Riccis
Well-known
They are all tools, use the one that better suits your style and whatever you are comfortable with (SLR, rangefinder, Holga) and never mind "what is known to get the job done".
Cheers,
photogdave
Shops local
The last wedding I shot as the "official photographer" I "got the job done" with a Hexar RF and a Fuji GA 645.
The couple wouldn't have known the difference whether it was film, or digital, SLR or RF. They got the same quantity and quality.
The couple wouldn't have known the difference whether it was film, or digital, SLR or RF. They got the same quantity and quality.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The biggest problem is that what we have is a generation or two of photographers who learned the craft with an auto focus auto expsure zoom equipped DSLR, or perhaps an equally automated film SLR, in either case equipped with TTL flash. Magazines catering to the pro wedding market no longer run articles on rangefinder techniques and it would be difficult to apprentice yourself to a photographer who shoots Leicas these days.
I agree that trying to work in the style of the great photojournalists of the Life Magazine era is a good idea, say from the 1940's through the mid 1960's when Nikon F's made strong inroads into rangefinder use. For awhile a lot of them used Leicas or Nikons up through an 85/2 but went to the F for portraits with the legendary 105/2.5 and they carried a 180/2.8 for the reach. When fish-eyes became popular they were used on SLR's. The Leica M's had 21, 35, and 90mm lenses on them. If you had Nikon rangefinders you used 21, 35, and 85.
Those guys had nearly unlimited film budgets, but lugging it and changing it kept them from going nuts shooting it. Four to six 36 exposure rolls should be enough to cover a typical wedding start to finish. Shooting more probably won't get you better pictures or put any more pictures in the bride's album. It only increases your expenses.
A lot of thos "candid" pictures in a magazine story, or a bridal album, are posed, or at least arranged, to look candid. You might move the people to make better use of the light, rearrange the veil or the train, have somebody change the angle of their head or the position of their hands, maybe even use a bit of bounce or diffused flash.
Don't show up with less than two bodies, always have a spare flash and extra synch cords and batteries on hand. And some people just prefer the "look" of film. That's why both Kodak and Fuji released complete new lines of pro film in the past year or two. Somebody must be buying it.
I agree that trying to work in the style of the great photojournalists of the Life Magazine era is a good idea, say from the 1940's through the mid 1960's when Nikon F's made strong inroads into rangefinder use. For awhile a lot of them used Leicas or Nikons up through an 85/2 but went to the F for portraits with the legendary 105/2.5 and they carried a 180/2.8 for the reach. When fish-eyes became popular they were used on SLR's. The Leica M's had 21, 35, and 90mm lenses on them. If you had Nikon rangefinders you used 21, 35, and 85.
Those guys had nearly unlimited film budgets, but lugging it and changing it kept them from going nuts shooting it. Four to six 36 exposure rolls should be enough to cover a typical wedding start to finish. Shooting more probably won't get you better pictures or put any more pictures in the bride's album. It only increases your expenses.
A lot of thos "candid" pictures in a magazine story, or a bridal album, are posed, or at least arranged, to look candid. You might move the people to make better use of the light, rearrange the veil or the train, have somebody change the angle of their head or the position of their hands, maybe even use a bit of bounce or diffused flash.
Don't show up with less than two bodies, always have a spare flash and extra synch cords and batteries on hand. And some people just prefer the "look" of film. That's why both Kodak and Fuji released complete new lines of pro film in the past year or two. Somebody must be buying it.
Last edited:
Riccis
Well-known
Al - I'm only 33 and I only started using rangefinders about 3 years ago... Ever since, I've covered weddings all over the world with my Ms... The reason I went to Ms is because I never used anything longer than 85mm on my DSLRs and wanted to shed the extra weight... I show up to my weddings with a couple of Ms (I keep a few spare bodies in the car, of course) and a 21, 50 and 90 (the 90 only comes out when needed for a church ceremony) and my lens cap is the 50. I don't pose anything as my clients commission me to document the story of their day with the least amount of interruption possible as they just want to hang out with their friends and family and just have fun instead of doing a bunch of posed photo sessions. I use little to no flash... Because of this, an M is all I need.
Cheers,
Cheers,
Iceboy
Member
easyrider,
Well said ! ;-) "It depends how you want to tell the story. The outcome depends on the photographer, not the camera". Equipment used matter less but the approach to the story / subject speaks volume and thus matter more ( at least IMO ). Case in point, Jason Eskenazi's book Wonderland or Emmanuel Smague's images demonstrate this beautifully. ( imho
)
Riccis,
Sorry to have missed you in Vegas, let me know when you plan to be out here, would love to hook up.
regards,
Asgeir
Well said ! ;-) "It depends how you want to tell the story. The outcome depends on the photographer, not the camera". Equipment used matter less but the approach to the story / subject speaks volume and thus matter more ( at least IMO ). Case in point, Jason Eskenazi's book Wonderland or Emmanuel Smague's images demonstrate this beautifully. ( imho
)Riccis,
Sorry to have missed you in Vegas, let me know when you plan to be out here, would love to hook up.
regards,
Asgeir
M8 weddings seem reasonable to me, depending on working style and preferences. There are still some shooting weddings on medium format film... last wedding I went to a couple years ago, the pro used a Mamiya 645 and had an assistant with a reflector and reloading film backs.
My own wedding was shot with a Koni-Omega Rapid 6x7, and the photographer's wife/assistant discreetly wandered about with her Rolleiflex. But then that was 3 decades ago too... And when they left the wedding business they raised some additional capital selling the archived negatives to the customers.
Seems to me selling the negs routinely would be a nice thing... after the print orders have dried up but before the divorce.
My own wedding was shot with a Koni-Omega Rapid 6x7, and the photographer's wife/assistant discreetly wandered about with her Rolleiflex. But then that was 3 decades ago too... And when they left the wedding business they raised some additional capital selling the archived negatives to the customers.
Seems to me selling the negs routinely would be a nice thing... after the print orders have dried up but before the divorce.
Last edited:
myyra_ug
Member
martin s
Well-known
Really cool photographs, great!
martin
martin
Eric T
Well-known
The only problem I see the the loud shutter on the M8. The M8.2 would help.
dexdog
Veteran
You can charge a lot more if you shoot weddings with an M8.
you may have to charge more, to pay for the camera and lenses
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
J. Borger
Well-known
Two other guys using M8's for wedding photography are
Sean Reid: http://www.still-photo.net/wedding/home.htm
Jamie Roberts: http://www.james-roberts-photography.com
Sean Reid: http://www.still-photo.net/wedding/home.htm
Jamie Roberts: http://www.james-roberts-photography.com
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Hi Riccis, The important thing is to give the client what she wants, which can mean the client finding a photographer that can produce it. I suppose that it's largely a self selective process as potential clients see your work and their friends like your style. Got into photography during the Rollie/Hasselblad flash-on-camera era when the pro color neg film was Kodak CPS at ISO 80 and borderline too grainy for 35mm. The first ISO 400 was "amateur" color, grainy as hell but most amateurs never got anything bigger than the then standard 3.5"x5" prints. Try an 8x10 from that film? Way too grainy!
I never liked shooting weddings, and part of that may have been because I didn't like shooting medium format with flash. Still, it was a way of producing money, an important consideration when you have two small kids and the (now ex) wife is attending medical school. I also had number of commercial clients who would insist that I could shoot their kids' weddings. In retrospect it was likely just a tax dodge. An IRS audit would show pretty much monthly checks to Al Kaplan from their business account and the invoice would simply state time and materials.
The last few weddings that I've shot were available light with Leica M's, although I'm not against using a small flash on occasion to open the shadows. Another consideration is that the parents and grandparents usually want a few traditional family pictures just because the whole family is together, and they want those with smiling faces facing the camera. That's a situation where sticking flash on a Rollei or 'Blad makes sense, and one or two rolls of 120 is all you need, then back to 35mm.
Maybe if I was mid-career I'd be shooting all 35mm, or God forbid, cross over to the Dark Side, spring for a pair of M8 bodies, and upgrade my P-shop skills. I did get rid of the 'Blad and one of the Rolleis a few years ago.
I never liked shooting weddings, and part of that may have been because I didn't like shooting medium format with flash. Still, it was a way of producing money, an important consideration when you have two small kids and the (now ex) wife is attending medical school. I also had number of commercial clients who would insist that I could shoot their kids' weddings. In retrospect it was likely just a tax dodge. An IRS audit would show pretty much monthly checks to Al Kaplan from their business account and the invoice would simply state time and materials.
The last few weddings that I've shot were available light with Leica M's, although I'm not against using a small flash on occasion to open the shadows. Another consideration is that the parents and grandparents usually want a few traditional family pictures just because the whole family is together, and they want those with smiling faces facing the camera. That's a situation where sticking flash on a Rollei or 'Blad makes sense, and one or two rolls of 120 is all you need, then back to 35mm.
Maybe if I was mid-career I'd be shooting all 35mm, or God forbid, cross over to the Dark Side, spring for a pair of M8 bodies, and upgrade my P-shop skills. I did get rid of the 'Blad and one of the Rolleis a few years ago.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
To keep things in perspective, though, the percentage of wedding photographers shooting with rangefinders is tiny, and there is a reason for that. Unless you are VERY experienced at shooting weddings and VERY experienced with rangefinders, make your life less stressful and shoot weddings with a DSLR.
Steve Ash
Established
... make your life less stressful and shoot weddings with a DSLR.
Shooting with DSLR's is stress for me. Too many buttons to play with. Make yourself familiar with topics like "hyperfocal distance", dof of your lenses depending on distance. Focusing with a rangefinder is quick, easy and very precise. The need for autofocus is highly overrated.
A long lens is not needed during a wedding in my point of view. Weddings are about people and their emotions. Therefore it is best to be close for good pictures. But of cause you can do the same job also with a DSLR. It is just a matter of personal taste. Use the tool you are most comfortable with. In my case it is the M8.2.
Kind regards
Steve
N
NoTx
Guest
When I shoot weddings, I use up to five cameras... not two
Each has a different lens, and I don't change during the night unless there is an equipment failure. But I use two DSLRs and three rangefinders. My wife hands me what I need, and I leave one rangfinder for wide angle shots of the ceremony on a tripod and just click it periodically.
I don't like changing lenses
M8's should work fine in all reality.
Each has a different lens, and I don't change during the night unless there is an equipment failure. But I use two DSLRs and three rangefinders. My wife hands me what I need, and I leave one rangfinder for wide angle shots of the ceremony on a tripod and just click it periodically.
I don't like changing lenses
M8's should work fine in all reality.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
That can be fixed by leaving the buttons alone. I shot RAW on my D300 and never took it out of factory presets, except for cranking dynamic up to 400%. Shot it M or A all the time.
This is something I missed in this discussion, and miss too much in general when RF cameras are discussed. Using Hyperfocal distance settings on your lens greatly increases the number of shots you can get away with, both in private shots as in commissioned shootings.
A 35mm lens is in itself a very nice tool to separate your subject from surroundings when shot close up. Just keep the subject in the middle of the frame to avoid distortions!
I sold my D300 and lenses, due to it being too much of a load on my back. I suffered from the weight, now I just occasionally suffer from a lack of D300. I shoot an M8 as well as film M's.
Grober
Well-known
I've shot 140-150 weddings with M-film and only two with the M8. I much prefer shooting film since it freed me to concentrate on the bride and not aways fiddle with the camera to check one thing or another. The M6 and M7 were also noticably quieter than this clanking M8. (Yes I know: the M8.2 should be somewhat better.)
The only reason I went to digital was the sorry state of quality film processing in my city.
I would consider doing more weddings but only as a second shooter taking only B&W (with my M8.) I'll carry only two lenses (28 & 50), shoot completely flashless and be free to float throughout the ceremony and reception to shoot only what I wish leaving the tiresome family shots to the primary photog.
-g
The only reason I went to digital was the sorry state of quality film processing in my city.
I would consider doing more weddings but only as a second shooter taking only B&W (with my M8.) I'll carry only two lenses (28 & 50), shoot completely flashless and be free to float throughout the ceremony and reception to shoot only what I wish leaving the tiresome family shots to the primary photog.
-g
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Given that you've already given a thumbs down to your thread, it looks like you've already have your mind made up.
I have shot a wedding with an M8.
But never shoot a wedding with only one camera. Any sensible, logical person will tell you that having only one camera for an event that is the farthest removed from product photography (you know, the kind which produces the kind of people that always complain about something being distracting in any photo) is dumb (to put it mildly).
But, again, you've evidently have made your mind up and looks like you're only inviting comments that will re-inforce your preconceived notion.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Huh? They used to shoot weddings with Hasselblads', whizzz-BANg sound. The M8 is a purring cat, comparatively.