M8 & Pro Wedding photography

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wonder how he processed those shots. They almost look like some kind of cross-processing filter in Alien Skin. Anyone have any thoughts?

 

LOL!! You could ask him--Riccis has been posting throughout this thread--but other than talking about the colour palette I don't think he'll give you PS specifics:)

 

Having said that, if you want that look, there are any number of PS ways to skin that particular cat, Alien Skin being only one among hundreds, if not thousands

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[M'Ate]

Our job can be quite varied ....

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!

[M'Ate]

One never knows quite what is going to happen and focusing speed can be important.

 

This is just fun.

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!

[M'Ate]

And sometimes the B&G want something that's a little different from other weddings.

 

It's a job I enjoy. Hope y'all do.

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!

[thomasl.se]

^

Hand in pocket... you gotta help this fellow.

[NB23]

Looks like the classic of classics. Don't see anyhting different... But the careful with the white dress. Blown is a serious no-no unless the PP whole goes accordingly.

[M'Ate]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

^

Hand in pocket... you gotta help this fellow.

 

This is the fellow who needs a little assistance.

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!

[dcsang]

I like traditional stuff too - I mean, not every couple that you shoot will be (or should be) GQ and FHM cover models.

 

Sometimes the couples are introverted as well - it really depends on how good we can be at pulling them out of their shells and getting them to relax - or maybe we, ourselves, should relax a bit too

 

I like all these images !!!

 

Cheers,

Dave

[ammitsboel]

This is the fellow who needs a little assistance.

You are a mean guy.

Is it lux?

[ndjambrose]

Lots of great contributions. In the spirit of the above, this is why I only use Ms for weddings.

 

Sometimes you *can* shoot a wedding like street:

 

Sometimes you need definition and contrast even when backlit:

 

Some moments will never happen again; you need a great viewfinder in low light:

 

Sometimes you need a wide-angle with zero distortion -- and a tiny lens

[ndjambrose]

Sometimes IR sensitivity is good thing

 

Some decisive moments you can only get with a RF

 

... and some only with a Noctilux

[Albert4321]

.. get the same images with a DSLR but instead they may have a different look and it would have taken me at least 3x the amount of frames to ensure I had the shot I wanted... .

 

Riccis,

 

Can you explain the 3x part?

 

BTW, nice pics as usual.

 

Al

[Albert4321]

some pics from my 3 systems wedding couple weeks ago in Napa...

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!

[Riccis]

I wonder how he processed those shots. They almost look like some kind of cross-processing filter in Alien Skin. Anyone have any thoughts?

 

The majority of the images from that article were shot with the Canon 1Ds Mark II and the 45 mm tilt and shift lens and only one or two are from the M8 and 35 or 50 lux.

 

I am pretty sure the effect of the tilt and shift lens is what is getting most of your attention. My post-processing is very simple and only entails adding color layers set to different modes to darken or lighten certain areas of the image. You may also notice that I heavily use greens and browns in my color palette, that's about it.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Thanks,

[Riccis]

Riccis,

 

Can you explain the 3x part?

 

BTW, nice pics as usual.

 

Al

 

Thank you, Albert!

 

Whenever I used DSLRs I shot a little more since I would take sequences of images as insurance in order to guarantee to get at least one shot of the precise moment I wanted to capture...

 

The last image of the flower girl I posted is a great example of this. Like I previously stated, I wanted to capture that pivotal moment right before her mom pulled her back into the pews (if you look close enough you will be able to see how the mom's finger pressed against her forearm indicates that a split second after the image will be completely different and, IMHO, not that striking)... With a DSLR, I would have taken at least 3 shots since I can't tell what is going on during the mirror blackout no matter how fast the shutter speed (again, I respectfully disagree with Ned on this point ). With a rangefinder I can see what's going on at all times and even when shooting film (as it was in this case) I can more selectively take only the shots I want.

 

To answer another of Ned's earlier questions, I am explaining what I do since a lot of folks are sending me emails inquiring about my work and the philosophy behind my style of seeing and documenting weddings and I thought it would be nice for everyone interested to just read it on the thread.

 

Cheers,

[giordano]

The last image of the flower girl I posted is a great example of this. Like I previously stated, I wanted to capture that pivotal moment right before her mom pulled her back into the pews (if you look close enough you will be able to see how the mom's finger pressed against her forearm indicates that a split second after the image will be completely different and, IMHO, not that striking)... With a DSLR, I would have taken at least 3 shots since I can't tell what is going on during the mirror blackout no matter how fast the shutter speed (again, I respectfully disagree with Ned on this point ). With a rangefinder I can see what's going on at all times and even when shooting film (as it was in this case) I can more selectively take only the shots I want.

 

This is why I feel that "live" view and electronic viewfinders aren't a substitute. We can only ever see a subject as it was in the past, not as it is now, because of the speed of light and the time it takes our brains to process the light that hits our retinas. An electronic system inevitably introduces a further delay. What's more current "live view" systems seem to freeze the viewfinder image while the exposure is made and the image data read to the buffer, so (as with a SLR) you can't see the moment of the exposure.

 

I suppose the way to overcome this problem is to have the camera start capturing images to a 60-frame buffer at 60 fps as soon as you half-press the shutter release and stop a few frames after you press it fully. Then you can be sure that one frame contains the decisive moment ... but what if you needed a slow shutter speed?

[M'Ate]

Interesting comments on freezing the decisive moment. However, in reality, situations 'develop' and one decisive moment can be followed quickly by a second, third etc ......

 

Now, I've found that with hand cranking, recovery from the first shot causes the one to miss the immediate following opportunity. The M8 is not fast, although an improvement on the lever (BTW, I can wind a 36 exposure film through in less than a minute, but that's not taking pictures). So, if your first shot is spoiled by an unpredictable blink, do you just move on and discount that scene ?

 

I really can't understand why a decisive moment is not captured equally by a dslr, or a TLR for that matter where shutter lag is not an issue. It's just anticipation and releasing the shutter at the moment. Perhaps you can explain why there is difficulty in doing this. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not questioning your preference for RF or knowing that things were in place when the photo was taken, but to the suggestion that you couldn't grab a decisive moment with a DSLR doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

What's more, how many of the photos in our wedding portfolios are truly 'decisive moments' ? Having just looked at every shot posted here I suggest that there's really only the yawn and the kiss posted by Riccis which were shots that would disappear in front of you before you got a second chance. All the others, and there are some really nice shots here, could be captured with any hand held camera with or without motor wind, IMO. One of the reasons I'm going back to M's is because i want to slow down, want to be more contemplative, in spite of the risk of missing some shots that a DSLR (I) could capture because of it's speed. For example, pre-focusing for the walk back up the aisle might give two or three opportunities with an M7, but if someone steps in front with a phone cam, etc, etc the photo was lost and recovering is tough.

 

Neil, I've followed your terrific 36photos blog for a long time and am a great admirer of your work. It's really nice to see how you've carried your style forward into the wedding work. Perhaps you could comment on the above as you truly are a skilled street photographer, with moments coming and going at a rapid rate in front of you AND you're using M8 AND hand wind (I presume) on film M's AND you used DSLR's until 9 months ago for weddings. What differences do you experience and especially what does the M8 do, if anything, differntly to the other tools you've used? Apologies if that's a burden.

[Riccis]

M'Ate - You can definitely get the shots with a DSLR but as I stated previously there are certain circumstances where I would take a sequence of images to ensure I get the one capture I was trying to record. There is nothing wrong with this approach, I just don't want to shoot hundreds of images taking place fractions of seconds apart.

 

Cheers,

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[M'Ate]

M'Ate - You can definitely get the shots with a DSLR but as I stated previously there are certain circumstances where I would take a sequence of images to ensure I get the one capture I was trying to record. There is nothing wrong with this approach, I just don't want to shoot hundreds of images taking place fractions of seconds apart.

 

Cheers,

 

Thanks Riccis. That's what I understood. I can only presume you were using a dslr with a shutter lag that took some level of confidence away, or it's a personal thing. Pressing the shutter button on a Canon or Nikon Pro series camera captures the very scene you saw. I look forward to Neil's comments.

 

I agree entirely with you on the number of frames to be processed. It is a pain in the A. There's no doubt that digital capture, including the M8, encourages additional images. Here there's shooters claiming 60,000 shots on an M8 and they're landscape shooters! Even with Lightroom, finding the best from a group of 10 images of a similar scene absorbs a great deal of time, multiply that by 100 and it is painful.

 

What's more, by comparing wedding albums I can see that the extra shots rarely mattered. I got all the photos I needed with 10 rolls. Shooting 3 shots of the Bride's make-up provides that material needed. Shooting 30, over a longer period of time adds nothing. Hence my interest in going back to the M's.

 

Basically, I went from Leica M film/CD to DSLR to avoid the delay caused by processing and scanning. Up to 3 years ago, I hadn't owned an SLR (excl MF) for over 20 years and I never missed it. I never wanted to own one and get no buzz from using one, but it's a good tool and can do most jobs.

 

regards

[ndjambrose]

Wow, that's a lot of questions. Here goes:

 

I don't think there's a strong dependency between the decisive moment and the camera. In most cases the decisive moment has to be seen before it happens; the trick is to anticipate the moment rather than recognise it. And if someone can't anticipate then it doesn't really matter whether they're using a RF or a SLR; it will be equally hard to catch with both.

 

Where RFs have a slight edge for me is I get a better view through the finder, making it easier to assess the scene. Often my eye has been caught by a moment about to happen outside the framelines, and I can get it with a quick recomposition. But the finder can also be a curse; sometimes I've clipped people's feet in tight compositions when shooting vertically with an auxiliary finder. Uncorrected parallax can be a problem at certain distances, and the M8 is particularly bad for that.

 

I think my strongest preference for using M's is that they're not automated. I gave up DSLRs when I found I was fighting the camera more than using it. On one occasion a D200 decided not to take the shot when I pressed the shutter because it couldn't confirm focus. I'm aware that this feature can be turned off, but for me it was too late - the damage was done. I expect to be in charge of the camera, and I don't want one that thinks it knows better, or where I have to set multiple custom menu options to get it to behave. There may be a few occasions when I don't get perfect focus, but I hit more than I miss, and my average is better than any DSLR I've used, especially in low light. And a soft shot is nearly always better than no shot. So, having tried automation, I didn't find it was what I wanted. Not to say that it doesn't work well for other people.

 

In respect of winders, I think that's dependent on style again. I've spoken to some shooters who clock up over 2,000 frames per wedding, but even with three cameras I've never shot more than 700. And of those 700, I expect 400 to be candidates for an album. So my shooting style is deliberate and considered, and winding the film on - or even switching between multiple cameras - has never really interfered. And I seldom feel the urge to shoot more than 4 consecutive frames of anything. Even the bride walking down the aisle is a 4 framer for me, although I know others who could easily shoot it in 60 frames in burst mode.

 

The particular pros/cons of the M8 have been covered quite well so far, I think. My thoughts ... the absolute best thing about the M8 is using Leica lenses with digital workflow. The worst thing is quality at high ISO. While it's better now that with previous firmware, I still prefer to shoot 640 and below. If I need faster I'd rather use film. General reliability is fine - on the whole as good as any other digital camera I've used, and better than some. I had an S2 Pro with a totally fried-sensor, which puts the IR issue in perspective. But battery life is very poor. For which reason I wouldn't want to rely on just an M8. I always use it with an MP for redundancy.

 

So I think it comes down to personal choice and working style. There's no doubt that my approach has been conditioned by street photography, and my choices made accordingly. I prefer the subject to be unaware of the camera, and I work a wedding like I work a street - looking for light, for moments, for emotions. I don't waste frames and I pick my shots. And after using an M for street the past 2 years, it's become absolute second-nature to me. I can now usually guess exposure and focus even without looking through the finder, which makes it just about the quickest camera I can use.

 

And finally, M'Ate - many thanks for checking my blog. I never really know who looks at it, so I'm always pleased when people have feedback. Especially so if they've enjoyed it.