Greeting fellow sufferers,
on 19/11/02 2:31 pm, Jorge Parra at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Neither film nor digital would succeed if we were not skilled and creative > beings. Not half, having looked round the web at countless photographers efforts, you have to be in awe of some of the images....a good image will always be one that holds the viewers attention for more than a second...then, when viewed by a fellow photographer, we can start to criticise the merits of the medium used to capture this piece of 'art'......emotion?? hmmmm.. fast 35mm? nice and grainy....but that is irritating sometimes when you'd wished you'd shot on 120 645...nah 6x8..... but with a little more effort 5" x 4"..for a "little" more detail. 'course you could elect to shoot on a high end 4kx4k back, instant result and dare I say it better than film? you can still then post produce to get that "film look" if you wish, but why?. What I actually like about digital, still or video is the clean realism...my eyes dont see with grain (unless me specs are grubby), I see clean and clear... then we are constantly discussing cost on 20/11/02 8:56 am, Shangara Singh at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I was a diehard film man > (had my own 16mm Aaton as Stephen had his Arri SR). you lucky chaps some have to settle for super 8... ;) When going digital most seem to elect to go down the 35mm based route, with all its (up unitl recently) low pixel count, and poor colour rendition, people complain about the costs of high end backs and working life ( still got a 9 yr old leaf 2kx2k in production).... well, in my early career I used to envy photographers who used broncolor and sinar P's, blads etc, people I worked for just wouldnt spend the money on anything which wouldnt get lots of use. Then I worked for an industrial phtotgrapher who had all the above... more kit than you could shake a stick at, even a hasselblad fisheye (�3.5k in the mid 80's.. which I used 3 times in 2 years, once stood on a ladder on the main line at crewe, whilst a driver nudged a class 91 train to within inches of the lens), his pholosophy ? was to have the best, you are, after all a professional photographer. " I dont want you turning up on a job and some guy commenting on how your gear isn't the best available" a good digital system may cost �20k but thats only around �20 a day over 5 years, bet some of 'the worried' spend more than that on their cars..the newly announced crop of high end backs have never been better value for money. Many clients, now that they are digitally aware, do suggest that digital should be cheaper and comment that many photographers "go on" about their increased equiptment costs..and dont they know how much an audi TT costs...only joking Shangara again writes: > I was forced to shoot > video to survive but refused to line the producers' pockets or the > broadcasters' pockets! and as photographers working thru agencies, you often have to accept that your work is going to get a 100% markup.....course the agencies will be looking at cutting your costs too! unfortunately we are in a job where any good amateur can and do buy the same equiptment and set up as a photographer... lets face it a university degree doesnt make you a good career photographer.....it's a bit like the DIY boom, end eventually the DIY'ers make a mess and the professionals have to pick up the pieces....dont get me wrong, there are many self taught photographers who are to be greatly admired, and it is a job where the learning never stops..have you ever turned down a job just because you've "not done that kind of work before?".... but when it comes to business, its often, contacts personalities and consistency that count for the bread and butter stuff. snip > > A side note about quality: I once caught a coach from B'ham to London. The > driver turned on the video as soon as we hit the M6. The quality was about > as dire as you can get: the picture was a patchwork of grey, red, green and > blue yet not one person got up an complained during the 110 minutes the > video was playing. Out of interest, I looked around to see if people were > watching and sure enough they were. Go figure... Good point, I wonder how many listees have moved to large widescreen cimema Digital TV's on which to appreciate your hard work? and me? well I'm shooting more film than ever, If a client expects to see 36 different poses and crops from each garment, delivered same day/following morning,I'm not going to shoot digital..yet, plus, other clients, tell me that they actually enjoy an afternoon browsing over a lightbox with a magnifier. BTW I did get asked to do a reshoot the other day "we dont like the pose".....have you had a look at the other 35? ...Oh?...no One client even specing 35mm for roomsets! clients eh who'd have em? All the Usual P �-�� � ~ � P.S. would love to hear more form the video members re lighting, contrast etc =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
