Who has shot weddings with film?

[CanonLaw]

So, I was just thinking about this as I was driving home from my most recent wedding....how the heck did you guys do this with film?????????

Were the pictures not as good?

How many rolls of film did you go through? I took 1,000 pictures, and gave them 400...that would be 27 rolls of film! How did you keep it all organized?

Also, you couldn't just turn a knob and change your ISO, nor could you go easily from color to black and white.

Were the weddings just slower paced because that's all you could capture??

It must have taken ages to go through and proof everything!

It just seems that everything moves so fast, working with film would have been sooooo much more challenging than digital. Those who have done film, I am in awe.

[figmented]

depends if you are trying for a few 'wow' pics or lots of 'decent' pics. i think digital makes a lot of 'decent' photographers, but not a lot of 'wow' ones. myself included.

[leninglass]

^^^ Inspiring words.. thank you

[CanonLaw]

depends if you are trying for a few 'wow' pics or lots of 'decent' pics. i think digital makes a lot of 'decent' photographers, but not a lot of 'wow' ones. myself included.


I would say you are better than a decent photographer. :)

[cdifoto]

I never shot film but based on what I've seen, images were mostly just tame (with few exceptions). Pretty much the stuff the photographer knew would sell, not bothering to try new things so as to not waste film. Either that or they did blow through lots of film and charged accordingly.

I can tell a whole day's story with about 50 photos if I really want to and just stick to storytelling, but brides these days expect numbers in the hundreds. I also like to experiment.

[Yeoer]

I shot my first weddings on film back in 1991. The first was using a Yashica 230AF with the Std 35-70mm lens + Cullman DC36 on a flash grip I also used a 70-210. Only used the 70-210 for a couple of shots.

On film I only took around 150-200 shots which was plenty for an album that typically had around 40 images in. The style was different then... more traditional and much more formal. I often wonder how the 'new' style of wedding photography will age... with tog's 'trying' to be cutting edge... after all the ZX81 was cutting edge once...!!!

Didn't sleep much till the film got developed mind so no way would i go back...!

[CanonLaw]

I shot my first weddings on film back in 1991. The first was using a Yashica 230AF with the Std 35-70mm lens + Cullman DC36 on a flash grip I also used a 70-210. Only used the 70-210 for a couple of shots.

On film I only took around 150-200 shots which was plenty for an album that typically had around 40 images in. The style was different then... more traditional and much more formal. I often wonder how the 'new' style of wedding photography will age... with tog's 'trying' to be cutting edge... after all the ZX81 was cutting edge once...!!!

Didn't sleep much till the film got developed mind so no way would i go back...!

Please don't shame me for my ignorance, but what is a ZX81? :-p

[cdifoto]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_ZX81

[CanonLaw]

Ok, see I looked that up, and came up with the computer. I assumed he meant a camera though. It is hard to believe that was ever even close to cutting edge!

[breal101]

I shot maybe 10 to 15 weddings on film, exactly 0 on digital. Everything was manual, I shot 100 to 120 exposures on Hasselblad. Nearly every shot had to be a keeper, not a lot of room for error. I had a shot list of about 50 shots as must haves, the rest were candids and a few cases of double shooting to insure that eyes were open etc. on group shots. I'm not sure I could take a 1000 pictures of a wedding. Just glad I don't do them anymore. That was pretty much the norm for photographers in the film days. I didn't know anyone who shot more than 150 or so.

[Tixeon]

I shot maybe 10 to 15 weddings on film, exactly 0 on digital. Everything was manual, I shot 100 to 120 exposures on Hasselblad. Nearly every shot had to be a keeper, not a lot of room for error. I had a shot list of about 50 shots as must haves, the rest were candids and a few cases of double shooting to insure that eyes were open etc. on group shots. I'm not sure I could take a 1000 pictures of a wedding. Just glad I don't do them anymore. That was pretty much the norm for photographers in the film days. I didn't know anyone who shot more than 150 or so.

