T_om
Well-known
zeos 386sx said:
Here are Jeff's own words concerning his technique changes since converting to digital. Specifically, he was asked about staying out of the customers "awareness" circle and being unobtrusive:
"Staying unobtrusive. This hasn't been as much of an issue as I thought it would be. I've come to the conclusion that unobtrusiveness is more a state of mind rather than a choice of equipment. My shooting style in general hasn't changed, but I have had to adjust mentally to the fact that I've probably only got one chance to get the shot with a DSLR. With Leica you could shoot and the subject wouldn't be aware of the camera..."
As a very interesting aside, and probably illustrating his rangefinder background more than anything else, is Jeff's choice of lenses for a wedding. He uses (primarily) only three. The Canon 35 1.4L, 24 1.4L, and 85 1.2L
It might also surprise people to know Jeff shoots in the lower (MUCH lower) range of total shots per wedding than most of the current masters. He said he usually ends up with about 500 shots while his contemporaries like Denis Reggie, Bambi Cantrell, Joe Buissink, et all, are into the thousands every wedding. I spoke to Denis in Orlando a while back and he said he starts his edit cycle on the plane back to Atlanta after a shoot and can generally edit about 1000 shots per hour out of a 3000 to 4000 (!) shot wedding. Denis also uses Canon 1DMkII cameras (as do most wedding pros now).
These guys (and gals) are not at the top of their profession because of the equipment they use, they are there because of their talent. They choose the tools that allow them the best opportunity to express their vision.
Tom
dexdog
Veteran
Yeah, this isn't photo.net 
T_om said: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
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
BTW, I bought a little digi P&S this year, only because it's red of course!
[/QUOTE]
Good reason !
I use such a thingy to shoot the flipcharts after project meetings and the structural concepts drawn on a blackboard during the looong project meetings with clients.
These drawings are changed again and again during the session but at the end they are something like a solution for the next step.. Half an hour after the meeting has ended all members of the project group have the jpgs available via Email, as a basis for their futrther work. That is extremely helpful.
Best,
bertram
[/QUOTE]
Good reason !
I use such a thingy to shoot the flipcharts after project meetings and the structural concepts drawn on a blackboard during the looong project meetings with clients.
These drawings are changed again and again during the session but at the end they are something like a solution for the next step.. Half an hour after the meeting has ended all members of the project group have the jpgs available via Email, as a basis for their futrther work. That is extremely helpful.
Best,
bertram
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Tom,T_om said:
Thank you. I didn't see Jeff's remarks about his work style with the Canon and I'm glad to read them. As I stated above, I thought there would have been a far greater difficulty in making the transition - I'm honestly surprised.
Remember, what we are talking about is not the ability to "see" an interesting picture, which is a master photographers province, but the actual mechanics of taking a picture with a camera. At that point, I continue to argue that the camera does affect the picture taking style of a photographer. Jeff mentions this when he says that with the Canon he now, generally, has only ONE chance to get a picture before the subject becomes aware of him. That forces a change in picture taking style - not a change in his ability to see a picture.
The ability to reliably hand hold a camera at low shutter speeds and still get sellable pictures also affects shooting style. If a photographer is afraid to take a picture hand held at slower than 1/60th of a second then there will be a reluctance to take such pictures until the camera is braced. That is a change in shooting style.
I assume that Jeff is holding on to his Leica glass because he wants to go back to rangefinders when the digital M is available because photographers, "choose the tools that allow them the best opportunity to express their vision."
BTW, thanks for all the help you gave me in getting my b&w going in Photoshop. It was a revelation to discover the control available with the color channels.
VinceC
Veteran
I would assert that the original Leicas, when introduced in the 1920s and early 30s, filled a niche nearly identical to today's digital cameras:
* small and easy to carry compared to existing formats and technology
* portability opened up new shooting styles and allowed the camera to be used in new situations
* Tradeoff of size and portability was poor image quality of smaller negative size, gradually overcome with improved optics and improved capture media (film emulsions).
* Ability to make many exposures on a relatively inexpensive roll of film, compared to sheet film or larger formats
* Relatively expensive compared to larger more mainstream formats -- users and ealry adopters willing to pay more for unique capabilities
* Not widely accepted during lengthy switchover from other formats. For example, some publications such as Life magazine almost immediately embraced the photojournalism revolution of the "miniature camera" while others balked at its shortcomings. A "real pro" could get the image in one shot, didn't need to burn through a roll of 35mm movie film, and had much better image quality. Sheet-film "press" cameras were in wide use through the 1950s and Twin Lens Reflex widely used through the early '70s.
* Small size of 35mm medium meant more depth of field -- this was important to consumers who didn't like missing important shots with their larger-format cameras, and this advantage was advertized.
* small and easy to carry compared to existing formats and technology
* portability opened up new shooting styles and allowed the camera to be used in new situations
* Tradeoff of size and portability was poor image quality of smaller negative size, gradually overcome with improved optics and improved capture media (film emulsions).
* Ability to make many exposures on a relatively inexpensive roll of film, compared to sheet film or larger formats
* Relatively expensive compared to larger more mainstream formats -- users and ealry adopters willing to pay more for unique capabilities
* Not widely accepted during lengthy switchover from other formats. For example, some publications such as Life magazine almost immediately embraced the photojournalism revolution of the "miniature camera" while others balked at its shortcomings. A "real pro" could get the image in one shot, didn't need to burn through a roll of 35mm movie film, and had much better image quality. Sheet-film "press" cameras were in wide use through the 1950s and Twin Lens Reflex widely used through the early '70s.
