Jump to content

which film M for pro-use?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, wattsy said:

My mileage is that I have bought the camera in question – more than once. I daresay you are just speculating based on what you read on the internet.

Nope, just the idea that a new camera is likely going to be more reliable than an old one. I know that's not always the case, but on balance it should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/16/2018 at 5:46 AM, frogfish said:

I respectfully disagree.

I believe images were a gusts just smiles into the camera does not really shows who he is, or was. It just documents that he was there and what he was wearing. (and THIS is already documented by themselves with all the selfie-stuff).


But if you get an images, where he softly touches the hand of his spouse. When, for a glimpse of a second, they look each other in the eyes, you see who this person really is and what he loves. 
And you will still see this in 40 years...

keep it real (0:

 

heiko

I am very much keeping it real, perhaps more so than you who seems wedded to art over function. Plenty of personality comes out from table shots, and I am not suggesting that the other more arty candid shots shouldn't be taken. When one shoots a "candid" wedding, however, there is no way everyone who was there is in a picture, let a lone a picture where you can fully see them. Absolutely impossible, especially for a pretty standard 150 to 200 guest wedding -- where a lot of thought went into who was going to be invited. Those loving looks? After 40 years, if you are still married tot he same person, you realize you know and love each other so much more today and more than you thought you did at the time -- after all you have likely survived a lifetime of births, deaths, health issues, financial wins and losses, etc. And these candid shots, however wonderful today, will look sooooo 2018 when 2058 rolls around (look at the 1970 albums that were very hip and up-to-date and modern at the time) -- not that we will be around to notice but the young folk getting married today will be. Take all the candids you and your clients want, and you will by dint of your personality and your contract, but I stand by my statement, what they will really want to see in 2058 is who was there. That is the primary responsibility of the "reportage" of a wedding album -- get the ceremony and everyone there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 4 Stunden schrieb sblitz:

I am very much keeping it real, perhaps more so than you who seems wedded to art over function. Plenty of personality comes out from table shots, and I am not suggesting that the other more arty candid shots shouldn't be taken. When one shoots a "candid" wedding, however, there is no way everyone who was there is in a picture, let a lone a picture where you can fully see them. Absolutely impossible, especially for a pretty standard 150 to 200 guest wedding -- where a lot of thought went into who was going to be invited. Those loving looks? After 40 years, if you are still married tot he same person, you realize you know and love each other so much more today and more than you thought you did at the time -- after all you have likely survived a lifetime of births, deaths, health issues, financial wins and losses, etc. And these candid shots, however wonderful today, will look sooooo 2018 when 2058 rolls around (look at the 1970 albums that were very hip and up-to-date and modern at the time) -- not that we will be around to notice but the young folk getting married today will be. Take all the candids you and your clients want, and you will by dint of your personality and your contract, but I stand by my statement, what they will really want to see in 2058 is who was there. That is the primary responsibility of the "reportage" of a wedding album -- get the ceremony and everyone there.

if you say so...

Edited by frogfish
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Nowhereman
9 hours ago, sblitz said:

...When one shoots a "candid" wedding, however, there is no way everyone who was there is in a picture, let a lone a picture where you can fully see them. Absolutely impossible, especially for a pretty standard 150 to 200 guest wedding -- where a lot of thought went into who was going to be invited...but I stand by my statement, what they will really want to see in 2058 is who was there. That is the primary responsibility of the "reportage" of a wedding album -- get the ceremony and everyone there.

Steve - I think you're talking about a completely different market than the one Heiko is addressing. The people who want all the 150-200 guests in the pictures wouldn't have Heiko do their weddings, and vice versa. However, I don't see the point of the approach you prefer: in 40-50 years the people looking at the pictures won't know who all the grinning faces are — unless there is text identifying each individual by name and relationship to the bride and groom. Though I must admit my bias: I don't think I'd be interested in the type of people who want what you suggest — not likely to be my friends: my bias, as I said.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Nowhereman Instagram

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Nowhereman
On 10/16/2018 at 2:21 PM, frogfish said:

...So why film? I feel I need to do it. A new challenge? Maybe. But I want to explore it, who knows what I might find for myself this time... 
Oh, and one more thing. I believe an image created on film and printed is more likely to be called art then when shot digitally and edited on a computer...

Pretty much the reasons that I went back a year ago to shooting film (Tri-X and Portra 400) occasionally — and digitalizing using a Leitz BEOON stand + Focotar-2 50mm + M10. 

Handling the M6 and M3 is more fun than the M10. The results are more contingent, and sometimes having a look that I would not easily have gotten with digital. Also, no worries about highlight rendition in harsh, tropical sun. But the digitalization is obviously a pain...Do you plan to print digitally or in the darkroom?

I'd be interested in hearing how you find doing the weddings on film. I assume you'll eventually have something on your blog about it.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Nowhwereman Instagram

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 7 Stunden schrieb frogfish:

if you say so...

on further thought and similar to what Nowhereman said...

People are different. People like me would probably not book someone like you and vice versa.

I am not interested in the masks people show. And that is all you get if you make portraits of 150 wedding guests. I want to see who people are when they let their guard down. And they very often do when they feel emotional overwhelmed and feel safe at the same time. This and only this is, why I attend weddings at all. 

There is no right or wrong, we just have different opinions (0:

 

Heiko



 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Nowhereman:

Do you plan to print digitally or in the darkroom?

I'd be interested in hearing how you find doing the weddings on film. I assume you'll eventually have something on your blog about it.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Nowhwereman Instagram

good question...

I feel that digitalising the images lead the whole thing ad absurdum. However, I suspect that is necessary nowadays. 

Probably scanning the gro of the work, print a bigger set "reportage-set" digitally, make a fine handcrafted album and give some fine-art prints done the old way.

We have an employee who also shoots her own weddings and do part of our post-processing. She would love to do darkroom work.

That all is a huge amount of work and I do not know a bleep if I can ever manage to sell something like that. But that is the "dream". 



And what is the purpose of reachable dreams? Then you have plans, but no dreams, right?

 

Heiko

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nowhereman said:

Steve - I think you're talking about a completely different market than the one Heiko is addressing. The people who want all the 150-200 guests in the pictures wouldn't have Heiko do their weddings, and vice versa. However, I don't see the point of the approach you prefer: in 40-50 years the people looking at the pictures won't know who all the grinning faces are — unless there is text identifying each individual by name and relationship to the bride and groom. Though I must admit my bias: I don't think I'd be interested in the type of people who want what you suggest — not likely to be my friends: my bias, as I said.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Nowhereman Instagram

This isn't an either or issue, nor is it a question of my being your type of friend. This wonderful arty look where you believe you are capturing the heart and soul of the bride and groom is, well, a bit of a conceit considering how half of marriages end in divorce. If the one you shot does end that way, well you clearly captured a moment but not everything. Look, my point is the photos are nice and a wonderful artful memory of "how we felt on the big day" but don''t think you captured anything particularly deep. Second, I know everyone who was at my wedding and remember them all. I still don't understand how this high horse you and Heiko are on is so high that also having a record of who was there is so ruinous to your approach and why wanting that record makes someone like myself so unappealing to you and your art. Besides, what seems like an unrevealing snapshot to you today can turn out to be a meaningful and insightful photo of that person when viewed years later. Time passes and with it styles and art forms. What is considered art today can look ridiculous and dated to the same people years from now. If that wasn't true, your pictures would look like something people thought of as arty in the 1950s or perhaps even 10 years ago, and your pictures today will look different in a year or two or three. Why? Did souls change? No your style did. And that's okay, it is the process of your art. Don't make too big a stand for what you are doing today because you will be doing something different soon enough. But, it's nice to have a photo record of who was there.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 26 Minuten schrieb sblitz:

This isn't an either or issue, nor is it a question of my being your type of friend. This wonderful arty look where you believe you are capturing the heart and soul of the bride and groom is, well, a bit of a conceit considering how half of marriages end in divorce. If the one you shot does end that way, well you clearly captured a moment but not everything. Look, my point is the photos are nice and a wonderful artful memory of "how we felt on the big day" but don''t think you captured anything particularly deep. Second, I know everyone who was at my wedding and remember them all. I still don't understand how this high horse you and Heiko are on is so high that also having a record of who was there is so ruinous to your approach and why wanting that record makes someone like myself so unappealing to you and your art. Besides, what seems like an unrevealing snapshot to you today can turn out to be a meaningful and insightful photo of that person when viewed years later. Time passes and with it styles and art forms. What is considered art today can look ridiculous and dated to the same people years from now. If that wasn't true, your pictures would look like something people thought of as arty in the 1950s or perhaps even 10 years ago, and your pictures today will look different in a year or two or three. Why? Did souls change? No your style did. And that's okay, it is the process of your art. Don't make too big a stand for what you are doing today because you will be doing something different soon enough. But, it's nice to have a photo record of who was there.

Sorry, when I came across sitting on a high horse. I simply do love reportage. Also nearly all of the portraits and the arty stuff on my website is candid. 
 

For me, and only for me, documenting who was there is the dullest of things someone could do at a wedding. And I, personally, don't see the meaning, the why. 

All guests who attend and can use their mobile will take exactly those kind of photos ad nauseum. Nothing else. They will grin in the camera, show their dresses and that's it. How can I as a hired professional expecting to get thousands of dollars for a few hours when I do exactly the same as all the guests with their mobiles. And Uncle Bob, coming with his Canon 1d-soemthing will also make these shots, with decent quality and f1.2.

Deep, meaningful portraits, where you are in a one-to-one situation, take your time and get something out of this person that is not easily visible, that I consider meaningful. But making quick headshots of 150 people? There is no skill, there is no creativity, there is not even the attempt to create something like art. So why do it?

 

Heiko

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Steve Ricoh:

Heiko, have you considered the risk of film processing going tits-up, eg a fault at development time. I wonder if it's safer to use a digital camera with dual SD card? Film is fun to use and has a distinct look about it, but if something goes wrong during processing you can't easily replace what is lost.

I hear you. Of course there is risk. As is shooting with a Leica M with their one card. I will minimise risk by developing the film in my own darkroom. So it will not leave the house. 
Also, the client needs to be informed. That shooting film is different, that you do not have all the possibilities that digital has.

On the other hand you get something "real", another medium that allows for a greater emotional attachment to the image simply through the way it emerged. Its like if you compare a handprinted piece of art with a cheap poster. Even if the final image does not look that different, its the perceived value that counts.

 

Heiko

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Nowhereman
1 hour ago, sblitz said:

...Second, I know everyone who was at my wedding and remember them all. I still don't understand how this high horse you and Heiko are on is so high that also having a record of who was there is so ruinous to your approach and why wanting that record makes someone like myself so unappealing to you and your art. Besides, what seems like an unrevealing snapshot to you today can turn out to be a meaningful and insightful photo of that person when viewed years later. Time passes and with it styles and art forms. What is considered art today can look ridiculous and dated to the same people years from now. If that wasn't true, your pictures would look like something people thought of as arty in the 1950s or perhaps even 10 years ago, and your pictures today will look different in a year or two or three. Why? Did souls change? No your style did...

Steve - I'm not a professional photographer, nor have I ever photographed a wedding. When I say, blithely, that I'm more likely to be friends with someone who is a client of Heiko's, it's only musing on a perceived probability that could easily be wrong, for people who "like art" don't necessarily make better friends, nor are necessarily more interesting people. Also, I don't mean any reflection on you one way and on Heiko in another way.

We're only expressing opinions. However, I don't think that photographic art from many decades ago will necessarily look dated. Think of Dr Paul Wolff, who published books to popularize Leica photography in the thirties and forties —even his best  pictures are eminently forgettable. Not Robert Frank's, though — he is an artist.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Nowhereman Instagram

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for style of wedding photography, it's personal, much the same as the type of wedding people choose to have - some want formal/traditional, some want the complete opposite.

There is demand and a place for both. I don't think the "my style is better than your style" arguments here are necessary.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

As for style of wedding photography, it's personal, much the same as the type of wedding people choose to have - some want formal/traditional, some want the complete opposite.

There is demand and a place for both. I don't think the "my style is better than your style" arguments here are necessary.

I just don't see the conflict of having both in a wedding album. Indexes are needed but no one reads them until they need to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Steve Ricoh said:

Heiko, have you considered the risk of film processing going tits-up, eg a fault at development time. I wonder if it's safer to use a digital camera with dual SD card? Film is fun to use and has a distinct look about it, but if something goes wrong during processing you can't easily replace what is lost.

Yes, that is a real risk but wedding and event photographers have used film successfully since the stuff was invented. Any "old school" photographer will be able to tell you many horror stories of catastrophic mistakes by labs and assistants (and photographers) and, in the worst cases, contrived reshoots having to be arranged but that is what good insurance is for.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, frogfish said:

But making quick headshots of 150 people? There is no skill, there is no creativity, there is not even the attempt to create something like art. So why do it?

Building on that thought as well as the person who spoke about having a record 50 years later... you could take a full set of clinical expressionless portraits of all guests as an artful addition to your services.  A Düsseldorf School approach as it were.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I like Heiko's style, but that's by the way. More importantly it's whether the clients like his style, and I'm sure they will be given plenty of opportunity to study his portfolio prior to the booking, and to the day itself. 

Personally I think an 'old school' colour emulsion would suit, rather than the more precise professional Portra. I'm thinking something like Kodak Gold or Colorplus or Ultramax. Nice mellow-yellow tones. Black and white should be an easier choice.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we've strayed off topic. Back to the original question I would say either a new MP, or an MA if you can live without the light meter, or a recently serviced M6, or one of the previous M models without a LM. Either way you'll need two, one for B&W and one for colour, plus you'll have as a backup.

Edited by Steve Ricoh
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, harmen said:

you could take a full set of clinical expressionless portraits of all guests as an artful addition to your services.  A Düsseldorf School approach as it were.

 

AKA "deadpan"

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...