Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,727   Posts: 1,515,176   Online: 969
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,828
    Ted Given that most customers will want prints, then quite apart from the lack of exposure latitude with slides, I'd have thought that the price of Cibachrome prints and lack of printing sources in the U.K. might be the main reason that colour neg is used.

    PE, I think, would go further and contend that nowadays colour neg and RA4 prints will give better prints than Cibachrome anyway.

    It might be that if photographers can ensure that exposures are spot -on then slides can be printed onto RA4 in mini-labs but even then the slides printed onto RA4 would have to be better than colour negs for the risk to be worth it.

    Unless the quality difference with slides printed onto Cibachrome or RA4 is appreciably better than colour neg on RA4 then the reason for wedding photogs not taking slides will be simply: Why take the extra risk with no measurable pay-off.

    In the wedding business there's no second chance as in: Sorry all the pics weren't as they should be but never mind we can do it all again next weekend :

    pentaxuser

  2. #12
    ted_smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    uk
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    396
    Images
    1
    That all makes sense gents - many thanks for the clarification.

    I had assumed it was due to the lack of tollerence that transparency has to incorrect exposure issues and the versatility of the light in a day of shooting a wedding. Nice to hear the extra details though and to get confirmation that I wasn't missing a trick somewhere.

    I am happy with my Fuji 400H and 160S selection, with use of 800Z on occasion (I am trying to buy and freeze stocks of 800Z as we speak)
    Ted Smith Photography
    Hasselblad 501CM...my 2nd love.

  3. #13
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    I think if the couple wanted slides to project, it would be among the only reasons to do so. Most (as in every couple I've ever known) want prints and/or digital files, though. There is such a huge variety of shooting situations within a single wedding, and almost all of them require moving quickly. Some slop is involved in the shooting of every wedding, at some point or another. Negative film's extreme versatility and ability to survive less-than-perfect handling makes it the far superior tool in this case, IMO.

    But technical issues aside, I imagine that the couple in this day and age that wants slides is a very rare thing. It does you no good to shoot them unless that is what they want.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 01-18-2011 at 04:48 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  4. #14
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,779
    Images
    31
    Another thought on negatives versus chromes is contrast. A close friend of mine and his wife shot weddings for many years and used color negative film exclusively because of the smooth tonal shift, as well as more accurate color rendition. He shot with a pair of 6x6 Kowas, and a 21/4x31/4 Speed Graphic(IIRC). He also offered hand colored B&W's.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum
    BTW: the big kid in my avatar is my hero, my son, who proudly serves us in the Navy. "SALUTE"

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,192
    Images
    4
    My wedding, many years ago (OK, many, many years ago), was shot with transparency film. But the photographer (a friend of my wife's family) was a National Geographic photographer and that's what he was comfortable with.

    The results were fine, but the reality is that slides don't make the best medium for a wedding album. And prints are more difficult/expensive than from negative film. Only the "humility challenged" would want a print larger than 11x14 (and maybe 8x10) so very large prints are generally not a factor.
    "Far more critical than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know." - Eric Hoffer

  6. #16
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,004
    Images
    60
    In the years that I shot weddings, I shot exactly one on 35mm - the first one!

    All the rest were shot on 120.

    They were all shot on Kodak professional colour print film - initially on the various versions of Vericolour, and then the Portra films that replaced it.

    I still have almost all the negatives. The work-flow involved in selling enlargements to my customers just wouldn't have worked with transparency materials - the labs that did good wedding work and the materials available were not set up for it.

    Have you ever tried to photograph a bride in a white dress and a groom in a pale blue tuxedo? If you had, and had used transparency film, you wouldn't have tried that film again.

    I realize that I might be dating myself a bit here.

    The only thing I will say about the 135 vs. medium format part of your question is that all colour print film today is significantly improved when compared to, e.g. 1975, so the results from 135 might very well be closer to acceptable than they were back then.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  7. #17
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,631
    I only ever shot one wedding on 35mm slide film because that's what the clients requested all the other ones I did were shot on 120 Pro negative films.
    Ben

  8. #18
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,525
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    In the years that I shot weddings, I shot exactly one on 35mm - the first one!
    In the one month that I shot weddings, I only used 120 (for both of them).

    My father spent many years photographing weddings with 35mm and Fuji Reala film with great results. Before that it was 120 with a couple of Rolleiflexes and before that, his first wedding used ten glass plates!

    Most of my father's personal photography was with Kodachrome but I don't recall him using transparency film for weddings.


    Steve.

  9. #19
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,159
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Have you ever tried to photograph a bride in a white dress and a groom in a pale blue tuxedo? If you had, and had used transparency film, you wouldn't have tried that film again.
    Add another wrinkle to that problem- the bride is a red-headed Celt and the groom is from Nigeria. Then you'll REALLY want a negative film.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin