I am wondering who is shooting some film at the weddings?
These forums are so biased toward digital shooters that I have to be on my guard to remember how great it is to shoot with my Nikon F6 at the weddings along with some digital.
My film gets scanned to disc at the lab for me and I then I work it up in LightRoom.
Although I love film and shot it for many years, it isn't as practical as it once was given the expectations of today's bride for hundreds of exposures. Still, I wouldn't mind picking up an EOS 3 to shoot some B&W film.
I can do some tweaking with the higlhights and pull up some shadows if necessary in LR since I have the film on disc. Then, in Photoshop effects can be added if desired.
Thousands of exposures are not necessary for the house, wedding ceremony and outdoors portion of the job. Fifteen to twenty rolls on a typical wedding job coupled with a digital camera for the dancing seems to work for me right now. Burning out highlights is not usually a problem with film for me like it is in digital. I think my SB800 flash works better with film.
At the reception, I like digital, exect for the cake cutting ceremony for which I prefer film.
The dominant medium of the day-hummm. Sounds like follow the herd mentality to me. Sometimes it is not so good to know what the other guy is doing before you figure out what you are doing.
The brides I shoot don't know my digital pics from my film pics once they are all out on the table or online to view and neither do I in many cases.
A lot of exciting stuff is shown here from one photographer/artist to another but don't they always select the wrong pics for the album anyway?
williamkazak wrote:
The dominant medium of the day-hummm. Sounds like follow the herd mentality to me. Sometimes it is not so good to know what the other guy is doing before you figure out what you are doing.
The brides I shoot don't know my digital pics from my film pics once they are all out on the table or online to view and neither do I in many cases.
A lot of exciting stuff is shown here from one photographer/artist to another but don't they always select the wrong pics for the album anyway?
My statement had nothing to do with "follow the herd mentality". It had to do with your statement that this site is "bias" towards digital. Since that is the dominant medium in todays world it only makes sense that the forum is "bias" in that direction. Now if you visit a forum that specifically states Film User Forum in an era that is digital you will find....ummmm, film users dominating *that* forum. When photography forums first started guess what was dominant......you guessed it....film.
I could go on and on but I think we get each others points
williamkazak wrote:
I can do some tweaking with the higlhights and pull up some shadows if necessary in LR since I have the film on disc. Then, in Photoshop effects can be added if desired.
Thousands of exposures are not necessary for the house, wedding ceremony and outdoors portion of the job. Fifteen to twenty rolls on a typical wedding job coupled with a digital camera for the dancing seems to work for me right now. Burning out highlights is not usually a problem with film for me like it is in digital. I think my SB800 flash works better with film.
At the reception, I like digital, exect for the cake cutting ceremony for which I prefer film.
The dominant medium of the day-hummm. Sounds like follow the herd mentality to me. Sometimes it is not so good to know what the other guy is doing before you figure out what you are doing.
The brides I shoot don't know my digital pics from my film pics once they are all out on the table or online to view and neither do I in many cases.
A lot of exciting stuff is shown here from one photographer/artist to another but don't they always select the wrong pics for the album anyway?
I too, get by and please the clients with fifteen or less rolls per wedding. And the brides don't seem to care whether it's digi or film. It's the final results that they care about. I've even had a few insist on "film" only. And, I too, find that my SB-800 & 600, work flawlessly on my film bodies.
I also use B&W film @ weddings. I have only been doing it for 5 or 6 months, but really am enjoying it. I typically shoot about a dozen rolls or so. Fun and something a little different.
I have also been dusting off the Blad and shooting a couple of rolls to a pro pack of 2 and a quarter @ bridals. Film has continued to improve and love the ways the highlights and shadows are rolled off; not quite as harsh as digital. However, digital is still 90 percent of what I shoot.
While I have not advertised the film use; there is a small bit of buzz in my market about my use of film and some of my potential brides now ask about film.
I do get scans of film at times, however I still prefer neg to print. I must be a bit more cautious wrt composition. It works for me.
So far only 1 shoots 100% film, others seem to do it on the side and more for the fun of it and most seem to process them digitally, so my question why Why do you add another bunch of steps to an already pretty extensive workflow?
When I get my film scanned at the lab it is done at the same time it is processed. I have heard that the labs are not printing directly from the negs anymore. They do it differently now. Getting the job back on disc allows me to do tweaking and manipulating and uploading for online re-orders. I am also my own re-toucher.
I really don't see much benefit from shooting directly in digital for my wedding work except for the "Poloroid" idea of seeing it as I am shooting it. Having shot weddings since 1975, I am used to waiting to see a job anyway so maybe that is a factor that is a positive for me and a negative for someone else who needs to see exactly what they are doing when they are doing it. I know that my SB800 flash is all over the place with my digital camera and I really need to see it as I am shooting it. By the way, I am full frame with the F6.
My lab, high res scans the film at time of processing, and puts it on-line for me. I find it very easy to do it in this manner. I then go on-line, and look at the results, order prints, etc.
I love digital, but just picked up a Contax 645 and Zeiss 80 f/2.0 to start playing with at e-shoot, etc. I'm looking forward to adding it to my arsenal, but I don't see it replacing the 5D's.
@ williamkazak & Kiron Kid
Thanks for shining a light on that, I just assumed you guys spend hours in your dark room developing, then scanning it, and then retouching in PS. The work flow you guys have isn't more cumbersome then doing it all digital. I think that a lot of the "newer" generation (incl me) don't really get their hands on analog shooting and the original workflow that comes with it
Why do you add another bunch of steps to an already pretty extensive workflow?