Why A MF forum, when it sucks ?

[Mark_Tucker]

On a side note, in the last 2 weeks, I've been on 2 different jobs where the art director (2 different art directors) pulled out a 5D and started taking snaps to evaluate composition, etc. Sure was glad I could pull out something a little more "professional" looking.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If any of you guys here think you're being hired because of the type of camera that you shoot, instead of the sum total of your production abilities, lighting skill, people skills, composition skills, etc, you've got much larger issues. In a successful career, the camera used is about two percent of the equation.

[Kirk Gittings]

On a side note, in the last 2 weeks, I've been on 2 different jobs where the art director (2 different art directors) pulled out a 5D and started taking snaps to evaluate composition, etc. Sure was glad I could pull out something a little more "professional" looking.

Interesting........no offense but.......whether I pull out a 5D, a Hassleblad or a 4x5, no one questions my choice, because they know I will use the right tool for the job. As the leading professional in my field in my region for 29 years, I inform my clients what camera I need to use. I don't buy cameras to try and look more professional than my clients or in fact to impress my clients at all. I have had many clients and students over the years that had better cameras than I do. It doesn't mean they know what to do with it.

[AndreNapier]

can not find me delete botton.

[Misirlou]

Assuming the $2000 figure is true, that's before you take your first photo. Film is MORE expensive than digital. Why do you think digital took off before the quality even compared to film?

I live in a country without a 5x4 film retailer and I'm not sure about development. So I'll look at UK prices:

1 pack of 10 sheets of 5x4 film: ~$40 (Robert White)
Development, per sheet: ~$4.50 (The Vault)

So the cost of shooting just 1000 images per year is $8,500 and that doesn't include the cost of many trips to the lab and back, and many hours spent scanning, etc. Clearly this gets expensive quickly. I shoot more like 10,000 images per year. Ouch.
Well some people have already compared a 39MP digital back to 5x4 film and there isn't a big difference. Scanning backs are already up to 139MP - ahead of 5x4 quality. I'm fairly confident that the next jump up from 39MP in one shot backs (60MP?) will match 5x4 quality, and it won't take 20 years to happen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Using 4X5 solely for the resolution improvement is missing the point. The real advantage is having complete control of perspecitive and focal plane using movements. You can do things with view cameras built 60 years ago that are simply not possible with the latest DSLR, or the vast majority of MF cameras, including the newer ones designed specifically for digital.

And I bet there aren't very many view camera users who shot 1,000 frames of 4X5 in a year (maybe some architecture specialists, or fine art landscape guys). You just don't pull out your 4X5 and start shooting away blindly. Takes too long to consider all the possibilties, unless you're endowed with the talent and experience  of St. Ansel or something. You may even spend a whole day looking for a great shot without ever setting up the camera. At least that's the way I work with them.

And there's the rub. If you only use a 4X5 to take a few dozen shots per year, it's going to be a long, long time before some sort of digital capture process can be justified in economic terms. I think rinderart is absolutely right.

Having said that, if someone comes up with a way to do full movements on a digital camera, for under about $7000, and without requiring some hyper exotic and expensive solution for wide angle lenses, I'll be all over it. But I'm not holding my breath either.

[geesbert]

Very good point, Mark! i am always amazed by photographers overestimating the client's knowledge about cameras! it might be the work i am doing, but never in my whole carreer the choice of camera came up before we were in deep discussion about the project, so usually after they hired me. usually the only thing they know is the MP figure. and 39 must be better than 13 or 16, right?

[Graham Mitchell]

And I bet there aren't very many view camera users who shot 1,000 frames of 4X5 in a year (maybe some architecture specialists, or fine art landscape guys).

The point is that someone suggested the 4x5 as a cheaper alternative to a digital camera, which means you have to compare based on the same usage.

[Gary Yeowell]

Interesting........no offense but.......whether I pull out a 5D, a Hassleblad or a 4x5, no one questions my choice, because they know I will use the right tool for the job. As the leading professional in my field in my region for 29 years, I inform my clients what camera I need to use. I don't buy cameras to try and look more professional than my clients or in fact to impress my clients at all. I have had many clients and students over the years that had better cameras than I do. It doesn't mean they know what to do with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Very nice 'Sante Fe' work on your site Kirk..

Gary.

[jjj]

The point is that someone suggested the 4x5 as a cheaper alternative to a digital camera, which means you have to compare based on the same usage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But you wouldn't use it in the same way, so not realistic.
Besides the main reason people shoot so many frames now, is because it doesn't cost in the same way to take more pictures.
Machine gun photography does not make you a better shooter.

The argument that using a  MFDB is more creative as they slow you down dosn't cut it. put a 5d or any other 35mm dslr on a big tripod with a geared head, attach a ts-e lens to it, tether it to a computer and you have very slow. of course having it in green mode with a standard zoom attached handheld lacks all the conrol you might need or wish for, but it gives you a spontaneity which is near impossible with a large MF camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's not about more creativity, it's about taking more care over the few frames you have when using MF or the fact that with MFDB, the camera is slower compared to a 1D3, so you cannot just machine gun away and hope to get a nice pic, which is what some people do. By taking more care over each shot, you get less duff shots and maybe more good shots than the rapid shooter with motordrive on. Spontaneity is good for some shots, but not all.
Just use the appropriate tool for the job. Just like Kirk mentioned above.

Besides in a studio where you tend to find MFDBs, waiting for lights to recycle is probably the limit to shooting quickly, not necessarily the camera.

[jklotz]

If any of you guys here think you're being hired because of the type of camera that you shoot, instead of the sum total of your production abilities, lighting skill, people skills, composition skills, etc, you've got much larger issues. In a successful career, the camera used is about two percent of the equation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139122\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark, I agree with you. Having seen your work, I'd guess you could probably make some really compelling images with a point and shoot. I can count the number of times I'be been asked what I'm shooting with on one hand. But I'm just saying that, as pros, we are expected to have professional tools. When the client uses the same camera as you use on location to shoot the family snaps at Disney World, you've just lost some creditability in the eyes of the client. It's just my opinion, and I'm not trying to agrue with you, but small as it may be, it is a factor.

ps - I am a fan of your work, very nice stuff on your web page

[Craig Lamson]

If any of you guys here think you're being hired because of the type of camera that you shoot, instead of the sum total of your production abilities, lighting skill, people skills, composition skills, etc, you've got much larger issues. In a successful career, the camera used is about two percent of the equation.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well Mark I guess it depends on where you look and who you ask.

In this article

[a href=\"http://www.news.com/underexposed/8301-13580_3-9771378-39.html]http://www.news.com/underexposed/8301-1358...9771378-39.html[/url]

on CNET by a writer praising the value of the microstock market , an astute  reader offered this amazing comment:

"Especially about the elitist comment. The only true difference between an "amateur" and a "pro" in the pre-digital age really was the ability to afford the equipment. Having the financial means to buy the equipment, learn the craft and to develop countless photos in the darkroom to hone your skills gives you an invaluable edge over someone has the artistic ability, but not the financial means. Now digital photography is drastically reducing the barriers to entry in this long overpriced field. Physicists ARE elite because they possess real, valuable, measurable analytical skills that the average person does not possess -- and this can be quantified by all sorts of tests.

"Pro" photographers are distinguished solely by their ability to afford "pro" equipment. The market is bearing this out as we speak. Good!"

[eronald]

The issue about art directors is complicated by the fact that many of the are failed or real artists. They have compositional talent, ability to judge colour etc. Give them a point and shoot and a vacation and they will make some very interesting images. Give them Photoshop and they can probably run circles around most of the members of this forum. So exactly how can you impress them ? The ability to deliver repeatable consistent quality is a skill one, that any true artist despises

And thn I have a question: How many of you have actually tried a point and shoot with studio strobes ?

Edmund

[Jonathan Wienke]

And thn I have a question: How many of you have actually tried a point and shoot with studio strobes ?

I have. A Pocket Wizard or 550EX on an Olympus SP-550 looks rather silly, but makes a huge difference in the resulting images. I don't have the files handy, but it's surprising how well a cheapo digicam can perform when you can optimize the lighting to get good exposure at the lowest ISO setting. The biggest reason digicam shots usually look horrible is lighting; weak, red-eye inducing on-camera flash combined with high ISO setting and the accompanying noise. Studio lighting drastically reduces both of those issues, leaving the lens as the greatest image quality bottleneck.