Where's the Wedding togs?
Kinda sad to see so few wedding photographers still using film.
I use a hybrid myself. Nikon digital gear and Bronica 645 gear. Lately I've even contemplated going totally film. I'm just getting a better look with my film work, and I prefer the work flow.
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
There are a few on APUG, Matt Wells (Matt5791) shoots film, Colour and B&W.
There is a call for film photography for weddings and there's also a largely untapped potential for a high class B&W wedding service. I shot a few B&W weddings back in the 90's where the customers wanted something different from the usual, they approached me because they knew me for my B&W landscape work.
I got out of the wedding business a few years ago, though I will begrudgingly occasion the needs of a friend in dire straits. I was shooting with my Mamiyas but I ditched them to fund the jump to 4x5. Now I just whip out my Nikon N65 and have at it. At least it's less gear to keep track of.
Oh, and I push B&W whenever possible. If I shoot both, more often than not the B&G order by and large the B&W work.
It's never too early to panic.
Traditional Blowhard Extraordinaire
There are work flows and approaches to using film for weddings. The first thing to realize is you can't get the el cheapos, you have to abandon them, or offer the cheaper service. The film service must offered on the basis of results, not process, ie the prints tell the tale, not the words. The best way to tell the tale is with the prints, as computer monitors can't convey the subtle differences. After a year of pushing it, I am having a great deal of success with my alt process portrait and boudoir work. It's when friends of the first few saw the actual prints in the homes of the clients that the phone went off. You could post em on the web till the cows come home. Turns out they have to see it to get it, because that is the product, and the product is far more than an image if you are doing it correctly.
I'll add myself to the list also. When someone rings me up, I'll send them out a few prints. I target the higher end and leave the cheap, disc only packages to the bottom feeders.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
When someone asks me to photograph their wedding, I suggest they get two or three friends with cameras to do the ceremony, and a bunch of one-use film cameras and put them on all the tables at the reception (because if the ask me, they are too cheap to pay a pro.) And if they are good enough friends, I offer to take one image with the 8x10.
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can be a good day of exercise.
I'm retooling toward all film weddings.
I like Vaughn's idea of one great shot too. I want to provide a very limited amount of shooting and a well-defined set of prints. One of the things that I found in digital was that too much choice is not good for the client or for me.
I'm thinking 4 - 36 exposure rolls of 35mm and 2 rolls of 120 in a TLR, for a wedding with 50-75 people will be more than enough.
Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO
"The mind that opens to a new idea never returns to its original size." Albert Einstein
I would have thought that would be plenty.
Originally Posted by markbarendt
I can't quite believe what I read on other forums occasionally about brides expecting 1000 - 2000 images. What for?
I'm sure there are no more than sixty pictures in my wedding album.
As Alex pointed out, I am a 100% film shooter. I came back from digital because of the look of film and better workflow (for me) as my business is better suited if I dedicate my time to networking with coordinators and photo editors instead of sitting behing my computer post-processing my digital images to look like film.
I am not an anti-digital person as I just got an M8.2 but just love documenting my work with M7s and B&W film instead... If you are interested in hearing more about my philosophy, please download from iTunes (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/M...t?id=291806626) a recent interview I did for the Inside Analog radio show.