"In the Digital Age, Wedding Film Photography Has a Resurgence" (NYT article)

Article from the New York Times (subscribers only, sorry).


Not really an in-depth analysis—it is the "Style" section after all — but there are some interesting points of view as to why this is happening. As this photographer who was also planning his own wedding:

“We were thinking about trying to do away with some of the preciousness that comes with weddings,” Mr. Dafoe said. Because of the restrictions of film, they would get fewer photographs in the end and have fewer opportunities to reshoot moments. “We want the event to kind of revel in its own ephemerality,” he said. “And choosing to shoot on film, that’s like a big part of that thinking — because of the material and financial limitations of film.”

I'm not a fan of wedding photography in general, but there are some lovely pictures in the article.

It seems that articles like this are frequently at least five years behind the curve. I attended a wedding in 2018 and the photographer was shooting film and digital. It was old hat then.

“We want the event to kind of revel in its own ephemerality.”

Speaking of precious, I wonder how long it took him to think that one up? Besides, I thought digital was ephemeral and film was for the ages.

"...the slower, more analog process are appealing to many couples who are craving a nostalgic medium. This means that photographers and couples can’t look at the photos until they’ve been developed days or weeks after the wedding."

I've said it before, if you want to really savor the feeling of anticipation, you know, that tingly feeling all over, put your memory card in a drawer for a couple of weeks before looking at your photos.

"...after leaving his rangefinder film camera at Ms. Schulte’s house during a party in 2015..."

I guess the interviewee wanted the reporter to know he shot a rangefinder camera. I suppose that makes him one of the film cognoscenti or something. Do you think someone who shot and SLR would say he left his "SLR film camera" during a party at his future wife's house? What does that say about people who shoot with rangefinders?

"One of the last times she [a London photographer] shot a wedding with a digital camera, in June 2022, it happened to be 118 degrees outside and the camera shut off because of the heat, she said."

A quick Google search reveals that the highest temperature in the UK in 2022 was 40.4C or 104.54F. Maybe it was one of those destination weddings to some place really hot.

I like shooting film. I have been doing it a long time. But I really hate all the bullshit associated with it. It's embarrassing.

I have the 11x14 silver print of my parent's official wedding picture from 1939. It glows. Pretty amazing.

faberryman said:

I like shooting film. I have been doing it a long time. But I really hate all the bullshit associated with it.

Click to expand...

We all do. Same way I still get a bit annoyed when I hear people say the only way to listen to music is on vinyl.

But I wouldn't call it bullshit. I prefer mythology. And, with film as with vinyl, part of what's going to keep them thriving is the mythology. I think wedding photographers, as some fashion photographers, are genuinely interested in film, others just use the mythology as a marketing ploy. I really don't mind, nor care. The more people use film, for whatever reason, the better it is.

Alex Benjamin said:

But I wouldn't call it bullshit. I prefer mythology. And, with film as with vinyl, part of what's going to keep them thriving is the mythology. I think wedding photographers, as some fashion photographers, are genuinely interested in film, others just use the mythology as a marketing ploy. I really don't mind, nor care. The more people use film, for whatever reason, the better it is.

Click to expand...

I think it is more bullshit than mythology. The bullshit hasn't been around long enough to rise to the level of myth. Where in the mythology of film do you get sending your film off to the film processor, getting back scans instead of prints, and posting your scans to Instagram?

Do photographers who have been shooting film a long time, and who are the guardians of the mythology, ever say that they shoot film because they enjoy the feeling of anticipation they get waiting to get their photos back from the drugstore? Everyone wanted to get their photos back ASAP. That's why they invented one-hour processing.

I've shot wedding hybrid, only because the film cameras look cooler and makes people think you know what your doing.

I don't know any more or less but it helps my reputation. Same way hauling out a massive DSLR with a giant lens and speedlight with a fishbowl modifier when I can really get the same results from a smaller kit. People have expectations when they're paying money. Nothing wrong with a bit of showmanship.

faberryman said:

... I really hate all the bullshit associated with it. It's embarrassing.