Well said & same here, except the # of weddings were around 1200. Everything was manual. I would tape over the distance scale on the Hasselblad lens & put f:stops there that synched with my flash unit. I could focus, change the f:stop & take the photo in about 3 sec. & that's not too slow for no auto anything. I still have the Hasselblads from 1980 & they still work fine although I haven't used them since retiring in '04.

[Wilt]

I would provide about 250-300 preview shots, culled from maybe about 300-350 shots taken. You learn to shoot discriminately, both for composition and for exposure, and you do not rely at all upon chimping and much less on bracketing. Of course, color neg was much more forgiving of less-than-optimal exposure, unlike slides and digita. Shooting 220 film for double the shots per roll helped to control the number of times you had to change film backs and reload them, to about the same level as shooting 35mm.

Digital encourages 'free shots' and far greater liberal exposures hoping for one shot with good expressions on everyone...which was far too expensive when done with film!

[breal101]

Well said & same here, except the # of weddings were around 1200. Everything was manual. I would tape over the distance scale on the Hasselblad lens & put f:stops there that synched with my flash unit. I could focus, change the f:stop & take the photo in about 3 sec. & that's not too slow for no auto anything. I still have the Hasselblads from 1980 & they still work fine although I haven't used them since retiring in '04.

I'll bet you can load a film back pretty damn quick too. I remember having charts taped all over my strobe unit. I was lucky to have a "semi auto":) system, 1/4 1/2 3/4 and full buttons on the strobe. Nothing more fun than the processional starting, 8 bridesmaids and the bride and having only enough film in the camera to have one chance for each one.

[howzitboy]

ive shot film for years and love it. way more forgiving then digital (under/over exposures). id shoot like 10 rolls for a wedding and make a 20 page album out of them and give proofs for all the unused shots. fun fun *sigh*

[yogestee]

Shot many weddings using film..I would calculate how many rolls by what the client wanted and how many guests.. I would have the lab cut the negatives into strips of six.. I would number each roll chronologically and number each individual negative but only the keepers which at a wedding was about 80-90%..I would write the neg number on the back of the 6"x4" plus tag the print in an albumn..This albumn was used for reprint purposes..The happy couple would choose their enlargements from this albumn..An average albumn had anything from 200 to 400 prints..

Here was my system for numbering..

R1-001 where R1 is the first roll 001 was the first print..

The negative sheet went into into a binder where it was dated, the couple's name, contact details etc..Each binder was dated from- to..

Shooting the wedding..I would use 2 Nikon bodies and a Bronica ETRs medium format camera... If the couple required B/W I would take a 3rd Nikon body loaded with B/W either with Tri-X or FP4,,I did my own B/W printing..Metz 60CT1 and Metz 45CT1 flashes..My Nikkor 35-105mm F/3.5 was my work horse..Nikkor 50mm F/1.2 and Nikkor 85mm F/1.8 for low light,, Nikkors 20mm, 24mm, 28mm for group shots,,Nikkor 135mm F/2.8, 200mm F/2.8 for tight shots..All lenses were manual focus and I manually exposed..

I shot Kodacolor 100 and 400ISO but later Fujicolor..

Wedding photography was only my sideline..I worked in the photographic unit of a large iron and steel plant..

The wonderful thing about film you make every shot count.. Spray and pray was definitely out..

[DocFrankenstein]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_ZX81
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/yashica/yashica_230-af/yashica_230-splash.htm

[DrPablo]

The photographer at my wedding, in 2004, used a Hasselblad with medium format film. Her pictures were astonishingly good -- the exposure and the luminosity were jaw-dropping..

[DocFrankenstein]

I never shot a wedding with film yet, but if I were to shoot one it would be my choice of medium.

I am a firm believer in traditional wedding photography and not the photojournalistic approach. Couples don't need a thousand shots to go through. The need 120 good ones, and then medium format was dominant this is what you would get.

A wedding was shot on 10 rolls of 120 film and while the poses were pretty much the same, the album IMO was better.

Film is also more forgiving and tolerates highlights much better. Few digital people experienced it and it's beautiful.

[DocFrankenstein]

The photographer at my wedding, in 2004, used a Hasselblad with medium format film. Her pictures were astonishingly good -- the exposure and the luminosity were jaw-dropping..
If the wedding is an expensive one, the photographer usually is armed with a hassy. I have seen all kinds of weddings working part time in a banquet hall, but the really expensive ones are shot in film or at the very least film is used for the posed album shots.

[cdifoto]

Nobody really wants the boring posed shots anymore. They want to see and cherish the emotion from their day (be it tears or smiles). That means lots of photos, some of which will be crap since you're trying to grab small moments on the fly and it's very likely you'll miss a couple timing-wise.

Anyone who says they can do an awesome job with just a few rolls of film in such a style is full of it.

[cdifoto]

The photographer at my wedding, in 2004, used a Hasselblad with medium format film. Her pictures were astonishingly good -- the exposure and the luminosity were jaw-dropping..
I would LOVE to see those images (and I don't mean that condescendingly). I just want to see 'em! :D

[DocFrankenstein]

Nobody really wants the boring posed shots anymore.
I don't agree.

It's the photographers that have been brainwashed by marketing. The magazines can't print the boring traditional stuff, so they're full of crazy mixes of brides and journalism... brides and fashion, gothic weddings, trash the dress and other styles nobody looks at other than the photographers themselves.

Those styles will look funny in two generations, worse than the old camera commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMHH_AGCv-4).

Wedding photography is about making an album in a style that transcends time. It's about the two families coming together and their friends... and not about the photographic fad of the decade.

[DrPablo]

I would LOVE to see those images (and I don't mean that condescendingly). I just want to see 'em! :DHere is one from our wedding.

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/65556111.jpg

[cdifoto]

Nice. She has tilt issues just like me! I feel slightly less retarded now. :D

Got anymore? :)

[DrPablo]

I don't think I have any others online. On my other computer I may have a few others scanned in.

The thing about shooting in these conditions is that you only really have to meter once. Then you just set your exposure and flash and shoot away. And since she shot with negative film you can be off by quite a bit and never know it in print.

[cdifoto]

Yeah that's pretty much the way I do it once I get inside. I don't do manual flash but I do set my aperture, shutter, and ISO and pretty much forget it. FEC as needed but even then it's usually the same setting. Receptions are cake. Pun intended. :p

[Yeoer]

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/yashica/yashica_230-af/yashica_230-splash.htm


Funny thing for me was... at the last wedding i shot... 14-06-08 one of the guests was using the same camera... i was amazed it was still working!

I've got to admit it did have one of the largest view finders ever... allot larger that the old EOS100 i had.

[Tixeon]

I'll bet you can load a film back pretty damn quick too. I remember having charts taped all over my strobe unit. I was lucky to have a "semi auto":) system, 1/4 1/2 3/4 and full buttons on the strobe. Nothing more fun than the processional starting, 8 bridesmaids and the bride and having only enough film in the camera to have one chance for each one.

I used 2- 220 magazines & 1- 120 one. That gave me 60 shots before I absolutely had to reload. I usually found a moment along the way to load the empty mag. Magazine switches were a cool 6 sec. (actually timed). After a few hundred weddings with a manual strobe (Norman 200B) I actually could tell what f:stop to use by just looking at how far the subject was from me. I would not be off more than 1/4 f:stop. I don't think I could do that now though. Auto everything made me lazy & my brain is not as quick anymore so, thank goodness for my 5D.

[Roy Mathers]

Nobody really wants the boring posed shots anymore. They want to see and cherish the emotion from their day (be it tears or smiles). That means lots of photos, some of which will be crap since you're trying to grab small moments on the fly and it's very likely you'll miss a couple timing-wise.

Anyone who says they can do an awesome job with just a few rolls of film in such a style is full of it.

I think you're being a bit unfair here. Some people do want the 'boring posed shots' for a start. And, as for somebody not being able to do a good job with a few rolls of film, that's nonsense. In the days of film, you just had to be more selective and use the rifle approach as opposed to the shotgun approach that many digital photographers use today.

I photographed a wedding a week for about thirty years and used a Hassleblad, so the OP was a little mistaken in saying that you couldn't change ISO (ASA, as it was then) or to black and white. A few seconds loading a new film back, and voila! And with an assistant (in my case, my wife) loading the next magazine, I didn't even have to stop to re-load.

It's often said that teenagers, of every generation, always think that they invented sex, and their parents and grandparents know nothing about it. The same thing applies, I believe, to young digital photographers. Photography wasn't invented with the onset of digital cameras - an awful lot of people did manage to turn out decent work before digital cameras you know!;)

[breal101]

I think you're being a bit unfair here. Some people do want the 'boring posed shots' for a start. And, as for somebody not being able to do a good job with a few rolls of film, that's nonsense. In the days of film, you just had to be more selective and use the rifle approach as opposed to the shotgun approach that many digital photographers use today.

I photographed a wedding a week for about thirty years and used a Hassleblad, so the OP was a little mistaken in saying that you couldn't change ISO (ASA, as it was then) or to black and white. A few seconds loading a new film back, and voila! And with an assistant (in my case, my wife) loading the next magazine, I didn't even have to stop to re-load.

It's often said that teenagers, of every generation, always think that they invented sex, and their parents and grandparents know nothing about it. The same thing applies, I believe, to young digital photographers. Photography wasn't invented with the onset of digital cameras - an awful lot of people did manage to turn out decent work before digital cameras you know!;)

Roy, you and Tixeon have my utmost respect. To do as many weddings as you gents did is amazing to me. The few I shot made me nervous as hell. Most of my work in those days was industrial along with some conventions and stockholders meetings. I could work with major corporate execs and even CEOs and be cool as a cucumber. Mothers of the bride intimidated me beyond reason. I haven't a clue about current trends in wedding photography but there were some pretty creative guys doing weddings in those days.

One comment on the new generation of photographers. My favorite:rolleyes: topic of discussion is FF for sports photography. Duhhhh, what were sports photographers in the film days using? Motordrives were available by the time I came along but before that they were manual film advance. Long ago they were using Speed Graphics for sport, measured in frames per minute instead of seconds.

[Roy Mathers]

Thanks for those comments Breal:)

[cdifoto]

Some people do want the 'boring posed shots' for a start.
I haven't met any that do. They'll usually have some done just because grandma is still around and will probably want a few prints, but otherwise they'd skip 'em in favor of fun posed stuff.

[Roy Mathers]

I'm sorry, but I think you're showing a little bigotry here. Just because you haven't met any, please don't assume there aren't a lot out there - it's a big world you know!

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm sorry, but I think you're showing a little bigotry here. Just because you haven't met any, please don't assume there aren't a lot out there - it's a big world you know!
In HIS country nobody wants posed shots...

The rest of the world does.

[Roy Mathers]

Has he met every bride and groom in HIS country?

[DocFrankenstein]

Has he met every bride and groom in HIS country?
I'm pretty sure in porntopia the brides, grooms and the priests are not classically posed near the altar. ;)

[Roy Mathers]

:D:D

[CanonLaw]

I must say, I have really enjoyed reading the replies to this post. I didn't realize that a Hasselblad back could be changed so quickly and that it could store so many shots on a roll of film. If you wanted to switch to black and white, could you take the color back off, put the b&w one on and switch back to color? I know in a regular film camera, you can't open the back or else you will expose the film. Could you just swap back and forth with the Hasselblads?

[DocFrankenstein]

I must say, I have really enjoyed reading the replies to this post. I didn't realize that a Hasselblad back could be changed so quickly and that it could store so many shots on a roll of film. If you wanted to switch to black and white, could you take the color back off, put the b&w one on and switch back to color? I know in a regular film camera, you can't open the back or else you will expose the film. Could you just swap back and forth with the Hasselblads?
Yes, you can... to both questions.

The used backs run for 100 bucks apiece though. :(

Hassys are expensive to CLA and shoot with though. Once they break, you need to pay big bucks to the mechanic to fix them.

[Tixeon]

Yes, you can... to both questions.

The used backs run for 100 bucks apiece though. :(

Hassys are expensive to CLA and shoot with though. Once they break, you need to pay big bucks to the mechanic to fix them.

Doc, before digital the Hassy backs were $800.+ for the 220 New & a yearly checkup was in the $350. range. Expensive, yeah kinda like a porsche.

Yes, Breal, Thanks for the kind comments.

[yogestee]

I must say, I have really enjoyed reading the replies to this post. I didn't realize that a Hasselblad back could be changed so quickly and that it could store so many shots on a roll of film. If you wanted to switch to black and white, could you take the color back off, put the b&w one on and switch back to color? I know in a regular film camera, you can't open the back or else you will expose the film. Could you just swap back and forth with the Hasselblads?


Not only Hasselblads but most medium format cameras..I had 4 backs loaded at the one time for my Bronica ETRs..Takes about 15 seconds to change a back..

[DocFrankenstein]

Doc, before digital the Hassy backs were $800.+ for the 220 New & a yearly checkup was in the $350. range. Expensive, yeah kinda like a porsche.

Yes, Breal, Thanks for the kind comments.
I can imagine.

What I can't figure out is whether the maintenance of the hassy was really expensive or not. Some say they never break.

Some say they need yearly CLAs, the cost of which for a system runs into thousands.

What was your experience? How much did they break? How much did you spend to keep them running?

Do you think they were worth the cost?

[Roy Mathers]

I can imagine.

What I can't figure out is whether the maintenance of the hassy was really expensive or not. Some say they never break.

Some say they need yearly CLAs, the cost of which for a system runs into thousands.

What was your experience? How much did they break? How much did you spend to keep them running?

Do you think they were worth the cost?

I've lost count of the number of years I had my Hasselblad and, in all that time, I didn't have a single thing go wrong with it (and I dropped it twice!) and I spent nothing on maintenance. And - there wasn't a new model introduced every 18 months :)

They were, and are superb cameras - the Rolls Royce of cameras.

Were they worth the cost? Is the Pope Catholic?:D

[sapearl]

Hey there Doc - the Hassy's are pretty much built like tanks. I would only do about 15 - 20 major jobs per year with mine, and in the 8 years that the 503CW was in use, I never had it in for a CLA. Was it bad that I didn't do that? I don't know.... it never gave me any problems and always worked flawlessly.

The CLA for the film back then ran about $85 - 104. I'd purhased a couple of used ones that were in very good shape, and just had the felt light trap stuff replaced as the major expense.

These are wonderful and actually simple machines though compared to the complex devices we use today. They were actually relatively compact for what they did, fairly ergonomic, and all the lenses, backs, finders, etc. for the 500 series were compatible back to 1958, in manual mode. So there was always a wealth of used gear in top shape that could be picked up on the market.

Yes, for the quality they delivered they were worth it. They paid for themselves many times over :D. - Stu

I can imagine.

What I can't figure out is whether the maintenance of the hassy was really expensive or not. Some say they never break.

Some say they need yearly CLAs, the cost of which for a system runs into thousands.

What was your experience? How much did they break? How much did you spend to keep them running?

Do you think they were worth the cost?

[sapearl]

Ditto to that Baw.... on a good day I could actually change out a preloaded hassy back in less time than it currently takes to swap out a CF card :lol: . I'd usually have one 120 and three 220 backs with me on a job.

Not only Hasselblads but most medium format cameras..I had 4 backs loaded at the one time for my Bronica ETRs..Takes about 15 seconds to change a back..

[Right Cranium Imaging]

Shot many weddings using film..I would calculate how many rolls by what the client wanted and how many guests.. I would have the lab cut the negatives into strips of six.. I would number each roll chronologically and number each individual negative but only the keepers which at a wedding was about 80-90%..I would write the neg number on the back of the 6"x4" plus tag the print in an albumn..This albumn was used for reprint purposes..The happy couple would choose their enlargements from this albumn..An average albumn had anything from 200 to 400 prints..

Here was my system for numbering..

R1-001 where R1 is the first roll 001 was the first print..

The negative sheet went into into a binder where it was dated, the couple's name, contact details etc..Each binder was dated from- to..

Shooting the wedding..I would use 2 Nikon bodies and a Bronica ETRs medium format camera... If the couple required B/W I would take a 3rd Nikon body loaded with B/W either with Tri-X or FP4,,I did my own B/W printing..Metz 60CT1 and Metz 45CT1 flashes..My Nikkor 35-105mm F/3.5 was my work horse..Nikkor 50mm F/1.2 and Nikkor 85mm F/1.8 for low light,, Nikkors 20mm, 24mm, 28mm for group shots,,Nikkor 135mm F/2.8, 200mm F/2.8 for tight shots..All lenses were manual focus and I manually exposed..

I shot Kodacolor 100 and 400ISO but later Fujicolor..

Wedding photography was only my sideline..I worked in the photographic unit of a large iron and steel plant..

The wonderful thing about film you make every shot count.. Spray and pray was definitely out..

This is similar to how our wedding photographer shot our wedding and organized our images to choose from. The only bad thing was somehow the roll with the images of my wife's dress got exposed and thus ruined. As you can imagine, my wife would never recommend a film photographer, but I still find the process interesting. Besides I suppose you could have a digital shooter get a corrupt CF card just as easy as an exposed film roll.

[sapearl]

Very true - or worse yet, while he/she was doing selective deletes in the camera, hits "delete all.":cry:

...... Besides I suppose you could have a digital shooter get a corrupt CF card just as easy as an exposed film roll.

[yogestee]

This is similar to how our wedding photographer shot our wedding and organized our images to choose from. The only bad thing was somehow the roll with the images of my wife's dress got exposed and thus ruined. As you can imagine, my wife would never recommend a film photographer, but I still find the process interesting. Besides I suppose you could have a digital shooter get a corrupt CF card just as easy as an exposed film roll.

A problem with shooting film is you hand over your exposed rolls to a lab losing full control of the process.. I have had a few rolls ruined but only a few,,luckily those shots weren't that important.. Out of the thousands of rolls I've shot I think I only lost a handful due lab error.. I processed all my own B/W..

Now without putting the mocker on myself I have never lost a digital image due to corrupt card etc..

[cdifoto]

Very true - or worse yet, while he/she was doing selective deletes in the camera, hits "delete all.":cry:
But of course you can usually recover those. Unless of course you continue shooting and over-write the sectors. I'd like to think I'd have my wits about me enough to ditch that card right off in favor of a fresh one. But who am I kidding...I took zip-lock baggies to Mexico and never used 'em thus got caught out with condensation. :rolleyes:

[Tixeon]

I can imagine.

What I can't figure out is whether the maintenance of the hassy was really expensive or not. Some say they never break.

Some say they need yearly CLAs, the cost of which for a system runs into thousands.

What was your experience? How much did they break? How much did you spend to keep them running?

Do you think they were worth the cost?

Sorry I didn't get back right away but the yearly maintenance (clean & adjust) was about it for me. I used 2 Hassys & rotated which was the main one for that year. The active camera had maintenance at the end of the season & served as backup the following season. In 24 years of service I personally only has 2 breakdowns & was less expensive than one yearly maintenance each. I replaced my own light seals in the magazines which saved a lot. In my opinion they were worth the cost.

Ditto what sapearl said.

On another note. I used Mamiya RB67 cameras longer than the Hasselblads & never had a breakdown.