viewing, in case these features matter to you.

<li>The RF creates negatives that are taller than they are wide (portrait format) when held normally. This is a plus if you're into portraits. This might suck if you're not.

<li>As a travel camera the ETR sucks. I've done my time travelling across Europe with 52lbs of camera gear in a backpack and will <em>never</em> make that mistake again. The RF is likely better (smaller lenses if nothing else) but IMHO neither camera will compare with your Hexar or a Leica M in this role.

<li>I'm of the opinion that a rangefinder is a better all-round camera than an SLR, but this comment will likely provoke flames. The Bronica RF seems to give up a number of the natural advantages of rangefinder cameras because all the lenses are f4. Doesn't help in low light.

<li>There's a used market for the ETRSi.

</ul>

<p>

Now, I'm not the biggest Bronica fan in the world (once had <em>six</em> inserts for an ETR fail on the same shoot -- lucky I had <enm>seven</em>). If I were going to let that influence me, I might question why you were considering these two Bronica products as opposed to something like a Mamiya 7, or a Hasselblad, or a Rollei 600x, or whatever.

<i> Maybe Leica should include literature about the National Rifle Association in the envelope with the Passport Warranty. Any

takers? </i><p>

 

The NRA hasn't learned that appeasement doesn't work, so no. If, on the other hand, you wanted to send literature for the Gun

Owners of America, or Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, then I'd be in agreement. Of course, I don't expect rational

debate on the issue of gun rights any more, nor do I see the connection between Leica and firearm ownership...