Click to expand...

Alex Benjamin said:

... I wouldn't call it bullshit. I prefer mythology. ...

Click to expand...

I think bullshit is the correct characterization. Nauseating bullshit....and yes, it is embarrassing.

BradS said:

I think bullshit is the correct characterization. Nauseating bullshit....and yes, it is embarrassing.

Click to expand...

I'd call is naive, or disingenuous, but OK, fine. Personally, I think that, compared to people who, for whatever reason, like to believe that film has a special magic to it, there are these days human behaviours that are much more deserving of being described as "nauseating. But that discussion would take us dangerously close to the political terrain, which is a no-no.

Cholentpot said:

Nothing wrong with a bit of showmanship.

Click to expand...

Indeed. And sometimes having it is the only way to survive.

And if, on the other hand, the photographer actually believes in the "film magic," and, more importantly, if it make him or her take better pictures, and better serve his or her clients, what's wrong with that?

bb

Alex Benjamin said:

And if, on the other hand, the photographer actually believes in the "film magic," and, more importantly, if it make him or her take better pictures, and better serve his or her clients, what's wrong with that?

Click to expand...

There are plenty of good reasons to shoot film, aesthetics prime among them. However, when a photographer trots out the usual nonsense, I can't take him seriously. It means that he doesn't know why he shoots film, or that he doesn't want to tell you the real reason. If you shoot film because it's the cool thing to do or you can make money off of it, just say so. Be honest, especially to yourself.

faberryman said:

However, when a photographer trots out the usual nonsense, I can't take him seriously.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I prefer not to base my entire judgment about a photographer's character from a little snippet of interview in the Style section of the NYT, answering what was probably a pretty biased question to begin with.

Obviously wedding pictures should be shot with a Hasselblad.

faberryman said:

It seems that articles like this are frequently at least five years behind the curve. I attended a wedding in 2018 and the photographer was shooting film and digital. It was old hat then.

“We want the event to kind of revel in its own ephemerality.”

Speaking of precious, I wonder how long it took him to think that one up? Besides, I thought digital was ephemeral and film was for the ages.

"...the slower, more analog process are appealing to many couples who are craving a nostalgic medium. This means that photographers and couples can’t look at the photos until they’ve been developed days or weeks after the wedding."

I've said it before, if you want to really savor the feeling of anticipation, you know, that tingly feeling all over, put your memory card in a drawer for a couple of weeks before looking at your photos.

"...after leaving his rangefinder film camera at Ms. Schulte’s house during a party in 2015..."

I guess the interviewee wanted the reporter to know he shot a rangefinder camera. I suppose that makes him one of the film cognoscenti or something. Do you think someone who shot and SLR would say he left his "SLR film camera" during a party at his future wife's house? What does that say about people who shoot with rangefinders?

"One of the last times she [a London photographer] shot a wedding with a digital camera, in June 2022, it happened to be 118 degrees outside and the camera shut off because of the heat, she said."

A quick Google search reveals that the highest temperature in the UK in 2022 was 40.4C or 104.54F. Maybe it was one of those destination weddings to some place really hot.

I like shooting film. I have been doing it a long time. But I really hate all the bullshit associated with it. It's embarrassing.

Click to expand...

And yet they want me to pay to read it.

It appears to me to be an attempt by a visual artist - a photographer - to communicate something through a medium that relies on words.
Tough crowd here.
I've known a fair few successful wedding photographers whose photographic abilities were pedestrian but whose gift for the gab - selling/marketing - were superb. I'd not be particularly interested in an article about them.
Based on the OP's comment: "there are some lovely pictures in the article" I'd give the article more credence than that.

Over 30 years ago, I shot weddings on medium format film. Being limited to ISO 400 color neg forced the use of flash, and if you avoided flash it introduced the problem of subject motion even if you resolved the issue of camera motion via use of a tripod.

Today, you can get shots easily on digital, relatively noise free motion freezing because of digital camera high ISO capability, allowing you to shoot unobtrusively during the actual ceremony without flash distraction from the event taking place.
Today, emulsions that we used to rely upon are gone, so is the 220 format supply of film, and it is hard to find a processing lab with good quality control over the chemical process.

I regret the demise of so many emulsions, the loss of 220 format, and the fact that color processing control excellence has to be found, it no longer is 'around the corner'. In that regard I do not long to shoot weddings on film, I would not consider even offering it to those for whom nostalgia selects film over digital... I could do a better job with digital shooting, giving them excellent photochemical prints (Fuji Crystal), and I don't know what film I would select in lieu of digital shooting.
I do not shoot weddings any longer. The typical client expectations of 'give me all the shots on DVD' for little money, makes the profession not sufficiently acceptable monetarily...I hear of photographers now charging what we earned 30 years ago...no accounting for inflation. In view of the price of film being so inflated compared to 30 years ago, and the paucity of good processing labs locally, it is an extra tough way to make it living; shooting weddings on film inherently is offered only to a premium client, in view of the inherent added costs. It may be a differentiator, but the mysticism of shooting on film has to be appreciated by the client, as the photographer certainly is not otherwis benefitting from its use.

Alex Benjamin said:

I'd call is naive, or disingenuous, but OK, fine. Personally, I think that, compared to people who, for whatever reason, like to believe that film has a special magic to it, there are these days human behaviours that are much more deserving of being described as "nauseating. But that discussion would take us dangerously close to the political terrain, which is a no-no.



Indeed. And sometimes having it is the only way to survive.

And if, on the other hand, the photographer actually believes in the "film magic," and, more importantly, if it make him or her take better pictures, and better serve his or her clients, what's wrong with that?

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

It appears to me to be an attempt by a visual artist - a photographer - to communicate something through a medium that relies on words.
Tough crowd here.
I've known a fair few successful wedding photographers whose photographic abilities were pedestrian but whose gift for the gab - selling/marketing - were superb. I'd not be particularly interested in an article about them.
Based on the OP's comment: "there are some lovely pictures in the article" I'd give the article more credence than that.

Click to expand...

It's really 90% marketing and the ability to deal with people. You can be the greatest photographer and have a rotten personality, stick to taking photos of tree stumps or rocks. When dealing with people its far more important to be able to talk calmly, have a rapport, make them relaxed, 'Oh this ancient camera? Wait to you see what I can do with it!' and 'Yeah, I don't trust the lab. I do it in the kitchen sink.'

The film camera relaxes people, makes them nostalgic, maybe I'll bring out something weird like a 110 camera or a Brownie and get a snicker. I've dragged the Crown Graphic out on shoots people love it. It really is putting on a show while delivering results. And then a few months down the road after the glow of the event is off I'll surprise them scans of the roll. Always gets a positive reaction.

I don't disagree.
All my wedding photography experience was when film was the only option - for still photos.
But once the technical skills reach a certain level of competency, success is almost entirely related to how you engage with people. Some of that is sales and marketing, the rest is appreciating what your customers want and expect, and then delivering that. And if your customers are happy, that is the best marketing tool of all.
The other thing that is equally important is to have effective business management in place.
I will say though that I've seen some dreadful presentation of results from "modern" digital wedding photographers. Since I stopped doing this to make money, I have from time to time taken along a camera to weddings that I was invited to as a guest. When I've done that, and made sure to get good prints of the results for sharing with the bride and groom, I've had a couple of experiences where my reasonably priced machine prints from a professional lab have looked far better than what the hired photographer gave to his/her customers - so different as to be commented on by the happy couple.

Here are the websites for the film based wedding photographers mentioned in the article:

Autumn Jordan (New York)


Anna Urban (Edinburgh)


Kate Hampson (London)

MattKing said:

It appears to me to be an attempt by a visual artist - a photographer - to communicate something through a medium that relies on words.
Tough crowd here.
I've known a fair few successful wedding photographers whose photographic abilities were pedestrian but whose gift for the gab - selling/marketing - were superb. I'd not be particularly interested in an article about them.
Based on the OP's comment: "there are some lovely pictures in the article" I'd give the article more credence than that.

Click to expand...

Hmm...it rang all the wrong bells for me in terms of credence

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Hmm...it rang all the wrong bells for me in terms of credence

Click to expand...

I'll try to do better next time.

MattKing said:

the rest is appreciating what your customers want and expect, and then delivering that.

Click to expand...

That in itself is huge. I'm not interested in doing wedding photography—I might have been had I started photography at a younger age, that's for another story—, but I have tremendous respect for those who do it, and who do it well. Pressure to deliver is tremendous, and to do so in a manner that satisfies the client even more so. And even though there are many tropes in wedding photography, pressure to be unique and original is also very high. Even more so in these image-oriented days, where the wedding photos are just put in an album to show the family but shown to the world through Instagram.

Yes, there is a bit of mythology around the whole film affair, but if it allows some to be more creative, or differently creative, what's the problem?

On the funnier side of the business, this story from a few weeks ago: "A South African wedding photographer this week received what he calls the craziest request he has heard in his career. A woman whose wedding he shot four years ago in 2019 is demanding a full refund for the wedding photography because she got divorced and 'doesn’t need the photos anymore'.”

I'd do it for close friends or collectors of my prints. In the latter case, I charged per print, not for the job. That would typically involve a serious 8x10 shot or two, printed and framed by myself, and sold just like a fine art print. Then I'd add a real nice album of color and black and white prints also printed by me.

Nowadays lots of young couple just want it all digitally shot and in their e-mail the next day. One would think they'd have more interesting things to do on a honeymoon. But before they're back, their selected pictures will have been e-sent to their friends and relatives. Then a year of two later they'll say to me, We sure regret not having anything worthy of a frame or album for sake of our memories, don't like our green faces either.

There is a local pro MF photographer who does it all black and white film, and has enough traction to have a little personal studio/gallery close to an internationally famous restaurant. I've had portrait studio pros ask me to coach them in film, since all-digital means everyone on the block is now a competitor in the wedding niche. But they really need to spend some quality darkroom time before offering that service.

MattKing said:

I don't disagree.
All my wedding photography experience was when film was the only option - for still photos.
But once the technical skills reach a certain level of competency, success is almost entirely related to how you engage with people. Some of that is sales and marketing, the rest is appreciating what your customers want and expect, and then delivering that. And if your customers are happy, that is the best marketing tool of all.
The other thing that is equally important is to have effective business management in place.
I will say though that I've seen some dreadful presentation of results from "modern" digital wedding photographers. Since I stopped doing this to make money, I have from time to time taken along a camera to weddings that I was invited to as a guest. When I've done that, and made sure to get good prints of the results for sharing with the bride and groom, I've had a couple of experiences where my reasonably priced machine prints from a professional lab have looked far better than what the hired photographer gave to his/her customers - so different as to be commented on by the happy couple.

Click to expand...

Ah, another Uncle Bob appears in the wild!

I too have been known to bring a camera to family weddings. It can get boring and why not shoot some film while nothing is happening.

DREW WILEY said:

. I've had portrait studio pros ask me to coach them in film, since all-digital means everyone the block is now a competitor in the wedding niche. But one really need to spend some quality darkroom time before offering that service.

Click to expand...

And if you did coach them, a lot of them would discover the pressure of wedding/reception photography, and dealing with clients who are Bridezilla or (worse) Momzilla...and some of them exit that chunk of business.

I was just asked if I would shoot a wedding that I’ve been invited to. Oh heck no. Even if I had the skill I wouldn’t do it. Too much pressure. I think I may take a camera and shoot some b&w for the practice, but that’s it.

Arthurwg said:

Obviously wedding pictures should be shot with a Hasselblad.

Click to expand...

We have the winner!

Chan Tran said:

And yet they want me to pay to read it.

Click to expand...

Which I will not do.