Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DXO now has MF cameras  (Read 31053 times)
lisa_r
Guest
« Reply #100 on: February 07, 2009, 10:00:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Anders, that image does indeed look nice. Do you ever shoot tethered? If so, do you have any connectivity issues? I will contact you off-line.


re:
---------------
>THE LOOK I GET "MY STYLE" IS PARTIALLY A RESULT OF MY CAMERA. I GET HIRED >FOR MY STYLE WHICH IS MADE UP OF MANY THINGS (LIGHT, COMPOSITION ETC) >BUT HOW MY PICTURE JUST LOOKS, VISUALLY, IS AFFECTED BY WHAT TYPE OF >CAMERA/BACK I USE. If there is no point in using these digital backs sometime when >you want a certain look, then why do some of the best photographers in the world >still use them. Are you so arrogant that you think that you know more about the use >of a certain camera/back to achieve Demarchelier's style than Demarchelier himself?
---------------

Woof75, of course the camaras can have different looks (they have different default settings, lenses, chips etc.), and there can be good reason to use one over the other based on the "look" of the camera. (though as you yourself pointed out earlier, any of these cameras can be made to look like the rest depending on RAW conversion, photoshop, etc...) By the way, not that it matters, but last time I saw Demarchelier, he was shooting the cover of Vogue with a Canon.

Bernard, that image of the dappled wall looks very good to me.

Anyway I told myself that I would not buy another back due to all the technical issues I have had with them in the studio over the years, but looks like either a DL28 or a Phase/Mamiya may be in my near future...maybe I'll wait until some of y'all have bought them and they start appearing in the buy/sell area for 1/2 price. There's plenty of "price binning" happening there these days.

*shocking how many people buy new MF digital systems and 6 months later, after a few thoudand shots, they are being sold at a huge loss! I am truly amazed by the volume.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #101 on: February 07, 2009, 10:29:52 AM »
ReplyReply

-------------

Woof75, of course the camaras can have different looks (they have different default settings, lenses, chips etc.), and there can be good reason to use one over the other based on the "look" of the camera. (though as you yourself pointed out earlier, any of these cameras can be made to look like the rest depending on RAW conversion, photoshop, etc...) By the way, not that it matters, but last time I saw Demarchelier, he was shooting the cover of Vogue with a Canon.


I'm done. Good luck with it.
Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #102 on: February 07, 2009, 11:08:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lisa_r
Woof75, of course the camaras can have different looks (they have different default settings, lenses, chips etc.), and there can be good reason to use one over the other based on the "look" of the camera. (though as you yourself pointed out earlier, any of these cameras can be made to look like the rest depending on RAW conversion, photoshop, etc...) By the way, not that it matters, but last time I saw Demarchelier, he was shooting the cover of Vogue with a Canon.
He also shot the last Pirelli calendar with an hasselblad and a DB.

In any case, even if I would love to have Dermachelier accounts over mine (even bank's ones LOL) any time, he is not exactly well know for any compelling imagery or photographs that strike to the eye.

Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #103 on: February 07, 2009, 11:10:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lisa_r
Are any of these guys getting fired for lack of micro contrast? Did the art director get scolded for letting a toy camera onto the set? Did inez and vinoodh's images at the fashion photo exhibit I went to look inferior to the other images because they shoot with Canons? Er, no.

Did Paolo Roversi's images look like magic in his show last fall? Yup. It's the lighting, the technique, the medium (film), the printing, models, etc., etc.


99.99999% of the time the only people that care about dxo numbers, the type of camera a photographer uses, the minutte detail of the image are the overly obsessed photographer, or the retoucher that might be called on to rebuild detail, (usually detail that would never exist even if there was a 200mpx camera) and the people that make and sell cameras (on forums that usually means medium format and on forums the "sales" opinions covers a lot of territory).

Once shot for commerce the ad agency, the client, the focus groups only look for the image that compels them to act.

in fact if your client stars talking about megapixels usually they are looking at the wrong thing and as a photographer if your mentioning it, then your selling the wrong thing.

I knew the moment that someone like dxo produces a test that says any dslr is close to or equal in quality to a medium format back that the forums would light up with partisan viewpoints about how right/wrong/insane/laughable/correct/incorrect these tests are.

Medium format has produced a lot of messages to sell their product.  File size, then when that evened out, it was dynamic range, now it will be back to file size or sharpness or something other than the obvious areas medium format should address.  

Still in the real world of commerce and editorial everybody forgets about the technical and starts looking for that one compelling image that will pass committee and draw attention to the page.

This is obviously just small screen shots of a campaign so your not going to see any real difference in camera make or type, (go ahead guess if you want) and they've been reviewed by ABs. ADss, CDs. AEs production managers, focus groups and clients top to bottom and the words megapixels or camera brand were never once mentioned.

[attachment=11394:1takeyourpick.jpg]

There is absolutely no wrong choice in cameras if what you use produces the results you want.  

If someone wants  to spend 40k on a 60mpx camera then fire it up because the economy could use the boost, but if anyone really believes that anyone cares or notices (at least the people writing the checks) well it's probably time to reevaluate your message.

A client may notice if you say, hey "look at  this from the highest detailed capture device ever made (and then zoomed in on a shirt button), but honestly you could probably do that with almost any professional digital camera and the client would go wow.  Once past that moment everyone forgets and and goes back to doing what that should be doing in the first place  . . .producing the image.



Logged

Josef Isayo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


« Reply #104 on: February 07, 2009, 11:27:27 AM »
ReplyReply

James those images are amazing!

Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1132


WWW
« Reply #105 on: February 08, 2009, 07:41:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Agree with James and some of the other posts here.

If a client is focusing on megapixels, something is indeed wrong.

However, while 35mm dominates, medium format digital shooters as a collective are stubbornly committed to their tools. And few of them only use MFD, most use multiple formats depending on the situation. But those that do use MFD are pretty serious about continuing with the format.

Despite the abundance of 35mm solutions and users, and the appearance of MFD kits in the For Sale section from time to time, as a whole, the body of Medium Format Digita Shooters stays relatively constant. Seen as a journeying entity, it largely maintains it's dimensions and continues on its way.

What skews that factuality are forum posts like some of the ones in here (and that's great, I like the varied opinions, not criticizing anything).

What I take from all of the opinions here is that it's more important to the photographer what they're shooting with, even if the client can notice the difference. At the end of the day what a photographer wants are the right tools to get him where he wants to be from an end result standpoint. For many photographers, that stubbornly remains medium format and I think that is validated by the thousands of photographers worldwide who continue to shoot with the format for reasons that are mostly important to them and completely irrelevant to any argument made here for one format over the other.


Steve Hendrix
Phase One


Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7680


WWW
« Reply #106 on: February 08, 2009, 11:48:51 PM »
ReplyReply

James,

Nice to have you back at the forum! Regarding your writing I guess that it is absolutely true that I client would not at all be interested in the DxO-rating of the camera you use. On the other hand I'm pretty sure you are choosing the adequate camera for the job. As far as I understand you are using different tools for different jobs and you also test and evaluate each piece of new equipment you have. So the client doesn't need to know, because the photographer already made the necessary choices.

I also got the impression that you feel that the new very high res MFDBs have a bad return on investment, so you don't jump on that train right now.

It is my understanding that you were never overly impressed by the Canon 1DsII but you find the 1DsIII to be a much better camera. My guess is that it is not the extra 5 MPixels that do it but something else.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: James R Russell
99.99999% of the time the only people that care about dxo numbers, the type of camera a photographer uses, the minutte detail of the image are the overly obsessed photographer, or the retoucher that might be called on to rebuild detail, (usually detail that would never exist even if there was a 200mpx camera) and the people that make and sell cameras (on forums that usually means medium format and on forums the "sales" opinions covers a lot of territory).

