RUMOR: CMOS, LiveView, RAW video

[Rob C]

That's Amathophobia. Easily cured by de-sensitisation and/or pulling one's self together.

I know folk who clean their sensor before every shoot, but there again that's probably Rhypophobia.

Keith, you've been to Greece too often - you're forgetting your English and speaking in tongues!

But then, a pre-shower is always appreciated in some circumstances - 'stances? yes, 'stances, so why not a quick shake of the sensor?

Rob C

P.S. Still scanning... oh boy, what a thrill!

[bcooter]

same thing for photography

Yes, most photography is a fad.

I guess in some ways so is facebook.

But there is no denying the change.

Today, the viewer wants to be a participant and wants to be engaged by a medium that entertains.

Sometimes I think everything goes in circles and just like the past days of Mad Men, I believe you'll find successful advertising and commercial imaging will be commissioned and/or sponsored works that entertain.

Some artists will be able to do this with an i-phone, some with a crew of 50, but the goal will to engage and entertain.

Today, the only difference is unlike the Mad Men days, their are no handful of media gate keepers like television networks and publishers. 

Every person with a computer, smart phone, a domain name and a facebook account can be a publisher and with this tremendous amount of data floating from link to link, unique, creative works will gain attention, predicable works will be passed by.

Today, mostly due to the economy, most corporations and marketers are focused on the cheap, but it's damn hard to produce creative, entertaining and engaging work on the cheap.  At least works anyone will watch past 5 or six seconds.

It's interesting that today the camera makers are probably behind the market.

From my perspective almost every camera made today is "almost" there.    Medium format has huge detailed files, but no form of video capability, The high end 35mm cameras make great stills, but have lacking video and the video cameras, until you get in the $40,000, to $50,000 range still don't produce a raw file.

I assume once the economy improves, once consumers start buying, the floodgates will open with better cameras, higher production values and hopefully more works that are creative enough to eventually become a fad.

In a way I think that is the goal.

This week were are in the process of buying a RED.  Is it the end all to end all?  No.  Will it magically produce more creative imagery?   No.   Will it allow us to produce a more professional production and enhance the creativity?  We'll that's the plan.

I'll let you know in a few months.

IMO

BC

[eronald]

James,

 The glossy magazines are in the business of differentiating themselves by showing images which a normal mortal cannot make - and the "brands" need "Supercampaigns" with "Superstars". This is why they have to use the 35 year old overbooked IT girl with rebuilt lips, cheekbones, and tits, even if her little sister is prettier and cheaper. And this is why they have to use the most expensive photographer, who needs to demonstrate obscene production costs, certified by "perfect" imagery which "cannot" be got cheaply.

  As you of all people know very well, it was not so when you started out. Anyone on this forum could do - and probably has done - a decent editorial shoot with a "standard" dSLR like the old Canon 1Ds, a good makeup ARTIST, really good hair ARTIST, some natural light, a couple of reflectors, a pretty guy assistant who knows how to keep talent happy, and a sweet eighteen Ukrainian model full of mischief who wants to go places.

   But the above won't do anymore - will it? Because the whole point of sold imagery nowadays is that it is supposed to be obscenely expensive. Everything needs to be "exclusive". That is why "making off" videos get posted on the brand sites with imagery of a brigade of assistants. That is why the agency bookers won't rent a model to an "unknown" magazine, even if they pay. Yes, I've been there. Good luck with the RED which will allow you to document how many people you have brought to the production, thereby increasing your value even more.

 Art? Hah, it reminds me of the white canvas "statement" in the white frame hanging in the local modern art museum.

Edmund

PS. By the way, James, I am well aware that you are perfectly capable of doing a campaign with a cellphone which I could never make - and this is why it is even more annoying to see you so enthusiastically embracing the "necessity" of superproductions.
Some of the most innovative art is coming from graffiti artists these days. Some of the best video is up on Youtube and Vuze ...

[Rob C]

James,

 The glossy magazines are in the business of differentiating themselves by showing images which a normal mortal cannot make - and the "brands" need "Supercampaigns" with "Superstars". This is why they have to use the 35 year old overbooked IT girl with rebuilt lips, cheekbones, and tits, even if her little sister is prettier and cheaper. And this is why they have to use the most expensive photographer, who needs to demonstrate obscene production costs, certified by "perfect" imagery which "cannot" be got cheaply.

  As you of all people know very well, it was not so when you started out. Anyone on this forum - could do a decent on-demand editorial shoot with any camera, a good makeup ARTIST, really good hair ARTIST, some natural light, a couple of reflectors, a pretty guy assistant who knows how to keep talent happy, and a sweet eighteen Ukrainian model full of mischief who wants to go places.   Edmund

PS. By the way, James, I am well aware that you are perfectly capable of doing a campaign with a cellphone which I could never make - and this is why it is even more annoying to see you suddenly embracing the necessity of superproductions.

And I promise you, speaking personally, it was without any of the additional guys you mentioned: it took me, a model and, if budget allowed, my wife to use the reflector and the spray, or to iron the clothes. If not, just the two essential folks: the model and myself.

And if I may add, in the middle of scanning old Kodachrome sea shots as I am, I realise with a sickening thud that my 60s vintage 2.8/35 and 2.8/24 Nikkors were crisper than the current manual ones I bought much later. Bugger progress; it generally sucks and goes backwards.

Rob C

[Rob C]

Edmund, I came back from the 18th years old Ukranian model. Having seen and worked with both those "cheap models" and "very expensive" like Bar Rafaeli, Gisele Bundchen, Hana Soukupova, Karolina Kurkova etc...there is a big difference. First there is a big difference physically (a huge difference with the gorgeous russian doll), and then in the work itself. I saw it, it is exactly like a top photographer and a good or very good photographer. It's not only exclusive fantasies. Those girls work like dream. If you remember Linda E, she was a super pro. My point is that it is not "being exclusive", it is that some people are really over the top, models included. Same with make-up artists. Testino has the best but because they are really on that level, not because they are cool and exclusive.
Those girls make sell, they are paied a lot because they generate a lot of money. And beleive me, no hassle working with those but yes with the cheaper, colds, bad mood, not involved, not standing the hot lights and crying, not this that or the other.
I've been observing all that circus recently and it is not a joke why some are paied that much.
IMO.

Yes, Fred, I agree with your point about the superstar girls, but you can't start with them, can you, and that was Edmund's point.

Rob C

[fredjeang]

Yes, Fred, I agree with your point about the superstar girls, but you can't start with them, can you, and that was Edmund's point.

Rob C

Of course not Rob. Maybe I missunderstood Edmund's post. I thought that he was saying that in fact cost is exclusivity and in a certain way, artificially inflated, wich is generally true in a way, but my point was that it does not explains alone the high cost of things. Quality can be overpriced but it generally has a reason also. 

[eronald]

Of course not Rob. Maybe I missunderstood Edmund's post. I thought that he was saying that in fact cost is exclusivity and in a certain way, artificially inflated, wich is generally true in a way, but my point was that it does not explains alone the high cost of things. Quality can be overpriced but it generally has a reason also.  

Fred, I have a story for you. When Laetitita Casta had her kid, she got fat; so the Galeries Lafayette continued using her as a model for the name and face, except she had a body (legs) double. AFAIK she still got paid the same. For having more charisma, better onstage behavior etc - while she wasn't there?

Edmund

[bcooter]

......snip........ and this is why it is even more annoying to see you so enthusiastically embracing the "necessity" of superproductions.
Some of the most innovative art is coming from graffiti artists these days. Some of the best video is up on Youtube and Vuze ...

No that's not what I'm suggesting.

Let's talk business.

There are about ten zillion photographers and film makers our there trying to creatively reinvent the wheel.

Some have wonderful original ideas, some don't, some execute well, some don't, but  . . .

If you do have a great concept and you don't take it to the highest level of production and  finish you can afford, you easily open the door for someone with more resource to use your idea as a starting point and  take it to a professional finish.  They will receive more money and attention and if they get more media play than the originator of the idea, then the idea becomes theirs.

They move forward, you don't.

Now don't misunderstand me.   I don't advocate anyone spending beyond their means, or producing at a level that will be detrimental to their business.  I also have no self interest in what cameras, crew, or equipment anyone uses.  In fact since I'm always in a competitive situation, it probably would be better for me if everyone shot everything with a cell phone and a flashlight.

I also don't advocate letting production or equipment get in the way.  In my view (only my view) you should use what works for you, but just remember if you can only take it half way, there is always someone out there that will take it further.

In summary all I'm saying is do the very best you can and keep moving forward.

I didn't buy a RED to impress, or to shoot behind the scenes.  I bought one because ownership makes me use it, using it makes me better, etc. etc. etc.   


IMO

BC

[eronald]

No that's not what I'm suggesting.

Let's talk business.

There are about ten zillion photographers and film makers our there trying to creatively reinvent the wheel.

Yeah, everyone wants to be an artist, it seems

If you do have a great concept and you don't take it to the highest level of production and  finish you can afford, you easily open the door for someone with more resource to use your idea as a starting point and  take it to a professional finish.  They will receive more money and attention and if they get more media play than the originator of the idea, then the idea becomes theirs.

They move forward, you don't.

This is were I disagree. Picasso was a highly trained master of his craft. Yet much of the surrealist stuff he did was graphically quite rudimentary.

Developing an idea cheaply lets you do it faster, and allows you to abandon it for the next idea more quickly - you can afford to experiment creatively while your rivals are still *perfecting* the original concept.

Picasso never got "old" precisely because by the time someone else started to copy he had already moved on - he had next to zero investment in each "style" precisely because he kept the technical part simple. Contrast this with the impressionist masters who became prisoners of their own superb technique - much as they wanted, they could not reinvent themselves.

Now don't misunderstand me.   I don't advocate anyone spending beyond their means, or producing at a level that will be detrimental to their business.  I also have no self interest in what cameras, crew, or equipment anyone uses.  In fact since I'm always in a competitive situation, it probably would be better for me if everyone shot everything with a cell phone and a flashlight.

Sorry, James, this I don't buy. As you are at the top of the heap, you have a strong interest in arguing *to your clients* FOR THE BEST PRODUCTION VALUES. Tell them your files are perfect, "thick", can be reworked, every superwide banner or vertical flag can be easily created by cropping because you are shooting wide with MF, any huge store display will stand up to loupe scrutiny, no way will they have any technical unexpected issue. And even God forbid, James Russell might have the one bad day of his year, and submit images that creatively fizzle rather than boom, the model is so famous that her appearing in those shots is already a major event!

Essentially, much of what you are selling by high production team values is not creativity, it is insurance, and it makes good business sense for your client to purchase such insurance. Just don't call the insurance creativity - the creative part is between your ears.

I also don't advocate letting production or equipment get in the way.  In my view (only my view) you should use what works for you, but just remember if you can only take it half way, there is always someone out there that will take it further.

In summary all I'm saying is do the very best you can and keep moving forward.

I didn't buy a RED to impress, or to shoot behind the scenes.  I bought one because ownership makes me use it, using it makes me better, etc. etc. etc.  


IMO

BC

What happened to the guy who was proud of his Polaroid Swinger pictures? Let me guess. He did the best he could, and has indeed very deservedly moved forward. But now he is arguing that the door he came through -cheaply done creative work- be bricked up.

By the way, Apple's home page has a "free" streaming movie of the Beatle's Washington live performance. 4 guys, a drumset and 3 guitars. No caravan of trucks for the stage build-up, smoke machines, lasers and complicated light effects, electronic voice reprocessing, yadda yadda, just an audience all around them. And songs they actually wrote themselves. And it seemed to work quite well, the music is not perfect but everyone is having fun, the emotion carries through. Compare that with a modern Rolling Stones concert infrastructure - are today's much vaunted "production values" really improving the emotional and artistic content?

http://www.apple.com/the-beatles/concert/

Edmund

[ziocan]

Do you think Mario, brought it through security himself or handed the bag to his assistant?
Did he take a snap shot of the thing with his iphone, if he had to check it in?
Are you wondering how much is the monthly payment to lease the thing?

Does it really matter?

[Rob C]

Fred, I have a story for you. When Laetitita Casta had her kid, she got fat; so the Galeries Lafayette continued using her as a model for the name and face, except she had a body (legs) double. AFAIK she still got paid the same. For having more charisma, better onstage behavior etc - while she wasn't there?

Edmund

Edmund, are you telling me that Marianne is a fake?

;-(

Rob C

[Rob C]

I guess that what we have to understand is that success is always multi-level; bringing in the superdupers has little to do with the rest of the business.

There were always those with open sesame cards in their wallets, others could sometimes get to visit the same places and work there, others just sat in the gloom of the empty studio and complained.

In essence, it's an ill-divided world, but that's life and we had better all accept it for what it is. It isn't exclusively about how good you might be, it's more about where you happen to fit within the scheme of things, and you can't often control that, and even changing things a bit depends on the sort of personality you are blessed with, for better or for worse. That's a spot beyond the leopard.

Also, who knows the truth behind many of those stars? Are they happy; are they in debt to some padrino; have they lost more in personal terms than they might have gained in glory? It never pays to envy because, at the very least, it just make us ill.

The secret is to do the best with what you can find, live in peace with yourself and avoid debt.

Rob C

[bcooter]

Edmund,

You tend to speak in black and white, yes or no terms, but art commissioned to commerce usually lands in the gray area.

Since time immortal, photographers have been graining, solarizing, polaroiding, smearing, tearing, shaking their way into a photographic style and though it's beautiful and innovative at the moment, it all gets lost when that first well paying client says "yea I love the look, but I have to have more detail in my (you can fill in the blanks) eye shadow, shoe lace, door handle, jeans pocket, etc. etc. etc.

Now, before you take this out of context, I'm all for the innovation, style, experimentation of new and old media, but I know that on the pay day, a lot of that gets passed over.

That doesn't mean an artist shouldn't grain, solarize, polaroid, smear, tear and shake an image for effect and their own personal pleasure, but don't think that the hallways of commerce aren't littered with the bodies of people that screamed "that's my style and I'm sticking to it".

There is a company in LA that specializes in Super 8 cameras.   Routinely directors, dp's, run in and grab an arm load of little cameras because they just know it will be so cool to shoot their next feature on super 8. They test it, then send it upstairs to the powers that be and the response is "yea that looks ok, but it's kind of jumpy, it's kind of grainy, it's kind of noisy.   Can't you just shoot it 35mm and effect it in post?"   So the cameras are returned and production returns to the normal standards.

And also don't think that a lot of the big production in still and motion is not running at it's most effecient.  

Recessions always squeeze the last drop of water out of the towel and this one is no exception.

Rob keeps mentioning the "good ol' days" where a husband and wife team and one model could do it all.  Don't think this doesn't still happen, even for high profile work.  Those days still exist . . .  in fact for budget restricted work the photographer is called upon to do more than ever as not only do we shoot, we process, proof, web master, retouch and pre press the images.    I doubt seriously that in the "good ol' days' Rob was running a Kodachrome line and a hand fed press to proof out progressives.

BTW:  If you look at those behind the scenes videos of a room full of people start counting out crew vs. clients and client's assistant's, publicists and interns.   Usually they outnumber the on set crew.

There is perception, reality and rumors.   Rarely are they the same.

IMO

BC

[eronald]

Edmund, are you telling me that Marianne is a fake?

;-(

Rob C

For explanation: Marianne is the female personification of the French Republic. Her profile is on stamps, and a plaster bust of her is in every mayor's office. Oh, and Laetitia was Marianne at one point.

Rob - I'm sure Laetitia had the necessary upper body strength for her Marianne job when she was cast. Thank you for giving me a chance to write that.

James - I do agree that the world is not to be viewed in black or white. And yes, times are tough. What I'm seeing is that a lot of the medium-quality guys are really having financial problems, as they can be squeezed hardest by the clients.

Edmund

[Rob C]

For explanation: Marianne is the female personification of the French Republic. Her profile is on stamps, and a plaster bust of her is in every mayor's office. Oh, and Laetitia was Marianne at one point.

Rob - I'm sure Laetitia had the necessary upper body strength for her Marianne job when she was cast. Thank you for giving me a chance to write that.

Edmund

Edmund, it's a pleasure!

And I tell you something, I have often wondered how both Fred and Alain can bear to live anywhere else than France. Perhaps my experience as a through-driver is very limited, but I fell in love with the place; much like the better bits of Scotland but with edible food in the restaurants.

;-)

Rob C

[UlfKrentz]

...Those medias do not required the monster resolution paper does...

Fred - some of our jobs require more resulution for web use than on paper, five years ago OK, but today you have those "superzoom magnifying tool" to watch every pixel and let everyboby control your depth of field 

...What I'm seeing is that a lot of the medium-quality guys are really having financial problems, as they can be squeezed hardest by the clients.

Edmund

Edmund - See, I suppose that´s what James pointed out. You better always use the best production tools you can serve with, better beware of stepping down a single step in that level, or viewed from the other side try to move forward. No matter in which level you work, competition is very hard these days, and I agree it might be the hardest place to be in the medium quality level. I don´t feel squeezed by our clients, budgets are tight for all of us, including our clients.

Cheers, Ulf

[fredjeang]

Edmund, it's a pleasure!

And I tell you something, I have often wondered how both Fred and Alain can bear to live anywhere else than France. Perhaps my experience as a through-driver is very limited, but I fell in love with the place; much like the better bits of Scotland but with edible food in the restaurants.

;-)

Rob C

Hi Rob.

France? It's difficult to explain in a few lines. The advantage that you have is that you won't probably catch the intonations in the lenguage that only a native can perceive. Those give you a lot of clews. In short, France to me is completly decadent today. A nice, diverse and decadent country.
But it's fair to say that if a sort of social and cultural revolution will emerge in the next years, it will come from France rather than anywhere else in Europe.
They are still very much into cutting heads.

[fredjeang]

Fred - some of our jobs require more resulution for web use than on paper, five years ago OK, but today you have those "superzoom magnifying tool" to watch every pixel and let everyboby control your depth of field  

Yes, and it will be allowed or not depending on the interactivity given. But still you are not at 360, you can have big sized but can not overcome the current screens resolution.
It's a little bit like using a bomb to kill a mosquito.

[UlfKrentz]

Yes, and it will be allowed or not depending on the interactivity given. But still you are not at 360, you can have big sized but can not overcome the current screens resolution.
It's a little bit like using a bomb to kill a mosquito.

This magnifyer is real world pixel peeping tool, I don´t say it is of any use but it is a clients demand and we and probably a lot of others have to deliver it with a view camera and a MFDB.

Cheers, Ulf

[Rob C]

Hi Rob.

France? It's difficult to explain in a few lines. The advantage that you have is that you won't probably catch the intonations in the lenguage that only a native can perceive. Those give you a lot of clews. In short, France to me is completly decadent today. A nice, diverse and decadent country.
But it's fair to say that if a sort of social and cultural revolution will emerge in the next years, it will come from France rather than anywhere else in Europe.
They are still very much into cutting heads.

That is very true, and it is also true for most of us expats living in Spain. I speak the language to the level that I am understood even by Telefonica when I try to refuse their offers every day when they interrupt me at the screen. But, then, I see that lack of depth as a sort of insulation from something I may not want to know. Even people living in their own country often refuse to see or understand everything that's going down.

To be brutally honest, I have always tended to live in a tiny space that extends more or less to the limits of family. That's why I find the internet so intriguing: one can choose the places and the conversations - to a point - and walk away from people or situations that are unpleasant. I think that's perhaps a prime reason for having fallen in love with the camera: it doesn't judge, it only reveals what one is capable of seeing.

Rob C