I know that this topic has been addressed more than once, but I must relate a recent experience. My brother recently married and stated that there would be no photography allowed during the ceremony. This included the professional photographer hired for the occasion. I sat in the second row and took pics with my Leica , no flash, with Fuji @ 1600. No one was aware since I was using hyperfocal distancing.

Well, the professional pics taken after the ceremony, as a mock up, turned out terrible and outside pics were so poorly done that my brother actually took the 8 prints I gave him to show the professional as a comparison. The Leica was so quiet and unobtrusive, it saved the day.

This image is of my brother watching the photographer: http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1732850&a=13729719&p=53886604

-- Don M (Maldos@home.com), September 07, 2001

Answers

Don - the M is perfect for this kind of thing. Your scan is not too good though - weirdly low contrast. Scanning black and white film is very difficult - particularly fast film. I am sure the original is much superior!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 07, 2001.

I have used my M6 in church on a few occasions, and basically went undetected, since I do not use flash, only 400 ASA film.My pictures did not save the day as yours did, but the Leica rangefinder is unsurpassed for this type of discrete photography.It is nice that you took the photographs of your brother's wedding ceremony.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), September 07, 2001.

I was recently asked to shoot the candid side of a wedding ceremony precisely because of the quietness and unobtrusiveness of my Ms. On my suggestion the couple got another photog. to shoot the formal portraits (using a couple of Nikon F4S's + zooms...)

I used Fuji Press 800 film, although NHGII800 (or now NPZ 800) would have been better to cope with the bright whites of the bride's gown.

Had a lot of fun during the reception when I went around taking shots effectively in the dark. "Hey mate, yer flash didn't go off". So who needs a flash? (Mind you, I was hand-holding at f2 + 1/4 sec!).

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), September 07, 2001.

Andrew

I hear Portra 800 is good too and if it is like the 400 Portras it will be a true 800 speed film.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 07, 2001.

My son's school had a play in a low light auditorium where no flash was allowed. There were some upset parents who couldn't use the various digital and P&S cameras that had showed up. I shot away with the M3 and Fuji 1600 color neg and got some great shots at 1/30 f2.0.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 07, 2001.

How are the results with all these 800 and higher speed films. I have shot some 800, 1000 and 1600 (Kodak mostly) and found the results extremely grainy. How are others doing with these films.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), September 08, 2001.

800 film grainy?

I have found Fuji 800 Press to keep the grain under reasonable control. OTOH, Fuji 1600 press is just terrible. I did some candid shots in a museum with it and frankly, never again. Huge grain clumps. Terrible colour (especially under mixed lights) and the only time the film gave a decent image was when it was over-exposed by one stop(!). May as well stick with the 800 film, right?

Some people love Kodak Supra 800, but when I tried it I found it to be too grainy and have not enough lattitude. Maybe it prints beautifully, but my scans were very ordinary. I've heard good things about the new Kodak Portra 800, but after being burnt by the Supra 800 experience, I'm wary of going down that path again. YMMV.

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), September 08, 2001.