• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Article pushing film for weddings

Yes! Drunken photog, crooked horizon. On official part. For three days home party it was me. FED-2 in one hand. Flash in another. No sync cable in between. I was drunk. One OOF frame came.
Wedding photography it was on film for us.
 
Couple of things from a guy that's been there and done that. I only push film when I need to push film. Pushing film increases contrast and shortens the recorded tonal range. What's the most important big ticket item on her wedding day? Her dress. What's the worst thing you, as a photographer, can do? Overexpose the wedding dress, rendering it as a white blot!

Today, rather than shoot an ISO 400 film and push, I would shoot Delta 3200 at it's "real" speed, ISO 1000. I'd use a camera with 'real" TTL flash metering and set my flash for about -0.5 fill. Or Ilford XP-2 at 400 or 800 (no push).

And I would only shoot film if I have a lab to do the printing or I'd be a month in the darkroom printing a wedding. If I shot one wedding per weekend for 6 weeks I'd have a six month backlog in the darkroom.
 
I question how many wedding photographers today have the skill to capture a wedding on film vs. spray and pray. Even assuming 35mm.

I do like the quote:
"In this day and age, we have a million mediocre images on our phones and desktops, and there's something precious about having curated, best of the best, art-piece photos from your wedding day."
 

I Uncle Bob'd my sisters wedding with a Land 104 and a Yungnuo speedlight. I'm a gen 'Y'er so while I did grow up with film I really came into photography in the digital age. I gave sis an album at the end of the wedding.
 
Really - the argument of less images, just slow down with digital capture what is the difference? A careful photographer could do both.
I really doubt anyone could tell the difference between a print made from a Canon 5D and a film camera of equal quality.

The only argument I would put forward for film capture is the fact of ending up with a physical negative...
I started my career as a wedding photographer and I know for a fact if I was still doing it I would be doing Digital.

What would impress me would be the photographer who shoots film and offers silver gelatin prints or Pt Pd.. Tony Hauser comes to mind.
 
I have friends that do wedding photography. Film is their side passion and they recently introduced film still photography and 8mm/16mm videography to their wedding packages at a premium. Judging by their website it has become really popular with a lot of folks opting to pay extra for those tangible pieces. They still shoot everything on digital as well. Why not use all the tools available for events?
 

MF film has a very distinct look that digital has not yet replicated. I can tell at a glace if the shot was on 135 format or 120. DOF is different as is the grain/noise structure.
 
Cholentpot said:
MF film has a very distinct look that digital has not yet replicated. I can tell at a glace if the shot was on 135 format or 120. DOF is different as is the grain/noise structure.
Click to expand...
Well you have me there, I can't and I have been printing for a while now.
 
Bob Carnie said:
Well you have me there, I can't and I have been printing for a while now.
Click to expand...

Well I'm sure you have more experience than me but there are cases where it is most surely MF. When I see a photo of Tri-x pushed to 1600 and it looks smooth it has to be MF. 35mm does not push to 1600 all that well. The same goes for the DOF. I find that 120 has a very distinct and smoother looking DOF. You can replicate this with a digital 35mm by stitching a load of photos together. For color I can't judge one way or another these days, the digital filters have got pretty good.
 
My point is that these days a digital print can look exactly the same as a print from film, just need specific process methods in Light Room Photoshop and plug ins.

Where the rubber hits the road is the final print.. IMHO unless you are going to make a silver gelatin print or a Pt Pd, or a Fresson, Tri Gum Colour there lies the difference between
a product with value and what would be the renaissance for me of young shooters.. I have survived the analogue wedding world, of the over 100 weddings I produced at my first job I doubt any of these colour prints are still in good shape, but the black and white fibres my boss did before the advent of colour for the masses are still good..

I stopped doing weddings because of this, we were a very lucrative studio and I would have made a lot more money than the route I followed to here.

not sure if this makes sense but I think when I see these blogs I kind of get pissy as I am not sure how far down the wormhole the blogger has gone with their work.
 
From a business plan POV film can make sense:

1-As a marketing gimmic
2-As a simple way of billing say $500 to show up plus $200 a roll to shoot and process
 

On that point you're right. With PS jiggery porkery you can do anything. I have a brother that can fake the moon landing in his sleep.
 

I agree.

markbarendt said:
From a business plan POV film can make sense:

1-As a marketing gimmic
2-As a simple way of billing say $500 to show up plus $200 a roll to shoot and process
Click to expand...

I also agree.

Having shot weddings professionally for 35 years (20 on film, 15 digital) 95% of clients wanted what was the current fashion. Over the years the current fashion changed (in most case for the better) but it was mainly in the presentation of the photos. From traditional leather/wood single photo per page album through to story book/coffee table style book. Of course digital introduced the endless number of shots on a usb stick, where quantity over ruled quality.

As has been said above, the client won't really know the difference between a film or digital produced shot. I would even suggest that they mightn't like the film produced shot as it's not saturated enough, but tell them that a film print is the "new black" and then you can charge a lot extra.

In my experience, wedding photography was 95% matrketing/fashion/logistics, 5% creativity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register