Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Shooting Digital MF in Wedding Photography  (Read 11028 times)
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2013, 08:17:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I shoot 20-30 weddings a year using Canon 1DX, 5D3's and Hasselblad H4D 40. While I get a slightly better file (after post processing) with the Hassy in perfect lighting condition, the negatives far out weight the positives. The H4D 40 is bulkier, AF is slower, and doesn't do well past ISO 800. Also I get significantly shallower depth of filed with my 50 and 85L's vs the Hasselblad HC 100 2.2 wide open.

Mind you the H4D-40 (like a P40+ et al) is a 1.3 crop from full frame, which limits your ability to shoot shallow depth of field.

Each tool has it's positives, negatives, abilities, and limitations.

RJ who wrote the article uses a crop sensor MF back. The IQ140. Same sized sensor as the H4D-40. Same effect on the depth of field.
Also a full frame MF sensor is not going to that much better as far as shallow depth of field difference goes.... slightly better than a 1.3 crop 33x44
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 08:43:07 PM by FredBGG » Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2013, 09:12:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I could not agree with you more. Hyper image quality is not a priority in event photography. Telling the story is and capturing the memories.
What is important to keep in mind is that the image quality difference is between a current generation full frame Nikon vs a crop sensor MF is practically indistinguishable.





Agreed and I hate people giving me the hard sell on non-essentials.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
rjkern
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


I go where my camera brings me.


WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2013, 10:15:17 PM »
ReplyReply

This is not correct.

Comparing a 1.4 Nikon or Canon DSLR lens with the same angle of view as a 2.8 lens on a crop sensor (44x33mm), the 1.4 Canon or Nikon lens will have shallower depth of field.

You may be comparing lenses that do not have the same angle of view. For example the angle of view of a 50mm Nikon on a full frame sensor is not the same as an 80mm Mamiya/Phase One on the IQ140
that you use.

Their are no Hasselbld, Phase One or Mamiya lenses that will produce the same shallow depth of field and angle of view
combination of the following on a Nikon or Canon full frame.

24mm 1.4
35mm 1.4
50mm 1.4 or 1.2
85mm 1.4 or 1.2
200mm 2.0

The shallowest depth of field lens from Phase is the 150mm 2.8 D IF. Very nice lens.

Lets lok at the closest comparison that would be relevant.

85mm on Nikon/Canon vs Schneider 110mm 2.8 on a 33x44 sensor.

They have almost the same angle of view.

At two meters the Canon 85mm has the shallowest depth of field. 0.040m
Nikon 85mm 1.4 depth of field: 0.045m

The Schneider 110mm 2.8 with a 33x44 sensor depth of field 0.088m

Even on an IQ 180 the 110mm will still not have the shallower depth of field. 0.080m

Then there is the issue of shallow depth of field usability.
The af systems in the latest Canon and Nikon cameras as well as live view make accurate ultra shallow depth of field focusing
far more usable and accurate especially for off center compositions.
 
The king of shallow depth of field will be the new Leica with the Noctilux now that the Leica will have live view.

Another thing to be considered is using the method known as the Brenizer method.
He uses this for ultra shallow depth of field shooting that also gives him huge file sizes.

Here are some of his examples:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/110492963926129353210/albums/5642588167921700753?sqi&sqsi

Here is one:


As you can see he uses it quite a bit at weddings.

You need a fast camera to use this technique. The result is quite beautiful.



Fred,

I appreciate your time and thought in assisting me with my blog post. Again, I share my thoughts and experiences only to help others through my eyes. I strive to do my research before I click publish, but I value accurate information relative to real-world application vs the abstract theoretical. I thank you for your input.

After all, we are human. And personally, I rely on intuition and practicality vs facts and figures when it comes to choosing the 'right' paint brush for me. After all, that the beauty of the artists' tools: what works for one won't always for another.

Kind Regards,

RJ


 
Logged

R. J. Kern
http://www.kern-photo.com - my blogsite and portfolio
rjkern
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


I go where my camera brings me.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2013, 10:20:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Your talking about shallow depth of field, but you post a photo that was taken at at least f8. Nice shot of your brother.

IF we are talking about new technology I would hardly call focus masking rocket science. First of all it will only confirm focus on high contrast features.
Second it's after the fact.
With a D800 and a few other DSLRs you can shoot in live view with an on Camera HDMI monitor with real time focus masking.
There are even very integrated ones available.

Also on the D800 you can zoom in to a pre set magnification with one touch of a button.
There is also an advanced face recognition review function that let's you zoom into faces and check focus as well as expressions.
It even lets you rapidly go over many faces in a single shot.

http://youtu.be/yNajUFMpISs

Thanks, Fred! I value your input. I've just found quite often that if I can keep it as simple as possible and in a glance determine my answer, I'll roll with it, especially in terms of determining critical focus in a single screen view.

Yeah, my brother strikes quite the pose. Love him for it even more.

Logged

R. J. Kern
http://www.kern-photo.com - my blogsite and portfolio
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1005


WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2013, 10:21:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Although I like some Brenizer FX's I don't particularly like this picture. It looks like miniature effect. Especially since the groom is leaning as lead soldier toys do.
Eduardo

Fred,

I appreciate your time and thought in assisting me with my blog post. Again, I share my thoughts and experiences only to help others through my eyes. I strive to do my research before I click publish, but I value accurate information relative to real-world application vs the abstract theoretical. I thank you for your input.

After all, we are human. And personally, I rely on intuition and practicality vs facts and figures when it comes to choosing the 'right' paint brush for me. After all, that the beauty of the artists' tools: what works for one won't always for another.

Kind Regards,

RJ


 
Logged
rjkern
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


I go where my camera brings me.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2013, 10:22:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Mind you the H4D-40 (like a P40+ et al) is a 1.3 crop from full frame, which limits your ability to shoot shallow depth of field.

Still, I agree with everything you say here (as applied generically to medium format). It is heavier, bulkier, and the AF is slower. I never shoot a wedding 100% medium format. I use each camera where it excels. Notably, with (more recent) Phase backs you can use Sensor+ for a very good ISO1600 and an ISO3200 that can make a beautiful Delta3200 film-like B+W image when grain and contrast is added. If I think I'll need f/2+ISO6400 in a wedding scene I reach for my Canon. In many/most situations I don't I reach for the Phase.

Each tool has it's positives, negatives, abilities, and limitations.

I couldn't agree more, Doug. Thank you for sharing your insight. And as you know, instinct and experience kicks in to inform the shooter which tools to use, when, and how. That's why it is an art Smiley
Logged

R. J. Kern
http://www.kern-photo.com - my blogsite and portfolio
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2013, 10:30:39 PM »
ReplyReply

While I bet there are not a huge crowd of MF followers in this forum that make their living shooting medium format cameras at weddings, I'd thought I'd offer my perspective to this small, but influential group of followers of all things medium format.

Good news. The medium is alive and well. And it is a totally different crayon. And if I have a daughter. And if she is planning on getting married, I'd love to know that her chosen photographer is using the best tools available.

My thoughts on the matter, share on el blogito ::

http://www.kern-photo.com/2013/01/shooting-digital-medium-format-in-wedding-photography-2

I share 11 technical advantages of digital medium format vs 35mm DSLR cameras.

Love to hear your thoughts!

Cheers,

R. J.


While I think I see somewhat more dimensionality and subtle tonal variations in your examples, I have not yet had a chance to see the results with comparable subject matter with the newest Nikons; though I suspect that it will always be the case that, the less you have to enlarge an image, the greater the tonal range and clarity will be. However, in practical terms, I think this will be much more important for large-scale display prints than for Web viewing or prints in an album. So, for the more formal portraits, I would say that medium format might be a distinct advantage, if the client wants large display prints.  However, for the event itself, I think medium format puts you at an extreme disadvantage when trying to shoot more spontaneously and capture fleeting moments. Personally, I do not like the heavy flash look and generally more posed feel that seems typical of medium format event photography. But then Jeff Ascough is one of the people I admire when it comes to wedding photography, and that is a whole different thing altogether.
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2013, 10:43:46 PM »
ReplyReply

While I think I see somewhat more dimensionality and subtle tonal variations in your examples, I have not yet had a chance to see the results with comparable subject matter with the newest Nikons; though I suspect that it will always be the case that, the less you have to enlarge an image, the greater the tonal range and clarity will be. However, in practical terms, I think this will be much more important for large-scale display prints than for Web viewing or prints in an album. So, for the more formal portraits, I would say that medium format might be a distinct advantage, if the client wants large display prints.  However, for the event itself, I think medium format puts you at an extreme disadvantage when trying to shoot more spontaneously and capture fleeting moments. Personally, I do not like the heavy flash look and generally more posed feel that seems typical of medium format event photography. But then Jeff Ascough is one of the people I admire when it comes to wedding photography, and that is a whole different thing altogether.


If you like Jeff Ascough's work you might like the  Wright Brothers.... film wedding photographers. http://www.twinlenslife.com/

Regarding large printing.... you really have to go large to see the difference and even then it's not that much.

See this review done by an IQ180 owner

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/

Also here is a side by side of a 40mp MF sensor VS the Nikon D800.

Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7647


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2013, 10:44:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

What strikes me a bit is that the pictures using flash are quite a bit underexposed, at least on my screen. Also, flash illumination is uneven. It may be that just me.

Best regards
Erik





A very nice article with proper, real life examples and beautiful images!

Yair
Logged

David Schneider
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


Portrait Studio Owner


WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2013, 10:45:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I am a photography studio owner.  I use a Hasselblad H3D2-39 and four lenses, a Canon 5Dmk2 and four lenses, and a very recently added Fuji X-E1.  When my daughter got married I specifically had photographers use 5Dmk2's.  For ceremony we would have had to bring in plenty of studio strobe power to get the depth of field we'd need if using mf.  That would have been distracting and take up floor space.  The ability bump iso to 3200 and above is a world unknown to mf.  Dof of 70-200 at 180mm at f2.8 at 10' is less than 2" and with 85mm at f1.8 at 7' is 2.5" (and my Hassie 100mm at f2.2 at 7' is 3", my HC150mm at f4 at 7' has dof of 3.4").

I recognize the superior files of mf at low iso compared to dslr.  If I switch from looking at my mf files to my dslr files I think the dslr files look out of focus or soft.  But in comparing prints for an album there is little difference.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 10:49:12 PM by David Schneider » Logged
rjkern
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


I go where my camera brings me.


WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2013, 10:49:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Technically, perhaps better in some situation. Practically, probably not.

Another issue is in back-up. If there's a failure with the MF digital, what's the likelihood that there's a second camera/back/lens other than the "technologically inferior" smaller format? With full-frame digital and for sure, DX digital, a competent photographer will have backups of body/lens/flash, etc. or he's probably a "friend with a nice camera".

When I shot 6x6 for weddings, I not only had backs and bodies for back-up but brought along the 35mm. Today, It's a minimum of three bodies, duplicate lenses/flashes and all sort of redundancies for me.

Bottom like, it's not how much technically the equipment is compared to something, it's the heart of the image and my vision that my clients hire me for and the craftsmanship of the final image.

There's no such thing as a tool "technically inferior." I'd rarely shoot ceremony moments with the medium format, same goes with toasts, or candids. Just too quick moments which I'd want to capture as part of the story of the day. It's not about "gear" at those moments, but "images" that matter most. Again, tools only serve the purpose of what they offer the user in final images. But that the end of the day I want to be a happy photographer as well has have giddy clients over their experience working with me. That is gold for me.
Logged

R. J. Kern
http://www.kern-photo.com - my blogsite and portfolio
rjkern
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


I go where my camera brings me.


WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2013, 10:56:52 PM »
ReplyReply

If you like Jeff Ascough's work you might like the  Wright Brothers.... film wedding photographers. http://www.twinlenslife.com/

Regarding large printing.... you really have to go large to see the difference and even then it's not that much.

See this review done by an IQ180 owner

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/

Also here is a side by side of a 40mp MF sensor VS the Nikon D800.




I agree to disagree. I've found my clients are not interested in side-by-side comparisons. In fact, if I ever showed them that in a client meeting, they'd probably look elsewhere.

A Mickey Mouse watch tells the same time as a Breitling. And a broken watch still tells the time correctly twice a day. At the end of the day, I'd rather clients know they are getting a Breitling on their wedding day than a Mickey Mouse watch, especially if I'm the timekeeper.     

Logged

R. J. Kern
http://www.kern-photo.com - my blogsite and portfolio
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #32 on: January 16, 2013, 11:28:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree to disagree. I've found my clients are not interested in side-by-side comparisons. In fact, if I ever showed them that in a client meeting, they'd probably look elsewhere.

A Mickey Mouse watch tells the same time as a Breitling. And a broken watch still tells the time correctly twice a day. At the end of the day, I'd rather clients know they are getting a Breitling on their wedding day than a Mickey Mouse watch, especially if I'm the timekeeper.     



I linked to this comparison to reply to the large print issue. The comparison is to show that there is really no significant difference.

Regarding the Micky Mouse Breitling comparison you are making... no one is suggesting shooting with a Micky Mouse camera.

I think the compassion image I posted is quite relevant to what the client gets image quality wise. You are selling them images, not cameras.

From a sales point of view I can see how the appearance of a chunky MF camera can impress clients and you do a good job
of doing that with your blog. People do like to impress their guests with what they put on for their weddings. Big Limos and big cameras.
Nothing wrong with that if it goes hand in hand with nice photography (as in your case  Smiley )
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2013, 11:36:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

What strikes me a bit is that the pictures using flash are quite a bit underexposed, at least on my screen. Also, flash illumination is uneven. It may be that just me.

Best regards
Erik


It's quite subjective. I think RJ has good control over what he is doing, that is the look he is after and delivers it well.
However I do agree with you that they are on the dark side. Some like it and some don't. It's subjective. Personally
I'm not a big fan of such heavy use of overpowering the sun and prefer a more natural look and more of a bright white wedding look or moody black and white.

I really like what these guys in Hollywood are doing with old film cameras:





www.twinlenslife.com

They are very busy and I think their most expensive camera is a Polaroid frankenstiened into a 4x5.
Most of what they shoot with can be bought for a couple of hundred dollars. A days stock of film is more expensive than their camera...
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 12:01:19 AM by FredBGG » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #34 on: January 17, 2013, 12:30:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think anyone would dispute that in the digital world probably 99% of weddings and events are shot with 35mm cameras.

In fact when I first started with digital, I learned more from wedding and event photographers than anyone because they work in the same workflow and speed I do when we shoot loose lifestyle projects and wedding guys/girls started digital earlier to keep the costs self contained.

In fact they started way before advertising and editorial photographers.

Still, there are photographers in every genre that use every format and do it well. 

Look at this link of the Hasselblad Masters section of Wedding/Social

http://www.hasselblad.com/masters-finalists?#image-Bryan-Foong-Wedding-Social

All the imagery is stunning, regardless of camera.

What I do take strong exception with is the absolute definitive view that a any 35mm cmos camera replaces any form of medium format. 

I have owned at least a dozen cmos cameras and 5 ccd cameras and shot many side by side and I know that the ccd files work deeper and offer more possibilities.

Does that mean that my selection is right for everyone . . . No.  Right for me . . . Yes.

Pixel count means nothing  as long as their are not artifacts, what matters, especially when you go to post is the depth and sharpness of the file that a clean non aa filtered CCD provides.  My little  Leica M8 doesn't have near the file size of a most modern dslrs but the file works deeper and looks more detailed than cameras with twice the pixel count.

In regards to the image, of course that's important and every photographer has their reason for selecting a certain camera and lenses, film, sensors and post production software.

There is no right answer.  Consequently there is no wrong camera.

But in regards to working under pressure which I assume most weddings and events come with a truck load of, I shot Ronaldinho in Barcelona, 14 set ups, multiple monitors, many multiple client suggestions from 20 plus clients, two sets and 90% with a p30+.

This image was shot in 4 frames and was featured in CA magazine's photo annual.  It may not be outside lifestyle, it may not be for emotion only, but the pressure more or equals a wedding shoot (which I have great respect for), the thought process to block the shot happened in minutes.


This session of Asafa Powell in Kingstonwas scheduled for 8 hours and a lot of set ups.  Instead of 8 hours we had him for 2.  We worked so fast the assistants are holding the lights because we didn't have time to set up stands and two grip trucks were in the background.

So we shot background plates to blend out the crew.  Used a Contax and Aptus 22.


Now this last image is of Sanya Richards shot with a Nikon D3, 300 mm 2.8 at 2.8.  We had one opportunity to get this image, planned the shot and angle two days before her run, and honestly this was a heart stopping shoot.

Would I have shot this medium format . . . NO . . . but every situation requires a different set of equipment.  Then again I doubt if a D800 Nikon could have shot this at 12 FPS in available darkness.  Maybe, haven't tried one yet.


But this shot of Sanya with a p30+ was for a different look, different time.


Now I'm not trying to prove this is an apples to apples comparison just wanted to show what worked under extreme pressure.

If one system did everything for me, heck I'd own it.

Now the funny thing is the night I shot the B+W of Sanya there was a Japanese photographer working with a Nikon d1 or d2, or some old digital Nikon.  So old that the black was worn off it.
I saw him upload his image to wirelessly transmit and they were stunning.   Earlier that night I saw a photographer with an H system, 4 assistants with wireless flash and just working away.
I didn't see his images, but he knew his stuff.

There is no wrong camera.

IMO

BC

Logged
opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2013, 01:47:24 AM »
ReplyReply

In fact they started way before advertising and editorial photographers.

