Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Will Sony Make a Digital Back?  (Read 14059 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #100 on: March 21, 2013, 02:40:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, I believe what Fred was referencing re: marketing BS is the notion, which I've really only seen officially from Hasselblad and unofficially from kids, that to be a "Pro" you need medium format.  This is complete BS and devalues photographers in favor of gear.  As to attacking Phase's management or anyone else, I try to avoid reading too many of the "format wars" posts, so I'm not sure what else you are responding to.

As to fashion, well, there is lots of fluff on it but in the end its portraiture.  So no, its not a bullshit industry.  In fact, its more common to find art in fashion editorials and ads than in any other realm of commercial photography, and its often much better art that what purports to be fine art photography.  Fashion editorials are conversations between a photographer and whatever s/he is responding to, which generally is a vibe that is on the cutting edge of consciousness, or at least the mood, of the culture, which is moving so fast now, and consuming so much "content", that it is hard to keep up.  Sorry I went off on a tangent.


No, you didn't. You said something that needed saying, and I agree with you if only because I've been there, done that. The art/buzz of the job was why I had to do it. Money had nothing to do with it at first, and in my case, unfortunately, never did in any big way; I got by, paid the bills, fed the kids. But it was one helluva great ball to which to have held a ticket!

Rob C
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #101 on: March 21, 2013, 02:46:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Nail, head. It's marketing, needs to be seen for what it is.

Exactly!  Seperate the marketing from the product.  The product is good, its a tool.  It does something really well.  Other things no so well.  The branding/marketing people need to concentrate on the truth of the product, its strengths.  Blad's marketing is designed well, the magazine is nice, but the strategy is a failure because it relies too much on sentimentality that may or may not live up to the truth of their products.  I ask myself this question:  what happens to the person who buys on sentimentality and emotion?  The come down can be rough if they don't get new business, if the client doesn't notice, and if they aren't Helmut Newton or Avedon after they shoot with it for a year.  Then there is a backlash, and people start posting in forums about how the product sucks.  Then someone from Blad has to counter it, but it generates ill will.  Thes eare my thoughts, I very well may be wrong, only a fool is certain yada yada.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1667



WWW
« Reply #102 on: March 21, 2013, 02:57:09 PM »
ReplyReply

These are my thoughts, I very well may be wrong, only a fool is certain yada yada.

Hey, it could be people believe the BS. It could be me who is being naive.
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #103 on: March 21, 2013, 02:59:26 PM »
ReplyReply


No, you didn't. You said something that needed saying, and I agree with you if only because I've been there, done that. The art/buzz of the job was why I had to do it. Money had nothing to do with it at first, and in my case, unfortunately, never did in any big way; I got by, paid the bills, fed the kids. But it was one helluva great ball to which to have held a ticket!

Rob C

Your work is really wonderful.  

I think many people on this forum, as its landscape based, have misconceptions about fashion.  This is understandable, not many people in the general population read the better mags or have an understanding of what the industry is really about at its core, and the photographers who are a part of the artistic side of the industry.  Most people in the states think of American Vogue, Cosmo and Alure as fashion mags.  They are, but they are very mainstream.  Rarely is Grace Codidngton given the room to do what she wants.  It happens, but not nearly as much as in the European Vogue titles.  (As an aside, I think conflating fashion and celebrity was the worse thing that has ever happened to fashion magazines.  It roped in more readers, but man, at what cost?  Thanks Ms. Wintour for that culteral fuckery!).

 

Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #104 on: March 21, 2013, 03:00:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey, it could be people believe the BS. It could be me who is being naive.

They WANT to believe it, even when they know its probably not true.
Logged
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 791



« Reply #105 on: March 21, 2013, 03:08:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I think conflating fashion and celebrity was the worse thing that has ever happened to fashion magazines.  It roped in more readers, but man, at what cost?  Thanks Ms. Wintour for that culteral fuckery!).

I was about to write just that, and you get ahead!

N.Y Vogue and the ironwoman psychopatic saga...yeah. What was to expect with her? Nobody stands her but everybody fears her.

The prob is that now it's not just inside magz but the celeb culture is deeply anchoered into the fashion world as a way of life and unfortunatly it sweats from all the pores.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 09:06:06 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #106 on: March 21, 2013, 03:19:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I was about to write just that, and you get ahead!

N.Y Vogue and the ironwoman psychopatic saga...yeah. What was to expect with her? Nobody stands her but everybody fears her.

The prob is that now it's not just inside magz but the celeb culture is deeply anchoered into the fashion world as a way of life and unfortunatly it sweats from all the pores.

You nailed it.  Having a celeb on the cover will move a mag on the newsstands faster than an Irving Penn or Paolo Roversi cover of a professional model.  If people think fashion is vapid, it has nothing on celebrity culture, which is like fashion "Lite" or fashion with no ambiguity or sophistication.  Not always, there are exceptions, of course. W has good shooters shooting celebs, but its a colaboration.  Like the Steven Klein's celeb editorials with Brad Pitt, Bruce Willis (shot on Red) etc.  But the spreads aren't good BECAUSE its Brad Pitt or Bruce Willis.  The spreads are just good photography and good talent. 
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #107 on: March 21, 2013, 04:45:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, I believe what Fred was referencing re: marketing BS is the notion, which I've really only seen officially from Hasselblad and unofficially from kids, that to be a "Pro" you need medium format.  This is complete BS and devalues photographers in favor of gear.  As to attacking Phase's management or anyone else, I try to avoid reading too many of the "format wars" posts, so I'm not sure what else you are responding to.

As to fashion, well, there is lots of fluff on it but in the end its portraiture.  So no, its not a bullshit industry.  In fact, its more common to find art in fashion editorials and ads than in any other realm of commercial photography, and its often much better art that what purports to be fine art photography.  Fashion editorials are conversations between a photographer and whatever s/he is responding to, which generally is a vibe that is on the cutting edge of consciousness, or at least the mood, of the culture, which is moving so fast now, and consuming so much "content", that it is hard to keep up.  Sorry I went off on a tangent.

Really, you take product advertising at its word? Do you really believe that shiny new sports car is going to make you younger and more handsome?? I have known for a very long time that there is no such thing as a "professional" camera. "Professional" is the most overused word in camera advertising. Is Fred confused about that?

Fashion is the objectification of women and men. Wear this and be beautiful. And if you are beautiful you will be loved and admired. Isn't that the messaging? Isn't it built on taking little girls and making them women--how perverse is that? Girls that end up staving themselves because of a twisted body image. Now, if you want to work in fashion and make a living from it, that is great. There has been a lot of advertising images I have enjoyed. But it is hardly some benign, innocent industry interesting in beauty and art.

Sorry, it does not matter whether the image maker is selling cameras, clothes, or sex, it comes down to the same thing.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #108 on: March 21, 2013, 04:49:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Millenials are confounding.  I don't think they are cut out for much.  The ones that do sheet rock install are more savvy about life than the college educated kids.  I'm in advertising now, at an agency, and a big part of my job is finding messages that resonate with millenials.  You know what I've found, after countless focus groups?  The higher the socio-economic chain the more niave and sentimental they are.  They want to be street smart but are prone sentimental journies.  They distrust advertising but are voracious consumers of goods, advertising, and propoganda.  You can sell these kids wool scarves to wear in the summer, because they have some Bloomsbury fantasy floating around in their heads and think scarves are signifier of their "life style".  I could go on, and on, and on.  In fact, I attended a convention on the topic at MoMA last year.  The upshot:  the kids are not alright.

As every generation before them. That includes you and me and our parents and grandparents all the way back to the dawn of time. Each generation looks back and says exactly the same thing about the generation following them. And that younger generation can't understand us either, just like we did not understand our parents. That is called life.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #109 on: March 21, 2013, 05:20:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Millenials are confounding.  I don't think they are cut out for much.  ...  the kids are not alright.
Be careful, or you will confirm the prejudice that the main remaining market for MF is change-resisting grumpy old men.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #110 on: March 21, 2013, 05:24:44 PM »
ReplyReply

As every generation before them. That includes you and me and our parents and grandparents all the way back to the dawn of time. Each generation looks back and says exactly the same thing about the generation following them. And that younger generation can't understand us either, just like we did not understand our parents. That is called life.



But what we are on about here has nothing to do with generation: it's to do with culture.

Rob C
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #111 on: March 21, 2013, 05:49:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have no dislike for the market or those that use MFD... however I do have an aversion to the marketing BS put out by some in the MFD industry, dealers
and MFD fanboys.

So, you don't like the people running the MFD business and you just want to "get your own back"? So, it is a personal attack. This is interesting in light of want you do--celebrity portraiture and fashion. Talk about BS industries.

I never said I don't like the people in the MFD industry or their dealers.... i said I have an aversion to bullshit especially when it is used in marketing of very expensive tools to people
working hard on a career.

As for your accusation of "get your own back" and that what I do professionally is BS... well I find it really quite silly....

Let me tell you a little something. The other day I was at a store here in LA that is an MF dealership for both the big names in MF.
Well I had shown the guys behind the MFD counter some of my work and this time around had brought them some prints
of celebrities they were big fans of. They were samples from my future book of some 300 unpublished celebrity portraits.
I gave them several prints. Iggy Pop, Tommy Chong, Tommy Lee, Sting. Does that sound like a vendetta to you?

As for the fashion industry and the celebrity phenomenon. It's entertainment. The presence of Celebrities on the covers and in the spreads has a lot to do with what readers are interested in.
It's partly about being fans, but it also has a lot to do with women today that are more interested in famous beautiful successful people
that win oscars, produce multi million dollar movies, are talented, are often also mothers, are often over 20 and sometimes 50.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #112 on: March 21, 2013, 06:16:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Your work is really wonderful.  

I think many people on this forum, as its landscape based, have misconceptions about fashion.  This is understandable, not many people in the general population read the better mags or have an understanding of what the industry is really about at its core, and the photographers who are a part of the artistic side of the industry.  Most people in the states think of American Vogue, Cosmo and Alure as fashion mags.  They are, but they are very mainstream.  Rarely is Grace Codidngton given the room to do what she wants.  It happens, but not nearly as much as in the European Vogue titles.  (As an aside, I think conflating fashion and celebrity was the worse thing that has ever happened to fashion magazines.  It roped in more readers, but man, at what cost?  Thanks Ms. Wintour for that culteral fuckery!).

 


Thanks for the compliment – apart from surprising me, it made my day, which by 11.28pm had done very little else to raise my spirits – so thanks again for renewing my faith in the eleventh hour!

Grace Coddington used to be a model too, until misfortune ruined it for her, though I imagine she’s had a far longer career in editorial work than modelling could have provided. There was a film shot a couple of years ago about the making of the September issue of US Vogue in which she featured quite strongly, and it became crystal clear that she had her own opinions about how the place functioned – a brave lady, but perhaps she knew her value.

I watched the link Fred supplied about Vogue España  - but the thing is, Testino didn’t just come out of nowhere as a snapper: he was already very well connected in South American society, and none of that gets in the way of one’s climb! Especially when it isn’t really about money. That can annoy the hell out of many people who need both money and the work, but if you happen to be the golden boy, do you care – should you care?

The point was made by ‘guy with…’ that fashion is about the changing of very young girls into women, steallng their youth. What nonsense! Young girls don’t figure: young girls have no money. The only reason some young girls have a part is because they are young and, consequently, they have a naïve quality that can photograph well, and their skin is pretty much better than that of women of the age to buy the product. If anything, young girls are a damned nuisance in a working environment because they create responsibilities that folks don’t need. But, if you dig beyond the stuff written about the ‘younger girls’ in the business, you must be blind not to realise that the women making the money and getting the top work are not really all that young anymore. Last time I looked, Ms Moss was still actively employed. That kids are idiots isn’t the fault of a magazine editor or photographer: if anything, where the hell are the parents? If you need to find someone to blame, look for the goddam dealers.

As for fashion being objectification – that sounds so very innocent a concept that I can hardly believe it was written by a photographer active today. Objectification of women by themselves, then? You don’t believe that women actually enjoy clothes, shoes, looking the best that they can? There’s a kind of sense in that view that is divorced from any experience that I have had of females in my entire life. It has the same provenance as has the belief that girls only like dolls because their mothers give them to them as toddlers. If anyone believes that, I suggest they take themselves off to a third-world state and have a look at the really, really poor children at play: maternal instincts are always there, and where mother can’t give the little daughter anything, hardly even food, you won’t find a pretty, pink china doll but you will find a bit of wood with some rags wrapped around it that represents the very same urge. It’s inborn. It’s life.

It’s also bedtime,. So buenas noches, world.

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 06:18:52 PM by Rob C » Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #113 on: March 21, 2013, 06:36:25 PM »
ReplyReply



But what we are on about here has nothing to do with generation: it's to do with culture.

Rob C

Well, it must be so ingrained in the culture that it is the same for each generation.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #114 on: March 21, 2013, 06:47:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I never said I don't like the people in the MFD industry or their dealers.... i said I have an aversion to bullshit especially when it is used in marketing of very expensive tools to people
working hard on a career.

As for your accusation of "get your own back" and that what I do professionally is BS... well I find it really quite silly....

Let me tell you a little something. The other day I was at a store here in LA that is an MF dealership for both the big names in MF.
Well I had shown the guys behind the MFD counter some of my work and this time around had brought them some prints
of celebrities they were big fans of. They were samples from my future book of some 300 unpublished celebrity portraits.
I gave them several prints. Iggy Pop, Tommy Chong, Tommy Lee, Sting. Does that sound like a vendetta to you?

As for the fashion industry and the celebrity phenomenon. It's entertainment. The presence of Celebrities on the covers and in the spreads has a lot to do with what readers are interested in.
It's partly about being fans, but it also has a lot to do with women today that are more interested in famous beautiful successful people
that win oscars, produce multi million dollar movies, are talented, are often also mothers, are often over 20 and sometimes 50.


Well, you either have a real problem in separating reality from marketing and so are "shocked" when you see it, or your are simply bashing the MFD market because of some personal reason. You certainly know nothing about the camera manufacturing industry.

Right, the fashion industry and celebrity mill is just BS. Those industries hugely distort their image to con people to want it. Selling lifestyles that are pure fantasy--at least with Phase, you get a camera. And what great lifestyles too--how is Kim K doing? (And MFD is cheap compared to fantasy celebrity lifestyles.)
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 06:50:38 PM by theguywitha645d » Logged
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 846



WWW
« Reply #115 on: March 21, 2013, 07:08:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Camera makers are selling a dream too (all of them) they make you think you will create beautiful imagery and capture memories that will live forever, and you need the new and improved to get more affirmation for your vanity purchasing from your peers on Flickr.
99% of the resulting imagery is cats and sunsets. Angry
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #116 on: March 21, 2013, 07:23:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, you either have a real problem in separating reality from marketing and so are "shocked" when you see it, or your are simply bashing the MFD market because of some personal reason. You certainly know nothing about the camera manufacturing industry.

But you're the expert aren't you because your name here on the forum is theguywitha645D

Funny thing is that a leading pro equipment manufacturer and world wide distributor of pro gear invited me up to his factories
for a few days to sit down with his designers and brainstorm. Luxury hotel and fine dining included.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 07:38:49 PM by FredBGG » Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #117 on: March 21, 2013, 08:00:33 PM »
ReplyReply

But you're the expert aren't you because your name here on the forum is theguywitha645D

Funny thing is that a leading pro equipment manufacturer and world wide distributor of pro gear invited me up to his factories
for a few days to sit down with his designers and brainstorm. Luxury hotel and fine dining included.

Well, my former employer, Minolta and then Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, put me with the product teams that actually designed the cameras, scanners, and software. I just got a company apartment and had to buy my own food, but then it was a job for me. Part of my job was to write the initial press release for the products for all markets outside Japan. Inside the company, I just worked with the engineers, marketers, and QC guys on the production of the products. But I guess a few days at a factory just made you the expert. I know about "experts" invited to the factory. We had them too. Great marketing gimmick.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #118 on: March 21, 2013, 08:13:11 PM »
ReplyReply

645D,

You are pointing ethics and values. We, as humans, are living in both spiritual and physical form. All that is a big game in the world of form. We're just playing, nothing is serious. A camera is a toy, a more sophisticated toy that replaces the toys we where playing with when kids. A gun is also a toy. Those are all toys for adults playing games in the world of forms, creating and destructing, doing and de-do all the time. Nothing all what we do has real value because all what we do is already destined to disappear at some point. Even earth will disappear, even the sun.

So fashion is not pretending talking about the Genesis or finding the dynamics of black holes singularity, nor establishing eternal values. It's all about shapes and forms, linked to seduction, desire, attraction, sophistication, etc...all the forms. Fashion is very very rarely spiritual, only in the hands of few, very few masters that were able to transcend the mask, but it should be at least elegant and not vulgar as we see too often.

There is no danger in that. The problem is, when people confund everything and put the values of the form above all. That's when fashion can become a total distortion. Same as money. Not a danger in itself, it becomes dangerous when money is all.
It's all about the use we make with our tools-toys. Nowdays, apparences are all. That's a distortion. Apparences aren't evil in itself. It's what we project and beleive as values that are.

TMARK pointed something important, is that there has been a drifting in the lastest years, where fashion as a great art form, started to be mixed, associated and recuperated with celeb. Celeb is 100% ego, therefore 100% false. Fashion by essence isn't. Fashion has been manipulated, reduced to its heavier and lowest expression by people who are not interested in art in form. A decadence always starts like that.

I am just rattling Fred's cage. Nothing is ever that simple--unless it is the camera business a la Fred. But the is the wonderful thing about the internet, there are lots of big brushes we can paint with. Naturally, even in the fashion world there is a huge spread from L. L. Bean catalogs to Vogue or whatever the top outlets are--I have certainly enjoyed fashion, but I don't follow it closely.

I also think we look at the past with rose-colored specs, as every generation does. What was superficial and trite becomes the classic forms of an era. HCB was branded with the snapshot aesthetics, a pejorative. Today he is the god of street--he is good, but not that good. You can see the cycle no matter which period you look at--Bach, Mozart, van Gogh, Picasso, Wolfe, Pollack, Warhol, Hockney, and a whole host of artists were at one point in their career or reputation looked down on before they were elevated to greatness. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Logged
kdphotography
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 712


WWW
« Reply #119 on: March 21, 2013, 08:14:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quite frankly, I'd rather listen to someone who actually has and uses a medium format digital camera, e.g., a 645D, rather than someone who bought an old MFDB, had it but for a scant few weeks/months, and couldn't get it to work for them, yet still feels compelled in an overbearing paternalistic manner to warn others about the dangers of medium format digital.  There's really no need to protect those ignorant uneducated young photographers anymore, since medium format digital is dead anyway, right?   Roll Eyes    Wink

Maybe that paternalistic instinct would be better served warning impoverished debt-ridden masses from listening to misleading automobile advertising that induces these poverty stricken families to purchase (and further customize) expensive cars, rather than put food on the table or pay the rent.   Cry  Thank God, we've found a new saviour.   Wink
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad