Richard thought "Specialist photo Markets" was not digital enough, so Bob re-christened it "Digital Technical Challenges". I think we hope Digital will provide solutions rather that challenges! Perhaps this should have been several threads - please use the >Digital puts one on a short learning curve for technically difficult >Shots. If one rates exposure, focus, Perspective etc as technically >difficult, then the above counts. Exposure and DOF can be a technical problem especially Macro, and the sharpness readout on the pro-backs saves time and hassle for interiors, pack shots. >When it comes to shots that are truly technically... then the challenges >can be as great they have always been... Whatever you try to get the right result, for the inexperienced, it is nice, at the end of the day, to know you have a usable result. I have illustrated a few books on domestic fowl and waterfowl, and you have to press the button and wonder is you caught the pose afterwards: If you only use one in five or ten shots, the economics of digital are important - I wanted to the job with MF (for posters and agencies), but the initial requirement was only half A5 illustrations. Stopping bullets, ballet dancers, vaulters and gymnasts in the right part of the frame can also take some error and trial. >When I first started in photography it was "film will never replace plates >entirely, 'cos it ain't flat!!" >Can a digital sensor compare with a plate? The flatness of CCDs is a great advantage over sheet film and rollfilm backs, but un-flatness is a big problem with UWA LF lenses, where CCDs cannot cope with the light incident angle of no-retro UWA LF lenses. >All of this instant feedback definitely shortens the learning curve. If you do want to tackle a technically difficult shot you can sit down and fiddle with various settings until you have a preview that looks right. I still struggle with awkward lighting conditions (like my recent battle with sodium halogen ambient, day light and tungsten back lighting and on camera flash to fill!) but with digital I can get on top of it pretty sharpish and complete the shoot. To further reinforce the point, five minutes of experimenting meant that good old auto white balance gave the best rendition of that particular scene. With film I'd have to revert to theory and hope the results were acceptable (and they probably wouldn't have been). Andrew Lopez-Calvete >One of the few photographers whose work I admire is Joe Cornish - I wonder >if he has contemplated digital.. Yes, he's ever so slightly brilliant. In >this digital age, however, if there's one application where film is still >best, it's probably that one. Can you imagine lugging a scanning back up >the side of Roseberry Topping in the snow before dawn to get the images he >does? Neill Watson (not far from Roseberry Topping....) One of the advantages of some digital systems is that you get more res/Kg: Backpacking a Sinar 54H or a Digiflex may not appeal, but surely a comprehensive Digiflex or digital monorail or view camera system with 35mm lenses would be lighter than the equivalent LF system? Ballet photography is one area in which I would like to specialise: it seems that there is a market here. A specialist ballet photographer my fiancee used had no idea how to relate to the girls, how to pose them or anything, used a grand or so's worth of kit - and turned over two grand for the day! Sport, gymnastics, theatre and glamour you can do with simple equipment, but I hope to be able to get some interesting shots with equipment with movements. Architecture and landscape benefit from movements, a good range of lenses, and my 10m tripod and (particularly for stone buildings) high res. Many Estate agents do their own photography - some of them might even use PC lenses. Macro, micro, mixed lighting interiors, may be a small market - but how many photographers can tackle them? Digital give instant feedback and prevent the hassle and expense of calculating bellows factors, bracketing, etc. Thank you Jorge and Shangara for suggesting other lists that have more content relevant to the sort of equipment I intend to acquire: I will check them out. Jorge - Insurance is a major headache - especially as I would like to tour the continent with comprehensive Sinar (54H) and Hasselblad kit, freelance with no one to foot the bill! I used to use a Rollei 35 with my Nikon fit, and may well get a digital zoom 6-12Mp point and shoot. >Many clients would find out. in reality medium format (with some >tilting/shifting) was enough for their needs. Until the recent batch of MF monorails for digital, I was not aware of many MF cameras capable of much in the way of movement, which is why I bought a Sinar and some roll film backs. Most amateur photographers talk more about equipment than pictures, and I know I need to be thinking about creative aspects as well as the technical, but I wish to specialise in markets where a technical approach is required. Digital puts one on a short learning curve for technically difficult shots. One leading sailing photographer used box brownies - they were adequate - and disposable. One of the few photographers whose work I admire is Joe Cornish - I wonder if he has contemplated digital.
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
