Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Photo Technique / People Photography / February 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHY HELP  PART ONE:

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Marshall Thurman - 04 Sep 2003 16:04 GMT
 
        I've been getting so much E-mail about this I have decided to go
       and start.

       First, you've gone out and bought a consumer grade SLR at W-Mart or
       at the local camera shop. They told you its wonderful and you can do
       anything you want to do with it. It's auto focus, has a built in
       flash, a zoom lens in the 28MM to say 80MM range and the best thing
       its black and looks very professional.

       You shoot some film. Play with it a little and get some really nice
       photographs. You are processing these in the local one hour. You
       probably have tried several brands and speeds of film. Someone sees
       you work ,likes it and says, my sister is getting married next week
       and I would love for you to photograph her wedding.
       
       OK. Let me tell why I think you should refuse this offer. Weddings
       have a bad habit of being held in dark places. A lot of auto focus
       systems don't work well in a low light situation. Because of the low
       light you are going to use a lot of flash and built in flashes do
       not have the necessary output to handle most shots past about 10ft.
       (3 meters). Most consumer grade zoom lens are slow in the f4 to 5.6
       range and are not very sharp when shot wide open. If you have not
       settle in on a film you like your are likely to choose a very fast
       film like Kodak or Fuji 800. And a big problem is built in flashes
       create red eye,especially in a dark situation. I would like to hang
       the person who designed this system first. I can say. I have never
       seen a red eye reduction system that works.

       This friend who ask you to do his sister wedding will catch a lot
       of grief if this wedding does not turn out well and I have seen it
       create bad feelings between friends.

       If you want to do weddings I would recommend you do several things
       to allow you you to do a satisfactory job.

       Equipment:
       The consumer grade SLR can work most times if you add some
       additional equipment to your photo inventory.
       I would get a fast normal lens. Say an AF 50MM f1.4 and shoot
       most of my shots with it. Most major brands of cameras have a
       lens like this and its a good investment. Because it's 3 or 4
       f. stops faster it will focus better in low light.
       Get an off camera flash with an output of at least 100 watts.
       I use Vivitar 285 and have used 283. I like the big head of the
       285. Buy a flash bracket. You can get one that will allow you to
       use the camera in the horizontal and vertical positions and allow
       the flash to be centered directly above the lens. This bracket will
       solve the red eye problems because it get the flash head away from
       the lens. Pick a film you like and stay with it. If you mix Kodak
       and Fuji film on a job they will look different. They have different
       characteristics. I like Kodak Portra 160 NC for wedding. I find its
       more neutral in its gray tones and produces white wedding dresses.
       Fuji makes great film but it can go a little green in the shadows
       and add a green cast to the whites. An 81A filter will solve the
       excess green if you want to shoot the Fuji. Portra 400 NC works
       well but makes grainer enlargements.
       IMPORTANT: If your camera has a electronic shutter I would get a
       Wein safe syc. I burned up two new cameras before I became aware
       syc voltage. I discuss this in a later installment.
       Finally, I would buy a good flash meter. I use a Minolta IV. This
       is the best investment I think you can make after you buy a camera.

       I plan to go into more detail in later installments. I'm shooting
       photos of my rig and will show how I shoot. You may find it in
       interesting or you may already know everything I plan to cover at a
       later date.
       Marshall Thurman
Randall Ainsworth - 04 Sep 2003 16:44 GMT
 Still sounds like amateur equipment to me.  Boy, nothing like 35mm
weddings with dinky strobes on the camera.
Al Denelsbeck - 05 Sep 2003 07:18 GMT
>   Still sounds like amateur equipment to me.  Boy, nothing like 35mm
> weddings with dinky strobes on the camera.

       Several months back, I shot alongside a professional wedding
photographer. He was using his Bronica MF rig with a Metz bare-bulb flash.
I was using my dinky Canon Elan IIe and 380 EX flash, probably about 1/4
the power of the Metz.

       Funny, the E-TTL flash of my Canon did an effortless job of exposing
the subject with a well-lit background. The other guy's shots produced nice
white faces floating in total darkness, often starting at their hairline.
The same kind of photos you see from point-n-shoots.

       Equipment can be very good, but knowing how to use it is far, far
better ;-).

    - Al.

Signature

To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Randall Ainsworth - 05 Sep 2003 14:46 GMT
>        Equipment can be very good, but knowing how to use it is far, far
> better ;-).

 Yeah, but I'll bet my Hasselbad weddings look better than your
35mm...multiple lights & professional posing.
stan - 05 Sep 2003 20:07 GMT
> >        Equipment can be very good, but knowing how to use it is far, far
> > better ;-).
>
>   Yeah, but I'll bet my Hasselbad weddings look better than your
> 35mm...multiple lights & professional posing.

The 35mm versus hassie is independent of the light and the posing. And quality
of a print (standard small print) is independent of film format. While I agree
that format makes a difference in the final product. It will probably not be
noticable unless blown to 11x16. And anyone who thinks that film format
automatically generates better photos should spend some time around a 4x5.
Lighting and set-up are the only thing that matter. But the 35mm versus xyz
format is an old arguement anyway. Peace
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
Witheld - 05 Sep 2003 20:27 GMT
> > >        Equipment can be very good, but knowing how to use it is far, far
> > > better ;-).
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> that format makes a difference in the final product. It will probably not be
> noticable unless blown to 11x16.

>And anyone who thinks that film format
> automatically generates better photos should spend some time around a 4x5.
> Lighting and set-up are the only thing that matter. But the 35mm versus xyz
> format is an old arguement anyway. Peace
> Stan
> Visual Arts Photography

One has to learn the camera and the format of course but 4x5 is vastly better
for me who has used a 45 for 17 years.

My medium format camera likewise will produce much better group
photography  especially for the bridal party shots where a little negative size
goes along way.

Nothing beats the thirty five for candid work, but overall I would rather have
my square format camera and have all the proofs going the same direction
in the proof book,...it just looks more professional.
Signature

When you live next to the graveyard, you can't cry at every funeral.

Al Denelsbeck - 06 Sep 2003 10:50 GMT
>>        Equipment can be very good, but knowing how to use it is far,
>>        far
>> better ;-).
>
>   Yeah, but I'll bet my Hasselbad weddings look better than your
> 35mm...multiple lights & professional posing.

       Well, Randall, I suggest you decide what side of the fence you want
to be on. Last post, you were ragging on equipment. Now you're talking
about technique. Which, if you were observant, you might note was the very
point I just made.

       But you'd be better off stowing the ego. I primarily shoot candid and
photojournalism, and I think 'professional posing' is a boring and
hackneyed joke. So you're welcome to bring your brick, your lights, and as
many helpers as you like, and try to keep up ;-)

    - Al.

Signature

To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Randall Ainsworth - 06 Sep 2003 16:17 GMT
>        Well, Randall, I suggest you decide what side of the fence you want
> to be on. Last post, you were ragging on equipment. Now you're talking
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> hackneyed joke. So you're welcome to bring your brick, your lights, and as
> many helpers as you like, and try to keep up ;-)

 It's hardware and software.

 But when you're charging people money to photograph a
once-in-a-lifetime even it needs to be done professionally.  That means
medium format equipment, multiple lights, and professional posing and
lighting.  If you want to run around with a 35mm shooting candids, go
right ahead.  But there's no substitute for the formal bread-and-butter
posing that's endured for years.
Gregory W. Blank - 06 Sep 2003 22:26 GMT
>   It's hardware and software.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> right ahead.  But there's no substitute for the formal bread-and-butter
> posing that's endured for years.

For the most part true, but your speaking to a generation of people who find
it difficult to commit to one marriage. Do you expect them to undersatnd class
style, longeveity of product...its fast, get me to the bar, and reception fast,...
so I don't have look at cousin Ernie sober.

Signature

website:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

Al Denelsbeck - 07 Sep 2003 06:28 GMT
>   It's hardware and software.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> candids, go right ahead.  But there's no substitute for the formal
> bread-and-butter posing that's endured for years.

       You might be interested in knowing the amount of photographers I've
spoken to that had "the way" to photograph. You'd probably be far less
interested in knowing that not one of them agreed with any other.

       The photographers that impressed me the most, and coincidentally the
ones that were making the most money and hitting the new markets as they
opened up, even in some cases creating the new markets, were the ones that
could adapt, and experiment, and learn, and never once felt they had all
the answers to such a vast discipline.

       You got your niche, be happy with it. But if you think you're going
to tell me how it all works, blather it all into a can and send it to me,
okay? I'll try and find something to do with it once it gets here.

    - Al.

Signature

To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

brougham3@yahoo.com - 06 Sep 2003 20:53 GMT
>Yeah, but I'll bet my Hasselbad weddings look better than your
>35mm...multiple lights & professional posing.

I'd rather have candids shot in available light any day over fake-o posed
shots.
Gregory W. Blank - 06 Sep 2003 22:22 GMT
> I'd rather have candids shot in available light any day over fake-o posed
> shots.

Thats not always possible,....or practical. A good photographer uses
studio lights in such a way that groups look natural. Ambient light
is fine,...however most professional photographers use either a mix of
flash and ambient or all studio light. Natural light is too problematic
in every situation to be relied upon.

Signature

website:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

brougham3@yahoo.com - 07 Sep 2003 21:22 GMT
>A good photographer uses
>studio lights in such a way that groups look natural.

I've yet to see a posed wedding group that looks natural.  The posting I was
responding to was one where a medium format snob was looking down his nose
at 35mm.  (Which I don't understand.  If you're not carrying an 8x10
horseman, are you *really* a photographer?  <big grin>)
Randall Ainsworth - 08 Sep 2003 06:19 GMT
> I've yet to see a posed wedding group that looks natural.  The posting I was
> responding to was one where a medium format snob was looking down his nose
> at 35mm.  (Which I don't understand.  If you're not carrying an 8x10
> horseman, are you *really* a photographer?  <big grin>)

Ever see a 16x20 made from a 35mm negative?
brougham3@yahoo.com - 09 Sep 2003 01:46 GMT
>Ever see a 16x20 made from a 35mm negative?

Yes.  Damn good, too.

From a sheer technical perspective, it's not as good as one from a medium
format, but both are nothing compared to contact prints from large format
gear.

My original point and one that I still cling to is that using a Hassie
doesn't automatically make posed wedding pictures with artificial light into
something better.  :)
Randall Ainsworth - 09 Sep 2003 03:15 GMT
> My original point and one that I still cling to is that using a Hassie
> doesn't automatically make posed wedding pictures with artificial light into
> something better.  :)

I don't believe I ever said that it would.
Lynn - 28 Sep 2003 03:17 GMT
I've had many done and with todays 35mm films...I have to say also "Damned
Good" ones.

Lynn

> >Ever see a 16x20 made from a 35mm negative?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> doesn't automatically make posed wedding pictures with artificial light into
> something better.  :)
Randall Ainsworth - 28 Sep 2003 05:19 GMT
> I've had many done and with todays 35mm films...I have to say also "Damned
> Good" ones.

You amateurs are so cute.
Al Denelsbeck - 29 Sep 2003 19:42 GMT
>> I've had many done and with todays 35mm films...I have to say also
>> "Damned Good" ones.
>
> You amateurs are so cute.

       We can't all be arrogant egomaniacs with small minds that only follow  
30-year-old advice...

    - Al.

Signature

To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Randall Ainsworth - 29 Sep 2003 20:28 GMT
>        We can't all be arrogant egomaniacs with small minds that only follow  
> 30-year-old advice...

I just believe in doing things right.  And doing weddings on 1x1.5-inch
negatives ain't it.
Al Denelsbeck - 30 Sep 2003 05:41 GMT
>>        We can't all be arrogant egomaniacs with small minds that only
>>        follow  
>> 30-year-old advice...
>
> I just believe in doing things right.  And doing weddings on
> 1x1.5-inch negatives ain't it.

       Uh huh. And this explains your being condescending and judgemental
over a single post innnnnnnn, what way, exactly?

       You know the post I mean. It was the one you snipped out of your
reply.

       But hey, knock yourself out! I'll remember your words each and every
time I make money off of attitudes exactly the same as yours.

       Cheers!

    - Al.

Signature

To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Randall Ainsworth - 30 Sep 2003 14:32 GMT
>        Uh huh. And this explains your being condescending and judgemental
> over a single post innnnnnnn, what way, exactly?

????

>        You know the post I mean. It was the one you snipped out of your
> reply.

??????

>        But hey, knock yourself out! I'll remember your words each and every
> time I make money off of attitudes exactly the same as yours.

Keep doing those 35mm weddings.  I'll bet those 16x20s look great.  And
leave the flash on the camera while you're at it.
Jeff Zawrotny - 30 Sep 2003 20:09 GMT
<SNIP>

> Keep doing those 35mm weddings.  I'll bet those 16x20s look great.  And
> leave the flash on the camera while you're at it.

Not sure what sort of market research you've been doing, Randall, but most
people (especially brides and grooms) I talk to find a 16"x20 wedding
portrait a bit over the top.  People aren't that narcissistic.

And if bigger negs always equal better, why stop at 2 1/4 inch negatives?
Surely your customers laugh at you when you try to tell them your Hassleblad
is better than an 8x10 Linhof?  Last I knew, 8x10 knocked the doors off 6x6.
And don't try to tell me convenience...  you don't give that benefit to
35mm.

I think we all get the point that medium format provides sharper/less grainy
enlargements than 35mm, Randall.  But to say you can't be a "professional"
photographer if you shoot 35mm is silly.  C'mon.  That's like saying you
can't be a professional violinist unless you play on a Stradivarius.

Nobody cares what brand of paint a painter uses or what brand of chisel a
sculptor uses.

Do us a favor and get over your big, bad, scary-talented self.
Randall Ainsworth - 30 Sep 2003 20:16 GMT
> Do us a favor and get over your big, bad, scary-talented self.

You amateurs just don't understand...probably never will.
Jeff Zawrotny - 30 Sep 2003 22:17 GMT
> > Do us a favor and get over your big, bad, scary-talented self.
>
> You amateurs just don't understand...probably never will.

Aren't you retired?
Randall Ainsworth - 30 Sep 2003 22:54 GMT
> Aren't you retired?

 I no longer do portrait photography for money.  But I'm looking to
get back into photography at least as a partial living.  It may involve
people photography, might not...don't know at this point.

 Retired?  More like...in transition.
Mariusz - 02 Oct 2003 14:17 GMT
Any website with your photos?

Mariusz

U?ytkownik Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> w wiadomooci do grup
dyskusyjnych napisa?:300920031454431233%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> > Aren't you retired?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>   Retired?  More like...in transition.
Randall Ainsworth - 02 Oct 2003 14:40 GMT
> Any website with your photos?

No portraits, just pictorials:

http://users.techline.com/randya
Mariusz - 04 Oct 2003 23:32 GMT
thanks
nice shots, however after all the discussion I would expect something shot
in medium format rather :-)

Mariusz

U?ytkownik Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> w wiadomooci do grup
dyskusyjnych napisa?:021020030640385209%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> > Any website with your photos?
>
> No portraits, just pictorials:
>
> http://users.techline.com/randya
Randall Ainsworth - 05 Oct 2003 00:28 GMT
> nice shots, however after all the discussion I would expect something shot
> in medium format rather :-)

I just switched to digital a few months ago.  Doubt that I'll ever use
film again.  I have lots of medium format stuff from years past, but
don't have a scanner.
ARoseStone - 21 Oct 2003 08:26 GMT
>Keep doing those 35mm weddings.  I'll bet those 16x20s look great.

Yeah, we all know how popular those 16x29 wedding albums are these days. Added
value as the bride gets a workout as she shows off her wedding images.

sigh. Another dinosaur roars his death rattle.
Randall Ainsworth - 21 Oct 2003 16:53 GMT
> Yeah, we all know how popular those 16x29 wedding albums are these days. Added
> value as the bride gets a workout as she shows off her wedding images.
>
> sigh. Another dinosaur roars his death rattle.

There's more to selling weddings than just albums.  35mm for weddings
is just unprofessional...always has been and always will be.  Keep that
flash on the camera though...that always looks good too.
Bruce MacNeil - 21 Oct 2003 18:43 GMT
> > Yeah, we all know how popular those 16x29 wedding albums are these days. Added
> > value as the bride gets a workout as she shows off her wedding images.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> is just unprofessional...always has been and always will be.  Keep that
> flash on the camera though...that always looks good too.

That is untrue.
KBob - 04 Feb 2004 19:06 GMT
>> Yeah, we all know how popular those 16x29 wedding albums are these days. Added
>> value as the bride gets a workout as she shows off her wedding images.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>is just unprofessional...always has been and always will be.  Keep that
>flash on the camera though...that always looks good too.

I agree with this, but only if you're talking about film.  I've yet to
see really decent 16X20 enlargements from the usual film types.

Am getting significantly better results with 35mm (digital), using a
Kodak 14n.  Most certainly the resolution is there, and shooting in
RAW mode permits capturing about 10 stops of exposure latitude, plus
the ability to color correct even before bringing the image into
Photoshop for touch-up.  There is absolutely no problem whatever in
producing excellent, sharp 16X20s using the Epson 2200 pigment-based
printer.  I'll admit, however, that the 14n winds up being bigger and
heavier than any Hassleblad or Bronica around, but I'll never--I
repeat NEVER return to film.
Gregory W. Blank - 08 Sep 2003 21:24 GMT
> I've yet to see a posed wedding group that looks natural.  The posting I was
> responding to was one where a medium format snob was looking down his nose
> at 35mm.  (Which I don't understand.  If you're not carrying an 8x10
> horseman, are you *really* a photographer?  <big grin>)

I have plenty of them. I prefer my 8x10 Tachihara for field work....a Horseman
is good for the studio.

There are some advantages to 35mm except for group photos, you
will see a big improvement when you go to 8x10 especially when your working
very far back in the church to get 16 people in the shot, for me a square image was the logical
choice as I stated it looks better in the book to have all the images going the same way...
unless of course you advocate shooting all the shoots on 35mm horz or vert?
There is one more advantage to medium format, 70mm long roll film magazines
no reloading.....all images sequenced, drawback $1,200.

Signature

website:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

Randall Ainsworth - 07 Sep 2003 02:19 GMT
> >Yeah, but I'll bet my Hasselbad weddings look better than your
> >35mm...multiple lights & professional posing.
>
> I'd rather have candids shot in available light any day over fake-o posed
> shots.

Whatever floats your boat.
Mariusz - 06 Sep 2003 10:14 GMT
Never heard of any bare bulb METZ.
Do you rememeber the model?

Mariusz

U?ytkownik Al Denelsbeck <news@wadingin.net> w wiadomo?ci do grup
dyskusyjnych napisa?:Xns93ED175E86AEsandalsatwadinginnet@65.32.1.8...

> >   Still sounds like amateur equipment to me.  Boy, nothing like 35mm
> > weddings with dinky strobes on the camera.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
> Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Ektarkid - 13 Sep 2003 17:59 GMT
OK...now for my 2 cents worth.....
Marshall,you bring out some good points.....most people when they buy a new
camera tend to buy what I call "wimp-o-matic" flash units. When I was doing
weddings I hunted around and found a nice used Rollei E-36RE and spare for
it. I soon designed a 12 volt power pack for it as the batteries for the
Rollei are both overpriced and crappy. (one camera repairman summed up the
E-36RE as.."Great flash unit...piss poor battery design") I found that
anything with a guide # under 160 with ISO 100 film doesn't have enough
power or recycles too slow for use at a wedding, I later switched to a
Agfatronic 643CS (GN of 220 with ISO 100) and a Sunpak 622 super as backup.
My feeling is that if you're gonna do a wedding for a friend,buy,rent or
borrow a flash with enough power to do it right.
As per lenses...well...again...buy,rent or borrow....a lot of camera stores
have pro grade lenses they will rent. If you've got a older MF camera,many
of the stores have Tamron SP lenses for rent...I own a Tamron SP 28-80 that
I've used for many a wedding and I've never been disapointed with the
sharpness on any of the pictures I've taken with it.
Film....well,sorry but I'm a Fuji man....I've always had good luck with it
and I'm gonna stick with what works.
As for those folks who scream..."Ya gotta use medium format !"....Face
facts,guys....most wedding pictures never,ever get enlarged past 8 by 10.
Yeah, the Hassy might make a better tool if your going to blow the group
shot up to 16 by 20..but how many times has that happened? I've always had a
feeling that a lot of guys use medium format because they feel it "looks
more professional" The one time I had a couple that wanted a big enlargement
for their new house.....a 40 by 50 to go over the mantel no less...I used my
Speed Graphic and shot 8 sheets and charged them just a little extra for it.
( I later found out that the 40 by 50 enlargement and matting and framing
cost them MORE than I charged for the wedding!)
To me, the most important thing is to approach as if you WERE a pro..that
means you have backups for your camera ( I always carried 3 cameras) PLENTY
of film...about twice what you think you'll use,extra sync cords (ever
notice the lil bastards always fail at the worst times ?...that's why I
carry 5), your main flash and 3 sets of batteries for it and the backup
flash and extra batteries for it. And don't leave the house without the most
important thing......a pro attitude.
A pro attitude mean's you've checked every damn piece of equipment 3
times...you've made sure all the batteries are charged,all the cameras sync
with flash,everything is in your camera bag or bags,you know where the
church and the receptioh hall is,and you've driven there just to make sure
you know how to get their,your cell phone is charged and on and somebody in
the wedding party knows the number just in case. When I did weddings for
money I did all the above plus carried an emergency kit with a sewing
kit,first aid kit(and yes,I had to use it a few times) and change for pay
phones and tampons and panty liners..you'd be amazed how many brides get so
stressed out that their period starts early....it other words...I came
prepared for nearly anything. That pro attitude is one of the most important
parts of your tool kit....it means you pay attention to what your
doing..that means no drinking...no flirting with the bridesmaids.
I see it as Attitude 40%...photography skills 30% people skills 30%
Ok..that's my 2 cents worth

>          I've been getting so much E-mail about this I have decided to go
>         and start.
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
>         later date.
>         Marshall Thurman
Randall Ainsworth - 13 Sep 2003 19:18 GMT
 Can't agree completely.  Weddings demand medium format.  You can
tella 35mm even enlarged to 8x10.
 I used 2 Hasselblads (one manual, one EL) and for many years used a
Norman 200b with 2 lights...later went to 2 6" Photogenic Flashmasters.
 Green box film?  No way...the Great Yellow Father all the way.

 Started formals 2 hours before the ceremony...no formals (except cake
shots) afterwards.  Unobtrusive photos during the ceremony with manual
Hasselblad on a tripod from the back of the church (switched lenses).
Ektarkid - 13 Sep 2003 19:45 GMT
Try getting any of these modern brides dressed and ready 2 hours before the
wedding ! I've never seen a wedding take place on time. And many of the
churches are running so many weddings now,it's like a marriage assembly
line..ie,you've got 1 hour for the ceramony and that's IT !
And I don't agree about the 8 by 10's either......
Also,Randall....where's a non-pro gonna be able to find Normans or
Flashmasters ?
And as to the film...I had large problems with wedding dresses going blue
tinted till I switched to Fuji. I found out that Fuji has a anti-scratch
coating that has a UV absorbing componet(sp) in it.
Also,you're overlooking cost...I figure 2 Hassie's with lenses and backs is
gonna run 4K even used. And Norman's don't grow on trees either....

>   Can't agree completely.  Weddings demand medium format.  You can
> tella 35mm even enlarged to 8x10.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> shots) afterwards.  Unobtrusive photos during the ceremony with manual
> Hasselblad on a tripod from the back of the church (switched lenses).
Randall Ainsworth - 13 Sep 2003 21:46 GMT
I would never suggest that non pros photograph weddings.  Do it for a
kick if you're a guest, but not as the "official" photographer.  I can
tell you dozens of horror stories of ruined weddings through the years.

 You don't have to use Hasselblads...a TLR will work fine...much
quieter too.  But there's no substitute for medium format for this type
of work.  Either you're gonna do it right or you're not.

Lighting...you don't have to have a Norman or Photogenic setup.  But
to stick just one light on the camera and fire away...pretty
amateurish.

 Doing the formals afterwards results in pictures where the
participants look haggard.  You're too rushed afterwards and people are
in a hurry to get drunk.  Doing the job right takes time.

 And film, well...everyone has their preferences.  I photographed
700-800 weddings through the years on Kodak film never had any color
balance problems.  I did some tests with Fuji and the damned stuff was
almost as green as the box it came in.
No1inparticular - 14 Sep 2003 02:26 GMT
>   And film, well...everyone has their preferences.  I photographed
> 700-800 weddings through the years on Kodak film never had any color
> balance problems.  I did some tests with Fuji and the damned stuff was
> almost as green as the box it came in.

Likewise with Fuji NPH.
Magenta, the film base is magenta and a good lab or printer
can easily get it right, I know because I print most of my own
color enlargements.
Ektarkid - 15 Sep 2003 15:53 GMT
Yeah well, I can tell you about the bride who's so-called pro photographer
had not shown up by 30 minutes before the wedding and when called told her
he'd booked another wedding for that same day that paid more so he wasn't
showing up for hers.
I can also tell you about the so-called pro from my former hometown in NJ
who had a habit of showing up drunk for weddings and getting drunker at the
reception.
Randall, you may be a pro,but a lot of the guys who are "pros" with a
studio,etc aren't "pros" in the way they treat customers.
I may not be a pro by your standards,but I never showed up late,always
treated the bride and groom with respect (something I've seen more than a
few pros fail to do) and never drank while I was working and always
delivered the goods.

> I would never suggest that non pros photograph weddings.  Do it for a
> kick if you're a guest, but not as the "official" photographer.  I can
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> balance problems.  I did some tests with Fuji and the damned stuff was
> almost as green as the box it came in.
Gregory W. Blank - 15 Sep 2003 20:51 GMT
This in my book makes you alot better.

> Yeah well, I can tell you about the bride who's so-called pro photographer
> had not shown up by 30 minutes before the wedding and when called told her
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> few pros fail to do) and never drank while I was working and always
> delivered the goods.

Signature

website:
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

Randall Ainsworth - 15 Sep 2003 23:25 GMT
 Or how about the bride who went around the reception with currency
pinned to her dress - some sort of tacky ethnic custom.  Or the bride's
dress catching on fire when friends are trying to take cake pictures
(fortunately I got mine first).  Or the bridesmaid who's so drunk she
falls down dancing in front of everybody with her legs WIDE open
showing her charms to the world.

Oh yeah...just another day in the life of a wedding photographer

 Or the photog (certainly not me) who decides to hold the wire to his
exension flash in his mouth, forgetting there are capacitors in the
head  :-)
Generic Eric - 16 Sep 2003 02:23 GMT
That's gotta hurt.

>   Or how about the bride who went around the reception with currency
> pinned to her dress - some sort of tacky ethnic custom.  Or the bride's
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> exension flash in his mouth, forgetting there are capacitors in the
> head  :-)
Ektarkid - 15 Sep 2003 16:08 GMT
Hey,Randall,
I 've got a question for you....
 Is it just me or have you have you noticed more rude and/or crude behavior
at receptions by guests in the last few years?
Twice in the last few years,I've had to breakup fights that were
starting(generally, I just set the flash to manual and fire it into the
offending parties face at point blank range...a guy who can't see for 10
minutes isn't so much of a problem).
I've seen everything from a female guest in a mini skirt with no panties to
a brides younger brother getting drunk and dancing without his shirt, to
guest that arrive at the reception  and have finished 5 drinks before the
bride and groom even have arrived.
I swear, after watching some of these people, I'm hiring bouncers when I
get married.

> I would never suggest that non pros photograph weddings.  Do it for a
> kick if you're a guest, but not as the "official" photographer.  I can
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> balance problems.  I did some tests with Fuji and the damned stuff was
> almost as green as the box it came in.
Randall Ainsworth - 15 Sep 2003 16:29 GMT
> Hey,Randall,
>  I 've got a question for you....
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>  I swear, after watching some of these people, I'm hiring bouncers when I
> get married.

 I haven't done a wedding since Sept. of 1995.  But I could write a
book with all of the crazy stuff I've seen.
 Remember a few where the bride and groom must have ripped one off
while everyone was waiting at the reception  :-).   Did one shot of
bridesmaids catching the bouquet...and caught one bridesmaid as she
"slipped" out of her dress as she was jumping.  Another time I was
leaving a reception and noticed a glow down at the end of the parking
lot...it was the bride & groom smoking a joint.

 Don't know about rudeness but it wouldn't surprise me.  But I'm out
in Washington and we're more mellow here.
No1inparticular - 14 Sep 2003 02:31 GMT
> As for those folks who scream..."Ya gotta use medium format !"....Face
> facts,guys....most wedding pictures never,ever get enlarged past 8 by 10.
> Yeah, the Hassy might make a better tool if your going to blow the group
> shot up to 16 by 20..but how many times has that happened?

2-1/4 square is better because your not flipping the camera
and all the proof go the same way, I shoot all weddings on 400 asa film.
An 8x10 using 35mm 400 film is grainy and less sharp.

For the most part all else I can agree with.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.