but I don't remember you ever providing any shooting advice about how these were captured. At best a one liner about a lighting brand. Such contributions would be highly valuable in my view.
Sure, but I usually don't mention "the why" cause nobody usually asks.
But here goes and I'll try to limit it with available light imagery.
(All but one image is cropped for a video presentation)
Canon 70d no modifiers available window light.
Simple image.
During a motion shoot in London. No fill, used for a inset of 20 subjects, all shot separately.
I also needed stills from each quick session and usually used the 1dx but since the light was falling fast, I just used the 70d I was shooting the motion imagery with.
If time had permitted I would have added soft white fill on the left, but it was an easy pull up in post so I just shot it.
Canon 1d3 (not 1ds3).
A still shoot in Brazil. For a coffee table book project on organic farming for an international client.
I had 1ds and even medium format, but these were brutal conditions, the subjects were real and redo's were difficult.
The 1d3 I bought only for this project and sold it a month later (should have kept it as it produced a very pretty file).
No fill light, no modifiers, just camera, lens subject and overhead light. Obviously the sky was worked in post, but it is the same natural sky all from one frame.
Commissioned to shoot 4 athletes in Osaka.
Nikon d2x with an old 80 to 200 push pull.
Had a d3 on me on me but for some reason the d2x just felt right. The key to this image was scouting the location and knowing the look I wanted to achieve.
The d2x shot razor sharp but would blow a highlight easily, so I always shot a little under and it pulled up nicely.
It wasn't known for high ISO and I think I pushed it to around 1200 iso or something like that.
Regardless it worked, available light, no modifiers.
Editorial in Dallas with 1ds3.
Did about 14 setups that day/night. Window light, no modifiers, though the exposure was a little slow and time was tight so I pulled a table over, cushioned it with my jacket and just shot it.
Though this subject is relatively still, I rarely direct talent while I'm shooting. I hate that move your hand to the left type of direction.
I go over the direction before we shoot, give the talent some idea of the look and what they should project and let them do it.
We had lights, fill, modifiers, but unless you need them then why use them and usually if we use them it's only to enhance the image, not dominate it.
Advertising in Hong Kong, Nikon D700 or 7000 I dunno the cheap version of the d3.
I used this camera because it focused fast and is not that expensive. Where we were shooting had waves with huge undertow.
I positioned a camera grip behind me and would fire off 10 frames hold the camera up he would grab it and run to the beach, the undertow would grab me and pull me under water.
I felt the cheaper Nikon was a camera I'd be less upset with losing and reliably hit focus.
No fill, no modifiers, no lights.
Editorial and Co-op Advertising in LA. Leica S2.
I lit this with window light and a 75watt tungsten fresnel for accent, but could have used a 50 watt bulb and some foil.
I use the S2 because I like it. It's not baby bottom smooth, kind of slow, kind of big, very nice to hold, very nice to use.
It will be a camera I own a long, long time even though it's old tech and actually I think the old tech works for me better than the new tech because I use it's limitations as a positive rather than a negative.
_____________________________________________________________________
I know that a certain faction on this forum thinks photographers in my genre make up the deficiencies for our "not so good" cameras with lights, crews, generators and post trickery.
Not actually true.
I also have the impression that the same people think we have two days to do one photograph and a crew of 50 . . . also not always true. We do double digit setups a day, long days and if we get it in 5 frames or 50, we get it.
A lot of people on this forum understand that there is no option not to get the shot, because that's how they pay their bills. That doesn't mean that the people that shoot for fun don't have an investment and don't want to succeed.
But wanting to and having to are different responsibilities.
Actually of all the images I and some others post, the camera and equipment is very secondary. We produce our imagery with something more precious than a sensor that some tech site rates as good.
We do it with experience, planning, an obsession to never let the people that count on us wanting.
We might wax on lyrically that we shoot for ourselves, but in all honesty we shoot with the audience in mind.
IMO
BC
