Wedding Film

[Uncle Dick]

Dear Geoff,

Your Hasselblad with the 80mm lens is just right for the garden shots - what we call formals over here - and is surprisingly easy to use if you are not encumbered with other equipment. I use mine for ALL the wedding pictures. I need to use an on-camera flash to fill against the harsh Australian sunshine and have settled on a Metz unit suspended about 12 inches above the lens axis. The rigout is a little heavy at the end of the evening but the flash synch is available at all speeds and the evenness of the exposures makes later darkroom work a breeze.

Film? Kodak Portra 160 NC and 400NC rated respectively at 125 ISO and 320 ISO. It will keep skin tones real and still record the white and black of the traditional clothing.

How many pictures to do? An average wedding uses 12-13 rolls and is charged accordingly. Using your Hasselblad means that you will be more careful and most of your shots will be wanted and printed.

Uncle Dick

 

[nickandre]

But again, [by scanning] you are introducing scan and limitation of jpeg files so the benefit of film is debateable.
In a nutshell, if you are printing digitally to photo paper, then the benefit of film is dubious and it will cost more to do. That, as I understand it, is one of the major reasons why a lot of wedding photographers went digital, because the labs went digital and the scan process is usually crap.
i.e. do it digitally unless you are printing direct from film to photo paper or unless you want to pay for high quality scans.

Eeeh, no. Film handles much better than digital, it's easier to shoot as you will have MUCH more flexibility when printing (use the program automatic mode and all is happy), and it will provide higher quality.

They went digital because:
A. Everyone else was going digital
B. Digital Cameras happen to be happier at higher ISOs, good indoors
C. It was easier and cheaper on a project to project basis

The downside to digital is not JPG compression, you can scan in tiff, and the minilab scanners are very good. JPG, provided the compression setting is not too low for the relative complexity of the image, is an AMAZING file format which can greatly reduce file size with no loss in bit depth, resolution, or significant quality. Unless you are enlarging to 20x30 from your 6 megapixel camera, there's really no difference between JPG and RAW.

The downside to digital (among issues of sudden deletion of files, this happens with all cameras) is the linear response of the chip. It handles highlights like dog crap, but trades this off for better shadow detail. Digital cameras are also inherantly VERY sharp and saturated. Not all people want diamond tipped sharp images with colors off the wall.

By all means shoot it digital. That little catch that you can get clear images at 6400 ISO with a D3 happens to be a VERY BIG CATCH.

 

[Richard Harris]

Geoff,
couple of things, I find if the weather is overcast and grey then consumer film like superia 400 is the best choice and preferred by the wedding parties. Pro film can be a bit dull in English conditions however: if the sun is shining brightly you will need pro film. So lots of film available on the day seems to be a given.
Secondly, where possible use the same film speed whatever you use. 400iso is the natural choice. HP5, Superia 400 and 400H. The metering and changing medium format backs etc can be a nightmare if you have lots of different speeds going on. The Hassy will give you fantastic big blow ups using all the above films but the 35mm will need careful cropping in camera so you do not need to be too selective at the printing stage. A zoom on the 35mm helps here a lot. Good luck and be reasonably assertive, nobody will naturally co-opertate with the snapper but they will do what they are told. be quick but careful. Guests enjoy the day and are not put off by hanging around for the photographer as long as the shot happens.