Color negative film for portrature/weddings

[Jim Rice]

Someone very dear to me is marrying soon. It's been a few years since I've shot color negative material, and mail-order is required to get a film in here. Please, please, please share some thoughts on the subject. Faster is better, but not a deal breaker. Matching roll film to sheet is more of an issue. I REALLY want to pull this off with almost no learning curve, so take pity on me. Floods of information greatly appreciated.

[John Sarsgard]

I very much like the Kodak portra family of color neg films. I prefer the more natural NC versions to the more saturated VC and UC. Also, in NC, you can get 160 and 400 ISO versions in 35mm, 120, and 4x5. The 4x5 version is the fastest color neg film I know about for 4x5. The 160 version for 4x5 comes in both sheets and Readyloads, the 400 speed only individual sheets. The skin colors are very well matched in all speeds and formats, so your 35mm, 120, and 4x5 work will have the same palette. There is also an 800 ISO version, but only in 35mm and 120. I think it is excellent and very natural.

[Jim Rice]

Thanks, John. Just what I was looking for. Any exposure tricks?

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi

I'm also a fan of the Portra family I use on sunny days the NC and on overcast days the VC version for weddings. Outside the 160 ASA inside the 400 ASA!
It is the best film family wich Kodak ever made!

[Erik Sherman]

I'll add my vote for Portra. I experimented with the film and found that shooting it at the 160 worked. I have even metered some landscape exposures at two to three minutes with an incident meter, shot them as is without reciprocity compensation (didn't have information on anything beyond about 10 seconds), and got good results.

[Ralph Barker]

Shoot it in B&W with a Leica M. ;-)

Just kidding, Jim. The Portra line seems to be pretty popular. Personally, I prefer Fuji NPS 160 in rolls or 4x5 QuickLoads. Fuji also makes a 400 (NPH) and an 800 (NPZ), but I don't think they are available in LF sizes, just rolls. But, assumimg you'll be using electronic flash for at least part of the effort, you may not actually need a film faster than ISO 160.

[Jim Rice]

I was actually thinking along the 160 lines, Ralph.

[Jim Rice]

While my Velvia fetish is pretty well established (can I say that here?), I've always gone to Kodak for flesh tones. So I guess that I'm going with NC, and as is my usual with negative film leaning a hair toward overexposure. Although another issue is Quickload vs. Readyload holder purchase. Anyone want to warn me off of this path?

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't shoot a lot of color neg, but when I do, I also like Portra 160NC.

[Ed Eubanks]

I also use Portra for the weddings I do; however, I use the VC line exclusively. My line of thinking-- the aspects of weddings that are the most significant and noticable, such as the flowers, the blushing bride, the decorated hall, the lavish food-- these are colorful, exciting things, and couples want to remember them as larger than life. The colors from the VC films portray this "larger than life" quality, ever so subtly, but it is there. That makes a big difference at times (although I've tried both VC and NC side-by-side and confess I often can't tell the difference, but when I can, I prefer the VC).

As for exposure suggestions, I overexpose all of my Portra roll-film (35mm and 120/220) by 1/3 stop. For 160, this amounts to roughly 100 ISO (400=320 ISO). This gives just an extra touch of contrast, and gives me a little more forgiveness for poorly lit scenes (of which there are many at weddings).

[John Flavell]

Just a quick comment on the exposure question: Color negative film saturates much better when over exposed a bit. The suggestion to take 160 to 100 is about right. Even a half-stop is good.

Also, don't be afraid to find that one image that would be better printed in black and white. Black and white of weddings is so rare these days that one or two prints may become quite special to the couple. A member of my family was married over the summer and I made a couple of Epson 2200 prints for them. The black and whites are on the wall.

[Jim_3565]

"It is the best film family wich Kodak ever made!"

Portra's acceptable for some things. I'm especially fond of the 160 VC. However, it's markedly inferior to the Pro Line which it replaced. Now THERE was some good film.

It took them 60 years or so to finally get everything perfect and then they just took it away....

[Jim_3565]

"Although another issue is Quickload vs. Readyload holder purchase. Anyone want to warn me off of this path?"

Get a Polaroid holder, in which both Quickloads and Readyloads will work. One holder, three films. My only complaints about Readyloads are a) that they don't make all films in this wonderful format and b) that there is no 8 x 10 Readyload system.

[Ralph Barker]

As Jim Shanesy notes, the Polaroid holder handles both Quickloads and Readyloads, making it very convenient. It is worth noting, however, that due to the lack of a pressure plate, there is a theoretical potential for diminished sharpness using using QL or RL in the Polaroid holder vs. the Fuji or Kodak holders designed for those films. The flip side of that note is that numerous LFers have used the Polaroid holder and have previously commented that they've noticed no degradation of sharpness. Personally, I use the Fuji holder with QuickLoads just as an extra measure of safety. (It doesn't add that much bulk or weight to the pack.)

[ronald moravec]

For wedding work, use 160 nc if it will be printed on commercial paper. If you will go to a wedding lab that uses portrait paper, use the VC. The film matches in 35mm and 4x5 so I assume 120 would be the same.

[Tajmul12345]

as a photographer i don,t shoot much negative but when i do then i select normal mood.

[photobymike]

35 years experience wedding photographer...I still use film and occasionally use a Graflex for old time look....Portra is the only film for face and skin colors. Your photos will be judged on the skin color. Also watch the wedding dress. Most dress manufactures put florescence in the material used to make the dress. This will turn the dress blueish with your flash. If anything goes wrong, they will blame you personally. If you do choose to do the job, work with a good wedding planner or coordinator. They will help you get the photos that are important. You will find that the bride and groom are in a daze and will be sliding thru the day without a clue. The worst time are the moments after the ceremony. You have to pose the wedding party on the alter. There will be not much time and everybody will want to step in front of you for the perfect picture... dont allow this!!!! it will be chaos and hilarity will ensue. trust me on this...And finally consider hiring a pro wedding photographer. Remember.... "just because you own a camera does not make you a photographer." Its not as easy as it appears to be.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Lets see, maybe 350 weddings. Maybe a few more.

Everybody has gone through the film with you.
If I could add one thing it would be that if you are going to do any formals on the altar with flash, make sure and drag your shutter. Its is so distressing to see people's wedding photos where you have the bride and groom standing there and everything else is black with no detail. For formals (as I called them) I set up a pair of studio lights (photogenic powerlights) in umbrellas, metered for them to get the f stop, and then metered the background to get the shutter speed. Beautiful each and every time.

Good luck!!!!!!!! If you haven't done it much you will need it. I agree with the above post. Consider hiring a good wedding photographer.

[photobymike]

LOL LOL yea what film is not going to be the bigest problem.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

LOL LOL yea what film is not going to be the bigest problem.

I agree. Good wedding photographers have "battle plan" etched in their memory. They rely on their experience more than anything else in order to be very fast and very efficient. You should have the events of the day and how you are going to photograph them saved to memory so that you don't even have to think about it. Most of the time you should be able to look around and not have to use a meter, already knowing what the exposure should be. You do not want to interupt the flow of the day.

[photobymike]

Yea!!!... some many times you the photographer are the person that is the coordinator, and run the show..... settle fights between the in-laws ... breakup sex in the parking lot.... get the happy couple on their way to honeymoon...manage the chaos at the "formals" after the ceremony ..... all this while you are taking the photos. then you have to try and get the photos back to the happy couple before the divorce ......I cant believe i did this for a living

[Gary Tarbert]

Hi shot many weddings over the years mainly on medium format , Kodak portra is ideal for weddings 160Nc or VC depends on colours bridesmaids dress ,skin tones etc. if not caucasian VC if modern edgy feel to the whole wedding VC if more traditional NC , But as others have suggested the film will be the least of your problems .If your market over there is anything like Australia we have hundreds of no nothing photographers running around with digital DSLR'S saying "they do reportage style and just capture the moment" ,Which is translated to i take 3,000 shots at a wedding because i have no F*****G idea what i am doing , So no wedding photog over here would dare shoot film let alone medium format .
I shot my last wedding about 7 years ago (used 160NC) i am happy to say i no longer shoot weddings and if i did it would be a digital shoot .Cheers Gary