Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: BJNY on November 09, 2010, 09:05:28 am
-
http://www.eoshd.com/content/435-Rumour-Phase-One-to-release-digital-back-with-live-view-and-RAW-video
-
Actually, I'd like if some MF supra gurus could comment on the rolling shutter in the case of MFD.
I have always wanted the MF brands to take the video path and I'm aware about thye chalenge.
But hey, like Kennedy said, it's worth not because it's easy but because it is hard.
I beleive this is a hoax, but...who knows.
-
Why would anyone want to shoot video with a MF camera? ???
-
Well with digital now we really don't have a need for a physical shutter anymore, so yes this could be the future for sure. Not sure about this rumor at all but I would imagine among the MF OEM's this has crossed there minds at least. Of course for Phase this would mean a new body which getting away from the film style bodies is not a bad thought and pretty welcome in my book. I like the DF but hell something new and really innovative would be very very welcome indeed. As long as we can still use our existing backs and lenses. I would welcome the change as long as it actually makes shooters sense not just engineering wizardry.
I just read Grahams comments , I guess if it could eliminate a red system in some way this would be useful to a lot of shooters is to actually get both high res imagery in still and video. Not exactly sure of Red's capabilities here myself if it can actually do high res stuff on the still side
-
PhasOne vs. Red/Hasselblad/Others.. It's about time the turtle moved in for the volley shot.. :)
-
Why would anyone want to shoot video with a MF camera? ???
I heard the same questions not a long time ago Graham, it was like: why would anyone want to shoot video with a DSLR?
And look at the reality now.
The thing is that they buy video footages editorials, Testino just released the campaign with Penelope Cruz and fimed. If testino film...this tells a lot.
Video will be included in the package for the same price than "stills only". I know it sounds like a supermarket offers but that's what photography business is at the moment.
About the Phase, I don't think they would go for a dedicated video back. Although...
By the way Graham, very beautifull works, specially the "mise en scène". When I watch your stills, I think that you would do very good videos also.
-
"Phase One have a digital back for medium format / Hasselblad cameras which records RAW video."
What seems fake is Phase partnering with Hasselblad? If this was true, why would phase not use their own camera body.
I vote for fake!
I think one day we will see video and MFDB, but this just seems like a stretch.
-
I heard the same questions not a long time ago Graham, it was like: why would anyone want to shoot video with a DSLR?
I see your point, but I think people put up with the DSLR even though it is not very suitable as a video camera, mainly due to the low price. The medium format backs don't have that advantage.
Testino just released the campaign with Penelope Cruz and fimed.
I noticed that, but is it just a gimmick or is it here to stay? Time will tell. People keep forgetting that photography has several advantages over film so I think photography will always have a place.
By the way Graham, very beautifull works, specially the "mise en scène". When I watch your stills, I think that you would do very good videos also.
Thank you! Maybe one day :)
-
I see your point, but I think people put up with the DSLR even though it is not very suitable as a video camera, mainly due to the low price. The medium format backs don't have that advantage.
I noticed that, but is it just a gimmick or is it here to stay? Time will tell. People keep forgetting that photography has several advantages over film so I think photography will always have a place.
Thank you! Maybe one day :)
I think this is an important question. IMO, the movie lenguage is going to grow for the photographer.
If I remember, you're based in London, I don't know how things are crossing the chanel but here there are pressures to the photographers, included in photo-reportage and see the 1DMK4 video features wich is a camera for journalism, to start to work in video. I imagine that the Testino campaign has costed much less that what would have cost a similar tv campaign made with traditional heavy artillery, included considering his cache that might be considerable. So they got the stills and a movie from the same house and he can put the stuff in his website. Pretty impressive indeed, marketing talking.
In art gallery also same tendency, video is really coming into the scene, (with a lot of bullshit pseudo-conceptual I admit) but it grows as an art form and I saw that in the latest years, it took an exponential take-off in the most important galleries.
Internet has already a strong demand, and with html 5 it's going to grow like mushrooms. I'm tempted to say, don't miss the train. Things are changing and fast.
So for one side I see that there is a growing demand for video and this is an area that will give incomes to the photographers and probably the ones who resist the most will have to do it anyway if they make their living with photography. But I might be wrong on this vision.
-
I think the use of motion is problematic for clients. Clients want video but don't know where or how to use it. There are two issues: 1. the viewing source/outlest; and 2. Content.
I've looked at the metrics and what we've seen is that click-throughs on videos do not translate into sales. Front page of the NYT, big ad, motion, whole nine yards. No one watches the whole thing. No one stays at the site and shops online or visits a store, less so than a compelling still in the same location. The reason is, partially, the viewing source and the time investment. people are more likely to watch a clip and follow through if its on a TV, or a large display, when they are at home. Few stores in the US are equipped to have video displays large enough and numerous enough. Asia is a different story, but in the states, well, Unless you are shooting commercials motion is essentially a vanity project for commercial clients. The iPad and digital editions may change this because its less browing and more directed viewing. But we aren't there yet.
As to content, video is viewed but passed over before they end, partially because the content is bland. The holy grail is a viral video but clients are afraid of viral content. Only rarely do clients accept ideas that are brilliant, and even rarer still that those ideas are executed well enough for the briliance to shine.
The view from the agencies is that motion is not a gimmick, but its importance is not there yet. This is a growing realization. We will see a flood of video with html 5, which clients don't want to pay for, extorted out of everyone with a 5D2 or 7D. The content will be as bland as the stills they produce, creating glut, similar to the use of stock by horridly designed web sites ranging from Yale University to Chico's.
All this to say I don't think Phase should go after Video unless they believe that they can OWN it, beating Red and Canon and Sony and Arri. There will be too few people willing to buy it over the more established options.
-
Who cares about real video? WE WANT LIVEVIEW WITH A DECENT SCREEN.
Edmund
-
I think the use of motion is problematic for clients. Clients want video but don't know where or how to use it. There are two issues: 1. the viewing source/outlest; and 2. Content.
I've looked at the metrics and what we've seen is that click-throughs on videos do not translate into sales. Front page of the NYT, big ad, motion, whole nine yards. No one watches the whole thing. No one stays at the site and shops online or visits a store, less so than a compelling still in the same location. The reason is, partially, the viewing source and the time investment. people are more likely to watch a clip and follow through if its on a TV, or a large display, when they are at home. Few stores in the US are equipped to have video displays large enough and numerous enough. Asia is a different story, but in the states, well, Unless you are shooting commercials motion is essentially a vanity project for commercial clients. The iPad and digital editions may change this because its less browing and more directed viewing. But we aren't there yet.
As to content, video is viewed but passed over before they end, partially because the content is bland. The holy grail is a viral video but clients are afraid of viral content. Only rarely do clients accept ideas that are brilliant, and even rarer still that those ideas are executed well enough for the briliance to shine.
The view from the agencies is that motion is not a gimmick, but its importance is not there yet. This is a growing realization. We will see a flood of video with html 5, which clients don't want to pay for, extorted out of everyone with a 5D2 or 7D. The content will be as bland as the stills they produce, creating glut, similar to the use of stock by horridly designed web sites ranging from Yale University to Chico's.
All this to say I don't think Phase should go after Video unless they believe that they can OWN it, beating Red and Canon and Sony and Arri. There will be too few people willing to buy it over the more established options.
I agree with your reflections on that matter. It is true that the demand is growing, but nobody is really sure about what to do with it.
Viral is a big cake for advertisers and my bet is that html 5 will provide the hability to interact. I think that the interaction will be the clew and I won't be surprise to see the marquet parts eating alive the traditional tv ads.
For example, you shoot a video of a car and you ask the viewer for active participation, so you can choose to drive the car in the city, then stop the movie and choose the colors, back to drive in the moutains etc...
The visual experience will be totally boosted. In my example, stills are used for showing colors.
But that will be heavy productions.
As you pointed, what will profileferate will be those unpaid extra videos (and they are proliferating right now here!...) with whatever.
When I say they are proliferating, I'm refering to some serious ediotorial business that is starting to use video as a "obliged gift". Sign of the times.
So I think will see 2 tendencies: the unpaid mess, and some truly big stuff very elaborate.
edit: and agree with Feppe, we start to see screens more and more. Advertising with big screens in shops so the summer collection shooted with the sound, the models and the wind and all that is much more impacting. Then, NO LIMITS in the claims, you can ad big texts, etc...
And not only fashion, arquitecture projects, the list is unlimited.
-
Few stores in the US are equipped to have video displays large enough and numerous enough. Asia is a different story, but in the states, well, Unless you are shooting commercials motion is essentially a vanity project for commercial clients. The iPad and digital editions may change this because its less browing and more directed viewing. But we aren't there yet.
Video is getting more and more ubiquitous in western/northern Europe. We have video screens especially where you have a captive audience, such as fast food joints (people waiting in line) in several countries, and trams in Amsterdam. I've even seen some in public bathrooms.
We have huge facades entirely covered in an ad for [product] in several parts of the old city center - it's a friggin World Heritage Site. When e-ink or similar tech becomes video capable we'll have the same, but with video.
There'll be a need for ad block for eyes soon.
-
Feppe,
The recession slowed the adaptation of cheap screens in the US. Only three retail clients followe dthrough with their grand plans for multiple screens in their stores, and one client had technical issues at their hawaii store that led them to kill screens and go back to paper. Eventually screens will be everywhere, like in Seoul, especially when the rollable LCD's are mass produced.
The best use of motion I've seen is the Gap web site that allows you to dress/undress a model, see the clothes on a moving person. That is a great use. Architecture, showing how people interact with the space, is also a great use. I like some of what Nick Knight does with show studio, and Diesel has some good motion in their stores. But over all, there is a lack of coherent thought on where things are going, and things move too fast for in the culture for much reflection and thought before we plunge into the gap like the Light Brigade.
-
Who cares about real video? WE WANT LIVEVIEW WITH A DECENT SCREEN.
Edmund
Amen and +1!!!
-
Why would anyone want to shoot video with a MF camera? ???
Because of the extremely shallow DoF. With MFDB video you can get the third eyelash to the left perfectly in focus, but the fourth eyelash to the right, slightly out of focus.
That's creativity. ;D
-
I am cutrrently in the market looking into buying digital back, and have contacted many sources and it my assumptions and many others who know better, that video is not coming into the next installmnets of phase one. We might see better and bigger screens, enhanced DR, and may be longer exposures.
Live View is a possibility, but not they continue using CCD, heat is a big issue with live view.
I think there will be new wave of backs, but what and when remain seceret and subject to NDA.
Any way that my view
-
Does anyone really need the extra DOF vs. a 1.4 DSLR lens? ::)
Nobody is talking about storage. How would one store this? You'd need a 500GB SSD imagebank at the very least for speed/size. I would think....
-
I just can't see it happening.. I don't see a video feat with the next gen digital backs. Live view? They'd need to switch to CMOS and build the back from scratch. Taking onto account current state / wealth of medium back market players, I don't see Phase One taking such a huge leap forward. First thing they'd need to change is their current policy ("more mpix, more mpix, more mpix I tell ya!") thus the core of how things are in the company. Too good to be true.
-
I think we all beleive that this rumor is an hoax, at least for the next coming generation. But who knows in a longer future.
-
Almost 2 years ago exactly I sat down with a Phase rep with a few people and the new (at the time) P65. We had a candid conversation about Phase and I asked a few pointed questions: What is Phases' stance on Video? What of the rumors of wireless? What of the rumors of a global shutter? I had heard rumors of an "on chip global shutter" and wireless at least a year before this point (2007) from people close to Phase. The answer to the video question: Phase thinks video is a fad. The answer to wireless: The company that had worked on the tech went out of business and it would never clear the FCC. The answer to Global shutter: Maybe someday. I've also heard rumors of a Phase Photoshop like program, and a few others that escape me at the moment. In the two years since nothing has materialized. Well, I guess C1 5 rose out of the ashes of 4, but thats about it. Phase really mystifies me. Their backs coupled with their software are still the best. Period. However, they seem to simply trudge along resting on their laurels. I see more and more shooters I know putting down their Phases and using the Canons (faster than MF) as clients want more for their dollar even at the highest levels (clients think the Canon files are just Dandy). Phase was silent at Photokina this year, and with the continued downturn I guess I understand. Its certainly an interesting move to put the biggest chip around (80mp) in their "sister line" of Leaf. Perhaps that bodes well from something revolutionary from Phase next round. Lets hope. But, if history is any indication it doesn't seem Phase has much up its sleeve beside more MP, a few new lenses and a new body someday. -JV
-
99% of the video being produced today is a fad.
T-Mark is right that the web video numbers for actual advertising and brand building aren't very impressive, but that doesn't really matter if a client asks for video during a still shoot.
A lot of advertising works, a lot doesn't, but when the client says they want video, then we add on video, just as if a client says they want to shoot in studio, or on location, or with a dog, a cat, their girlfriend/boyfriend . . .
Commerce comes with a long list of what you can and can't do, commerce comes with another long list of what is expected.
I had lunch this weekend with a client, long lunch, good client and we talked about the philosophy of shooting a commercial project, (still or video) and honestly though we all pour our heart and soul into a gig, that doesn't mean it's "our" project as so many decisions are made way up the line (before and after a shoot) by people few of us ever meet. The guys with the corner offices are the deciders, not us photographers, at least not for work that pays really well.
So in relevance to this thread as far as Phase adding motion capabilities, ok, fine, good, whatever, but no still camera will replace a real dedicated motion camera for serious production, Sony, Red, Panasonic and Arriflex pretty much have the medium to high end covered anyway.
But if Phase does make a better still camera, with live view, or just a good lcd, more moveable iso and gets a better camera platform for all that digital capture expertise then they'll probably do very well.
I still think the real hurdle for high end camera makers is to get their cameras in the hands of more photographers and stop the 5d2 bleeding.
It can be done, but not in the traditional way they market their cameras now, but that's another topic.
BC
-
Why would anyone want to shoot video with a MF camera? ???
Not an answer to your question, but a remark about the third shot in your Gallery: the girl with the basket of fruit.
Have you noticed how similar she looks to one of Sally Mann's daughters... she's not, is she?
Rob C
-
with screens becoming the major viewing platform I just see video as an essential thing
@bcooter
will DSLR replace red/bigger cams ?
did DSLR replace MFBD - I think so for 80% - it took a few years but they did
as for phase - Id love a motion back for my H1
16mp stills plus motion with a FF35 crop would be fine and usable 800 ISO
On switching off - well we can change channel on the TV its even easier on the web most photographers have not understood 'arc' ie a story or way of pulling a viewer in or not allowing them to switch over
on value to brand , I think vid has value, not imediate but value in the same way as the logo on a sports stars jumper adds value (or doesnt?)
S
-
And also, we have to remember that it's not just a tech or photographer culture, but this is massive world wide culture.
Look with what the little child are playing with, it's amazing. It's all about interactivity and motion.
Now that cutting trees is going to be as out-of-the-law as smoking, paper will not have the importance it has now. Epson should start to think about screens right now.
I see already screens in art galleries and this is not a tendency that will go backwards.
The biggest newspapers here have already did a campaign for the I.pad. That was displayed in all Madrid this summer.
IMO, the average photographer, not big production but the mass, included weddings will have video. The art galleries will have video, the editorials, every area. I bet my hat that only stills will not be possible very soon for the professional photographer at any level of the profession.
-
Why would anyone want to shoot video with a MF camera? ???
It seems that the anonymous "creative house in Sydney, Australia" cited only said Live View, and then the EOSHD site extrapolated with "and that means video capabilities". But Live View could work with far lower quality and data-rates than the video output that would be worth using an MFDB for. Like crude subsampling on both rows and columns, no binning or smoothing.
Such Live View could be doable with ILT CCD, which Kodak for example already makes. But so far, ILT CCD lags FF CCD significantly for DR due mainly to the lower well-capacity, and probably for that reason in particular has been spurned so far in favor of FF CCD by MF, Leica and the early Olympus Four Thirds cameras. Maybe the DR gap can be closed with newer fabrication processes (smaller feature size).
But not if a global shutter is needed: that has a hard requirement that at most half of the photosite area is available to gather light, because a region of equal electron capacity must be masked off for use of the global shutter. Hence the poor well capacity of the latest, greatest, global shutter endowed Kodak ILT CCD's like the 29MP 36x24mm one under discussion lately.
-
snip......will DSLR replace red/bigger cams ?
did DSLR replace MFBD - I think so for 80% - it took a few years but they did......snip.......
There are exceptions to every rule but I'm not really talking or concerned with what cameras are used for motion, or stills. Red, a 5d2 or a Phase, the cameras aren't the issue.
There is not a still photographer living, that doesn't have thoughts today about how to deal with video, either on the positive side, or the negative and how it impacts their business and their art.
My opinion is now is the time to play to your strengths. If your great at motion, go that direction, be great, be more than great. If still photography is where your talent is, stick with it, live, breath, do it and do it until you just can't keep your eyes open.
Any of the arts are a tough sell, regardless of the economy and I've never subscribed to the belief that an artist can only be one dimensional, in art, business or human interaction.
Still (no pun intended), the economy has forced a lot of artists to look deep into their repertoire and try to make changes. Change can be good, but success comes from playing to your strengths and addressing your weaknesses.
Most photographer's client's recognize them for one thing, but that perception can be changed if you produce great work in another medium and if you get their attention.
If you have the talent, resources and willingness to offer both motion and stills, then I applaud it, but make sure your really, really good at one medium, before going towards another one.
I would say this to Phase also. Make sure your still cameras really are the world's best, before even thinking about making a video camera.
IMO
BC
-
BCooter, I think you are absolutly right.
The path you describe is indeed the only one I can think of for, at least, a personal acheivement; and if a good or not successful carrier can be done that's maybe what matters less.
I think one must enjoy and feels passion and really work hard. Doing an imagery, stills or video or collages that can be proud of it. Very important is doing what we really feel deeply, what we are good at, and delegate the wicknesses.
But I'm thinking also that in the professional panorama, and this is not new, 95% of the photographers or film makers will never be a Kurosawa or a Arnold Newman, but working people with probably less talent, destiny, who need to eat with an imagery that will never be in the art's museums, or in the double pages of the Vogues.
I'm thinking of those guys that I see in the stadiums with their long guns, those who are compressed on the political meetings, the weddings etc...
For those, video will be almost an obliged path and not necessary it will be asked top imagery but decent.
The ones who will produce top imagery will be probably the ones on the top of the pyramid. But it's like the iceberg you know, a little visible part on the light and the most of it under dark water, trying hard to survive. For those, small productions videos is IMO not that much of an option.
Cheers.
-
My opinion is now is the time to play to your strengths. If your great at motion, go that direction, be great, be more than great. If still photography is where your talent is, stick with it, live, breath, do it and do it until you just can't keep your eyes open.
IMO if I/we/you have a skill it is probably not 'photography' or 'motion' it is comunication through images, conceptualisation whatever
I work with a younger photographer, he may be a better camera operator than I am, certainly he is more tuned in at sport which he does every weekend and I do twice a year
Im a decade ahead of him however in choosing what to photograph or how to photograph it or even thinking why to photograph it at all
The 'role' im trying to develop is probably as someone who can conceptualise/direct/build images - the person that decides (simply) that swimwear may be best photographed on a beach, or casual wear on a farm or in the countryside, that the casual wear may fit soft backlight the swimwear may fit a hard light (or might not)
I suppose that role is 'director of photography' which is comes from the motion lexicon but i feel can fit to the StillMo lexicon too
Once you have built the scene I think it is then logical to capture it in both stills and motion
I have assisted on bigger shoots where I pressed the button on the camera while the 'photgrapher' hung with the client by the tethered screen directing me - I feel that he was still the 'photographer' in that case because the scene was his
Becoming a half decent 'director of images' is the skill I am building ?
S
-
IMO if I/we/you have a skill it is probably not 'photography' or 'motion' it is comunication through images, conceptualisation whatever
I work with a younger photographer, he may be a better camera operator than I am, certainly he is more tuned in at sport which he does every weekend and I do twice a year
Im a decade ahead of him however in choosing what to photograph or how to photograph it or even thinking why to photograph it at all
The 'role' im trying to develop is probably as someone who can conceptualise/direct/build images - the person that decides (simply) that swimwear may be best photographed on a beach, or casual wear on a farm or in the countryside, that the casual wear may fit soft backlight the swimwear may fit a hard light (or might not)
I suppose that role is 'director of photography' which is comes from the motion lexicon but i feel can fit to the StillMo lexicon too
Once you have built the scene I think it is then logical to capture it in both stills and motion
I have assisted on bigger shoots where I pressed the button on the camera while the 'photgrapher' hung with the client by the tethered screen directing me - I feel that he was still the 'photographer' in that case because the scene was his
Becoming a half decent 'director of images' is the skill I am building ?
S
Yes Morgan, I lke the "director of images" idea. I've been expressed it in another thread. Indeed, what is happening with the tech and mass culture is that from an artistical point of view there is a despecialisation while from a technical point of view there are needs for more very specialised tasks.
-
Yes Morgan, I lke the "director of images" idea. I've been expressed it in another thread. Indeed, what is happening with the tech and mass culture is that from an artistical point of view there is a despecialisation while from a technical point of view there are needs for more very specialised tasks.
I think I see it the other way round, todays excellent and affordable and easy to use tools (5dmk2 and D3) means that specialist technical skills or budgets are not really required, leaving us with just one thing to market 'the eye' for a good image be that a Still or a Mo
Typically I have operated in a world where there is a financial and skill barrier to entry, be that image transmission technology (ISDN) , analogue scanners, glossy publishable digital (H1+22mp), manual focus, low ISO
Even shooting imgaes you could not check (film) made just aquisition 'hard'
Now one can with $3k of kit take and deliver a very wonderful image with a low technical skill level and minimal financial input
S
-
I think I see it the other way round, todays excellent and affordable and easy to use tools (5dmk2 and D3) means that specialist technical skills or budgets are not really required, leaving us with just one thing to market 'the eye' for a good image be that a ....snip.
Be careful about what you wish for, it may sort of happen, at least for the next few years.
The point of entry for acceptable stills and video keeps getting perceptually lowered and if it's ok to shoot a movie with a 5d2 and 4 dedo lights remember that once that level of quality becomes the standard, the next level is 1 point and shoot and 1 dedo, the next is a flip camera and no lights.
Seriously, I just saw an international client do a production where they sent flip phones to all their affiliates and had them personally shoot the video. Even two years ago a crew would have been commissioned to go around the world.
Why, because it's now acceptable to do one flip camera and no lights and before you think "OMG that'll never work", with the right editor, a few tricks, some sound sweeting, it will probably be good enough . . . maybe better than good enough.
Also remember it's not important what I think, it's important what the people paying me/you/us thinks and if image making continues as a profession there has to be some kind of wall or level or acceptance that can't be done by just anybody with an inexpensive camera.
Does higher production values lead to better storytelling. No, but if everything is equal . . . talent, story, intent, then higher production values always makes a better production.
Look at these two very different projects and tell me if they can be shot on the cheap. Well, maybe a portion of them, but not with the same results.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5xCGZuvhWI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5xCGZuvhWI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twivg7GkYts&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twivg7GkYts&feature=related)
This conversation can be condensed to the thought that most people want to achieve a high level with the smallest amount of outlay and investment. Long term that rarely happens.
IMO
BC
-
Again a very interesting statement.
I think that big production will always have a place. We are in fact in a weired moment where "todo vale" , but will the photographers being able to handle working at the highest level in terms of motion imagery? Because the budgets are quite different between high-end still works and high-end video/cine works. I think the clients will decide.
One needs a van when the other needs at least a truck.
I remember years ago I had a job in a video company specialized in industrial movies and each little tournage was a full truck. We where filming pipelines, gaz instalations, these sort of things. But it was like a little cinema production and all the gear weights tons.
-
IMO it depends on what you mean by 'on the cheap'
I think the D3 and way less lighting than an 100ISO H1 is very often 'good enough'
that is my concept of 'cheap'
As for the 7/5d I dont think it is really 'there' yet, but will be in a couple of generations
Both of the vids you showed still have skilled creation, concept, camera angles, cuts, but there is not reason that they cant be made (esp for web res) with 'cheap' gear
Of course you can take it to the Nth extreme - flip phone, conpact digicam, but those things still can never get a filmic look which is sensor size driven
Flip 4/3? - Id get one
I just think the main thing we need to market is skill rather than kit
S
-
IMO it depends on what you mean by 'on the cheap'
I think the D3 and way less lighting than an 100ISO H1 is very often 'good enough'
that is my concept of 'cheap'........snip..............
I just think the main thing we need to market is skill rather than kit
S
I've said it, everybody's said it . . . that equipment doesn't matter.
Well, I'll go on record and say for professional image making it does.
Try shooting a large still project non-tethered, or with iffy software, or with the same camera that your client owns. At that stage, regardless of your talent, eye, whatever you want to call it, the project is marginalized in the view of the client and most importantly you have (at least I have) this feeling that I have to do better, do what I feel is right.
Lately it's become a 5d2 world and not because of quality, or "the look", it's just price and the thought that it's "good enough" That thought doesn't move any of us forward and along with turning a profit, running a successful business, the goal is to be better.
But as far as what we market, skill or talent is just one element.
Right now every photographer living is wrestling with the issues of should we shoot with what we know is the right tools, production requirements, materials, artistic elements, or should we just shoot what "they're paying for".
To move forward I firmly believe with all my heart that we have to shoot with what we feel is right for us, hang the cost, even if we have to absorb the costs, because without moving up we go nowhere.
Maybe the real thought is not to please, but to excel beyond the point any client could have anticipated. Maybe get past the "uh yea, they like it", to the response, of "they were f*&%ing blown away".
I believe were on the cusp of something great coming out of this economic downturn where image making won't be marginalized, but will be taken further than ever before. Right now it's a mess and nobody seems to have the exact answers but deciding to shoot a 5d or a RED, a Nikon Vs. a Hasselblad "should" be more image dependent that cost depended.
This project was shot with three different cameras, two different digital backs, two formats, hmi, tungsten, daylight mixed, studio strobes and hand held strobe. (don't let the cropping fool you because each image has been cropped and moved to fit the layouts).
Even video segments were shot with three different cameras, because each camera had it's own specialty.
(http://ishotit.com/hollywood2.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
Lately it's become a 5d2 world and not because of quality, or "the look", it's just price and the thought that it's "good enough"
Absolutly!
I believe were on the cusp of something great coming out of this economic downturn where image making won't be marginalized, but will be taken further than ever before. Right now it's a mess and nobody seems to have the exact answers but deciding to shoot a 5d or a RED, a Nikon Vs. a Hasselblad "should" be more image dependent that cost depended.
Great shots really. And I perceive an esthetic evolution within the same style.
What worries me, is me...because on the 5th pic, normally I would have looked to the model, but instead I was looking to the plateau equipment...
Discipline Fred, discipline!
-
Hey, can we make one of those stupid "who is who" blind test? I can't resist...
I bet that:
Pic 1 is MF Leaf
pic 2 is 35mm *
pic 3 is MF Phase1
pic 4 is Don't know
pic 5 is 35mm
pic 6 is 35mm
pic 7 is MF with a Leaf back
*all 35mm are Canon 5D2
-
I've said it, everybody's said it . . . that equipment doesn't matter.
Well, I'll go on record and say for professional image making it does.
I dunno
They are awesome images whatever they were shot on
because of the great content styling lighting etc
Its interesting you talk about client experience - or even photographer experience, I find that so difficult to communicate with (potential) clients, I think my 'big compared to my rivals package' is justifiable, because it makes me faster, smoother, and less likely to fail and therefore better value
my 'cheapo' D3 is rock solid in a way that my blad is not, Im certainly a big fan of solid and reliable kit
my 5d is a lot more solid now I have $2k Vlock batteries bla bla - I think my 5d has cost me about $20+k with all the toys, all things that I think add to a production, reliability, speed whatever
a lot of that investment does not actually show in the footage, only the ease of aquisition
As is the case with every 'argument' the answer is usually not black or white but some shade of grey
People just need to find their place in the market
It is a pleasure to read your input
Embarrasing to show my low production value images but here we go - client small wool company
Kit..
Nikon D3, Nikkor 50 1.4 - nothing else at all - nothing- no assistant no tether, no crew, no retouch, no make up, no lights
Also no crew, no lights, no director, 5d vid for the same client (horribly compressed by them)
http://www.thenaturalfibre.co.uk/media-centre/video4 (http://www.thenaturalfibre.co.uk/media-centre/video4)
(http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/katie/1.JPG)
(http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/katie/2.JPG)
(http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/katie/3.JPG)
(http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/katie/6.JPG)
(http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/katie/9.JPG)
-
In fact, I think both B.C and Morgan are right.
There is a market of small/very small companies that will never have the budget for big production and it is one photographer with simple set .
Yesterday on my way back home after a stupid shooting, I passed by a political building. There was dozens of the same guys with their Canons waiting for some thing. Back to the newspaper with stills and video for the web, one 5D2 on tripod filming and the guy shooting the stills hand with the other canon 1D3. It's kind of a basic configuration.
Then, big campaign and higher budgets, that is where BC is right. Today, there is a jungle there and a lot of confusion. In the end, some kind of imagery need heavy prod, other no.
Quality (not talking about artistic there), as much as one can do at one point, will always be a plus no doubt.
-
Hey, can we make one of those stupid "who is who" blind test? I can't resist...
I bet that:
Pic 1 is MF Leaf
pic 2 is 35mm *
pic 3 is MF Phase1
pic 4 is Don't know
pic 5 is 35mm
pic 6 is 35mm
pic 7 is MF with a Leaf back
*all 35mm are Canon 5D2
OK, well I didn't want to do a comparison and luckily at this size nobody is going to argue pixels, but going top to bottom.
In fact I never selected the equipment thinking about pure resolution, but only for the camera/lens I felt had the right look and what i was comfortable with, though some of these images will be reproduced quite large, all will go print size to full page and double truck, all to web size.
(http://ishotit.com/hollywood2.jpg)
Column 1
1. Subject on NY Set.
P30+, 45mm, Key light 650 watt broncolor HMI, interior set light 1000 watt arri tungsten frensel, subject rim light 250 watt arri tungsten, wall light 650 watt arri tungsten. Molpars in background or for props.
I shot this both the the 1ds3 and the p30+ at 800 iso. Grain, noise was virtually identical, though the whites held better with the p30+ and I love the 45mm lens.
2. Subject in Mustang
p21+, 45mm lens, Daylight mixed with 2 400 watt Kobal Brons, with 1/4 inch spun and screens. Shot the p21+ to hold the whites.
3. Subject on Beach
Canon 1ds3, Daylight mixed with profoto 600b.
Would have used Contax, but sync only went to 125th, needed at least 1 250th, probably more. An H series blad would have been perfect for this image.
4. Subject in studio cart.
p21+, 45mm lens, image stretch with content aware to fit layout. p21+ used ostly for speed and to hold the highlights. Lighting, on flash camera strobes synced to Paparazzi's lights (staged).
Column 2
1. Subject on Apple Crate
p30+, 45mm lens. tungsten 1k's and small 350's.
2. Subject Running
Nikon D700, used for autofocus and for the look of my 200 f2 lens. Bronocolor 650 HMI with 1/4 spun and mixed daylight.
3. Subject in studio cart, black and white.
p21+ broncolor 650, feathered and daylight mix with white fill.
All processed in C1 V5.
-
All wrong in my bets! as expected.
Well, the picture that surprises me is the subject on the beach, this after the post prod is very "MF look" in all aspects.
The interesting thing is the why you choosed those cameras.
Is the Kikon AF more accurate than the Canon? It has this reputation. Never worked ever with a D700 or D3. I was actually thinking about that when I saw the pic and almost bet that it could have been a Nikon involved. Should have listened to my intuition.
On the last BW, I was wondering if the grain was post-produced or is it the P21 pushed at higher isos?
The bottom line is that at these resolutions on the web, it's almost imposible to bet on the right gear, but as you says, it's a matter of using this or that equipment to its strengh according to the situation.
Another question is that I see you are using reasonable resolution backs for the commercials, do you think that there is a limit with moving subjects? In other words, would you find any interest in using a P65 for example in the kind of imagery you are doing? (keeping acceptable workflow etc...)
Also, something else comes into my mind. You where saying that working with top imagery is, a part from a personal point of view, a sale argument. And it is. But I'm asking where is the limit where resolution does not mean anything more. My english is crap enough so I can't explain that concept properly, I try this way: A P65+ and above performances are sallable? (talking for commercial only with moving subjects)
And to end, your pictures also show something interesting: that when the all machinery works bloody right, the camera is just a "small" part in the chain and the differences are reduced. Good lightning, good models, good photographer, good PP...not pretend that gear does not matter but I think there is a moment when to a certain level, whatever gear involved, you'll have great pictures.
So, gear matters? yes it does. But more the photographer/team is good, less the differences are visible in the final result, so it is really a question of the "why" that matters, like using high sync speed etc...
Peter Lindberg uses also Hasselblad a part from his D3. Knowing how crazy is the animal in the shootings, he must have a good reason to take the Blad also when certain imagery is required.
Cheers.
Ps: I watched the Morgan's movie and this is great. This is what such a company need. IMO, not more, not less. I think the Dslr's video have a real role to play there.
-
snip
Well, the picture that surprises me is the subject on the beach, this after the post prod is very "MF look" in all aspects.
The interesting thing is the why you choosed those cameras.
snip
I know very little about the p65, but would like an exact full frame, though not at the expense of huge raw files, though they may be smaller than I think, I don't know.
I try to keep a project down to 500 gigs of raw files for our workflow, though that's not always possible.
As far as what I use and why. I use the p21+ most of the time because it's fast, I like the look of the files and it has enough resolution for nearly everything I do. I go to the p30+ when I need about a 1/2 stop more iso. I use the Contax because I like it a lot and know it better than the back of my hand.
The Canons I use, I like to some extent, they are well built, semi fast. The NIkons autofocus better than anything I've used, though for this shot I used the nIkon because I own a 200 f2 which was perfect for this image.
Now back to a p65, I just dunno, if I went that direction I'd probably want to put it on an H series blad and at that point I'd probably just buy a hdwhatever 40, though today I'm trying to find a RED with an MX sensor so I may hold on still cameras for a while.
The point I was trying to make of all this was it's not the equipment, but it is the equipment if that makes any sense. Yes everything I showed could be shot with a 5d2 and maybe nobody would notice or care, but I would, so I shoot with what I want and I kind of have a rule about equipment.
I like professional equipment, and I use it until the paint falls off, then use it some more. I must say with the Phase, regardless of the really awful lcd, V5 does make a pretty file, the tethering is good and the backs are solid so even if the paint falls off they'll probably still work.
The beach shot may look like mf, mostly because of studio style flash, but in post work on the top which required a lot do to the wind, you can see a difference between a canon image and a mf image and not just resolution, but look. That was a perfect Leaf shutter lens image, I just didn't have a leaf shutter camera. That may be next on my list after the RED.
Just a note. I'm not saying what I use is right or wrong. It's just right for me.
IMO.
BC
-
Look at these two very different projects and tell me if they can be shot on the cheap. Well, maybe a portion of them, but not with the same results.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5xCGZuvhWI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5xCGZuvhWI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twivg7GkYts&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twivg7GkYts&feature=related)
The first one - sure it's stylish, but content wise, what a load of crap! Does it make me want to buy something from Louis Vuitton? No!! Because clothing does not matter in the slightest to this "journey" they're trying to sell me on. I find it hard to convey to you how much I detest this sort of pretentious verbal and visual twaddle in advertising. I can't believe that people actually fall for it. >:(
The second one - now that is brilliant. There is real intelligence, humour and honesty in the concept and execution. I would watch it again. I even forwarded it to my wife's email! - she'll wryly see the parallels... :)
-
BC, re. your 7 shots...very nice. I think I perceive a style here too - although these are shots of models, they never occupy more than 15% of the frame...the context is everything to you; and perhaps maintaining a distance between the model and the viewer is part of the 'story' too?
-
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.
-
BC - no kidding, but you have got to learn to take it easy. You can take yourself right into a heart attack a lot easier than you might imagine. I have the T-shirts.
Just remember Helmut Newton: after his, he did only what he wanted to do.
All those 10%s do add up, but not always as you expected.
Rob C
-
Thanks to Morgan and BC for their visual aportations. It is very interesting, I also found the Morgan's pics more than honorable, fresh and responding to the client's universe as I saw their website. Very honest and that's good to see.
It's funny BC, I was talking recently to Rob about what you just said about film and I came to the same conclusion. I was using MF films a lot in fine arts but not to do pure photography, in fact I was using the photographs to paint on them with polyesther resin in curvy supports. (by the way, the resin does not affect the papers). But I had to print, sorry, develop, really big first on Ilford rolls so I'm pretty much aware of what a 3m print looked like, and I'm sorry to the film detractors but I still can't like the digital imagery at those sizes compared to what film can do. Maybe tomorrow. (and please no curves and Nasa calculations to demostrate that digital is way ahead film, I'd be very thankfull).
I think that James is right. More I see, more I think about it, more I think he's right. There is a moment where moving ahead means stop being easy. I can tell you that from a real experience. Being easy leads very easily to averageness at one point or another, and if not averageness, to feeling stucked and bored.
They are many risks that have to be taken, artistic and other kinds. Now that the snap and cheap culture is there, it is maybe even more important.
As I pointed in a different thread, I'm seeing truly amazing pros having tough time now. But it's fair to say that they do not move the machine further, they hardly chalenge themselves. Then some snappers are irrupting with cutted prices and "enough good" imagery and got the works.
It's about growing in all aspects.
-
BC - no kidding, but you have got to learn to
Whoa. I'm not near as serious as you think.
Either you misread me or I miscommunicated.
In fact I have a lot of fun working, like the people I work with 99% of the people I work for, so I have a good life.
Heck I work with my wife, travel with my dog and get to experience the world on a level that few jobs allow.
I do find what I do important to me. Going forward, not backwards is important to me. Just me.
That's all I'm talkin' bout'.
BC
-
Whoa. I'm not near as serious as you think.
Either you misread me or I miscommunicated.
In fact I have a lot of fun working, like the people I work with 99% of the people I work for, so I have a good life.
Heck I work with my wife, travel with my dog and get to experience the world on a level that few jobs allow.
I do find what I do important to me. Going forward, not backwards is important to me. Just me.
That's all I'm talkin' bout'.
BC
No, no miscommunicaton, just that I worked with my wife too, which can be a huge plus, enjoyed my work very much as well - hell, it was my life (I thought), but the stress that goes on with the non-photographic stuff mounts up, however well you thought you'd coped. Fact is, you can never spot which friggin' straw is the last one. Maybe it's also age-related, but I'm convinced it's something that developes over a lifetime; yet it all adds up to that bottom line - the flat one.
Wish you well, regardless!
Rob C
-
I strongly recommend yoga (not kidding), or tai chi.
You think you are healphy? watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX8mGt0K_JI
-
Thanks people for not knocking my lowball pics too much - I love the work of The Cooter
How does the camera affect the process
Ill say it again nikon D3, 50 1.4 - nothing else, I dont even have a strap
I spent from 2005-8 with H1, Elly Ranger, Q Flashes, softboxes, tripod, size of the eifell tower, person to stop the softbox blowing away in the wind to get the same style of images
Shooting with the D3 reminds me of shooting in 1989 with a F3 and roll of Tri-X, speed agaility, freedom, spontenaity
I love my hassy and flash in the sun and also if you 'peep' the images the files are beyond the D3, but to my the D3 is good enough 90% of the time and 100% solid 200k frames in
My original point is that when I got the Hassy the nikons were not even full frame and about 4mp - unusable crap for anything but newsprint
it was film or hassy end of story
now (back to motion) you could say it is film or Red/Arri because the Canikons can produce unusable crap (for anythingk but todays 'newsprint' - the web)
So motion wise we are in the same place that we were stills wise in 2004/5
Redusers are like the RG/LuLa users who made digital work for stills in 2005, bleeding edgers
I hope the same move forward happens with motion - canikon get something 'D3 good' out for motion
and it will affect the process - no grip truck required for simple stuff like I do, you can still use on if you want one to build something of the nature of the performance art that is the work of The Cooter
S
-
Who cares about real video? WE WANT LIVEVIEW WITH A DECENT SCREEN.
Edmund
+10000000000000
and decent real-life batteries and screen
I shall never buy again a MF without it
-
99% of the video being produced today is a fad.
same thing for photography
-
Shooting with the D3 reminds me of shooting in 1989 with a F3 and roll of Tri-X, speed agaility, freedom, spontenaity
Which is why I still own film Nikon as well as the D200 and D700; simplicity and freedom count for so much. Having said which, the curse of sensor/dust games has introduced a new personal problem: I only change lenses indoors which means I leave home armed with whichever lens I fitted. Period. Some say that concentrates the mind; I find it changes the mind as soon as you get to where you were going. But, were I still working, I suppose I'd accept the inside of the car as a suitable changing room. Or buy a second D700.
Rob C
-
What about this bird? http://philipbloom.net/2010/06/22/leaked-specs-on-panasonic-ag-af100/
-
seems like a very sensible camera
wont shoot stills
most 35mm lenses wont be too appropriate
worth a think if you are 'kitting up for motion' imo
I wont dream of one, but if I get more vid business may find I need one
-
Wow, Rob, that must be incredibly limiting.
Did you only change film indoors or in a car?
Certainly is limiting, Keith, and no, with film I even changed films right out there in the sand; just turned my face into the ever-present wind and the open camera was pointing safely downwind.
The problem is the fear of getting dust onto the sensor. So far, and please, NOT tempting you, Fate, I have never had to clean a sensor in either camera. Yes, the D700 has a self-cleaner device, but it isn't even activated and I have met with no problem.
But you know the reality: I'm just playing with photography now. Were I still working, I would have bought more bodies and probably not into the D700 level but up and awaywards at that. It's just a different ballgame for me now, and there are no prizes awaiting in exchange for the risk and bother of muck invading the machine.
On another tack: I've spent most of today scanning... I am working on a new gallery of sea-related stuff, and I think it has convinced me that film isn't going to make a huge comeback in my life; I also looked at film prices and laughed out loud. Add the disappearing act that my local E6 folks pulled, and the temptation recedes by the minute. But, still, a nice M... of either kind, dammit!
;-)
Rob C
-
Hi Rob,
I switch lenses on my Nikon Bodies many times a day in a variety of environments and occasionally I need to clean my sensors . I have the Delkin Sensor Scope and cleaning kit, nothing to fear...does a great job and I have never damaged a sensor...it is really very easy and only takes a few minutes. Check out the kit..it will be liberating ;D
Regards,
Dennis
-
Hi Rob,
I switch lenses on my Nikon Bodies many times a day in a variety of environments and occasionally I need to clean my sensors . I have the Delkin Sensor Scope and cleaning kit, nothing to fear...does a great job and I have never damaged a sensor...it is really very easy and only takes a few minutes. Check out the kit..it will be liberating ;D
Regards,
Dennis
But Dennis, I have this memory - very recent and going back forever - of cleaning lens filters... Even that's almost impossible to achieve, and that's not something sitting right up close and personal to the film, as it were, and marks don't tend to record. I guess that it may depend where you work: my stuff is now almost always outdoors, and here we have a lot of wind and sand and all-pervasive salt. Where I park, about a kilometre from the sea, each time the wind is blowing our way the car is coated. In fact, it is so bad that as I always park in the same slot/direction, the side exposed to the prevailing sea wind is the only one with corrosion, as in real rust and ruined paintwork. Salt air kills everything. Ask any boat owner!
But, in the event that something does find my virgin sensors (down, boys, not for sale) I shall make a note now of your advice, for which, thanks!
Rob C
-
Hi Rob,
Yeah point taken...I live on the Shoreline so I feel your pain....How about using a changing bag like we used for 4 x 5 film holders ? That would provide some protection from debris and sand. Good Luck !
-
That's Amathophobia. Easily cured by de-sensitisation and/or pulling one's self together.
I know folk who clean their sensor before every shoot, but there again that's probably Rhypophobia.
Keith, you've been to Greece too often - you're forgetting your English and speaking in tongues!
But then, a pre-shower is always appreciated in some circumstances - 'stances? yes, 'stances, so why not a quick shake of the sensor?
Rob C
P.S. Still scanning... oh boy, what a thrill!
-
same thing for photography
Yes, most photography is a fad.
I guess in some ways so is facebook.
But there is no denying the change.
Today, the viewer wants to be a participant and wants to be engaged by a medium that entertains.
Sometimes I think everything goes in circles and just like the past days of Mad Men, I believe you'll find successful advertising and commercial imaging will be commissioned and/or sponsored works that entertain.
Some artists will be able to do this with an i-phone, some with a crew of 50, but the goal will to engage and entertain.
Today, the only difference is unlike the Mad Men days, their are no handful of media gate keepers like television networks and publishers.
Every person with a computer, smart phone, a domain name and a facebook account can be a publisher and with this tremendous amount of data floating from link to link, unique, creative works will gain attention, predicable works will be passed by.
Today, mostly due to the economy, most corporations and marketers are focused on the cheap, but it's damn hard to produce creative, entertaining and engaging work on the cheap. At least works anyone will watch past 5 or six seconds.
It's interesting that today the camera makers are probably behind the market.
From my perspective almost every camera made today is "almost" there. Medium format has huge detailed files, but no form of video capability, The high end 35mm cameras make great stills, but have lacking video and the video cameras, until you get in the $40,000, to $50,000 range still don't produce a raw file.
I assume once the economy improves, once consumers start buying, the floodgates will open with better cameras, higher production values and hopefully more works that are creative enough to eventually become a fad.
In a way I think that is the goal.
This week were are in the process of buying a RED. Is it the end all to end all? No. Will it magically produce more creative imagery? No. Will it allow us to produce a more professional production and enhance the creativity? We'll that's the plan.
I'll let you know in a few months.
IMO
BC
-
James,
The glossy magazines are in the business of differentiating themselves by showing images which a normal mortal cannot make - and the "brands" need "Supercampaigns" with "Superstars". This is why they have to use the 35 year old overbooked IT girl with rebuilt lips, cheekbones, and tits, even if her little sister is prettier and cheaper. And this is why they have to use the most expensive photographer, who needs to demonstrate obscene production costs, certified by "perfect" imagery which "cannot" be got cheaply.
As you of all people know very well, it was not so when you started out. Anyone on this forum could do - and probably has done - a decent editorial shoot with a "standard" dSLR like the old Canon 1Ds, a good makeup ARTIST, really good hair ARTIST, some natural light, a couple of reflectors, a pretty guy assistant who knows how to keep talent happy, and a sweet eighteen Ukrainian model full of mischief who wants to go places.
But the above won't do anymore - will it? Because the whole point of sold imagery nowadays is that it is supposed to be obscenely expensive. Everything needs to be "exclusive". That is why "making off" videos get posted on the brand sites with imagery of a brigade of assistants. That is why the agency bookers won't rent a model to an "unknown" magazine, even if they pay. Yes, I've been there. Good luck with the RED which will allow you to document how many people you have brought to the production, thereby increasing your value even more.
Art? Hah, it reminds me of the white canvas "statement" in the white frame hanging in the local modern art museum.
Edmund
PS. By the way, James, I am well aware that you are perfectly capable of doing a campaign with a cellphone which I could never make - and this is why it is even more annoying to see you so enthusiastically embracing the "necessity" of superproductions.
Some of the most innovative art is coming from graffiti artists these days. Some of the best video is up on Youtube and Vuze ...
-
James,
The glossy magazines are in the business of differentiating themselves by showing images which a normal mortal cannot make - and the "brands" need "Supercampaigns" with "Superstars". This is why they have to use the 35 year old overbooked IT girl with rebuilt lips, cheekbones, and tits, even if her little sister is prettier and cheaper. And this is why they have to use the most expensive photographer, who needs to demonstrate obscene production costs, certified by "perfect" imagery which "cannot" be got cheaply.
As you of all people know very well, it was not so when you started out. Anyone on this forum - could do a decent on-demand editorial shoot with any camera, a good makeup ARTIST, really good hair ARTIST, some natural light, a couple of reflectors, a pretty guy assistant who knows how to keep talent happy, and a sweet eighteen Ukrainian model full of mischief who wants to go places. Edmund
PS. By the way, James, I am well aware that you are perfectly capable of doing a campaign with a cellphone which I could never make - and this is why it is even more annoying to see you suddenly embracing the necessity of superproductions.
And I promise you, speaking personally, it was without any of the additional guys you mentioned: it took me, a model and, if budget allowed, my wife to use the reflector and the spray, or to iron the clothes. If not, just the two essential folks: the model and myself.
And if I may add, in the middle of scanning old Kodachrome sea shots as I am, I realise with a sickening thud that my 60s vintage 2.8/35 and 2.8/24 Nikkors were crisper than the current manual ones I bought much later. Bugger progress; it generally sucks and goes backwards.
Rob C
-
Edmund, I came back from the 18th years old Ukranian model. Having seen and worked with both those "cheap models" and "very expensive" like Bar Rafaeli, Gisele Bundchen, Hana Soukupova, Karolina Kurkova etc...there is a big difference. First there is a big difference physically (a huge difference with the gorgeous russian doll), and then in the work itself. I saw it, it is exactly like a top photographer and a good or very good photographer. It's not only exclusive fantasies. Those girls work like dream. If you remember Linda E, she was a super pro. My point is that it is not "being exclusive", it is that some people are really over the top, models included. Same with make-up artists. Testino has the best but because they are really on that level, not because they are cool and exclusive.
Those girls make sell, they are paied a lot because they generate a lot of money. And beleive me, no hassle working with those but yes with the cheaper, colds, bad mood, not involved, not standing the hot lights and crying, not this that or the other.
I've been observing all that circus recently and it is not a joke why some are paied that much.
IMO.
Yes, Fred, I agree with your point about the superstar girls, but you can't start with them, can you, and that was Edmund's point.
Rob C
-
Yes, Fred, I agree with your point about the superstar girls, but you can't start with them, can you, and that was Edmund's point.
Rob C
Of course not Rob. Maybe I missunderstood Edmund's post. I thought that he was saying that in fact cost is exclusivity and in a certain way, artificially inflated, wich is generally true in a way, but my point was that it does not explains alone the high cost of things. Quality can be overpriced but it generally has a reason also.
-
Of course not Rob. Maybe I missunderstood Edmund's post. I thought that he was saying that in fact cost is exclusivity and in a certain way, artificially inflated, wich is generally true in a way, but my point was that it does not explains alone the high cost of things. Quality can be overpriced but it generally has a reason also.
Fred, I have a story for you. When Laetitita Casta had her kid, she got fat; so the Galeries Lafayette continued using her as a model for the name and face, except she had a body (legs) double. AFAIK she still got paid the same. For having more charisma, better onstage behavior etc - while she wasn't there?
Edmund
-
......snip........ and this is why it is even more annoying to see you so enthusiastically embracing the "necessity" of superproductions.
Some of the most innovative art is coming from graffiti artists these days. Some of the best video is up on Youtube and Vuze ...
No that's not what I'm suggesting.
Let's talk business.
There are about ten zillion photographers and film makers our there trying to creatively reinvent the wheel.
Some have wonderful original ideas, some don't, some execute well, some don't, but . . .
If you do have a great concept and you don't take it to the highest level of production and finish you can afford, you easily open the door for someone with more resource to use your idea as a starting point and take it to a professional finish. They will receive more money and attention and if they get more media play than the originator of the idea, then the idea becomes theirs.
They move forward, you don't.
Now don't misunderstand me. I don't advocate anyone spending beyond their means, or producing at a level that will be detrimental to their business. I also have no self interest in what cameras, crew, or equipment anyone uses. In fact since I'm always in a competitive situation, it probably would be better for me if everyone shot everything with a cell phone and a flashlight.
I also don't advocate letting production or equipment get in the way. In my view (only my view) you should use what works for you, but just remember if you can only take it half way, there is always someone out there that will take it further.
In summary all I'm saying is do the very best you can and keep moving forward.
I didn't buy a RED to impress, or to shoot behind the scenes. I bought one because ownership makes me use it, using it makes me better, etc. etc. etc.
IMO
BC
-
No that's not what I'm suggesting.
Let's talk business.
There are about ten zillion photographers and film makers our there trying to creatively reinvent the wheel.
Yeah, everyone wants to be an artist, it seems :)
If you do have a great concept and you don't take it to the highest level of production and finish you can afford, you easily open the door for someone with more resource to use your idea as a starting point and take it to a professional finish. They will receive more money and attention and if they get more media play than the originator of the idea, then the idea becomes theirs.
They move forward, you don't.
This is were I disagree. Picasso was a highly trained master of his craft. Yet much of the surrealist stuff he did was graphically quite rudimentary.
Developing an idea cheaply lets you do it faster, and allows you to abandon it for the next idea more quickly - you can afford to experiment creatively while your rivals are still *perfecting* the original concept.
Picasso never got "old" precisely because by the time someone else started to copy he had already moved on - he had next to zero investment in each "style" precisely because he kept the technical part simple. Contrast this with the impressionist masters who became prisoners of their own superb technique - much as they wanted, they could not reinvent themselves.
Now don't misunderstand me. I don't advocate anyone spending beyond their means, or producing at a level that will be detrimental to their business. I also have no self interest in what cameras, crew, or equipment anyone uses. In fact since I'm always in a competitive situation, it probably would be better for me if everyone shot everything with a cell phone and a flashlight.
Sorry, James, this I don't buy. As you are at the top of the heap, you have a strong interest in arguing *to your clients* FOR THE BEST PRODUCTION VALUES. Tell them your files are perfect, "thick", can be reworked, every superwide banner or vertical flag can be easily created by cropping because you are shooting wide with MF, any huge store display will stand up to loupe scrutiny, no way will they have any technical unexpected issue. And even God forbid, James Russell might have the one bad day of his year, and submit images that creatively fizzle rather than boom, the model is so famous that her appearing in those shots is already a major event!
Essentially, much of what you are selling by high production team values is not creativity, it is insurance, and it makes good business sense for your client to purchase such insurance. Just don't call the insurance creativity - the creative part is between your ears.
I also don't advocate letting production or equipment get in the way. In my view (only my view) you should use what works for you, but just remember if you can only take it half way, there is always someone out there that will take it further.
In summary all I'm saying is do the very best you can and keep moving forward.
I didn't buy a RED to impress, or to shoot behind the scenes. I bought one because ownership makes me use it, using it makes me better, etc. etc. etc.
IMO
BC
What happened to the guy who was proud of his Polaroid Swinger pictures? Let me guess. He did the best he could, and has indeed very deservedly moved forward. But now he is arguing that the door he came through -cheaply done creative work- be bricked up.
By the way, Apple's home page has a "free" streaming movie of the Beatle's Washington live performance. 4 guys, a drumset and 3 guitars. No caravan of trucks for the stage build-up, smoke machines, lasers and complicated light effects, electronic voice reprocessing, yadda yadda, just an audience all around them. And songs they actually wrote themselves. And it seemed to work quite well, the music is not perfect but everyone is having fun, the emotion carries through. Compare that with a modern Rolling Stones concert infrastructure - are today's much vaunted "production values" really improving the emotional and artistic content?
http://www.apple.com/the-beatles/concert/
Edmund
-
Do you think Mario, brought it through security himself or handed the bag to his assistant?
Did he take a snap shot of the thing with his iphone, if he had to check it in?
Are you wondering how much is the monthly payment to lease the thing?
Does it really matter? ;)
-
Fred, I have a story for you. When Laetitita Casta had her kid, she got fat; so the Galeries Lafayette continued using her as a model for the name and face, except she had a body (legs) double. AFAIK she still got paid the same. For having more charisma, better onstage behavior etc - while she wasn't there?
Edmund
Edmund, are you telling me that Marianne is a fake?
;-(
Rob C
-
I guess that what we have to understand is that success is always multi-level; bringing in the superdupers has little to do with the rest of the business.
There were always those with open sesame cards in their wallets, others could sometimes get to visit the same places and work there, others just sat in the gloom of the empty studio and complained.
In essence, it's an ill-divided world, but that's life and we had better all accept it for what it is. It isn't exclusively about how good you might be, it's more about where you happen to fit within the scheme of things, and you can't often control that, and even changing things a bit depends on the sort of personality you are blessed with, for better or for worse. That's a spot beyond the leopard.
Also, who knows the truth behind many of those stars? Are they happy; are they in debt to some padrino; have they lost more in personal terms than they might have gained in glory? It never pays to envy because, at the very least, it just make us ill.
The secret is to do the best with what you can find, live in peace with yourself and avoid debt.
Rob C
-
Edmund,
You tend to speak in black and white, yes or no terms, but art commissioned to commerce usually lands in the gray area.
Since time immortal, photographers have been graining, solarizing, polaroiding, smearing, tearing, shaking their way into a photographic style and though it's beautiful and innovative at the moment, it all gets lost when that first well paying client says "yea I love the look, but I have to have more detail in my (you can fill in the blanks) eye shadow, shoe lace, door handle, jeans pocket, etc. etc. etc.
Now, before you take this out of context, I'm all for the innovation, style, experimentation of new and old media, but I know that on the pay day, a lot of that gets passed over.
That doesn't mean an artist shouldn't grain, solarize, polaroid, smear, tear and shake an image for effect and their own personal pleasure, but don't think that the hallways of commerce aren't littered with the bodies of people that screamed "that's my style and I'm sticking to it".
There is a company in LA that specializes in Super 8 cameras. Routinely directors, dp's, run in and grab an arm load of little cameras because they just know it will be so cool to shoot their next feature on super 8. They test it, then send it upstairs to the powers that be and the response is "yea that looks ok, but it's kind of jumpy, it's kind of grainy, it's kind of noisy. Can't you just shoot it 35mm and effect it in post?" So the cameras are returned and production returns to the normal standards.
And also don't think that a lot of the big production in still and motion is not running at it's most effecient.
Recessions always squeeze the last drop of water out of the towel and this one is no exception.
Rob keeps mentioning the "good ol' days" where a husband and wife team and one model could do it all. Don't think this doesn't still happen, even for high profile work. Those days still exist . . . in fact for budget restricted work the photographer is called upon to do more than ever as not only do we shoot, we process, proof, web master, retouch and pre press the images. I doubt seriously that in the "good ol' days' Rob was running a Kodachrome line and a hand fed press to proof out progressives.
BTW: If you look at those behind the scenes videos of a room full of people start counting out crew vs. clients and client's assistant's, publicists and interns. Usually they outnumber the on set crew.
There is perception, reality and rumors. Rarely are they the same.
IMO
BC
-
Edmund, are you telling me that Marianne is a fake?
;-(
Rob C
For explanation: Marianne is the female personification of the French Republic. Her profile is on stamps, and a plaster bust :) of her is in every mayor's office. Oh, and Laetitia was Marianne at one point.
Rob - I'm sure Laetitia had the necessary upper body strength for her Marianne job when she was cast. Thank you for giving me a chance to write that.
James - I do agree that the world is not to be viewed in black or white. And yes, times are tough. What I'm seeing is that a lot of the medium-quality guys are really having financial problems, as they can be squeezed hardest by the clients.
Edmund
-
For explanation: Marianne is the female personification of the French Republic. Her profile is on stamps, and a plaster bust :) of her is in every mayor's office. Oh, and Laetitia was Marianne at one point.
Rob - I'm sure Laetitia had the necessary upper body strength for her Marianne job when she was cast. Thank you for giving me a chance to write that.
Edmund
Edmund, it's a pleasure!
And I tell you something, I have often wondered how both Fred and Alain can bear to live anywhere else than France. Perhaps my experience as a through-driver is very limited, but I fell in love with the place; much like the better bits of Scotland but with edible food in the restaurants.
;-)
Rob C
-
...Those medias do not required the monster resolution paper does...
Fred - some of our jobs require more resulution for web use than on paper, five years ago OK, but today you have those "superzoom magnifying tool" to watch every pixel and let everyboby control your depth of field :o
...What I'm seeing is that a lot of the medium-quality guys are really having financial problems, as they can be squeezed hardest by the clients.
Edmund
Edmund - See, I suppose that´s what James pointed out. You better always use the best production tools you can serve with, better beware of stepping down a single step in that level, or viewed from the other side try to move forward. No matter in which level you work, competition is very hard these days, and I agree it might be the hardest place to be in the medium quality level. I don´t feel squeezed by our clients, budgets are tight for all of us, including our clients.
Cheers, Ulf
-
Edmund, it's a pleasure!
And I tell you something, I have often wondered how both Fred and Alain can bear to live anywhere else than France. Perhaps my experience as a through-driver is very limited, but I fell in love with the place; much like the better bits of Scotland but with edible food in the restaurants.
;-)
Rob C
Hi Rob.
France? It's difficult to explain in a few lines. The advantage that you have is that you won't probably catch the intonations in the lenguage that only a native can perceive. Those give you a lot of clews. In short, France to me is completly decadent today. A nice, diverse and decadent country.
But it's fair to say that if a sort of social and cultural revolution will emerge in the next years, it will come from France rather than anywhere else in Europe.
They are still very much into cutting heads.
-
Fred - some of our jobs require more resulution for web use than on paper, five years ago OK, but today you have those "superzoom magnifying tool" to watch every pixel and let everyboby control your depth of field :o
Yes, and it will be allowed or not depending on the interactivity given. But still you are not at 360, you can have big sized but can not overcome the current screens resolution.
It's a little bit like using a bomb to kill a mosquito.
-
Yes, and it will be allowed or not depending on the interactivity given. But still you are not at 360, you can have big sized but can not overcome the current screens resolution.
It's a little bit like using a bomb to kill a mosquito.
This magnifyer is real world pixel peeping tool, I don´t say it is of any use but it is a clients demand and we and probably a lot of others have to deliver it with a view camera and a MFDB.
Cheers, Ulf
-
Hi Rob.
France? It's difficult to explain in a few lines. The advantage that you have is that you won't probably catch the intonations in the lenguage that only a native can perceive. Those give you a lot of clews. In short, France to me is completly decadent today. A nice, diverse and decadent country.
But it's fair to say that if a sort of social and cultural revolution will emerge in the next years, it will come from France rather than anywhere else in Europe.
They are still very much into cutting heads.
That is very true, and it is also true for most of us expats living in Spain. I speak the language to the level that I am understood even by Telefonica when I try to refuse their offers every day when they interrupt me at the screen. But, then, I see that lack of depth as a sort of insulation from something I may not want to know. Even people living in their own country often refuse to see or understand everything that's going down.
To be brutally honest, I have always tended to live in a tiny space that extends more or less to the limits of family. That's why I find the internet so intriguing: one can choose the places and the conversations - to a point - and walk away from people or situations that are unpleasant. I think that's perhaps a prime reason for having fallen in love with the camera: it doesn't judge, it only reveals what one is capable of seeing.
Rob C
-
Looking forward to Nov. 30th event
http://www.anpdm.com/newsletterweb/819480/4347504A7841475F4272454359
Will ask about camera body, CMOS and LiveView
-
But, then, I see that lack of depth as a sort of insulation from something I may not want to know. Even people living in their own country often refuse to see or understand everything that's going down.
Rob C
I find that to be common to all the countries i lived in, but France is a bit of an exception.
-
I find that to be common to all the countries i lived in, but France is a bit of an exception.
Now that is hugely pregnant: give it birth! Please?
Rob C
-
Essentially, much of what you are selling by high production team values is not creativity, it is insurance, and it makes good business sense for your client to purchase such insurance. Just don't call the insurance creativity - the creative part is between your ears.
Edmund
I totally agree with this idea, at least in high level commercial. That is what I was trying to express using the term "resolve".
Do you think Mario, brought it through security himself or handed the bag to his assistant?
Did he take a snap shot of the thing with his iphone, if he had to check it in?
Are you wondering how much is the monthly payment to lease the thing?
Does it really matter?
If Mario one day shoot a movie with a 5D (wich I doubt but who knows), or some Mario's level, it will be the signal for the hunters that the season is open.
-
If Mario one day shoot a movie with a 5D (wich I doubt but who knows), or some Mario's level, it will be the signal for the hunters that the season is open.
What ever he uses is totally irrelevant. Too much emphasis is given on owning these pieces of equipment.
The point of my post was that it does not matter.
What do I care of having a Red on my closet and all the dynamic of owning it, when I can use any camera I think will fit and the crew that has to go along with it, according to the project/budget/client.
If we have to shoots some snippets for a web catalogue while we are shooting the stills, the 5d is more than enough, and we do not even need of being a "video maker" or know how to use FCP for doing that crap. If we are shooting a commercial, we just need of getting what it takes and the clients are ready to pay for. that can range from a smal DSLR to an Arri with 35mm film and a proper director of photography and crew.
The day that I will have to worry about hiring people for doing HTML5, color grading, editing, having a blog were I show everything I do etc, I will start a business in production or studio, equipment rental.
I do not think those are the kind of professions we are discussing here.
And please do not tell me, that is what we all need to do if we want to stay afloat, because is not true.
I do not know if you notice, the works of those professionals that take care of all the production elements by them selves, normally sucks big time.
And there is a reason why it sucks: because they are spending too much time managing and no time creating.
-
The one thing I know about industry, not just the photo industry, but all industry is to have success, the best advice is to do what is right for you.
Every time my results have been less than anticipated is I tried to emulate someone else's business model, or listened to other's advice.
In fact I went 10 years and never listened or for that matter cared what any photographer did. I always felt their way worked for them, my way was and is working for me.
I also believe in equity, usually sweat equity but equity non the less.
Some still photographers will have success and never shoot anything but stills. Nothing wrong with that. Some will outsource everything, once again nothing wrong with that, though i feel they leave a lot of money on the table.
Regardless, I know how to make our business and art work and that is by offering more options. It keeps us busy, it adds to the bottom line, it allows us to move forward.
Today, on a quick break I spoke to 4 different clients. With each one we talked over project briefs and I mentioned the RED and each client was intrigued. Now, how than translates to art and profit will come later, but the added benefit of offering something in-house, that is a little more unique gained attention.
What I do know is whether it is in this business they're are no rules.
IMO
BC