Topic: Recent Format Agnostic Professional Works (Read 283591 times)

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #140 on:** May 14, 2015, 10:00:12 am »

Quote from: Craig Lamson on May 13, 2015, 07:59:21 pm

You have found a really nice and profitable niche, and you do great work. However, at least based on my personal experience the constant stream of very similar work does kind of wear on you after a couple of decades. You do seem to do a pretty good job of trying to keep yourself fresh with your other endeavors. If I were not so close to retirement I suspect I would be searching for a different kind of subject matter just to break it up a bit. However, I'm getting old

You really do have to break it up! I'm doing all kinds of different stuff to keep me fresh. I'm shooting personal work on film with a 4x10. Taking a few classes here and there. And I just signed on to Shoot a feature film in October that will be 20 straight days of cinematography. After stuff like that, coming back to commercial interiors is like slipping into a favorite pair of well worn jeans.

ACH DIGITAL · « **Reply #141 on:** May 14, 2015, 11:44:08 am »

Quote from: Scott Hargis on May 13, 2015, 09:59:25 pm

But, it's pretty impressive when they do "go for it" and cough up the fee. When you think about SOM or Fentress etc. spending mid-four figures on a shoot it just seems a little pathetic. But for a mid-size interior designer to spend that...it's a much larger sum to them. Makes me feel very motivated! I know what it's like to spend (what seems to me like) a large amount of money on something that might, or might not, pay off.

I think it should pay off. It is a shame that you build up a theater or $15 million house and you don't want to spend on photography which at the end is going to be the only record you have. Just imagine you design an amazing unique house and after 5 years the owner decided on remodeling and changing your initial design. The photographs that you have gain in value.
I was approach by an important movie theater company and they wanted "artistic" photographs of the new builds, after I quote for a day of shooting in each theater, I get a call from the marketing personnel saying that I had to do 20 to 25 images in 1/2 a day because they opened in the afternoon and they could not stop one day. And the price they thought was outragious.

David Eichler · « **Reply #142 on:** May 14, 2015, 12:44:48 pm »

Quote from: ACH DIGITAL on May 14, 2015, 11:44:08 am

...the marketing personnel saying that I had to do 20 to 25 images in 1/2 a day because....

Hah. I recently received an inquiry from a marketing person for a high-end home furnishings retailer who wanted me to do 75-100 interior photos of one of their stores in 2-3 hours.

Craig Lamson · « **Reply #143 on:** May 14, 2015, 05:09:01 pm »

Everyone wants something for nothing. I solved the "can you shoot 40 photos for day rate" problem by going to a flat rate pricing model.

X shot cost X dollars, y shot costs y dollars and so on. I can take all day or I can do it as fast as I can but the cost will be the same. I have no problem jamming in a whole bunch of photos in a day, I make way more money. Sadly it can effect the quality of the work but thats a choice for the client.

I found that when the customer started paying by the shot they became much more selective of the things that they wanted photographed. Volume when down but the quality went up and I think they put more thought into their photo requests now. I still make a lot more money this way over shooting day rate.

Sure my clients only use the images for a year and then they get tossed, so this model might not work for everyone, but I really hate doing day rate stuff, it always becomes a race.

jjj · « **Reply #144 on:** May 14, 2015, 07:18:43 pm »

Interesting pricing model Craig. Good to see it works for you.

David Eichler · « **Reply #145 on:** May 15, 2015, 12:00:41 am »

Quote from: Craig Lamson on May 14, 2015, 05:09:01 pm

Everyone wants something for nothing. I solved the "can you shoot 40 photos for day rate" problem by going to a flat rate pricing model.

X shot cost X dollars, y shot costs y dollars and so on. I can take all day or I can do it as fast as I can but the cost will be the same. I have no problem jamming in a whole bunch of photos in a day, I make way more money. Sadly it can effect the quality of the work but thats a choice for the client.

I found that when the customer started paying by the shot they became much more selective of the things that they wanted photographed. Volume when down but the quality went up and I think they put more thought into their photo requests now. I still make a lot more money this way over shooting day rate.

Sure my clients only use the images for a year and then they get tossed, so this model might not work for everyone, but I really hate doing day rate stuff, it always becomes a race.

When using a day rate or creative/assignment fee, you can gain control over the amount of time/number of photos involved by writing the scope of work carefully to make sure the client understands the limits. One suggestion that I might put into practice for some kinds of assignments is to create a schedule for the client, so everyone knows exactly what will be happening and when. Obviously would depend upon the type of assignment though.

gazwas · « **Reply #146 on:** May 16, 2015, 05:10:14 am »

Quote from: Chris Barrett on April 20, 2015, 12:05:43 pm

I'm about to order this rig from Hartblei. Stefan has created a nice little solution...

He reports...
14mm about 5mm Shift
18mm around 10mm Shift
24mm about 7mm Shift

So, while it doesn't have as much movements as dedicated Tilt/Shift glass, it can go Crazy wide and the idea of composing via zoom is pretty enticing (zero crop).

Jack Flesher has done a nice write-up at Get Dpi. on the kit.

CB

Chris, did you end up ordering one of these?

I'm evaluating my camera bodies at the moment and this adapter is one big positive to switch from Canon to Sony due to the (almost) limitless TS possibilities with any lens. I'm missing a TS lens in the 40-60mm range, a focal lenght I uses a lot. I currently have to use a regular lenses and adjust perspective in PS and the Canon 45mm tse is not all that great so this would solve my problems.

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #147 on:** May 16, 2015, 11:00:05 am »

I had Stefan invoice me and was just about to pull the plug and then backed off. I think now, I would get the new Canon 11-24 instead. Stefan says it's way sharper than the Nikon. I've been focusing on rebuilding my camera system. My new Arca Universalis arrived Thursday along with a Hasselblad 40mm CFe. The Blad glass actually allowed more movements on the Sony than my Schneider 43mm XL. I think I'm moving to all Blad lenses from 40mm and longer.

I'll probably come back to that wide zoom, but am having a Canon mount made for the Arca, so I would forego the Hcam tilt/shift setup and just get the lens with the shade cut off.

CB

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #148 on:** May 16, 2015, 11:07:15 am »

Hi Chris,

Do you have the 40/4 FLE or the IF version? Very much different lenses.

Thanks for putting things into perspective…

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Chris Barrett on May 16, 2015, 11:00:05 am

I had Stefan invoice me and was just about to pull the plug and then backed off. I think now, I would get the new Canon 11-24 instead. Stefan says it's way sharper than the Nikon. I've been focusing on rebuilding my camera system. My new Arca Universalis arrived Thursday along with a Hasselblad 40mm CFe. The Blad glass actually allowed more movements on the Sony than my Schneider 43mm XL. I think I'm moving to all Blad lenses from 40mm and longer.

I'll probably come back to that wide zoom, but am having a Canon mount made for the Arca, so I would forego the Hcam tilt/shift setup and just get the lens with the shade cut off.

CB

gazwas · « **Reply #149 on:** May 16, 2015, 11:55:47 am »

Quote from: Chris Barrett on May 16, 2015, 11:00:05 am

I'll probably come back to that wide zoom, but am having a Canon mount made for the Arca, so I would forego the Hcam tilt/shift setup and just get the lens with the shade cut off.

Who is making the mount as this is the reason I stopped looking at the Universalis and Actus as I wouldn't be able to attach my Canon TS-E glass (or the new 11-24mm) for the wide stuff.

gazwas · « **Reply #150 on:** May 17, 2015, 04:43:31 am »

While thinking again about getting a mini view camera I visited Cambo's site and noticed a new Canon lens mount due for release very soon that allows aperture control of Canon lenses. Imagine an Actus with the 11-24mm? No TS mount to obstruct the lens movements as with the HCam adapter sounds very interesting. I wonder if that could replace (and better) the 17mm and 24mm TS-E's?

CAMBO ACTUS Mini View Camera : ACB-CA (Available Q2-2015)

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #151 on:** May 17, 2015, 08:25:15 am »

Yeah, I was gonna post about that... decent solution. The lens mount Arca is working on will require their Micro-Processor Unit and Remote Control Unit, which is kind of a drag. SK Grimes is making me a dumb mount which is basically mating an extension tube to a lens board. I'll set the Canons at f/8 1/2 using my Metabones adapter and live with that for now.

The Blad 40 is a CFE. I believe it's a Non-IF (there's no Zeiss logo on the side). Either way it's performing damn well.

gazwas · « **Reply #152 on:** May 17, 2015, 08:46:16 am »

Image shot for a client who wanted to showcase new exterior LED lighting.

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #153 on:** May 17, 2015, 08:46:11 pm »

the new hotness...

BobDavid · « **Reply #154 on:** May 17, 2015, 08:47:43 pm »

The Cambo Actus is a great little view camera. I've been using it with high-end enlarger lenses. I've got two mounts--one for a Sony A7 and the other for Olympus OMDs.

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #155 on:** May 17, 2015, 08:54:29 pm »

Enlarger lenses seem really well suited to something like this, Bob. Small, light, built in Iris. What focal lengths are you using?

Grischa Rueschendorf · « **Reply #156 on:** May 17, 2015, 09:24:16 pm »

Hi Chris
I am curious as to how this set up improves compared to you Arca set up? Do you see benefits in workflow or image quality? I would imagine the HR40 on an IQ260 gets you more shift than the Hasselblad 40 without the need to stitch on a Sony A7
I am wondering where you see an advantage given the fact that you got the Arca setup.
I am also experimenting with more electronic alternatives to my Alpa Max set up. I got a 35mm Contax mounted on an Alpa FPS that allows me to remotely trigger the system something I have been missing on my Max and is often essential to my work so a Sony back up or parallel system would be great if it would reduce weight and size without compromising on IQ and the ability to shift.
The Hcam TS mount seems to really make a difference in ease of set up and weight comapred to Arca/ Alpa / Cambo set ups.
But seeing your Sony , Arca , Hasselblad set up makes me wonder as to where you see an added benefit over you already existing set up
Thanks
Grischa

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #157 on:** May 17, 2015, 09:40:40 pm »

Grischa, it's all been about workflow efficiency on set. Having a really workable Live View has made work much more enjoyable. I'm able to achieve critical focus more quickly. I can compose more accurately. Also, when the designers and art directors I work with are working on propping, they immediately transitioned to just walking over and looking at the back of the camera instead of waiting for me to grab a new capture for every adjustment.

The image quality is not on par with my IQ 260, but then, I bracket and composite for every shot I do, and after 6 months of shooting strictly on the Sony, I've seen no loss in image quality with my deliverables.

I didn't use the HR 40, but rather the SK 43mm XL. The Blad 40 actually allows greater movements with the Sony. This is due to it's greater rear focal distance, as the camera body begins to vignette the image circle of the Schneider at around 20mm of shift. I've never really used more than 12mm of shift on that lens anyway, so I have way more movements available to me than I need. Also, because of my workflow, I never stitch images.

For wider shots I use the Canon 17 and 24. I'm having a Canon lens board made, so that I can use those on the new Arca and have better movements than what are available on the lenses themselves.

I've almost bought that Contax a few times now... I'm on the fence though and considering the Pentax as well.

Cheers,
CB

Grischa Rueschendorf · « **Reply #158 on:** May 17, 2015, 10:32:43 pm »

thanks Chris
that makes sense. IQ 260 Live view as decent as it is for framing is not something thats ready for prime time (meaning client viewing)
I do mostly luxury retail and hospitality so for retail my clients are never on set so Liveview is sufficient for Hospitality tethering is crucial for styling and lighting issues.
The Hcam for Canon looks very promising but the real shift advantage is at 15mm according to Stefan, thats way too wide for my clients and my personal taste. Having said this my own "Frankencamera" FPS, Canon mount , TSE 17, 24 and Contax plus Mirex Canon mount) saved my butt on some store fronts where I needed to stitch with the 17TSE.
Just as a set up compared to the one you posted where the Blad lens is connected to the Arca I wonder couldn't you simply shoot the A7 with Canon TSE's directly mounted to the camera instead of using the relatively large Arca body in-between if you don't stitch and are not in need of excessive shifts?
One added benefit I see of the A7 set up is the ability to use shorter exposure times. My IQ260 heats up considerably in fast paced interior shoots with bracketing exposures and often non air conditioned retail spaces (overnight). I can only use 50 ASA and thats adding to time due to the longer exposures.
Time management is extremely crucial oftentimes.

anyway I like this thread of brand agnostic ideas helping to get the job done without the need for the constant format bickering over at the MF forum. Lets hope it remains undiscovered for a while longer :-)

greetings from Hong Kong

Grischa

gazwas · « **Reply #159 on:** May 18, 2015, 04:19:33 am »

I ditched my Phase and Arca system for the very same reasons as Chris. The workflow was just a PITA and while the files were fantastic the work involved in getting there was tiresome,especially as Chris says when working with clients on set who keep making small changes to the shot. I got the new wide Canon TS-E glass as a substitute but went back to my Canon 1Ds3 and have been really missing the detail in the files but have held off on a Sony A7R to see what happened this year with Canon and Sony's megapixel monsters.

Even with the TS-E lenses they lack some important movements as I often want to shift the lens up to down and right or left but can only do one of these movements when the lens is directly attached to the camera where the Arca and Cambo mini view cameras solve this problem. I also think you get a better range of lenses and the Hasselblad 40mm Chris is using is a good example. I'd love to be able to try some of the Contax 645 lenses to see how they work out - the 35mm and 45mm especially but I think they would need a Hasselblad adapter converter to allow use on the Arca and Cambo.

Author Topic: Recent Format Agnostic Professional Works (Read 283591 times)