Which system for weddings?

[RobC]

No, you are not nuts. What you are doing is offering a niche service. The trick is finding the people who want it, and will pay for it. Specialty services can be very lucrative, but they take longer to get off the ground. The bridal portrait part of your portfolio is what will get you the work.

Thats the problem, I don't have a bridal portfolio so I'm going to have to do a lot of convincing. The thing is that I have looked at quite a few wedding photographer web sites and frankly I'm amazed at the very poor quality of images that are on show at those web sites. I don't know if thats because of poor scanning or preparation for the web but either way the presentation is not good in many cases. Of course there are some good ones as well but they seem to be the exception.

Just scanned an old portrait which is far better screen quality on screen than most of what I see at wedding web sites. If I can put together a few more of these then what do you rekon? (perhaps not the same look )

View attachment 9362

 

[RobC]

B&W seems quite popular for weddings at the moment. Nearly everyone (except my recent "clients" eg my brother-in-law) I know prefers B&W for wedding pictures. I have a few from my own wedding but it was c-41 B&W to keep costs down. REAL B&W would have cost much more than we could afford.

I'd be quite happy to price high and do less than price low and do a lot. Infact I don't want to be doing a wedding every week as has been mentioned, the printing side could become a chore.
But yes I know a lot of people do seem to like some B+W for their wedding but whether they would like solely B+W I'm not so sure.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Thats the problem, I don't have a bridal portfolio so I'm going to have to do a lot of convincing. The thing is that I have looked at quite a few wedding photographer web sites and frankly I'm amazed at the very poor quality of images that are on show at those web sites. I don't know if thats because of poor scanning or preparation for the web but either way the presentation is not good in many cases. Of course there are some good ones as well but they seem to be the exception.

Find a model and do some shots. TFP? Or just a bride looking for free prints.

Remember the average viewer can't tell good from bad the way you can. So lots of crap looks good enough. Even better when not put next to better stuff.

 

[RobC]

Thats far too obvious

 

[JBrunner]

Thats the problem, I don't have a bridal portfolio so I'm going to have to do a lot of convincing. The thing is that I have looked at quite a few wedding photographer web sites and frankly I'm amazed at the very poor quality of images that are on show at those web sites. I don't know if thats because of poor scanning or preparation for the web but either way the presentation is not good in many cases. Of course there are some good ones as well but they seem to be the exception.

Just scanned an old portrait which is far better screen quality on screen than most of what I see at wedding web sites. If I can put together a few more of these then what do you rekon? (perhaps not the same look )

It's a nice shot, but here's another nickel- You're customer will be a well to do bride, and the photo's concerned are being created to document an event she has probably thought of almost every day, since she was about six, and then you throw in a couple of mothers.....She and they will be less concerned with the documentary aspect, and more concerned with the portraits, (more or less, there are all sorts of people) What I can say for sure is that a bomber bridal portrait portfolio is gonna be one of the strongest marketing tools you have. The TFP for portraiture thing is the way to do it, without having to shoot and print entire wedding for little ot nothinh, and then when you have a few, start working on getting the work. What isn't going to work is doing cut rate to get started, because then you will be dealing with price shoppers (these are the persons feel that 3874 really really bad shots are a good value ), and generally they A: won't know or care about the difference, and B: most of the friends they tell and show your work to, won't be in the demographic that will be willing to pay the rate your services are worth. If you want the money, you have to go to where it is... it won't show up on its own. Once some bomber portraits are hanging in some nice houses, then you will get to be the goto guy for that demographic, in that area, and you got it made. Tough climb... fantastic view at the top.

 

[dpurdy]

I have a pretty high degree of success selling off my web site if it comes from a referral. If someone recommends me and they go have a look at the web site then they usually like what they see and it is money talk after that. The web portfolio is far more important than a set of prints except that you need prints to convince couples to go for custom printing over the less expensive machine prints. I think though that once you get to doing it you will find, as I have found, that you would much rather be shooting than printing a wedding.

For one thing most wedding clients don't feel like better prints are worth extra money and given a choice between a 4 dollar machine print and a 12 dollar custom print they will 9nnn my experience always go the cheap print. The times I have hand printed the whole black and white portion of the job are when I have offered to do it cheaply. I have been willing up to now to do it cheaply if I have to because the quality difference is so great between total crap digital black and white prints or my own prints. But I have decided from now on I refuse to do it. It is too time consuming. Weddings are supposed to support my art not take all my time from it. So I am looking for good black and white machine prints whether local or by mail and I am not sure where I am going just yet.

Here is bit of my black and white wedding work... Keep in mind once you have spent the time to put stuff on a web site, which is as soon as you are able, you don't really want to be spending time doing more of that either. So the web work is no longer my best work but it is good enough to get jobs.

http://dennispurdy.com/Candids jpgs/candids.html

Dennis

 

[Matt5791]

Unless your doing all b&w it's almost pointless to not use digital anymore since most labs scan & print digitally.
They may process C41, but few are printing. Almost negates the film benefits.

There are loads of reasons to shoto weddings on film these days:

1. You don't need immediate results

2. Either myself or my lab hand print all chosen prints for my albums.

3. Even if they are printed via scan, you can still spot film originated shot a mile away (my customers can too - especially 35mm)

4. You can scan and digitally retouch if you want - best of both worlds

5. In a world where almost all your competition shoot digitally, I use my film based approach as a gentle marketing tool "I have access to complete darkroom facilities AND the latest digital post production technology" and "you get hand printed prints" - it creates a USP (unique selling point - although your photography should do most of the talking of course, regardles of how it is captured, this adds another useful marketing dimension)

5. When the Hasselblad is sitting on a tripod at a wedding you can use it to mark out your patch and keep over enthusiastic guests with cameras out of the way - quite simply you look more professional, regardless of whether you are, and the customer feels they are getting value for money (...unless of course the shots turn out terrible)

6. It is unlikely you will be shooting with the same camera as one of the guests (continual problem when shooting digitally and the inevitable comparisons this can draw)


I shoot weddings with both Hasselblad 500C/M and Nikon 35mm - I use an F5 in which I always have colour negative loaded, and two FE2's for monochrome - I know some photographers might think you get confused flipping between three different cameras, one being autofocus, particularly in the heat of the moment, but I don't find this, infact almost the opposite.

The Hasselblad pretty much lives on a tripod for posed, group and formal shots, and I use 35mm for documentary work.

I'm considering buying a new 503CW as the the V system is just so awesome.

Matt

 

[j4425]

My belief is that if I stay true to top quality, this will separate me from the digital cowboys.

Yes, I can go on forever with stories of some of the photographers I've worked with. However, I've had the privilege of working with some of the best but they are few and far between.

 

[j4425]

I'd be quite happy to price high and do less than price low and do a lot. Infact I don't want to be doing a wedding every week as has been mentioned, the printing side could become a chore.
But yes I know a lot of people do seem to like some B+W for their wedding but whether they would like solely B+W I'm not so sure.

You just hit the nail on the head. Charge more do lesss. That's my motto. However, a fellow videographer friend of mine made a revision. Charge more do more : >

 

[RobC]

Well this is my task for 2008. To try and get a foot in the door. We'll see what happens.

 

[j4425]

This is all assuming no tweaking each shot to the nth degree in Photoshop, but surely Traditional Wedding photographers aren't doing huge volumes of finely tuned hand-printing either?

That's the problem. All the digital wedding photographers are doing some sort of tweaking in post. I know one guy who actually adds a film look digitally to ALL his images. No I'm not kidding ..

 

[donbga]

It is simply impossible for the single digital wedding photographer to shoot a serious amount of weddings every year working in the digital darkroom. I know a couple photographers making the switch BACK to film just for that reason.

Totally wrong! All of the top wedding photograhers have gone to a 100% digital workflow. Things have never been so productive for wedding photographers.

I'm not saying that digital is better than film or film is better than digital. The state of the art of wedding photography is 100% digital and it has made product delivery for the photographer much quicker and profitable.

 

[JBrunner]

Totally wrong! All of the top wedding photograhers have gone to a 100% digital workflow. Things have never been so productive for wedding photographers.

I'm not saying that digital is better than film or film is better than digital. The state of the art of wedding photography is 100% digital and it has made product delivery for the photographer much quicker and profitable.

I think the essence of what you are saying is true, however, I disagree about the absolutes.. (100%... All, etc.)

 

[donbga]

I think the essence of what you are saying is true, however, I disagree about the absolutes.. (100%... All, etc.)

Yeah, your ar e probably correct, maybe only 98% of the top wedding photographers use a 100% digital workflow.

None of the wedding photographers I know locally use film. including this photographer, Denis Reggie:

http://www.denisreggie.net/

Reggie is regarded as the best wedding photographer in the US today.

 

[max_ebb]

Totally wrong! All of the top wedding photograhers have gone to a 100% digital workflow. Things have never been so productive for wedding photographers.

I'm not saying that digital is better than film or film is better than digital. The state of the art of wedding photography is 100% digital and it has made product delivery for the photographer much quicker and profitable.

That is by far the most pompous cock and bull statement I have ever read on this forum. Apparently, you think you know more than anybody else on the planet about photography since you feel you can dictate that somebody else is "totally wrong!". Typical internet know it all presenting an opinion as if it were absolute indisputable fact. So, you think you know for a fact that none of "the top wedding photographers" shoot film any more? Careful you don't hurt yourself falling off that high horse.

 

[max_ebb]

None of the wedding photographers I know locally use film.

So, you personally know "all the top wedding photographers" on the entire planet? You would pretty much have to before you could make the claim you are making.

 

[JBrunner]

He's right, in that most do, and he has retracted the absolute.

Here in SLC most are all digi, some offer both, and a few are still pure film. Guess which ones struggle the most, and have the most competition from the bottom feeders, and work for the lowest pay? Film is now a niche, and properly exploited, it can be lucrative. The rarity of it is an advantage, if it is played that way. The other advantages and disadvatages of film are self evident. No, you will never be able compete with digi bottom feeders, don't even try. You don't want their customers anyway.

"look, I know I weigh 400lb, but can you make me a thin blonde?"

You would do just as well to wear Denis'es underwear, as emulate his workflow, to become tops, and she would no doubt be tops using film, if she chose to. Tools aren't the magic bullet. Perceptions, marketing, and delivering the goods are what does it.

 

[donbga]

That is by far the most pompous cock and bull statement I have ever read on this forum. Apparently, you think you know more than anybody else on the planet about photography since you feel you can dictate that somebody else is "totally wrong!". Typical internet know it all presenting an opinion as if it were absolute indisputable fact. So, you think you know for a fact that none of "the top wedding photographers" shoot film any more? Careful you don't hurt yourself falling off that high horse.

I expected such a reaction though that wasn't my intent to stir the pot. It's just an acknowledgement of the reality of where wedding photography is at now.

It may also interest you to know that many wedding photographers that are dedicated to 100% digital would often rather shoot with film, at least that is what some wedding photod have confided to me, especially the old pros. But from a business perspective the clock isn't going to roll backwards. OTHOH, there are plenty of old pros that have fully embraced the digital reality. Monty Zucker fro example (though he is now passed on).

Most professional event photographers are fully entrenched in a digital workflow. To say that is not the case would not be intellectually honest, IMO.

Finally, just let me emphasize I'm pretty much a film guy. So I'm not proselytizing digital over film.

 

[JBrunner]

I expected such a reaction though that wasn't my intent to stir the pot. It's just an acknowledgement of the reality of where wedding photography is at now.

It may also interest you to know that many wedding photographers that are dedicated to 100% digital would often rather shoot with film, at least that is what some wedding photod have confided to me, especially the old pros. But from a business perspective the clock isn't going to roll backwards. OTHOH, there are plenty of old pros that have fully embraced the digital reality. Monty Zucker fro example (though he is now passed on).

Most professional event photographers are fully entrenched in a digital workflow. To say that is not the case would not be intellectually honest, IMO.

Finally, just let me emphasize I'm pretty much a film guy. So I'm not proselytizing digital over film.

True enough, but couched properly, it's not ground breaking info. The OP is looking to offer his services on film. All of us in business still shooting film cope with the onslaught. I see this more as being about finding the advantages that can be marketed to those willing to pay for them. It's absolutely possible. I do it on a regular basis, just not for weddings anymore, because they're not my bag, baby. Turn em down all the time.

 

[jimagain]

You would do just as well to wear Denise's panties, as emulate her workflow, to become tops, and she would no doubt be tops using film, if she chose to. Tools aren't the magic bullet. Perceptions, marketing, and delivering the goods are what does it.

J.'s right. I am a pastor by profession and over the years have seen many wedding photogs at work. It's true that most, in my experience anyway, are going digi but the are still some that use film. Of the film users I am still exited to see an occasional Hassy or other MF.
Over the years I've noticed a change in photographers as digital has become the norm. It used to be that a photographer would be more purposeful in set up and watchful in his view finder. Photographers would even talk with me before hand and ask me sequences of the wedding service.
After a shot the photographer was usually instantly ready for another. In other words he or she was always looking for the NEXT shot.
Now it's changing. I don't know how often I watch a great shot go by while the photographer is looking in his or her digital screen to see how the LAST one turned out. The rapid fire of their new digi's are only slowed by their examination of the past.
Of the photographers that I see it's still the MF user that is still the most purposeful photographer. But since it looks like this thread is on verge of being hijacked I guess I should say, in my experience, any MF is a good one for a wedding (except maybe a Kiev :rolleyes: which I myself have used). RELIABLITY is the essential part for the tool. But I've seen as many equipment breakdown wrecks with digi as film.

 

[JohnArs]

My best photolabor went digital, they even stopped developing films themselves they just did outsource it and i went to an other lab but they did almost only crap, so now I really have a problem to get good prints out of my films!
And my lab which went digital did a really great job on my digital prints they are in the first run perfect!
So I really have now since about 3 months a quality problem from my analog prints if you belive it or not!
So now I'm thinking to digitalysing my negs by myself and get good prints from my digital lab!
But I'm shure I only will take some B/W shoots with film in the future and the color will be digital!

For my own project I still will use Film but also not so much anymore, for snaps digital rocks!
Sorry for telling the true's Armin

 

[JBrunner]

Enough. We know it exists. knock yourself out. movin' on.

The topic is "which system for weddings" and it's posted on APUG.

If it was me, I'd specialize in B&W I'd do 4x5 or 5x7 for the portraits ahead of the event, for killer enlargements, group shots on MF on the day, and a 35 for the candids.

Lay people don't know squat about LF, so you can run what ya brung. For the MF stuff, I'd go Hassy. Yes a premium, but it will create confidence at the shoot amongst the crowd, because everybody knows it's the "best camera"

A nice modernd SLR for the candids. Oh, and a good assistant. That's the most important tool.

 

[Edwardv]

An interesting thread. Well I use both Bronicas 6x6 and 645. I find the 6x6 is great for the wedding ceremony and the 646 for groups.

 

[RobC]

Thanks all, it has been good to hear all the varied responses. I still have to decide Mamiya or Hasselbald but at the moment I'm thinking Mamiya for reasons of simplicity, speed and ease of use. Probably only two lenses. But not yet set in stone.
The fact that most have or are going digi is irrelevant to me since what I am about is producing fine hand printed fibre based black and white prints. I want to apply the same care and attention to printing wedding portraits as I do to printing my landscape prints. I love the printing side of black and white photography. We'll see where we go over the coming year.

 

[Gary Holliday]

You might be better off with RC paper. A lot quicker to process and will stay flat in a wedding album.