Well I have my first photo job!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rob.Richards
  • Start date Start date
R

Rob.Richards

Guest
I have been asked to cover a wedding in September! Wahoo! Now I was apprehensive but excited to be asked and have made it quite clear that I have never done anything like this before. I have said I will simply do it for cost and for the experience - while understanding it is their big day and they are going to want some pictures to keep forever (that they like!).

I have plenty of time to prepare (which is good!) and so of course I have looked at equipment first. I will be using a combination of:

Canon EOS 350D
Canon EOS 5
EF-S 18-55mm
EF 50mm
Sigma 105mm

I will primarily be shooting with a high speed B&W film inside (ISO 1600)
and B&W ISO 400 outside with the 50mm lens and using the 350D as the backup to capture shots throughout the day.

It is a fairly small do, 24 people and the couple have said she definitely does not want formal shots, just for me to stand back and take pictures. Now I will ensure I spend time with them before hand to make sure of the top pictures they really want and research the location (all local!). I will hopefully have my father in law to come along also to assist (and bring his camera as a backup too.) and borrow an additional digital body just in case.

I will take out insurance (definitely - but need recomendations please!) and this just leaves me with lenses to sort. I am comfortable with what I have and know an ideal would probably be a 24-70/70-200 f2.8 combo. I am just wondering if there is perhaps 1 lens I should hire that would be ideal.

I am thinking hire the 70-200 for a week at my own cost (a few days before to ensure it is there in time and I am comfy using it).

Any thoughts (phew!)
 
*prepares a massive bag of popcorn*.

they WILL want formal shots. Enlist the best man and hope that he's got a loud voice.

Good luck ;)
 
film? forget it - it's 2010 where I live - get real - get digital.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
*prepares a massive bag of popcorn*.

they WILL want formal shots. Enlist the best man and hope that he's got a loud voice.

Good luck :)
Click to expand...

*salted or sweet?*

I know they will, which is why I will get a shot list well in advance and check it with them nearer the time! I 'll be honest, I'm nervous but think I should be able to pull it off (i wouldnt have taken it on otherwise) I have a family wedding earlier in the year where i plan to have a good practice!
 
awp said:
film? forget it - it's 2010 where I live - get real - get digital.
Click to expand...

Thats a tad harsh dont you think? Anything constructive?

PS not looking for a whole film/digital debate I understand people have their own choices...
 
1600 ISO film is not going to give great results is it? I know - I've been there - 30 years ago! ...and when they ask for a DVD or a few web images - so much work as to be not worth the hassle. His choice though. Film might - might be worth clinging to for some things but shooting weddings is not one of them - and his 'client' will be hugely disadvantaged - go on prove me wrong with the pictures!
 
awp said:
1600 ISO film is not going to give great results is it? I know - I've been there - 30 years ago! ...and when they ask for a DVD or a few web images - so much work as to e not worth the hassle. His choice though.
Click to expand...

im not getting into the whole film vs digital debate.

looking through some modern wedding websites with great photography, the images are really 'grainy' looking which i dont think the couple would care about if the images were good!

just thought, like the OP said, your post was a bit unnecessarily harsh.
 
Nothing wrong with shooting with film. Use what you're comfortable with and with something you know how to use. Definitely meet up with the couple (preferably at the location) before hand and get some practice shots with them because it will give you an idea of the lighting and it should get them more comfortable in front of the camera. Even if they say they don't want something, try it anyway, worst they can do is not ask for it to be printed and you won't get a second chance to re-shoot it so get as many shots in the bag as you can.

I did my first wedding on film too in not the best lighting so it may be worth getting your images put on disc by somebody like Peak Imaging so you can process them a bit easier on a computer. Couple of things to finish up on: don't be afraid to ask people to get out of the way (or into the shot) if it needs doing, get an usher, best-man or even the groom to organise people where needs be but more than anything...keep your cool and enjoy it!! :thumbs:
 
if you eren't so bleedin far away I'd lend you a 70-200 for a chance to put a few rolls through an eos 5
 
Cheers Steffan. I had already planned to use someone like Peak or Ilford to develop, print, and put on CD at high res. I figured I might need to get them to try some poses etc. Like you say its a one off day with no 2nd chances! I shouldn't get too stressed, I was asked to do an evening charity do recently and although nervous went and gave it my best shot. There were some good pics that came out of it and a huge learning curve. The good thing about this is they are only planning for me to do the day time (but I am ready for that to change too!)
 
awp said:
1600 ISO film is not going to give great results is it? I know - I've been there - 30 years ago! ...and when they ask for a DVD or a few web images - so much work as to be not worth the hassle. His choice though. Film might - might be worth clinging to for some things but shooting weddings is not one of them - and his 'client' will be hugely disadvantaged - go on prove me wrong with the pictures!
Click to expand...

Not everybody wants that BS digital results. Rob shoots films; and inspite of the digital brigade, he can and will. Wedding and wedding photography existed before the digital amateurs took over, remember.

And oh, in the film section, we dont get all twisted in our knickers over wedding photography, if you have noticed.

Rob; I am sure you will be OK; you know how to make it work. You might wish to have a AF backup; just in case. If you need a high powered flash, I have a hammerhead lying around, just give me a shout. And a EOS100, its your for the asking

Best of luck.

Ujjwal
 
david1701 said:
if you eren't so bleedin far away I'd lend you a 70-200 for a chance to put a few rolls through an eos 5
Click to expand...

We could always do a swop at some time! I have to say I love the EOS 5 - to be fair you can pick it up cheap as chips now - paid £50 for mine!
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
Not everybody wants that BS digital results. Rob shoots films; and inspite of the digital brigade, he can and will. Wedding and wedding photography existed before the digital amateurs took over, remember.

And oh, in the film section, we dont get all twisted in our knickers over wedding photography, if you have noticed.

Rob; I am sure you will be OK; you know how to make it work. You might wish to have a AF backup; just in case. If you need a high powered flash, I have a hammerhead lying around, just give me a shout.

Best of luck.

Ujjwal
Click to expand...

:thumbs: Cheers bud will bear that in mind!
 
I know all about film - I shot weddings on 120 in the sixties - just hard to understand why anyone would want to today - and I don't believe that doing a wedding (or most other jobs on film in 2010) is a service to the customer.
 
awp said:
1. I know all about film - I shot weddings on 120 in the sixties -

2. just hard to understand why anyone would want to today -

3. and I don't believe that doing a wedding (or most other jobs on film in 2010) is a service to the customer.
Click to expand...

1. Good

2. Why not?

3. Not all customers want the digital BS. If I were to get married today, i will pay a premium to get photgraphed on analog medium, by someone who knows - and more importantly, still can, - take good picures on films, instead of the cop out on digital.

Different folks, different strokes, see.
 
OK - but the words 'head' and 'sand' spring to mind - but then maybe you go to work in a shiny new horse drawn carriage?
I think I'll withdraw and leave you in sepia peace in the film section.
 
I should point out before this goes any further, this is why I posted in the film section rather than any other section.
 
I just look at new posts - so didn't even know there was a film section!
 
awp said:
OK - but the words 'head' and 'sand' spring to mind - but then maybe you go to work in a shiny new horse drawn carriage?
I think I'll withdraw and leave you in sepia peace in the film section.
Click to expand...

I have to say I find your tone really insulting. You have provided no constructive input into this thread and I shall disregard any further comments you make as nonsense.
 
as I do yours.....

I'll stay away from here in future!
 
awp said:
OK - but the words 'head' and 'sand' spring to mind - but then maybe you go to work in a shiny new horse drawn carriage?
I think I'll withdraw and leave you in sepia peace in the film section.
Click to expand...

Good , and thanks, awp...might have occured to you that OP was not looking for advice on the advantage - such as it may be - of digital.

As for horse drawn carriage comparison, I think the the true analogy is one of real painting vs cheap prints. And I know which I will buy for myself or as a gift for my friends, even if I was a skint.

A sepia peace is much better than a HDR excitement of everday digital life. But only the connosieur of quality will recognise that, I guess :D
 
/me thinks somebody just got owned :p

Good luck with the wedding, Rob and all the best :thumbs:
 
And there's me thinking we are all photogrsphers....

I love how using digital instantly means A: it's bull **** and B: Your an amatuer.

Go take a peek at Duncan Kerridges work, or check SPxxx on the forum...

This thread is snobbery at it's best.

Gary.
 
awp said:
1600 ISO film is not going to give great results is it? I know - I've been there - 30 years ago! ...and when they ask for a DVD or a few web images - so much work as to be not worth the hassle. His choice though. Film might - might be worth clinging to for some things but shooting weddings is not one of them - and his 'client' will be hugely disadvantaged - go on prove me wrong with the pictures!
Click to expand...



With all respect Andrew, film technology has moved on in the last 30 years, if I was getting married today, I truely would not be bothered if it was film or digital, I truely can not see the disadvantages, as to giving digital images to the client surely you are incouraging copyright infringment or you charge accordingly?
I would also think that as the client has already spoken to Rob and they are aware that he shoots film they do not see it as a problem.

To the OP good luck I am sure you will do great.
 
EdinburghGary said:
And there's me thinking we are all photogrsphers....

I love how using digital instantly means A: it's bull **** and B: Your an amatuer.

Go take a peek at Duncan Kerridges work, or check SPxxx on the forum...

This thread is snobbery at it's best.

Gary.
Click to expand...

No, this thread is a retaliation to some Personal insult removed that thinks *his* way is best. Read it properly!
 
*idiot* ? Not personal insult surely, I never attached it to an individual... on purpose :(
 
Have you thought about colour film? Maybe another body with some Kodak Portra (great for portraits)

Good Luck :thumbs:
 
EdinburghGary said:
And there's me thinking we are all photogrsphers....

I love how using digital instantly means A: it's bull **** and B: Your an amatuer.

Go take a peek at Duncan Kerridges work, or check SPxxx on the forum...

This thread is snobbery at it's best.

Gary.
Click to expand...

But it's alright to denigrate the use of film?

Given the fact that the OP has a 350D I'd much rather have B&W prints shot at 1600 than a print from a 350D shot at 1600. He's using the best of his kit to the best of his/its abilities which makes sense to me.

Let's not forget that a film image can be digitised if required at which point you have the rest of editing options that you'd have had with digital so it near as damn it makes no difference.

So the only difference is that Rob can't chimp his photos. Obviously not a problem if you know what you're doing.
 
Kev M said:
But it's alright to denigrate the use of film?

Given the fact that the OP has a 350D I'd much rather have B&W prints shot at 1600 than a print from a 350D shot at 1600. He's using the best of his kit to the best of his/its abilities which makes sense to me.

Let's not forget that a film image can be digitised if required at which point you have the rest of editing options that you'd have had with digital so it near as damn it makes no difference.

So the only difference is that Rob can't chimp his photos. Obviously not a problem if you know what you're doing.
Click to expand...

I don't agree it's right to attack digital or film, opinions are fine, but to label all digital shooters as amatuers who produce bull **** cheap prints, well it's more than childish. As I said, we are all photographers...Can't we play nice??? :D

G.
 
I have one local photographer who still shoots on an RB and I met another in Blackpool last year still shooting on a bronny. And they might not be banging out three weddings a week but they still have pretty full calendars. Why?

Because some people just like different products and to be honest I like that variety. Just like some digital shooters shoot reportage and some shoot like a magazine cover.

So long as I was comfortable that my photographer could deliver the results that I wanted I would not be too bothered how they got there.

And let's not forget, those negs will still be around in 30 years, will Cd's? ;)
I point this out to clients who don't want an album, "What are you going to do in 20 years when the kids are off to uni and you have the house to yourself? Get out the piece of plastic and huddle round it?" I have tapes of things I did 20 years ago that I no longer have the technology to use!
 
In fairness, the OP was jumped upon in much the same way that he would have been if he'd have posted the same kit list without mentioning a film body. Sadly, It's just the way things happen on here with wedding threads - some wedding photographers - by no means all, but some just jump in with both boots at the merest mention of a non-pro daring to shoot someones wedding. It's not nice, but it happens.

Personally, the nearest i've come to wedding 'togging was maybe 17-18 years ago, when I assisted a mate who was shooting his sisters wedding. This basically meant that he shot most of the stuff, but I ended up doing the half dozen shots he had to be in! As some of you will know, I'm pretty resoloutely a non-people photographer - and I found it so stressful that I wouldn't do it again for a gold pig!

That wedding was shot on a Bronica, and to be honest, I'd have killed for a modern DLSR's facility to "chimp", but that technology was way in the distant future. I don't think I slept for 3 days, until I got the phone call from my Mate that the shot's i'd taken had come out correctly :lol:

So - best of luck Rob, hope it goes well - sorry you got jumped on!
 
Yup - have a good time and remember you're taking pics, not waving any flags!

Arthur
 
Blimey. Not the way I thought this thread would turn out! :(

Thanks for the positive support, I really appreciate it! The whole film/digital thing is well never really going to be resolved is it, I just wish people could understand some like to use different formats... I find it a little odd that it has come up seeing as I orignally posted I would be using both mediums..:bonk:

Kev M, exactly right, I would far rather use film at ISO 1600 than my 350D.:thumbs:

Liam, thats a great idea, I think I will stash a couple of rolls in the bag:thumbs:

Ali B, I fully understand the longevity aspect of film v CD (and also backing up before anyone starts on that!). I just prefer film.:D

DaveC223. You are bang on the money :thumbs:
 
:suspect:

In addition to the moderation that has already been made in this thread, a note to the rest of the contributors - if you cannot post constructive and polite advice, then please don't bother posting at all as we will not tolerate wedding threads returning to what they were last year.




Rob, as long as you are confident with film equipment and the couple know you will be using film for some of the shots, as well as your own and your pa-in-laws digital bodies, I see no reason why it should be a problem. There are pros and cons for both media, but both can be manipulated and enjoyed.

There are far more experienced round here than I when it comes to shooting weddings but before making a lens decision, it might be an idea to visit the church and chat to the vicar about where he will allow you to shoot from during the ceremony - for instance, a shot at 200mm from the back of the church would be similar to a shot at 105mm from halfway up he aisle, if that makes sense? If you are allowed up the front, especially with only 24 people in attendance, you might not require the length on this occasion, though speed will probably be important. Will he allow flash? Probably not, but you wont know for sure unless you ask. All this info will help you decide what you are going to need on the day and give you peace of mind and confidence that you won't mess up. :thumbs:
 
Why should it be a problem as long as he's got digital cameras as well it has to be asked? I think he should use what he is comfortable with, what he thinks he can do a good job with - not what others imply is necessary. Nobody will bat an eyelid when the old Bentley/Rolls/Horse and Cart pull up outside with the Bride in it will they? Nobody's gonna shout out she should have come in a DB9...

Arthur
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top