Seeing as how I still gotta get pocketwizards this is good.
Seeing as how I still gotta get pocketwizards this is good.
Wedding photography is too much expensive rather than other photography because everyone want best wedding photographs and photo album. Wedding moments are unforgettable life moments and everyone want to remember and share that precious moments with their own partner. Wedding photography rates only depends on photographer. If you choose best professional photographer of your own area then they will charge you highest cost.
All you need is a camera and a flash (preferably a BIG flash, like a Metz, but a canon 580EX II or the new 6xx versions will do ok).
I'll probably get a lot of flack for saying this, but why the heck are you thinking of doing this on film you're insane! A wedding is the only time and I mean the only time I would highly highly suggest shooting Digital, there's too much going on, it works too fast, the kinds of images that customers expect these days when shooting a wedding are completely different from what they expected back in the day when shooting film. You probably won't be able to provide them with enough images, and you won't be a will to provide them with the types of images they really wanted and expected, it's different than the days when all you did was shoot each table, and then a group shot and a few of the important groups (cousins, uncles, sisters, etc). In a given shoot, with two photographers, I generally end up shooting roughly 2,000-3,000 photos between the two of us, of that the customer sees about 10% of those photos. Of the 3,000, 1,500 are probably dancing photos with the old strict uncle finally caught doing something fun, etc. It's about the only time I'm ever shooting high amounts of images, other times I'm often obviously very very careful because I'm shooting film, and even when I shoot digital, I'm very thoughtful about my shots, but during the wedding, you just have to go go go go go go shoot shoot shoot shoot shoot they are too fast paced, and you better have at least two cameras if you bring film, because you're going to want to be ready for the inevitable time when the disc jockey guy announcer says okay the bride is now throwing it okay and you're not ready because you have no film left and trying to reload and they throw it before you can finish, heck, even with the digital, sometimes I barely get the shot because of how fast that happens.
Anyway if you think that your materials cost for shooting film for a wedding is only going to be $30, then you are either underestimating your cost, or you're going to end up running out of film...
I would agree in the statement that weddings are nightmares, and that's why I only do about four or five a year, I don't seek them out and only do them by request.
I've done $1,000 weddings for my relatives before, it's a nightmare, and I wouldn't do it again, there's just too much at stake to NOT shoot with two people. I always have a second shooter just in case, and so your initial cost has to go up to cover their fee.
Anyway good luck.
Really depends on what they want and what you are going to provide. Do they want proof books with later print orders, the whole works? I used to have packages starting at 1200 dollars ten years ago in lower Delaware. Not the most lucrative market out there. Do they just want you to show and shoot preparation, ceremony and some reception and then hand over the film/cards? Our base cheap rate for that was 500 for a hit and run.
Just a heads up guys this is an old thread it just got bumped by a spam account.
Stone there are still plenty of photographers who shoot weddings on film. Weddings are the biggest reasons you can still buy Portra 220.
I shot a friend's wedding this summer because they asked me to, and I did it for free as a gift to them. I agree it is really stressful, the worst part is that you miss most of the wedding as you are too focused on shooting it.
In terms of materials I shot 6 rolls of 220 NPH 400 at the ceremony and portraits afterwards, with two 220 mags for my Pentax that's a lot of shots before you need to reload. I also did a roll of Tri-X in a Mamiya 645, wish I had shot more of that. I wasn't really 'covering' the reception but I shot some 35mm P&S as well as setting up a photo booth with strobes where I shot 6 rolls of Provia 120.
With film, lab costs, shipping, and putting together an 8x10 album for them I figure it was $600-800 just in materials not to mention quite a bit of time. If you're shooting weddings for $1000 you're not going to make much, that is for sure! I would never do this commercially and I really respect the people who are able to make a go of it.
Oh, crap didn't notice that on the cell. Can a mod lock this one down in that event?
Stone, I guess I'm giving you flak, technically, but don't mean it in a bad way.
If I ever get married I will search for a photographer who uses film (if it still exists when I get there, lol). I'm not after quantity of photos, and I prefer the aesthetics. However, I would want someone who had an assistant, as you mention.
Our old family wedding photos (on film) show more than just pictures of major players and people at tables - I think that is the difference between a good photographer and mediocre one, not digital v. film. I don't want to not have a picture of that conservative uncle just because he didn't do something "fun" for a change.
As for taking thousands of pictures - the shotgun approach will yield some very good pictures regardless of who is wielding the camera. That can be accomplished with cheap "single use" film or digital cameras handed to guests - statistics are in favor of enough of "keepers" in that scenario.
While I can't duplicate a very good photo taken by a pro, I can tell if it was a methodical (slow) and purposeful shot, or if the shotgun approach was used. I've no problem with a pro taking action and informal shots - but I think the reason a pro is hired in the first place is primarily for _formal_ photos of a formal event; again, regardless of "capture" medium.
Anyway, if I ever get married, if the world doesn't stop turning when that happens, I would probably like a mixture of both, I understand and value the digital side, it is very difficult to print large photos off of 35mm film, and 120 is better but still again very difficult if you're going the old Digital hybrid way, even scanning with something like the Nikon 9000 in 120, I would venture a guess that I could still get a much sharper image in a 20 x 30 photo then on film, I know this is terrible to hear, but after doing a lot of send off printing where I take the digital file and send it off, the scans of film are just not as good, The scanners don't have enough detail, and I'm not about to drum scan each piece of film for a wedding. If I were having the images printed from the film itself the old-fashioned optical way, perhaps then the images would be much sharper, but I can tell you from experience printing a bunch of 20 x 30s, that the digital just has more detail, at least from my 5 year old Canon 5D II camera, i'm sure lesser digital cameras especially the rebel brand, cannot produce the quality of detail, regardless of built their pixel size, the chips and the buffer systems etc. are not the same. Anyway I don't want to talk anymore about Digital, this is a film forum, but it's far as weddings are concerned I certainly would probably want a mixture of both, I would want someone with an artistic guy who only took a few photos on film that where the really good quality important ones in really artistic ways that were fun and beautiful and were something that I could use as my art for home, but I would certainly want to have a bunch of fun photos to share with everyone else that I could send off digitally to everyone etc.
I can't say that I know anyone who shoots on film anymore for weddings, the last person I should saw shooting film for weddings, was an old photographer that shot my cousins wedding back in 2007, I had JUST gotten my old 40D at the time, and took a bunch of shots just to help with the family, and because I wanted to play around and hadn't really shot anything yet. My cousin told me that it took the photographer shooting film about two or three months to get them the photos, and when she did she was very disappointed in the quality of the images, and also that all the colors look very dismal, and thanks me for having my camera because all of my images came out great, and this was a little surprising to me because I knew that this other photographer had shot for a very very long time, i'm not saying that she was a bad photographer, but it's possible that if she was trying to do a hybrid process that that just doesn't work for this type of photography for most clients not all, but most.
Anyway I think you're right this thread should be closed because if it's not I'm probably going to babble on some more and who needs to hear that really? LOL