Alternative Ways to Shoot Weddings and Events

[JamieB]

Hi everyone

I recently saw a thread on a digital photography forum posted by someone asking about shooting a wedding with only one lens and how viable it was. They were torn to pieces It seems that there are a lot of seasoned digital photographers who don't see any other option but the holy trinity of pro zoom lenses and two big DLSR bodies. Add a few primes on top of that and you are talking about in excess of 10,000 on gear and a particular style of shooting that has become commonplace. Now I know of one film photographer in Seattle who shoots weddings with a medium format film camera and two lenses. He has become very successful actually. I am just interested to hear about alternative film approaches to the digital standard. The good, the bad and ugly of your experiences. Although I also shoot digital and some of you do too, I figure here there would likely be a much broader mix of approaches.

 

[Chan Tran]

One lens is OK but a bit tight. Most people who use medium format don't have many lenses and no zoom. So the digital crown should be able to do with just 1 zoom. Well but then how can they shoot with film? They shoot flash at ISO1600 and we really don't have ISO1600 film.

 

[Paul Howell]

In the 60s while in High School a local photographer I worked for shot weddings with a 6X9 Kodak with a fixed lens. I shot a few wedding in college with a Speed Graphic which had the standard Kodak 135mm lens, in 4X5 somewhat wide, worked well for groups and couple shots, needed to crop for close ups. Today I would use a Mamyia Press Universal with 6X9 back with 2 lens, 65 and 150, 2 Vivitar 285 flash set up. Heavy and need to be careful to avoid strong flash shadows, but doable. 35mm, Minolta 9000, 3 flash set up, 28, 50 and 100mm.

 

[RichardJack]

I was a wedding photographer from 1974-2008. Before digital I shot medium format, 6x6 with on and off camera flash. I would of never ever considered 35mm unless I was a guest. If I get back into it the only way is digital. The format does not matter that much but I would lean towards full frame with a medium range zoom (24-85mm) and mulit head remote flash.
But this is just me.

 

[ac12]

As was mentioned, shooting a wedding with ONE lens has been done in the past for MANY years, so it definitely can be done.

Today, people are so used to using gear to solve a problem that they forget that the feet can do work too.
The problem or issue becomes the limitation of the lens. Having a zoom or multiple lenses allows the photog to change lenses to suit the particular shot.
- He can switch to a wide, rather than backing up. But sometimes you cannot backup enough, where your back is literally up against the wall.
- He can switch to a tele, rather than going closer.

There are some shots that you really want the wide or tele to do the shot.
- Example1, the couple in the limo may need the wide to get both of them in the shot.
- Example2, the couple on a bridge in the garden may need a tele, cuz the photog is on the other side of the pond.
So having multiple lenses gives the photog more flexibility in making and getting different shots.

ONE lens can be done, it just makes the photog work HARDER to get the shots that can be make with that one lens.

 

[tezzasmall]

When I was a teenager and helping a pro do weddings, we only used one tlr camera with flash attached each - oh, and about 3 to 4 x12 exposure films between us, so no more than 36 to 48 exposures between us, compared to the many thousands shot by digital photographers today.

Disabled now, but if I was to do another wedding (and I've done a few) I would definitely think of doing it the same way as I did at the beginning or maybe with a 35mm camera and a short zoom and flash, as I have with some weddings.

Terry S

 

[mike c]

The Studio I worked for the owner who always used the normal lens on his medium format camera and single flash.I mostly did the same but did take along a 50mm and 150mm, which I left in the car with a spare TLR for back up. The normal lens was very versatile, more than any other lens and so cut down the weight that had to be toted along.

 

[ransel]

Many years ago, I shot weddings (in my spare time) with my Nikon F2 and a 35mm f/2 lens.

 

[mweintraub]

I'm assuming expectations have changed with the B&G with what's available to the photographers now. They expect (because it's been given to them) that every type of shot should be taken. Pre-digital, the photographer used what he had and the B&G got that. Now, they want everything.

 

[narsuitus]

Here are the cameras and lenses I have used as the primary photographer for weddings since the 1970s. I did not include the tripods and lighting equipment because that varied depending on if I was shooting alone or with an assistant. For the film cameras, the only film I used was Kodak or Fuji portrait film.

Yashica 6x6cm TLR film camera (x2) with fixed normal lens (cameras supplied by wedding studio where I worked)

Mamiya 6x6cm TLR film camera (x3) with 80mm normal lens, 55mm wide-angle lens, and 180mm telephoto lens (my personal cameras which were more reliable and more versatile than the studio supplied cameras)

Nikon 35mm SLR film camera (x3) with 35mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 180mm f/2.8, 18mm f/3.5 (for weddings that required multiple remote control cameras)

Fuji 6x7cm rangefinder with 80mm normal lens and Fuji 6x9cm rangefinder with 65mm wide-angle lens (for weddings that required many large group shots)

Fuji S5 digital SLR (x2) with 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom, 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom, and 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom

Fuji X-Pro1 mirrorless (x3) with 16-55mm f/2.8, 50-140mm f/2.8, and 12mm f/2 (for still and video images)

 

[dynachrome]

Earlier this year I was at the wedding of a relative. There were a number of photographers and assistants. Two of them had Canon DSLRs. One had a 35/1.4 Sigma ART lens attached. The other had an 85/1.4 Sigma ART lens. There must have been plenty of beautiful bokeh to be seen in the shots taken with those lenses. The last time I was actually the photographer for a wedding, a relative, I used two Minolta 35mm cameras. One was an SRT 101 and the other was an X700. If I can remember the lenses they included a 28/2.5 Vivitar Fixed Mount, a 35/1.8 MC Rokkor, a 50/1.4 MC Rokkor-X, a 58/1.4 MC Rokkor and a 100/2.5 MC Rokkor-X. Flash was not permitted inside during the ceremony so fast film was needed. When I could use flash I used a 280PX in TTL mode with a Vertaflip bracket and Duo-Synch cord. I wouldn't want to be limited to one lens. I have shot with a 35-70/3.5 MD zoom with flash with good results. Any slower zoom would be difficult to focus in low light even with the X700's bright finder.

 

[RichardJack]

What if your customer wants a 16x20 or larger print? 35mm film is not going to cut it, it does not matter what camera or lens or even film. People are law suit happy these days, don't take on a wedding unless your experienced and have very good equipment, and carry double of everything incase of a failure. Most catering halls here (LI,NY) require the photographer to carry a 2 million dollar insurance policy and they ask the bride for a copy of it in advance. Weddings used to be cheap, they have grown expensive affairs if you mess up someone's photos it will bite you where it hurts.
In the film days a 50,80,150, & 250mm on a Hassy or Bronica with a few Metz or Quantum strobes usually did the trick. If your serious, a 24mp or greater full frame DSLR with a 24-70 & 70-200 is enough. Sometimes a fisheye or 14mm comes in handy. If your not experienced work as an assistant with a wedding & event studio for the experience. It's more important learning various lighting techniques and posing that how to use your camera. As far as the camera, keep it simple, I used to shoot in manual. One option is to shoot for the studio, they will require you to have good equipment, a nice car (presentation is important as well). You'll get paid between $400-1000 per day, hand over your CF cards and be on your way. I found the worst aspect of the business was making the albums up, reprints and time lost meeting with customers constantly. I made out very well and enjoyed it. But weddings are not for everyone, if your not comfortable with the public stick to something else.
regards,
Rick

 

[JamieB]

Well I definitely got a variety of responses! Interesting stuff.

 

[fstop]

In a few years those pics that cost so much will only serve to remind the couple of a big mistake and end up in the trash.
People have unrealistic expectations of wedding photographers these days.I wouldn't touch a wedding with a ten foot pole.

 

[RichardJack]

In a few years those pics that cost so much will only serve to remind the couple of a big mistake and end up in the trash.

Very true. In most cases it's the family of the bride that are pushing for the photos.
These days everyone has a phone with a camera so nothing will be missed. I hear of photographers who shoot 500-1000 images at a wedding, personally I think that is redicioulus. Maybe they are charging by the frame but if you can't cover a 10hr event in 300 or less stills your shutter button happy and don't have a clue what your doing. It's more true today, when shooting film, there was no preview button or LCD, you usually took 3 frames when you could and hope one came out alright. Not all couples like to be photographed all of the time. I always made sure that their special day and memories came first. Most photographers I know wouldn't touch a wedding with a ten foot pole, I found it a challenge and rewarding being part of someone memories (provided they stayed married). I run into people that I shot in the 1980's and they come up to me and remember me. When I retire from my government job I might go back.
A bit of advice....avoid shooting a friends wedding....photographers have been known to loose friends that way. You can't always please everyone...better that is a stranger.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have seen wedding photography series taken with single film camera and lens. It is very classic. It is all about the couple. I think, not only photographer, but wedding couple should be mature for it. Which is seldom these days among photogs and couples.
In my time wedding photog with one camera, one lens was the norm. But people were getting mature earlier back then

 

[removed account4]

What if your customer wants a 16x20 or larger print? 35mm film is not going to cut it, it does not matter what camera or lens or even film.

i never can understand why people say this sort of stuff, its like suggesting the maximum size that can be printed from a 35mm frame is 8x10 ... or maybe 11x14
i have seen plenty of 16x20 prints made with 35mm cameras ( i have even made a bunch of them myself ). wasn't a problem.

In a few years those pics that cost so much will only serve to remind the couple of a big mistake and end up in the trash.
People have unrealistic expectations of wedding photographers these days.I wouldn't touch a wedding with a ten foot pole.

maybe ... maybe not .. ( trash heap )
there have been plenty of film-shot weddings where the photographer gave the happy couple high expectations, i am sure it is no different with a digitttal shooter.
i've shot a few events like this ... 35mm+1 lens, 1/2 frame (36mm) +1 lens, graflex slr ( 4x5 ) and 1 lens, and a digitttal with a few lenses...
as long as the people who hire the photographer know what they are getting into, everything is fine. i've looked at " old skool " wedding albums
some were tiny 2x3 prints, some were 12 prints all from 4x5 cameras.
after reading about the lawsuit from a few years back ( LINK )
i'd never shoot a wedding ... i'd also hesitate opening a dry cleaners too ... ( LINK )

YMMV

 

[ransel]

Several years ago I acquired the negatives that belonged to one of our local photographers - he shot quite a few weddings in the 50's and 60's - using a 4X5 (Graflex I assume). Based on what I have seen from his negatives, he shot 8, 10, 12 sheets of 4X5 per wedding - and that was it. The good ol' days.
I think the last weddings I shot, a few years ago - probably 400-600 digital picture files.

Never again...