Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,969   Posts: 1,558,531   Online: 1051
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE View Post
    There certainly "IS" a valid reason for choosing negatives, and that is latitude. Evn though modern digi-print labs can produce good prints from slides, the negative films can resolve more detail in shadows and highlights at the same time. Even with digi-printing this extra detail in both the lightest and darkest parts of an image can greatly enhance the photo.
    It all boils down to how badly you need extra latitude, how well you can compensate for poor lighting situations, and how well C41 is going to be able to handle it anyway. In other words, if the Kodachrome look is something you REALLY like, you can probably make it work. On the other hand, C41 will NOT give you the look and feel of Kodachrome no matter how hard you try.

  2. #22
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    Kodachrome is wonderful film, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to shoot a wedding with it. Portra is designed to be a "people" film, and it would be my recommendation. If the light is flat, you might prefer the extra contrast and saturation of VC; if contrasty, you can control it with NC. Use 160 for mid-day outdoor work, and 400 for indoors with flash or outdoors in the evening light.
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

  3. #23
    Alan Macoustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6
    I used NPH 400, when shooting weddings, great for indoors, window light etc., in 35mm and MF. I would suggest you use one type of film when shooting weddings, you will be under enough pressure without trying to remember which camera has which film.

  4. #24
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,611
    Images
    60
    Almost all the weddings I've shot in my life have been on 120 - initially using the various flavours of Vericolour, and progressing to the Portra NC emulsions. One could always (in the past) get as much colour punch as one needed by giving appropriate instructions to one's lab - they used to adjust the paper choice, while nowadays they might have to resort to digital solutions.

    Even today I have a number of choices available to me among analogue printing options. Not nearly as many as before, but there are still some available.

    I must admit, however, that it would have been neat to carry along a Kodachrome loaded 35mm camera to some of the weddings I shot - a wedding "slide show" in Kodachrome might have been a great addition!

    Matt

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    410
    ***Kodachrome is wonderful film, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to shoot a wedding with it***

    In 50 plus years time, the wedding shots would look the same as the day taken?

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by Excalibur2 View Post
    ***Kodachrome is wonderful film, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to shoot a wedding with it***

    In 50 plus years time, the wedding shots would look the same as the day taken?
    Given the instability of most other types of film, as well as the potentially empty promises from manufacturers regarding the stability of their products (we won't know, for instance, if the lastest Portra will REALLY last 50 years until 50 years from now), longevity is probably one of the best reasons to shoot a wedding with Kodachrome.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Practically every film in existence can be used for practically any type of photography. Your style and the lighting conditions have to answer this question for you.

    As for what I do at weddings: I use mostly NPH (now known as 400H), 800Z (formerly known as NPZ), and some NPS (now known as 160S) for subdued color, and Reala for natural color as backup in case the light happens to be good. I use Reala instead of 160C, as I find 160C to be too contrasty most of the time. If I want more contrast, I will push Reala.

    I really love Kodak Portra, but I find that the Fuji really is better for shooting in various colors of light. At a wedding, you are dealing with every type of light source there is: green fluorescents, white fluorescents, halogen, curtains, painted walls, wooden walls, dingy cottage cheese ceilings, gels, flash, daylight, twilight, etc. When I use flash in studio or doing my own "staged" work in "clean" lighting, I use Kodak. I love its characteristics, especially for pix of people. For foul lighting, and situations where I have less control, I use Fuji. For landscapes, and general use, I love Fuji Reala.

    This is all medium format, for portraits. M645, usually, though I do have an RZ now that I could incorporate, but have not yet (due to overkill on negative size and lack of redundancy in my kit). I also shoot small format digital for different kinds of shots. I do not shoot my own weddings, but assist and second shoot for others. I highly prefer this!
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 05-17-2009 at 07:12 AM. 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)

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    In 50 plus years time, the wedding shots would look the same as the day taken?
    Most 'weddings'/marriages don't last as long as the photographs thereof.

    And, in turn, the interest shown in the photographs usually does not last nearly as long as the marriage itself.

    So would longevity of the film used really matter much?

  9. #29
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,739
    Images
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    Most 'weddings'/marriages don't last as long as the photographs thereof.

    And, in turn, the interest shown in the photographs usually does not last nearly as long as the marriage itself.

    So would longevity of the film used really matter much?
    You gave me a good laught this morning
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  10. #30
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,773
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by ted_smith View Post
    I actually intended to start my post with a 'moan' about Kodak Portra 160NC so it's funny several f you mention it when I forgot to. I shot a roll of it recently for the first time as everything I read about portraiture film seems to rave about Kodak Portra, just as many of you chaps have here today.

    However, I found my prints to lack saturation and contrast. ...
    Ted,

    Film choice can definitely make a difference here but just as big an issue is your instruction to the lab and their willingness to listen.

    First, with regard to film:

    Slides can be gorgeous but given the limited latitude (+/- 1/3 of a stop) they simply require more effort to manage exposure in high-contrast shooting situations. This might include carefully using strobes mid-day to get detail in the shadows under say the brim of a top-hat. Back-lighting is tough to.

    Negative films, because of their exposure latitude, by contrast, make shooting a breeze. Take the same top-hat and simply place the eyes hidden in that shadow manually in say zone 4 when you start shooting that situation.

    Fuji's 160S and 400H films can handle up to 3 stops of over exposure, 160C maybe a bit less, most C-41 films are similar, so, with the shadow placed, the inherent latitude of the film will generally then hold detail in both the highlights (the clouds and the bride's dress) and in the shadow under the grooms top-hat, without a strobe or reflector.

    Over-exposure to a point can also improve saturation with C-41 films.

    Because of C-41's latitude I'd say go with negatives and practice some ahead of time. You'll probably get more keepers.

    Now the lab.

    The normal chemical processes are reliable and standardized so your negatives/positives should be just fine at any well operated lab.

    The wild cards come in the scanning, pre-press work, and printing or the optical printing. That's true for both C-41 and slides.

    The lab should be schooled by you on how you shoot and what you want and they need to be willing to do it your way.

    The first set of prints from either medium should not be regarded as anything more than proofs.

    Again some practice is required here, work with the lab to fine tune your exposures and their prints.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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