On Thursday, Nov 13, 2003, at 19:29 Europe/London, Bob Marchant wrote:
Ian Reynolds wrote:-But then there is just some stuff that you can't do with digital backs.
What exactly ?
Just done production shoot for theatre, spent half a day shooting on a building site where I would not have been able to work on MF. That said much of my work could be done using MF back but I would end up with different images. The type of camera influences the type of picture. Just look at the impact the first Leica 135mm had. This is not a an argument for or against DSLR just a concideration. On balance I found that there were too many jobs where the MF route would have been a hinderance balanced against too few jobs where it would be an advantage. As my work changes and evolves I may well go the MF route.
I think it is up to the individual and their market.
Exactly
Exactly
I've just spent all day shooting for Dewars . High key , incredibly detailed bottles with fine type and embossing , and gold labelling. All images to be perspective perfect , absolutely accurate colour and massive tonal range. With the greatest respect , even if you bought all your skills to work on this one , the D100 is not even in the ballpark when it comes to meeting our clients needs.
I think the point is that there are those, and I do not mean you, who use this type of debate to give the impression that a DSLR is inferier and so by implication is the photographer; people get defensive. It is different and those differences are important to understand so someone does not think they can by a 1Ds and do as good a job as I know you will have in your example and someone also does not think that professional photography is simply about gear. Otherwise it does just become a mine is bigger than yours debate.
Quantum camera anyone ?Go on then if you insist.
Kind regards
Jonathan Keenan
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
