A lot of $$$

KM-25 said:
Yes, working towards mostly doing fine art black and white but I still do and love to do journalism / documentary and have long time commercial clients.

I know it can be varied but I can not tell you how many times something that was originally commissioned for web/social has been used down the road much, much larger. So I was just wondering where Sevo got the reference point because using that oft misused term "Most" or "all" was suspiciuosly out of place here.

As for you dissagreeing about the output comparison I was giving.....go back and read what I said again, because I think you missed that this is a specific case with specific cameras.

I guess it just gets old when people make claims in near or full blanket terms that from where I sit are a complete departure from reality.

Anyone who uses phrases that try to place the duties of the current form of a professional photographer in a "majority" situation clearly do not understand that there is no "Most" or "Nearly All" in 2015....those guys are going out of business....fast.
Click to expand...

Okay, gotcha. And yes, I forgot you specifically mentioned the M9 - BUT, I still disagree with you :).
 
Corran said:
Okay, gotcha. And yes, I forgot you specifically mentioned the M9 - BUT, I still disagree with you :).
Click to expand...

A rep from Canson Papers gave me some nice samples packs so I'll be able to do a direct comparison when I have a rented M9 in a week or so. That ought to be interesting...
 
KM-25 said:
Bill, without pointing fingers of any kind of disdain, I wonder sometimes if these types of questions are not just put here to stoke fires that come and go elsewhere. I think if you chimed in more after your opening statement it might not appear as such to me anyway.
Click to expand...

I pretty much start threads on topics that interest me. My sin is that quite often I have made my mind up about where I stand on the topic and don't jump back in again. As to megapixels, most of my work doesn't require an image with some large megapixel count. On rare occasion it does. Sometimes I would really like to crop into an image, especially when I'm street shooting. Sometimes I actually take an image that's worthy of a really big exhibition print. Since I never know while I'm shooting if either of those situations are going to come up, I tend to want to shoot everything as a large raw file just in case.
 
OP...yes and no. It just depends on you and your goals. For me it does. I can't say about others.

Cameras are tools for freezing time. Some tools are better than others for the job. No one will argue against that. But, unless you have some specialized project that requires a zillion MP so you can make wall size photos of your smoky water with the obligatory dock and sunset or burning steel wool photo – one cam is as good as the next if they both have the ability to do the job.

See my previous discussion:

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/what-is-the-best-camera-in-the-world/
 
KM-25 said:
Anyone who uses phrases that try to place the duties of the current form of a professional photographer in a "majority" situation clearly do not understand that there is no "Most" or "Nearly All" in 2015....those guys are going out of business....fast.
Click to expand...

I agree! But all of us tend to view the world from the point of view of our own experiences and those we know.

Frankly I don't even know what defines making a living as a photographer.
 
sevo said:
The vast majority of people living on photography are no press photographers, and will use tripods and lights.

In technical terms the bulk of commercial photographic work is shot at base speed (I.e. mostly ISO100) and printed to less than 2MP target resolution.

Arguably, high resolution and file quality (and presenting proportionally expensive tools) often is a selling point for professional photographers, but most of the time that is irrational - mentioning that the client could blow up the originally stamp-size portrait of the branch manager or barely bigger product shot from the corporate brochure to mural size may get you the job thanks to the client's vanity, but that option is rarely ever put into reality.
Click to expand...

I saw this late and I from my experience this is not really true. Even low level clients (I don't like this description, a client is a client, anyway...) very often print small catalogs, A4 size brochures, maybe calendars for their clients and often large size posters. Also the ISO100 theory is not completely true. When there was no option people used ISO25 and needed a lot of light, but it is much easier, not to mention cheaper, to use a clean ISO400 or even ISO800 and smallish monoblocks or strobes (these days we see even led panels). I think in Ming Thein's blog he had once a full article on taking food shots with a micro 4/3 camera and led, vs the old way. Finally, remember also that often the problem in product photography is exactly the opposite of what people like here, we need more DOF not less and achieving the right effect at, say, f5.6 instead of f64 takes away the need for huge lights even more.

GLF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom