Am I lazy or what?

[kshapero]

I often get asked to shot weddings,etc. I like doing them just to get experience shooting even if it is not my most favorite thing to do. I almost always end up using my Pany L1 with the Leica zoom lens because it is just so easy. I seem to be too lazy to bring my rangefinder with 2 or 3 lenses. Am I lazy or should I stop beating myself up? Does anyone hear shot events like weddings with a rangefinder and of course fixed length lenses?
And do you ever do it without a flash?

 

[Tuolumne]

If I am asked to do an event I usually bring a Nikon D200 with flash and set of zoom lenses. If I'm doing it just for me, I usually bring a P&S digital. Since I'm usually doing it for free I want it to be as fast, easy and cheap as possible for me. Hence, no film.

/T

 

[mfunnell]

If shooting an event on someone's behalf or at their request I'll use digital for the "must get" shots and so I can show something immediately, while using an RF (or sometimes my Hexar AF) to get a different view and for more spontaneous shots. Often the film photos are the favourites.

...Mike

 

[photogdave]

I've only ever used SLRs for weddings before. Last one I shot using a Canon 20D, with EFS 17-85 IS and 70-200 F4L and 580EX flash. The photos turned out fine and the couple was happy but I didn't like the digital workflow. Previously I shot film Nikons with primes and enjoyed the shooting process much more. I can't say the photos were any better or worse.
I've got a wedding coming up and I'm facing a dilemma. I REALLY want to try it with my RFs but I'm a bit nervous. Should I use all three bodies with different types of film? Should I bring a DSLR with flash for backup? If I use my LC1 as backup will the quality be good enough? :bang:
...I shoulda had an M8!

 

[aad]

I shot an event, put the Leica in my pocket for my own pictures and used an SLR with flash for the "must get" pictures. Could have left the Leica home.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Over the last 35+ years I have shot about five or six weddings -- ones that I couldn't get out of -- and I have always used rangefinders, shooting on film for permanence (of course, for the first four or five, there was no choice other than film...). Standard kit: 2 Leicas, 3 lenses (35-50-75, with the 75 receiving very little use)

Insh'Allah, I have only one more to shoot, but I expect to use RF there too -- though I'll probably use the M8 as well.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kshapero]

Over the last 35+ years I have shot about five or six weddings -- ones that I couldn't get out of -- and I have always used rangefinders, shooting on film for permanence (of course, for the first four or five, there was no choice other than film...). Standard kit: 2 Leicas, 3 lenses (35-50-75, with the 75 receiving very little use)

Insh'Allah, I have only one more to shoot, but I expect to use RF there too -- though I'll probably use the M8 as well.

Cheers,

R.

Thanks Roger, I'm feeling more confident to use my RF.

 

[RML]

For the few assignments I do per year (including one wedding last year), I use a dSLR. Flash and zoom lenses are "mandatory", not because I want to but because I need many and different shots to take home and present to the patron. Using a dSLR makes that much easier than an rf with a couple of lenses.

 

[Roger Hicks]

For the few assignments I do per year (including one wedding last year), I use a dSLR. Flash and zoom lenses are "mandatory", not because I want to but because I need many and different shots to take home and present to the patron. Using a dSLR makes that much easier than an rf with a couple of lenses.

Funnily enough, I'd say the exact opposite. I find the RFs a LOT easier to use, and I vastly prefer the effects without flash. The last wedding I shot -- the daughter of one of my oldest friends -- insisted that she wanted my wife and me to shoot the wedding and pronounced herself delighted with the pics.

Why do you need a zoom? I can get 'many and different' shots with 2 lenses and choice of viewpoint ('Your legs are your best zoom...')

Flash, maybe, for the occasional fill-flash shot. Otherwise, I see no need for that either.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong; just that DSLR, zoom, flash is so far from 'mandatory' as to amount, in my case, to the exact opposite.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kshapero]

Funnily enough, I'd say the exact opposite. I find the RFs a LOT easier to use, and I vastly prefer the effects without flash. The last wedding I shot -- the daughter of one of my oldest friends -- insisted that she wanted my wife and me to shoot the wedding and pronounced herself delighted with the pics.

Why do you need a zoom? I can get 'many and different' shots with 2 lenses and choice of viewpoint ('Your legs are your best zoom...')

Flash, maybe, for the occasional fill-flash shot. Otherwise, I see no need for that either.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong; just that DSLR, zoom, flash is so far from 'mandatory' as to amount, in my case, to the exact opposite.

Cheers,

R.

So Roger if you don't use a flash, and I am happy to hear this, then what speed film do you use? Or if digital what ISO do you shot at?

 

[Toby]

I shoot the odd wedding professionally and I don't think a rangefinder is a good enough all round tool for the job. Great for informal reportage style shots, but I think you need an SLR for the important formal portraits, plus the better flash systems. I must add that I don't often use flash or even like flash, but with weddings you have to do whatever it takes to get the job done or risk some VERY unhappy people. I'd never dream of using a camera where I couldn't do a bit of chimping these days - just to soothe my nerves as the day went on.

 

[photogdave]

I'd never dream of using a camera where I couldn't do a bit of chimping these days - just to soothe my nerves as the day went on.

It's the chimping part that is one of the aspects of shooting events digitally that I don't like! With film I relied on my skills and experience to get me through the day, allowing me to better concentrate on what was happening around me. When I tried shooting a wedding with a DSLR I felt I may have missed some shots because I was fiddling with the camera too much! 🙂

 

[RML]

It's the chimping part that is one of the aspects of shooting events digitally that I don't like! With film I relied on my skills and experience to get me through the day, allowing me to better concentrate on what was happening around me. When I tried shooting a wedding with a DSLR I felt I may have missed some shots because I was fiddling with the camera too much! 🙂

I usually don't chimp when the time or events don't allow for it, but chimping is hugely appreciated when time does permit, if only to check if you got all the shots the customer asked for.

 

[Roger Hicks]

So Roger if you don't use a flash, and I am happy to hear this, then what speed film do you use? Or if digital what ISO do you shot at?

ISO 400 and fast lenses (HP5 in DD-X, true ISO 650+, rated 500, and Kodak Portras 400NC rated 320). Some shots (formal groups, 'bride kissing groom, etc.) are doubled up in colour and mono but the vast majority of the 'serious' shots are in mono.

As I said earlier, I shoot ONLY weddings I can't get out of, and the bride and groom know what they're getting: a wedding shot my way, as a wedding present, with the pics ready when they come back from honeymoon. If they want something else, they can hire someone or find someone else to do it as a present. A couple of them tried to hire me but I told them no, it's a present, because I don't do pro weddings. They have all professed themselves delighted so far.

I have tried using other cameras than my Leicas, but only alongside the Leicas, and I see no advantage in SLRs; in fact, I can't really imagine what those advantages are unless you use MF (which I have done, but gave up).

Flash, I have wanted once or twice for contre-jour shots as fill, but otherwise, I've never felt the need. The contre-jour shots just didn't work. So? That's a couple of shots out of hundreds.

I completely agree with other posters that weddings are too important to screw up, which is one reason I hate doing them, but I haven't screwed up any yet.

There's also a BIG difference between shooting professionally, at the beck and call of everyone, and shooting as a friend. I would never do the former; I try to avoid the latter as much as possible.

From memory, the weddings I shot were:

Ian (we were all broke students): Leica IIIa

Victoria (who borrowed my spare room when she split up with her first husband): Forgotten

Linda (ex-girlfriend from when I was 16-17 and she was 14-15; like a sister for the last 40+ years, widowed and remarried -- second wedding, I couldn't stand her first husband): M2, M4-P, Linhof Tech 70

Neil (whom I've known as long as Linda, and who finally got married in his 50s): M2, M4-P, some sort of MF SLR. My wife Frances Schultz also shot with a Nikkormat.

Louise (daughter of Hayes, whom again I've known since I was 16 and he was 15): M2, M4-P. Frances used Voigtländer RFs.

I have a feeling there may have been one other, but if there was, I've forgotten it, and I can't ask my wife because she's asleep.

The one remaining wedding I know I'm at risk of shooting is the daughter of one of Frances's closest friends -- but there are always surprises like Neil.

It's not many weddings, and as I say, they know I'm doing it my way. IF I had been doing it professionally, I'd have advised the couple that film (especially B+W film) has much better proven longevity than digital and I'd probably supplement the Leicas with an MF RF for some of the group shots.

Hope this clarifies matters,

Cheers,

R.