Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Jonathan Cross on September 01, 2016, 03:48:32 am
-
I have taken stills over many years, starting with a Brownie and then moving on to a Practika. I now shoot digital and only occasionally hanker for film. I used to shoot for family records, but since stopping fulltime work, now shoot more seriously and provide images for local organisations and a local magazine. Video has not lit any fires in me, though I have dabbled. Somewhere we have a video camera that recorded on cassettes, never used for a long time.
I am puzzled why there is much interest in providing cameras that can take both stills and video, the latest incarnation being the Canon 5D Mk4, just announced. There are a number of aspects about video that are the source of my puzzlement about why there is the demand.
Firstly, video is serial input to the brain, rather than the parallel input of a still image. The viewer has no choice but to watch a video to the end to see it all. The length of time spent looking at a still is the choice of the viewer.
What do people who shoot videos do with them? I am not talking about professionals, but the interested general public. I take stills to increase my skills, to put in a personal album (now often digital), or if I really like one, and Jane is happy too, to hang on a wall. I doubt I would put a video on a device to have repeat showing in our house. If others like my images that is a bonus, and that is why I shoot for local organisations. What would I do with a video? I have no desire to put one on social media, and anyway, how many people would look at it more than once? How many remember or now look at Vincent Laforet’s video ‘Reverie’ shot on a Canon 5d Mk2 in 2008? It opened lots of eyes then, but now we have 4k and soon probably 8k, so in 8 years it has become somewhat old technology. From a personal standpoint, unless I took much time and effort editing and post-processing, I would not think it was worth producing a ‘finished’ video. Post-processing a still in Lightroom does not take long.
There is an argument that videos can form social and historical comment that could be viewed in the future. This is a use for stills. For video, however, it does not fill me with confidence. Back in pre-history Super 8 was a medium for ‘home-movies’. How many people have the means of viewing them now? This is not a problem with prints from that era. Some 15+ years ago I was party to a long, inconclusive, professional meeting to discuss national archiving of assessed student coursework, for the purpose of comparing standards over a long period of time. Storing hard copy was not going to be an option on account of the volume of material to store and then access, so the discussion was about electronic storage and the medium and technology to be used. There was little faith that what could be used then would be available in 50 years’ time. That was just for still images. How many of the current video formats will still exist in 50 years?
Can someone explain what I am missing, please?
Jonathan
-
I have taken stills over many years, starting with a Brownie and then moving on to a Practika. I now shoot digital and only occasionally hanker for film. I used to shoot for family records, but since stopping fulltime work, now shoot more seriously and provide images for local organisations and a local magazine. Video has not lit any fires in me, though I have dabbled. Somewhere we have a video camera that recorded on cassettes, never used for a long time.
I am puzzled why there is much interest in providing cameras that can take both stills and video, the latest incarnation being the Canon 5D Mk4, just announced. There are a number of aspects about video that are the source of my puzzlement about why there is the demand.
Firstly, video is serial input to the brain, rather than the parallel input of a still image. The viewer has no choice but to watch a video to the end to see it all. The length of time spent looking at a still is the choice of the viewer.
What do people who shoot videos do with them? I am not talking about professionals, but the interested general public. I take stills to increase my skills, to put in a personal album (now often digital), or if I really like one, and Jane is happy too, to hang on a wall. I doubt I would put a video on a device to have repeat showing in our house. If others like my images that is a bonus, and that is why I shoot for local organisations. What would I do with a video? I have no desire to put one on social media, and anyway, how many people would look at it more than once? How many remember or now look at Vincent Laforet’s video ‘Reverie’ shot on a Canon 5d Mk2 in 2008? It opened lots of eyes then, but now we have 4k and soon probably 8k, so in 8 years it has become somewhat old technology. From a personal standpoint, unless I took much time and effort editing and post-processing, I would not think it was worth producing a ‘finished’ video. Post-processing a still in Lightroom does not take long.
There is an argument that videos can form social and historical comment that could be viewed in the future. This is a use for stills. For video, however, it does not fill me with confidence. Back in pre-history Super 8 was a medium for ‘home-movies’. How many people have the means of viewing them now? This is not a problem with prints from that era. Some 15+ years ago I was party to a long, inconclusive, professional meeting to discuss national archiving of assessed student coursework, for the purpose of comparing standards over a long period of time. Storing hard copy was not going to be an option on account of the volume of material to store and then access, so the discussion was about electronic storage and the medium and technology to be used. There was little faith that what could be used then would be available in 50 years’ time. That was just for still images. How many of the current video formats will still exist in 50 years?
Can someone explain what I am missing, please?
Jonathan
Hallelujah to that Jonathon and this should be written in the stars -
Firstly, video is serial input to the brain, rather than the parallel input of a still image. The viewer has no choice but to watch a video to the end to see it all. The length of time spent looking at a still is the choice of the viewer.
It's something I've often pondered and I do ask myself just how many people actually bother to watch a Youtube presentation all the way through? I don't even bother opening them anymore and immediately move on if a company, organisation or even individual insists on taking up my time by explaining itself through the medium of video.
-
Why do people sculpt, why do people paint, why do people create art installations, why do people photograph, why do people shoot video, why do people draw, ....... ?
I think all to express themselves and/or to create memories.
You don't have to perform or even like any of these forms of expression, but why question them? It feels pretty elitist to me.
-
Why do people sculpt, why do people paint, why do people create art installations, why do people photograph, why do people shoot video, why do people draw, ....... ?
I think all to express themselves and/or to create memories.
You don't have to perform or even like any of these forms of expression, but why question them? It feels pretty elitist to me.
I think it more an elitist attitude to expect or often demand that other people give up their time to view video's.
-
why question them?
I think there's a degree of annoyance that too much emphasis is being put on adding video features to still products, at the expense of stills features.
Ultimately a DSLR is a dreadful form factor for shooting video.
-
I think it more an elitist attitude to expect or often demand that other people give up their time to view video's.
I never expect or demand anybody to watch any art form, just do what you like and don't be bothered by stuff you don't like.
-
often demand that other people give up their time to view video's.
Some people seem to think that posting videos is a better way of conveying information than just writing about it.
I find that most video reviews or instructionals are terribly produced and ponderous, basically a waste of time.
-
I think there's a degree of annoyance that too much emphasis is being put on adding video features to still products, at the expense of stills features.
Ultimately a DSLR is a dreadful form factor for shooting video.
It is really hard to judge (for the general user) how adding video to the 5D series affects its still qualities and ergonomy and price. Ultimately, Canon knows best what they are able to, and they take their best shot at making a product that will or will not prove popular among possible customers.
It may well be (as some say) that adding video to a current stills-oriented product adds only (say) $10 to the component cost, and that the added sales means that there is more volume to share the start-up costs among.
It is also plausible that having video (and/or LiveView) as a requirement adds constraints to sensor (readout), the software development team, etc that negatively affects the possibilities that would have been available to a stills-only project.
I have hardly used the video function in my DSLR camera. I use the video function of my ("stills") compact camera regularly.
Even a camera like the 5DmkIV will probably sell to many non-professionals, or even "non-enthusiasts". Regular people with an interest in "good pictures" and the economy to buy such a product. If the dual pixel AF is all what they say, perhaps this group will be able to produce better family videos now.
-h
-
I never expect or demand anybody to watch any art form, just do what you like and don't be bothered by stuff you don't like.
I'm not entirely sure that the OP was questioning the video as an art form, I was certainly not referring to them in that context in my reply.
-
Some people seem to think that posting videos is a better way of conveying information than just writing about it.
I find that most video reviews or instructionals are terribly produced and ponderous, basically a waste of time.
Agreed. Having to watch a video in order for some dude to finally get to the point of how to service my printer seems like a massive waste of bandwidth and attention compared to a well thought-out diagram and text.
-h
-
I'm not entirely sure that the OP was questioning the video as an art form, I was certainly not referring to them in that context in my reply.
I have also never seen any demands "Watch my Video", no problem if you don't like Video (I don't either) but some people like to make them and others like to watch them. What's the problem with that? Life's too short to bother about what other people like and do, but that probably contradicts with expressing my opinion here ;)
-
Why do people sculpt, why do people paint, why do people create art installations, why do people photograph, why do people shoot video, why do people draw, ....... ?
I think all to express themselves and/or to create memories.
You don't have to perform or even like any of these forms of expression, but why question them? It feels pretty elitist to me.
Agreed. Ironically in the past day or two there is a couple of threads about old time film shooters buying some film and using their film cameras again, that has been gathering dust, and using it as an excuse to bash digital. A form of elitism. :(
-
Agreed. Ironically in the past day or two there is a couple of threads about old time film shooters buying some film and using their film cameras again, that has been gathering dust, and using it as an excuse to bash digital. A form of elitism. :(
Why should noting that film still has value be considered elitist? Is it only an elite that recognizes or appreciates that it can be more expressive than digital at times? Are those who are totally committed to digital so sensitive about its shortcomings that they have to invent some great divide to justify their unswerving loyalty?
-
Why video? That's a good question, as I have never made a video in my life. My single effort with motion happened via a small amateur film camera that my father-in-law lent me in order to shoot some 'family' film when my wife and I went off on honeymoon. What the hell do you do with people in motion? I ended up shooting some minute or so (just to keep the guy happy) of his daughter stepping from one small rock onto another at the water's edge. She felt and looked embarrassed and I felt the same: no purpose. However, she did not wave! which I thought showed great promise.
Decades later, that piece was collated with some other family stuff and put onto a DVD and a copy sent over to me. I find it uncomfortable viewing and can no longer watch. It's one thing looking at photographs of a deceased loved one, but film is something else, best avoided unless you also feel like playing lots of torch songs (only for the over-sixties) and cleaning out your tear ducts.
Unquesionably, for people in business, such as our own BCooter, the availability of both options within a single good camera makes sound commercial sense. But for me, none at all. I haven't even used the function on the cellphone.
I, along with most of us, have no idea at all how much it costs to incorporate these functions into a stills camera and I wish that, instead, we could have a digital product functionally similar to a 500C/M that simply offers the original 500 series possibilities at a price to which I could happily stretch - around the price of a D810 or whatever. I'd even be happy with the new X1 D at around that price; no way I'd pay more for anything photographic anymore. Unlike those pretty models, no, I don't think it's worth it. For me. Of course, I speak without a commercial objective anymore, which makes it a totally different ballgame.
The more I think about it, the more likely such dreams could materialise if companies collectively stopped chasing their tails trying to make new all the time! We already have more stuff in any camera than we have any need or desire to use: make the same models over many years, sell at accessible prices and folks will start to buy again - I expect. Constant, expensive change makes buying feel very silly: you get no sense of investment in equipment anymore - just a sense of throwing money away needlessly.
Rob
-
Agreed. Having to watch a video in order for some dude to finally get to the point of how to service my printer seems like a massive waste of bandwidth and attention compared to a well thought-out diagram and text.
-h
Indeed, I suffer something similar on a reasonably regular basis where I am expected to be engrossed with five minutes of action packed footage about hydraulic couplings or watch the same tractor and mower go up and down the same field for an eternity etc. I'm sure the products are wonderful but a just a page or two explaining their benefits will be just fine and a lot less taxing on the soul thanks. Such experiences have probably coloured my views.
Having said that one of the most popular stands at agricultural shows in Ireland sells videos of er.... Tractors and various bits of machinery go up and down fields!
-
Unquesionably, for people in business, such as our own BCooter, the availability of both options within a single good camera makes sound commercial sense.
Not really. It makes far better sense to buy a specialist dedicated camera that performing it's own primary task well. DSLRs are rubbish for professional video production.
Yes, some people cludge about with them and call themselves, wrongly, cinematographers, but most of them haven't enough credible experience to know any better.
-
Why video? That's a good question, as I have never made a video in my life. My single effort with motion happened via a small amateur film camera that my father-in-law lent me in order to shoot some 'family' film when my wife and I went off on honeymoon. What the hell do you do with people in motion? I ended up shooting some minute or so (just to keep the guy happy) of his daughter stepping from one small rock onto another at the water's edge. She felt and looked embarrassed and I felt the same: no purpose. However, she did not wave! which I thought showed great promise.
Decades later, that piece was collated with some other family stuff and put onto a DVD and a copy sent over to me. I find it uncomfortable viewing and can no longer watch. It's one thing looking at photographs of a deceased loved one, but film is something else, best avoided unless you also feel like playing lots of torch songs (only for the over-sixties) and cleaning out your tear ducts.
Unquesionably, for people in business, such as our own BCooter, the availability of both options within a single good camera makes sound commercial sense. But for me, none at all. I haven't even used the function on the cellphone.
I, along with most of us, have no idea at all how much it costs to incorporate these functions into a stills camera and I wish that, instead, we could have a digital product functionally similar to a 500C/M that simply offers the original 500 series possibilities at a price to which I could happily stretch - around the price of a D810 or whatever. I'd even be happy with the new X1 D at around that price; no way I'd pay more for anything photographic anymore. Unlike those pretty models, no, I don't think it's worth it. For me. Of course, I speak without a commercial objective anymore, which makes it a totally different ballgame.
The more I think about it, the more likely such dreams could materialise if companies collectively stopped chasing their tails trying to make new all the time! We already have more stuff in any camera than we have any need or desire to use: make the same models over many years, sell at accessible prices and folks will start to buy again - I expect. Constant, expensive change makes buying feel very silly: you get no sense of investment in equipment anymore - just a sense of throwing money away needlessly.
Rob
It will depend on the type of product to a great extent but the problem is not that is expensive to add features to anything electronic but it is too cheap to do so, fiddling with a camera's software hardly costs when compared to engineering a totally new lens mount for instance. In marketing terms you do need something new and different to attract the attention of the punter, whether it is of any discernible benefit in the great scheme of things is besides the point, you've got to be seen to be cutting edge in a digital world and at the end of the day Nikon's and Canon's aim is to sell more cameras.
-
Why should noting that film still has value be considered elitist? Is it only an elite that recognizes or appreciates that it can be more expressive than digital at times? Are those who are totally committed to digital so sensitive about its shortcomings that they have to invent some great divide to justify their unswerving loyalty?
The members who posted about shooting again with film made IMO the unnecessary connection with digital and giving the impression that film is "better" hence the the comment about elitism?
-
Not really. It makes far better sense to buy a specialist dedicated camera that performing it's own primary task well. DSLRs are rubbish for professional video production.
Yes, some people cludge about with them and call themselves, wrongly, cinematographers, but most of them haven't enough credible experience to know any better.
A lot of films showing in cinemas were made with DSLRS and the quality haven't been criticized by a knowledgeable audience.
-
A lot of films showing in cinemas were made with DSLRS
Really ? How many proper cinematic releases can you name that have been shot entirely on DSLRs ?
-
Really ? How many proper cinematic releases can you name that have been shot entirely on DSLRs ?
I think neither the word "proper" nor the word "entirely" are required to determine if DSLR's have their use in cinematic productions or not.
-
I think neither the word "proper" nor the word "entirely" are required to determine if DSLR's have their use in cinematic productions or not.
Why ?
A lot of people have just read silly forums that make out DSLRs have some huge impact on the cinema and television industries, but it simply isn't true.
They get used for the odd small niche application, but not for serious 'A' camera roles.
In the overall budget for a production the camera is just a tiny, tiny part. They don't cut corners on cameras when there are so many better cameras available than DSLRs.
-
Why ?
Because I think neither of those qualifications are required to judge the impact of DSLR's on cinematography.
Pls. note I have no opinion if DSLR's are important or not (and I even don't care if they are or not), but to me they just feel like a cop-out to discard useful data that people might bring up.
Let people just bring the data without prematurely and overly constraining what is useful data or not.
-
I enjoy doing video stuff, though mainly for documentary purposes. It costs very little to enable it on electronic cameras, and you can ignore it if you like.
As for its longevity: don't really care. The vast majority of everything the human species creates has a short shelf life, which IMO is as it should be.
-Dave-
-
Because I think neither of those qualifications are required to judge the impact of DSLR's on cinematography.
The DSLR has had very, very little effect on cinematography.
It's just created a fashionable new route into hobby film making, just the 21st century's answer to Super 8.
The main difference now is that people post their work to Vimeo/YouTube/Facebook rather than have to gather friends and family round a screen. Just because anyone in the world can see doesn't make it any good.
-
I know of one film that was shot entirely on Canon 5D and 7D. It is feature length and has screened at a good number of festivals: currently hoping for a run at Sundance.
The people involved tell me this is not at all unusual for low budget films, but I'm not personally able to vouch for that.
On the other hand I have a lot of sympathy for anyone forced to watch an amateur video: with stills, I can always click rapidly past the less interesting shots.
Then again, if you look on youtube there are now amateurs making very well constructed short films. Give them a 5D and they'd be capable of making something very watchable in a cinema. There remains the usual problem of the people who are not good at what they do thinking they are brilliant :(
It also occurs to me that the 70's fashion photography ethos of shooting fascinating photos and hoping that the clothes managed to be visible enough that the client still pays the bill has survived through to video, despite the vastly higher production costs.
Check this out and tell me wtf it has to do with perfume:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABz2m0olmPg
Then again, advertising a perfume via sound and vision necessarily obliges lateral thinking, no?
-
I know of one film that was shot entirely on Canon 5D and 7D. It is feature length and has screened at a good number of festivals: currently hoping for a run at Sundance.
The people involved tell me this is not at all unusual for low budget films, but I'm not personally able to vouch for that.
On the other hand I have a lot of sympathy for anyone forced to watch an amateur video: with stills, I can always click rapidly past the less interesting shots.
Then again, if you look on youtube there are now amateurs making very well constructed short films. Give them a 5D and they'd be capable of making something very watchable in a cinema. There remains the usual problem of the people who are not good at what they do thinking they are brilliant :(
It also occurs to me that the 70's fashion photography ethos of shooting fascinating photos and hoping that the clothes managed to be visible enough that the client still pays the bill has survived through to video, despite the vastly higher production costs.
Check this out and tell me wtf it has to do with perfume:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABz2m0olmPg
Then again, advertising a perfume via sound and vision necessarily obliges lateral thinking, no?
I prefer the girl to the right; maybe she doesn't dance.
Very tiring to watch - I wonder what the advertising agency did to sell the pitch? Not bad without sound, though. Makes me wonder if advertising considers the negative vibes anymore? Hans Feurer did a wonderful stills campaign for Kenzo in the day ('83) with Iman. I think he shot on Lampedusa. But then it was clothes, not smells. ;-)
Rob
-
I know of one film that was shot entirely on Canon 5D and 7D.
There have been a few 'films' shot with DSLRs, it the same way there were films shot on Hi8 and other amateur film formats.
-
There have been a few 'films' shot with DSLRs, it the same way there were films shot on Hi8 and other amateur film formats.
Seriously, are you comparing DSLR 4K video to Hi8?
-
Seriously, are you comparing DSLR 4K video to Hi8?
No. you've missed the point.
There have always been examples of people using non-standard kit to make films with, but that doesn't automatically imply that the kit used is going to be routinely used for cinematography.
-
The DSLR has had very, very little effect on cinematography.
It's just created a fashionable new route into hobby film making, just the 21st century's answer to Super 8.
The main difference now is that people post their work to Vimeo/YouTube/Facebook rather than have to gather friends and family round a screen. Just because anyone in the world can see doesn't make it any good.
You keep evading the point. Why does it have to be "proper" (maybe you can first define what proper means) and why does it have to be "entirely"?
Just saying "The DSLR has had very, very little effect on cinematography" without any supporting data doesn't impress me as meaningful/factual information
-
You keep evading the point.
No.
Just saying "The DSLR has had very, very little effect on cinematography" without any supporting data doesn't impress me as meaningful/factual information
The problem is that proving that something hasn't happened isn't that easy.
Just look at any movie set and see what it's being shot on. Arri, Panavision, Red probably, a DSLR ? no.
Where you might see a DSLR is as a sacrificial camera on a stunt where there's a high probability of it getting trashed and it's low cost isn't worth worrying about. Even then they're are due to the problems of monitoring, run time, battery life, failure to match A cameras etc....
Do you have any experience of high end production on video ?
-
Really ? How many proper cinematic releases can you name that have been shot entirely on DSLRs ?
Tim Burton's stop motion movies have been shot with Canon DSLRs and Nikon lenses. To be accurate only 1 or two of his movies was made this way.
-
Tim Burton's stop motion movies have been shot with Canon DSLRs and Nikon lenses.
That's not video.
-
No.
yes you do, you haven't answered my question.
Do you have any experience of high end production on video ?
No, but I don't see how that matters. I'm just looking for data on both sides of the argument to make up my mind.
Given the qualifications you're asking for (proper/entirely) you're constraining for no good reason.
Dropping those qualifications will provide a broader dataset which is what I'm interested in
-
Hi,
When doing slide shows video is a great compliment to stills. For a photojournalist, video can provide a context and stills provide an edge. In my "slide shows" I often mix video and stills, although stills dominate.
https://vimeo.com/84522713
https://player.vimeo.com/video/52012348
https://vimeo.com/50739392
Best regards
Erik
I have taken stills over many years, starting with a Brownie and then moving on to a Practika. I now shoot digital and only occasionally hanker for film. I used to shoot for family records, but since stopping fulltime work, now shoot more seriously and provide images for local organisations and a local magazine. Video has not lit any fires in me, though I have dabbled. Somewhere we have a video camera that recorded on cassettes, never used for a long time.
I am puzzled why there is much interest in providing cameras that can take both stills and video, the latest incarnation being the Canon 5D Mk4, just announced. There are a number of aspects about video that are the source of my puzzlement about why there is the demand.
Firstly, video is serial input to the brain, rather than the parallel input of a still image. The viewer has no choice but to watch a video to the end to see it all. The length of time spent looking at a still is the choice of the viewer.
What do people who shoot videos do with them? I am not talking about professionals, but the interested general public. I take stills to increase my skills, to put in a personal album (now often digital), or if I really like one, and Jane is happy too, to hang on a wall. I doubt I would put a video on a device to have repeat showing in our house. If others like my images that is a bonus, and that is why I shoot for local organisations. What would I do with a video? I have no desire to put one on social media, and anyway, how many people would look at it more than once? How many remember or now look at Vincent Laforet’s video ‘Reverie’ shot on a Canon 5d Mk2 in 2008? It opened lots of eyes then, but now we have 4k and soon probably 8k, so in 8 years it has become somewhat old technology. From a personal standpoint, unless I took much time and effort editing and post-processing, I would not think it was worth producing a ‘finished’ video. Post-processing a still in Lightroom does not take long.
There is an argument that videos can form social and historical comment that could be viewed in the future. This is a use for stills. For video, however, it does not fill me with confidence. Back in pre-history Super 8 was a medium for ‘home-movies’. How many people have the means of viewing them now? This is not a problem with prints from that era. Some 15+ years ago I was party to a long, inconclusive, professional meeting to discuss national archiving of assessed student coursework, for the purpose of comparing standards over a long period of time. Storing hard copy was not going to be an option on account of the volume of material to store and then access, so the discussion was about electronic storage and the medium and technology to be used. There was little faith that what could be used then would be available in 50 years’ time. That was just for still images. How many of the current video formats will still exist in 50 years?
Can someone explain what I am missing, please?
Jonathan
-
Explore all the imaging options & possibilities. My response: Fine & dandy…I'll decide what I don't like and what I do.
Do not explore these particular imaging options & possibilities because I don't like or approve of them. My response: Think I'll start with those particular ones, thankyouverymuch.
-Dave-
-
I'm just looking for data on both sides of the argument to make up my mind.
Well just try and find examples of movies made with DSLRs.
From my recollection there are maybe four or five that have made it to cinematic release, out of thousands(tens of) made conventionally.
-
I have seen some videos made with DSLR cameras that were very well done and I enjoyed them. My wife has made a few video clips of during our travels of odd, curious, or beautiful events to share with family and friends. I have enjoyed watching some of those too, much as one enjoys remembering something while looking at a snapshot. At the same time I personally have no interest in making videos. I'm not even curious about it and have never tried the video function on a camera. While I don't care about making videos it's obvious that others do, and I enjoy watching their work once in a while. As long as I don't have to trip over it when I want to take still photos I'm fine with the video function existing on my cameras, even though I'll probably never use it. I know it adds some cost, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter.
-
It will depend on the type of product to a great extent but the problem is not that is expensive to add features to anything electronic but it is too cheap to do so, fiddling with a camera's software hardly costs when compared to engineering a totally new lens mount for instance. In marketing terms you do need something new and different to attract the attention of the punter, whether it is of any discernible benefit in the great scheme of things is besides the point, you've got to be seen to be cutting edge in a digital world and at the end of the day Nikon's and Canon's aim is to sell more cameras.
How very true. Looking at camera reviews on popular sites, a significant portion of the reviews are dedicated to "video features," even if video truly is almost an after thought.
-
A few thoughts. Video also has sound. Isn't it nice to video friends and family talking while playing a game or something else in between stills. Maybe little Alice playing her harpsichord that the family can view 30 years hence. Short clips to go with those great stills the Mark IV shoots? They can then be put together in a slide/movie clip DVD or BluRay disk or memory card or downloaded to YouTube to be played on your 4k UHDTV or computer monitor to allow family to see it over the internet - in 4K. That's what I do. Well in 1080 right now. (I wish I had some videos with voice of my parents who have passed on.)
Isn't it interesting that there are so many short training videos on how to use Photoshop for editing still pictures? I doubt if most are done on Hollywood grade videocams.
In the end, people are just expressing themselves and recording memories that move as well as just sit there. Not any worse then looking at another still photo of Yosemite Valley at dusk. Or was that dawn?
-
Video also has sound.
If you've ever shot anything on a DSLR you'll know that the default sound options are terrible. If you want even vaguely acceptable sound you'll need to add a decent microphone, which is an ungainly awkward addition.
Isn't it interesting that there are so many short training videos on how to use Photoshop for editing still pictures? I doubt if most are done on Hollywood grade videocams.
Most are just screen captures.
-
Really ? How many proper cinematic releases can you name that have been shot entirely on DSLRs ?
This link took me about 10 seconds to find. Probably less time than it took you to type your post. There will be more but this should mean that your dancing on a head of a pin isn't necessary any more? ;) :)
https://www.lightsfilmschool.com/blog/5-successful-dslr-feature-films/2205/
-
This link took me about 10 seconds to find.
It's just five films, out of how many productions in that time span ?, most of which didn't get cinematic release.
-
Just a small point but isn't arguing that cinematic films can be happily captured on a DSLR much like saying that top end photography can be done on a smart phone?
-
It's just five films, out of how many productions in that time span ?, most of which didn't get cinematic release.
I don't think that what anyone posts will convince you? There will obviously be more but you will just dismiss the evidence out of hand. :(
-
It's just five films, out of how many productions in that time span ?, most of which didn't get cinematic release.
I think 5 is more then enough for me to show DSLR's can be useful for making movies. I'm surprised you didn't dismiss these examples as "not proper" ;)
-
Just a small point but isn't arguing that cinematic films can be happily captured on a DSLR much like saying that top end photography can be done on a smart phone?
Top end photography can be done on a smart phone. It all depends how you define top end?
-
Just a small point but isn't arguing that cinematic films can be happily captured on a DSLR much like saying that top end photography can be done on a smart phone?
Yes, but both of your statements are true 8)
-
Top end photography can be done on a smart phone. It all depends how you define top end?
Vogue fashion, location shoots for glossy car/yacht/food/etc mags, products shots for marketing and so on. Even the editors of much more mundane magazines get fed up with smartphone images being sent in that are simply not up to standard for printing and the difference is there on the page.
-
I think 5 is more then enough for me to show DSLR's can be useful for making movies. I'm surprised you didn't dismiss these examples as "not proper" ;)
Do you haver any point to make here or are you just trolling ?
I said "A lot of people have just read silly forums that make out DSLRs have some huge impact on the cinema and television industries, but it simply isn't true.
They get used for the odd small niche application, but not for serious 'A' camera roles."
I say that as a broadcast professional of over 35 years experience. Now if you want to dispute that, try a bit harder 5 almost invisible productions doesn't disprove my point.
-
Do you haver any point to make here or are you just trolling ?
I said "A lot of people have just read silly forums that make out DSLRs have some huge impact on the cinema and television industries, but it simply isn't true.
They get used for the odd small niche application, but not for serious 'A' camera roles."
I say that as a broadcast professional of over 35 years experience. Now if you want to dispute that, try a bit harder 5 almost invisible productions doesn't disprove my point.
Your 35 years experience isn't showing. You are the one constantly changing the goalposts. How many links do I have to post before you accept that what you are stating is subjective and not an absolute truth?
-
You are the one constantly changing the goalposts.
Really, where have I done that ?
It's a pretty simple proposition; DSLRs haven't made any major long term impact into film and TV production at a professional level.
Do you have any specialist knowledge or insight that suggests otherwise ?
-
Really, where have I done that ?
It's a pretty simple proposition; DSLRs haven't made any major long term impact into film and TV production at a professional level.
Do you have any specialist knowledge or insight that suggests otherwise ?
There are three other members disagreeing with you, just not me.
quote
Ultimately a DSLR is a dreadful form factor for shooting video.
unquote
You are entitled to your opinion but ultimately it is only your opinion which a lot of people disagree with but according to you they are ALL wrong. At the end of the day it is subjective.
-
quote
Ultimately a DSLR is a dreadful form factor for shooting video.
unquote
You are entitled to your opinion but ultimately it is only your opinion which a lot of people disagree with
Who is disagreeing with that ?
Have any of them actually used professional video kit, worked in the industry or have the experience to give an informed opinion ?
-
There are three other members disagreeing with you, just not me.
quote
Ultimately a DSLR is a dreadful form factor for shooting video.
unquote
You are entitled to your opinion but ultimately it is only your opinion which a lot of people disagree with but according to you they are ALL wrong. At the end of the day it is subjective.
And how many are agreeing with him and find your attempts at cheap point scoring tiresome to say the least?
-
Do you haver any point to make here or are you just trolling ?
I am just disagreeing with you, and pointing out your behaviour due to the fact you're setting unrealistic targets without reason and without explaining why.
I don't think that's trolling, and if you can't deal with opinions that differ from yours that's your problem, not mine. I have no problem with your opinion that DSLR's are not suitable for professional movie making but I do think just saying so doesn't prove anything and makes your opinion just as valid as mine.
-
makes your opinion just as valid as mine.
So the man on the internet forum with no expertise on the subject knows as much as the industry professional ?
Fine, believe what you like.
-
As with stills, there is good video, and bad video. It's a matter of quality of the product, both technical, and content-wise. It is just another means of conveying a story, of telling a story. Content is of the utmost importance.
As for having to watch it to the end, that is rubbish, one can skip along quite quickly, once the quality of the content becomes obvious, or it turns out that it is not that interesting after all:)
Also, sometimes it is a lot easier to film a procedure, than trying to describe it with words. Makes things more understandable.
-
Consider the ergonomics of the bumblebee.
Yes, it flies, but wouldn't you rather soar with the eagles?
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/8260936_orig.jpg)
Rob C
-
What really matters is how you put it all together in the end. Here's one by my youngest son, a lot of it shot with a drone, that puts it all together. You gotta be an artist to do that. Equipment doesn't have much to do with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk6n8yRNGKc
-
So the man on the internet forum with no expertise on the subject knows as much as the industry professional ?
Most industry professionals I know (in many different industries) provide logical arguments and data, and don't say "believe me, I know". So yes, you can believe what you want but I think it falls short of a "professional opinion"
-
Hi Russ,
Nice video…
The way I see it, video adds one more dimension, it is called time… As a craft, i think video is very different from stills, so being a great still photographer doesn't make you a great videographer. Just to say, flying gives you some degrees of freedom.
I would say that it is natural for an open minded photographer to embrace video. You don't need to use it but it expands your envelope of interpretation.
Best regards
Erik
What really matters is how you put it all together in the end. Here's one by my youngest son, a lot of it shot with a drone, that puts it all together. You gotta be an artist to do that. Equipment doesn't have much to do with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk6n8yRNGKc
-
It boils down to the concept of less is more along with the more concealed, the more the viewer wants, sees or fills in with their own imagination which still photography delivers like a champ. That form of telling a story is similar to actors who express stillness in their movements as Bruce Willis employed in "The Sixth Sense" which contrasted against the audience expectations from his former action hero over the top performances.
Video tells the story with a lot more information for the viewer to process which requires more skill and responsibility in telling the story spread across a group of folks with various talents like writing a good script, scoring and recording music and dialog, camera and lighting changes, timing and editing. A lot more can go wrong in communicating the story across to a broad audience than just telling it with one or series of stills.
-
What really matters is how you put it all together in the end. Here's one by my youngest son, a lot of it shot with a drone, that puts it all together. You gotta be an artist to do that. Equipment doesn't have much to do with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk6n8yRNGKc
Indeed a nice video Russ, just one nit, I think he needs to show that picture of you as war photographer a little longer (as well as the rest of the title rolls) so the viewer actually has the time to read them. The link with the flash floods there is special, such a nice and peaceful place when the weather is nice, but havoc when it's not!
-
Hi,
This is one of my favourite videos: https://vimeo.com/144174868
It has been filmed by Jona Salcher in the Dolomites.
To some extent I love that film as it shows places I have visited by car and on foot:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Dolomites-2015/i-f2xWzZp/0/1778x1063/20151002-_DSC2660-1778x1063.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Dolomites-2013/i-Mb69hPh/0/X3/20130821-_DSC2692-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Dolomites-2013/i-d6zDdxT/0/X3/20130821-_DSC2779-X3.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
-
To follow on from Russ, the equipment is just equipment but the creator creates. If I were a talented video artist with a story to tell, it wouldn't matter much if I were using an ARRI Alexa rig or my little Panasonic GX8 to tell it. Lots of folks making videos don't have much to say with the medium, but some do and they're worth seeking out…even when their ambition excedes their technique. Same goes for still photography.
-Dave-
-
Why is everyone stuck on pro video and Hollywood productions? The OP question was why people want video with their still cameras. There are many non-pros who want to shoot decent video but don;t want to take an extra camera and would prefer to have video in the DSLR's. That's who the manufacturers are catering too. Sony also makes for example a $35,000 pro video camera that isn't part of a DSLR but stand on its own for video.
-
Why is everyone stuck on pro video and Hollywood productions? The OP question was why people want video with their still cameras. There are many non-pros who want to shoot decent video but don;t want to take an extra camera and would prefer to have video in the DSLR's. That's who the manufacturers are catering too. Sony also makes for example a $35,000 pro video camera that isn't part of a DSLR but stand on its own for video.
I don't think many here are "stuck" on pro video and cinematic productions but it's where the discussion went and where there was a difference of opinion if DSLR's can be useful for that or not. But I agree the OP's question was just about video capability in DSLR's where he was questioning the usefulness and why anybody would use it. I agree with you, some people want and like video in their DSLR, if it's there you can always choose not to use it, but if it isn't there it will decrease the customer base. I almost never use the video in any of my cameras, but I'm not bothered by it being there. There's a lot of stills photography options in there I also never use, so what's the difference?
I have never found a camera that only and exclusively has all the things I need/want and doesn't have any features that I don't want to use or need.
-
I don't think many here are "stuck" on pro video and cinematic productions but it's where the discussion went and where there was a difference of opinion if DSLR's can be useful for that or not. But I agree the OP's question was just about video capability in DSLR's where he was questioning the usefulness and why anybody would use it. I agree with you, some people want and like video in their DSLR, if it's there you can always choose not to use it, but if it isn't there it will decrease the customer base. I almost never use the video in any of my cameras, but I'm not bothered by it being there. There's a lot of stills photography options in there I also never use, so what's the difference?
I have never found a camera that has all the things I need and none I don't want to use or need.
Now you've lost me: what, exactly, do you mean? That no camera fulfills your wishes, yet that all cameras carry functions that you find indispensable? In other words, you find yourself obliged to use everything the camera offers and that's not quite enough?
I use hardly anything my cameras have to offer; I strip everything down to the bare necessity of allowing the things to function as cameras, not as second-guessers of my intents. I make them as analogue camera-like as I can find how to do.
There is one function Nikon gives that I do find wonderful: Matrix metering.
I could very happily live without all of the rest beyond, in my declining years, af on two lenses. It's my credo that the less between me and the image the better.
Rob C
-
Is you having to do more really a reduction in what's between you and the image? If you can focus (sorry about the pun) on just certain areas and let the camera worry about others, then aren't you potentially closer to the image?
It's all about point of view (another bad pun), and there is no wrong or right or closer or further or better or worse. If the experience is what you want and the end product is what you want, then it's right and I don't think we need to tell people that their interpretation or method is somehow more or less pure than our own.
-
Indeed a nice video Russ, just one nit, I think he needs to show that picture of you as war photographer a little longer (as well as the rest of the title rolls) so the viewer actually has the time to read them. The link with the flash floods there is special, such a nice and peaceful place when the weather is nice, but havoc when it's not!
Hi Pieter,
First off, I wasn't a war photographer. I was a fighter-bomber pilot. The picture Tom showed of me was on a beach in the southeast corner of Korea in 1954, after the war was over.
Yeah, Manitou has had its ups and downs lately. I lived there from 1972 to 2002 and was mayor from 1980 to 1986. We moved back in 1996 and lived there until last winter -- 2015. But the floods you mention were brought on by the fire you see in the film. That fire, started by a careless camper in 2012 burned over the surrounding hills, and made the valleys flood-prone. Eventually the trees and other vegetation on the hills will return and things will settle down. It'll go back to being peaceful and very wonderful place to live.
-
Now you've lost me: what, exactly, do you mean? That no camera fulfills your wishes, yet that all cameras carry functions that you find indispensable? In other words, you find yourself obliged to use everything the camera offers and that's not quite enough?
I use hardly anything my cameras have to offer; I strip everything down to the bare necessity of allowing the things to function as cameras, not as second-guessers of my intents. I make them as analogue camera-like as I can find how to do.
There is one function Nikon gives that I do find wonderful: Matrix metering.
I could very happily live without all of the rest beyond, in my declining years, af on two lenses. It's my credo that the less between me and the image the better.
Rob C
Sorry to be confusing Rob, what I meant was that all camera's I have owned had all the tings I wanted/needed but then also a lot more things that I didn't want/need/use.
Hope it's clear now, also changed the wording of my post a bit to make it clearer.
-
First off, I wasn't a war photographer. I was a fighter-bomber pilot. The picture Tom showed of me was on a beach in the southeast corner of Korea in 1954, after the war was over.
Sorry for the mis-representation, but still a great picture.
-
Sorry for the mis-representation, but still a great picture.
Thanks, Pieter. You'll be happy to know I no longer carry a shoulder holster or a 38 Special S&W Combat Masterpiece.
-
Thanks, Pieter. You'll be happy to know I no longer carry a shoulder holster or a 38 Special S&W Combat Masterpiece.
Well Russ, for you I will certainly make an exception since nobody would have to fear anything if you still carried it (except crooks/nutters who do crazy things with guns)
-
Why is everyone stuck on pro video and Hollywood productions? The OP question was why people want video with their still cameras. There are many non-pros who want to shoot decent video but don;t want to take an extra camera and would prefer to have video in the DSLR's. That's who the manufacturers are catering too. Sony also makes for example a $35,000 pro video camera that isn't part of a DSLR but stand on its own for video.
The OP's question doesn't just address why video is included with DSLR still cameras. If you read the entire post, you wouldn't be bring up that point. Below are OP quotes to explain why I posted my answer on the advantages and disadvantages of video over still images...
Video has not lit any fires in me, though I have dabbled.
There are a number of aspects about video that are the source of my puzzlement about why there is the demand.
Firstly, video is serial input to the brain, rather than the parallel input of a still image. The viewer has no choice but to watch a video to the end to see it all. The length of time spent looking at a still is the choice of the viewer.
-
1. Is you having to do more really a reduction in what's between you and the image? 2. If you can focus (sorry about the pun) on just certain areas and let the camera worry about others, then aren't you potentially closer to the image?
It's all about point of view (another bad pun), and there is no wrong or right or closer or further or better or worse. If the experience is what you want and the end product is what you want, then it's right and 3. I don't think we need to tell people that their interpretation or method is somehow more or less pure than our own.
1. Yes.
2. No; one would still have the distraction of frame-lines I don't wish to see, or the alternative of a blacked-out part of the normal screen. Why not take a page from the Leica rangefinder mantra and celebrate seeing more than you are going to shoot? You could do this if there's no blocking out on the viewfinder system.
3. "I could very happily live without all of the rest beyond, in my declining years, af on two lenses. It's my credo that the less between me and the image the better."
I simply voiced, as quoted, my preferences for my use of cameras. Period.
The only purity is total silence. Close the forums.
Rob C
-
While we as photographers might argue the point of such a feature in a stills camera there are those who might be grateful of such a capability for it allows the filming of err... 'boudoir activities' while still retaining the pretence of innocence. A video camera in plain wrapping.
-
For that to work you'd have to find some pretty ignorant boudoir actors.
-
For that to work you'd have to find some pretty ignorant boudoir actors.
Not if a couple are playing themselves just so long as they don't get it all mixed up when great Aunt Agatha calls to view the holiday snaps. But I grant you it will need researching and some hard pressed fellow may need to trawl the internet in a bid to secure evidence of this wicked and shameless debauchery! Should such an undertaking be desired by the good people of LuLa then I will reluctantly allow my name to go forward in the interests of serving this noble and learned community.
-
I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Sounded as if you were suggesting using a DSLR so the performers wouldn't know what was going on. If that's not the case, why not use a movie camera? Less hassle. Better results.
-
There was one occasion when a performer asked me to shoot some video. She liked my stills, I protested that I had zero video experience. She said there would be a regular video camera on a tripod getting the whole performance, but please just get some short segments from different viewpoints. There was also no option of taking stills, because there was an audio recording being made and the shutter was too noisy.
So I did it. I just handed over the card afterwards, I still haven't seen whether it was edited into something useful. It was an interesting experience that I wouldn't have had if my DSLR didn't have a video setting. So... why not?
-
Because, as you pointed out to the lady, Graham, the skills involved are different ones. I'm not a film-clip photographer. I'm a still photographer. I have absolutely no interest in the sort of film-clips I might do with a DSLR or with my Pen-F. I can't print a film-clip. I can't hang a film-clip on the wall. I can't market a film-clip, though that's a purely academic consideration at this point since I no longer take the trouble to market anything. I'd love to be able to buy a camera that gives me the tools to make the best possible stills without cluttering the damn thing with a useless film-clip capability. Yes, I know, Leica finally got smart and came out with such a camera. But nowadays Leica is pricing its products as jewelry, not as photographic equipment, and even though I loved my three film Leicas the absurd price escalation ticks me off to the point where I won't touch another Leica.
-
I'm very sympathetic to that point of view. I've built quite a bit of stereo equipment shorn of every superfluity, and heavily modified a motorcycle or two in that direction.
However, my skills aren't up to modifying a DSLR, and I'm willing to concede that building one camera that can do both stills and video may result in it costing less than two separate cameras that do one or the other. A triumph of economies of scale over development cost: it's rather exemplified by Leica pricing...
There is also the marketing. I use a K-3, which also has a pop-up flash I've never used. On the K-3 II, Pentax left it off and I was amazed to see the internet reviewers go ape-shit about this huge loss. They probably succeeded in persuading some potential buyers that it actually mattered to lose an on-camera flash with GN=2 (or close :) ) I'm sure it would be worse if they dropped the video (unless they raised the price by a factor of 10... but they have the 645Z for that).
All I can do is base my purchase decision entirely on the still side. I'm not willing to pay more for video capacity, but neither will I pay extra to have it left off (assuming it doesn't compromise the stills).
-
Because, as you pointed out to the lady, Graham, the skills involved are different ones. I'm not a film-clip photographer. I'm a still photographer. I have absolutely no interest in the sort of film-clips I might do with a DSLR or with my Pen-F. I can't print a film-clip. I can't hang a film-clip on the wall. I can't market a film-clip, though that's a purely academic consideration at this point since I no longer take the trouble to market anything. I'd love to be able to buy a camera that gives me the tools to make the best possible stills without cluttering the damn thing with a useless film-clip capability. Yes, I know, Leica finally got smart and came out with such a camera. But nowadays Leica is pricing its products as jewelry, not as photographic equipment, and even though I loved my three film Leicas the absurd price escalation ticks me off to the point where I won't touch another Leica.
The same is happening in the world of motorcycles, grand old names that were thought to be dead and buried (deservedly so in some cases) are being hauled out of the undergrowth and a fancy new bike is attached that relies on 'styling clues' and 'inspiration' from machines that bit the dust in the fifties and sixties, or even earlier in the case of the Brough Superior. You can't doubt the quality of the product or admire the skill of the lads on the autocad but when you see the words 'prices start at' followed by at least 30K you know its no more than a bauble for the 1% and hardly relevant to anybody that actually likes to ride bikes rather than simply pose upon them at some Mediterranean watering hole for the super rich..
-
Because, as you pointed out to the lady, Graham, the skills involved are different ones. I'm not a film-clip photographer. I'm a still photographer. I have absolutely no interest in the sort of film-clips I might do with a DSLR or with my Pen-F. I can't print a film-clip. I can't hang a film-clip on the wall. I can't market a film-clip, though that's a purely academic consideration at this point since I no longer take the trouble to market anything. I'd love to be able to buy a camera that gives me the tools to make the best possible stills without cluttering the damn thing with a useless film-clip capability. Yes, I know, Leica finally got smart and came out with such a camera. But nowadays Leica is pricing its products as jewelry, not as photographic equipment, and even though I loved my three film Leicas the absurd price escalation ticks me off to the point where I won't touch another Leica.
Ah, Russ, Leica!
When the business could afford one (M rangefinder) I didn't buy because of the accuracy problems with exactly what you were or were not framing; Nikon pro bodies took care of that, plus, of course, gave me lots of long lenses to employ. Then the reflex bodies came out and hey, even they didn't offer 100% coverage in the viewfinder. So still no deal.
Today, no business is funding anything, and I don't really care, because I see time as a very precious commodity in short supply. And you know what - the M digital rangefinder Leicas are getting a stronger and stronger hold on my imagination. Why? Because framing can be as vague as it likes - I have to fill a frame to nobody's brief - and for my website, I can chop and change as I see fit! I wouldn't sell anything anymore - I hold apparently worthless goods today anyway, and why throw away the possibilities existing equipment still offers? So where the driver for the interest in Leica M? Basically, because though I had a very brief relationship with an employer's M3, printed a lot from it for him (which is why I swear I could see a difference), I have never owned one. And it feels like an essential milestone in every serious photographer's life. And, I am shooting more and more with less and less: almost all of it these days is from a 50mm (usually on the cropped body) or a 24mm on either the FF body or the other. In essence, three focal lengths: real 24mm, 35mm equivalent (though I do have a real 2/35mm) and 75mm equivalent. Leica M can handle that.
(Having just written the above, I can't help noticing how many images made with Leicas have people's feet cut off half-way through, not something one would do by choice.)
But the crunch comes where and as you pointed out: the price is simply out of my considered reach. Yes, I could go nuts and spend it, but I am not yet nuts enough to go there. From the start, photography had to be either a seriously sensible investment or one not made at all. In a nutshell, I was never an equipment junkie and only bought what I knew I'd use a lot.
Rob
-
My Leica kit was an M2 and M4, plus one screw lens body. I think the screw body was a IIIc, though it may have been a IIIf. I don't remember for sure. I bought it from a great local camera repairman as a second camera along with a used M2. In late 1967 I added a brand new M4, which I loved with all my heart. The IIIc (or f) had a 50mm lens. Don't remember what aperture. The lens lineup for my M bodies was a Canon 35mm f/2, 50mm Summicron f/2, Canon 85mm f/1.8, and a Canon 135 -- I think it was an f/4. I took on several fun jobs with this gear. I spent a couple months of Saturdays shooting this dance class. I think this shot was the M4 with its Summicron.
I don't remember exactly, Rob, but it seems to me the M4 with Summicron was a little less than $600. Since our government has taken such care to insure our money doesn't lose value, $600 then would be equal to about $4,350 today. Nowadays the lens alone runs about $2,300, the 1967 equivalent of $320, and I can't make a comparison for the body, but the equivalent is out of sight.
But all is not lost. I have a 25mm Leica DG Summilix lens that I used on my Olympus E-P1, and now use on my Pen-F, a half-frame camera, making the lens the equivalent of 50mm. The Leica quality is there in that lens, and it goes for about $600. I have a range of lenses for my Nikons, but at heart I'm a 50mm guy, so the Pen gets a lot of use.
And, yes, as is usual with a Leica, the girl closest to us has her feet cut off.
-
Really good shot, Russ, and wonderful tones even after all the conversions for appearance in LuLa!
Great stuff; wish so much I hadn't been stupid enough to destroy and/or sell back all my fashion negs those many years ago... who knew what was to come one day? But I was leaving the country - what was I going to do with all those rows of Rowi negative files? It really does hurt: I poured so much emotion into some of that early work - both in the doing and the hoping where it might take me. Truthfully, I don't think the calendar stuff ever had the same importance to me - financially much more, but insofar as personal interest, I don't think so. By that time, the dreams had become whatever the reality had turned into which wasn't quite the same thing at all. Also, the fashion was mostly black/white and I did all the processing; you get to have a far deeper relationship with work that you brought to the light than you can with tranparencies that just come out of a sleeve, birthed from somewhere else.
Rob
-
Russ : chapeau l'artiste, great shot.
-
I've never bought a new Leica camera or lens, though the M2 and 35/2 Summicron my dad gave me for my 15th birthday was bought new by him (to document my arrival and childhood, but which he then proceded to do mainly with his trusty Kodak Retina IIc while my mom took over the Leica). Back in the days of the Leica Users Group (LUG) e-mail list, finding used gear in great shape at decent prices wasn't difficult. That's where most of my M & LTM lenses came from.
I enjoy using my M8.2s. I run 'em a lot like film-era Ms: fixed ISO (320, same as I'd typically choose with "400" speed neg film), manual mode, no chimping. One camera gets a 28/50mm combo (roughly 35/65mm "equivalent") while the other gets 35 & 85mm (about 45 & 110mm). On the day I'll decide whether to go with the wider camera/lens set or the longer one.
-Dave-
-
I still had all my negatives in boxes when digital came along. I also had contact sheets for the whole shebang. So I was able to dig out the stuff I wanted to save and scan it. The negatives themselves now are in the hands of my sons, back in Colorado, stored in a typically dry, Colorado storage room. But I have scans of the stuff I want.
A few years ago I scanned everything good from the dance class shoot and made a big comb-bound book for the woman who ran the class. She'd been a ballet dancer when she was younger and she really knew her stuff. She also loved those kids. She just about passed out when I gave her the book. I suspect she's gone now. I ran into one of the kids a couple years ago -- all grown up. In her fifties. A lovely person, probably to some extent because of that dance class. I made a few bucks on the shoot, but the money wasn't what mattered to me.
Ah well. . .
-
I still had all my negatives in boxes when digital came along. I also had contact sheets for the whole shebang. So I was able to dig out the stuff I wanted to save and scan it. The negatives themselves now are in the hands of my sons, back in Colorado, stored in a typically dry, Colorado storage room. But I have scans of the stuff I want.
A few years ago I scanned everything good from the dance class shoot and made a big comb-bound book for the woman who ran the class. She'd been a ballet dancer when she was younger and she really knew her stuff. She also loved those kids. She just about passed out when I gave her the book. I suspect she's gone now. I ran into one of the kids a couple years ago -- all grown up. In her fifties. A lovely person, probably to some extent because of that dance class. I made a few bucks on the shoot, but the money wasn't what mattered to me.
Ah well. . .
Nowadays you are likely to get yourself locked up if you went anywhere near a dance class with a camera. When our two were at that age and having lessons I would be asked to do a few shots for portfolios but it was always away from the class with other adults in attendance and so on.
-
I still had all my negatives in boxes when digital came along. I also had contact sheets for the whole shebang. So I was able to dig out the stuff I wanted to save and scan it. The negatives themselves now are in the hands of my sons, back in Colorado, stored in a typically dry, Colorado storage room. But I have scans of the stuff I want.
A few years ago I scanned everything good from the dance class shoot and made a big comb-bound book for the woman who ran the class. She'd been a ballet dancer when she was younger and she really knew her stuff. She also loved those kids. She just about passed out when I gave her the book. I suspect she's gone now. I ran into one of the kids a couple years ago -- all grown up. In her fifties. A lovely person, probably to some extent because of that dance class. I made a few bucks on the shoot, but the money wasn't what mattered to me.
Ah well. . .
That was a kind gesture, Russ, and I'm sure gave you a lot of satisfaction too!
Reminded me of a similar episode in my early pro life working in the industrial unit: I'd gone to see the secretary of the Glasgow Drama College (I seem to remember it having a far grander title I no longer remember) with a view to creating a 'model' portfolio for myself, as there were few models to be found within jet engines. They let me put up a little photo-board and one of the girls who came through I found to be quite inspirational. We spent a day working together down at the coast, and the upshot was that I made a 'book' of photographs for her from the work, print dry mounted onto board for the really hard cover! It was a very enjoyable experience. Maybe that's partly why most photographers crave a book: it's permanent (relatively) and seems to offer completeness.
Apart from that, it was a very early lesson in the importance of the right model. Without that, you just shoot film and print prints without much joy either way.
Rob
-
That was a kind gesture, Russ, and I'm sure gave you a lot of satisfaction too!
Reminded me of a similar episode in my early pro life working in the industrial unit: I'd gone to see the secretary of the Glasgow Drama College (I seem to remember it having a far grander title I no longer remember) with a view to creating a 'model' portfolio for myself, as there were few models to be found within jet engines. They let me put up a little photo-board and one of the girls who came through I found to be quite inspirational. We spent a day working together down at the coast, and the upshot was that I made a 'book' of photographs for her from the work, print dry mounted onto board for the really hard cover! It was a very enjoyable experience. Maybe that's partly why most photographers crave a book: it's permanent (relatively) and seems to offer completeness.
Apart from that, it was a very early lesson in the importance of the right model. Without that, you just shoot film and print prints without much joy either way.
Rob
It's as easy as pie to get your own book published in the digital age, it's getting someone else to pay for it that's the tricky bit.
-
Russ : chapeau l'artiste, great shot.
Merci, Graham. I scanned 244 pictures from that shoot. I picked this one to show, mainly because of the window behind. I've always liked that light.
-
May have been a good choice, missing the feet to get the top of the window arch :)
-
With a 50mm prime you have to make a decision.
-
Ah, but these feet are not missed because of viewinder restrictions leading to mistakes due to the lens itself (or the shade) getting in the way - the decision was made intentionally to allow the window graphic to survive!
The 'errors' that I spot are usually where the frame cuts off mid-instep, which nobody would do by choice - it just looks what it probably always is: a mistake.
Even HC-B is guilty.
Sieff used a 21mm a lot on his M bodies, even revealing that he shot a career-critical assignment with just that one lens, hoping against hope the client would buy it. She did. However, there's really no way of knowing how close he got or how much safety margin he allowed. The results just look exactly what the era was about: visual shock within workable parameters. It also saw great work pass through its elements in Death Valley. Wonderful, dedicated and amusingly erudite man. I love his sardonic writing, even through translations! Very widely exhibited as photographer, you really have to read his views, notwithstanding, on curators et al. There's an evident delight in biting that feeding, and hence proprietorial hand!
Rob
-
Even HC-B is guilty.
Rob
Say it isn't so, Rob. My world is crumbling!
-
Say it isn't so, Rob. My world is crumbling!
You mean, a seismic moment?
;-)
Rob
-
Even HC-B is guilty.
Well look, that photo he made of the couple sitting on the street in San Francisco... couldn't even hold the camera straight. Pff.
:(
-
I enjoy using my M8.2s. I run 'em a lot like film-era Ms: fixed ISO (320, same as I'd typically choose with "400" speed neg film),
Why 320? A CMOS sensor at 320 is like MF FP4. If you use 1600 it starts to look like FP4, Tri-X is out past 3200...
(Cynthia at 1600 ISO, f/4 & 1/60 with a 200mm (300 equiv):
-
Why 320? A CMOS sensor at 320 is like MF FP4. If you use 1600 it starts to look like FP4, Tri-X is out past 3200...
(Cynthia at 1600 ISO, f/4 & 1/60 with a 200mm (300 equiv):
Lovely tones - maybe from the piano, too.
You'd need to try pushing harder if you want Tri-X 135.
;-)
Rob
-
Lovely tones - maybe from the piano, too.
Boesendorfer courtesy of the Goethe Institut :) It looked as good as it sounded.
-
Boesendorfer courtesy of the Goethe Institut :) It looked as good as it sounded.
Your Cynthia is one intense chick!
Rob
-
Why 320? A CMOS sensor at 320 is like MF FP4. If you use 1600 it starts to look like FP4, Tri-X is out past 3200...
The M8.2 uses a 10-year-old CCD. :) (Well, it seems to use two of 'em stitched together. Processing RAWs via Sandy's PhotoRaw—no jiggery pokery—reveals what looks like a center seam in some higher-ISO infrared images.) Native ISO is 160. I chose 320 mainly because I've long used ISO 400 film at EI 320 with film Leicas. Using manual settings I can guesstimate exposure pretty well. Max ISO is 2500, which is nicely grainy (but can turn dirty with underexposure).
-Dave-
-
Ah, I see I'm far out of touch with the Leica world :-)
Rob: yes; Cynthia is very intense. Admittedly this was Erlskonnig, a song cycle about pedophiles abducting and murdering children, so...
Then as soon as she steps away from the piano she goes into grinning adolescent mode (although she's 39). I'm trying to get some calm time with her in some good light away from piano and audience and her phone, but it's difficult.
-
The M8.2 uses a 10-year-old CCD. :) (Well, it seems to use two of 'em stitched together. Processing RAWs via Sandy's PhotoRaw—no jiggery pokery—reveals what looks like a center seam in some higher-ISO infrared images.) Native ISO is 160. I chose 320 mainly because I've long used ISO 400 film at EI 320 with film Leicas. Using manual settings I can guesstimate exposure pretty well. Max ISO is 2500, which is nicely grainy (but can turn dirty with underexposure).
-Dave-
I've noticed that a lot of people make this same claim. I am not disputing it works - to an extent - was just about to say that I never adopted it. I used to meter absolutely everything. In both b/w and colour. The heat of the moment can easily let you lose track of a passing cloud making that dress look a little bit darker than your eyes had led you to believe.
In fact, though my F2 was a Photomic, I never used the metering capability. The olde worlde Weston Master whatever did just fine, thank you, if I knew which dark area to point it towards, and keep my own shadow out of the scene! Invercone never let me down.
Rob C
-
I certainly can't from one day to another. My mind boggles at how much more light there is in summer: I have to convince myself the camera is not mis-metering by taking a test shot and staring at it. Too much adaptation. In fact even between light and shade on the same day.
-
I used to love my Weston meter, Rob. I used it religiously for static scenes. I still remember it with fondness. But there often would be situations -- especially indoors under not particularly good light, when I'd be going for a street shot with the M4, Tri-X, f/2 -- where I couldn't whip out the meter and say, "Please hold still a minute while I take a reading." I learned to guess, and I learned to guess reasonably accurately. I can't completely discount Dave's claim.
-
Hi,
I used to be quit good at guessing exposures back in film times, but I went more into spot measurements lately.
Exposure meters are damn good now…
Best regards
Erik
I used to love my Weston meter, Rob. I used it religiously for static scenes. I still remember it with fondness. But there often would be situations -- especially indoors under not particularly good light, when I'd be going for a street shot with the M4, Tri-X, f/2 -- where I couldn't whip out the meter and say, "Please hold still a minute while I take a reading." I learned to guess, and I learned to guess reasonably accurately. I can't completely discount Dave's claim. The problem you run into is that if you decide to push Tri-X to ASA 800, you pretty much need to shoot everything on the roll with that intention in mind.
-
I used to love my Weston meter, Rob. I used it religiously for static scenes. I still remember it with fondness. But there often would be situations -- especially indoors under not particularly good light, when I'd be going for a street shot with the M4, Tri-X, f/2 -- where I couldn't whip out the meter and say, "Please hold still a minute while I take a reading." I learned to guess, and I learned to guess reasonably accurately. I can't completely discount Dave's claim.
Ah, true, but I never faced such situations, remember: I was doing it for my keep!
On a general footing, though, for street-style shooting one could always take a general reading on the hand-held meter (or even meter the hand!) and set the camera to suit. I don't think I ever exposed a tranny without an incident light reading first; a sort of foreplay, one could say - at a stretch.
;-)
Rob
-
Quite so. And outdoors I always used the Weston. With the 4x5 on a stand I'd often do a series of readings IAW st. Ansel's zone system.
-
I guess I do very short range guesstimation, since I have the camera locked on manual. Conveniently the Pentax has a meter bar-graph on the top display, so I can just point it at some appropriately grey surface and check whether I'm close. I usually get within a half stop that way... and of course it's not Kodachrome :)
It seems Pentax deleted that bar-graph from the K1... silly.
-
I've noticed that a lot of people make this same claim.
Oh, I'm no wizard. I definitely use the meter! But I enjoy making ballpark guesstimates first too, then seeing with the meter how badly I blew it (or, occasionally, didn't). It's just part of taking pleasure in the process.
The attached pic came about due to blowing it badly and then thinking, "Hey, I like that."
-Dave-
-
I used to love my Weston meter, Rob. I used it religiously for static scenes. I still remember it with fondness.
I still have my dad's Weston Master II. Still works, though I can't vouch for its accuracy. He stopped using it when he "went SLR" in the late '90s (with a Nikon F3-HP rig I got for him) due to aging eyes and the resulting rangefinder focusing difficulties.
-Dave-
-
I still have my dad's Weston Master II. Still works, though I can't vouch for its accuracy. He stopped using it when he "went SLR" in the late '90s (with a Nikon F3-HP rig I got for him) due to aging eyes and the resulting rangefinder focusing difficulties.
-Dave-
Dave - still got my F3 - not HP. Do you happen to know what the 'standard' diopter lens is that comes with the standard F3 body? My eyes stopped working with it, so I got the next two + grades upwards. One of those fell off the camera one day, along with a rubber eyecup... (Can't remember which + diopter it was fell - the camera is locked away.)
As a strange consequence of glaucoma my eyes have reverted to the stage that I now read without specs again, but my earlier, great long-distance sight now sucks. I've lost that original diopter lens, which I suppose is what I now need again, and can't remember if it was 0 or -1. Something tells me it wasn't the obvious (to me) 0. I may try to get one somewhere, just in case I start using the old thing again - it's like new.
Rob
-
Rob, I'm pretty sure "standard" was -1 with the F3. My dad used a non-standard diopter with his HP but I don't remember which one it was. (I got him the full set, all used & in pristine condition, for next to nothing.) Probably a + because he'd been farsighted prior to macular degeneration messing with his overall vision.
-Dave-
-
Rob, I'm pretty sure "standard" was -1 with the F3. My dad used a non-standard diopter with his HP but I don't remember which one it was. (I got him the full set, all used & in pristine condition, for next to nothing.) Probably a + because he'd been farsighted prior to macular degeneration messing with his overall vision.
-Dave-
Thanks Dave, I'll see if I can locate something in the off chance that I get to use some of the stuff in my freezer!
Rob
-
That's not video.
What do you mean, that's not video?
-
The attached pic came about due to blowing it badly and then thinking, "Hey, I like that."
Perfection may be the enemy of greatness.
Or to be less grandiloquent, controlling everything can prevent happy accidents :)
-
Perfection may be the enemy of greatness.
Or to be less grandiloquent, controlling everything can prevent happy accidents :)
Bailey said as much in that interview where he was asked whether he planned photoshoots, and replied that were he to do so, then he'd get somebody else to do them for him.
Sarah Moon's mantra has ever been in praise of the accident, of something that doesn't exist existing for the moment it takes to catch it. Never realised; photography must, spiritually speaking, be akin to atomic research for the infinitely tiny particle that exists for the even more infinitely tiny moment. Only we don't need several miles of expensive circuit to get there.
;-)
Rob
-
Bailey said as much in that interview where he was asked whether he planned photoshoots, and repllied that were he to do so, then he'd get somebody else to do them for him.
Sarah Moon's mantra has ever been in praise of the accident, of something that doesn't exist existing for the moment it takes to catch it. Never realised; photography must, spiritually speaking, be akin to atomic research for the infinitely tiny particle that exists for the even more infinitely tiny moment. Only we don't need several miles of expensive circuit to get there.
;-)
Rob
It's pointless going to a wedding, event, case study etc etc without a plan.
-
It's pointless going to a wedding, event, case study etc etc without a plan.
Guess I wasted my Saturday night then. People who got the photos seemed happy though...
Person A may need a plan, person B may not. Or it might depend on the circumstances.
-
My basic plan when it comes to many things is: wing it. ;D
-Dave-
-
My basic plan when it comes to many things is: wing it. ;D
-Dave-
It's how to get spontaneity - pretty much by definition. Which is why so much advertising material is relatively dull: over-produced, over-intellectualised, over-retouched. It's why Annie L. thinks her covers suck (relatively) whereas her inside pages material is where she's at.
There is a downside, however: working without a 'script' is great when you get lucky, but you also carry the can when you bomb, which you can do for all sorts of reasons beyond your control. One of the purposes of having an art director around is to share the blame at those times.
;-)
Rob C
-
Guess I wasted my Saturday night then. People who got the photos seemed happy though...
Person A may need a plan, person B may not. Or it might depend on the circumstances.
You never know, they might have been happier still if you had had a plan. ;)
Before attending any event or shoot I tend to put together a list facts about about it beforehand and talk to the customer to try and find out what they are trying to achieve, how the images are to be used and so on. Being prepared like this can take an awful lot of stress out of the situation on the day and help produce a result that is appreciated by everyone. I rather feel that just turning up with a camera and trying to blag your way through is not the way forward if you are trying to do a, dare I say it, professional job. Knowing the subject is also a great help and even spending time brushing up on rock crushers helped me get better images of one company's product because I knew what the machine was doing and could highlight the important features.
A plan is a list of actions, usually those actions turn out to be nothing like you envisaged they would be, but that doesn't mean to say that planning is an invalid or wasted activity, I have certainly never found it to be.
-
My basic plan when it comes to many things is: wing it. ;D
-Dave-
You are, of course, in good company:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzQUp02XfAM
Prick up the ears at 3.30.
;-)
Rob
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzQUp02XfAM
Prick up the ears at 3.30.
;-)
"To go out empty." I like that. Nice little mindbender of a photo at ~3:35 too. Seeing something new is IMO what it's all about. (Working to someone else's brief is also what it's often about if you're a pro, but that's not my concern.)
-Dave-
-
Great video :-)
-
Great video :-)
I agree, enjoyed Jay's descriptions enormously!
-
Glad you enjoyed it, folks.
I think it's on this vid but might be on another, where he tells of having bought his building in the 50s, when nobody else wanted to buy it.
Couldn't help thinking of the 80s when we moved out to live here in the Balearics. There used to be a relatively modest yacht club existing in the village at the time, and I was interested in buying a Glastron for running around the Bay now and then. Spoke with the agents here, got a price I could afford without pain, and then got on to the delicate matter of a mooring. The only thing I could get from the agency was: don't worry about it, we'll sort something out for you later. I was still running a business then, and that wasn't something I wasn't about to swallow, so I didn't bite.
The agent (Commodore of the club) ended up offering my wife and I life-membership of the new, expanded club that was going to be built on a huge set of new jetties and walkways. I asked advice from a friend with whom we used to cruise and he said don't touch it! Another friend/client back in Scotland who had a massive Oyster in Turkey said the same, adding that marinas almost always take down their investors with them.
That offered membership was for £ 340. I was also offered the chance of buying a berth.
Today, I'm told membership starts at around £ 23,000, with a waiting list, and you can't find a berth for love nor money, the last one I knew about going for over £ 100,000.
Had I been rash I would also now have been rich, with a fine berth-rental income stream making the bankers' insulting interest rates irrelevant.
Who knew? Clearly, not I!
Rob
-
I think it's on this vid but might be on another, where he tells of having bought his building in the 50s, when nobody else wanted to buy it.
I recall Jay mentioning that too. Wasn't that a video with Michael? I need to re-view those old videos.
-
You are, of course, in good company:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzQUp02XfAM
Prick up the ears at 3.30.
;-)
Rob
Some nice photos but it's rather a list of cliches that any veteran of a camera clubs will have heard before. Not knocking camera clubs, I'll leave that to others who have been far more active in that field in past and I certainly benefited from being a member anyway, but his point about composition being just about cropping is demonstrably incorrect. As we all know the composition of any shot can be greatly altered by moving to either side as well as in and out, up and down or whatever to alter the distribution and dominance of the elements. Perhaps he just wants to keep that to himself.
-
I think it's on this vid but might be on another, where he tells of having bought his building in the 50s, when nobody else wanted to buy it.
1966, when it was in the middle of a violent slum, apparently. But then if you want a secure building to live in, an ex-bank is probably one of the better options :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_Bank_Building_(New_York_City)
BTW, given that he bought at $102K in 1966 and sold at $55million in 2015, that's an annualised return of 13.7%. That is certainly considerably better than any investment fund or, for eg, the achievements of Donald Trump, but it isn't as stunning as my gut reaction suggested.
-
1966, when it was in the middle of a violent slum, apparently. But then if you want a secure building to live in, an ex-bank is probably one of the better options :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_Bank_Building_(New_York_City)
BTW, given that he bought at $102K in 1966 and sold at $55million in 2015, that's an annualised return of 13.7%. That is certainly considerably better than any investment fund or, for eg, the achievements of Donald Trump, but it isn't as stunning as my gut reaction suggested.
Regarding the building: there was an article in the BJP many years ago on Bob Carlos Clarke (who as a bit of an erotic - and advertising - photographer in London, did quite well for himself until he hit problems that ended in death), where he mentions that he made far more money from changing/selling property than he ever made in photography. Kinda figures... I think there could be many echoes.
Rob
-
…but his point about composition being just about cropping is demonstrably incorrect. As we all know the composition of any shot can be greatly altered by moving to either side as well as in and out, up and down or whatever to alter the distribution and dominance of the elements.
I took "moving to either side as well as [etc.]" to be part of what Maisal meant by "cropping." I'd use the term "framing" myself, though.
-Dave-
-
I took "moving to either side as well as [etc.]" to be part of what Maisal meant by "cropping." I'd use the term "framing" myself, though.
-Dave-
I had assumed, as did you, that to be obvious. But being obvious doesn't always mean it's obvious to everyone... that's why there are artists and non-artists, great visionaries and those living in a state of permanent anger at life's dealing of the cards. Then there are those constantly on the hunt for controversy, for argument; it's a wonderful, surpising world. If it really is a world: might actually be a massive kaleidoscope.
;-)
Rob
-
I took "moving to either side as well as [etc.]" to be part of what Maisal meant by "cropping." I'd use the term "framing" myself, though.
-Dave-
As I said, a list of cliches and in the segment I referred to he was talking purely about cropping..
Still, it's handy that LuLa is here or I would never have come across a video informing me of either such considerations when taking a photo.
-
I had assumed, as did you, that to be obvious. But being obvious doesn't always mean it's obvious to everyone... that's why there are artists and non-artists, great visionaries and those living in a state of permanent anger at life's dealing of the cards. Then there are those constantly on the hunt for controversy, for argument; it's a wonderful, surpising world. If it really is a world: might actually be a massive kaleidoscope.
;-)
Rob
Terrible terrible people altogether Rob and they obviously have not the faintest notion of the incredible skill required or the desperate deprivations suffered when taking pictures of lassies with their titties hanging out on Mediterranean beaches which, as the who world knows, is the ultimate test for any photographer.
Oh well, such deplorables will be with us always I guess.