A complete wedding on 1 roll of film.

ehegwer · Oct 17, 2009

At my last wedding, I decided to run a little experiment with my Leica M4-P and 50mm summicron f2. I wanted to capture the feel of the entire wedding on a single roll of Fuji 400 ProH.

Of course I had my other Nikons that were doing the lion's share of the work, but in this case I was testing myself with the completely manual camera.

Has anyone else ever tried this?

Not surprisingly, every shot came out, and I've posted the 15 or so of my favorites on my Austin Wedding Photographer website.

Jeff Kubach · Oct 17, 2009

I usually don't do weddings, but I like the concept. Nice images.

Jeff

Ian Grant · Oct 17, 2009

The great thing about the M series Leica's is they are easy to use hand held at lowish shutter speeds and with no flash, I have used my M3 and 50mm Summicron at a few family weddings, not sure that 1 film would be enough though

As Jeff says some nice images.

Ian

markbarendt · Oct 17, 2009

I'm not there yet, but I love the concept.

The last wedding I did, I used 6-36xp rolls of 400nc & 3-24xp rolls of bw400nc, including reception.

I think I can cut that in half next time.

mgb74 · Oct 17, 2009

I too liked the images. I did not see many guest and "spontaneous" images, but I suppose they were on the rest of the roll (I think only 13 were shown).

I'm curious about a few other things:

By comparison, how many digital images did you shoot?
If you weren't self limited to one roll of film, how many would you have shot?
Have you shown the b&g the 36 film images and gotten their impression of the wedding coverage (on film)?

fotch · Oct 17, 2009

Hey, nice photos!

Cliffy13 · Oct 17, 2009

When I started doing weddings it was at the budget end on 35mm film and the packages started at a 1 film wedding so it was what we had to work with,the top package was 4 rolls so it was luxury in having144 shots to play with.Those who have only done weddings in the digital age just don't know how lucky they are

Christopher Walrath · Oct 17, 2009

There was a discussion on here the past few days. I used to average 150 exposures when I shot weddings. No reason why one roll shouldn't suffice. You just need to know which exposures to make.

jolefler · Oct 18, 2009

It's Great, I think!

But if I'm the only guy there, I'd feel better about a two roll wedding. One roll in each of two bodies. They could be 24's to even out the number of exposures. Maybe a 50/1.2 prime on one and a 90/2.8 on the other.

Now you're a REAL photographer if you consider doing a 1 roll 6X9 wedding!

perkeleellinen · Oct 18, 2009

It's a great idea and a great challenge.

I like these sorts of projects, I do a 'one roll' project thing on famous streets and landmarks from time to time. I wonder if I could pull it off at a wedding, I'm shooting a friend's next summer.

Ian Grant · Oct 18, 2009

In days of old a wedding might be shot on a few glass plates, I have the contact prints from my Grandparents 1910 wedding, there's just 3 shots, 2 of the bride with & without brides-maids and one very large, highly organised group shot, whether others were shot I don't know but that was all my Grandmother had. She wasn't a photographer but she liked photographs and on her honeymoon bought two landscape images to hang in their farm-house.

The wedding must have been shot with a 10x12 camera.

Ian

DWThomas · Oct 18, 2009

Ian brings up a good point; I think what's considered the norm is an evolving expectation. My parents were married in 1937 and I don't think there's more than a handful of pictures of the event, primarily a formal, posed shot of the bride and groom. In the past year or so, I've gotten two weddings on two rolls each of 6x6, but I was just a bystander playing the role of eccentric uncle (and I wouldn't argue they were "complete"). I often wonder how many of the fancy video productions that have been common over the last decade or so will still be viewable for a 25th or 50th anniversary celebration (assuming anyone can find something to view them on).

benjiboy · Oct 18, 2009

My parents were married in 1936, the only pictures that we have were four beautifully lit 12x10 monochrome posed studio shots on WFL paper, in slip mounts by the best photographic studio in the area, there were none of the actual wedding, or the guest, or the reception, I never thought about it before, but maybe it was the norm in those days not to shoot the actual wedding.

Ian Grant · Oct 18, 2009

I think you mean my comment not Dave's. The images weren't shot in a studio, they are outdoor location shots.

My guess is the images where shot by Valentine's of Dundee, a very important company in early photographic history, my Grandfather was definitely photographed by them a few times previous to his wedding. The compay still exists but in a different guise.

Ian

benjiboy · Oct 18, 2009

Yes I did Ian, sorry.

Chan Tran · Oct 18, 2009

there is no surprise that all your shots came out because you did it in manual.

IloveTLRs · Oct 18, 2009

One could always try half-frame if they weren't concerned about making big enlargements.

eddym · Oct 19, 2009

Chan Tran said:
there is no surprise that all your shots came out because you did it in manual.

"Came out"? Was it a gay wedding?

mexico531 · Oct 20, 2009

I'm always amazed by the number of shots photographers provide at weddings these days. When I was regularly shooting weddings here in the UK, back in the 70's and 80's, the norm for a wedding was 4 rolls of medium format. Medium format was de rigeur and anyone shooting 35mm was frowned upon. We would take 48 shots and guarantee 45 proofs. How times change; every picture taken really had to count back then.

Cliffy13 · Oct 20, 2009

mexico531 said:
I'm always amazed by the number of shots photographers provide at weddings these days. When I was regularly shooting weddings here in the UK, back in the 70's and 80's, the norm for a wedding was 4 rolls of medium format. Medium format was de rigeur and anyone shooting 35mm was frowned upon. We would take 48 shots and guarantee 45 proofs. How times change; every picture taken really had to count back then.

Well said Mexico whilst I appreciate with a reportage style more shots will be taken on digital you still need to concentrate on getting it right first time,the other advantage today is that you can check the result immediately I remember many nervous days waiting for the film to come back to ensure I had got it right

Ken N · Oct 20, 2009

Cliffy13 said:
When I started doing weddings it was at the budget end on 35mm film and the packages started at a 1 film wedding so it was what we had to work with,the top package was 4 rolls so it was luxury in having144 shots to play with.Those who have only done weddings in the digital age just don't know how lucky they are

LOL, when I shot for a wedding mill, I had to do everything on three rolls of 36-exposure Fuji 160s. Normally it wasn't a problem, but when both the bride and groom are both from "Brady Bunch" backgrounds with multiple moms and dads and siblings, you can go through many rolls of film just shooting variations of formals with all the various parents and siblings.

I'm not so sure that we are so "lucky" in the digital age. The one HUGE benefit of shooting digital is that we don't need to be concerned so much with roll management and timing the changes. I had it down to an artform where you knew exactly which shots to shoot when. Otherwise, you'd have to change rolls before things like the processional and end up wasting half a roll. But all it took was one miss shot where you had to take a second one to throw your entire roll sequence off.

When I'm shooting digital, I'm always feeling just a little behind the 8-ball. You shoot, chimp, shoot and shoot some more "just to be sure". When I'm shooting film, I'm always pre-thinking everything and just know what the camera is going to do. Every time I press the shutter-release my confidence that the picture is going to be good is very high. Obviously, some things we overshoot because of closed-eyes and other issues, but rarely because we don't know what the file is going to be like. Although you can shoot a digital camera like a film camera, we don't. Never have, never will.

DanielStone · Nov 19, 2009

just remember though everyone.....

if you don't get any shots that YOU feel like you'd want to actually give to the bride and groom, then you'll make yourself look bad.

if you can cover a wedding and not feel bad in any way at all, after its done, then all the power to you .

I really cringe when I hear photographers say that they shoot on average 1500-3500 shots PER WEDDING. sometimes more. fudgin' nuts if you ask me :rolleyes:

-Dan

A complete wedding on 1 roll of film.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency