Wedding photography

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Caesar, Jul 8, 2007.

  1. Caesar

    Caesar Guest

    Hi,

    I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
    years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
    photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
    I have to attend to the weddings anyway.

    I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
    option and would be only a back-up.

    I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
    why go "backwards" and not digital.
    Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
    (price, time consumption and quality).

    I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
    use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
    Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
    Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
    it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
    shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
    light and sand).
    Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
    be sufficient?
    No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
    (minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).

    Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?

    Thank you for your input.

    Cheers
    Caesar
     
    Caesar, Jul 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. A Hasselblad or Rollie MF SLR.

    Shoot black and white film.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Jul 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. The 10D came out in the spring of 2003.
    Well, you need some decent lights. But beyond that, since you're asking
    questions like this, it indicates that you're not ready to be charging
    people money to photograph once-in-a-lifetime events.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 8, 2007
    #3
  4. Just curious as to how film photography is more cost effective than
    digital...
     
    the_niner_nation, Jul 8, 2007
    #4
  5. Caesar

    Caesar Guest

    Hi Randall,

    Thank you very much for your reply- much appreciated!

    I apologize for misleading the NG. It should say: I still have a Canon
    10D which I bought nearly 5 years ago (4.3 years ago).

    I also appreciate your comment that I'm not ready for the photography
    because I asked questions about the equipment I want to purchase.

    Thanks again Randall.

    Cheers
    Caesar
     
    Caesar, Jul 9, 2007
    #5
  6. Fact is, if you have to ask questions about which do-dad to use, you're
    not ready. The fact that you used to do them in 35mm confirms that.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 9, 2007
    #6
  7. Caesar

    Paul Furman Guest

    If you are going with film, a larger format makes more sense.
     
    Paul Furman, Jul 9, 2007
    #7
  8. Ummm, 4x5" Linhof Master-Technica, 5x7" Graflex Super-D ...?
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Jul 9, 2007
    #8
  9. If I were a professional wedding or portrait photographer, I would probably
    have and use a medium/large format film camera. - But it is hard for me to
    believe that digital cameras aren't fast replacing 35 mm cameras for a good
    reason...
     
    William Graham, Jul 11, 2007
    #9
  10. Caesar

    Caesar Guest

    Our lab charges $0.70 per print (5x7) and this works out nearly the same
    as the developing cost of a 36 film plus the cost of the film.

    Cheers
     
    Caesar, Jul 12, 2007
    #10
  11. Caesar

    Jim Guest

    Really, how many times do ¥ou have to post this? Several times in this
    group plus several others.

    That being said, for Wedding photos, there is no question that a medium
    format film camera in the hands of a pro will blow away full frame or
    1.5(6) format digital and 35mm film. While I love the subltley of the
    Kodak Portra films and the Fuji NPS, in this day and age it will be
    hard to justify. Don't forget most bridezilla's and Momzilla's want
    digital because they think it is better, They want the photos on
    websites instantly and digially composed albums. They want
    computerized slide shows with background music. Unless you can show a
    clearly visably better product with film then you are wasting your
    time. Every 35mm film Wedding photog I know has gone over to digital.
    So have most of the medium format, although I still know a couple of
    guys who are sticking to film That have a wealth of experience are
    very good and market themselves to high end weddings. They also shoot
    digital!

    As far as the lenses go, on a bright day, it doesn't matter what the
    large aperature is, its the small one that counts. In this case I
    would invest in some ND filters, so I could shoot at a large aperature
    to control DOF.
     
    Jim, Jul 12, 2007
    #11
  12. I get my prints for .19 cents each at Wal-Mart, londondrugs, superstores
    etc..... you are getting ripped off... kk
    (I am in Canada)
     
    www.kevinkienlein.com, Jul 12, 2007
    #12
  13. www.kevinkienlein.com wrote (irritatingly at the top):
    Fine, then it must be more cost effective to fly to Canada and get them printed?

    More importantly, if you only have 20 images you want printed then do you
    still get them for (I'm presuming you didn't mean $0.0019 which you said) $0.19?

    Personally I find the prices of lab prints from digital only come down to
    something that seriously undercuts film P&P when you have over 100 shots to
    print. I'm sorry, I almost never have 100 shots I want printing at one time.
     
    Richard Polhill, Jul 12, 2007
    #13
  14. Caesar

    Guest Guest

    You are getting ripped off...unless you are willing to settle for
    crap that is.
     
    Guest, Jul 12, 2007
    #14
  15. Caesar

    JoeT Guest

    You get 5x7 prints for 19 cents each?

     
    JoeT, Jul 12, 2007
    #15
  16. A person who is photographing weddings and charging money for it should
    not be getting prints made at Wally World. There is a difference in
    quality, you know.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 12, 2007
    #16
  17. Caesar

    JoeT Guest

    That's one of those things you find yourself saying following the words,
    needless to say... ;)

    I've yet to find any of those quickie places that will leave the white
    balance etc alone, even when specifically told. They all assume they should
    tweak the image seven ways to Sunday and they always screw it up as a
    result.
     
    JoeT, Jul 12, 2007
    #17
  18. Caesar

    Pat Guest

     
    Pat, Jul 12, 2007
    #18
  19. Caesar

    Pat Guest

     
    Pat, Jul 12, 2007
    #19
  20. Caesar

    Caesar Guest

    Hi,

    As the old saying is- you get what you pay for.

    1. Our lab looks at every photo and adjusts it to the best they can.
    Try this in your Wal-Mart.
    2. Chemicals are regularily changed to ensure highest possible outcome.

    Cheers
     
    Caesar, Jul 13, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.