You can't do That with medium format

[fredjeang]

Crewdson is a strange case. I respect him. Don't get me wrong when I talked about big stories. The imagery of Crewdson is extremely elaborate, he has IMO more of a painter soul. His influences are clear.
So Gregory uses small stories but they end in big stories. Exactly what I was pointing about the Russell's picture of the car.  
That's what I call real talent and what I consider photography is about.
I respect him as an artist fully accomplished.
Eugene Smith that Rob was talking about is indeed a monster. Very powerfull! But hey, simple subjects, how strong are his images he can extracts from very simple situations.
Can you do that? Honestly I can not.

[Ray]

In theory, they should be about the same.  In practice, the Canon is better engineered for this kind of scenario and so will produce a much better image is my guess...

It's my guess also, but we're now in the digital age. There should be no need for guessing. It's now so easy to do comparisons under any conditions one wishes to specify.

I recall that illuminating comarison between 35mm film and 4x5" film, produced many years ago by Lars Kjellberg of Photodo. Do you remember that?
As I recall, the films used were the B&W T-Max 100 for the 35mm camera and T-Max 400 for the 4x5 format in order to at least increase the shutter speed a bit, at equivalent DoF.

The object of the exercise was to see how 35mm compares with 4x5 at equal DoF, without resorting to the use of tilt lenses.

The 35mm camera was used with an exceptionally fine lens at F5.6 (might have been a Leica Summicron, from memory) and the lens of equivalent focal length on the 4x5 camera was set at F22, a difference of 4 f stops, which matches exactly the ratio of the differences in the height of the two film formats, in order to match the DoF characteristics.

The results were surprising. The 35mm shot was actually slightly sharper than the 4x5 image. However, the 4x5 image was less grainy. With today's noise reduction programs, I guess one could sacrifice the slight edge in sharpness of the 35mm shot to get a result very similar to the 4x5 shot. Except of course, the faster film of ISO 400 was not sufficient to enable use of the same shuter speed with the 4x5 format. To do that, one would have needed to push-process the T-Max 400 film to ISO 1600, resulting in a 4x5 image which I guess might then have been noticeably inferior to the 35mm shot.

So the simplest answer is: for any shots you take below f11, in theory those could be sharper with medium format digital (and yes, f11 is a lot sharper on medium format than on full frame, just as f11 is sharper on full-frame than on APS-C). But of course you would need WAY more light and better lenses.

Aren't all lenses equally bad at F22?

My own tests involving different formats (mainly cropped-format DSLRs and full frame DSLRs) is that F22 seems to be the F stop where the lens is fully diffraction limited. I noticed with my Canon 5D, which has bigger pixels (or at least bigger photosites) than the P65+, I could use F16 without any major concern about resolution loss. The resolution differences between F8 and F11, and between F11 and F16, were difficult to see even when pixel-peeping at 100%. However, the differences between F16 and F22 were quite obvious, F22 being quite noticeably softer.

I imagine that users of MFDBs would want to stay clear of F22 if sharp images are their goal, especially considering that lack of an AA filter. At F22, no camera needs an AA filter. It's no wonder that Michael used F11 when he compared a P45+ image with the P&S G10 at F3.5, at A3+ print size. To equalise DoF he probably should have used F22 with the P45+, but that might have risked the ludicrous situation of the G10 out-resolving the P65+. I say might because of course I'm guessing again.

I should also mention that I've compared the resolution of my 10mp Canon 40D with the 15mp 50D at various F stops, just to see what effect diffraction would have in limiting the potential resolution increase of the 50D.

Once again, F22 appeared to be the F stop at which no resolution benefit of the 50D was noticeable. At F16 the 50D delivered about the same resolution as the 40D at F11. The 50D also delivered about the same resolution at F11 as the 40D at F8. However, at F8 the 50D was slightly sharper than the 40D at F5.6, but that was probably due to the quality of the lens. I was using a standard Canon 50/1.4 which is probably only very slightly sharper at F5.6 than at F8, at least my copy is.

Medium format digital capture emulates the workflow of your RB67...it assumes you want to use low ISOs (like with film) because you'll be shooting landscapes or in studio with strobes (and always with a tripod). The dSLR is much more general purpose. The article is just trying to argue that medium format digital is a little more flexible than it seems, even if it's not designed to be very flexible.

Fair enough! MFDB gear can only come down in price if more people buy the equipment. Perhaps I should 'pull my punches' more.

But I still think, if one values flexibility in a camera system, James Martin's article could be misleading for some potential MFDB customers. Sometimes we want something badly, but perhaps we realise it's not quite pratical for our needs, but we rationalise to ourselves, and kid ourselves, that the disadvantages are not serious.

I sometimes can't help sympathising with Jeff Schewe carrying 35 LBs of P65+ camera gear and having to leave his 1Ds3 & lenses behind. I certainly would, in his circumstances. Even 35 LBs is too heavy for me.

The last time I was in Nepal, photographing the spectacular Himalayas, I carried two cameras, the Canon 20D and 5D, plus a Sigma 15-30 zoom, Canon 24-105 zoom, Canon  100-400 zoom and lightweight Manfrotto tripod. Total weight would have been about 15 LBs or 6 Kgs, for a continuous focal range of 15mm to 640mm.

That's what I call flexibility.

[Policar]

There's no argument re: flexibility.  dSLRs win.  Or, in some cases, point and shoots.

I've read the test you cited and your conclusions are pretty close to what the test finds.  But Tri-X is a really old, not terribly good film that still exists primarily because it's easy to develop.  Comparing TMAX and Tri-X isn't entirely fair.  Comparing TMAX 100 and TMAX 400 might be.  And if you're using a tripod, you might as well be using 100ISO film anyway.

All the same, it seems the resolution the 135 lens delivers is fairly similar to the resolution the 4x5 lens delivers.  This isn't way too surprising.  The rare 135 lens can output 200lp/mm; the rare Hasselblad or Mamiya 7 lens can do just over 100lp/mm, and the rare large format lens reaches 60lp/mm.  Which means each would deliver a similar amount of resolution, corrected for sensor size, were film grain and film mtf not limiting factors.

But you may also notice that f22 looked fine on large format.  Sure, there's as much diffraction as there would be on any other camera (in theory), but because of the massive size of film, it's basically cancelled out.  I've seen awesome 4x5 prints printed at 40''x50'' and taken at f45 (lots of 4s and 5s in that sentence).

Diffraction limits (not accounting for image stitching and the Scheimpflug principle) are constant over a given field of view and depth of field (assuming a common print size).  So an f22 lens looks as bad on medium format digital as it does on APS-C digital on a per-pixel level (assuming similar pixel pitch), but the medium format sensor is way bigger and so....it's still a much better image.

Just some numbers (not sure how accurate these are but they should be close): 

At f11, a 36mmx24mm sensor is limited to just under 20 megapixels, the same as a 5DII fully resolves.  Beyond that (f16, f22, etc.) you get real diffraction issues.

On a 45+ sized sensor, f22 limits you to just under 10 megapixels.

On a G10, f3.5 limits you to just over 8 megapixels, about what the camera likely actually resolves. 

At f64 (a commonly used stop), 4x5 film is also limited to about 8 megapixels.

This may explain why David Meunch (who shoots deep focus almost exclusively) moved from 4x5 to a Canon G10 point and shoot.  He doesn't need shallow focus or anything other than 100ISO.

But at f5.6 or so...the 80 megapixel medium format backs might actually be delivering 80 megapixels.  So for some:  it's totally worth it.

Use what you like.  If the article didn't resonate with you, don't go medium format.  It probably resonated completely with someone else, who's now happily lugging around all the extra gear.  The difference between a point and shoot and dSLR is as substantial as the difference between a dSLR and medium format system (in terms of weight, not necessarily pace).  Even dSLR shooters are sacrificing convenience for image quality.  It's all about how a particular photographer wants to work.  I'm not about to call large format photographers crazy, even when they shoot at f64.  I'm not about to call Meunch crazy for switching from 4x5 to a G10.  If it's the workflow you like and delivers good images, it's just a matter of taste.

[fredjeang]

That's what I call flexibility.

It all depends what you call flexibility. A MF back has a flexibility that lacks dsrl designs, you can use it on different supports like view/tech cameras.
Some Cambos weight less than a good dslr and are very versatiles on field.

Probably the worst design when it comes  to those MF cameras is the Leica S2 or Pentax choice because here you loose actually what really makes the MF versatile: the possibility to use the backs in different camera systems. But you have all the hassles in a dslr design package. To me it's not a good idea at all.

Keith Laban pointed a very short statement that I find resumes very well, saying something like "if I where trying to do the kind of work you do with MFD (that was fashion-advertising) I would have thrown the camera on the wall"
That point is cristal clear.

[eronald]

The new workflow with MF is interesting - I saw a shoot in Paris, and they had MF, a comp and an assistant on the comp and a camera on tripod set up in the middle of nowhere. I wonder if part of the success of digital MF isn't that to allows guys to offload stuff to an assistant without a bad conscience - camera is now locked on tripod, assistant is checking the focus, lighting, photographer is free to "direct" - walk around checking carefully until everything is ready, chat to AD and keep him happy, make sure model has what she needs to powder her nose, keep the team bullying in the background in check while the lensing is happening - all of which is hard to do if you photographer are stuck behind a viewfinder, choosing angles for the picture, checking the number of frames still on card, chimping your previous image etc.   

Edmund

It all depends what you call flexibility. A MF back has a flexibility that lacks dsrl designs, you can use it on different supports like view/tech cameras.
Some Cambos weight less than a good dslr and are very versatiles on field.

Probably the worst design when it comes  to those MF cameras is the Leica S2 or Pentax choice because here you loose actually what really makes the MF versatile: the possibility to use the backs in different camera systems. But you have all the hassles in a dslr design package. To me it's not a good idea at all.

Keith Laban pointed a very short statement that I find resumes very well, saying something like "if I where trying to do the kind of work you do with MFD (that was fashion-advertising) I would have thrown the camera on the wall"
That point is cristal clear.

[feppe]

The new workflow with MF is interesting - I saw a shoot in Paris, and they had MF, a comp and an assistant on the comp and a camera on tripod set up in the middle of nowhere. I wonder if part of the success of digital MF isn't that to allows guys to offload stuff to an assistant without a bad conscience - camera is now locked on tripod, assistant is checking the focus, lighting, photographer is free to "direct" - walk around checking carefully until everything is ready, chat to AD and keep him happy, make sure model has what she needs to powder her nose, keep the team bullying in the background in check while the lensing is happening - all of which is hard to do if you photographer are stuck behind a viewfinder, choosing angles for the picture, checking the number of frames still on card, chimping your previous image etc.   

How is that different from tethered shooting with a DSLR?

[eronald]

Keith

 Yes, and I agree with your comment.

 I have an addendum: Use a dSLR instead of MF and you will be a bit unhappy with yourself; use the wrong MF gear for some purpose, and you will be very unhappy with your gear.
 

Edmund

I just like to make clear that my comment which was as follows...

If I was trying to do the kind of work that you are trying to do with your current MFD platform I would have slammed it through a wall years ago.


...was specific to the platform/camera that Edmund was using. There are now MFD platforms/cameras that are more suited to the genre.

[Rob C]

The new workflow with MF is interesting - I saw a shoot in Paris, and they had MF, a comp and an assistant on the comp and a camera on tripod set up in the middle of nowhere. I wonder if part of the success of digital MF isn't that to allows guys to offload stuff to an assistant without a bad conscience - camera is now locked on tripod, assistant is checking the focus, lighting, photographer is free to "direct" - walk around checking carefully until everything is ready, chat to AD and keep him happy, make sure model has what she needs to powder her nose, keep the team bullying in the background in check while the lensing is happening - all of which is hard to do if you photographer are stuck behind a viewfinder, choosing angles for the picture, checking the number of frames still on card, chimping your previous image etc.   

Edmund

I read all this, Edmund, and I am forced to ask myself: how in hell is digital supposed to have been an advance?

Let’s be a little more precise: you mentioned models and so I assume you are talking about a shoot with movement, with flow. If you mean otherwise, then discount this post.

I did innumerable model shoots with 6x6 Hasselblad; it was never a problem keeping my work in control; I had the model(s) on my side, there was very seldom an art director present – his job was done when he gave me the job and only began again when I gave him the trannies or prints - and when there was an AD there, he tended to stay well out of the way and schmooze the client, who was also a rare personality on any shoot.

I built an effing career on that principle; I did well enough to pay my way and bring up my kids and retire. I seldom lost a client, and when I did, it was generally through something entirely non-photography related, something such as total hatred shared, very much mutually, between some people at first glance; the kind of disaster that can happen when somebody within a company is replaced by a new guy with his own well developed power structure that’s in a very different place to yours.

Now this was a huge benefit of film: there was no way you could have the situation where people sit and second guess the photographer in their me-me-me game around a monitor (or two, or three, or however big the nightmare becomes) and Polaroids, for me and most of those shooters I actually knew, was a non-event: we just didn’t need it or bother.

The nonsense is all built on a mutual platform of insecurity and fear. Nobody trusts anybody else in the chain – that’s far too long – and so photography turns into something it doesn’t really have to be: a complicated battle of wits; too many people involving themselves. It’s interesting to me to read, here and there, that quite a lot of architectural guys still preserve (and probably expect) both that respect and freedom; how easily the model shooter world capitulated; too much ‘glamour’ and too many desperate to feed off it, to get their fingers damp in the cake.

There are, always, exceptions: unless I got this wrong, Mario Testino is still allowed(!) and able to use his Pentax 67…

You want solutions? Reinvent closed studios, slim everything down.

Rob C

[eronald]

Rob,

 I really don't know. I think most shooters in product and fashion have capitulated, they are now seen a a technical extension of the AD, who imposes his (her) vision. Some existing guys made their name with vision, but it is my -maybe erroneous- impression that the newer ones are now recruited for being compliant.

 Purely technically, if the camera is tripod mounted, an assistant does the light, the AD selects the model and locale and the stylist(s) selects the hair and clothes, I don't know how much the "photographer" really brings into the equation apart from one-point billing, and pre-shoot and on-set management. There is a very nice film made about Vogue, "The September Issue" where one can see the AD set up a shoot at Versailles, and one can also see that the photographer has silence to say.

Edmund
Edmund

I read all this, Edmund, and I am forced to ask myself: how in hell is digital supposed to have been an advance?

Let’s be a little more precise: you mentioned models and so I assume you are talking about a shoot with movement, with flow. If you mean otherwise, then discount this post.

I did innumerable model shoots with 6x6 Hasselblad; it was never a problem keeping my work in control; I had the model(s) on my side, there was very seldom an art director present – his job was done when he gave me the job and only began again when I gave him the trannies or prints - and when there was an AD there, he tended to stay well out of the way and schmooze the client, who was also a rare personality on any shoot.

I built an effing career on that principle; I did well enough to pay my way and bring up my kids and retire. I seldom lost a client, and when I did, it was generally through something entirely non-photography related, something such as total hatred shared, very much mutually, between some people at first glance; the kind of disaster that can happen when somebody within a company is replaced by a new guy with his own well developed power structure that’s in a very different place to yours.

Now this was a huge benefit of film: there was no way you could have the situation where people sit and second guess the photographer in their me-me-me game around a monitor (or two, or three, or however big the nightmare becomes) and Polaroids, for me and most of those shooters I actually knew, was a non-event: we just didn’t need it or bother.

The nonsense is all built on a mutual platform of insecurity and fear. Nobody trusts anybody else in the chain – that’s far too long – and so photography turns into something it doesn’t really have to be: a complicated battle of wits; too many people involving themselves. It’s interesting to me to read, here and there, that quite a lot of architectural guys still preserve (and probably expect) both that respect and freedom; how easily the model shooter world capitulated; too much ‘glamour’ and too many desperate to feed off it, to get their fingers damp in the cake.

There are, always, exceptions: unless I got this wrong, Mario Testino is still allowed(!) and able to use his Pentax 67…

You want solutions? Reinvent closed studios, slim everything down.

Rob C

[ErikKaffehr]

Good comment, thank you very much!

BR Erik

There's no argument re: flexibility.  dSLRs win.  Or, in some cases, point and shoots.

I've read the test you cited and your conclusions are pretty close to what the test finds.  But Tri-X is a really old, not terribly good film that still exists primarily because it's easy to develop.  Comparing TMAX and Tri-X isn't entirely fair.  Comparing TMAX 100 and TMAX 400 might be.  And if you're using a tripod, you might as well be using 100ISO film anyway.

All the same, it seems the resolution the 135 lens delivers is fairly similar to the resolution the 4x5 lens delivers.  This isn't way too surprising.  The rare 135 lens can output 200lp/mm; the rare Hasselblad or Mamiya 7 lens can do just over 100lp/mm, and the rare large format lens reaches 60lp/mm.  Which means each would deliver a similar amount of resolution, corrected for sensor size, were film grain and film mtf not limiting factors.

But you may also notice that f22 looked fine on large format.  Sure, there's as much diffraction as there would be on any other camera (in theory), but because of the massive size of film, it's basically cancelled out.  I've seen awesome 4x5 prints printed at 40''x50'' and taken at f45 (lots of 4s and 5s in that sentence).

Diffraction limits (not accounting for image stitching and the Scheimpflug principle) are constant over a given field of view and depth of field (assuming a common print size).  So an f22 lens looks as bad on medium format digital as it does on APS-C digital on a per-pixel level (assuming similar pixel pitch), but the medium format sensor is way bigger and so....it's still a much better image.

Just some numbers (not sure how accurate these are but they should be close): 

At f11, a 36mmx24mm sensor is limited to just under 20 megapixels, the same as a 5DII fully resolves.  Beyond that (f16, f22, etc.) you get real diffraction issues.

On a 45+ sized sensor, f22 limits you to just under 10 megapixels.

On a G10, f3.5 limits you to just over 8 megapixels, about what the camera likely actually resolves. 

At f64 (a commonly used stop), 4x5 film is also limited to about 8 megapixels.

This may explain why David Meunch (who shoots deep focus almost exclusively) moved from 4x5 to a Canon G10 point and shoot.  He doesn't need shallow focus or anything other than 100ISO.

But at f5.6 or so...the 80 megapixel medium format backs might actually be delivering 80 megapixels.  So for some:  it's totally worth it.

Use what you like.  If the article didn't resonate with you, don't go medium format.  It probably resonated completely with someone else, who's now happily lugging around all the extra gear.  The difference between a point and shoot and dSLR is as substantial as the difference between a dSLR and medium format system (in terms of weight, not necessarily pace).  Even dSLR shooters are sacrificing convenience for image quality.  It's all about how a particular photographer wants to work.  I'm not about to call large format photographers crazy, even when they shoot at f64.  I'm not about to call Meunch crazy for switching from 4x5 to a G10.  If it's the workflow you like and delivers good images, it's just a matter of taste.

[ondebanks]

A quick meditation of the James picture, out of topic also, inspired by a Rob's post.
Why this Jame's picture is so important to me? The answer is simple: because that's a huge peice of photography.
There are many others works in the portfolio that can be considered cleaner, technicaly more acheived or whatever. But this pic tells the big story. That is why it is so good. Who cares about any other aspects like DR, and so on. This picture is simply brillant because its power lays in the big story.
Ironicaly, to put up a fashion or advertising shooting, a "big story is needed", but where lays that story, in the final image? I think it do not, the big story is in the making-of. In the human adventure that made possible the pictures. On the contrary, the car race shooting tells an apparently small story, simple people, simple life in a texan country. No Ayrton Senna or Michael Shumacher there, no celebrities but just anonymous guys. But the final image is a big story.
When I see that, I realise that those are the kind of images I'd like to do and I don't. Probably because I'm not good enough, or I lack courage or whatever is the reason.
I simply don't do images like those. I'm just telling small stories.
Is shooting for shooting a reason in itself and being happy with paid jobs, well executed imagery and  put a name on decent works for the mall shop or Vogue editorial ?
Somewhere I find this path steril, at the same time I'm fully involved into an imagery that is selling clothes and high-heel stuff. I don't think I have the talent to do something else, I don't know, maybe it will rise on day, maybe I'll keep going telling small stories. That's why this James's picture moves me so much: it's what photography is about!
If I can't do photography, I'll stop taking them and sell cameras.

Fred, it sounds like you have come around to the realisation that the entire fashion industry is an artificial construct of vacuous nonsense; while ordinary guys driving cars round a dirt track in a high-stakes-but-low-money race is real life; and that is why photography of the latter is much more appealing.

I would entirely agree!

Ray

[bcooter]

This week we shot a great project where all the garments had a white theme.  We shot on movie lots, beaches, a hot rod shop, studio and practical sets.

We shot with daylight, hmi, studio flash, portable flash, tungsten and mixed lights.  We shot at iso 100 and iso 800 as this project was to follow the life of a Hollywood star, it was scene specific.

So what CAN you do with medium format.  Well with verticals you can easily get  a familiar 4:3 cropping.   You can hold extraordinary detail and though they may or may not have more range than the Canons, it does have a different look.

You CAN tether reliably with c-1 v5, set a base look on the computer, at least close enough for the clients and art crew to know where your going. 

What you CANNOT do with medium format.  You can't really work without a computer because of the lcd.   At least with Phase and Leaf  . . . not when your shooting intricate lighting and pushing the look to the very edge.  The lcd is just hopeless and all it really tells you is you fired the shot.   Nothing more.

You also CANNOT use medium format, (at least my two backs) at 800 iso and expect any real detail.  The grain is not bad, but if detail is the goal, keep it at 200 iso.  (under high key images you can get away with 400 iso, but low key, no).

I'm at the point  that I don't mind tethering that much.  I mean I don't like it all the time and this week two sessions we just couldn't tether due to permits/time restraints, (which means you have to use a dslr), but when you have so much equipment on large production adding a computer really doesn't speed up or slow down anything.

What you almost have to do with digital is use a tripod for focus.  I've known it all along, (resisted it all along) but  I can manually focus my Contax's well, the Canon autofocus is ok, but digital leaves such a small window for focus errors, that the rate of success when using a tripod goes up 75% vs. hand holding, with the only exception being the nikons.  They autofocus dead on, almost all the time.

Now I don't know about the Hasselblad h4 series, or a Nikon D3x, because as of today I haven't had the time to test any new cameras, but if I was going forward with new cameras for my work I'd look at the d3x and/or the H4.  The d3x because I know it focuses well and the H4 because I believe it has a nice 800 iso and maybe a better lcd preview.

BC

P.S.   We did use the new Kobalt Bron HMI's for some of these sessions and they are a nice kit, with a lot of accessories and well thought out.   Kind of like Mini Pars with small ballasts.

Before I purchase them I will also test the new profoto HMI's though the Kobalts are nice.

We also used the profoto 600b's on the beach and they're really great little strobes, though you need a lot of batteries.

P.S. 2   

Don't any maker, dealer, or rep get there knickers in a twist over the lcd/preview, higher iso thing thing, because you all know it, you all have heard the issues, though for some reason only Pentax and Hasselblad have come even close to addressing it.

I know you sell the mega pixel thing and I guess some people need/want 80 gazillion pixels and I know you keep waving around sales figures that prove stuffing in higher density sensors sell well on the high margins, BUT I'd love to have a real full frame 645 and might open my wallet if that would happen along with the other issues of medium format are addressed.  Just pulling a new sensor of the Kodak/Dalsa shelf really doesn't show great foresight or innovation. 

P.S. 3. 

Regarding what Fred says about tethering . . . understand, tethering or not will not make a bad client good, a good client bad, or a good AD/client more intrusive.   In fact if you manage your production well, it probably keeps things moving in a more positive direction because you can prove what works and what doesn't work in all 30" of electronic polaroid.

Still sometimes you can't tether and you absolutely cannot show anyone the lcd on the phase back.  Not without a staff paramedic and a defibrillator.

P.S. 4 

Options matter.  My old Ghetto Contax's have a waist level finder, a right angle grip and though they're both are not needed 100% of the time having both when you need them are a lifesaver.  Sometimes you just wish that Hasselblad and Phase would merge and put together a combined full featured camera.

P.S. 5

Having messed around with the 5d2 for motion for over a year, I can tell you it ain't there yet and this project proves it.  Once again we  made it work, but as Michael says Video cameras that are designed for video work a lot better than these combination cameras.   (But this is a whole different subject).


IMO

[Rob C]

Fred, it sounds like you have come around to the realisation that the entire fashion industry is an artificial construct of vacuous nonsense; while ordinary guys driving cars round a dirt track in a high-stakes-but-low-money race is real life; and that is why photography of the latter is much more appealing.

I would entirely agree!

Ray

But there's a problem, Ray: many of us drawn to fashion/model work are actually not empty headed in the least; we are attracted like moths to a blue lamp because we like the concept of capturing, creating beauty out of something that was neither beautiful not even really there at the time before we brought our minds to bear on the subject. That's pretty much a strong form of appealing to the senses, more so than any reportage, which by definition, demands the objective touch. Quite into which branch of photography this puts W.E.Smith I hesitate to guess!

Rob C

[James R Russell]

But there's a problem, Ray: many of us drawn to fashion/model work are actually not empty headed in the least; we are attracted like moths to a blue lamp because we like the concept of capturing, creating beauty out of something that was neither beautiful not even really there at the time before we brought our minds to bear on the subject. That's pretty much a strong form of appealing to the senses, more so than any reportage, which by definition, demands the objective touch. Quite into which branch of photography this puts W.E.Smith I hesitate to guess!

Rob C

I'm not of a one thing mindset.

I love shooting "real" people, I also love shooting constructed settings and both have a place, just like I love a good hamburger and can appreciate Fusion Cuisine.

Maybe it's just me, but I've always resisted being a _________ photographer.   To me it's really all the same, subject, light, background and creative brief, even if it's my own creative brief.

It's good for my soul, my life and my bank account.

I know a lot of people don't see it this way and feel everything and everyone must be put into a small little categorical boxes, but I believe any good photographer can add something unique to any project.

What is interesting about the business of image making is (at least in my view), the best photographs I've taken I can't really show, because the subject was so challenged, or the concept so skewed that I used everything I know to make them right (and to some level succeeded), but because they were so challenged nobody really notices that you saved it, unless they are intimate with the project.

JR

[Rob C]

 author=fredjeang link=topic=47291.msg396888#msg396888 date=1287845350]


“It's just like fly-by-wire system in aviation. Well, there is a consensus between pilots that the introduction of fly-by-wire makes a good pilot a better pilot, but actually limits a very very good pilot, and can even be dangerous, many accidents included fatal have occured because of the fly-by-wire when a very good pilot would have saved the situation in extreme flight.”

Like in that Airbus demonstration some years ago where the pilot put it out of auto on coming in to land, and then found he couldn’t regain control; the tv showed the plane fly into a wood…

”Testino was in Madrid for its opening, I can tell you this: he is very powerfull as a man. Very charismatic. Doesn't doubt and just concentrate on one thing at once. He acts absolutly like a rock star. What I mean is that Testino's blood is a leader's blood. Raised in a powerfull familly and been introduced very young in sphere that are almost impossible to reach...personal friend of show-buiz and politics leaders etc...so he can actually uses what he wants, even a Lomo and a monkey as assistant I doubt any AD has enough power on earth to bother or contradicting him. Pure leadership.”

And you can’t buy that. I’ve seen the very same phenomenon with a couple of friends; nothing even remotely makes them doubt the rightness of their own opinions, nor do they imagine for a moment that anyone will dream of questioning them. And to my knowledge, nobody ever does, not even their wives. It is personality. I believe that David Bailey was born with that quality, an opinion based over the years upon several tv interviews, books and articles about him. We could also put Oliviero Toscani into that category; but I think he was also born into the right family. If you have ever met Sean Connery, you will recognize the same quality there. I have, and I did: Shalako. He's a human panther.

”Well Edmund, actually what you just wrote in your posts is precicely something that concerns me and that I also perceive. This reality drives me to several questions about my own path.In short, do I want to be the little AD's ship? or do I want something else? and what are the consequences, etc...but that's way out of topic.”

Maybe off topic, but more important if you are making your life in this business!

Rob C

[fredjeang]

Fred, it sounds like you have come around to the realisation that the entire fashion industry is an artificial construct of vacuous nonsense; while ordinary guys driving cars round a dirt track in a high-stakes-but-low-money race is real life; and that is why photography of the latter is much more appealing.

I would entirely agree!

Ray

Thoughts on fashion.
It's all about dream. So it's all fake of course but it's about making people dream with unrealistic/reachable parameters (models are not representatives of the average woman etc...) to sell them the average and common product.


Fashion as we know it, contemporary, comes basically from Paris. You have to understand what Paris is about to understand what fashion is about.
Basically, Paris is a "prostitute". (Edmund don't jump on me on this one). But, yes, that's the essense of Paris, a very expensive and sophisticated prostitute.

Is it a non sense? If I start to think about it seriously, I find it more than a non sense, a dead end road. But it can have an exit, very narrow and difficult but it can.

What do I like very much in fashion? The team work. I really love to work in/with team. Then, the short relationship with the model, but in my case more exactly, with the human being. I shoot humans, and even if I can apreciate the fantastic landscape or art work of many, personally it does not motivate me to photograph, humans yes.
So that immediatly lead to your post: there are more usefull, powerfull or authentic ways to speak about humans, yes indeed I beleive so. And that's the reason why I'm asking at that time a lot of questions concerning this.

I think that fashion could be a very powerfull medium to express oneself and go further the emptiness and purely commercial, do art with fashion, real art. But I'm not yet on that stage and maybe never will.

Avedon was tirying his models before he knew he had some decent shots, I understand more and more why.
  

[Rob C]

“In terms of imagery now, specially with models, I find the freedom to move + shoot a high amount of frames/sec kind of keeping a sort of working tension and maybe, but I'm not yet sure about that because I lack experience, influence the final results to a big extend.”

Well, I didn’t lack experience after a while, and I did work much as you say, except that it wasn’t frames per sec! I had motor drives, but only used them to advance the film.

The whole thing about shooting a lot of frames (for me, at least) is to get the model into the mood of the particular thing you are building up to a climax. Yes, just like sex. That’s why 35mm format gave an entirely different m.o. to using MF – the film count was three times as long with 35mm. Build-up with film MF was a bit of a hope, rather than a reality; also, in my day, electronic flash took quite a few seconds to recycle up to full kick. You just couldn't work too quickly in the studio.

Tripods. Well, for many years I never used them for anything shorter than a 135mm outdoors. Longer than that, I knew I couldn’t hand-hold well enough. That applied with or without studio flash. But, in the studio with 6x6 it was mainly the 2.8/80mm and I didn’t need to tripod it; same with 35mm, where, as I said, it was 135mm that was the razor wire. But when I began to work seriously with stock in mind, it was tripod all the way… maybe the pics suffered as an effect of that.

Rob C

[Rob C]

Rob,

There is a very nice film made about Vogue, "The September Issue" where one can see the AD set up a shoot at Versailles, and one can also see that the photographer has silence to say.

Edmund

You can also see that Testino just doesn't give an eff: he shot what he felt he'd shoot in Rome, not what Wintour wanted. How Grace Coddington kept her job after that film is the eighth wonder of the world. She was a far better person to deal with than the 'boss' seemed to be; maybe because she was in it at the start, as a model, and she could also appreciate good photography more than it semed the top girl does, and she rooted for her photographers, sticking up for their work! I admired her attitude; wish I'd had a chance to work with her - might have given me an entirely different idea about editors! But boy, did the presence of total fear smell strongly!

Rob C

[Rob C]

I'm not of a one thing mindset.

Maybe it's just me, but I've always resisted being a _________ photographer.   To me it's really all the same, subject, light, background and creative brief, even if it's my own creative brief.

It's good for my soul, my life and my bank account.

I know a lot of people don't see it this way and feel everything and everyone must be put into a small little categorical boxes, but I believe any good photographer can add something unique to any project.

JR

Nothing wrong with that: it's just that some people don't want to do more than one thing; some others can't do more than one thing; and some can't do anything!

;-)

Rob C

[Rob C]

I agree with the reasons of the high/rate frames.
So, MF for the Viagraists? Houilll....won't walk that path Rob, too dangerous without shield.

How did a capote anglaise come (no!) into this conversation?

Rob C