Black & White (89 Images)
/forum/topic/891396/1

1      
2
       3              8       9       end

DB
Registered: Apr 04, 2007
Total Posts: 4849
Country: United States

Amazing. Amazing, amazing, amazing. What a day brightener for me. When Matt and I renew our vows, we are flying you out to shoot on pure B&W. First set on FM that has ever really made me feel this way.

BTW - the guy looks *just* like the model from Tec Petaja's wedding story from last year. It's uncanny.



DB
Registered: Apr 04, 2007
Total Posts: 4849
Country: United States

Oh - and I hate to ask this, but I am interested in knowing what cameras you used. I'm just thinking through this and realized that the Mamiya RB 67 is not exactly wedding friendly, so I'd be interested in the more portable options that you have chosen.



PatFurey89
Registered: Jul 11, 2008
Total Posts: 1412
Country: United States

Seriously one of the most thoughtful series of wedding images I've ever seen. Pulling my jaw back off the floor.



canerino
Registered: May 28, 2005
Total Posts: 10259
Country: United States

where the hell is the 'like' button?



ContagiousIdea
Registered: Dec 31, 2005
Total Posts: 4100
Country: United States

None were less than great, my favorites were 2,5,13,36,38,44,71,76,78,83

If you get these printed before the unmentionable event please please bring them with you if you can I'd love to see them on real paper.



Eyeball
Registered: Jan 11, 2005
Total Posts: 3590
Country: Mexico

Evan,

Great work. I do think that the B&W has the subtle effect of focusing the viewer more on the emotions of the subjects. I probably wouldn't have wanted my wedding only in B&W but I think your work here certainly shows B&W's strengths.

I am curious, however, what you feel is the extra benefit film is giving you in this case compared to shooting with a digital, particularly given the extra time and expense you mentioned. Based on the posted images, I am not seeing anything dramatic that could not be accomplished with a digital (obviously with some grain added in post). I know these are quick, imperfect scans as you mentioned but I am not sure that even good scans will show us the difference that you might see in a print so that's why I'm asking. If you do feel there are differences visible even in these quick scans, I would appreciate it if you could point out some for me. It may just be my untrained eyes.

If you had done this as only an exercise or to re-live the good ole days, I wouldn't even ask but since you mentioned that you are considering adding this to your product line, I am curious what extra value film will give your clients that digital won't.



maxwell1295
Registered: Jun 04, 2008
Total Posts: 6214
Country: United States

<---- Stunned

Somebody please pass the tissues...



Sam Hassas
Registered: Jul 11, 2007
Total Posts: 6100
Country: United States

Eyeball wrote:
Evan,

Great work. I do think that the B&W has the subtle effect of focusing the viewer more on the emotions of the subjects. I probably wouldn't have wanted my wedding only in B&W but I think your work here certainly shows B&W's strengths.

I am curious, however, what you feel is the extra benefit film is giving you in this case compared to shooting with a digital, particularly given the extra time and expense you mentioned. Based on the posted images, I am not seeing anything dramatic that could not be accomplished with a digital (obviously with some grain added in post). I know these are quick, imperfect scans as you mentioned but I am not sure that even good scans will show us the difference that you might see in a print so that's why I'm asking. If you do feel there are differences visible even in these quick scans, I would appreciate it if you could point out some for me. It may just be my untrained eyes.

If you had done this as only an exercise or to re-live the good ole days, I wouldn't even ask but since you mentioned that you are considering adding this to your product line, I am curious what extra value film will give your clients that digital won't.


Good honest question. If I know Baines, you'll see a carefully crafted response to this soon.


Baines. Good grief dude. Wow. So many to like and many more I'm jealous of.

To the forum, it might help you to know Evan was just as human as any of us would be in a situation like this. He showed anticipation and nervousness. I think to come out this successful on the film end, you NEED to be nervous. It keeps you on your toes. Like it's almost part of the receipe.

High style Evan. Impressive to say the least.

~Sam



McGrattan
Registered: Jun 11, 2008
Total Posts: 1084
Country: Canada

The wind owned that veil.

B&W makes everything seem so timeless, there are very few red herrings telling you that this wedding wasn't shot 20 years ago.

If I did my wedding over again, this is how I would want it captured.



j_ambrose
Registered: Dec 10, 2004
Total Posts: 837
Country: United States

Dude, so perfect. I think what impresses me the most is the timing. With digital you can at least chimp and see if you got that smile but with film there isn't that option. Every moment I see here is so spot on in regards to timing its just blowing my mind. Bravo!



DB
Registered: Apr 04, 2007
Total Posts: 4849
Country: United States

Eyeball wrote:
Evan,

Great work. I do think that the B&W has the subtle effect of focusing the viewer more on the emotions of the subjects. I probably wouldn't have wanted my wedding only in B&W but I think your work here certainly shows B&W's strengths.

