Hybrid film/digital wedding kit practical?

[unclebob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Been thinking of getting back into weddings, to fund my GAS fetish. My experience is around 100 dating back to circa 2005-08.

 

I have some experience with Leica M3 and a 50mm Summicron.

 

Trying to slash the weight and keep the budget at $10K and not go into debt.

 

I was thinking of a hybrid approach. A likely combo of M8 and two M6 bodies (with a D200 in reserve).

 

A few questions...

Anyone still shoot a portion of the day in film? What percentage? Do the clients notice or care?

 

How does the modern Voigtlander glass comapre to the pre-Asph Leica glass? Would anyone notice?

 

So...

 

M8... $2000

M6 (.72)... $1100

M6 (.72)... $1100

28mm F/2.8 Elmarit... $1200

35mm F/1.4 Type 2 'Lux... $2000

50mm f/1.4 version 2 'Lux... $1600

90mm Elmarit f/2.8... $500

 

 

And I have lightstands, Pocket wizards, and the D200 to manage/backup formals.

 

Thanks in advance!

[earleygallery]

Hi,

 

There are at least a couple of pro wedding photographers on this forum who use film, I understand that it's their 'USP'.

 

If your customers don't care what medium you use, then digital makes economic sense, and you can reassure yourself that you have 'got the shot'.

 

I would say, if your customers aren't expecting you to use film then they may be disappointed if you do. Most people are now too used to the clean generally over sharpened look of digital images to appreciate film images, unless that's what they want, i.e. the arty grainy look.

[250swb]

I would have thought one Leica for film and two Nikon DSLR's, with your D200 for backup and a D600 as the lead camera would be a better combination. So just two to carry, the Leica and D600, plus a few lenses. Managing the combination of digital and film is not easy when one camera is able to snap away for ever, and the other causes you to stop every thirty six exposures. And with software such as Silver Efex Pro you could forget the Leica altogether and make your D600 files look very much like film for the 'arty' shots, and which would allow a full budget for good Nikon lenses.

 

Steve

[unclebob]

If I went the nikon route, then a two body/three lens combo of D800 bodies and something like 24mm f/1.4 (or 35mm f/1.4) and 50mm f/1.4 with either the 85 f/1.8 or 105mm f/2.

 

That is what I shot back in the day, but the D200 was limited a bit in ISO. Never wanted to go above ISO 800. Always felt a bit constricted with the cropped bodie.

[tobey bilek]

It works fine if you use Portra for color and are willing to scan way too many pictures. That film is made for people and is designed for scanning. Ektar 100 is great for landscapes and nature. It also scans well.

 

I would not trust lab scans.

 

A M8 is about on par with film. The M9 exceeds it.

 

400 speed is a looser against digital.

[budrichard]

I can't think of a single reason why you would want to do a hybrid.

Unless you are marketing to an elite clientel that understands and wants film, most don't care and probably don't even know what film is anymore. Price is the basic factor and with just about any good digital SLR, zoom and auto flash coupled to the zoom, it's a one camera approach.

I shoot film for weddings with two M7's and the latest Leica ASPH lenses because I want to work that way, it's just an affectation on my part and a resistance to the 'shoot all and any angle that you can, something will be good', with today's digital wedding photographers.

The 21mm set up I have is an M6 with Metz handle flash and is bit awkward. I did use a Nikon Fm3A on my last wedding with 24mm Nikkor for group portraits, it just worked easier.-Dick

[AlanJW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Let me give you a customer's viewpoint. My daughter was married in August 2011. The photographer was a woman known to us and we were very comfortable working with her throughout. She used an M6 with B&W film, as well as a DSLR and had an assistant who used a DSLR. The combination done that way was superb. She did both reportage and regular posed shots. The assistant did some during the ceremony so they had double coverage. The assistant also ran a photo booth during the reception for guest portraits (immensely popular; we bought inexpensive 5 x7 frames and guest took them home with their portraits (couples and groups too). Needed digital for that. We bought albums that were a nice mix of shots, both BW and color and she provided jpgs too. I think the key is to explain upfront what you are doing and why and the costs. Then deliver. The latter is more important than any particular piece of gear. If you think it is hard to keep things in order in your head it will be and then it might be better to simplify.

[unclebob]

Got the Leica M8 in last week and gave it a trial run. I found it handled well and found the viewfinder very nice. I was a little suprised that the shutter seemed loud (?). I don't remember my other M bodies being so clanky.

 

 

Have to say was somewhat dissapointed when all heck broke loose on the shutter as it rattled off numerous images. It just seemed like it was haunted as it did this numerous times.

 

I just lost all confidence with the M8.

 

 

The seller said all it needed was a firmware update, and I thought to myself all I need is a film body. Got a refund and a M7 body on the way with a matching 35mm Summilux pre-asph.

 

 

The M7 cost the same as the M8, so financially it's a sideways move. Lens was had at a fair price. My justification is I'm just consolidating toys. Could have gone with the M2, but I wanted some more modern convieneces.

 

 

I'll give it a nice test run in six weeks. A niece is getting married and I'll get to play UncleBob.

 

Long term... two/three years from now maybe ease back into weddings on some level. Digital RF's is the ultimate goal in that case.

 

Short term... just shoot baby!

[Riccis]

I would not recommend you to get into weddings just to pay for gear. If you decide to run a business you will need a solid business plan, a branding and marketing strategy, etc...

 

My advise instead would be for you to save and buy when you have enough to cover what you want and then just shoot for you.

 

Cheers,

[unclebob]

Riccis, thank you for chiming in, and I respect and appreciate your opinions.

 

I do miss shooting weddings.

 

It was a great gig as a second shooter.

 

What I don't miss is the endless hours behind a computer, wearing the multiple hats.... then trying to balance family and a day job with a photography business. That was brutal and sapped my desire and creativity.

 

My game plan is to shoot what I own and slowly build equipment.

 

Maybe this time next year I'll offer my services as a second shooter to scratch that itch.

 

Financially, that would be hard to justify doing without eventually going all in digital, thus the desire to moonlight.

 

I haven't met a bride or fellow wedding photographer that will make a second glance at a film phoographer.

[Riccis]

Riccis, thank you for chiming in, and I respect and appreciate your opinions.

 

I do miss shooting weddings.

 

It was a great gig as a second shooter.

 

What I don't miss is the endless hours behind a computer, wearing the multiple hats.... then trying to balance family and a day job with a photography business. That was brutal and sapped my desire and creativity.

 

My game plan is to shoot what I own and slowly build equipment.

 

Maybe this time next year I'll offer my services as a second shooter to scratch that itch.

 

Financially, that would be hard to justify doing without eventually going all in digital, thus the desire to moonlight.

 

I haven't met a bride or fellow wedding photographer that will make a second glance at a film phoographer.

 

Film/digital, that is irrelevant. The most important part is to have a style/signature of your own (and this also has nothing to do with gear or tools and more with your vision or what you want your work to say). I photograph weddings only with film and while some of my clients want film, the majority don't care about this (as it should be).

 

Good luck and best wishes!

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I don't see any issues with mixing media types. I've seen several wedding photographers do it successfully.

 

The thing that sticks out for me is the lack of a backup to the M8. If that goes down could you successfully shoot a whole wedding with just the two film bodies? How would the quality/quantity of the output be affected.

 

Personally I would think a pair of M8.2's makes more sense. And pick up a 21mm for the wider stuff.

 

Gordon

[honcho]

The most important decision to make about wedding photography is to decide how you will approach it as a photographer.

 

The second most important decision is to be honest with yourself because none of your other decisions regarding equipment or media will be of the slightest interest to most couples,. Your choice will have a direct effect on your aspirations.

 

I am rarely asked what cameras I use and is not a conversation I would encourage. My usp is what I do.

 

I can only speak for myself, but it would be impossible for me to operate my wedding photography business or photograph weddings In the way that I do if I were to use film. Direct costs are not viable, but more importantly I would not be prepared to lose the creative edge and seamless workflow that digital offers. That is how it has been for me since my overnight conversion to digital in 2000. To shoot a wedding with a combination of film mf and 35 mm on one Saturday and the next with an early dslr and a few lenses was a hair-raising experience but the Rubicon had been crossed.

 

To dispel the myth that digital equates to a machine gun approach, that is not so in my case. My method of working is more controlled now than ever before. This is how I prefer it.

 

It's interesting to see that some wedding photographers use only film. Good on them, if it works for them then their success is deserved. Whatever your choice of media, you will sink or swim based on your ability to use it.

[earleygallery]

It's interesting to see that some wedding photographers use only film. Good on them, if it works for them then their success is deserved. Whatever your choice of media, you will sink or swim based on your ability to use it.

 

Amazing isn't it, using film for weddings! Wedding photography never happened pre-digital of course.

 

But you're exactly right, whatever the medium, it's the end product that matters.

 

As for equipment, I would often get asked what camera would I be using. Stupid question because when I told them they'd look totally confused.

 

I always had the impression that as long as your camera didn't look like one the average guest was using they were happy - you were using a 'professional' camera.

 

As I said above, I would expect the average punter might be disappointed with their photos if shot on film without their prior knowledge or request, as the 'look' may be alien to them.

[Robert Seeney]

I shoot film and digital - people do notice the difference in my experience. It is just a matter of juggling 2 cameras on the day and having a feel for which will suit the image you are trying to achieve - I usually have an idea beforehand of what I am going to use and when depending on the event

 

Ratio is about 50/50 for me. M9 and an m6 with 21mm and 35mm with the 21mm being used for 70% of shots.