Wedding Photography Speed Question
John Prosper
>Re: Wedding speed question by John Prosper
>
>I've used VPH 400 (exposed at ISO 320) for all my weddings exclusively for
>the last 3 years. I do about 10 - 15 weddings a year. Prior to VPH, I used VPS
>(at ISO 80) exclusively. Frankly, print wise, I can't tell the difference
>between VPS and VPH, except that the price (film stock) is about $1.00/roll of
>220 higher.
>
>I prefer VPH and pay more exactly because of the speed.
>
>I think VPH is closer to true 400 than VPS is to 160 and greater speed offers
>better depth of light when I drag the shutter for some background detail, my
>telephoto (f:5.6) available light church pictures are at 1/4 -1/8 sec instead
>of 1-1/2 sec) so people moving are less blurred, balancing indoor lighting
>with outdoors (i.e. background windows) is easier when I pick a higher
>autoflash aperture on my Lumidyne and speed the camera shutter up to balance
>the outdoors as well as I can, and when flash is totally forbidden (sometimes
>happens) I have a "shot" at some image density to offer my photofinisher.
>
>I switched to VPH and never returned because the benefits were all positive.
>My photolab, who specializes in VPS acknowledges that he feels that VPH
>despite Kodaks staements that they balance alike are not,but, he also says
>they are close enough to fine tune with edge balancing.
VPH was one of the first non-Ektar color emulsions to benefit from Kodak's
T-grain technology. I have used both VPS and VPH myself and was pleasantly
surprised by VPH's fine grain. This duo have been my portrait films of
choice thus far. However, I am beginning to explore newer emulsions with
better granularity figures (see below).
You seem to be objecting to my referral to sibling similarities between VPS
and VPH. I was not stating that they were *exactly the same*: they can't
be -- one uses T-grain while the other doesn't. I was pointing to the
true-enough general fact that film manufacturers deliberately engineer
film families (Ektar, Kodachrome, etc.) to share the same general features
(eg., color palette). If one scrutinizes the members of any emulsion
family closely enough, of course you will find differences. As a classic
example, there are many who will tell you that Kodachrome 25 has slightly
more intense color than Kodachrome 64.
>I never shot a Fuji film for a wedding (family 35mm Fuji was fine except most
>consumer photo labs have a green/magenta tendency in my area), but am told by
>those who have to watch out for the greens in pro labs. Some pro labs, even
>Fuji owned, apparently can't get the green out! My lab won't accept Fuji
>without a verbal waiver of liability - apparently they got into too many
>pissing contests with unhappy photographers and could never balance the Fuji
>products to the photographers expecations - so today they flatly do not
>recommend any Fuji films color wise. However, I hear occasionally, some
>fine results with Fuji, so somewhere, someone is doing a good job.
VPS/VPH are the standards which all other wedding/portrait films are
measured against. The staffers at virtually every pro lab are sure to be
familiar enough with their equipment settings necessary to realistically
render VPS/VPH quickly and quite well.
The rise of more recent emulsions (eg., Fuji's Reala, 160 Pro S, and 400
Pro HG; Agfa's Portrait; Konica's SR-G 160 & Super SR 200; and Kodak's Pro
400) with better granularity figures (virtually all), slightly softer and
more delicate palettes (Portrait and SR-G -- probably Super SR 200 as
well), or slightly richer but still accurate skin tones (Reala and Pro
400) have caused many to expand or alter their wedding/portrait options.
The benefits of the new films are offset by the fact that there are still
many pro labs which are still not accustomed to their color characteristics
resulting in less than professional-grade printing where color balance is
concerned (especially in the USA). However, as you seem to be observing,
this is slowly starting to change.
I have had excellent results with test rolls of Agfa Portrait. Barring
filtration, Reala is the only practical option under fluorescent lighting.
The lower RMS granularity figures for these films translates to bigger and
sharper emulsions.
Obviously, if your lab is not used to balancing certain films, you may
have to seek other alternatives if you want to use the more recent
portrait/wedding emulsions. I like to call up or visit a lab (if possible
-- I mail order quite a bit too) to speak with their lab technicians to
discuss their familiarity with non-VPS/VPH materials. I send in
unimportant or test rolls to gain a handle on their competence before I
start shipping in the significant images.
With the steady flow of great new products from the film manufacturers I
can never stay married to same emulsions and labs, although my run with VPS
(and later VPH) has been pretty lengthy.
--
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| John A. Prosper | Internet: pro...@cs.fsu.edu |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Henry A Stoffel
I've used VPH 400 (exposed at ISO 320) for all my weddings exclusively for
the last 3 years. I do about 10 - 15 weddings a year. Prior to VPH, I used VPS
(at ISO 80) exclusively. Frankly, print wise, I can't tell the difference
between VPS and VPH, except that the price (film stock) is about $1.00/roll of
220 higher.
I prefer VPH and pay more exactly because of the speed.
I think VPH is closer to true 400 than VPS is to 160 and greater speed offers
better depth of light when I drag the shutter for some background detail, my
telephoto (f:5.6) available light church pictures are at 1/4 -1/8 sec instead
of 1-1/2 sec) so people moving are less blurred, balancing indoor lighting
with outdoors (i.e. background windows) is easier when I pick a higher
autoflash aperture on my Lumidyne and speed the camera shutter up to balance
the outdoors as well as I can, and when flash is totally forbidden (sometimes
happens) I have a "shot" at some image density to offer my photofinisher.
I switched to VPH and never returned because the benefits were all positive.
My photolab, who specializes in VPS acknowledges that he feels that VPH
despite Kodaks staements that they balance alike are not,but, he also says
they are close enough to fine tune with edge balancing.
I never shot a Fuji film for a wedding (family 35mm Fuji was fine except most
consumer photo labs have a green/magenta tendency in my area), but am told by
those who have to watch out for the greens in pro labs. Some pro labs, even
Fuji owned, apparently can't get the green out! My lab won't accept Fuji
without a verbal waiver of liability - apparently they got into too many
pissing contests with unhappy photographers and could never balance the Fuji
products to the photographers expecations - so today they flatly do not
recommend any Fuji films color wise. However, I hear occasionally, some
fine results with Fuji, so somewhere, someone is doing a good job.
Hank