Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13   Go Down

Author Topic: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!  (Read 62445 times)

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #180 on: January 25, 2016, 03:08:17 pm »

While it may be a surprise to many, but Luminous Landscape is first and foremost about landscape photography

But then, bye-bye, landscape photography, dear. Thank you for the link about Jan Töve.
Logged

ynp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 339
    • http://
What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #181 on: January 25, 2016, 03:21:00 pm »

Sorry if what I want to say will be abrasive. It won't be intentional, just a reflection of my English language skills.
The LuLa fora is a place first and foremost about landscape photography. When a lot of people who were interested in the HiEnd cameras and Digital Backs migrated here from the late RG forums, Michael was very kind to let them congregate here and supported them in exile. I still remember the times when the Medium Format forum was the place to discuss all genres and all Hi End equipment. It was a place to learn and see different views, to see some the work of the pros. For me, as an amateur and gallery owner, it was very enlightening.

What changed I do not know. I suspect that many people lost their enthusiasm and interest in the Medium Format Digital after the financial crisis hit a lot of businesses and the business of professional photography changed with the introduction of newer generation of cameras from the mainstream manufacturers. The MFD became unnecessary for a lot of pros. The market moved to the the next big thing, the flat tilt and shift cameras for landscape photography. But it is only a niche. There only a few people left who still use their view cameras, with digital backs. The pros migrated to their new Canons and Nikons, and now their Sony's. There is no real interest in the discussion of the nuances of the CCD or CMOS interpretation in the price driven market from the pros, as I see that. They are moving to the smaller and universal systems.  If before the MFD users were pioneers, now they are mostly amateurs , and  I am among them. Pioneers were willing to share. They used their T/S lenses on  people shoots, they were interested in the exotic solutions to the deliver their vision to the customer. They were talking, and I was listening, about art and workflow, about visual interpretation and techniques.
Now we are discussing pixels and ISO.

Sorry for the rant.

Yevgeny
Moscow, Russia


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: January 25, 2016, 03:25:39 pm by ynp »
Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #182 on: January 25, 2016, 03:48:54 pm »

It is not a rent, Yevgeny. It is a quite accurate description of the situation. Thank you.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #183 on: January 25, 2016, 04:03:40 pm »

But then, bye-bye, landscape photography, dear.

Interesting article with some strong opinions.

I fully agree with the author that most landscape photography is not very strong when it comes to being great art, but I also note that it's the genre of the enthusiasts with a wide range of ambition levels, skill and talent. Many just do it as an excuse to be out in nature, and indeed that's how I started. I've tried most popular techniques and style before starting to find my own.

Looking at motivations of the common landscape photographer I don't find it surprising that the images look like they do. We're in the digital era now too, we've only had say 12-15 years of that and the democratization and the sheer volume of images is probably a bit like a shock to those that were in the game in the analog days. Although it's probably become a lot harder to make a living as a (landscape) photographer I don't really see the trend as negative. It's a fantastic way to spend time with nature and I'm glad more people get to do it.

If one wants to make new art, traditional landscape is probably not the wisest choice of genre, but so what? Some of us just like it, and have personalities wired to do this type of thing. I wouldn't be comfortable in a set directing and shooting models. I'm a private introvert with a mess in my head, I need to get out now and then to not implode (or explode, I'm not really sure which and I don't want to find out).

Can you make new good art with traditional landscape as base? Yes, I think so and some are doing it, it's just not so easy to find. I wouldn't disqualify the whole genre though because the majority of the work produced is superficial.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #184 on: January 25, 2016, 04:07:03 pm »

Could someone inform us "newcomers" what "RG forum" is/was?

If this forum was inhabited by and intended for professional studio and fashion photographers rather than landscape photographers at all levels I can understand the disappointment...

I did remember the nice T/S portraits by Fred Greissing by the way, made using a Fuji 680, but I think he was kicked from the forum because he liked the D800 too much when it came (and Phase One too little) :)
« Last Edit: January 25, 2016, 04:12:55 pm by torger »
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3980
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #185 on: January 25, 2016, 04:25:37 pm »

Could someone inform us "newcomers" what "RG forum" is/was?

If this forum was inhabited by and intended for professional studio and fashion photographers rather than landscape photographers at all levels I can understand the disappointment...

I did remember the nice T/S portraits by Fred Greissing by the way, made using a Fuji 680, but I think he was kicked from the forum because he liked the D800 too much when it came (and Phase One too little) :)

The Rob Galbraith forum.

I was one of those fore mentioned forced marcher. However I see nothing really wrong with the setup of this forum.

Paul C
« Last Edit: January 25, 2016, 04:44:08 pm by Paul2660 »
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8848
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #186 on: January 25, 2016, 04:27:28 pm »

Could someone inform us "newcomers" what "RG forum" is/was?

I assume it refers to Rob Galbraith's forum .

Quote
If this forum was inhabited by and intended for professional studio and fashion photographers rather than landscape photographers at all levels I can understand the disappointment...

The focus was on Sports photography, if I recall correctly.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3980
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #187 on: January 25, 2016, 04:47:29 pm »

I assume it refers to Rob Galbraith's forum .

The focus was on Sports photography, if I recall correctly.

Cheers,
Bart

Rob was and I guess still was mainly a sports shooter himself and quite good. But the forum was setup very similar to this one i.e. all topics. Less on MF IMO.

Rob sold off the forums at least the original ones. I can no longer remember the guy who purchased them but they did not take off. I believe they are still out there under the new name but I have not looked in years.

Paul C
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #188 on: January 25, 2016, 05:13:17 pm »

Hi,

No issues with language skills, thanks for posting.

Best regards
Erik

Sorry if what I want to say will be abrasive. It won't be intentional, just a reflection of my English language skills.
The LuLa fora is a place first and foremost about landscape photography. When a lot of people who were interested in the HiEnd cameras and Digital Backs migrated here from the late RG forums, Michael was very kind to let them congregate here and supported them in exile. I still remember the times when the Medium Format forum was the place to discuss all genres and all Hi End equipment. It was a place to learn and see different views, to see some the work of the pros. For me, as an amateur and gallery owner, it was very enlightening.

What changed I do not know. I suspect that many people lost their enthusiasm and interest in the Medium Format Digital after the financial crisis hit a lot of businesses and the business of professional photography changed with the introduction of newer generation of cameras from the mainstream manufacturers. The MFD became unnecessary for a lot of pros. The market moved to the the next big thing, the flat tilt and shift cameras for landscape photography. But it is only a niche. There only a few people left who still use their view cameras, with digital backs. The pros migrated to their new Canons and Nikons, and now their Sony's. There is no real interest in the discussion of the nuances of the CCD or CMOS interpretation in the price driven market from the pros, as I see that. They are moving to the smaller and universal systems.  If before the MFD users were pioneers, now they are mostly amateurs , and  I am among them. Pioneers were willing to share. They used their T/S lenses on  people shoots, they were interested in the exotic solutions to the deliver their vision to the customer. They were talking, and I was listening, about art and workflow, about visual interpretation and techniques.
Now we are discussing pixels and ISO.

Sorry for the rant.

Yevgeny
Moscow, Russia


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #189 on: January 25, 2016, 05:39:10 pm »

J,

 When I take pictures these days, I can mostly get the look I want - within reason. But how to choose it? Maybe you could walk us through ONE of these pictures, explain in detail  the mood and emotion you were looking to establish, thus  the steps to makeup, hair, light, pose  directions on set? I simply cannot relate to these images, as presented - they are nice images, but do not project any really identifiable emotion to me, they are too far out of my world for me to sense what should probably be obvious. I guess I feel the same when I look at a medieval painting in a church and cannot read the "code" which should be telling me which saint I'm looking at and which crucial moment  of his life is being presented, a fact which should be obvious to me from the shapes of the hats in the crowd or the cutlery on the table.

Edmund

I have a hard time believing that photographers don't want to see or talk about photography.

One thing I love about the cinema industry and director's of photography is they share, maybe not every secret but they really go deep and explain their motivation, issues, technique (artistic technique) and well about anything.

Maybe because it's more collaborative than still photography, but honestly I just think they love the medium and are proud of their results.

With all of it's ups and downs, even in the RG days, the medium format section normally drew most of the responses from photographers of all levels, though mostly at the sharp end of the stick.

Yea, they talked some "science tech", but mostly about the final image, what they needed, what worked for different clients or concepts. 

Most those photographers are gone from here, all for different reasons, though I assume because most of the topics regardless of the title have the same posters saying the same thing

_________________

Now explaining who you shoot for and why is kind of hard.   Most paying clients don't have a problem with what you show, but are careful about what you say, because they have a brand to protect.

But in the spirit of sharing, the image I posted of the two actors was for a co-op ad that ran on the inside cover of CA magazine for At-Edge and our studio.

Usually when this type of opportunity comes up we pull from our archives, talk about it with the At-Edge group and collaboratively we make a decision.



It works  but the last one we were offered I wanted to involve them like I would a client.   I really like the people at At-Edge and consider them friends.  We've had great dialog through the years and it's always positive.

So this time we approached it like a commercial project, did concepts, built a url with a base storyboard, talent casting, wardrobe, locations, etc. and then planned and shot it.

We shot at a Hollywood hotel and paid the full location fee with insurance certificates, permits, full releases.

The concept was a stylized "what goes on in a rock and roll life".   Obviously I can't show everything, who can and we can only go so far.   

We could have taken it further, like smashing a window, or a TV but that costs more money and some of it would have been too much for family play.

We always talk team and I have a good team I draw from, but this time, the crew was small.

My partner and producer/stylist Ann Rutherford, Makeup/Hair, two very young assistants and me.

I have my vision, but I'm only as good as what's in front of the lens and that's where Ann becomes the creative drive.   

I guess you could call her a stylist, but that's a broad term, or head of the Art Department, but that's a movie term and usually covers a lot of territory.

What Ann does is she gets it and I'm just amazed that the wardrobe keeps coming, same with props, same with ideas.   

Ann and I both are so use to shooting many setups a day, even on this where we could have shot just one or two, I think we did about 10 set ups including footage.

The assistants were pulled at the last moment and though I've worked with them before as 3rd and 4th assistants and they work a lot, they never have been on a project where they has seen or touched the equipment we used.

It doesn't always matter as long as we get the result.  I don't second guess anything.

When we go into any project, studio, commercial, personal, we have huge expectations with a cold dose of reality. 

 I think I probably shot about 10 yo 15  frames a set up because we know we have it.  Had it been pure commercial project we would have shoot 500 to 1,000 frames.

The beauty of working with everyone at et-edge is they trust us, so they don't care about seeing 10,000 frames they care about 1 that's up to their expectations, which are also very high.

So this was the final selects prior to retouch.



And here is the first cut of a small movie to go with a presentation.   (This is an early cut).

http://www.russellrutherford.com/rockers_48sec_final_web.mov

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: January 25, 2016, 06:30:05 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1008
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #190 on: January 25, 2016, 08:41:47 pm »

Sorry if what I want to say will be abrasive. It won't be intentional, just a reflection of my English language skills.
The LuLa fora is a place first and foremost about landscape photography. When a lot of people who were interested in the HiEnd cameras and Digital Backs migrated here from the late RG forums, Michael was very kind to let them congregate here and supported them in exile. I still remember the times when the Medium Format forum was the place to discuss all genres and all Hi End equipment. It was a place to learn and see different views, to see some the work of the pros. For me, as an amateur and gallery owner, it was very enlightening.

What changed I do not know. I suspect that many people lost their enthusiasm and interest in the Medium Format Digital after the financial crisis hit a lot of businesses and the business of professional photography changed with the introduction of newer generation of cameras from the mainstream manufacturers. The MFD became unnecessary for a lot of pros. The market moved to the the next big thing, the flat tilt and shift cameras for landscape photography. But it is only a niche. There only a few people left who still use their view cameras, with digital backs. The pros migrated to their new Canons and Nikons, and now their Sony's. There is no real interest in the discussion of the nuances of the CCD or CMOS interpretation in the price driven market from the pros, as I see that. They are moving to the smaller and universal systems.  If before the MFD users were pioneers, now they are mostly amateurs , and  I am among them. Pioneers were willing to share. They used their T/S lenses on  people shoots, they were interested in the exotic solutions to the deliver their vision to the customer. They were talking, and I was listening, about art and workflow, about visual interpretation and techniques.
Now we are discussing pixels and ISO.

Sorry for the rant.

Yevgeny
Moscow, Russia


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

+1.  Thanks Yevgeny, pretty accurately said in my opinion.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #191 on: January 26, 2016, 02:19:11 am »

When I take pictures these days, I can mostly get the look I want - within reason. But how to choose it? Maybe you could walk us through ONE of these pictures, explain in detail  the mood and emotion you were looking to establish, thus  the steps to makeup, hair, light, pose  directions on set? I simply cannot relate to these images, as presented - they are nice images, but do not project any really identifiable emotion to me, they are too far out of my world for me to sense what should probably be obvious. I guess I feel the same when I look at a medieval painting in a church and cannot read the "code" which should be telling me which saint I'm looking at and which crucial moment  of his life is being presented, a fact which should be obvious to me from the shapes of the hats in the crowd or the cutlery on the table.

I'm sure BC can give a good reply, I just want to give a general comment on this;

I think most photographers really can't talk about the artistic ideas behind their work and that's one reason we don't see lots of threads with people posting their images together with art analysis. Most shoot on intuition alone and don't intellectualize their work. Sometimes they talk about it anyway, and then you hear... platitudes.

In landscape when you ask people why they shoot Yosemite tunnel view or some other famous location you get things like "I want to show the beauty of this location so the audience becomes aware of its fragility and the need to protect it for future generations", and that's like the concept of 99% of the landscape photographers out there, even the famous ones.

I don't think the quality in your art necessarily has anything to do with your skill to talk like a gallerist though. Likewise I don't think the beauty of a single image says anything about the originality of your artistic concept, it takes a body of work.

There's also the aspect that commercial photography is, well, commercial. It's not the ideal context if you want to make an own personal expression. There are interesting crossovers though between commercial and art. Here's two:
http://www.belaborsodi.com/
http://lernertandsander.com/
« Last Edit: January 26, 2016, 02:29:30 am by torger »
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #192 on: January 26, 2016, 06:19:58 am »

It's often the case that the walk is at odds with the talk.

As an artist - and that's a job description rather than any kind of judgement - I can see the sense in letting the walking do the talking. But I'd be the first to admit that this view is perhaps at odds with the gallerists of today.

I'm sensing that you're saying something wise, but my non-native English is not so good at decoding it. With some help of a dictionary I think you say that the it's often the case that the talk provided either by a gallerist or the artist self is not matching what the images actually show. And that it may be wiser to simply not provide any words with them and let the images speak for themselves. And maybe that today's gallerists have a tendency to talk too much.

As a layman there's always this luring thought that maybe the talk is there just to make the work seem greater and more original than it is, that it's more about selling than providing an honest context. I think I've developed some ability to see past that, although some art analysis texts are still just amazingly confusing to me.

There's this famous Ansel Adams quote "there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept", and I do believe that it can be an advantage to sit down and think, and even analyze your own work as if you were a gallerist just to get some shape and form of what you're doing. It's probably not for everyone, but it has helped me understand better why I shoot that and not that and helped me focus. But I also think that a concept should be fuzzy to some extent, art speaks through emotions and the response will differ person to person depending on which experience the individual brings. A too sharp concept narrows down possible interpretations and I don't think art gains from that.

There's infinite ways to make art though, and you can see landscape photography just as making a vase, the purpose is to make beautiful object shaped in a personal style, but there's no intention to have any sort of thought-provoking message embedded. I see no wrongs in that although I personally find that approach a bit less interesting especially these days due to the sheer volume of images produced.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #193 on: January 26, 2016, 07:35:06 am »

I prefer my artists to be esoteric, rather than exoteric.

Short and concise :)

As I see it the danger of intellectualizing is that you can slide towards becoming exoteric. But I also see among those that never really think about their work may end up in shallowness, lack of vision. It's a balance, and the recipe differs between individuals. Personally, if I only went for intuition I would feel like an impostor -- being that guy with the fuzzy concept -- it would break my artistic integrity and I'm sure my focus would suffer. My main ingredient is and always will be intuition though. I make a certain composition because it feels right, it's magnetic. Thus I find it quite hard to speak about a specific image why I have made certain decisions, and if I try anyway I can't be sure if it's just retrospective fantasies; at the scene I don't think very much, I just try to listen to my intuition -- which can be a faint voice -- and act on that.

I would be a lousy teacher; "shoot a lot and do what feels right and you'll be fine" :)
Logged

MichaelEzra

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1115
    • https://www.michaelezra.com
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #194 on: January 26, 2016, 12:07:36 pm »

I agree that shooting on intuition is the right way to go, and also find that  feeding and growing one's intuition through contemplation on own and other's work is vital:)
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13641
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #195 on: January 26, 2016, 06:16:39 pm »

As I see it the danger of intellectualizing is that you can slide towards becoming exoteric. But I also see among those that never really think about their work may end up in shallowness, lack of vision. It's a balance, and the recipe differs between individuals. Personally, if I only went for intuition I would feel like an impostor -- being that guy with the fuzzy concept -- it would break my artistic integrity and I'm sure my focus would suffer. My main ingredient is and always will be intuition though. I make a certain composition because it feels right, it's magnetic. Thus I find it quite hard to speak about a specific image why I have made certain decisions, and if I try anyway I can't be sure if it's just retrospective fantasies; at the scene I don't think very much, I just try to listen to my intuition -- which can be a faint voice -- and act on that.

Indeed, I cannot think of creation without permanent doubt, trials, failures and on-going self challenging.

We often look at the body of work of artists we like, often after their death, and somehow tend to assume an under lying confidence and self assurness but the reality is that major artists were riddled with doubt about their work, ever questioning the relevance of their choices, deeply hurt by negative criticism and profoundly human throughout the whole process.

Intuition is key but I don't think it can be the only fuel feeding the improvement of someone across the years as a body of work is being produced, if it isn't about intellectualisation, it must be about introspection of some sort.

Cheers,
Bernard

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #196 on: January 26, 2016, 06:54:53 pm »

I think maybe I haven't communicated properly.  I don't dislike the science I just dislike that the science dominates the conversation of photography.

As good as cameras are, as smart as the people that make them might be, there is no reason to make a camera unless there is content to produce.

IMO

BC

err, yes. but i would still be interested in your response to my last post ...which by the way was not about cameras but about intent and realisation.

Edmund
« Last Edit: January 26, 2016, 08:31:36 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

dchew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1019
    • Dave Chew Photography
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #197 on: January 26, 2016, 08:13:54 pm »

Wow, do you guys see what happened here? A thread about the difference between CCD and CMOS migrated to a discussion about artists and art!
 :)

Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #198 on: January 26, 2016, 09:00:02 pm »

...

Wow, do you guys see what happened here? A thread about the difference between CCD and CMOS migrated to a discussion about artists and art!
 :)
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!
« Reply #199 on: January 26, 2016, 09:33:22 pm »

Hehe. Whether I like it or not, that's certainly a reply :)

let me think about it a bit. certainly the one about the cart and "over the top", and Hollywood,  that brings the setup into focus.
The one with the gloves, sounds like it was the talent who had the idea so I should be asking her :)

Edmund

I had lunch today with my ex-boss, an editor-in-chief who employed me as a journo for 4 years back before I went back to school to do my PhD, and before the web starved print media. He is a respected media consultant now.  Sometimes he explains some arty stuff to me, sometimes I tell him about how geeks see a piece of tech. So I showed him some fiction I wrote last week, noted that as far as I could see these 500 word short shorts were worth about $20 on the open market, asked him -he paid me well for years as a tech writer- whether I had any chance of selling this new half-good stuff I'm playing with.

And he came back with the strangest fastest reply: "WHY WOULD ANYONE PAY FOR CONTENT IF IT IS NOT BY SOMEONE FAMOUS" ? Now, this guy, I respect him for his phenomenal intuition, and he wasn't making fun of me, he had just realized how much the world of written content has changed ...


Edmund

Ok Edmund and take this is a good way, but I don't shoot for photographers, or bloggists, or writers.

I shoot for me, the client, the AD, my partner, the talent . . . most of all the intended viewer, but never thinking I wonder if another photographer will like this.

Anyway

I don't know how other photographers work.

Some walk the streets, see and shoot.   I'm usually not that way because I need purpose.

Some seem to have one locked in look and idea and never deviate, but to me that just puts the the idea into a box that nobody dare climb out of.

Every project is different.  When it's editorial or personal work, we conceive and direct, but regardless of the storyboards (still or motion) the storyboards is just a backstay.

It gives you a base, but I try never to be locked into it, sometimes toss them.  After all I shoot people, they are all different, they all move perform, act different.   I have an idea going in but I don't shoot chairs or rooms or ketchup bottles.

I give my ideas, listen to the talent and then work, looking for that happy accident.   I listen to my partner, the on set artists, the on set talent., but basically once the camera rolls it's between me and the talent.

You know things go well when there is not a lot of on set dialog and directing.   I've always felt that when a photographer, dp or director talks to much, directs too heavily, then something was wrong in the talent selection, or idea.

Anyway,

going clockwise



The girl with the hair and yellow gloves was editorial, shot a day after a particular grueling and pretty much lifeless commercial shoot.

After you do one of those gigs that the client is rigid and your just kind of like a copy machine with lights you have this feeling you have to do something for your own soul, so we called a magazine, late at night I did mood boards and we brought in some talent, booked the studio for another day/night and shot.

This shot was just because the talent walked out that way no clothes, only gloves, great hair and I guess the happy accident.

The next two shots of the talent on the sony lot and in front of the car was a series titled the day of a hollywood star.  Or something like that.  She is a model actress, very good, but I don't think she ever understood what we were trying to do, which was a still shoot with a cinematic story.

She kept saying "why am I doing this and I'd explain then she'd go, but why this?, so I just said your working on a car, or being transported across the lot.  Don't worry about it.

Strange cause she probably was just having a run at me, because she hit every pose, every setup worked (at least it did to me).

But then again I have a good core crew on this and they expect nothing less than good, we all hope for great.

When the talent is great, the crew is great I always feel I have to prove myself to them.

I designed, lit and imaged the shots not to get in the way of the scene.  In other words, augmented reality, which is pretty easy in LA cause everything is augmented and over the top in LA.

The last frame was a still from a cut frame spec commercial for a brand I can't say.  I went out to scout the location with a still camera, believing I'd come back with the cinema cameras, but shot at 12 fps with the flicker and the in and out of focus that still cameras do and it worked, so we went back out on week later and finished the spot.  It's probably one of the few shots I never gave any direction on, or very little.  I just let it happen, shot 90% with a 200 F2 lens and well happy accident.

http://www.russellrutherford.com/magic

The rock couple was easy.   The whole thought behind is was what would Johnny Cash and June Carter be or act like if they were in their 20's today.

We picked a famous Hollywood hotel gave the talent a direction, a few drinks and let it rip.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: January 26, 2016, 10:22:27 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13   Go Up