Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Paul Ozzello on December 20, 2012, 03:24:33 pm
-
As we all know medium format is dead and the only 2 cameras worth buying are the Nikon D800 and Fuji GX680. I would like to start a discussion on the merits of these two cameras and why nothing else on the market compares.
Best regards,
Paul
-
Obviously you don't believe in good will , love and peace during the holidays. ROTFLMAO
Film is dead. D800 wait for Canon. MF only cool people care. Everything else is just cameras.
What answer did you expect. Lol
Have a nice Holiday
-
Hi Paul,
The simple answer is that for film you would use the GX680 and for digital the D800.
Best regards
Erik
As we all know medium format is dead and the only 2 cameras worth buying are the Nikon D800 and Fuji GX680. I would like to start a discussion on the merits of these two cameras and why nothing else on the market compares.
Best regards,
Paul
-
Obviously you don't believe in good will , love and peace during the holidays. ROTFLMAO
Film is dead. D800 wait for Canon. MF only cool people care. Everything else is just cameras.
What answer did you expect. Lol
Have a nice Holiday
Bah humbug!
-
Hi Guy,
Canon is lagging heavily in the low dark noise at low iso department. It is not just so simple they can pop out a 50 MP camera at will. It takes several years to develop a new sensor and the camera around it.
Canon sensors seem to be built in a 0.5 micron process, which probably set limitations. Canon is said to build a new fab for 0.18 micron process, but it may still take some time for them to catch up. Such a fab is a billion dollar investment, AFAIK.
It is quite possible that Canon pulls a 50 MPixel rabbit of their hat. But it takes a lot of research to do that.
In general I guess that we are in a phase where only stepwise improvements are possible.
Best regards
Erik
Obviously you don't believe in good will , love and peace during the holidays. ROTFLMAO
Film is dead. D800 wait for Canon. MF only cool people care. Everything else is just cameras.
What answer did you expect. Lol
Have a nice Holiday
-
I guess that MF just became 135.
These headings are so confusing.
Rob C
-
I guess that MF just became 135.
These headings are so confusing.
I seem to recall the Leaf Valeo 6 was a 135 "medium format" back. :-)
-
As we all know medium format is dead and the only 2 cameras worth buying are the Nikon D800 and Fuji GX680. I would like to start a discussion on the merits of these two cameras and why nothing else on the market compares.
Best regards,
Paul
Don't worry.... The D800 and the Fuji GX680 are dating already. They should be breeding soon.
Their babies will be cute little 6x7 cameras, the girls will be smaller and cuter, the boys will have tilt shift, CMOS with live view, face and eyelash recognition auto focus ;)
-
Don't worry.... The D800 and the Fuji GX680 are dating already. They should be breeding soon.
Their babies will be cute little 6x7 cameras, the girls will be smaller and cuter, the boys will have tilt shift, CMOS with live view, face and eyelash recognition auto focus ;)
now you're talkin.... :)
-
I'll let you know when they are pregnant ;D
-
Kodak Disc film, it's the future.
-
I'm still waiting for Bill Gates to put his money where its needed. Building a 6x9 CMOS sensor in a camera not much bigger then the df+... and then go out to war with the D800 and sell it for $5000. Schneider LS lenses included in that price... anyone?
-
I'm still waiting for Bill Gates to put his money where its needed. Building a 6x9 CMOS sensor in a camera not much bigger then the df+... and then go out to war with the D800 and sell it for $5000. Schneider LS lenses included in that price... anyone?
Given that our Aptus II-8 and/or the DF crashes significantly more than my windows does perhaps Bill might be a good choice.
-
Canon sensors seem to be built in a 0.5 micron process, which probably set limitations. Canon is said to build a new fab for 0.18 micron process, but it may still take some time for them to catch up. Such a fab is a billion dollar investment, AFAIK.
It is quite possible that Canon pulls a 50 MPixel rabbit of their hat. But it takes a lot of research to do that.
I can see that being far more a viable investment-development-bring to market scenario than any medium format manufacturer bringing out a quality usable high iso back with proper live view
A company like canon has the resources to drive that investment and see a return on that quite quickly if the product delivers.
Where does the future lie in MFD development? More Megapixels? If they are selling as well as we are led to believe there must be some development going on?
-
Canon sensors seem to be built in a 0.5 micron process, which probably set limitations. Canon is said to build a new fab for 0.18 micron process, but it may still take some time for them to catch up. Such a fab is a billion dollar investment, AFAIK.
Canon's CMOS sensors for compact cameras are surely made on a design rule smaller than 0.5 micron, so would think that Canon can get access to a suitable fab. for future DSLR sensors if and when it has a need.
But we have wandered of topic! So ...
The future of MF clearly belongs to Pentax, the only MF player with more than one AF point, stabilized lenses, and vaguely accessible pricing.
-
Hi,
Yes, of course, but according to some sources they are made at Sony. The information I referred to is mostly coming to chipworks, who published articles analyzing APS and full size sensors from Canon, Nikon and Sony.
Canon is said to build a fab for 0.18 microns.
On the other hand, I was thinking about the characteristics of the Canon sensors and stated thinking about the read noise being more a problem of the ADC than of sensor and readout preamps. What is your take on this, could it be that the ADCs used are noisy in the low bits? The high ISO performance of Canons is very good, that really indicates that readout noise is good at some stage. According to "sensorgen" site readout noise decreases on Canons at high ISO.
Best regards
Erik
Canon's CMOS sensors for compact cameras are surely made on a design rule smaller than 0.5 micron, so would think that Canon can get access to a suitable fab. for future DSLR sensors if and when it has a need.
But we have wandered of topic! So ...
The future of MF clearly belongs to Pentax, the only MF player with more than one AF point, stabilized lenses, and vaguely accessible pricing.
-
Canon's CMOS sensors for compact cameras are surely made on a design rule smaller than 0.5 micron, so would think that Canon can get access to a suitable fab. for future DSLR sensors if and when it has a need.
But we have wandered of topic! So ...
The future of MF clearly belongs to Pentax, the only MF player with more than one AF point, stabilized lenses, and vaguely accessible pricing.
i didn't think pentax MF actually tether? i guess that puts in out of contention with 90% of commercial photographers.
-
i didn't think pentax MF actually tether? i guess that puts in out of contention with 90% of commercial photographers.
Can be tethered both Wirelessly and USB.
It can be tethered but is rather basic.
However you can wirelessly tether with the Eye-Fi card.
Fast enough for jpeg preview to the computer while keeping the raw files on the camera.
http://youtu.be/wY6GdxDyP1w (http://youtu.be/wY6GdxDyP1w) Japanese
Client previews on computer screen and tablets with no wires and even without a WiFi router.... Rocket science by MF standards ;)
-
As we all know medium format is dead and the only 2 cameras worth buying are the Nikon D800 and Fuji GX680. I would like to start a discussion on the merits of these two cameras and why nothing else on the market compares.
Probably because it is raining in Belgium today.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Pentax will not crack the pro market without the rental back-up and proper raw tethering software. Maybe they are only worried about the domestic market and amateur/landscape photographers as there's more sales there anyway?
I wonder about Sinar too, here in the uk their presence is minimal, you never see an advert for them and nobody seems to use them. The importer is a print supplies company with little info and no prices, maybe they are a bigger player in mainland Europe?
-
Pentax will not crack the pro market without the rental back-up and proper raw tethering software. Maybe they are only worried about the domestic market and amateur/landscape photographers as there's more sales there anyway?
I wonder about Sinar too, here in the uk their presence is minimal, you never see an advert for them and nobody seems to use them. The importer is a print supplies company with little info and no prices, maybe they are a bigger player in mainland Europe?
Define the pro market. Everywhere I seem to look studios are closing due to Mum and Dad buying a Nex 7 and being told the cameras sold in supermarkets give professional result which compared to 10 years ago they do.
And they can take as many as they like too. For free.
Anything studio is on it's backside other than high end commercial stuff of which I imagine will be tough nut to crack, prying the RZ's and the Hasselblads out of users hands.
-
Define the pro market.
London Based advertising/design/fashion full time photographers. not wedding/social/art part timers or provincial high st portraiture.
i know the former, not much experience of the latter.
-
London Based advertising/design/fashion full time photographers. not wedding/social/art part timers or provincial high st portraiture.
i know the former, not much experience of the latter.
There are no pros in New York, Paris, Berlin? The putdown reference to provincial high school portraiture typifies the smug and condescending attitude of some MFDB proponents that drives the MFDB vs 35 mm flame wars. Advertising/design/fashion photography IMHO is not art but commercialism. What about landscape and nature photography? Much of this does not take place in London.
Regards,
Bill
-
Bill, slow down; it's no putdown at all, just a commonly-held view of what's professional, and that's about it. Of course there are pros in every major city, but you can't expect any poster to feel obliged to enumerate them all when simply expressing a point of view. For what it's worth, there's more 'art' to be found in fashion and advertising photography than hangs on many gallery walls: in fact, there's even a trend to trawl the fashion world if only to find some photographic art to hang. Commercial only means it's done for money; what did you think Da Vinci did, Vincent Van G. tried to do: it was ever about earning your bread with what you loved to do. Failure to achieve that end doesn't bestow the gift of the work being art - usually the very opposite. Have a look at some of the top fashion snapper's sites whilst keeping your mind and heart open; you could begin to see 'commercial' with a fresh eye.
For what it's worth, my personal take is that landscape and small-town photography would have a hard time trying to touch 'art' if only because of its natural market. It takes a lot of different talents to create a truly wonderful shot of people. Neither does it have anything much to do with camera format. As I've said often, great landscape shots, and there are indeed many, owe more to God than to Man. With or without hand.
IMO!
Rob C
-
Pentax will not crack the pro market without the rental back-up and proper raw tethering software.
but MF market lives a lot off amateurs that are lured to herbalife/timeshare things like P1 workshops - amatrurs rarely need "rental back-up and proper raw tethering software"... and those shooting outdoor... "rental back-up and proper raw tethering software" in some wilderness ?
-
If my previous post on the other page had been read first before jumping to conclusions you would have noticed that I mentioned other types of photography and then said that I was commenting on London as this is where I work/reside, I don't know about the European or regional market which is why I asked about Sinar (in Europe).
Plenty of people here like to opine on photography they have no experience of, maybe I should have.
-
"Plenty of people here like to opine on photography they have no experience of, maybe I should have." +
-
Hi,
I'm not really sure about Pentax long time engagement in MF. I guess that they will make and sell P645D as long as it earns them money, but I'm not sure they will make really offensive development and restart manufacture of a lot of lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Pentax will not crack the pro market without the rental back-up and proper raw tethering software. Maybe they are only worried about the domestic market and amateur/landscape photographers as there's more sales there anyway?
I wonder about Sinar too, here in the uk their presence is minimal, you never see an advert for them and nobody seems to use them. The importer is a print supplies company with little info and no prices, maybe they are a bigger player in mainland Europe?
-
As I've said often, great landscape shots, and there are indeed many, owe more to God than to Man.
Rob C
More than great fashion/glamour etc shots owe to God as the creator of the model (or to the model, if you don't want to credit a creator)? Genuine question, BTW, I am not having a go at what you say about landscape.
-
More than great fashion/glamour etc shots owe to God as the creator of the model (or to the model, if you don't want to credit a creator)? Genuine question, BTW, I am not having a go at what you say about landscape.
Can't compare: the photographer working with a model is creating something in tandem with her; they make something happen that does not really exist in life. That this is so can be seen if you know any of those girls. In reality, they can even be downright unattractive but, in a photograph, they are given another beautiful dimension that comes from that collaboration. This means that the act of working together is the act of creation. The landscape shooter can't do that: he has to wait for whatever God serves up.
The 'fashion' shooter and his girl can do it anywhere, anytime. Doesn't that tell you something?
As for having a go - no, I don't believe that you are. It's just a matter of thinking about it more deeply and not adopting a defensive stance for a specific, and probably personal genre.
Just enjoy whatever turns one on.
Rob C
-
Making a good photograph, regardless of subject . . . a hand, a tree, a mountain or even Kate Moss is damn difficult.
Depending on your belief system, producing a great photograph is either dumb luck or divine intervention.
If your so lucky to have made a great photograph you'll know it because it will be the only time in your life as a photographer that you honestly will not care what anyone thinks.
What camera you use . . . just listen to yourself not anyone else - negative or positive because both opinions usually are wrong, the negative opinion the least valid of all.
IMO
BC
-
Making a good photograph, regardless of subject . . . a hand, a tree, a mountain or even Kate Moss is damn difficult.
Depending on your belief system, producing a great photograph is either dumb luck or divine intervention.
If your so lucky to have made a great photograph you'll know it because it will be the only time in your life as a photographer that you honestly will not care what anyone thinks.
What camera you use . . . just listen to yourself not anyone else - negative or positive because both opinions usually are wrong, then negative opinion the least valid of all.
IMO
BC
Well said.
-
Amen to that.
Making a good photograph, regardless of subject . . . a hand, a tree, a mountain or even Kate Moss is damn difficult.
Depending on your belief system, producing a great photograph is either dumb luck or divine intervention.
If your so lucky to have made a great photograph you'll know it because it will be the only time in your life as a photographer that you honestly will not care what anyone thinks.
What camera you use . . . just listen to yourself not anyone else - negative or positive because both opinions usually are wrong, the negative opinion the least valid of all.
IMO
BC
-
Making a good photograph, regardless of subject . . . a hand, a tree, a mountain or even Kate Moss is damn difficult.
Depending on your belief system, producing a great photograph is either dumb luck or divine intervention.
If your so lucky to have made a great photograph you'll know it because it will be the only time in your life as a photographer that you honestly will not care what anyone thinks.
What camera you use . . . just listen to yourself not anyone else - negative or positive because both opinions usually are wrong, the negative opinion the least valid of all.
IMO
BC
There is no rule or reason when it comes to the arts.
Personally I don't find it's hard to take good pictures. Early on when I was new at this game I had the fortune of shooting in the studio next door
to two a couple of the greats while renting in a Studio in the big multi studio outfits in Paris and Milan. Helmut Newton and Peter Lindbergh.
What I noticed is that both looked like what they were doing was effortless and came totally natural to them... both shooting with modest equipment by the way...
I expressed my respect for their work and asked a word of advice. Both said one thing in common. Don't drive yourself nuts. Shoot what
comes natural to you and is effortless. You can never be good at something it it takes you too much effort. They also both made the musical instrument analogy.
The both said ask a great musician what they do most of the time.... the answer will be play, play, play and practice.... the emphasis is on the work PLAY as in enjoy.
You need to find the instrument you prefer to play, but it is only an instrument.
Luck has it's part, the trick though is to play, play, play.... practice practice practice and be ready to take luck by it's hand as it tends to show up more often this way.
There is a wonderful series on the UK guardian website called My best Shot:
Here are some of my favorites:
http://youtu.be/5_LOqgiNMRw (http://youtu.be/5_LOqgiNMRw)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2009/dec/23/photography-jimi-hendrix (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2009/dec/23/photography-jimi-hendrix)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2009/nov/03/brigitte-bardot-photograph-terry-o-neill (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2009/nov/03/brigitte-bardot-photograph-terry-o-neill)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/oct/28/ellen-von-unwerth-best-shot (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/oct/28/ellen-von-unwerth-best-shot)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/may/28/sebastiao-salgado-photography-kuwait (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/may/28/sebastiao-salgado-photography-kuwait)
When it comes to the tools of the trade choose what you like, but after listening to both sides of the story and avoiding salesmen and hype.
Descent is often where more is to be found. At times confirming your thoughts even when they are different.
A great photograph IMO is when you take it and print it just the way it is. If you have to "work a file deep" it becomes another art form.
Yesterday I saw a book of fantastic landscape. Not one of the images looked "processed" colors were not the typical over saturation and detail was not these hyper detailed
images we see so much of. Natural colors natural depth. No crushed blacks and boosted colors. Haze was left where it belongs. Brilliant work.
So much of what we see today is such a process that it's bordering on illustration rather than photography.
I find it rather ironic that so much of that the MF companies show as examples what their cameras do are so heavily manipulated that they really have little
to do with the camera. The best picture Phase has is a wonderful portrait of a young girl by Peter Eastway with no makeup, simple lighting, no "work the file deep" post and it looks simply divine... but it's buried somewhere in their downloads. http://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads/Sample-Images.aspx (http://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads/Sample-Images.aspx), (but it looks better in C06)
-
Making a good photograph, regardless of subject . . . a hand, a tree, a mountain or even Kate Moss is damn difficult.
Depending on your belief system, producing a great photograph is either dumb luck or divine intervention.
If your so lucky to have made a great photograph you'll know it because it will be the only time in your life as a photographer that you honestly will not care what anyone thinks.
What camera you use . . . just listen to yourself not anyone else - negative or positive because both opinions usually are wrong, the negative opinion the least valid of all.
IMO
Perhaps the most cogent statement of all and a perfectly fitting closure to many of these chest thumping equipment bashing debates.
Happy Holidays All!
Ed
-
Pentax will not crack the pro market without the rental back-up and proper raw tethering software.
Well the Pentax can tether Raw. It's a simple light and stable application. You can point your Raw converter to where it saves files and your
good to go.
As for the rental back-up thing.... well you can by two Pentax 645D cameras and still have money left over compared to one Phase One IQ140.
That should solve the back-up rental problem.
They just have to add lenses to the system and it seems to me that the new 90mm with image stabilization is an indication of them being ahead of the other MF
manufacturers.
-
Interesting links, Fred.
The Ellen shot reminds me of Sarah Moon and Cacharel, and if you look at the Barry Lategan site, you'll see a triple portrait behind his head at one stage in a video, which, again, is either a Moon shot or he and she have amazingly similar ideas...
The Bardot image with the ciggie is pretty good, to say the least. One of the best pics of her that I can remember was by Brian Duffy, from either the same movie or Shalako, I can't remember which. Colour, and a period dress.
Was your Paris studio Pin Up?
Rob C
-
Pentax is a venerable name and the older takumars were lovely, the auto focus on the 645 was pretty good.
David LaChappell used their film camera for years and most people I know that used on loved them.
I like the fact the Pentax 645 digital has a decent lcd and produces an in-camera jpeg. The buffer needs to be larger.
If the Pentax had a broader offering of new lenses I'd also think about it, especially if they had something in the 100 to 110 mm range that was fast, at least 2.8.
The do make a 90 which is close and they make an excellent 55mm which is a lens I use often with my Contax.
I also have an adapter for the contax and sometimes use the pentax 6x7 105mm 2.4.
It's a pretty lens with a smooth wrap to it.
(http://spotsinthebox.com/104MM.jpg)
If the Pentax had a strong and robust software suite, one that tethered and would go wirelessly to an Ipad I'd think about it because I do think that ex-kodak 40 mpx sensor is good.
I don't know how other people work, but in a professional environment I must have fast, robust tethering and since everyone has an Ipad, not being able to send a file that closely resembles the final look around the room is a liability.
I wish them well and hope the system evolves but right now Pentax isn't saying much and there is not much news about what's coming, so for professional use it's somewhat of a non starter for me.
I've known two people to buy them, both somewhat happy with the purchase. One bought because of the lcd which at the time was as good or better than a lot of mfd cameras (at the time).
Another due to price and the fact this person rarely tethers.
Anyway.
I look at expensive (anything hovering around 10 grand or more) cameras as an investment. Not a sell them tomorrow for a profit investment, but use them until the paint wears off investment.
Because of this, you want some kind of assurance that the line will continue.
I hope it does.
IMO
BC
-
If the Pentax had a strong and robust software suite, one that tethered and would go wirelessly to an Ipad I'd think about it because I do think that ex-kodak 40 mpx sensor is good.
I don't know how other people work, but in a professional environment I must have fast, robust tethering and since everyone has an Ipad, not being able to send a file that closely resembles the final look around the room is a liability.
The Pentax 645D has had tethering for some time now. Simple solid software independent of your RAW processor. Point any RAW processor that can read Pentax raw and your set. You can setup lightroom to script process incoming files to preview the final look and set up the second monitor wirelessly on an iPad or better still a Windows tablet PC.
As far as wireless goes ... it's not rocket science to send images or clone a desktop onto iPads in the studio. Plenty of apps available.
The Pentax can also be wirelessly tethered using and Eye-Fi card. Makes working on location so much easier and it can do so in direct mode too
without the need of a Wi-Fi router. What is also better is that the camera has two memory cards so you get in camera redundancy.
With the Eye-Fi you can also work fast by wirelessly sending out just the jpegs and doing your preview processing on the jpegs.
Then if you consider the pricing you can get more than two Pentax 645D cameras for the price of a single Phase IQ140.
Redundancy is very important for professional use.
Also I wonder if Pentax can came out with a hasselblad H adapter like Leica did. That would be an interesting move.
-
I look at expensive (anything hovering around 10 grand or more) cameras as an investment. Not a sell them tomorrow for a profit investment, but use them until the paint wears off investment.
Because of this, you want some kind of assurance that the line will continue.
I hope it does.
IMO
BC
Use them till the paint wares off..... Nothing like the Contax 645 around today if MFD. ;)
-
About models, when you see them come into casting, fresh from the crush of the subway, no makeup, a Starbucks cup in their hands, they are gangly and plain in jeans and a hoodie. You wouldn't give them a second look on the street. But when you look, really look, you see the jaw and chin, the cheekbones and eyes and its there. Makeup hair and wardrobe is transformative, and the good ones can act, are intelligent, have a charisma that is magnetic. I swear my wife became an MUA to keep an eye on me.
There is a process of creation among the AD, Stylist, model, shooter and MUA. It starts as one thing and changes with all the input from everyone involved. It's a far more creative process that putting a pretty girl in front of a camera with lights.
Can't compare: the photographer working with a model is creating something in tandem with her; they make something happen that does not really exist in life. That this is so can be seen if you know any of those girls. In reality, they can even be downright unattractive but, in a photograph, they are given another beautiful dimension that comes from that collaboration. This means that the act of working together is the act of creation. The landscape shooter can't do that: he has to wait for whatever God serves up.
The 'fashion' shooter and his girl can do it anywhere, anytime. Doesn't that tell you something?
As for having a go - no, I don't believe that you are. It's just a matter of thinking about it more deeply and not adopting a defensive stance for a specific, and probably personal genre.
Just enjoy whatever turns one on.
Rob C
-
Yes, and that's my point: you make something out of nothing more than the desires burning away in your heart and mind. The traditional blank page or canvas comes to life.
And that's the kick that nothing else in photography can replace for those of us with the bug; it never really goes away, even though the clients might and probably always will. But the desire lingers long. Maybe satisfying, or at least nourishing that drive a little bit, is what the Web and agency/snapper sites were made for?
Additionally, I never could tell if a model had it or not until I actually used her; I could usually see it in index cards, but from simply meeting somebody in the flesh, no way. If anything, that used to make me enthusiastically ready for disappointment. And pretty didn't really guarantee anything at all, which always surprised most people who hadn't done this stuff...
;-)
Rob C
-
About models, when you see them come into casting, fresh from the crush of the subway, no makeup, a Starbucks cup in their hands, they are gangly and plain in jeans and a hoodie. You wouldn't give them a second look on the street. But when you look, really look, you see the jaw and chin, the cheekbones and eyes and its there. Makeup hair and wardrobe is transformative, and the good ones can act, are intelligent, have a charisma that is magnetic. I swear my wife became an MUA to keep an eye on me.
There is a process of creation among the AD, Stylist, model, shooter and MUA. It starts as one thing and changes with all the input from everyone involved. It's a far more creative process that putting a pretty girl in front of a camera with lights.
I would liken a good model to a good actor/actress, it's all about expressing feelings and the honesty of that expression. I will never forget this one model I shot (You saw her TMARK when I posted one of her photos here). She was 14/15 years old, it was her first shoot and she was being extremely difficult, even crying at one point. I felt bad and ended the shoot early, but when I saw the photos on my computer the day after I immediately said "this girl is going to be huge". The honesty and vulnerability in her expression was just shining through so brightly it was blinding. In fact, a couple of months later she signed with IMG NY and has since had a meteoric career, with campaigns for brands like Prada, been in pretty much every major fashion magazine in the world and on the cover of many of them, and shot by the likes of Steven Meisel. I agree with you TMARK that fashion photography is probably one of the most difficult and creative photographic discipline out there. It's a collaborative effort between the photographer, stylist, MUA, and the models, and only when all of those parts come together do you get art. If you think (editorial) fashion is about putting a pretty girl in front of a lens and that's it then you don't know what you're talking about.
Merry Christmas everyone!
-
Hi,
I tought the thread was about MFD and not about MUA;-)
;-) Erik ;-)
I would liken a good model to a good actor/actress, it's all about expressing feelings and the honesty of that expression. I will never forget this one model I shot (You saw her TMARK when I posted one of her photos here). She was 14/15 years old, it was her first shoot and she was being extremely difficult, even crying at one point. I felt bad and ended the shoot early, but when I saw the photos on my computer the day after I immediately said "this girl is going to be huge". The honesty and vulnerability in her expression was just shining through so brightly it was blinding. In fact, a couple of months later she signed with IMG NY and has since had a meteoric career, with campaigns for brands like Prada, been in pretty much every major fashion magazine in the world and on the cover of many of them, and shot by the likes of Steven Meisel. I agree with you TMARK that fashion photography is probably one of the most difficult and creative photographic discipline out there. It's a collaborative effort between the photographer, stylist, MUA, and the models, and only when all of those parts come together do you get art. If you think (editorial) fashion is about putting a pretty girl in front of a lens and that's it then you don't know what you're talking about.
Merry Christmas everyone!
-
Hi,
I tought the thread was about MFD and not about MUA;-)
;-) Erik ;-)
Sorry Erik, maybe you can add one of your trademark charts & diagrams, cause that's what photography is really about right?
-
Hi,
No, I don't think photography is about charts and diagrams. The issue I have is that a thread has a title, and I sort of presume that the title is related to the contents.
On the other hand I'm not a professional photographer, by profession I'm an engineer, and I happen to have a lot of curiosity about the technology behind photography.
But I really do take pictures, a thousand and some are shown here: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/
Best regards
Erik
Sorry Erik, maybe you can add one of your trademark charts & diagrams, cause that's what photography is really about right?
-
I appreciate the insights from Rob C, TMARK and amsp about working with models and other professionals on fashion/glamour shots (apologies if my terminology is wrong). The degree of collaboration with other talents would seem to be unique in photography and I can imagine how the experience would be addictive. I would still argue, though, that all photography, and not just landscape, involves an element of what Rob called collaboration with god. Without something out there that is given and that is worth photographing, whether it is a model or a mountain, why bother removing your lens cap? Of course it isn't simply given - it is also found, created, imagined - and that is also true whether it is a model or a mountain.
-
I appreciate the insights from Rob C, TMARK and amsp about working with models and other professionals on fashion/glamour shots (apologies if my terminology is wrong). The degree of collaboration with other talents would seem to be unique in photography and I can imagine how the experience would be addictive. I would still argue, though, that all photography, and not just landscape, involves an element of what Rob called collaboration with god. Without something out there that is given and that is worth photographing, whether it is a model or a mountain, why bother removing your lens cap? Of course it isn't simply given - it is also found, created, imagined - and that is also true whether it is a model or a mountain.
On a similar note I find it rather funny how there are endless claims of MF skin tones compared to even the newest Canon or Nikon skin tones.
Skin tomes are really far more about two other things. Casting the right model with wonderful skin tones that can be beautifully reproduced by film or digital
and then lighting. Keeping the damn MUA under control is also part of that.
This I found really funny... Hasselblads skin tone examples....
http://www.hasselblad.com/promotions/sample-file-images.aspx (http://www.hasselblad.com/promotions/sample-file-images.aspx)
Pasty thick opaque make-up ..... not skin ;)
-
The 2013 will be the Pentax year. The new camera will show other companies what a model refresh is about besides changing the name on the camera itself and will preserve the price pretty close to what the 645D cost at launch. Their new ultra wide zoom lens will make a compelling alternative to other companies 28mm and 35mm with a lot more flexibility. Thousands of used "original" 645D coming from Japan at 4K to 5K will put enormous pressure on the value of other brands used MF cameras and will hinder dealers ability to offer good upgrade deals. Close to year's end or earlier in 2014 there will be two more state of the art zooms that will make the system even more appealing. The 2015 will be mostly the year of the new primes.
Of course that some will "need" exactly 80 Mp, or exactly a certain piece of software, or tethering via Fireware, or a more potent brand name in the Western world than Pentax on their cameras, or even no incentive to switch from a system that works for them but for others there will be an age of great opportunity to use a camera with a greater than 36x24mm sensor in ways never possible before and build a system of one camera and 3 or 4 brand new designed for digital lenses for the same price as other companies charge for one camera+back.
Radu
-
A good MUA knows that liquid base is for local HD TV news and that makeup in regards to skin needs to be transparent, and must blend naturally with the subjects skin, such that the line of demarcation is natural and doesn't look like a sun burn. AN MUA should contour, and and only ever paint eyes, lips and for runway, cheeks. The best MUA's I've worked with are painters by training.
My wife was GOOD. After a few shoots with me she was doing runway for fall fashion week, then for S/S fashion week was the key MUA for some smaller labels. She was the MUA for shoots I wish I had, working with many big name editorial shooters. I was jealous, of course! She used to paint, and that is how she approached it. Then we had kids and she hasn't worked since, except for me.
But I digress. My point is this: a good MUA is more valuable to a photograph than a good MFD. I'd shoot an editorial with a real stylist, a good MUA, adequate budget for lighting and sets and location with a Kodak disk camera if I had to. What goes in front of the camera and what goes on right behind the camera is what is important. The technical aspects and lens camera choice influence aesthetics. So use what ever helps you conceptually, be it film, digi, 35mm digi, crop frame, disc camera. Just remember its all to serve the photograph.
On a similar note I find it rather funny how there are endless claims of MF skin tones compared to even the newest Canon or Nikon skin tones.
Skin tomes are really far more about two other things. Casting the right model with wonderful skin tones that can be beautifully reproduced by film or digital
and then lighting. Keeping the damn MUA under control is also part of that.
This I found really funny... Hasselblads skin tone examples....
http://www.hasselblad.com/promotions/sample-file-images.aspx (http://www.hasselblad.com/promotions/sample-file-images.aspx)
Pasty thick opaque make-up ..... not skin ;)