I didn't link those two videos to praise or dismiss their value as a marketing vehicle.
I only posted them to show the artistic and technical level they achieved. Once a artist/studio/production company is awarded the commission and reviews the creative brief we are required to reach a certain level. The extra cost of a camera doesn't usually impact the budget and if it does, the budget was too small, or you make a decision to absorb the costs for your own personal gain.
My/our job is to execute and deliver imagery that "can" be purposed to any media, but once we've done this, it's up to the client and their customers to decide if the message works, where they run it.
I kind of live by the Johnny Dep rule of once I've done my job, where it goes from there is none of my business.
Rarely am I called into the conference room on the 45th floor to discuss the merits of the campaign. (Sometimes I wish I was, other times I'm glad I'm not).
Anyway, to keep this somewhat relevant I like the images that Morgan showed, they were honest and I am sure pleased his client. Would a different camera in the same exact circumstance changed his images . . . probably not, though Morgan can better explain that than I.
What I do know is that broad strokes are the easiest thing "my" studio does. It's the small bits of refinement that are difficult and the most costly.
For every 10% we improve an image (moving or still) we up the effort 50%. That's just the process.
What I also know is digital has changed the way we view the production effort. I personally believe that good photography is difficult, great photography requires divine intervention and though when we work our job is to make the client think it's easy . . . trust me it's difficult.
Knowing this I think it's quite ok that professional cameras are more difficult to use and work than "prosumer" cameras and even if they only offer a 10% advantage, that added to the whole list of other 10%'s is what I am paid to achieve . . . is what makes a difference.
We routinely go on location or in studio with a grip truck full of equipment and many times have only used one camera, one lens and a soft foam-core for fill. The truck isn't there to pad the costs, or add complexity just for show. It's there to cover any circumstance and if you've done this job a while you'll learn that everyone has a plan until their punched in the mouth (Mike Tyson) and eventually no matter what you shoot the universe will eventually conspire to punch you in the mouth.
Years ago I beta tested for Epson and unknown to me they published my contact information. I got a lot of calls and they all went something like this.
"My prints look yellow, red, green, too light, too dark, too mushy, too sharp, too something". I'd say ok, let me ask you a question. If you wanted to make a color C-print with a $14,000 enlarger and a $15,000 print processor how long do you think it would take to master this equipment?
The caller would answer, "I dunno, maybe a year or two". I'd answer "right". Now why do you think you should be able to make a superior print with a $599 printer on your very first try with only 15 minutes of learning, when it takes close to $30,000 and 2 years to do it in a wet darkroom?
They'd all say, "yea, but I want a better print".
So I feel the same way about $2,500 cameras. They can do a great job, in fact an amazing job in the right hands, but it still takes a lot of effort to add that long list of 10%'s and it's those painful, costly, beat your head into the wall moments that give you those extra ten percents.
That's what moves your client's campaign and your own personal work forward.
And for everyone that professes that their less than expensive camera will do the same job, in stills and motion, I can promise you if they were awarded those two projects I linked to, a small hand held digital camera would not be on the equipment bid, at least for the main imagery.
I honestly believe (and this is no knock on anyone) that most people want things to be easy, but as my mother always said, (today is my day for paraphrasing), "if it was easy anyone could do it".
IMO
BC
P.S. I honestly don't buy into the notion that digital capture and presentation has made things easier. In fact I can run along list of what it takes to shoot something analog and deliver it vs. the "EQUAL" quality and artistic level of what it takes to do it digitally and analog will probably win.
The thing is you can get an acceptable image digitally with less effort, or at least with immediate effort. That's the only thing digital has changed, the thought that it's acceptable and it can be done faster, but to make some better in either digital or analog takes a lot of work.
I like work that takes a lot of work.
