Do it with an (old) iPhone!

[eronald]

We all know we can use anything. So here comes the fashion shoot with an iphone.

Nice light set ups and before/after retouch.


http://fstoppers.com/iphone/



Here is the stuff you're really interested in: the flicker image gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fstoppers/4761633736/lightbox/

shows how much of the work is actually done via makeup, hair, light and retouch. The camera adds the last 20%.

Edmund

[fredjeang]

We all know we can use anything. So here comes the fashion shoot with an iphone.

Nice light set ups and before/after retouch.


http://fstoppers.com/iphone/



Here is the stuff you're really interested in: the flicker image gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fstoppers/4761633736/lightbox/

shows how much of the work is actually done via makeup, hair, light and retouch. The camera adds the last 20%.

Edmund

I never know if people are doing those things to be interesting and catch the attention, or if they are serious.
But it is true that for small sizes application, this I.phone is enough.

But there is a complete lack of sense: to acheive these results as Edmund pointed, you need the professional team. So unless you get rid-off the photographer
and ask the make-up artist to do the shooting, this makes zero sense. The costs to acheive this results will be high enough.

And frankly, IQ is pretty bad.

This is one more internet extravagance.

Tomorrow, my sister will do a fashion shot with a crane and cinema team with a logitech webcam and automatically spread the twiter and facebooks all over the world with the pics.
These pics will automatically have a frame with the Vogue logo in pink and sponsors will display in each pic. If you don't want the ads, you send me money on
my pay-pal account.

What an exciting world.

[rainer_v]

i think you should read  the text too and listen the intention why this is done. and i completely agree with that, its a great job they did i.m.o. with this shooting.
as me and some other people here dont get tired to repeat: its not the camera its the photographer ( and often also his team and always his motifs ) who is making the images ....
and it certainly makes more sense for a young photographer to invest in many things but high leasing rates for slight technical improved hiend equipment and so i like if people point out that.
it gives me such a strange feeling if i hear photo students thinking about their dream to buy this or that mf equipment, but lacking fundamental experience in shooting as lacking  a nice portfolio.
they should work at first on that ... than get some jobs ... experience ... more jobs ... more experience ...some money ... and than thinking about adding this point on the i which can be hiend gear, and even that only sometimes if used for the right job and in the right way. it comes in the end , not in the beginning of learning to make good photographs.

[fredjeang]

i think you should read  the text too and listen the intention why this is done. and i completely agree with that, its a great job they did i.m.o. with this shooting.
as me and some other people here dont get tired to repeat: its not the camera its the photographer ( and often also his team and always his motifs ) who is making the images ....
and it certainly makes more sense for a young photographer to invest in many things but high leasing rates for slight technical improved hiend equipment and so i like if people point out that.
it gives me such a strange feeling if i hear photo students thinking about their dream to buy this or that mf equipment, but lacking fundamental experience in shooting as lacking  a nice portfolio.
they should work at first on that ... than get some jobs ... experience ... more jobs ... more experience ...some money ... and than thinking about adding this point on the i which can be hiend gear, and even that only sometimes if used for the right job and in the right way. it comes in the end , not in the beginning of learning to make good photographs.

I certainly won't contradict most of your statements here.
My point was a little different.

What I was pointing is that to reach that with your I.phone or whatever simplest camera, you need the all process being acheived professionally.
I'm sorry but this is not the poor broken student that enhance his skills and genious with whatever gear, it is a professional shooting with the difference of a mobile phone.
1 failure in the chain (lightning, make-up artist, retouching etc...) will have consequences on the final result.
What do they proove here? that the camera does not matter? But I suspect we all knew this.
So to me this is just an exotic way of catching the attention.

If I meet your point about the progressive learning, and starting with whatever little camera instead of thinking "if had a P65 it will be another story" (because it won't)
I can't help to see this particular experience as a little extravagance that tells absolutly nothing interesting or new.

IMO.

[rainer_v]

I certainly won't contradict most of your statements here.
My point was a little different.

What I was pointing is that to reach that with your I.phone or whatever simplest camera, you need the all process being acheived professionally.
I'm sorry but this is not the poor broken student that enhance his skills and genious with whatever gear, it is a professional shooting with the difference of a mobile phone.
1 failure in the chain (lightning, make-up artist, retouching etc...) will have consequences on the final result.
What do they proove here? that the camera does not matter? But I suspect we all knew this.
So to me this is just an exotic way of catching the attention.

If I meet your point about the progressive learning, and starting with whatever little camera instead of thinking "if had a P65 it will be another story" (because it won't)
I can't help to see this particular experience as a little extravagance that tells absolutly nothing interesting or new.

IMO.

i think the result is quite surprising, and of course no one would shoot such job with an iphone. why should someone do that. but that is not the intention of this video.
 it just shows how far you can go even with the worst equipment if you know how to photograph and to post.

[feppe]

Thanks, this is the stills equivalent of the Zacuto Shootout - and just as illuminating.

But there is a complete lack of sense: to acheive these results as Edmund pointed, you need the professional team. So unless you get rid-off the photographer
and ask the make-up artist to do the shooting, this makes zero sense. The costs to acheive this results will be high enough.

You're missing the point, which is to convince people that one shouldn't feel constrained by gear - you don't need a 85mm f/1.2L on a 5DII or MFDB to produce great shots. The target audience for his blog is dSLR amateurs, who generally are even more gear-fetishists than pros.

Videos like this are very necessary, as 99% of photography websites are mainly about gear, not photography - LL included.

And the IQ is fine at web resolution. Even pros can't consistently tell MFDB shot from a dSLR shot at web res.

[fredjeang]

I completly agree with both statements. But didn't we all know that ?
Yes this is a kind of confirmation if some where not convinced and may thought that gear is all.
But but but...the I.phone camera indeed is not an high standard device, very different is the evironment of this shooting.

Have you ever been on a tv or a cine plateau with a little compact cam?
The one who have done that will understand my point here. So the beginners should not fool themselves either with that experiment.

PS: yesterday I went to the store and bought a bloody 5 mp "obsolete" compact manual camera from Sigma, the DP.
I enjoy it like crazy. I don't miss more pixels. This gear chalenges me and my skills, with just one fixed 28mm focal etc...
Despite its questionable usability, one of the best purchase I've been making recently.
I also use my mobile phone camera daily for captures.

So this experiment is something I've been convinced for ages, but it just appears to me a little re-heated
and I'd be more happy if such energy and profesionalism in the plateau would be spent in most of gear testing
that we are interested in, instead of the bricks fences and dogs that we often get all over internet.

Just an observation...

[JoeKitchen]

I think it is a great example that photography is about painting with light and a camera is nothing more then a device that records the light, but nothing more than that.  Although the pixel quality on the heads and shoulders is good, every where else (in most of them) is very noisy showing that any post work is very limited.  

Yes, photography should not be about the equipment, but how many photographers out there (especially young photographers) can and take the time to do everything with light?  He looks to be a very competent photographer, and even he got noisy images.  Although I would not recommend spending the money on the best stuff without a decent cash flow and clients who appreciate it, you do need a certain level of equipment to be competitive.  You need some amount of quality in the file just in case you need to push the image a little in post.

[Rob C]

So this experiment is something I've been convinced for ages, but it just appears to me a little re-heated
and I'd be more happy if such energy and profesionalism in the plateau would be spent in most of gear testing
that we are interested in, instead of the bricks fences and dogs that we often get all over internet.

Just an observation...

"Dogs" is a good example of a bad example.

I was watching Mr and Mrs Smith last night on Film 4. Mr Pitt looked somewhat baw-faced (stamper will recognize the expression even if the spelling is possibly somewhat lacking) whilst in a head shot, Mrs Pitt looked as if she had an uncommonly flat profile, which reminded me of Patsy Kensit who is similarly blessed, which must be a godsend to anyone doing portraits of either - or both, of course.

Now the dogs. I remember having to do a headshot of our alsabrador when we were bringing her out to Spain - she needed one for her rabies shots passport, and I do wish she had been blessed with equally flat features as the two beauties mentioned earlier. A bitingly sharp nose doesn't guarantee as crisp an eye, even with strong flash and a small format. But then, had such a shot been possible, instead of a beautiful alsabrador, she'd have been a bulldog (bullbitch?), heaven help her.

But you are right, Fred, and is what ¡s echoed in various posts by our old friend Cooter : give real, interesting photographs to look at; I want beautiful.

Rob C

[eronald]

i think you should read  the text too and listen the intention why this is done. and i completely agree with that, its a great job they did i.m.o. with this shooting.
as me and some other people here dont get tired to repeat: its not the camera its the photographer ( and often also his team and always his motifs ) who is making the images ....
and it certainly makes more sense for a young photographer to invest in many things but high leasing rates for slight technical improved hiend equipment and so i like if people point out that.
it gives me such a strange feeling if i hear photo students thinking about their dream to buy this or that mf equipment, but lacking fundamental experience in shooting as lacking  a nice portfolio.
they should work at first on that ... than get some jobs ... experience ... more jobs ... more experience ...some money ... and than thinking about adding this point on the i which can be hiend gear, and even that only sometimes if used for the right job and in the right way. it comes in the end , not in the beginning of learning to make good photographs.

Rainer,

I believe you are specialised in architecture, not in model shoots.

 Here in Paris a decent model will cost you substantially more than camera rental. The same goes for a good makeup artist and hair person. This is not a cheap shoot, even if it was done with an iphone. And by the way, have you looked lately at the price of the big Octabank and the strip lights used for this shoot, even if they claim it wasn't used, the ever-so-trendy wind machine, not to speak of studio space rental ?

 Oh and by the way, you have to feed all the people on set, and you have to get the model in the mood, you need to make sure she has the right size shoes for her to wear, you need to pacify the AD, and you need to find a way to transport all that stuff to and from rental and check that earrings haven't got lost .

 What I'm trying to show in this post is that the real cost and difficulty of such a shoot is not in the camera. I know this because I've done it. What the images show conclusively is that the quality of such a shoot depends less than one might assume on the camera, but very considerably on the skill of the photographer to scrounge expensive staff, equipment and location free for a "test".

Edmund

[Ray]

C'mon now guys! We're revisiting old ground. A long time ago Ken Rockwell suggested that the 'camera does not matter'.

He was trying to make a point that the merit of the composition transcended concerns about resolution and fine detail.

He was derided by our host, Michael, and many others.

Why are we resurrecting this myth?

[Rob C]

I don't think the experiment proved anything one way or the other. Sarah Moon was shooting very fast film just to create atmosphere and grain decades ago; she was still utilising Nikons, though, and you could corrupt the argument to say she should have used a box Brownie. Except that it wouldn't have worked out. You can't ignore the aesthetics of focal length.

In the first video (I thought I'd said all this yesterday, but I must have done something dumb and not sent the post properly - moi?) there is a shot with three bright lights showing. It is fantastic, but that's all because of the framing, the model and the 'look' and would have lost something, IMO, with MFD. The Sarah Moon thing, if you will: atmosphere. No, it would not have lost something, it would have died in its shoes.

You have to understand the mindset of the young wannabe shooter. He is amost by definition obliged to start his journey from the position of thinking himself at least as good as the guys he envies. Where do they differ? They have the expensive stuff and he just the dream. Ergo, its the stuff that makes them successful: Q.E.D. He thinks.

But where does it live in the real world? I did a calendar shoot for a UK brewery in Provence and, prior to the trip the client told me he was looking for a "painterly" effect, it being Vincent country and all of that. So, what did I do, I took a copy of the Moon Pirelli to his office. He almost died in his chair. Good Lord, you wouldn't be able to read the labels on the products! So much for what people say, think that they mean and actually do expect, and probably as much for what you imagine them to mean. We ended up with Kodachrome as usual, and yes, you could read the logos where they did occur.

Rob C

[eronald]

You have to understand the mindset of the young wannabe shooter. He is amost by definition obliged to start his journey from the position of thinking himself at least as good as the guys he envies. Where do they differ? They have the expensive stuff and he just the dream. Ergo, its the stuff that makes them successful: Q.E.D. He thinks.

Rob C

When I first wanted to shoot fashion, an ***experienced*** guy told me "you need to get much better clothes, get some coke, and go to the right night clubs to make the contacts and get the models". Unfortunately, I think that advice was much better for the trendy fashion wannabe than Rainer's cookie-cutter advice above. Become friendly with some make-up artist, get her to help a model friend with her nose itch,  go to the rental place with model in tow,  and become the AD nose's best friend and the rest will follow - if you cannot light or shoot, do what everybody in Paris does: get an assistant.

And by the way, here is what a ***really experienced*** AD told me: Your pictures are OK, but you are too ugly. Get a pretty assistant and have him chat up the models, while you shoot

Oh, by the way, I did none of the above. I simply got a make up artist who was an ex-dancer and she brought her friends to model. But when they all took me to night clubs I started to understand that the advice I got originally was very sound.

Edmund

[MichaelEzra]

[fredjeang]

When I first wanted to shoot fashion, an ***experienced*** guy told me "you need to get much better clothes, get some coke, and go to the right night clubs to make the contacts and get the models". Unfortunately, I think that advice was much better for the trendy fashion wannabe than Rainer's cookie-cutter advice above. Become friendly with some make-up artist, get her to help a model friend with her nose itch,  go to the rental place with model in tow,  and become the AD nose's best friend and the rest will follow - if you cannot light or shoot, do what everybody in Paris does: get an assistant.

And by the way, here is what a ***really experienced*** AD told me: Your pictures are OK, but you are too ugly. Get a pretty assistant and have him chat up the models, while you shoot

Oh, by the way, I did none of the above. I simply got a make up artist who was an ex-dancer and she brought her friends to model. But when they all took me to night clubs I started to understand that the advice I got originally was very sound.

Edmund

Edmund,

1) those unsurprised comments from the arrogant AD would have deserved a fist in the face with the D3. They remind me the good old days in Paris, these kind of attitude are tolerated in those latitudes.

2) they are completly wrong. Many great fashion photographers are hugly and not tall.

3) Serious models would not discriminate a photograph for its aspect.

4) you're not hugly.

5) Those people who spray bad vibes to the others should be put on trail, that can have disastrous consequences sometimes.

6)  Paris has not changed since I left.

Cheers.

[eronald]

Edmund,

1) those unsurprised comments from the arrogant AD would have deserved a fist in the face with the D3. They remind me the good old days in Paris, these kind of attitude are tolerated in those latitudes.

2) they are completly wrong. Many great fashion photographers are hugly and not tall.

3) Serious models would not discriminate a photograph for its aspect.

4) you're not hugly.

5) Those people who spray bad vibes to the others should be put on trail, that can have disastrous consequences sometimes.

6)  Paris has not changed since I left.

Cheers.

Thanks for the kind words. I certainly agree with number 6: We'll always have Paris

Edmund

[Rob C]

Thanks for the kind words. I certainly agree with number 6: We'll always have Paris
Edmund

Hey, wasn't that Casablanca?

Rob C

[semillerimages]

Really interesting responses here to this video, especially the overly critical ones. I side with Rainier, because I actually understood what the fstoppers were trying to show. I'm not much for jumping into the flame wars on this site, but the critics here are really rather funny to me - then again I don't go a day without a good chuckle from the penny arcade arguments that fly back and forth here so often.

I had a show a couple months ago of images shot on my iPhone 3G - printed out on an Epson 4800 4x5.33 inches at 300 DPI (their native resolution) and sold a thousand dollars worth of them (I had an interesting pricing arrangement). The reason I did it was that so many people couldn't believe on my facebook page that the images I was shooting came from the phone, so I did a show of them and people still couldn't believe it, but they bought em up like crazy

All nonsense aside, a 4x5 inch print can have the same emotional effect on a person as a 40x50 inch print - especially for non-photographers who aren't far too concerned about DR, noise, pixel dimensions etc.

I'd be willing to bet that there are a number of photographers here on this site, many of whom I admire greatly, that could put most of us to shame if they were given a simple kodak film disposable camera to shoot with.

Cheers,

*steve

[eronald]

I'd be willing to bet that there are a number of photographers here on this site, many of whom I admire greatly, that could put most of us to shame if they were given a simple kodak film disposable camera to shoot with.

Cheers,

*steve

This part we already  all agree about

My flame is about the fact that the fstopper demo shoot is in fact an expensive operation.

Where's that Facebook page?

Edmund

[fredjeang]

This part we already  all agree about

My flame is about the fact that the fstopper demo shoot is in fact an expensive operation.

Where's that Facebook page?

Edmund

Exactly.
That's my point too.

About the gear importance, it is so obvious that this is relative that I'm completly out of interest.
Give a 10 euros guitar to SRV or Paco de Lucia and it will sound great. This is as old and as truth as man's on hearth,
therefore, I don't see the "Whao" of this experiment.
If that would have been done with toilet paper I'd say the same: "and?"

In fact, this can even fool the less experienced thinking that you can acheive great fashion shots just with your mobile.
When the reality is that this is an expensive and professional session.

The camera is not all? light is all? preparation is all? Talent is the first? etc...Didn't we all knew that??  

You sold thousand dollars of mobile's prints? Congrats.
You sold thousand dollars of MF prints? Congrats.
And if I was the buyer, I would not have care a second about the gear in question, but the pic if it moves me or not.

What's so unique in that experiment if not a desire to get internet traffic?