http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3VRhwN_Yt0

Play

Ya, don't let anyone fool you... shooting film is not a cheap thing to do. When I first decided to shoot film for weddings, I definitely ate the costs. I tried to be as smart as I could with it... but to be honest, it was very challenging. You really need to get good at limiting the amount of times you push that shutter button and be much more deliberate with what you are shooting. If anything, shooting fill will greatly improve your understanding of what you want to get from a wedding visually.

Once I had shot a couple weddings with film (eating the costs on my own), I made a
significant jump in pricing to accommodate shooting more film.

Here is the thing... I don't really tell my clients that I shoot film. In fact most of them tell me that they cant tell the difference. SO, its not like I can tell people that I charge more because I shoot film. The reason i could raise my prices wasn't because I decided to shoot film and all of a sudden clients wanted to pay for film... I was able to raise prices because I where I was with my business. I made the decision to invest that extra revenue into film because it made my work-flow easier and I loved the way it made my images look.

I want to add that the longer you shoot film the better you get at budgeting for what you will need at any given event, thus decreasing your costs and retaining some revenue. So, while the upfront investment will be there... you will learn how to keep it controlled.

To be perfectly honest, I am not the biggest fan of B&W film for wedding work. I would prefer to shoot my favorite color stocks and convert to B&W later. When I do bring B&W film with me to a wedding it is a generic 35mm 400 speed that I get off of ebay. I love the grainy look and it over-exposes by a stop well.
When I shoot B&W for portrait sessions I find my self gravitating to Neopan 100. It is super clean and always surprises me with how great the images look.
I don't really have a "dream" set up. I love my Contax 645 and the 80mm f/1.4 and am really happy with that right now... but things always change and I try to keep my style evolving. So who knows, my answer might be totally different in a month or two.

Yeah! I totally have. (I have two!) They are fantastic rigs. A couple words to the wise. 1.Get an AFD II if you can. All of the AFDs are good, but the AFD II is just faster all around and you will be happier with it. 2.I had to have the focusing screen in all of my AFDs replaced by Bill Maxwell and converted to a bright screen. The focusing screen inside of the AFDs are pure crap they are warped everywhere but the center. 3.You should look into getting the 80mm f1.9 it is a beautiful lens and has some similar properties to the Contax 80mm.
Another good advantage to the AFDs is the backs are easy to interchange and they are less money compared to the Contax's. OH! and they also take AAs instead of the confound weird batteries that the Contax does.
I would suggest checking out Mike Ash Smiths work at http://ashimagery.com/blog/
I believe he uses AFDs as his work horses.

That is a really rough question to answer. I tend to connect with a lot of my clients on a personal level so I would say my judgment is a bit impaired when it comes to selecting a favorite.
Its like you just asked me to tell you which one of my children I love more.... ;-)

Without seeing the exact lighting situation for myself it is tough to tell you what I would do. There are so many different factors to consider when dealing with artificial light. Seeing as how you mentioned the colors, I would guess you want to stay away from B&W soooo I would immediately gravitate to Portra 800, rate it at 800 and tell my guys at PPI to brighten it up a bit. If you need something in color that has more latitude, just remember that Portra 400 looks pretty darn good pushed to 1600. With a good lab really paying attention to the scans, your frames will look great. Also, while I rarely use one... a tripod might be your friend in this situation (for longer exposures).

I suppose that is a matter of opinion then. For me, I KNOW that some of those images would never look like they do had I shot them with a digital body. Film is way better at keeping detail in the highlights and shadows than digital is.

I like how slightly de-focused film images look. Film looks awesome out of focus... digital... not so much.

Heya! I started shooting weddings about 3ish+ years ago. To be perfectly honest, I used to look at Mike Colon's work alot when I started out. I liked it... But I always knew it wasn't how I wanted to shoot... Inspiration came from all sorts of different places. I just loved the idea of being around couples in love and providing them with something of value... It was an amazing high compared to my corporate job that I had at the time.

I try to be full film until the light disappears, I will sneak in a bit of digital with my D3s during the day. Mostly during the ceremony and beginning of the reception. After the light goes away, I stick to the D3s 99% of the time. Nothing can beat it for low light. I have worked hard to create a look in post process that gives my digital a filmy feel... that way everything flows together nicely.
Right now film gives me the look I want. Until Digital can produce similar dynamic range I will be shooting as much film as I can.

Honey Badger. Cause it doesn't give a shit.

The simple answer? Yes.

Narwhals have a nasty temperament. They are divas.

On a scale of 1-100? a googolplexian.
Unicorns melt in the snow. Duh.

Not nearly as much as I would like to. I like to keep my personal work... personal. At some point I will be publishing a book of imagery that is completely different from what I normally show. (I have to keep some aces up my sleeve...)
If you want to see some awesome street photography, I recommend checking out Otto Schulze (http://www.ottoschulzephotographers.com/blog/)
It doesn't get more legit.

Of course not, they have masks on. How the devil would they be ID'd?

I totally agree. Two cones are always better than one.
Besides, sometimes I run out of magical unicorn dust... so you know... one has to go in the coffee grinder.
I also think it is super important to mention that if your unicorn bites the dust and you don't have a spare in the car or your fanny pack, you will probably never be hired by a unicorn lover again.

uni. duh.

F1.0 it produces that magical soft look that is so hot right now with the unicorns. It also allows you to isolate the "cone" in the images.