Available light wedding

[graywolf]

Long, long ago, when I occassionally did weddings, I usually used one MX with the M35/f2.0, another MX with the M85/f2.0, plus a 200/f2.8 in the bag for balcony shots. I usually shot 400 speed film available light. I preferred B&W but he clients usually wanted color. That combination never left me feeling unable to cover a ceremony well. 

The only problem I see is that many clients have come to expect a CD with a thousand or so proofs on it, that is kind of an expensive way to work with film.

PS: I still love my MXen.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------


drew wrote:
> Hi there,
> I'm relatively new to this list, but I would like to ask about a
> scenario I have not been able to find much discussion about in the
> archives.
> 
> I nearly always use available light in my photographs, and I still use
> film. I do work for a weekly newspaper and use a Nikon DSLR as time
> restraints and deadlines dictate, but my love is shooting with my pair
> of Pentax MXs and soon, a Pentax 645, which will replace my Mamiya C33
> as my primary medium format rig. (I also have a few Brownie Hawkeyes and
> a Graflex 22 TLR that round out my low-budget yet fun to use MF gear.)
> 
> To the scenario... I have been commissioned by some acquaintances to
> shoot their wedding this fall. Ceremony will be outdoors, mid September,
> at 4:30 p.m. at a mountaintop resort in West Virginia. (About three
> hours before sunset, according to the US Naval Observatory.)
> 
> Weather permitting, it should be a beautiful event, the light that time
> of year is wonderful, and the backdrop will be a panorama of mountains
> with leaves beginning to change.
> 
> I'm also being asked to photograph the first hour of the reception,
> which will be indoors, in a typical banquet hall setting at the
> resort--the luminescent and aesthetic antithesis of the ceremony. Guests
> are being provided with disposable cameras for the remainder of the
> reception.
> 
> Browsing this list's archives and a number of other respected forums, I
> see the vast majority of folks shoot weddings using zooms (typically
> ~28-70 and ~80-200) and flash (often using a stroboframe or similar
> bracket). My style, as mentioned before, however, is natural light and a
> collection of prime lenses, excluding my "new" SMC-A 35-105mm f3.5. 
> 
> While it's not the way the majority of folks shoot weddings, this couple
> approached me because they like my work. (And I've offered a reasonable
> fee, since this is my first wedding gig. I warned them of the risk of my
> inexperience, encouraged them to shop around for other photographers,
> they did, and they came back to me.)
> 
> I'm rather inspired to see that until recently, Jeff Ascough was
> shooting by available light and on film, with Leicas, of course, rather
> than the much under-rated MX. ;)  He has since gone digital.
> 
> The glass I plan to use includes the SMC-M 50mm 1.4, an Elicar 90mm 2.5,
> and I'd like to pick up a SMC-M 34mm f2 for something wide, fast and
> affordable that won't distort group shots. For the 645 I have the 75mm
> and the 45mm. I may consider picking up the 150mm. This camera will
> probably be relegated to the formal portraits, as I think the MX is more
> suited to the PJ coverage of the wedding and reception, being
> inconspicuous and less intimidating to people on the other end of the
> glass.
> 
> I'd like to hear folks' thoughts on lenses appropriate for the job, film
> recommendations for such a scenario (I'm thinking Portra 160 and 400 --
> likely 800 for the reception and Ilford XP2 Super), and if I'm being a
> crazy for eschewing flash.
> 
> I look forward to hearing what folks have to say.
> 
> Thanks,
> Drew
>