peter_n
Veteran
I was reading earlier in the week about Jeff Ascough's decision to move over to Canon 1DmkII's after many, many years of very successful professional work with Leica RFs. The reasons are the current market in the UK, and service from the development labs. He says he's been pushed into it, but he likes the results in particular those from the Canon L optics.
A big issue was that a close-by lab that he'd used for 12 years went completely over to digital. They farmed out his B&W C-41 negs to another lab 100 miles away that wasn't in the same quality league and charged more. Plus his clients apparently couldn't see a difference between his lab souped analog B&W images and (what sounds like) his own digital prints.
I absolutely don't want to start a digital vs film thread but this is too bad, I am an Ascough fan and he was unique. This is unfortunate but it was a business decision pure and simple. He's hanging on to his Leica glass in case the digital M turns up...
Related links:
Jeff Ascough's web site
digital (DSLR) vs. medium format film(for your wedding) Fairly recent post from Jeff near the end where he explains his decision to move to digital SLRs
Jeff Ascough seminar, is it worth seeing? A thread 6 months previous to the above one where Jeff posts (also near the end) about how he loves his Leicas and how horrible SLRs are...
Six months - I guess the old profit margin changes everything huh?
A big issue was that a close-by lab that he'd used for 12 years went completely over to digital. They farmed out his B&W C-41 negs to another lab 100 miles away that wasn't in the same quality league and charged more. Plus his clients apparently couldn't see a difference between his lab souped analog B&W images and (what sounds like) his own digital prints.
I absolutely don't want to start a digital vs film thread but this is too bad, I am an Ascough fan and he was unique. This is unfortunate but it was a business decision pure and simple. He's hanging on to his Leica glass in case the digital M turns up...
Related links:
Jeff Ascough's web site
digital (DSLR) vs. medium format film(for your wedding) Fairly recent post from Jeff near the end where he explains his decision to move to digital SLRs
Jeff Ascough seminar, is it worth seeing? A thread 6 months previous to the above one where Jeff posts (also near the end) about how he loves his Leicas and how horrible SLRs are...
Six months - I guess the old profit margin changes everything huh?
Dan Chang
Established
I am worry about that the film will following the Polaroid trend... too expensive to use. Polaroid SLR was very expensive and popular 20-30 years ago, and now they are junk. I am imaging Leica body will be sold for few bucks in the flea market...
back alley
IMAGES
as long as b&w film is made we can process it ourselves.
then scan and display it!
is that ironic?
colour workers/tranny users may have it a bit harder though.
joe
then scan and display it!
is that ironic?
colour workers/tranny users may have it a bit harder though.
joe
jdos2
Well-known
Just like everyone else who shot rangefinders, he'll find himself shooting some film.
Betcha.
And he'll do it through his Leicas.
Betcha.
And he'll do it through his Leicas.
aizan
Veteran
backalley photo said:as long as b&w film is made we can process it ourselves.
then scan and display it!
is that ironic?
colour workers/tranny users may have it a bit harder though.
joe
i have slacked off so much on processing color. i've got to shoot some slides....
let's see if ascough's style changes after the switch.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Dan Chang said:
For pros living on only what they shoot daily? Very soon if not already. For us crazy artists and hobbyists? Hard to say what too expensive really is. I can still buy silver nitrates and glass plates after all...
In the end of it all, there will still be some option just as you can still buy good oil paints and even, for example, the fixings for tempera paint. But no one will mistake either for mainstream art. But they may well pay enough to make it viable art... :angel:
William
Last edited by a moderator:
T_om
Well-known
aizan said:i have slacked off so much on processing color. i've got to shoot some slides....
let's see if ascough's style changes after the switch.
He already switched (May of this year), his style hasn't changed, and I doubt it will.
Folks keep forgetting it ain't the arrow, it's the Indian that counts. Cameras are not religious icons, they are just tools to produce a photograph.
Jeff is a long time contributor to the Digital Wedding Forum, a pro wedding shooters forum. He posts there very regularly and is always willing to help out newcomers and answer any questions concerning his (exemplary) work. An all around nice guy.
He has been shooting Canon 1DmkII cameras exclusively since May. About 80% of his work is B&W, converted from digital RAW using Adobe CS2 Camera RAW, no 'magic' or proprietary actions... just a good eye for tone and, of course, an artist's eye for capturing the shot to begin with. As an example of the Internet Village Effect, for printing Jeff uses a lab in Australia called "The Edge", one of the best in the world.
Folks here may or may not already know this but Jeff is one of the few wedding shooters that present their clients with a 'completed' storybook album, with NO input from the client allowed at all. Jeff edits the shots, he and his studio design, layout and produce the completed album, and the clients first look at the pictures is when they pick up the album. No proofs, no client selections, no changes to the album, no client input at all. What he delivers is what you get. And he is talented enough so that his (very upscale) clientèle accept that without question. He is one of the half-dozen or so wedding photographers worldwide at the very top of the profession.
Oh, and he understands he is operating a business. If people here had to support a pro studio's lab bill, they would understand the draw of digital much better. Mix economics with outstanding quality of end product and you can see why almost all successful pro studios have switched to digital. The days of Hasselblads, or even 35mm, and film are all but gone in the pro wedding field. Indeed, gone from almost ALL pro photography fields.
Tom
back alley
IMAGES
'Cameras are not religious icons..."
you take that back..or i'll smote you with a canon...p
:angel: joe
you take that back..or i'll smote you with a canon...p
:angel: joe
T_om
Well-known
backalley photo said:'Cameras are not religious icons..."
you take that back..or i'll smote you with a canon...p
:angel: joe
OKOKOKOK... maybe Canon P's, but let's not hear the 'Leica' word start being bandied about here with background organ tones as accompaniment.
Tom
back alley
IMAGES
awright now!
joe takes his quivering lower lip and his canon p and blankie and wanders towards the light...
joe
joe takes his quivering lower lip and his canon p and blankie and wanders towards the light...
joezeos 386sx
Well-known
Has Ascough said how well he can hand-hold the Canon DSLR's? He's quoted as saying that he is comfortable hand-holding his M6's down to 1/8 of a second.
Despite Tom's "it ain't the arrow, it's the Indian that counts" switching from Leica rangefinders to Canon DSLR's must have taken some effort.
Despite Tom's "it ain't the arrow, it's the Indian that counts" switching from Leica rangefinders to Canon DSLR's must have taken some effort.
S
Socke
Guest
zeos, from my experience with a 1D MkII he won't need shutterspeeds below 1/30th. Especialy converted to B&W ISO1600 is more than usable.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Well, it just confirms that most if not all customers of B&W photos can't tell the difference (or care) between ones produced digitally or by film. This I think is true of colour also. What and how I shoot has not changed since using a RF except that it has limited me at the long end for wildlife and macro. Rangefinders and film are just tools and he has found a better set of tools for his needs in DSLRs to generate income with not grow nostalgic over. As an after thought, I think it would amazes some die hard traditional B&W users that he actually made a living using C41 B&W film. Not being a pro and not needing to do photography to generate an income I will continue to use film for awhile longer yet because I am lucky enough to be able to use what I want and not what is dictated to me.
Bob
Bob
zeos 386sx
Well-known
After I raised my question about the difference between hand-holding a Leica and a Canon DSLR I found the following quote from Ascough on the Photonet site:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AfBy
"The lack of mirror means I can hand hold an f1 Noctilux at 1/8th sec. On my old Canon's I was lucky to get a steady shot at 1/30th with a 50mm 1.4 lens. That is an extra 3 stops of exposure that I have at my disposal with Leica. For me, the Noct is not about the 'look' as much as the extra speed, which means I don't need to use flash and kill the image."
Until I hear it from Jeff, himself, I have to imagine that changing from full time Leica M6 usage to Canon DSLR usage involved some pretty major changes in shooting style. I can see why he's holding on to his Leica glass until the digital M arrives.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AfBy
"The lack of mirror means I can hand hold an f1 Noctilux at 1/8th sec. On my old Canon's I was lucky to get a steady shot at 1/30th with a 50mm 1.4 lens. That is an extra 3 stops of exposure that I have at my disposal with Leica. For me, the Noct is not about the 'look' as much as the extra speed, which means I don't need to use flash and kill the image."
Until I hear it from Jeff, himself, I have to imagine that changing from full time Leica M6 usage to Canon DSLR usage involved some pretty major changes in shooting style. I can see why he's holding on to his Leica glass until the digital M arrives.
S
Socke
Guest
Yes, but at F1 and 1/8th you won't shoot any moving objects, would you?
From my digital shots on yesterdays fashion show I can tell you that even 1/60th was to slow to get the models feet and hands without motion blur and I needed some DoF to adjust for my focusing errors.
I won't get anything at 1/8th while continously adjusting focus :-(
From my digital shots on yesterdays fashion show I can tell you that even 1/60th was to slow to get the models feet and hands without motion blur and I needed some DoF to adjust for my focusing errors.
I won't get anything at 1/8th while continously adjusting focus :-(
What is digital?
S
Socke
Guest
rover said:
Sort of a modern alternative to polaroid when you want to check exposure and lighting befor you shoot the scene
peter_n
Veteran
Tom your post makes total sense and I understand that it was a purely business decision. I was aware of Jeff's business model but not the fact that he prints in Australia. He always looks for top quality and it was an unacceptable drop in neg development that partially pushed him into this.
I think you are right that his style won't change. His ability to understand the available light and then position himself with respect to that and his subject is one of his greatest attributes, and the camera he uses really doesn't matter. Once a master, always a master.
I think you are right that his style won't change. His ability to understand the available light and then position himself with respect to that and his subject is one of his greatest attributes, and the camera he uses really doesn't matter. Once a master, always a master.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
The amateurs and the pros
The amateurs and the pros
Something what the poor pros must use nowadays .......
I'd like to add other questions:
Why do we care about what pros do ? They have no choice, from economical reasons. For the very most of them digital is unavoidable. Maybe the small MF and LF niche which still exists in magazine work can survive, no clue.
So is it a message which really concerns amateurs, that again the xy pro has gone digital ? Not for me.
I still can "afford" shooting film with film cameras , not only in the economical sense of the word.
Since I deal with photography (1975) as an amateur I always was amused and sometimes also annoyed how some amateurs stare at the pros, that is a very old sickness of amateur photogs if not a fault of the amateur photography was born with.
They want to use pro cameras, pro films, all the gear must be "professional". If the pro sticker is on it they can sleep at night , they feel safe. Why ?
Recently I read :" After quite a while going back and forth I decided to go digital because all the pros do so". That's spooky, isn't it ?
1975 a friend bought a Canon F1 and when I asked him why not a FTb would have served him as good as the F1 he told me that everything would be "better" at the F1 , for example the shutter had a lifecycle of 180.000 releases.
At this time he shot about 3 rolls per month and I answered "O.K, now I see what you mean, must be good to know to have camera of which at least the shutter will work for the next 140 years". From this moment on I was a smartass for him, spoiling the party.
To avoid any misunderstanding I do not attack anybody because of posting news from the professional digital world I just wanted to point out that this is not our world and should not influence our decisions.
Regards,
Bertram
The amateurs and the pros
rover said:
Something what the poor pros must use nowadays .......
I'd like to add other questions:
Why do we care about what pros do ? They have no choice, from economical reasons. For the very most of them digital is unavoidable. Maybe the small MF and LF niche which still exists in magazine work can survive, no clue.
So is it a message which really concerns amateurs, that again the xy pro has gone digital ? Not for me.
I still can "afford" shooting film with film cameras , not only in the economical sense of the word.
Since I deal with photography (1975) as an amateur I always was amused and sometimes also annoyed how some amateurs stare at the pros, that is a very old sickness of amateur photogs if not a fault of the amateur photography was born with.
They want to use pro cameras, pro films, all the gear must be "professional". If the pro sticker is on it they can sleep at night , they feel safe. Why ?
Recently I read :" After quite a while going back and forth I decided to go digital because all the pros do so". That's spooky, isn't it ?
1975 a friend bought a Canon F1 and when I asked him why not a FTb would have served him as good as the F1 he told me that everything would be "better" at the F1 , for example the shutter had a lifecycle of 180.000 releases.
At this time he shot about 3 rolls per month and I answered "O.K, now I see what you mean, must be good to know to have camera of which at least the shutter will work for the next 140 years". From this moment on I was a smartass for him, spoiling the party.
To avoid any misunderstanding I do not attack anybody because of posting news from the professional digital world I just wanted to point out that this is not our world and should not influence our decisions.
Regards,
Bertram
peter_n
Veteran
To avoid any misunderstanding I do not attack anybody because of posting news from the professional digital world I just wanted to point out that this is not our world and should not influence our decisions.
I completely agree with your sentiment, Bertram! I'm an admirer of Jeff Ascough because of the person he is as well as his skill as a photog. I've no personal interest in digital and/or wedding photography at all, but you look at his pictures and the skill is just really evident.
Jeff is a low-key nice guy, is always ready to help and often contributes to online forums, and he is not a self-promoter. Professional photography is a world apart from my little efforts, but from my perspective as a small-business owner it is interesting to read why someone like Jeff radically changes his tools and workflow.
Your quote of After quite a while going back and forth I decided to go digital because all the pros do so is indeed spooky, but I think members here have more sense than that!
BTW, I bought a little digi P&S this year, only because it's red of course!
I completely agree with your sentiment, Bertram!
I'm an admirer of Jeff Ascough because of the person he is as well as his skill as a photog. I've no personal interest in digital and/or wedding photography at all, but you look at his pictures and the skill is just really evident. Jeff is a low-key nice guy, is always ready to help and often contributes to online forums, and he is not a self-promoter. Professional photography is a world apart from my little efforts, but from my perspective as a small-business owner it is interesting to read why someone like Jeff radically changes his tools and workflow.
Your quote of After quite a while going back and forth I decided to go digital because all the pros do so is indeed spooky, but I think members here have more sense than that!
BTW, I bought a little digi P&S this year, only because it's red of course!