I like film...(open thread)

[Paul Verrips]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M7/Summicron 35/Ilford FP4+/Ilford D-DX home development:

 

Porto; I really like the atmosphere of Portugal!

[Doc Henry]

 

M7/Summicron 35/Ilford FP4+/Ilford D-DX home development:

 

Porto; I really like the atmosphere of Portugal!

 

 

Yes Paul you're right , my next visit not too far from France

Less 2 hours of flight. As you show in your posts great street photos to do there

Thanks Paul. This last picture is superb b&w tone, composition and framing

Best

Henry

Edited April 21, 2017 by Doc Henry

[Tmx]

Yes, it is. And so easy to develop with D76. I´m done with testing, just shooting. Very relaxing ;-)

Hi Klaus,

 

Well done. What dilution, time and agitation?

 

Best regards

Jakob

[DirkR440]

my wife still prefers digital... :-)

 

Rolleiflex 3.5f and Fuji Acros

 

Leica by Dirk Raffel, auf Flickr

[honcho]

I don't think my wife would let me remortgage the house ☹ Besides, i love shooting wedding on my Sony A7Rii it feels closer to film than the canon's i've used for years. I would love to use an M10 at a wedding though, so if there are any sponsors out there

 

 I would personally find an M10 horribly restrictive and frustrating to use for wedding photography.  No doubt others would disagree, but it would be the photographic equivalent of a hair shirt to me.  It's a digital Leica M and for professional wedding use, I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw one.

 

Now, here's a wedding photographer who gave a very interesting talk and presentation that I attended in St Albans last night.  David Weightman photographs weddings with a 5x4 camera and I like his approach:

 

https://www.marriedtomycamera.com/

[Doc Henry]

We're these yesterday?

 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

We have nice time currently , have you took Eurostar ?

Gary how many days in Paris ?

Best

Henry

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 I would personally find an M10 horribly restrictive and frustrating to use for wedding photography.  No doubt others would disagree, but it would be the photographic equivalent of a hair shirt to me.  It's a digital Leica M and for professional wedding use, I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw one.

 

Now, here's a wedding photographer who gave a very interesting talk and presentation that I attended in St Albans last night.  David Weightman photographs weddings with a 5x4 camera and I like his approach:

 

https://www.marriedtomycamera.com/

 

Steve,I think you have an "artistic" side (sometimes we forget) , a little blurry side in some pictures  ,soft 

when you watch wedding pictures in film ! It touches and inspires me more !

Henry

[Doc Henry]

my wife still prefers digital... :-)

 

Rolleiflex 3.5f and Fuji Acros

 

Leica by Dirk Raffel, auf Flickr

 

She can but not sure the beauty is there !

Best

H.

[honcho]

Steve,I think you have an "artistic" side (sometimes we forget) , a little blurry side in some pictures  ,soft 

when you watch wedding pictures in film ! It touches and inspires me more !

Henry

 

Henry, if it were economically viable for me to photograph weddings with film I would do, but it is not! 

 

I don't play at being a wedding photographer, I do it for a living and there are times when the reality of running a business (for myself) has to be understood.  I agree with you on the aesthetics, as always.

[gsgary]

We have nice time currently , have you took Eurostar ?

Gary how many days in Paris ?

Best

Henry

Only once in Paris in 1972 when my town was twinned with Biezier in south of France, but been all over since on motorbike

 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[A miller]

Henry, if it were economically viable for me to photograph weddings with film I would do, but it is not! 

 

I don't play at being a wedding photographer, I do it for a living and there are times when the reality of running a business (for myself) has to be understood.  I agree with you on the aesthetics, as always.

 

Steve - I am not quite following the logic.  On the theory that "you get what you pay for," wouldn't you be able to charge more for a film wedding album, or at least a partially film wedding album (such as using your Hassy for some outside photos in natural light)?  On your logic, there would be no successful wedding photographer who shoots with film (even to a significant extent).  Yet, there indeed are many.  I know it is the easy road to just use digital.  And I know that most clients probably wouldn't be able to appreciate the difference.  But many do.  And I think that many don't know that they will be happier in the long run with an album based exclusively or partially with film b/c they are so keen on their budget and don't have the foresight to be able to visualize what their album and hangable prints would look like when it is all said and done.  Most  photographers these days not only shoot in digital but also in jpeg; and most don't even carefully edit the photos that make it into the albums.  To me, this is a tragedy and a disservice not only to the client but also to the craft.  True that there is time involved to edit RAW files, and time is of course money.  But clients should have a choice, and they should be presented with a sample of an album that consists of large unedited (with the exception of a global WB adjustment) jpegs files, an album that contains carefully edited RAW files (which will be considerably more expensive, but will show MUCH better) and an album that contains carefully edited film scans (this would be the premium product and I think what you would be able to do with your choice B&W and color film stocks would make a very compelling case).  True, film scans aren't necessarily the way it used to be done a long time ago.  But I think that for outdoor romantic scenes and even family scenes the use of B&W film stocks and different color film stocks can really make a magical - even on scans.  And this is what people really desire- even though they may not realize it at the time.  The photos and albums are long-term investments that will last many generations.  A very compelling case can and should be made that special attention should be placed on the quality of the photos in the album.  

 

I'd love to see you offer some kind of film photography as part of your portfolio of services.

[gsgary]

Steve - I am not quite following the logic. On the theory that "you get what you pay for," wouldn't you be able to charge more for a film wedding album, or at least a partially film wedding album (such as using your Hassy for some outside photos in natural light)? On your logic, there would be no successful wedding photographer who shoots with film (even to a significant extent). Yet, there indeed are many. I know it is the easy road to just use digital. And I know that most clients probably wouldn't be able to appreciate the difference. But many do. And I think that many don't know that they will be happier in the long run with an album based exclusively or partially with film b/c they are so keen on their budget and don't have the foresight to be able to visualize what their album and hangable prints would look like when it is all said and done. Most photographers these days not only shoot in digital but also in jpeg; and most don't even carefully edit the photos that make it into the albums. To me, this is a tragedy and a disservice not only to the client but also to the craft. True that there is time involved to edit RAW files, and time is of course money. But clients should have a choice, and they should be presented with a sample of an album that consists of large unedited (with the exception of a global WB adjustment) jpegs files, an album that contains carefully edited RAW files (which will be considerably more expensive, but will show MUCH better) and an album that contains carefully edited film scans (this would be the premium product and I think what you would be able to do with your choice B&W and color film stocks would make a very compelling case). True, film scans aren't necessarily the way it used to be done a long time ago. But I think that for outdoor romantic scenes and even family scenes the use of B&W film stocks and different color film stocks can really make a magical - even on scans. And this is what people really desire- even though they may not realize it at the time. The photos and albums are long-term investments that will last many generations. A very compelling case can and should be made that special attention should be placed on the quality of the photos in the album.

 

I'd love to see you offer some kind of film photography as part of your portfolio of services.

I know a wedding photographer that has gone back to film and makes a lot more than when he shot digital, I keep getting asked to shoot weddings by people who know I only shoot film but I have shot 3 weddings and 2 couples are now divorced so I'm sticking to dogs

 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

[honcho]

Steve - I am not quite following the logic.  On the theory that "you get what you pay for," wouldn't you be able to charge more for a film wedding album, or at least a partially film wedding album (such as using your Hassy for some outside photos in natural light)?  On your logic, there would be no successful wedding photographer who shoots with film (even to a significant extent).  Yet, there indeed are many.  I know it is the easy road to just use digital.  And I know that most clients probably wouldn't be able to appreciate the difference.  But many do.  And I think that many don't know that they will be happier in the long run with an album based exclusively or partially with film b/c they are so keen on their budget and don't have the foresight to be able to visualize what their album and hangable prints would look like when it is all said and done.  Most  photographers these days not only shoot in digital but also in jpeg; and most don't even carefully edit the photos that make it into the albums.  To me, this is a tragedy and a disservice not only to the client but also to the craft.  True that there is time involved to edit RAW files, and time is of course money.  But clients should have a choice, and they should be presented with a sample of an album that consists of large unedited (with the exception of a global WB adjustment) jpegs files, an album that contains carefully edited RAW files (which will be considerably more expensive, but will show MUCH better) and an album that contains carefully edited film scans (this would be the premium product and I think what you would be able to do with your choice B&W and color film stocks would make a very compelling case).  True, film scans aren't necessarily the way it used to be done a long time ago.  But I think that for outdoor romantic scenes and even family scenes the use of B&W film stocks and different color film stocks can really make a magical - even on scans.  And this is what people really desire- even though they may not realize it at the time.  The photos and albums are long-term investments that will last many generations.  A very compelling case can and should be made that special attention should be placed on the quality of the photos in the album.  

 

I'd love to see you offer some kind of film photography as part of your portfolio of services.

Would you draw up legal documents for your clients with a quill?   

 

Of course it's possible to photograph weddings with film and you are correct to say that some wedding photographers do use film and use that as a usp.  I admire them for doing so, but they are a small minority and the majority of those do not photograph that many weddings annually.  You probably know enough about me via this thread to understand that I have repeatedly revisited the idea of returning to film for weddings, but it simply is not viable from any direction.  

 

Further, I do not use digital cameras for wedding photography 'because it is the easy road' and you would have to examine my range of sample wedding albums before making any such comments as you do above.

 

It would be a very nice thing to confidently quadruple my costs, for that is what I would need to do to justify the additional expense and time involved (yes, I do have an hourly rate!), the problem I then would have would be convincing couples why my costs to photograph their wedding would be equivalent to a newish  car! 

 

Your wedding photographer's film Nirvana sounds wonderful, but there is only one person who I would trust enough to scan my negatives and that is me.  West Coast Imaging at a push, possibly, with all the additional uncertainty, time and expense involved.

 

Try it, then let me know how you get on.

Edited April 21, 2017 by honcho

[A miller]

Would you draw up legal documents for your clients with a quill?   

 

Of course it's possible to photograph weddings with film and you are correct to say that some wedding photographers do use film and use that as a usp.  I admire them for doing so, but they are a small minority and the majority of those do not photograph that many weddings annually.  You probably know enough about me via this thread to understand that I have repeatedly revisited the idea of returning to film for weddings, but it simply is not viable from any direction.  

 

Further, I do not use digital cameras for wedding photography 'because it is the easy road' and you would have to examine my range of sample wedding albums before making any such comments as you do above.

 

It would be a very nice thing to confidently quadruple my costs, for that is what I would need to do to justify the additional expense and time involved (yes, I do have an hourly rate!), the problem I then would have would be convincing couples why my costs to photograph their wedding would be equivalent to a newish  car! 

 

Your wedding photographer's film Nirvana sounds wonderful, but there is only one person who I would trust enough to scan my negatives and that is me.  West Coast Imaging at a push, possibly, with all the additional uncertainty, time and expense involved.

 

Try it, then let me know how you get on.

 

Steve - You haven't shared with us whether you shoot your wedding photos in raw or jpeg.  I am sure that whatever format, you make really beautiful results.  That said, I am still struggling for that compelling case as to why you wouldn't at least put a price tag on a film-workflow and see if anyone bites.  If it is truly 4 times the work, then charge 4 times the price and get 4 times the profit!  Or charge some smaller multiple over your base price in a way that still makes it worth your while.   I particularly am at a loss as to why you don't see the beauty in the idea of using film for those outdoor natural light photos in which a Hassy or Film M can be used with ease.   I'm talking only a couple of rolls that can produce a nice selection of photos for a lifetime(s).  

 

Having said all of this, I am sure there is a lot of sense to the workflow that you have chosen.  I just find it a bit frustrating that you can't "marry" your two passions (film and shooting weddings and making your clients happy).  I am just allergic to the idea that it must be only digital.  But you are the expert.  I am merely a muse... 

Edited April 21, 2017 by A miller

[A miller]

Wall Street, NYC

IIIg, 50mm collapsible, Portra 400

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 21, 2017 by A miller

[honcho]

Steve - You haven't shared with us whether you shoot your wedding photos in raw or jpeg.  I am sure that whatever format, you make really beautiful results.  That said, I am still struggling for that compelling case as to why you wouldn't at least put a price tag on a film-workflow and see if anyone bites.  If it is truly 4 times the work, then charge 4 times the price and get 4 times the profit!  Or charge some smaller multiple over your base price in a way that still makes it worth your while.   I particularly am at a loss as to why you don't see the beauty in the idea of using film for those outdoor natural light photos in which a Hassy or Film M can be used with ease.   I'm talking only a couple of rolls that can produce a nice selection of photos for a lifetime(s).  

 

Having said all of this, I am sure there is a lot of sense to the workflow that you have chosen.  I just find it a bit frustrating that you can't "marry" your two passions (film and shooting weddings and making your clients happy).  I am just allergic to the idea that it must be only digital.  But you are the expert.  Am I merely a muse... 

I tried the 'mix and match' film with digital idea around 2007.  The plain fact is, the vast majority of couples could not give a flying one about cameras, medium or how the images are printed.  Finding the ones who do understand, and enough of them, is the key.

 

I know of one wedding photographer in Cumbria who says he is doing well with  black and white film and fibre-based prints since he abandoned digital wedding photography a couple of years ago.  That would be far easier and more sensible to manage than trying to  pass off film and digital mongrel wedding albums as somehow being 'superior'.  

 

 

Let's look at things from another angle:  if I could persuade couples these days to pay me £5k to photograph their wedding (10years ago, I was not far off that goal), why would I add to my overheads for the sake of using a bit of film?

Edited April 21, 2017 by honcho

[A miller]

 

Let's look at things from another angle:  if I could persuade couples these days to pay me £5k to photograph their wedding (10years ago, I was not far off that goal), why would I add to my overheads for the sake of using a bit of film?

 

Yes, this is the brutal reality of needing to make a living.  I do like the idea of offering a portfolio of silver gelatin prints on B&W film, though.  I just come back to my comment that what you are doing will make a lasting impression on the couple's family for potentially many generations.   Of course a few silver gelatin prints from you will be a gift that keeps on giving.... 

[honcho]

Yes, this is the brutal reality of needing to make a living.  I do like the idea of offering a portfolio of silver gelatin prints on B&W film, though.  I just come back to my comment that what you are doing will make a lasting impression on the couple's family for potentially many generations.   Of course a few silver gelatin prints from you will be a gift that keeps on giving.... 

Going back to my earlier post about the presentation I attended last night, when the time comes that I can cherry-pick  I wouldn't rule out the large format approach of David Weightman.

 

You will have seen Shane Balkowitsch's absolutely stunning Native Americans work with wet collodion on the Film Photographers International Facebook group.  Now, that would be really tempting.....for the right price! 

[chrism]

I don't think I would undertake to photograph a wedding for any amount of pay! But my best man took this one in 1980. He had a Canon AE-1, and while I scanned this negative, I can't be bothered to dig through all those paper envelopes in the basement to report the film used.

 

1980 by chrism229, on Flickr

 

C.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[gnuyork]

I have shot a couple weddings (digital). I did not enjoy it so much. However, I might change my tune, if I could shoot wedding in all B&W film (only) and make silver prints. And charge accordingly.  But finding those clients would be tough these days. And I'm not experienced enough to deliver on that. But I've told myself that's the only way I'd be down for shooting weddings.