Good Alround 35mm Pro Quality Film Speed / Brand

[mysteryscribe]

Ah well if you have good luck with slide film I'd use what I have the best luck with. Maybe my eyes are bad enough now that it isnt a problem with me any more.

Guess what film this is..

this is from a wedding I shot a couple of months ago.

 

[cigrainger]

Ah well if you have good luck with slide film I'd use what I have the best luck with. Maybe my eyes are bad enough now that it isnt a problem with me any more.

Guess what film this is..

this is from a wedding I shot a couple of months ago.

Everything looks fine but the skin tone -- obviously a well-done wedding shot from someone with a lot of experience. Obviously if she naturally has blotchy skin or something, you can't do anything about it and I'm guessing that's what happened here, but the skin tone is quite red and unflattering. I'm also going to go out on a limb and say the fill flash is just a bit too much, turning the breast of her dress into a distracting blown out highlight, although I like what it does to her hair. It also causes a bit of an unnatural shadow under her chin. I dunno -- I'm not a pro wedding photographer so take my thoughts with a grain of salt, but I would have cut off a bit of her arm for flattery and left the entire bouquet in for aesthetic and I mean when taking the original shot. Maybe moved a bit lower to get the hands in as well. Hindsight's 20/20 though isn't it? I wouldn't have been able to do half as good of a job.

I have to agree -- it's a matter of what works best for you and in a pro's case, your customers. If you're comfortable shooting negs and you and your customers prefer it, then thats the way to go. The same goes for slides. Thats the best part about photography -- we can all shoot what we like and are comfortable with, only restricted by our customer if we are doing pro stuff.

 

[mysteryscribe]

True on all counts. I should have done a bit of bluring on the blotchy skin. Most likely a case of nerves. And it is originally even more red. The flash isn't fill it's the only light in an otherwise dark room. Yes those things do burn out whites. But generally in a print is isn't all that noticeable to the customer. I have found over the years if a custoemer's face is well lite that's about all they notice. But what film has the characteristics you see here.

 

[cigrainger]

True on all counts. I should have done a bit of bluring on the blotchy skin. Most likely a case of nerves. And it is originally even more red. The flash isn't fill it's the only light in an otherwise dark room. Yes those things do burn out whites. But generally in a print is isn't all that noticeable to the customer. I have found over the years if a custoemer's face is well lite that's about all they notice. But what film has the characteristics you see here.

If it works for the customer that's all that matters.

Hey, I'm not capable of telling you what film is which just by looking at a scan. I probably couldn't tell from a print. I don't have years of experience. I only know what has worked well for me. :thumbup:

What film is it?

 

[mysteryscribe]

It's actually a house brand of fuji. No one could tell me which fuji it was. It has the classic red tint of fuji though. I had to tone it down a lot to get to the point you see.

That is pretty much why I decided to shoot the royal gold next time. Kodak is more yellow than red. The grain might be a problem but I think it will be used in a photo book prints no larger than 8x10. If they are sharp enough I can always toss the despeckle filter on it.

 

[cigrainger]

It's actually a house brand of fuji. No one could tell me which fuji it was. It has the classic red tint of fuji though. I had to tone it down a lot to get to the point you see.

That is pretty much why I decided to shoot the royal gold next time. Kodak is more yellow than red. The grain might be a problem but I think it will be used in a photo book prints no larger than 8x10. If they are sharp enough I can always toss the despeckle filter on it.

That sounds like it would work. FWIW, I've never had problems with Provia being red for skin tones, only Velvia. I've never really dealt with their color negs.

I'd be interested to see how Provia 400 would do for low light wedding shoots, or Kodachrome 200.

Do you do a lot of tele work for weddings? Is it all 35mm?

Do you think it would be possible or even a good idea to shoot a wedding in MF?

 

[mysteryscribe]

Me too but you have to shoot it.... lol... I don't experiment on someone else's dime. Now on my own dime I'll try anything but I'm not going to get married again to experiement with film.

 

[cigrainger]

Me too but you have to shoot it.... lol... I don't experiment on someone else's dime. Now on my own dime I'll try anything but I'm not going to get married again to experiement with film.

Haha, of course. I guess you could ask somebody if you can come take pictures at their wedding for practice and offer them the results for free.

The reason I ask about MF is that you could shoot a wedding with something like Provia 400 with MF and available light, and still get biiiig enlargements without grain.

 

[mysteryscribe]

When I first started I used to shoot nothing but 120 aka med format.... used to shoot vps 400 but still had to use strobe. Those churches are way darker than they look. And those flower girls wont stand still. Actually seems like someone always has to scratch their nose.

 

[cigrainger]

When I first started I used to shoot nothing but 120 aka med format.... used to shoot vps 400 but still had to use strobe. Those churches are way darker than they look. And those flower girls wont stand still. Actually seems like someone always has to scratch their nose.

I wouldn't know. Couldn't you use a softer flash (maybe with a reflector or diffuser) with a faster film?

I guess outside weddings are a bit easier, no?

 

[mysteryscribe]

No they aren't any easier at all. You just have different lighting problems.

People are terrified of strobe lights and I have no idea why.

As far as softer, I like the light and the effect. I never had a customer complain so it if ain't broke, I ain't gonna fix it. The reason I used 400 speed film is it added more distance on the strobe. When you have thrity or forty people strung out across the front of a church, you need to be able to shoot from a pretty good distance. When you open up enough to get that much distance, you can easily have a dof problem. What I always wanted to do was to have at least a 5.6 or smaller aperture to give me enough depth of field for a staggered line of people.

I'm not really convinced that the average person gives a rats rear about all the things that photographers seem to obsess over.

Oh my there is a hot spot on her dress of about the size of a pickle jar lid, how it the world can you stand that. Oh because the face and body are all there and pretty well lit. That's what I think people are looking for. thats just my approach, not saying it is right for anyone else.