I am curious, however, what you feel is the extra benefit film is giving you in this case compared to shooting with a digital, particularly given the extra time and expense you mentioned. Based on the posted images, I am not seeing anything dramatic that could not be accomplished with a digital (obviously with some grain added in post). I know these are quick, imperfect scans as you mentioned but I am not sure that even good scans will show us the difference that you might see in a print so that's why I'm asking. If you do feel there are differences visible even in these quick scans, I would appreciate it if you could point out some for me. It may just be my untrained eyes.

If you had done this as only an exercise or to re-live the good ole days, I wouldn't even ask but since you mentioned that you are considering adding this to your product line, I am curious what extra value film will give your clients that digital won't.



I'm doubtful that Evan added grain in post. FWIW, I've tried unsuccessfully to mimic the look of film with digital. It just isn't possible. I think these have a much different feel than digital B&W, but to each his own. The longer I've shot and looked at my own work and a vast deal of other work, the more I recognize the distinct difference between film and digital and between different film types. You just can't replicate film with digital - you can get close, but not exact.

Evan - I'd love to know how you metered for this. I've read of many photographers using light meters the entire day, but that can often impare you from capturing specific moments. I'm pretty good at guessing what the exposure should be, but I can check that as well. I would love to know if you metered, how you did that, and how you determined when you needed to push or pull the film. Kudos to the person who helped organize this for you!



Paul Bottomley
Registered: May 18, 2007
Total Posts: 485
Country: Canada

I haven't been around for a few weeks (or has it been months?) as work is swamped but WOW. I am so glad I took 5 minutes to drop by today.

Truly inspiring.



Sarah Dickerso
Registered: Jan 09, 2008
Total Posts: 1238
Country: United States

wow.



Evan Baines
Registered: Jan 15, 2007
Total Posts: 5293
Country: United States

Thanks for all the comments everyone!


Photodude & Deb: I used a 1v and 1n. I wanted to stick with a familiar system for this first go. I may add in some rangefinder and/or MF coverage on future weddings.

Eyeball: It is a great question. First, on the purely objective end, you're absolutely right that with a lot of effort, you could get digital shots to look pretty darn close to this on a screen. The grain might not be as truly random and organic (unless you scanned grainy negs and spent ridiculous effort on it), and the highlight roll-off and other issues might be subtly different.... but you could get close enough to fool all but a true conniseur.

The difference really shows up when you start making prints. A true darkroom fiber print made from film has a depth and presence that cannot be simulated with digital technology. Believe me, I've tried. I love digital printmaking, and I'd like to think I'm pretty good at it. Digital prints can be beautiful.... but they are different than film prints.

And on a more philosophical level: authenticity matters to me. There is part of me that recoils deep down inside about the fact that all of my digital black and white images are film "simulations" with "authentic-looking" grain and tonality. These film shots don't pretend to be anything but what they are. They're not "reproductions" of the film look: they just ARE. This won't matter to everyone: not even to most people. However, I'm spending a lot of money and effort putting together a sample album predicated on the idea that there are still people out there who agree with me on this. I don't want this to be a film vs. digital thing because I still love digital. Its amazing, and there are many aspects of modern wedding photography that hugely benefit from digital technology. I just know I'm glad my wedding was shot on B&W film, and would make the same choice today.

Deb: I metered both in camera and taking hand readings for every room/situation. I used the sekonic to get a baseline for each room, or during the portraits, but then used the camera meter to make fine adjustments. Some of the pushed film didn't actually have as much exposure latitude as people generally think of with film, so it was important to me to nail it every time. Exposure wise, I literally only missed a handful all day.



redpoppy
Registered: Jan 15, 2009
Total Posts: 197
Country: Canada

I have to say my absolute favorite photo I have ever seen is 78...I could stare at it all day. I just want to hang in my home as art. Simple, beautiful and timeless emotion captured here.



martinezphoto
Registered: Aug 17, 2009
Total Posts: 867
Country: United States

I used to shoot weddings on BW film back in the 90's. I've never considered going back to it however. These are well executed images but I guess I am in the minority here because if shooting on film was supposed to have added something "special" I don't see it. Rather, I am reminded of the limitations of film as a light recording medium particularly under low light conditions. Anybody else who's been around long enough to remember shooting weddings on film feel the same way? The discipline of getting things correct in camera without the safety net of photoshop is definitely a worthwhile exercise and these images were certainly well done I am just befuddled by the idea of going back to film.



Josh Evilsizor
Registered: Sep 23, 2005
Total Posts: 3021
Country: United States

that seals the deal... i'm switching to Ilford Delta I love the tonality so much more than I do TMAX....



CarminaF
Registered: Aug 01, 2007
Total Posts: 1373
Country: Canada

Wow. I love these images.



WesleyStewart
Registered: Apr 17, 2010
Total Posts: 36
Country: United States

So amazing. Looking at these made my day.



tmkdesign
Registered: Apr 15, 2010
Total Posts: 177
Country: United States

Obviously these are more amazing than anything I could ever imagine myself doing. And I'm sure that as I develop I would look back on these and see things I can't even begin to understand now. I usually lurk and not comment on something that I really can't give a good critique on.... but I must ask, if simply because you stated you needed help picking what to print, where it the head of the figure opposite bride and goom in picture 25?



1      
2
       3              8       9       end