kevin m
Veteran
You have a good eye and great timing, but some of your images demonstrate the downside of relying on available light. There are some muddy colors and flat B&W images there that strike me more as a rationalization rather than a creative choice.
No disrespect intended, as I said, I shot weddings for a couple of years primarily with two M6TTL's, but I ran into the same problem. For some shots, available light and a small, unobtrusive camera were the perfect choice, but there are times when using some supplemental light is mandatory to get the best image quality, and the M simply isn't a good flash camera by modern standards.
Riccis
Well-known
Pete - No textures or any other PS manipulations were done to the files.
Kevin - Believe it or not, I like this look and it was all done in purpose. My clients hire me for my style, where the most important factor is capturing the essence of their day without any intervention or heavy posing (other than a few portraits) and are fully aware that sometimes the images will not be "technically" perfect but will depict moments that will make them go back to that specific day in time... To me and them, this is more important than perfection... does this make sense?
Thanks,
Riccis
Kevin - Believe it or not, I like this look and it was all done in purpose. My clients hire me for my style, where the most important factor is capturing the essence of their day without any intervention or heavy posing (other than a few portraits) and are fully aware that sometimes the images will not be "technically" perfect but will depict moments that will make them go back to that specific day in time... To me and them, this is more important than perfection... does this make sense?
Thanks,
Riccis
rolo
Established
Riccis,
Firstly, many thanks for making your images availbe. I've had much enjoyment from your sites.
Can I ask, what part the M8 plays in your regular wedding photography and what percentage of the shoot does it provide for you? Is it use noticable in the final product?
If ever you doubted it's reliability, are you becoming more confident in it's use.
I used MP & M3 cameras without hesitation or reliability fears until 10 months ago when I changed to DSLRs for more than 90% of the day and they are working well for me. However, although I'm thrilled with my work, I don't particularly 'enjoy' working with the bulky SLR kit and look forward to the day 'I'm' confident with the M8.
Rolo
Firstly, many thanks for making your images availbe. I've had much enjoyment from your sites.
Can I ask, what part the M8 plays in your regular wedding photography and what percentage of the shoot does it provide for you? Is it use noticable in the final product?
If ever you doubted it's reliability, are you becoming more confident in it's use.
I used MP & M3 cameras without hesitation or reliability fears until 10 months ago when I changed to DSLRs for more than 90% of the day and they are working well for me. However, although I'm thrilled with my work, I don't particularly 'enjoy' working with the bulky SLR kit and look forward to the day 'I'm' confident with the M8.
Rolo
Last edited:
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Riccis said:
Riccis,
I get it but I also get Kevin's point of view on this.
I understand your style and I also don't think images need to be "technically perfect" but I think loss of shadow detail in some images can make them look.. for the lack of a better word.. "odd".
No two ways about it, available light DOES make an image if it's used effectively but there are times when, well, available light is almost non-existent and unless the ISO is @ 1600-3200 you lose a lot of the image imho.
That said, I too would prefer to shoot available light but I've been in some weddings where the hall is cavernous and there are next to no windows and the lighting is extremely subdued. At ISO 1600 even with a f1.2 lens I would be looking at 1/30 of a second. Flash, for me, is a "necessary evil" unfortunately.
Cheers
Dave
kevin m
Veteran
Riccis, it makes perfect sense. If you're happy and your clients are too, then you're golden. 
My m.o. was very similar to yours, actually. I tried to get as many 'natural' shots as I could, but I just kept finding myself backed into too many corners, technically speaking, using only the M's for weddings. I would have situations where people were being themselves in locations with absolute crap lighting. I know this is heresy here, but a DSLR can impersonate an M (no flash, small prime) better than an M can do what an DSLR does best.
I think I'll start carrying an M again, though, but this time I'll go whole hog and use a meterless vintage body like an M2, or M4. That way, I wouldn't be tempted to make it be a 'jack of all trades' camera again. Cheers.
My m.o. was very similar to yours, actually. I tried to get as many 'natural' shots as I could, but I just kept finding myself backed into too many corners, technically speaking, using only the M's for weddings. I would have situations where people were being themselves in locations with absolute crap lighting. I know this is heresy here, but a DSLR can impersonate an M (no flash, small prime) better than an M can do what an DSLR does best. I think I'll start carrying an M again, though, but this time I'll go whole hog and use a meterless vintage body like an M2, or M4. That way, I wouldn't be tempted to make it be a 'jack of all trades' camera again. Cheers.
peter_n
Veteran
Just to pick up on what rover said much earlier in the thread, last weekend I attended a wedding in Co. Kildare here (Ireland) where the photog was using a MF film camera - a Bronica. So it does happen. FWIW Jeff Ascough has just bought an M8 so he may have some images on his web site by now.