Faux vintage wedding pics

Organnyx said:
I tried every type of film available (even Konica!) - before I did a lot of wedding work I "cut my teeth" on pro photography for a company that used the Kodak film for "function work" which to my mind was dreadful (shadows "blocked up", unnatural colours, relatively grainy, look at it funny it developed colour casts) - I wanted an "as near natural" colour film as possible with a fine grain that was good-tempered (tolerant of abuse in exposure).
Along came Fuji with their bright colours, and eventually came out with the utter revelation of Fuji Reala - it was such an improvement over all the others that there was just no comparison, it was the difference between a Findus Lasagne and dinner at La Gavroche.......
The colours were accurate, the grain was very fine, it was very tolerant of under and over-exposure, and in the hands of a good processor the prints had a "quality" never before achievable - it was a relatively low contrast film, which allowed them great latitude in how they printed (and B&W prints taken from it were knockout)

When I started using it, the pros I was working with doing function work were somewhat sniffy, then I noticed they all quietly moved over to it themselves when they saw how much better it was.....:D
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but you picked films based on the style.
 
"you picked films based on the style"
If you wish to equate quality with style (which does NOT follow) -that's a bit like saying you preferring your Nikon lens to an el cheapo soligor that had elements out of milk bottles was a "style" choice
Almost all slide film used to be Kodak (it was much used for magazine and print work), and the same thing happened, Kodak had a near monopoly, then along came Fuji with it's stunning natural colours, fine grain etc. which swept the board..... it was a "quality" thing

Certainly there were "specialist " films (which weren't a lot of use for wedding work)- Velvia had lovely bright and accurate, but over-saturated colours - there were several "portrait" colour neg films that came out and rapidly sank which were usually low-contrast and with "wishy washy" colours, but generally you chose a film for it's accuracy and ability to do the job.......
 
I think the problem with those who've grown up with digital is that they really don't realise how important film was - you couldn't "dial things in and out", you had no "preview" unless you used a polaroid back (which was in itself not too accurate) - you chose a film to "do the job", and went for the highest quality balanced against practicability - I'd go so far as to say that the superiority of the Fuji films was what enabled the widespread use of 35mm cameras for weddings - a real step forward in quality (not a damn thing to do with "style")
Most wedding pros used 6x6 medium format cameras, us 35mm users were "upstarts"...:D
 
Organnyx said:
"you picked films based on the style"
If you wish to equate quality with style (which does NOT follow) -that's a bit like saying you preferring your Nikon lens to an el cheapo soligor that had elements out of milk bottles was a "style" choice
Almost all slide film used to be Kodak (it was much used for magazine and print work), and the same thing happened, Kodak had a near monopoly, then along came Fuji with it's stunning natural colours, fine grain etc. which swept the board..... it was a "quality" thing

Certainly there were "specialist " films (which weren't a lot of use for wedding work)- Velvia had lovely bright and accurate, but over-saturated colours - there were several "portrait" colour neg films that came out and rapidly sank which were usually low-contrast and with "wishy washy" colours, but generally you chose a film for it's accuracy and ability to do the job.......
Click to expand...
It wasn't all 'accuracy' though was it? As you said earlier - one of the benefits was great exposure latitude.

But some of the 'old-timers' feel they're in a position to have a go at 'upstarts' who correct their exposures in post (makes me laugh so much). When digital became the norm forums were full of pro's discussing how they were having to tighten up their metering technique.

I do see the point of films chosen for their 'look' which is a close relation to adding effects to give a certain 'look'.

I'm baffled by some of the comments in this thread though, on both sides;

People arguing that correct exposure and WB isn't necessary if you have a 'style' that you apply in post? WRONG - You'll never get a uniform look with a preset if you're not setting off from the same place, you're kidding yourself if you think you can get away with bad photography covered over with Photoshop or Lightroom - crap pictures with a vintage style are still crap pictures.

And somehow there's a line in the sand based on classic and timeless? WRONG - there's no such thing! Like music, fashion or anything else, there may be a standard - but it's constantly shifting. Which is why many younger photographers don't 'get' the Masters, because their work is technically flawed - and that would simply be not allowed to thrive in the modern age.

I'm personally embarrassed by the wedding photography I shot 25 years ago - and I wasn't trying to be trendy - I thought I was shooting 'classic' portraiture.
 
Organnyx said:
I think the problem with those who've grown up with digital is that they really don't realise how important film was - you couldn't "dial things in and out", you had no "preview" unless you used a polaroid back (which was in itself not too accurate) - you chose a film to "do the job", and went for the highest quality balanced against practicability - I'd go so far as to say that the superiority of the Fuji films was what enabled the widespread use of 35mm cameras for weddings - a real step forward in quality (not a damn thing to do with "style")
Most wedding pros used 6x6 medium format cameras, us 35mm users were "upstarts"...:D
Click to expand...

I've grown up with digital, but I'm still well aware of the importance of film and how it works.

You're living in the past. Photography has moved on, the difference is now, is there are almost infinite ways to make a photo look a way you want it to. thanks to technology. You're not restricted by film when it comes to output - you've just chosen not to embrace that fact which is entirely up to you. Others have. It's a difference of opinion, but you just see it as 'them' being wrong.
 
"in a position to have a go at 'upstarts' who correct their exposures in post" - I'm not "having a go" at that at all, we can all "miss" accurate exposures from time to time, and are very grateful for the film/digital latitude in being able to correct it - I think we actually agree on the main point, that too may people rely on PP to try to make up for crap technique (which is impossible)........

Going back to film, I certainly never chose a film for it's "style", but am of the firm opinion that the superior quality available from the Fuji films enabled 35mm to thrive at weddings - I wouldn't have been at all happy with the quality of the Kodak stuff (was it "Vericolor"?), and would have probably stuck with at least a Bronica ETRS to make up to some extent for it's deficiencies if that's all that was available - it was definitely a "quality" thing......
 
Organnyx said:
"in a position to have a go at 'upstarts' who correct their exposures in post" - I'm not "having a go" at that at all, we can all "miss" accurate exposures from time to time, and are very grateful for the film/digital latitude in being able to correct it - I think we actually agree on the main point, that too may people rely on PP to try to make up for crap technique (which is impossible)........

Going back to film, I certainly never chose a film for it's "style", but am of the firm opinion that the superior quality available from the Fuji films enabled 35mm to thrive at weddings - I wouldn't have been at all happy with the quality of the Kodak stuff (was it "Vericolor"?), and would have probably stuck with at least a Bronica ETRS to make up to some extent for it's deficiencies if that's all that was available - it was definitely a "quality" thing......
Click to expand...

You really don't get this at all, do you?
 
Organnyx said:
but am of the firm opinion that the superior quality available from the Fuji films enabled 35mm to thrive at weddings
Click to expand...

My father always used Reala for weddings when using 35mm. He said it was formulated to give accurate skin tones whilst keeping the wedding dress white.

It might not have actually been formulated for that but it did work.

EDIT:

I should have read your previous post first:

Organnyx said:
Along came Fuji with their bright colours, and eventually came out with the utter revelation of Fuji Reala - it was such an improvement over all the others that there was just no comparison, it was the difference between a Findus Lasagne and dinner at La Gavroche.......
The colours were accurate....
Click to expand...

I agree totally.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
"You're not restricted by film when it comes to output" - absolutely, and I relish the fact that life is so much easier nowadays, no need to change cameras or films, just change the "speed", "instant replays" etc, BUT I still want accurate colour rendition, lenses that "draw right", and want to turn out photos with good accurate colours and exposure - yes there's all sorts of things I can "dial in", but find them all pretty tiresome and peurile, and no substitute for technique.
Just because "it's possible" doesn't make it good or tasteful - I could adjust my tv to give me 'orrible under or over-saturated colours, but I don't - I could use a graphic equaliser on my hifi (arguably it then wouldn't be hifi anymore:D), but I don't - just because "you can" doesn't make it "right" or desirable........:D
 
Last edited:
I always recall my dad using Kodak film, when I was a kid I went through a roll of film before he was heading off to a wedding in one burst haha. EOS 1n camera if I remember right..
 
Organnyx said:
"You're not restricted by film when it comes to output" - absolutely, and I relish the fact that life is so much easier nowadays, no need to change cameras or films, just change the "speed", "instant replays" etc, BUT I still want accurate colour rendition, lenses that "draw right", and want to turn out photos with good accurate colours - yes there's all sorts of things I can "dial in", but find them all pretty tiresome and peurile, and no substitute for technique.
Just because "it's possible" doesn't make it good or tasteful - I could adjust my tv to give me 'orrible under or over-saturated colours, but I don't - I could use a graphic equaliser on my hifi (arguably it then wouldn't be hifi anymore:D), but I don't - just because "you can" doesn't make it "right" or desirable........:D
Click to expand...

But once again, not everybody wants that.

And people do calibrate their TV to their own tastes and do adjust the bass, treble etc on music players. It's a personal thing and is certainly not wrong, just not what you're into. There is no right or wrong, but you're not really getting that.
 
Organnyx said:
"in a position to have a go at 'upstarts' who correct their exposures in post" - I'm not "having a go" at that at all, we can all "miss" accurate exposures from time to time, and are very grateful for the film/digital latitude in being able to correct it - I think we actually agree on the main point, that too may people rely on PP to try to make up for crap technique (which is impossible)........

Going back to film, I certainly never chose a film for it's "style", but am of the firm opinion that the superior quality available from the Fuji films enabled 35mm to thrive at weddings - I wouldn't have been at all happy with the quality of the Kodak stuff (was it "Vericolor"?), and would have probably stuck with at least a Bronica ETRS to make up to some extent for it's deficiencies if that's all that was available - it was definitely a "quality" thing......
Click to expand...

I never said you did. I read carefully;) But there are plenty of others that do (and we know there are).

We do agree about film though - but you just saw a film you liked better as being better - yet you agree that some other films had visual qualities you didn't like so were worse.

That's exactly what Ben and I have been trying to point out - but you can't see your decision as a choice of 'look' you just see the quality (better) rather than quality (inherent characteristics), we chose films for the way they 'looked'. I used the Fuji (was it NSP160) before Reala, because I preferred the look of it to the Kodak most photographers used. I also used Fujichrome for landscapes because I loved the 'look' and whilst it was more natural looking than most film, when slightly underexposed it gave very punchy saturated reds and greens, very much on the over-processed end of 'natural'.

Digital gives us all the opportunity to choose how our images 'look' after we've taken them. The vintage 'look' is very fashionable, but to pull it off you can't just point your camera at any old thing in any old light and run it through a filter. That's just the same as any other bad photography. But if you're photographing the right kind of subject sympathetically, then processing them well, you will create images that might be 'trendy' but they'll always be good photography.
 
Phil V said:
if you're photographing the right kind of subject sympathetically, then processing them well, you will create images that might be 'trendy' but they'll always be good photography.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the ability to post-process images to look a certain way is a wonderful aspect of digital but personally if I want a photo to look like Provia/Portra/whatever then I'll take it on Provia/Portra/whatever. I don't see the point in digital emulation (again for me personally) but that's a way of thinking I've brought over from my background in music. There are all kinds of emulators you can get to make a Precision or whatever bass sound like something else and that's fine if you can find a good use for it and it works for you, but if I'm recording a track I need a Stingray sound for then I'll play a Stingray in the first place. Just because newer digital alternatives are available doesn't mean I *have* to use them and I see film in exactly the same way.

At the end of the day this can all be summed up very easily indeed - do whatever works best for you and if you create a great image that's pretty much what you wanted at the end of it who cares how you did it?
 
Last edited:
Organnyx said:
I could use a graphic equaliser on my hifi (arguably it then wouldn't be hifi anymore
Click to expand...

Actually, it would if you used it properly. A graphic equaliser should be used to counter the resonances in a room to create a flat response, not as a general tone control. But that's for another forum!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
As a sound engineer I disagree, 'proper' hi-fi shouldn't need any EQ at all but as you say that's for elsewhere! :LOL:
Click to expand...

As a live sound engineer, I was really referring to the method of equalising for the room. I'm sure you know what I'm referring to.

For hi-fi to sound right, you don't really want any resonances in the room either. I suppose a true hi-fi fan would try to counter this with wall coverings, baffles, etc. rather than resort to any electronic filtering in his precious minimalist preamp to power amp connection!

Do you do live or recorded? (or both?).

Now back to our regular scheduled programme...


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
As a live sound engineer, I was really referring to the method of equalising for the room. I'm sure you know what I'm referring to.

For hi-fi to sound right, you don't really want any resonances in the room either. I suppose a true hi-fi fan would try to counter this with wall coverings, baffles, etc. rather than resort to any electronic filtering in his precious minimalist preamp to power amp connection!

Do you do live or recorded? (or both?).


Steve.
Click to expand...

To be honest I'd never even consider equalising to a room at home, that process belongs solely in a live environment to me. I love the sound of my speakers as they are and I'd rather tolerate a slight resonance at a certain frequency than mess with how they sound.

I've only ever done live sound but I'm just starting to mess around in a friend's studio which is going to be a very interesting and new learning curve! :)
 
And I didn't even know a stingray could make a sound - i thought they were mute animals - well you live and learn!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top