Which system for weddings?

[max_ebb]

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

He didn't retract the absolute, he only changed it. The claim that 98% are 100% digital is still an absolute. I am fully aware that the majority of wedding photographers (especially the bottom feeders) are now using digital cameras, but I would never presume to know the exact percentage.

Personally, I don't believe that 98% of "the top wedding photographers" are 100% digital, especially if you're talking world wide, and not just in the US. This is just my opinion.

 

[Akki14]

Rob - For your average joe schmoe bride (like I was) I didn't know what FB paper was and I don't really like it now I've tried it. Frankly you can get nicer alt process prints that stay flatter and you don't have to wrestle with every step of the way to make flat.
Try to find out which of your friends is getting married and ask to be their "backup" photographer. I'm not sure how many people go out to a wedding photographer, hire them to do the colour prints then go look for a higher quality one to just do a few B&W shots. It sounds a little unusual to me. Having said that, my first wedding photoing(freebie present coverage for my friends) was doing just that - her cousin shot the colour pictures with his dSLR and I did all B&W as requested. I printed on RC paper (without asking preference over RC/FB debates).
I've only used my Ilford Sporti and Holgas as far as medium format but I've done wedding shots with my SLR and I've used telephoto (church had a balcony, this allowed me to be more quietly out of the way and to take a more interesting walking-up-the-aisle shot of the bride and her bridesmaids), normal lens (mostly for the reception, though), and wide angle (useful in group shots and in the hustle and bustle of getting out of the church). If you're going to do group photos, learn how to politely herd cats with gentle voice commands

 

[JohnArs]

What do others recomand you can see here:

http://photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment

So with film you can be on the other side of the lake!

I wish you luck, Armin

 

[RobC]

and how do you think photographers managed before digital cameras?

What I will be offering is a premium quality service for the ultimate in black and white print quality utilising traditional hand made craft skills to produce prints with subtle tones and delicate highlights combined with the richness and warmth only obtainable through using silver gelatin baryta printing papers of the finest quality as opposed to a digital shot touched up in photoshop and sent to an automated machine processed resin coated print. Not quite the same thing...

 

[JBrunner]

Could we please stop dragging digital into this thread? Everybody "gets" it. Crap, bout as bad as Photonut.

 

[JBrunner]

OT- When I said good assistant, I wasn't kidding. That is the single most powerful thing that you can bring to a shoot. You might have to look a little bit, but you can find them. The stress reduction provided by a good one is immense, and quality and enjoyment increase.

 

[epatsellis]

OT- When I said good assistant, I wasn't kidding. That is the single most powerful thing that you can bring to a shoot. You might have to look a little bit, but you can find them. The stress reduction provided by a good one is immense, and quality and enjoyment increase.

And importantly, compensate a good assistant well...



erie

 

[JBrunner]

And importantly, compensate a good assistant well...



erie

If you get a good one, yes, very well compensated.

 

[dpurdy]

I rely heavily on my assistant. I use the same woman everytime and she is completely on her own creating candid shots. I count on her film.
Dennis

 

[Matt5791]

and how do you think photographers managed before digital cameras?

What I will be offering is a premium quality service for the ultimate in black and white print quality utilising traditional hand made craft skills to produce prints with subtle tones and delicate highlights combined with the richness and warmth only obtainable through using silver gelatin baryta printing papers of the finest quality as opposed to a digital shot touched up in photoshop and sent to an automated machine processed resin coated print. Not quite the same thing...

The most important thing to remember when marketing yourself as a wedding photographer is that the most important thing, above all else, is the quality of the shots themselves - the poses, moments captured etc etc. regardless of whether it is captured on film or digitally - your potential customers are chiefly concerned about how they are goiong to look in the shots and how you are going to document the day.

What the use of film based method can do is add a second dimension to your work - in otherwords if there is you and another 10 photographers and your potential bride (and it is she who makes the decisions!) likes the work of all 10 photographers, then they will look al little closer to see what your differentiating factor is. It is here that talk of the more romantic look of film and archival stability etc etc comes in.

But never loose sight of the fact that the shots themselves are what really matter.

Once you start shooting the weddings you must also find a workflow that enables you to work for a decent hourly rate - say the average number of prints from a wedding is 60 then you absolutely need to know that you can produce top quality prints is quick succession - don't even consider FB paper, only offer this for "ultimate" reprints as an upgrade (and charge accordingly)

Remember you have to be competitive. These days you need to scan everything as you need to give the customer proofs - and the cheapest way (and most favoured option by your customers) is to send them a CD of digial proofs (make them "optimised for electronic use"- not printable)

You ABSOLUTELY need a wedding portfolio too - you are very unlikely to get bookings without it - even for free or cost price.

To develop mine I first dressed up my wife in her wedding dress and faked a wedding. I then used this to get the free/cost price bookings. And then from here I am now begining to move into full price weddings.

There is so much to say, I could go on..........

 

[RobC]

don't understand why people keep saying don't print on fibre based paper. Sure it takes longer because you can't machine process it. But unless you have a processor then its just as quick as RC paper. And if you send out to a lab then they have to be paid.
And FB paper looks so much better if you get it right.

 

[dpurdy]

I like fiber base paper as well generally but for putting in an album or a box it can be a problem. Especially if you use a scrap book style, which seems the general choice these days, a fiber based print is too thick and stiff and picks up a permanent curl the wrong way. Otherwise I always use fiber. If somoeone wants something to frame.. fiber for sure. I have a couple now wanting enlarged platinum prints.

 

[Gary Holliday]

don't understand why people keep saying don't print on fibre based paper. Sure it takes longer because you can't machine process it. But unless you have a processor then its just as quick as RC paper. And if you send out to a lab then they have to be paid.
And FB paper looks so much better if you get it right.

Because it takes a fraction of the time to dev, fix and wash the prints. The paper is thinner for your album and is absolutely flat.

The fact that you are offering premium hand processed prints is all the marketing blurb you need.

 

[Matt5791]

don't understand why people keep saying don't print on fibre based paper. Sure it takes longer because you can't machine process it.

That is a good reason not to use it - you almost certainly need a table top processor for weddings (to cover large volumes when they come along), unless you are going to charge your time for hand processing everything. And the wash times, extra fix times, extra dev times etc. are just going to take far too long.

But unless you have a processor then its just as quick as RC paper.

This is not what I've found? You can process RC in trays in very little time indeed[/QUOTE]

And if you send out to a lab then they have to be paid.

But your time has a value - if you spend 12 hours printing a wedding, that has to be charged for, unless you want to do it for free.[/QUOTE]

And FB paper looks so much better if you get it right.

Yes it does look better, but RC looks better than RA4 / inkjet and that is what you are targeting - that is the big leap, RC to FB is far too subtle to be bothered with, especially as they are a bugger to put in an album - my display albums have FB - but even for these I wont do it again.

The only proper option is to dry mount the prints onto the individual pages - but for this you have to be using post-bound albums so you can take out the pages and put in the press - but post-bound albums are really passe these days and people don't want them. You have to mount the prints with double sided tape in book bound albums - and that doesn't really work for FB
(without a lot of fiddling around).


In a nutshell, unless you want to be working for less than then national minimum wage, you would have to charge an awful lot for a wedding printed on FB - and do do this your photographs themsleves are going to need to be startling and right up there with the best currently on offer - but if this is the case......you could still charge the same and print on RC.

Film based approach can easily add value.

Using FB will not add any significant value to your offer.

Some high charging wedding photographers:

www.jeffascough.net
www.stephenswain.com
www.yervant.com
www.lovegroveweddings.com

Stephen Swain shoots film (last time I looked anyway) and hand prints his B&W.

Don't know about the others, but likely digital.

Matt

 

[RobC]

Thanks for those links. The Jeff Ascough was by the best.

I'm not planning on offering hundreds of prints. My idea is to offer only approx 40 fine prints for people who just want just that. If they want 200 assorted prints then there are plenty of photographers who will oblige.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

Originally Posted by donbga (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
None of the wedding photographers I know locally use

The good local wedding photographers use/share a Pentax 645N, about four of them. They are all real wedding photographers with years of experience, great at what they do. Sure, they bring in discs with hundreds of pictures from digital cameras but they do the 'good stuff' on film and charge more.

As far as the best system to use, I don't know. I guess which ever one you trust and are comfortable with. I've read stories of people using Koni Omega's w/ great effect except for the loud back when you advance. If I had to choose, it would be a pentax 645 or a mamiya 7.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

Atleast the good local wedding photographs down over here, in the middle of nowhere Valdosta.
I do remember a few of them saying that their clients are looking to get away from dvd's filled with images. The burden of sorting through 3000 pictures on a computer.. Some people find that an album of 10-15 'perfect images' make for a more memorable keepsake than a disc and box of 4x6's..
I remember printing about 3000 4x6 images from an Indian wedding. Most of the pictures were very similar. So many pictures, the poor client couldn't even enjoy looking at them.

 

[jmxphoto]

FWIW I am a wedding photographer and honestly, what you're offering won't sell very well, at least not in my market. Brides in all market specturms here compare the number of images and (possibly secondly) the qualtiy of those images relative to the price. This is true whether they're paying a bottom feeder $600 for a disk or local big name $7k. Who selects these 40 prints and how? The bride will want proof prints for sure. Also, landscape, from my limited experience of it, is almost the polar opposite of wedding photography. Wedding photography is ebbs and flows in its pace and it generally flows more than ebbs. There's very little time to shoot lots of stuff, add manual focus and metering and risk ending up with a grumpy, thirsty wedding party. For many things there are no do-overs, you either nail it or move on and explain it later. The lack of time is probably the most difficult hurdle. I had a bride one time DEMAND 41 different grouping in the hour between the end of the ceremony and the start of reception. All weddings run late and they try to catch up by taking time from you.

Having said that, when I first started wedding photography in 2003 I started in film under a couple of photographers. One used Bronica SQ's and the other Hassy's. They recommended to me to try Koni-Omega's as a started system. They're 6x7 rangefinders, but the M and the 200 have mid roll changable backs. They were pretty popular amugnst wedding photographers in the late 70's through the 80's. You can find them pretty cheap these days. Know fill flash inside and out (many brides want outside pictures at 2:30pm), know you're camera inside and out. As a general rule of thumb shoot 400 speed film (negative, never slide) at least half a stop over. From my exerience a lot of learning wedding photogrphy is about minimizing failure. Once you have a handle on not screwing up, then you can work on folding in some more unique and artier ideas. Seriously, performing at a professional level, consistantly, under an array of horrible lighting conditions, with awful time contraints is not something you just pick up at your first gig.

Also consider that, and I've heard this from a number of professionals, that the artistic images sell your service, but blah group portraits are the prints people buy. Shrug, consumers. Anyways, good luck with your endeavors.

 

[23mjm]

The last wedding I was at---the photog was using Mamiya 645's and a Digital. Not that I was looking but it appeared he has 2 Mamiya 645-1000 (at least that body style) and 2 645e's. His digital was some Canon thing. The couple are good friends and I have seen the pics. They looked very good.

 

[BobNewYork]

Use it All

I use everything for a wedding! A Bronica SQa or Mamiya 645 for the more formal shots in both B&W and color, (what I call the Album Shots), 35mm for the informal black and white and colour plus digital for the informal color shots.

There is a HUGE difference between an 8x20 or 11x14 from a MF neg and digital. B&W - gotta be film!

Another issue is how you value your time. Post production digital edit is extremely time consuming if you do it properly. It takes significantly more time than running through your proofs and "binning" the ones the client has no business seeing!

Seems to me that it's the quality of the final prints that matters to the client. The best quality arises from using the best equipment for the job at hand. The documentary "grab shots" are not easy with MF - pick 35 for that. Low light images are often better in digital where mixed lighting can be better corrected in PShop.

Hope this helps, (though I'm sure this will prompt a dig/neg furore!!!!!)