Anyway, sometimes you use the camera you have to use, sometimes you use the camera you want to use.
Is it the right camera? Who knows, but it was for me at the time.
I've always taped over camera logos, cause after the main creative brief you always see something through a window of a car or something reflective and nothing shows up like the name of a camera in reverse.
Even if you can retouch it out it looks like a mistake.
Then early on with digital, clients would have their production manager on set and they asked way to many questions at exactly the wrong time.
So a little bit of black gaff meant less tech conversation.
I do like the thought of small, big and bigger.
I also understand the thing about Parkinson's hats. I've usually had two of every camera and I guess it's my broken brain, but one of my REDs I like better than the other, one of my Contax I like better, one of my Canons I like better.
So I'm not sure if what camera matters as long as the camera doesn't stop you.
IMO
BC
Indeed. Taped logos: in a sense, I do it because I dislike looking like a sandwich board man, especially the neckstrap part of the deal. Neither do I subscribe to being an unpaid, walking advertisement for anybody. Pay me propely, I'll wear the biggest log that fits!
For some time I've had this fascination with reflections of life in street windows; as you say, logos always show up, almost as badly as do photographers! I've sometimes been asked about the brand I've hidden, and just say "black', smile and move on. I wouldn't have denied the old 'blads their identity, but then neither would I have thought of taking them walkies down the street!
Nope, your brain's not broken (as if!) - you just tune into the vibe of something. I was exactly the same when I took an F and F2 along on work: they were always interchanged after each film just for mechanical safety insurance - never really needed it - but the F2 felt friendlier, maybe because the edges were less cruel to the hands on long holding, even though the original F was the answer to aspirational dreams at the time. With my two digi ones, the older D200 gets the work and the D700 usually rests the long rest at home. Considering the newer one is technically much better at high ISO, there's no logical explanation other than gut reaction, and that means a helluva lot to me and, I imagine, to most snappers. Just shows that tech-spec isn't always the deciding factor in mindsets preference. Naturally, using cameras for a living is another beast altogether.
What's probably as important is how easy a camera is to use, and for what. For outdoor fashion it was the Nikon, but on one shoot for the IWS I was on the 6x6 and the client told me that she much preferred it when I used the little camera, because I jumped around a lot more and looked more 'creative' and it felt a 'sexier' experience working like that. She was right, but not in the way she thought: on some shoots, you just knew that it wasn't going to be about great images, it was going to be about showing every stitch. Especially in the cases where the client picked a model herself, one you'd never met, and of whose ability you knew zilch. Best make the garments look good, even if a bit unadventurous. There was never time for both attacks, even then.
Quotidian experience, below. Not much call for hi-tech there - just Vaseline and cheap Cokin holder!
Rob C