Once shot for commerce the ad agency, the client, the focus groups only look for the image that compels them to act.

in fact if your client stars talking about megapixels usually they are looking at the wrong thing and as a photographer if your mentioning it, then your selling the wrong thing.

I knew the moment that someone like dxo produces a test that says any dslr is close to or equal in quality to a medium format back that the forums would light up with partisan viewpoints about how right/wrong/insane/laughable/correct/incorrect these tests are.

Medium format has produced a lot of messages to sell their product.  File size, then when that evened out, it was dynamic range, now it will be back to file size or sharpness or something other than the obvious areas medium format should address.  

Still in the real world of commerce and editorial everybody forgets about the technical and starts looking for that one compelling image that will pass committee and draw attention to the page.

This is obviously just small screen shots of a campaign so your not going to see any real difference in camera make or type, (go ahead guess if you want) and they've been reviewed by ABs. ADss, CDs. AEs production managers, focus groups and clients top to bottom and the words megapixels or camera brand were never once mentioned.

[attachment=11394:1takeyourpick.jpg]

There is absolutely no wrong choice in cameras if what you use produces the results you want.  

If someone wants  to spend 40k on a 60mpx camera then fire it up because the economy could use the boost, but if anyone really believes that anyone cares or notices (at least the people writing the checks) well it's probably time to reevaluate your message.

A client may notice if you say, hey "look at  this from the highest detailed capture device ever made (and then zoomed in on a shirt button), but honestly you could probably do that with almost any professional digital camera and the client would go wow.  Once past that moment everyone forgets and and goes back to doing what that should be doing in the first place  . . .producing the image.
Logged

James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #107 on: February 09, 2009, 12:29:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
James,

Nice to have you back at the forum! Regarding your writing I guess that it is absolutely true that I client would not at all be interested in the DxO-rating of the camera you use. On the other hand I'm pretty sure you are choosing the adequate camera for the job. As far as I understand you are using different tools for different jobs and you also test and evaluate each piece of new equipment you have. So the client doesn't need to know, because the photographer already made the necessary choices.

I also got the impression that you feel that the new very high res MFDBs have a bad return on investment, so you don't jump on that train right now.

It is my understanding that you were never overly impressed by the Canon 1DsII but you find the 1DsIII to be a much better camera. My guess is that it is not the extra 5 MPixels that do it but something else.

Best regards
Erik


Thanks.

I think maybe I didn't communicate exactly as I meant.  There is nothing "wrong" with a 50 to 60 mpx back if that is what you need or what works for you.  For me, it's not what I need in medium format or any format for that matter.  I can run the list of what I need, but honestly we've all written it 1,000 times before and I guess medium format is just what it is and what it always will be, so making wish lists is probably a waste of time.

I just find all of this interesting and in a real world sense some of the information I see just doesn't jive.  Clients production people may talk file size, (actually few, if any do) but once the project is going that's all forgotten.  It is about getting that image they find compelling or on message, has the right expression, etc. etc. etc.

It doesn't mean that if it just so happens that it can be done with a 60mpx back then I'm sure they are fine with that, but even with a 12 mpx nikon nobody says, whoa what is that?  It's all about getting the shot.

Yes I use a lot of cameras and probably will continue to.  Some get more use than others but if you look at the first dozen images on my website (and I'm not asking anyone to do that), but they run in today's order of Leica, 1ds2, 1ds3, leica, p31+, film, 1ds3, aptus 22, p31+, aptus 22, 1ds3, 1ds3.

This proves nothing, other than I own and used those cameras, got paid, the images were run, life goes on.

There is some post here that says "trust your eyes" and I'm good on that.  In fact this weekend I processed and purposed images from the p31+, the Nikon D700 and the Canon 1ds3.

At 200 iso the p31 + is great as long as everything is in focus, up to 400 iso the 1ds is also great (as long as it's in focus) up to 640 to 800 iso the d700 looks more detailed than those other cameras at 640 or 800 iso and since it hits focus better than both the canon and contax, it looks a lot more detailed . . . but that's just trusting my eyes.

Now in regards as to how anyone sells themself, that's their business and if a camera or a file size helps then great, but I've found it takes a lot to secure a decent gig and it's more than cameras, art, production values, costs, reputation or friendship.  It's usualy a mixture of all of those things and in my experience if you sell yourself because of a piece of equipment, then you run the risk of becoming a ccommodity and commodities usually work there way down to the lowest costs possible.

But cameras, dxo, pixel pepping is really not that important.  What is important is if you use what you believe to be best for your own personal work.


Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #108 on: February 09, 2009, 07:32:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree and I shot 35mm for more years than I can count. One of my biggest issues with some clients was what they turn your files into. Sometimes that need to go really big is there and i have been burned by this with some corporate clients, no I don't do a lot of fashion when this may not be as important but in the corporate world things are different in many ways. Having something much different than the guy down the street or even the actually worker in the art dept. . Yes there are tons of them shooting this stuff themselves to save money and we all know how this goes. Being able to produce a big file has it's advantages besides your talent and what you can do for them. Yes i get called in when it get's complicated or they really need someone that knows what they are doing and does it right. They do add that fact that I can go big in the decision making. So yes there are certain advantages to MF in the selling part of things and being able to produce that and cover your butt in any situation when they turn something into wall size and EXPECT detail in it. I'm not saying it is the only choice for a shooter or this is all the time but when there is a need than you have to fill it. Of course certain jobs are never in this category either and having both types of systems is great. My issue is i don't want to be caught with my pants down either and whatever I use the system will handle those clients needs and selling your technology to your client is part of your overall package especially when costs are factors and the guy down the street is cheaper. It's not just decided that Guy is the better shooter and we just call him in. Hardly ever the case, the art depts. have to fight the purchasing depts. to bring in the more expensive shooter. Unfortunately this is how it really works out there with many clients , costs come FIRST than the choice of talent. Fortune 500 companies the purchasing dept usually forces the cost decision and you as a shooter and talents are meaningless. People that actually want you have to fight for you to come in. Please believe this is more the norm than the exception. Luckily I have many clients that this is not always the case and your talent is more important but as a commercial generalist than your gear battle is harder to deal with because of the varied types of work. I maybe shooting a annual report shot one day with a huge set and the next shooting a golf tourny of the corporate executives with clients which you have no choice but have to shoot them or you don't get the annual report ones.
Logged

geesbert
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551



WWW
« Reply #109 on: February 09, 2009, 08:03:42 AM »
ReplyReply

when i was shooting with the 5D 'classic' i had this hapen to me a few times: the AD or the client told me they had the same Camera or once that they had given it as a christmas present to their wife. first i thought HORROR, i have to get a Medium Format camera to look professional, then i realised that they were flattered that they made the right decision for their purchase, as it semed to be the professional camera they were sold to. and when the guy with the expensive wife told me that somehow her pictures never looked close to what we were producing in this project, i was a happy camper again.

If you think only a MF camera is the right tool for you, fine! don't come running back and open a new thread in this forum complaining, that your investment melted much quicker than expected. If you didn't get your investment back within one year you made a wrong business decision. if you're able to charge triple just because you own a MF camera, I am envious. I can't.

But don't claim that it is not possible to create absolutely top notch work with a Nikon/Canon/Sony/whatever.
Logged

-------------------------
WWW.RANDLKOFER.COM
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #110 on: February 09, 2009, 08:26:47 AM »
ReplyReply

It paid for itself in 3 months and than some. BTW I NEVER said in all these post 35mm will not work. I've been doing this for 35 years and yes 35mm will work but I prefer to have this ability in MF and it works for me. Honestly I don't care what anyone shoots, we are all different and have different needs. I don't need to justify my purchases to anyone except my wife and my business so i really don't care what anyone thinks. I'm a working Pro and my needs are completely different than anyone else's , my point which you missed I know what works in my case and been around the block long enough to know what they are.
Logged

paulmoorestudio
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #111 on: February 09, 2009, 09:10:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
It paid for itself in 3 months and than some. BTW I NEVER said in all these post 35mm will not work. I've been doing this for 35 years and yes 35mm will work but I prefer to have this ability in MF and it works for me. Honestly I don't care what anyone shoots, we are all different and have different needs. I don't need to justify my purchases to anyone except my wife and my business so i really don't care what anyone thinks. I'm a working Pro and my needs are completely different than anyone else's , my point which you missed I know what works in my case and been around the block long enough to know what they are.


well I will say that 35mm dslr won't work on some jobs.. I just rec'd  neiman-marcus's "the book".  and I would bet real money that is was shot in total with a mfdb..
and I would also bet that the folks incharge of this chunk of production knew what they were doing..it was by choice to have it look this way..not what the photographer pulled out of his ___ that day.
Some clients care some don't, some hire for name, some hire for talent and some for budget, and everything in between..it is not a fixed thing.

  I do find it really interesting that those anointed, who get 50+grand a day can use a holga or canon when the nuts and bolts of the industry, billing if lucky 2.5 grand a day have to pop for the 60 grand system..to compete with the other nuts and bolts.. but that is the world of fashion, in itself not a logical thing to wrap your head around..though for some reason it commands the pinnacle level of our profession.. and if you shoot celebs.. omg, your pixels are indeed golden, period
Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #112 on: February 10, 2009, 03:02:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: paulmoorestudio
well I will say that 35mm dslr won't work on some jobs.. I just rec'd  neiman-marcus's "the book".  and I would bet real money that is was shot in total with a mfdb..
and I would also bet that the folks incharge of this chunk of production knew what they were doing..it was by choice to have it look this way..not what the photographer pulled out of his ___ that day.
Some clients care some don't, some hire for name, some hire for talent and some for budget, and everything in between..it is not a fixed thing.

  I do find it really interesting that those anointed, who get 50+grand a day can use a holga or canon when the nuts and bolts of the industry, billing if lucky 2.5 grand a day have to pop for the 60 grand system..to compete with the other nuts and bolts.. but that is the world of fashion, in itself not a logical thing to wrap your head around..though for some reason it commands the pinnacle level of our profession.. and if you shoot celebs.. omg, your pixels are indeed golden, period


I don't know about the big book, but historically it  usually is up to the artists discretion to use whatever platform and media they chose, film to digital.   This may have changed recently.

I do know that the internet imagery used by NM, along with some other print imagery, is sourced in majority through one single digital company  so the choice of camera, platform and medium is decided by the client not the artist and all the web imagery is shot with a phase back, first a p25 and I believe now a p30 or p30+, all for 72 ppi images at about 2" in length. This has less to do with quality or look but is based on a business arrangement.



Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #113 on: February 10, 2009, 07:37:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I thumbed through the book the other day and it did look very well done both photographically and the printing. Certainly better than most rags out there.
Logged

Smallcooter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


WWW
« Reply #114 on: February 10, 2009, 07:56:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: James R Russell
[attachment=11394:1takeyourpick.jpg]

Errr, let me guess: Leica M8?
Logged
lisa_r
Guest
« Reply #115 on: February 10, 2009, 08:23:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Odd that your 1Ds3 gives you focus issues James. My two bodies from the start have given me just about 100% in focus images - even at 1.2. (though I did have a rental which was rubbish in terms of AF.)

Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #116 on: February 10, 2009, 02:50:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lisa_r
Hey TMARK, do you care to mention which issues you are referring to (bergdorf goodman.) I have about 8 years worth of issues sitting right here.

Lisa,

Not the main catalouge but other print collateral, mainly seasonal.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad