how were things done back in the day?

[rolo]

Until 12 months ago I was shooting 20 weddings a year with a Leica MP and an M3, using Portra NC or Superia 400 film. Processed and scanned to CD and then Photoshopped. I occasionally supplemented these with a Mamiya 7 for group shots and the odd 'big' picture.

Prior to that, I was shooting with a Rolleiflex 2.8f, but film technology improved 35mm stock so significantly that many wedding photographers were happy with 35mm. 20 years ago that would not be the case and MF was essential to provide quality images.

Shooting with a Leica M has many advantages over a DSLR, but inevitably quite a few drawbacks.

IMO, there's not a wedding picture worth taking that can't be shot hand held with an f1.4 lens and 400 iso film, (800 iso in the extreme.) If there's no light, there's no picture. If I can, I'm always happier with 160 iso. I've never used a tripod with 35mm, but I do carry a Leica table top tripod that has got me out of jail now and again.

I'm now using a DSLR, regularly at up to 1600 iso and TTL flash and can capture everything that's going, even if it's not worth the effort.

What I really like about the M is that I nail focus and know I have. Lots of other things can be under spec, but focus has little leeway. When a bride with her father approaches the altar in a dark church and my Pro Canon won't lock on, I curse. You press the M shutter release and the shutter fires.

IMO you need two active M cameras with different lenses and a third ready loaded in the bag. Lens changing is a pain. I used to shoot one body colour, one B&W. That's a no-no because of lens changing. Stick with colour, or B&W in both.

Film changing is a hassle, but not as bad as one might expect. Think about changing film at 28 frames; do it with both bodies before entering and exiting the church. I've never used more than 12 films, but now I shoot between 800 and 1400 frames on the DSLR. That's usually just creating more options and not more essential shots. There's never more than 140 pics in an album from me, so the attrition rate is massive with the DSLR.

I chimp all the time - IMV that's what the screen is there for. It's the histogram I'm looking at, not the content. Obviously, I don't do it in the same location or with a sequence of shots, but I've learned to walk, talk, view the histogram and chew gum at the same time. ( I have a Hass CFV digital back and the only thing you can see in daylight is the histogram !).

I find a big difference between 35mm and 50mm lenses and used them most of the time. They are both Lux's and if it weren't for the low light shots, I'd prefer Cron's because they are faster to focus. I carry 24mm and 90mm lenses as well and use the 90mm for candids outside the church with the 35 Lux on the other. I now shoot 85% of the wedding with the 24-70L and most of it at f2.8/f4.

I sold the M3 as it was not efficient enough for my weddings. If I was re-equipping with film M's, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the M7 and I'd have at least two of them. However, I'm awaiting Photokina before making any more acquisitions and am hoping thereafter to swop my DSLR stuff for two upgraded M8 bodies with the MP as a 24mm wider view and mechanical fail safe backup.

Hope that is of interest.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

how were things done back in the day?

In order to cook with fire, there were expeditions to the nearest volcano. Weather permitting 🙂

 

[Ronald M]

A digital cam does not make you a photographer, just the ability to crank out more junk faster and easier at less cost. The principles are all the same to get a good photo.

Nothing but the sensor/film has changed.

 

[amateriat]

where there's plenty of light yeah, leica's absolutely fine. my question would be when you're doing the reception, or a dance floor around 9pm where the only light comes off some strobe lights off the dance floor to capture images.

with manual focus, especially on the tiny patch in the dim light one either has to be lucky or really good to compose and fire away and still get the shot.

i guess if there's a flash then that's different because of larger f-stop you can use and then you can guess the distance and get lucky?

I've shot a few weddings with my Hexar RF system under said conditions, and got some really good results. Granted, this is the style in which I prefer to work, so I made certain that things would work...an important factor for any photographer to take into account, regardless of medium.

Tech Arcana: Konica Hexar RF; 28, 50mm M-Hex; Ilford XP-2 Super.

If you know film like the back of your hand (as I like to fancy myself, at least subjectively), that's what you go with. Same for digital. If you're comfy enough with the gear to forget about the gear and just get the good pictures, then you are where you should be. All the other pros and cons don't apply, IMO.


- Barrett

P.S. You pretty much have to put a gun to my head to get me to shoot a wedding. The couple in these photos are good friends who had to do a lot of arm-twisting to get me to shoot theirs. Weddings, IMO, are a PITA to shoot, even moreso when it involves people you give a damn about in ways other than whether their checks will clear. But it was actually fun (mostly), which I like to think shows in at least some of the images.

 

[iridium7777]

maybe i was over thinking it since i never really use a flash for pictures, but this is the one that i like and thought how tough would it to be in complete analog. but then i guess the flash does provide a lot of light so shooting this somewhere at f4 with a flash on with iso400 film you could probably capture just as well. i know her eyes are closed, but i still think it conveys a great sense of the moment.

here's another one i like, which i'm sure a leica wouldn't have a sincle problem taking.

and it was fun. it was fun because i wasn't expecting much and told the bride not to expect much out of me. if she liked the photos she could pay me, if she didn't, she could still keep them and not pay me. there was no pressure and this being only the "after the ceremony" gig a lot of pressure was taken off. i was going to be in the middle of the party anyways and got to take pictures throughout of it.

if someone's interested in looking through a better set, one can find them here: http://web.mac.com/iridium7777/iWeb/hartfordphoto.com/wedding.html