File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
hey guys

anyone have suggestions on 35mm films to use for wedding photography?I might shoot one and i have no idea what to use. Im thinking of using Fuji Astia, but i have yet to find anyone whos actually used it.
>> Anonymous
Kodachrome. I'm not joking. There's only one lab in the US that still processes it but you'll have amazingly beautiful slides that in 50 years will look like they were just processed yesterday.

Slides are forever. In 20 years you'll have to dig through a junk store to find something to read CDRoms.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
Photographic plates. I'm not joking. They're not something you can drop off at the local pharmacy but you'll have amazingly beautiful photographic plates that in 50 years will look like they were just processed yesterday.

Photographic plates are forever. In 20 years you'll have to dig through a junk store to find something to view slides.
>> Anonymous
>>201807
guess ill try that, but know of any other film that will give great quality, and can be processed by more than just one place?
>> Anonymous
>>201810
Go back to your pocket digital and photoshop.

Prints fade, various forms of computer media go in and out with time. Slides are still the best option for permanent image preservation. They're the photographic equivalent of a stone tablet. If OP is serious about creating some lifelong memories for his clients, he should take that into account.
>> Anonymous
>>201813
Really, unless you're planning on doing some serious enlargements or shooting in some funky lighting conditions, there isn't going to be a ton of difference between various films.

Just pick something versatile since you'll most likely be doing outdoor shots of the wedding party and indoor shots of the reception. Keep in mind that many wedding receptions are somewhat dimly lit so you'll want to be covered for low-light.

Under no circumstances should you photograph anyone doing the macarena at the reception. It can ruin your camera.
>> Anonymous
>>201815
>>201807
Crisp clear points
thanks!
I'll use Kodachrome. It'll be worth the wait.
>> Anonymous
>>201820
Good choice. I tend to use that for my clients and they always end up being grateful. People get emotional over their wedding and it always impresses them when I explain how this will truly preserve the event (to the point that they never mind paying the extra processing surcharge I add for the slides)

http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/newsite2006/slide-film.html

Here's the URL for the lab that will develop them. They're the last certified processor for Kodachrome but their work is always flawless.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>201815
I shoot film as well as digital, thanks. My film setups are more pocket-sized than my digital setup.

I was pointing out that you sound like a fucking relic. People say that about new mediums all of the time, it doesn't change the fact that the new is still coming in. People also once said that compact discs would never take off and that 8-tracks and floppy discs were here to stay. "Blahblahblah, *insert preferred format* is here to stay" doesn't mean anything. Just say "I prefer slides and find them easier personally to archive" and drop the "I'm an expert; here's why" crap.
>> Anonymous
>>201828
I didn't claim to be an expert, even though shooting weddings and special occassions is what I do for a living, and at no point said that my answer was the only correct one.

I prefer slides because they won't fade if properly processed and they don't require any sort of equipment to read. It's a physical image that won't go bad over time like a print and I'm sure we'll always have the technology to scan one to reprint an image. Newer isn't always better.

If you have a better method then give OP some advice instead of a pointless sarcastic response to mine.
>> Anonymous
>>201825
thanks!
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>201832
I have no problem with the method, I love slide film. It's the attitude about it and how you're assuming that slides really are forever that I jumped in about. Slides DO age, though not at the same speed as most current digital formats. One could say the same thing about digital files always being accessible in some way (not necessarily on any external media) and it would be the exact same thing as what you're saying with the slides. It's just speculation and the technologies aren't that much different.
>> Anonymous
>>201835
Then we shall agree to disagree? I like digital formats but you'll always need something to read them, or have to transfer them whenever you get a new computer, and of course if you have an idiot using said computer the data can be lost in a crash or accidentally deleted. As I said, what I love about slides is that they're a physical image, and only need your eyeballs to read them.

Seriously, I didn't mean to come off as an ass and apologize if that's how it sounded. I just consider long-term image preservation to be an important part of my job.

"Kodachrome slides over fifty years old still retain accurate color and grain. It has been calculated that the least stable color, yellow, suffers a 20% loss in 180 years. This is mostly attributable to the fact that Kodachromes have no unused color couplers remaining after processing, unlike other color slides. However, Kodachrome color stability under bright light, i.e., projection, is quite inferior to E-6 process slide films (mentioned below), at least in actual still film"
- The permanence and care of color photographs. Wilhelm Imaging Research
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/HW_Book_05_of_20_HiRes_v1a.pdf

So Kodachrome is perfect for archiving, just not the best at using in an actual slide projector.
>> Anonymous
My parents' wedding was shot in slides. I dont even know if they're Kodachrome since they're trimmed very tightly. They look fantastic even though they're 36 years old. If anything, some might have become tinted yellow a slight bit.
>> Anonymous
>>201843
>So Kodachrome is perfect for archiving, just not the best at using in an actual slide projector.

Loupe + fluorescent lightbox then?
>> Anonymous
>>201851
I dunno, I just use my slides for longterm archiving. I never actually project them, I just scan them if I need to reprint an image.
>> Anonymous
One last question:Do I have to worry about any color balance while using Kodachrome?
>> Anonymous
I am in love with Fuji Provia right now, but have not used it for portraits. Might want to make sure whatever place you are using for processing can do E-6 and make prints from it though.

Lots of places still do E-6 compared to the number that do K-14...
>> Anonymous
>>201867
Yes. It is balanced for sunlight.

You will need various filters depending on the lighting at at the venue. Tungsten, fluorescent, etc. will all cause nasty color shifts that you will have to correct with filters or photoshop, but filters are far safer.
>> Anonymous
>>201878
k. I have a cokin filter set, with some kodak filters i found for cheap. Those should work then
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
     File :-(, x)
>>201872
For reference, portrait on Provia 100f.
I love it, neutral colours and super low grain.
>> Anonymous
>>201916
Both cokin and kodak filters suck. Never use inferiour glass in front of your lens.
>> Anonymous
>>201939
Not inferior glass. The filters work really well. I haven't had a problem yet with them.
>> Anonymous
bumping real gear threads
>> Anonymous
I'd say shoot colour negative instead of slide film. It gives you a little latitude in the exposure and more stops of dynamic range compared with slide film.

Pro colour neg film printed at a good shop will look every bit as good as slides. I can recommend Fuji Reala (get the low contrast the high contrast ain't good for portraits) 100 or 160 ISO or Kodak Portra 160.

As for archiving I don't see any advantage to using slides over negs or digital files.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>201919
>>203524

I like negs, and neutral colors, and grain. My film of choice if Fuji NPH.

I'd use Provia if I like silky smooth pictures, but meh.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:10 23:39:55
>> Anonymous
>>201939
Note that Kodak Wratten gel filters are the most color-accurate, optically correct filters out there.