Getting Married - wedding photographer...

[matt5791]

As a small announcement, I am getting married next year. Not all that relevant to film I know, but my fiance has been out and about tracking down a wedding photographer.

On my strict instructions (I'm trying to show who is boss at an early stage ) any professional who originates digitally has been BANNED.

This is for more than one reason. The first obvious one is that I'm a film guy and I just like film.

However there seems to be some beneficial spinoffs, other that the obvious of having negatives for the future.

My fiance has reported that having been to see countless photographers, the ones who turn out to be originating digitally seem to have the most CHEESY portfolios you ever saw, and the pros who are originating on film seem to have much more tastful and, well, basically better all round photographs (lighting, composition etc etc)

Interesting.

I'm currently planning how to make a video of the day. I'm thinking minimum of two cameras - 1 super8 and one 16mm, with crystal.

Should be fun

Matt

[downix]

Pity you aren't local, my wife is a wedding photographer (I help out sometimes). Film and/or digital, depends on the clients demands. (prefer using film tho, 35mm and medium-format)

[filmbuff]

Get that Beaulieu R16 (in your avatar) at the wedding and you'll have some kick ass footage. Is that one crystal since you mentioned 16mm with crystal? If not get it done by the Film Group and bill your parents as part of the wedding expense (hehe)

[BolexPlusX]

When my sister got married in the late 1970s, the photographer kept his assistant busy by having him use a Super-8 camera. He threw a nicely done 150 foot film in as a bonus with the photo package.

By the time I got married, we had to hire a videographer which was another $1,500 down the wedding drain, which we've watched maybe twice in 12 years. (...and I'll bet $1,500 would be cheap today!)

(The only redeeming thing is the super-8 footage we had him transfer into the introduction of the video!)

Congratulations!

[drsanchez]

My fiance has reported that having been to see countless photographers, the ones who turn out to be originating digitally seem to have the most CHEESY portfolios you ever saw, and the pros who are originating on film seem to have much more tastful and, well, basically better all round photographs (lighting, composition etc etc)

{Full disclosure: My brother's a wedding photographer who shoots digital only. So I'm biased.}

First, congratulations.

Second, I fear you may be creating a connection that might not be there. Yup, there's a lot of cheese out there, but I'm positive it has to do with the photographer, not the medium (I know you know that). There were cheesy photographers before digital cameras, and there will be as long as there are weddings to shoot. In my very humble opinion, the difference in quality between digital and analog is smaller when dealing with still photography than with motion pictures (at least as far as cameras most of us can afford is concerned). I've seen some pretty amazing digital stills and some very shitty slides.

That said, after a year or so the photographer should give you the negatives which will be around much longer than those digital files he sends you on disk.

[kentbulza]

I dunno....the two incredible portfolios I've seen before were both from guys that shot in medium format.

[Mikey]

So far I haven't been impressed with digital photography. I know most of how a picture looks is the skill of the photographer, but the look of film is different from digital...Most of the people I know of that used a digital photographer for non wedding pictures have went back and engaged a film only studio. Most of the professional digital pics I've seen are flat, colorless and uninteresting...digital just cant compete with medium and large format, imo.

[Angus]

I'm going to make a number of points here.

1. I have been asked in the past to photograph weddings, sometimes for a substantial fee. I always refuse for a number of reasons, including the fact that I'd feel that somebody was trusting ME to provide indelible memories of their special day and that makes me feel uncomfortable...and also I always refuse paid photograpic work because it spoils the fun.

2. I did film my cousin's wedding in super 8 in 1989 and it looks far better than any wedding video I've ever seen. Sadly the boom mic I was using for the first time only worked about half the time so a LOT of overdubbing was done.

3. I have borrowed my work's digital camera (Pentax 3.2mp model) over this long holiday weekend (4-days off here in the UK) and have attempted some proper photography with it. Not impressed at all, and the wife who isn't by any means a photo buff much prefers the results her compact zoom camera give. There's just no decent detail, even with minimal compression, contrast looks very un-natural...I certainly wouldn't want anything remotely like that for a wedding. OK so I know pro digicams are better, I have a friend with a top of the line Fuji digi-SLR but... I'd agree that film is preferable because well kept negatives will outlive you. Also consider having some B&W as well as colour.