Kodachrome and other quality films - which to use for portraiture and weddings

StorminMatt · May 17, 2009

Excalibur2 said:
***Kodachrome is wonderful film, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to shoot a wedding with it***

In 50 plus years time, the wedding shots would look the same as the day taken?

Given the instability of most other types of film, as well as the potentially empty promises from manufacturers regarding the stability of their products (we won't know, for instance, if the lastest Portra will REALLY last 50 years until 50 years from now), longevity is probably one of the best reasons to shoot a wedding with Kodachrome.

2F/2F · May 17, 2009

Practically every film in existence can be used for practically any type of photography. Your style and the lighting conditions have to answer this question for you.

As for what I do at weddings: I use mostly NPH (now known as 400H), 800Z (formerly known as NPZ), and some NPS (now known as 160S) for subdued color, and Reala for natural color as backup in case the light happens to be good. I use Reala instead of 160C, as I find 160C to be too contrasty most of the time. If I want more contrast, I will push Reala.

I really love Kodak Portra, but I find that the Fuji really is better for shooting in various colors of light. At a wedding, you are dealing with every type of light source there is: green fluorescents, white fluorescents, halogen, curtains, painted walls, wooden walls, dingy cottage cheese ceilings, gels, flash, daylight, twilight, etc. When I use flash in studio or doing my own "staged" work in "clean" lighting, I use Kodak. I love its characteristics, especially for pix of people. For foul lighting, and situations where I have less control, I use Fuji. For landscapes, and general use, I love Fuji Reala.

This is all medium format, for portraits. M645, usually, though I do have an RZ now that I could incorporate, but have not yet (due to overkill on negative size and lack of redundancy in my kit). I also shoot small format digital for different kinds of shots. I do not shoot my own weddings, but assist and second shoot for others. I highly prefer this!

Q.G. · May 17, 2009

In 50 plus years time, the wedding shots would look the same as the day taken?

Most 'weddings'/marriages don't last as long as the photographs thereof.

And, in turn, the interest shown in the photographs usually does not last nearly as long as the marriage itself.

So would longevity of the film used really matter much?

Ektagraphic · May 17, 2009

Q.G. said:
Most 'weddings'/marriages don't last as long as the photographs thereof.

And, in turn, the interest shown in the photographs usually does not last nearly as long as the marriage itself.

So would longevity of the film used really matter much?

You gave me a good laught this morning

markbarendt · May 17, 2009

ted_smith said:
I actually intended to start my post with a 'moan' about Kodak Portra 160NC so it's funny several f you mention it when I forgot to. I shot a roll of it recently for the first time as everything I read about portraiture film seems to rave about Kodak Portra, just as many of you chaps have here today.

However, I found my prints to lack saturation and contrast. ...

Ted,

Film choice can definitely make a difference here but just as big an issue is your instruction to the lab and their willingness to listen.

First, with regard to film:

Slides can be gorgeous but given the limited latitude (+/- 1/3 of a stop) they simply require more effort to manage exposure in high-contrast shooting situations. This might include carefully using strobes mid-day to get detail in the shadows under say the brim of a top-hat. Back-lighting is tough to.

Negative films, because of their exposure latitude, by contrast, make shooting a breeze. Take the same top-hat and simply place the eyes hidden in that shadow manually in say zone 4 when you start shooting that situation.

Fuji's 160S and 400H films can handle up to 3 stops of over exposure, 160C maybe a bit less, most C-41 films are similar, so, with the shadow placed, the inherent latitude of the film will generally then hold detail in both the highlights (the clouds and the bride's dress) and in the shadow under the grooms top-hat, without a strobe or reflector.

Over-exposure to a point can also improve saturation with C-41 films.

Because of C-41's latitude I'd say go with negatives and practice some ahead of time. You'll probably get more keepers.

Now the lab.

The normal chemical processes are reliable and standardized so your negatives/positives should be just fine at any well operated lab.

The wild cards come in the scanning, pre-press work, and printing or the optical printing. That's true for both C-41 and slides.

The lab should be schooled by you on how you shoot and what you want and they need to be willing to do it your way.

The first set of prints from either medium should not be regarded as anything more than proofs.

Again some practice is required here, work with the lab to fine tune your exposures and their prints.

StorminMatt · May 17, 2009

Q.G. said:
Most 'weddings'/marriages don't last as long as the photographs thereof.

I guess this is true, even if the wedding was shot on Eastmancolor (which was notorious for fading within just a few years).

nickandre · May 17, 2009

If you shoot film you're going to end up giving them digital files which probably wont fade. Either way when they're done they're going to want prints, which will end up being made on the same type of paper and fading just as fast.

StorminMatt · May 17, 2009

tiberiustibz said:
Either way when they're done they're going to want prints, which will end up being made on the same type of paper and fading just as fast.

Unless you shoot slides and print on Ilfochrome, in which case, they better be rich.

Pupfish · May 17, 2009

Good luck shooting Kodachrome and printing on Ilfochrome for a wedding-- and not getting sued by the rich bride's mother! Having shot both Kodachrome for 20+ years and also been my own custom Ilfochrome lab for several more, I can say that this is not a plan to rely upon as your only choice of film types, certainly not if you are accepting payment and are on the hook to produce acceptable results.

Weddings were most often shot professionally on negative film back in the day for the simple reason of dynamic range during the middle of the day. Most weddings are midday or afternoon affairs. Retaining detail in both a black tuxedo and the white lace of a wedding gown in midday light is going to be tremendously challenging (quite nearly impossible) on slide film in light you may not be able to control. Interior ceremony and reception shots will require either flash as the main light, or more likely, fast film--in the case of a dim church interior, very fast film. This last is why there is such a glut of MF gear right now. Some things d*****l just does better.

Ektagraphic · May 17, 2009

do you still print Ilfochrome? I am looking for someone to print for me.

dwdmguy · May 17, 2009

Fuji 160s for weddings/natural skin tones for sure, but you really want to be amazed... Try Fuji 800z and overexpose by one stop, esp in the sun. Just amazing.

Poisson Du Jour · May 17, 2009

Kodachrome was fine with me and many others when I did studio portraiture at art school. That was 24 years ago. PKL200 (Kodachrome 200 Professional) prints (and I have a few printed as auto-machine Cibas) is considerably more grainy and and flat of palette than today's refined E6 stock, and it is but an historical anachronism now. Shooting weddings on slide film introduces tedium and process into what otherwise must be a timely, straightforward ready-to-view post-production: show the results as prints (or contact proofs) paying attention to print quality, presentation (especially) and an obvious display of skilled visual literacy on your part. Colleagues involved in wedding and event photography speak highly of Fuji NPS 160 mentioned elsewhere in this thread and it apparently handles EI400 with ease.

Pupfish · May 18, 2009

ISO 400 film is not nearly fast enough to handle a candle lit ceremony in a dimly lit church interior-- certainly not with any DOF or margin for focusing error or motion blur. Another of the reasons why medium format was used for weddings before most went digital is that the degree of enlargement that ISO 800 and faster films could take back in the day was restrictive.

These days, you'll have your hands full being time, quality, and cost-competitive if professionally shooting weddings compared to other pros who have moved on to digital.

Matt5791 · May 18, 2009

I love Kodachrome, but there are so many reasons why not to shoot a wedding on it I don't know where to start, but here are four very important reasons.

1. You have to send the film accross the world for processing. I wouldn't even mail wedding film to then next city.
2. Far too contrasty
3. Far too slow
4. Nowhere near enough latitude

When I shoot weddings, I take Kodak Portra 160NC and 400NC for colour, and HP5, plus the odd roll of Delta 3200, for B&W. I know with Portra that even in the heat of the moment I can totally rely on it (the same applies to Fuji equivilents of course). I just love the skin tones, the natural colour rendition etc - it's just what you need.

With weddings you have to remember that there is one person you have to please and it's not yourself - it's the person in the white dress, and if you get it wrong you will pay with your life. Colour negative, and in particular Portra, means you don't need to worry about getting the image on the film, and you can concentrate on actually getting the best most flattering shots, and catching great moments.

I remember I once accidentally exposed Portra 160 at 400 - cutting the cake. But because of the incredible latitude of this film, we still got perfectly acceptable prints. Any reversal film, especially K64, would have been, basically, unusable in these circumstances - yes I know you can push process - but we didn't push process the Portra because the mistake went unnoticed at the time.

So, Ted, Portra for weddings - don't even think about shooting a wedding with slide film - unless you are doing it for your own record of course as a guest or something.

These days, you'll have your hands full being time, quality, and cost-competitive if professionally shooting weddings compared to other pros who have moved on to digital.

I can compete with proper photographers shooting digitally - I can't compete with the shoot and burn to disk types - but then neither can the decent digital wedding photographers.

I attach a couple of typical Portra 160NC wedding shots from 2008. (if you're interested, the first was shot with a Bronica ETRsi 75mm, the second Hasselblad 503CW 150mm)

Matt

ted_smith · May 18, 2009

Matt

Your attached image looks like what I would have expected from Kodak Portra when I read all the praiseful threads prior to using it. By comparison, my shots linked to earlier seem a bit flat to me. Some people have replied back saying they look OK, but they don't lok like your photo. One asks, is it the light, or is it me? Is your image 'natural' i.e. no digital enhancements?

Matt5791 · May 18, 2009

Ted - yes they look flatter - but there are loads of factors to consider:

1. Lighting
2. Lens
3. scan
etc.

Although I would say you are being hard on yourself - but I know what you mean - you feel they need a little extra somthing - however it isn't the film.

Personally, it sounds obvious, but lighting is so important. And that is the problem with weddings - you don't always get a choice of where it is coming from and how much of it there is, and you can't wait and you can't re-stage it!

Matt

Excalibur2 · May 18, 2009

****Most 'weddings'/marriages don't last as long as the photographs thereof.****

Good thinking.........don't bother to use Kodachrome cos our marriage ain't going to last long anyway.

Pupfish · May 18, 2009

I said "have your hands full", not impossible. And, you will be changing films and have your hands full more often than with swapping cards.

Portra 160NC in medium format will not pose exposure or quality problems so I'd happily shoot any wedding outdoors with it, and in fact have been known to keep a camera loaded with it in reserve when the light threatened to exceed the dynamic range of my D300 sensor.

Dimly lit interiors, however, given a choice between a 400 speed film in my 645 and a usable grainless ISO 1600 with my D300, it'd be pretty hard to justify sticking with the film camera and end up not getting the vows shots. Particularly if the Pastor/Priest turns to you to tell you "no flash during the ceremony" right before said ceremony goes off. If that happens (it has to me) you had better not be the one using flash, even if half the congregation jumps up and uses flash themselves!).

markbarendt · May 18, 2009

Ted,

To me it looks like color correction and brightness are the differences.

In the attached fix I added a little magenta and made it a slight bit darker.

You need to talk with your lab and tell them exactly what you want.

ted_smith said:
Matt

Your attached image looks like what I would have expected from Kodak Portra when I read all the praiseful threads prior to using it. By comparison, my shots linked to earlier seem a bit flat to me. Some people have replied back saying they look OK, but they don't lok like your photo. One asks, is it the light, or is it me? Is your image 'natural' i.e. no digital enhancements?

Matt5791 · May 19, 2009

Pupfish said:
I said "have your hands full", not impossible. And, you will be changing films and have your hands full more often than with swapping cards.

Portra 160NC in medium format will not pose exposure or quality problems so I'd happily shoot any wedding outdoors with it, and in fact have been known to keep a camera loaded with it in reserve when the light threatened to exceed the dynamic range of my D300 sensor.

Dimly lit interiors, however, given a choice between a 400 speed film in my 645 and a usable grainless ISO 1600 with my D300, it'd be pretty hard to justify sticking with the film camera and end up not getting the vows shots. Particularly if the Pastor/Priest turns to you to tell you "no flash during the ceremony" right before said ceremony goes off. If that happens (it has to me) you had better not be the one using flash, even if half the congregation jumps up and uses flash themselves!).

Fully understand that. I don't normally have a problem getting the shots I want during the ceremony, even in typical medieval church interiors which can be very dark. Thing is there is always some light and it's just a matter of working it, ensuring everyone knows I am there to record the event for the benefit of the B&G. (I would never use flash during the ceremony anyway and wouldn't even bother asking permission to! infact I rarely use flash at all). Also I tend to shoot 35mm for those parts of the ceremony.

Obviously I can see the advantages of a D3x, but film works for me and I've kind of sold myself on using it as a point of differentiation in a hopelessly oversaturated market.

On top of this in some civil ceremonies recently I have been barred completely from shooting any material at all, flash or no flash! That's right, pastors, vicars etc seem to be far more liberal minded - whereas the civil registrars are paranoid about data protection! Further to this, when they "allow me" to stage the signing of the register, they cover up the actual register just in case someone elses details can be read in the photograph - now I know medium format film it pretty high resolution, but it's becoming ridiculous.

jglass · May 22, 2009

Check these film wedding shooters out

Matt5791 said:
Obviously I can see the advantages of a D3x, but film works for me and I've kind of sold myself on using it as a point of differentiation in a hopelessly oversaturated market.

OP and Matt, you might want to have a look at the work of Leah McCormick, Jose Villa, Riccis Valladares and Jonathon Canlas. Their interviews on Inside Analog Photo Radio are really inspiring for wedding photographers who use film. All of these I believe use Fuji 400H, shot at 200 to 250, except Valladares who shoots only B&W. They rave about the look of the film, the ease of processing (send it to a good lab - done), and how shooting film differentiates them from the mass market as Matt said.

Check them out on the web and at Inside Analog Photo Radio (which is a media sponsor of APUG and has a link on the home page). I'm not a wedding photog, but if enough of you guys keep shooting film, it may keep it alive for us hobbyists.

jpeets · May 25, 2009

Not to mention the disappointment of couples who may want a nice large print (20X24 or bigger) and see what they get out of a DSLR, especially if they have seen what a MF neg can do.

dwdmguy · May 25, 2009

I second jglass' post on Riccis et. al., and Analog Photo Radio, too bad the Radio program shut down and scott never posted why but when on to other shows. Not a very nice way to treat a loyal audience.

Jonathon is where I got the idea for shooting with Fuji 800z and over-exposing a stop or so. Also into the sun. All these guys are bang on great.

StorminMatt · May 25, 2009

jpeets said:
Not to mention the disappointment of couples who may want a nice large print (20X24 or bigger) and see what they get out of a DSLR, especially if they have seen what a MF neg can do.

Depends on the DSLR. Your typical crop DSLR certainly can do an OKAY 20x24, but perhaps not a top quality 20x24. However, a 20x24 from a full frame DSLR certainly does not look too shabby. Probably better than 35mm. Remember that, although color fidelity and color depth may be somewhat lacking with digital, sharpness is FAR better with digital than with film of the same size.

jscha · Jun 15, 2009

Hi Ted,

by the looks of the scans that would be what I expect from Portra NC, but frankly it is hard to say from scans on a webpage, you can certainly "add" some more contrast & saturation in PS *g* or in case you do your own enlarging there too.

In my experience the Fuji NPS has a little more punch when overexposed 1/3 to 1/2 stop than Portra NC, the NPC 160 can be a little much in terms of contrast and saturation for skin tone. I made good experiences with the NPH 400 in MF, but this can also be a contrasty and colorfull film (maybe too much for the close-up of the bride with less than perfect skin)

My standard color film for 135 is Fuji Press 400, I think is the same as Fuji Superia 400, nice balance between skin-tone and slightly punchy colors, and important for me quite tolerant for exposure and easy to filter and print.

For MF I end up using Portra VC 400 a lot, nice colors and some ISO reserves for handheld shooting.

But in order to simplify my color printing processes I try to reduce the types of film I use, I will give the Fuji NPH 400 a good go in 135 & 120 in the next weeks....

Josef

Kodachrome and other quality films - which to use for portraiture and weddings

StorminMatt

2F/2F

Q.G.

Ektagraphic

markbarendt

StorminMatt

nickandre

StorminMatt

Pupfish

Ektagraphic

dwdmguy

Poisson Du Jour

Pupfish

Matt5791

Attachments

ted_smith

Matt5791

Excalibur2

Pupfish

markbarendt

Attachments

Matt5791

jglass

jpeets

dwdmguy

StorminMatt

jscha

Kodachrome and other quality films - which to use for portraiture and weddings

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency