From: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: How I use 35mm at higher-end weddings
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:52:00 GMT
Reply-To: goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD

There has been some recent net discussion about 35mm wedding photography
in terms of which film to use and what price-range client it is appropriate
for.  I posting to explain how I employ it for its strengths at weddings
where I am being paid over $2,000.  I don't think anyone will contest
that larger formats produce technically-superior images.  For portraiture,
the large negative gives much better wall-size enlargements.  Pro labs
like the 120/220 format because negative retouching is a snap and they
can offer many creative, pre-determined crops. It's easier for them
to reconfigure between 645, 6x6, and 6x7 formats than to handle 35.
Medium format is more expensive in terms of initial investment in equipment
and film stock.  A roll of 220 VPH (ASA 400 vericolor, my special event
mainstay) costs between 8.50 and 10.00 for 24 shots (6x6 format).  Preview
slides cost .69 each and 5x5" proofs cost .74 each.  Pro labs don't
charge for developing the negative when they do the proofing.  You
can get a variety of crops in this format with automated printing and
can get negative retouching to remove lines and pimples when using medium
format, but not with 35mm.  The latter requires the more expensive custom
printing and print airbrushing for the same result.  So economy is definitely
not a reason to use 35mm at high-end weddings.  Then why?

My concept of wedding photography  is based on photojournalism - capturing
real expressions and the even as it happened, not as it was staged.
A common preference of high-end clients and young professionals is for
a natural coverage.  They often say that "posing is IMposing".  In this
style, it is not unusual to have 95% natural unposed pictures, and the
remaining 5% devoted to obligatory group shots.  Often, portraits are
done in advance of the event date.  I personally prefer to take my couples
to picturesque locations in our nautical town of Annapolis.  I have
not used my studio background at a wedding in over 5 years!!!.  Despite
the inherent strengths of medium format, there are features of 35mm
technology that are almost impossible to resist, given today's offereings
from Nikon, Canon, and the other majors.  Consider an outdoor wedding.
My 8008s with SB-24 flash does a perfect job at flash fill - just the
right amount to balance the sum without flattening.  Doing the same
with medium format would be time consuming, since the setup would have
to be adjust every time the subjects changed direction.  And since many
events happen late in the day, the shot would have to be re-metered
every few minutes.  No problem when shots are all posed and controlled,
but a big drag when you are trying to capture reality in an unobtrusive
way.  Those ED lenses from Nikon are just wonderful for times like this.
(I ackowledge that Canon and others make great optics, too.)  One problem
with medium format is that there are no wide to tele AF lenses like
one has in 35mm.  Compared to medium format, I can get off a dozen shots
faster  than changing the lens on my Bronica!!!  The current generation
of AF technology is wonderful!  Publicly, pro photographers extol the
virtues of their manual dinosaurs.  Privately, they complain how its
harder and harder for tem to focus in the reduced light of receptions,
particulary as their eyesight deteriorates with age.  It is not unusual
for me to get back an ENTIRE 37-shot roll (what the 8008/s gets from
a 36-shot roll) and have NOT ONE image out of focus.  The attrition
with medium format in candid work is not as greater.

I use 35mm to get close ups of the ceremony from unusual angles - when
layout of the church and rules allow.  I use the 180/f2.8 with camera
on a monopod, and either ASA 400 Vericolor or ASA 1600 Ektapress for
this.  Sometimes I use my 300mm f4 ED.  Sure its a little grainy, but
it gives a wonderful element to the coverage.  There are other capabilities
that the 8008s/SB24 combo gets - strobe shots, second-curtain sync (to
catch the bouquet in flight with falsh at the end of its travel, etc,
etc.  At large weddings, as well as those where the client is making
a major investment, my 35' is a THIRD camera.  #1 is a Bronica with
Metz flash and Lumiquest bounce card and VPS or VPH film.  #2 is another
Bronica on a tripod with VPL (long exposure tungsten balanced) film
for time exposures of the buiding, hall, church, etc.  And #3 is a Nikon
8008s and SB-24 flash with Lumiquest bouncer of Soft Box and either
VPS, VPH, or Ektapress 1600 and zoom or wide lens.  I pick it up one
handed for quick shots.

I plan to so some jobs totally in 35 using VPS (ASA 100, really).  Results
are marvelous.  In the 10" print size, it is hard to tell the difference.
And most high-end clients don't put big enlargements on their walls
- they put art on their walls. Photos are displayed ass 8x10s or smaller.
They are ususally crative, natural photos, not the ubiquitous Olan Mills
background portraits.  The ability to make nice sharp 10" prints and
capture reality with responsiveness, in my opinion, makes the current
generation of 35mm AF a wonderful tool in the hands of creative photographers
who want to capture the story and feelings of a wedding.

   /|/| /||)|/  /~ /\| |\|)[~|)/~   |   Everyone's entitled to MY opinion.
  / | |/ ||\|\  \_|\/|_|/|)[_|\\_|  |      goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil
========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======