Recommended 35mm films for a traditional wedding?

[ted_smith]

Forgive me if there are threads dedicated to this subject already - I have used Google and the internal search to find one and I only find vague, generalised threads. Please give the URL for me if there is one.

In brief, some friends of mine are getting married and they weren't going to have a photographer at all as they are on a very tight budget. I agreed to do it for them on the basis that they don't sue me if it goes wrong!

My question is this - overall, what's the most suitable 35mm colour and B&W film for a traditional church wedding? I'm not interested in 'way out' or 'cool' effects - I want to try, as best I can, to ensure I get good, sharp, well exposed shots.

I have read that Kodak Portra NC 160 is very good. A fellow APUG friend of mine is very keen on Fuji Acros although I don't know if it's good for weddings - I have 3 rolls but only ever shot one roll to date and that was for waterfalls. I also have about 10 rolls of Agfa Agfapan 100 in my fridge. Would you use any of these for a wedding?

I will be using a Nikon F80, Nikon 2.8 80-200mm, Nikon 1.8 50mm prime, Nikon 60mm prime, Nikon 20mm superwide prime, Nikon SB-800 Flash if\when necessary and a Manfrotto Tripod and Monopod.

Cheers

Ted

 

[panastasia]

Hi Ted,

I've done a couple of weddings with MF but never with a 35mm camera and found that Kodak Portra film gives pleasing skin tones and lower (better) contrast than most other color films I've tried. Also, I don't recommend using a wide angle lens wider than 35mm, even a 28mm will distort peoples features, especially heads/faces.

Regards,
Paul

 

[CCOS]

Hi Ted I used the Kodak Portra 400 for a weeding was not allowed to use flash in the church. I love the film it's realy neutral in the collors. a white bride should be white on the pictures also..

Jesper

 

[2F/2F]

In my experience, weddings involve constantly changing lighting conditions. Outdoors in sunny 16 conditions one minute, inside at ISO 800 or 1600 with a fast lens the next. Horribly contrasty light in one area, and dull as dull can be somewhere else. Flash one shot, available light the next. Taking formal portraits here, chasing crazy candids there.

Digital makes this easier to manage. With film, you need something very versatile. You are even more stressed with small format only. First of all, I would try to have at least two bodies, preferably three or four. Next, I would look at 400 and 800 color neg films, and HP5 or Tri-X for black and white. Not ideal for everything, but very versatile at least. Use the 160 films as well whenever you can, but realize that this will probably be impossible for a large part of the festivities. This again brings up the importance of multiple bodies in making your day easier!

You can go ahead and skimp on the higher-end stuff and get Fuji Press to save money. They won't be able to tell the difference, and it technically is a pro film, so is seasoned to optimum color balance before shipping, and *does* come in matching emulsion batches, which will make printing easier. I would personally get a brick of 200, a brick of 400, and a brick of 800. Also, some high-speed b/w and some medium-speed b/w.

FWIW, I would never shoot a wedding on only 35mm if using film. I gather you don't have much choice, however.

 

[Gary Holliday]

I use 35mm for b&w documentary weddings. I like the results from both Fuji Acros and Delta 100. Acros is very smooth and nice for female skin. Don't use 35mm colour inside the church, as there are so many different light sources, the colours go crazy, so stick to b&w. Agfapan 100 in Rodinal is a favourite for portraiture also, but I've switched to a newer film for consistency.

I've just done a wedding on Delta 3200 rated at EI1000 and processed in DDX...most of the wedding was indoors, so I thought I would give it try. The bride had some photography experience so I knew she would appreciate the look. I will print them up very soon and form an opinion for future weddings.

As for colour, Fuji NPH/ 160s or Portra NC. Most professional labs prefer Kodak though. I will make a switch once I've settled on a new lab for printing...see what the lab prefers.

Don't mix and match films...use the same film so everything looks similar throughout the album.

 

[Ian Grant]

I just buy Fuji 200 I thinks it's Superia, and it's always superb. I guess if it was more official I'd use Tmax 400 or now Delta 400 for B&W - I've shot a lot of weddings with Tmax.

Personally I've always preferred Fuji films for colour work, so 160s in my 645, would be more appropriate.

Ian

 

[2F/2F]

"Most professional labs prefer Kodak though."

No they don't. They prefer money from anyone who gives it to them over no money.

 

[Ian Grant]

"Most professional labs prefer Kodak though."

No they don't. They prefer money from anyone who gives it to them over no money.

Not in my experience either, and that's more so in the UK than the US.

Ian

 

[df cardwell]

TMY

Color, available light: either the Kodak of Fuji 400 & 800. The Pro films have the same contrast to normal B&W,
and folks call this 'low contrast'.


Use a real lab that uses Portrait grade paper... again, this is CALLED low contrast, but it is really Normal. A real wedding lab does brides all day long and can figure out what you trying for.

 

[Gary Holliday]

I prefer Fuji myself and have always used it. The 3-4 labs I've used have printed on Kodak paper and recommended that I also use Kodak. My most recent lab 'complained' about the characteristics Fuji, but as they've gone digital I doubt Fuji is actually to blame for the red/ green problems.

 

[eddym]

Portra 400 and 800; HP5+ in B&W

 

[pentaxuser]

Can't speak from experience but Ian Grant's post reflects what the local wedding photog said when I asked her about her shots. She shoots an F100 exclusively and uses Fuji Superia film. She had tried several but said that Fuji Superia was as good an all rounder as any.

I have seen up to 12 x16 prints and they do look very good. She seems to make a reasonable living at it and that says it all in terms of satisfying the customer.

pentaxuser

 

[ted_smith]

Thanks all - very useful. I think I'll buy a few rolls of Portra NC160 and use either Fuji Acors or Agfa Agfapan for my B&W.

Mind you, having priced up the overall costs of buying the film, having it developed and some 6x4 proofs printed, I'm not sure I'll be able to convince my friends that film is the way to go - I agreed to do it cheap for them on 'mates rates' but I don't want to lose money! I can hear it coming..."Can't you just shoot digital then it won't cost anything but the printing costs?". I'm not sure my Nikon D70s will be up to the job though, although I've read a few reviews where wedding photographers have used it.

I'd be intrigued to know how people these days buy film and manage to recoup their costs when customers these days assume everything is shot digitally. As an example, 1 x roll of film, £4 say. Send it off to the lab for development and 6x4 proofs, another £10 or so. Then if you want a CD creating of each film (to save you spending hours scanning it in) an additional £12 or so each. You're looking at £25 per film average just to break even. Mmmm...I guess that's another thread topic though.

Ted

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I always just used FujiFilm 100 and 400 depending on the lighting. I recall the reds being very brilliant and blues and greens being rather rich, more so than you would expect from a consumer 35mm color film.

 

[2F/2F]

"The 3-4 labs I've used have printed on Kodak paper and recommended that I also use Kodak."

The second a lab told me (or "recommended") what to do in any way, shape, or form, I would find a new lab!

Any lab worth its salt will print good results on any commercially available product.

Additionally, any lab worth its salt will let you choose the paper you want, not tell you "We print on Fuji" or "We print on Kodak".

My personal preference is for Fuji film printed on Kodak paper. I think Kodak on Kodak looks muddy, and I think Fuji on Fuji looks odd. However, combine the two, and voila! (I have not tried Kodak film on Fuji paper. I preferred Kodak's three-type system over Fuji's two-type system, and also Kodak's surface N, which seems easier to find than Fuji's matte. Of course, now Kodak has discontinued Ultra and Portra, leaving us only with Supra...)

Thus, whenever I get lab work done, I tell them what to print on, and it looks just like it would if I did it myself...which is the point. I am not trying to please the lab. Income should be enough to do that. They are trying to please their customers, however.

 

[aparat]

There are a few things to consider.

For example, are you going to have your color phonographs lab-printed? Most labs these days scan film and print from digital files. Only really good labs are able to scan well, preserve the film's inherent contrast and color characteristics, and print beautifully. Most labs do a sloppy scanning job, automatic color, and contrast correction. In such a process, the resulting prints look very similar regardless of what film use you use.

If you're going to have your color film printed by a very good lab, either digitally or optically, then the "classic" wedding films are the low-contrast Kodak Portra NC and Fujifilm Pro H. I would start by looking for a good lab and talking to them first.

For BW, if you're planning to have the lab process and print, I would suggest Ilford XP2 and using the same pro lab as your color films. For DIY BW, virtually any medium-to-fast film will be just fine.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I've done this, and would suggest -- if you shoot colour -- to stick with a Portra or similar film. Regular colour films look like...well, regular colour films. Films just for portraiture have a much softer look to them and not as contrasty. Much preferable for this specific job.

Black and white, I'd suggest a T-grained film. Preferably 100 speed but 400 if you want to keep your options open and/or only use one film.

As important (or more IMHO) is using reflectors if you're shooting available light. You likely need an assistant for this -- quite invaluable from my experience. Nicest film in the world won't do much good if your light is crap.

 

[phenix]

B&W: Agfa APX 100 and/or Ilford HP5+ (depending on the light available, and the distance to subject if flash is used). I wouldn’t go for T-grain films in B&W portraiture.

Color: Konica Centuria 100 and/or Centuria 400 (depending to the light, etc…). Both have T-grain (I love it in color), so resolution is excellent and color redemption too. In fact, I never ever did see better flesh tones than those issued by these two films, except from Konica’s Professional 100 and 400 line (but the differences are little). As for the Centuria 200, I don’t like it at all. Only problem with these films, is they are discontinued since 2-3 years already. Still, you can find them fresh, but not in every store. Available in 35mm and 120.

I would chose 400 ISO for the church and the restaurant, and 100 ISO for all outdoors and the posed indoors.

 

[MattKing]

I'd talk to my lab first.

Personally, I'd shoot Portra, and for the B&W, either Kodak C41 Portra/CN400, or Ilford C41 XP2, depending on what my lab recommended, and whether I intended to print enlargements myself (the Ilford C41 is easier to work with).

Whatever you do, don't plan on printing your own proofs, unless you have a lot of time and energy!

(Been there, done that).

Matt

 

[Ian Grant]

B&W: Agfa APX 100 and/or Ilford HP5+ (depending on the light available, and the distance to subject if flash is used). I wouldn’t go for T-grain films in B&W portraiture..

T-grain films are much maligned by some people with no real reasons. They are superb for B&W portraiture you just need to be as tight on metering, exposing and processing as you would be with Colour Slide (E6) films, which isn't remotely difficult, and they will produce outstanding results.

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

"
. I preferred Kodak's three-type system over Fuji's two-type system, .

Can you amplify on these Kodak and Fuji systems? What does three type and two type refer to?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[ehparis]

If you don't have a second body rent one. The cost will be low and selection of film (also lens) will be easier.

 

[2F/2F]

Pentaxuser,

I am referring to their basic selections of enlarging paper. Fuji has a Type C and a Type P, the difference being similar to the differences between their Pro 160C and their Pro 160S. Kodak has (or *had*) Ultra Endura, Supra Endura, and Portra Endura. (Supra is the only one left.) It is pretty neutral, Ultra is more poppy, and Portra more subdued. Since people simply use Photoshop to get their contrast and saturation as desired, there was little demand for Portra and Ultra, so they got the ax. Supra should be around for quite some time, however. Whether it will be available in anything other than rolls is the question. I see chemical prints being the most speedy and economical route to obtain prints, from digital or film, for quite some time. It is still much cheaper, quicker, and more archival than any other method. Close to every color print (and many b/w prints) made these days, at minilabs or pro labs, are probably on RA paper; either Fuji Crystal Archive or Kodak Endura.

I have stockpiled as much Portra and Ultra 11x14 as I can fit. I love these papers.

 

[df cardwell]

A WEDDING Lab, Like Millers, is as good or BETTER than the high quality pro lab you don't have where you live. The BIG difference is they do brides and weddings all day long, and KNOW how to make things look great. Don't kid yourself that you or your local lab can touch them. The secret to every great wedding shooter hasn't changed in 40 years: use the best lab you can find. Use the film they want, and run a test first.

 

[Gary Holliday]

"Most professional labs prefer Kodak though."

No they don't. They prefer money from anyone who gives it to them over no money.

You've lost me here...do you believe they are turning away custom because I'm shooting on Fuji??

The second a lab told me (or "recommended") what to do in any way, shape, or form, I would find a new lab!

Any printer I've talked to will recommend a colour film which matches their colour set up. Perhaps in LA you can demand which paper you would like your photos printed on, but in little old UK, I've yet to experience this from a local pro lab.