Scanning back cameras were used in advertising photography waaaaaaaay before that.

Not to dismiss your point, just say'n.

There are people that choose the right tool for the job because they can discern the difference. And there are people that can't see a difference even if their life depended on it. Given a general decrease in required quality on the information-consumption-side, it stands to reason that more production will take place with cheaper tools of lower quality, which probably equates to 35mm mainstream tools.

information-consumption-side = general public reading glossies, but also art-directors commissioning work. If you have 30+ years of photography experience and you have to work for a smart-phone-generation-art-director, then good luck explaining the necessity of the quality difference...

 

Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #36 on: January 17, 2013, 02:09:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Scanning back cameras were used in advertising photography waaaaaaaay before that.

Not to dismiss your point, just say'n.

There are people that choose the right tool for the job because they can discern the difference. And there are people that can't see a difference even if their life depended on it. Given a general decrease in required quality on the information-consumption-side, it stands to reason that more production will take place with cheaper tools of lower quality, which probably equates to 35mm mainstream tools.

information-consumption-side = general public reading glossies, but also art-directors commissioning work. If you have 30+ years of photography experience and you have to work for a smart-phone-generation-art-director, then good luck explaining the necessity of the quality difference...

 



Your right.  My best friend was shooting beautiful food photography of the world's most renowned chefs in digital with a light phase before I knew digital capture was real.

I've heard about the end of this industry since I started and I've heard about the good ol' days, just as long.

Truth is the good ol' days weren't that good and imagery of all kinds will always be needed to move any brand or service in world wide comemrce.

In regards to explaining how you produce a project to an AD (I'm not talking about cameras, I mean the whole process), if they don't care then they're not paying anything anyway and honestly no pay doesn't get a lot of attention, unless it's pro bono or fun and even fun costs money.

Lowering the bar doesn't move an industry.  (and once again I'm not talking about cameras, just the whole process).

It doesn't have anything to do with age.  I work for 24 year olds, and 64 year olds.  I've never noticed any difference if they're talented, except the "smart phone generation" wants to do large production and move their careers ahead just like any generation has and will continue to do so.

It may be done differently, actually it is, but it will be done differently in a dozen years also.

Your company makes software for Iphones and that's great because that's just another tool in the bag to do something different.

That's my point.  The goal isn't for the whole world to put a 24-70 on a 6d.  They can but after a while that gets a little boring.

The goal is use whatever works and is unique for you.

I don't care if a beautiful image comes from a pin hole camera, a cell phone or a 80mpx back.  I don't care if a talented director has a dp shoot his movie with a go pro as long as it's interesting.  

Good is good, but the thing is most images for commerce require production.

We've all seen cutbacks in the last few years, but our studio has also seen gains, it depends on the client, the project, the importance.

A client can cut back anything and will as long as your willing.  The best way to stay ahead is to stay professional and that covers a lot of territory.

There are no rules.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 02:15:19 AM by bcooter » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7647


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 17, 2013, 02:10:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The samples that "Bcooter" shows really impress me. I don't think that the use of Canon, RED or Contax/Phase makes his photography successfull. What makes him a successfull photographer is the vision and the workmanship. I guess that he takes the tool needed for the job.

The images are stunning, but they would be stunning whatever equipment he would use. I bet he would make excellent images with iPhone!

It's all about vision, styling, workmanship and all the photoshop work behind. Bcooter says the MF files are better. But not even an IQ 180 would turn a boring image into a masterspiece.

Best regards
Erik


I don't think anyone would dispute that in the digital world probably 99% of weddings and events are shot with 35mm cameras.

In fact when I first started with digital, I learned more from wedding and event photographers than anyone because they work in the same workflow and speed I do when we shoot loose lifestyle projects and wedding guys/girls started digital earlier to keep the costs self contained.

In fact they started way before advertising and editorial photographers.

Still, there are photographers in every genre that use every format and do it well. 

Look at this link of the Hasselblad Masters section of Wedding/Social

http://www.hasselblad.com/masters-finalists?#image-Bryan-Foong-Wedding-Social

All the imagery is stunning, regardless of camera.

What I do take strong exception with is the absolute definitive view that a any 35mm cmos camera replaces any form of medium format. 

I have owned at least a dozen cmos cameras and 5 ccd cameras and shot many side by side and I know that the ccd files work deeper and offer more possibilities.

Does that mean that my selection is right for everyone . . . No.  Right for me . . . Yes.

Pixel count means nothing  as long as their are not artifacts, what matters, especially when you go to post is the depth and sharpness of the file that a clean non aa filtered CCD provides.  My little  Leica M8 doesn't have near the file size of a most modern dslrs but the file works deeper and looks more detailed than cameras with twice the pixel count.

In regards to the image, of course that's important and every photographer has their reason for selecting a certain camera and lenses, film, sensors and post production software.

There is no right answer.  Consequently there is no wrong camera.

But in regards to working under pressure which I assume most weddings and events come with a truck load of, I shot Ronaldinho in Barcelona, 14 set ups, multiple monitors, many multiple client suggestions from 20 plus clients, two sets and 90% with a p30+.

This image was shot in 4 frames and was featured in CA magazine's photo annual.  It may not be outside lifestyle, it may not be for emotion only, but the pressure more or equals a wedding shoot (which I have great respect for), the thought process to block the shot happened in minutes.


This session of Asafa Powell in Kingstonwas scheduled for 8 hours and a lot of set ups.  Instead of 8 hours we had him for 2.  We worked so fast the assistants are holding the lights because we didn't have time to set up stands and two grip trucks were in the background.

So we shot background plates to blend out the crew.  Used a Contax and Aptus 22.


Now this last image is of Sanya Richards shot with a Nikon D3, 300 mm 2.8 at 2.8.  We had one opportunity to get this image, planned the shot and angle two days before her run, and honestly this was a heart stopping shoot.

Would I have shot this medium format . . . NO . . . but every situation requires a different set of equipment.  Then again I doubt if a D800 Nikon could have shot this at 12 FPS in available darkness.  Maybe, haven't tried one yet.


But this shot of Sanya with a p30+ was for a different look, different time.


Now I'm not trying to prove this is an apples to apples comparison just wanted to show what worked under extreme pressure.

If one system did everything for me, heck I'd own it.

Now the funny thing is the night I shot the B+W of Sanya there was a Japanese photographer working with a Nikon d1 or d2, or some old digital Nikon.  So old that the black was worn off it.
I saw him upload his image to wirelessly transmit and they were stunning.   Earlier that night I saw a photographer with an H system, 4 assistants with wireless flash and just working away.
I didn't see his images, but he knew his stuff.

There is no wrong camera.

IMO

BC


Logged

opgr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1125


WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 17, 2013, 03:00:03 AM »
ReplyReply


A client can cut back anything and will as long as your willing.  The best way to stay ahead is to stay professional and that covers a lot of territory.


Agreed. What do you think about the number of high-quality professional photographers in the industry? Will that number remain more-or less equal, decrease, or perhaps even increase?

I also wondered about this: Sometimes I watch a movie and in the movie the main character will somehow find him/herself in a scene reminiscing his/her wedding while watching video tapes or even 8mm tapes. Both of these have a specific look which "dates" the event. I believe that may be a big part in taking someone back to that event or memory. So if you would give all of your assistants a smart-phone and have them film a wedding event, and you then cut it into a reasonable movie in post, would that also exhibit a particular look that we will become to appreciate in 20 years time, when looking back at the event and the footage with that particular look of the era?
Logged

Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 17, 2013, 03:42:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The samples that "Bcooter" shows really impress me. I don't think that the use of Canon, RED or Contax/Phase makes his photography successfull. What makes him a successfull photographer is the vision and the workmanship. I guess that he takes the tool needed for the job.

The images are stunning, but they would be stunning whatever equipment he would use. I bet he would make excellent images with iPhone!

It's all about vision, styling, workmanship and all the photoshop work behind. Bcooter says the MF files are better. But not even an IQ 180 would turn a boring image into a masterspiece.

Best regards
Erik

+1

And what makes BC different than some other folks here is that he USES the tools and he's not scared of stretching their envelopes even when there's a big cheque on the table.

He's owned and used those two poor P+ backs and Contaxes forever and has shot a gazillion frames with them in all sorts of conditions and on REAL jobs. I don't know anyone else who uses an M8 commercially and very few shoot stills with a RED successfully

There is a HUGE difference between that and buying some used kit on the Bay, fuffing about with it for 7 weeks, 700 frames (and raving about it) and selling it on for a profit.

That is also why I liked RJ's article: He's got a toolbox which he's happy with, he appreciates the virtues of using the 2 different formats and he knows their limitations. It also seems like his clients are happy with the service he provides!

Whoever tells him that he is wrong is a fool IMO...

Yair
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@mamiyaleaf.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad