Film?

Has anyone used it for weddings / family events? I know the old school crowd here has. I'm old enough to be their son for the most part but I've use it on the side next to my digital.

I use 5dc / Elan 7e and 400d / EOS 650 as back-ups. The eye-control on the 7e is awesome I wished it had made its way into the digital models. I recently did a model shoot also and brought the Elan 7e and Provia 100f, I typically use high-speed black and white film (R.I.P. Neopan 1600) but have been known to shoot everything from Kodachrome when you could get it processed to expired Ektar 25 to Portra 400.

There's still some film shooters that will use medium format then shoot digital for the candid stuff, but not too many.

Photo99

Really? I think the 7E eye control is incredibly gimmicky...

Come join us over in the film thread!

Ive used my Olympus OM40. I would just randomly take a shot here and there, only used one roll of film and my fav photo of the day was taken with it.

I'm currently shooting all engagement, family, and portrait sessions on 35mm film...and am looking to also add some medium format soon

But as far as weddings go I've only really shot it in conjunction with digital and usually just a few rolls here and there during prep and b&g portraits.

I have an eos 620 but not shot wedding with it.

I have shot many weddings on Bronicas and Hasselblads. I won't go back to film for 2 primary reasons:

1. Cost. To shoot MF film ran about $1 per shot (in the '90s) with processing and proof printing. This limits your shot selection over digital.

2. Post Processing was a huge pain with film. Today you could scan the negs into LR/PS with a scanner, but if you're going to do that, why not just shoot digital in the first place? The dust control alone isn't worth the hassle.

Overall, I think anyone thinking of shooting a wedding on film today is nuts. YMMV.

ScullenCrossBones wrote in post #12599532
I have shot many weddings on Bronicas and Hasselblads. I won't go back to film for 2 primary reasons:

1. Cost. To shoot MF film ran about $1 per shot (in the '90s) with processing and proof printing. This limits your shot selection over digital.

2. Post Processing was a huge pain with film. Today you could scan the negs into LR/PS with a scanner, but if you're going to do that, why not just shoot digital in the first place? The dust control alone isn't worth the hassle.

Overall, I think anyone thinking of shooting a wedding on film today is nuts. YMMV.

Have to echo this comment. Except i couldnt afford a Hasselblad. Costs are prohibitive now days and with the perfection of these camera sensors and what photoshop and Lightroon can do makes it a no brainer. Photoshop changed the game forever. Film is Dead. It more of a novelty anymore, kind of like all the old guys polishing thier classic cars on the weekends and reliving the past. Digital blows film out of the water as far as im concerned. I would never go back.

ScullenCrossBones wrote in post #12599532
1. Cost. To shoot MF film ran about $1 per shot (in the '90s) with processing and proof printing. This limits your shot selection over digital.

2. Post Processing was a huge pain with film. Today you could scan the negs into LR/PS with a scanner, but if you're going to do that, why not just shoot digital in the first place? The dust control alone isn't worth the hassle.

1.) Wholeheartedly agree, but doing it yourself saves you some cash. That's why I'm still doing it .
2.) Not shooting digital in the first place because you don't get the same results.

umphotography wrote in post #12600231
Film is Dead. It more of a novelty anymore

1.) Quality wise: for 35mm, maybe. For medium/large format vs. consumer digital, not on your life.
2.) I still think B+W film is far better than B+W digital.
3.) Not everyone who uses film scans it...

No film. Not any more. No thank you. Done with that. No desire to go back. Finished.

I really don't see the appeal of film, other than to say, "I'm shooting film". I shot film for 15 years before moving to digital, and I really cannot see any reason to go back.

Since 2005 I've only shot film at one wedding. It was a Russian photographer's wedding and she loved the look of these off-beat Russian expired B&W films. I can understand that. But not for anything else.

The thing is, film is an ANALOG format. The entire process should be analog. If you are shooting film, you should be developing and processing the film. Retouching the film. Running it through the enlarger. Bathing your papers. And then delivering the sheets. That is the beauty of film.

If you are shooting film, developing, and then scanning film, and then digitally retouching in Lightroom/ACR/Photosho​p or whatever, then that is pointless imo. You will get a higher quality output shooting with a digital camera in the first place if you are delivering and processing in digital. While film may have great latitude, it all depends on who push/pull processed it. Once it's scanned in, you have no more latitude than a jpeg. And you are also limiting the image to the quality of the scanner itself. I'm pretty sure many people aren't using professional grade film/slide scanners that cost as much as a 1-series camera.

Film is great, and especially BW films have their own characteristics, but the way people are using films now are more of a fad, than taking advantage of the true beauty in the analog workflow of film.

Besides, I HATE smelling like darkroom chemicals all the time. That stuff is strong and sticks to your skin and lingers for days.

picturecrazy wrote in post #12603762
Once it's scanned in, you have no more latitude than a jpeg.

That depends on how you scan it...

But I agree - there's a definite distinction to shooting film for its unique characteristics, and shooting film for the sake of saying "I shoot film."

bnlearle wrote in post #12605250
Once the wedding is over, I send it to the lab. That's it. Just so much easier.

This is why I have moved back to film again...I send to the lab...get the scans back and they look great and are ready for clients/blog...aside from resizing.

I worked so hard to perfect and streamline my digital workflow but honestly I always felt like I was spending entirely too much time in front of the computer...the extra costs associated with film are so worth the time I get to be away from the computer (at least to me).

and I have to admit that I a lot of my digital editing tried to mimic a film-ish look...so I might as well just shoot the real thing and be done with it.

Film is by no means DEAD! Many of the older shooters are returning to film simply to keep their skills up, and because we loved it. Whether it is LF or 35mm film has some advantages over digital.

helloagain36 wrote in post #12605706
This is why I have moved back to film again...I send to the lab...get the scans back and they look great and are ready for clients/blog...aside from resizing.

I worked so hard to perfect and streamline my digital workflow but honestly I always felt like I was spending entirely too much time in front of the computer...the extra costs associated with film are so worth the time I get to be away from the computer (at least to me).

and I have to admit that I a lot of my digital editing tried to mimic a film-ish look...so I might as well just shoot the real thing and be done with it.

But you realize that there are services that do the same thing for you, on digital. I send my photos to a service that does all the colour correction and then sends me all the XMP files. Import them into lightroom and boom... all done. Cheaper than film too, with much more editing latitude than a scan if need be.

Try shooting over 400iso (asa) in film.