Recent Works

[jjj]

So much of what's published and posted all looks the same.  People are lighting the same way, using the same modifiers and strobe systems, the same digital cameras and lenses.  The result is a beautiful sameness.  I'm trying to get away from all that by working on images that are less produced. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199559\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is the problem with t'interweb. Knowledge is diseminated immediately and suddenly the entire world is watching and copying. Before it was a handful of photographers, whose work was published in magazines that were usually only read in the country of origin that anybody ever saw and learnt about. It used to be the case that a photographer developed styles/techniques and they could last him usefully for years. Add 150yrs of photography to the the huge no. of people who now have cameras and being different or original is next to impossible.
But take HDR, Planets or Dave Hill images, everyone sees them, everyone wants to know how it was done and then tells everyone else. And suddenly something new and refreshing is tired and hackneyed within 6 months. Also images I shot years before and processed in a different way yet look similar, will now be assumed to be copies of someone else's work.

[marc gerritsen]

This is the problem with t'interweb. Knowledge is diseminated immediately and suddenly the entire world is watching and copying. Before it was a handful of photographers, whose work was published in magazines that were usually only read in the country of origin that anybody ever saw and learnt about. It used to be the case that a photographer developed styles/techniques and they could last him usefully for years. Add 150yrs of photography to the the huge no. of people who now have cameras and being different or original is next to impossible.
But take HDR, Planets or Dave Hill images, everyone sees them, everyone wants to know how it was done and then tells everyone else. And suddenly something new and refreshing is tired and hackneyed within 6 months. Also images I shot years before and processed in a different way yet look similar, will now be assumed to be copies of someone else's work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199612\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can totally understand this feeling expressed in the last few posts.
As a predominatly interior/architectural photographer i yearn to shoot content with more emotion
something that is inherently very difficult to do with interiors or architecture.
So in my little spare time I am playing with different set ups and lighting and mostly feel
like I have not enough time to catch up with what is happening on a photographic level around me or around the world let alone getting ahead. The prospect of developing a certain style to be copied by thousands is also not something to look forward to, if this is even possible with so little spare time. So often i feel like I sit on the seesaw between having to be content with what I have achieved in relatively little time (photography being a second career) and wanting more from this
profession.
Basically I wanted to respond to these last few posts as the tone is somewhat more real,
that behind all our fantastic photographic facades there are certainly the trials and tribulations
and it not always what is seems to be.
thanks
Marc

[Snook]

Apologies for posting a couple of DSLR pics in an MF thread but I thought our lighting
approach is somewhat similar apart from the fact that my 'set' is only about 6 inches wide !

Same shadows and top highlights,though
To add mediun format relevant content I have tried this series (I'm up to about 70 Quebec
species so far) using an H3939 and 120 macro but the magnification (anywhere from
1/2 to twice lifesize) and aperture requirements (f16-f19 on full frame 35mm format)
make it impractical.  As it is I can just hold enough focus at f16 but with a 645 chip
even @ f16 image sharpness degrades seemingly worse than 35mm.

As I'm eventually looking to go with large prints, any suggestions as to how to make this
work with a MFDB would be appreciated but I fear optical laws make it an improbability.

To complicate matters,every subject is living (although some are refrigerated to slow
them down a bit) and all are released.  All survived excdpt for a couple of mosquitos!
[attachment=6896:attachment][attachment=6898:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dude Nice Lighting as well.. what was it? Looks nice and hard the shadows..:+}
Snook
Snook

[haefnerphoto]

Apologies for posting a couple of DSLR pics in an MF thread but I thought our lighting
approach is somewhat similar apart from the fact that my 'set' is only about 6 inches wide !

Same shadows and top highlights,though
To add mediun format relevant content I have tried this series (I'm up to about 70 Quebec
species so far) using an H3939 and 120 macro but the magnification (anywhere from
1/2 to twice lifesize) and aperture requirements (f16-f19 on full frame 35mm format)
make it impractical.  As it is I can just hold enough focus at f16 but with a 645 chip
even @ f16 image sharpness degrades seemingly worse than 35mm.

As I'm eventually looking to go with large prints, any suggestions as to how to make this
work with a MFDB would be appreciated but I fear optical laws make it an improbability.

To complicate matters,every subject is living (although some are refrigerated to slow
them down a bit) and all are released.  All survived excdpt for a couple of mosquitos!
[attachment=6896:attachment][attachment=6898:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I love the insect shots and think medium format would be worth testing further.  My subject matter is far larger so I don't run into macro-depth of field problems.  Perhaps shooting a slightly smaller image would help provide the necessary dof and still allow for a larger file than a Mk3 (or similar equipment).  The difference between the chips in terms of image quality is significant (I think).  Good luck!!  Send along the results.  Jim

[snickgrr]

Apologies for posting a couple of DSLR pics in an MF thread but I thought our lighting
approach is somewhat similar apart from the fact that my 'set' is only about 6 inches wide !


[attachment=6896:attachment][attachment=6898:attachment]
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Have you looked at Helicon Focus or other programs that allow you to assemble "focus slices" into one image?

[a href=\"http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html]http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html[/url]

[thsinar]

Like Jim, I think that a smaller reproduction scale would may be help to achieve the needed DoF. But as you say it, there are optical limits concerning DoF. However, I believe it possible in this case (depending on the size/depth of the insects). And as Jim, I think that would allow a larger output and even better IQ.

However, those shots are already outstanding, Mark!

Thierry

Perhaps shooting a slightly smaller image would help provide the necessary dof and still allow for a larger file than a Mk3 (or similar equipment).  The difference between the chips in terms of image quality is significant (I think).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199645\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[mtomalty]

Dude Nice Lighting as well.. what was it? Looks nice and hard the shadows..:+}

I've got about $50K tied up in assorted Broncolor packs,heads,accessories,etc but
believe it or not I've shot this series with a pathetically small prosumer Nikon SB-30
flash placed generally around 18 inches away from the subject and hooked up 'manually'
to the 1Ds2 (now 1Ds3) using a Nikon off camera cable that hooks into the hotshoe.

The tiny flashtube in this flash helps create the crisp,dark shadow.
The shadow is further 'burnt in' in post

Mark

[mtomalty]

Have you looked at Helicon Focus or other programs that allow you to assemble "focus slices" into one image?

I considered it but didn't test it.
Since the insects are alive and my window of opportunity is usually very short I suspect
I would have difficulty having the insects stay put while I bracketted the focus.
Some certainly would sit still for the 5-10 seconds needed to get two or three frames
off in the same position.

I'll give it a fresh look. Thanks for the reminder


Mark

[mtomalty]

Perhaps shooting a slightly smaller image would help provide the necessary dof and still allow for a larger file than a Mk3 (or similar equipment). 

As you and Thierry have suggested,it certainly is worth taking another look at a MFDB.
If I can sort out the focus/depth challenge the resulting files would be  stunning in their
detail.

Mark

[Graham Mitchell]

Today the centre of Tallinn was invaded by a Finnish 'old timer' truck club. Some lovely examples of trucks, but too crowded to take any decent pics. Some of the drivers were characters too:



40mm @f5.6, ISO 50

[GregShapps]

Have you looked at Helicon Focus or other programs that allow you to assemble "focus slices" into one image?

http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use this program - it needs a number of focus tweaked images to really work properly - its in a way very similar to whats needed for the HDR programs - but with insects I am not sure how your going to keep them still long enough to get very many.   The same can just be achieved in layering masking the focused files.   I should add the the program is very slow to work and its not always a successful final image that it produces - but it gets close.

Have you tried putting them in the freezer for a min first - its how you keep spiders on set where you want them until they come back to room temp.

[photo570]

I have been doing a similar (subject matter wise) thing with my local museum, working with their entomology collection, I shoot on a Fuji GX680III, with a Leaf back. I have found the lenses to be the key, I don't know if they are technically diffraction free, but I am quite happy to use them down to the f32/45 range with no noticeable loss of sharpness.

Cheers,
Jason.[attachment=6906:attachment]

[James R Russell]

Top Leica M8

Bottom 1ds2

[attachment=6909:attachment]

JR

[mtomalty]

Hi Jason

Thanks for chiming in on this topic.

Are you able to get anywhere down to the range of 1/2 to 2.0X lifesize with the Fuji system?

Mark

[uaiomex]

James:
MF 3D quality in the 1Ds pic. Which lens?

Thx
Eduardo

Top Leica M8

Bottom 1ds2

[attachment=6909:attachment]

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[TMARK]

Top Leica M8

Bottom 1ds2

[attachment=6909:attachment]

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nice job matching the colors from the two cams. Did you do the pre-press?

And yes, the 1ds2 was a brilliant camera.  I sometimes miss my 1ds2.  The files are thicker than the 5d files, and there is a tad more headroom.  

May I ask the final destination for these images?  How will they be printed?  Just trying gauge how well the M8 reproduces for, say, a double truck.  I always found that for full length, the 1ds2 was a little light for a double truck on a web press.

[Ray]

To complicate matters,every subject is living (although some are refrigerated to slow
them down a bit) and all are released.  All survived excdpt for a couple of mosquitos!
[attachment=6896:attachment][attachment=6898:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

These images are impressive. I guess this is the professional approach. If you want to photograph something, do it properly. Get your lighting right. A highlight in the eye is essential and an interesting shadow under the grasshopper is something you'd probably never expect to get in a natural surrounding.

The grasshopper has been turned into a fashionable item like a lady's shoe or the normal female model.

One effect that struck me, after the intitial impression of 'how wonderful', was the fact that these insects could actually have been literal models, made of plastic; inanimate constructions. There's really no way of knowing.

I'm reminded of engineering principles when I vew these photos (although I'm not an engineer).

[James R Russell]

Nice job matching the colors from the two cams. Did you do the pre-press?

And yes, the 1ds2 was a brilliant camera.  I sometimes miss my 1ds2.  The files are thicker than the 5d files, and there is a tad more headroom. 

May I ask the final destination for these images?  How will they be printed?  Just trying gauge how well the M8 reproduces for, say, a double truck.  I always found that for full length, the 1ds2 was a little light for a double truck on a web press.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess I have a different thought about what reproduces large.

These images are destined to print large from double truck, full page and even poster size.

Obviously the M-8 and the 1ds2 won't have the detail of a 31mpx camera, as long as everything is sharp, in focus and exposed properly, though honestly since the first 1ds I've never had a client question or even mention the detail of the files.

Still, it's more important to get the shot than to have 35% more detail and though I could and normally would have shot most of this medium format, the time was limited, I had a lot of setups per day, in difficult conditions  and I didn't want to run tethered just so I could see a decent preview, so I shot with those two cameras.

Also riding on the hood of a jeep at 25mph does not make for a great place to try to tether a computer.

For the M-8 I used a 28mm lens, for the 1ds2 image it was an 85 1.2 propably set around 1.8.

JR

[jjj]

I have similar thoughts to James about what reproduces large.
Quite often if you look at big images closely, the quality is really not up to pixel peeping, but as they are meant to be seen at a distance it really doesn't matter. In fact a double page spread in a magazine is likely to a greater angle of view than most large display prints, so that's where it needs to be good. Besides, grain/texture of big prints can look great.

[photo570]

Yes, the max I have done so far is about 1.1:1 so that is bang in the middle of that range, I am using the 80mm extension rails.

Hi Jason

Thanks for chiming in on this topic.

Are you able to get anywhere down to the range of 1/2 to 2.0X lifesize with the Fuji system?

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199804\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]