* Small size of 35mm medium meant more depth of field -- this was important to consumers who didn't like missing important shots with their larger-format cameras, and this advantage was advertized.
bmattock
Veteran
T_om said:
May Oscar forgive you.
Our leader, who art in Wetzlar,
Oscar be thy name.
Thy financial crisis come,
Thy stock price done.
In Euro as it is in Dollars.
Give us this day our Leica Glow,
And lighten our huge wallets,
as we forgive those who carry Bessas.
And lead us not into SLRs,
But deliver us from digital.
For the Summicron and the Hektor and the Noctilux are yours,
Forever and ever.
Amen.
Last edited:
zuikologist
.........................
Forgetting the crop factor for a moment, Would an RD1 be out of the question as a pro camera for this type of work?
zeos 386sx
Well-known
zuikologist said:
fotografz posted on the subject of the Epson RD-1 for weddings at:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4264&highlight=wedding+epson
K
Kin Lau
Guest
zuikologist said:
Marc Williams (also an RFF'r), one of the well known pnet wedding photogs, is selling his after having used it for a few weddings.
T_om
Well-known
zuikologist said:
Sean Reid is a member here and on the DWF I spoke of earlier. He would be a good source for info on this.
Even an Epson booster would have to admit there are some pretty major drawbacks to the RD-1 however. At least, this iteration of the camera.
Tom
zuikologist
.........................
We await a Leica M - until then, all hail the mighty Canon.
bmattock
Veteran
zuikologist said:
"Wasted the summer praying in vain for a Savior digital RF to arise from the Far East." (with apologies to The Boss)
Justin Low
J for Justin
bmattock said:
Genius.
ErnestoJL
Well-known
No doubt digital photography has come and will stay.
The switchover will take place at different times for each one, and I hope there still be someone manufacturing at least B&W film for a long time to support those people who still prefer to shoot film instead of a CCD.
I can understand that a pro changes technology as soon as it becomes either affordable, or more profitable. No doubt the benefits in regard of time and convenience for cropping, retouching, or adding effects.
I´ve started in this illness when I was about 12, then it was 40 years back, and film at that time was really expensive (at least in my country), unless you shoot only B&W and did your own processing. So I did it, and still have and operate my own wet darkroom and traditional enlarger. I don´t like to set all this aside right now, but as long I still stay as just an amateur, I will adhere to this principle: the picture is finished at shutter closure.
Of course, digital technology gives a lot of usable features which are tempting me to join the crowd... but not yet!. I think sometimes that I´m kind of traditionalist who don´t want to embrace new technologies because it´ll be something like treason; perhaps, I´m also quite an old dog to learn new tricks.
As long as any one else leaves film photography and goes to digital, film manufacturers will loose a client, then at some day in the future there will be so few that film manufacturing will not be profitable and it will lead to inmediate cease of production. Hope this won´t happen too soon!!
Regards!
Ernesto
The switchover will take place at different times for each one, and I hope there still be someone manufacturing at least B&W film for a long time to support those people who still prefer to shoot film instead of a CCD.
I can understand that a pro changes technology as soon as it becomes either affordable, or more profitable. No doubt the benefits in regard of time and convenience for cropping, retouching, or adding effects.
I´ve started in this illness when I was about 12, then it was 40 years back, and film at that time was really expensive (at least in my country), unless you shoot only B&W and did your own processing. So I did it, and still have and operate my own wet darkroom and traditional enlarger. I don´t like to set all this aside right now, but as long I still stay as just an amateur, I will adhere to this principle: the picture is finished at shutter closure.
Of course, digital technology gives a lot of usable features which are tempting me to join the crowd... but not yet!. I think sometimes that I´m kind of traditionalist who don´t want to embrace new technologies because it´ll be something like treason; perhaps, I´m also quite an old dog to learn new tricks.
As long as any one else leaves film photography and goes to digital, film manufacturers will loose a client, then at some day in the future there will be so few that film manufacturing will not be profitable and it will lead to inmediate cease of production. Hope this won´t happen too soon!!
Regards!
Ernesto
S
Sean Reid
Guest
T_om said:
Hi Tom,
There are some limitations to the R-D1 but it is my primary camera for weddings and I vastly prefer it to the other digital cameras I've owned, tested, etc. In fact, I'm shooting a wedding later today with three cameras (R-D1, 1Ds, 10D) and am fairly sure that the bulk of the pictures will be made with the Epson. In fact, I'm adding a second R-D1 body this fall.
Jeff Ascough and I have talked by e-mail about the R-D1. He tried it but didn't fall in love. Another accomplished wedding photographer, my friend George Weir, tried one on loan from Epson and loved some aspects while hating others. In particular, the small buffer was a problem for him because he shoots many more frames in quick succession than I do. I almost never hit the buffer limit with the R-D1 and I shoot only in RAW (but I almost never shoot a "burst" of pictures). George ended up not buying one but he and I shot a wedding together a few weeks after that test period and he was very happy with the results I got using the Epson. The Leica may be a better camera when its released but for now, I'm adding a second R-D1 body this fall.
Every photographer has a different sense of what "fits" him or her and, even before digital, most wedding photographers were not using Leicas. For myself, the only hassle involved in using the R-D1 for weddings (and other fast work) is it's tendency to require two shutter presses sometimes for an exposure (LCD flipped out but turned off). I'll see if the second camera does the same thing. Otherwise, I'm among the small number of photographers who so strongly prefers working with rangefinders that the R-D1 is, by far, my preferred digital camera. (And I no longer shoot film). Examples of wedding work with the R-D1 are on my site.
Cheers,
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
zeos 386sx
Well-known
ErnestoJL said:
Ernesto,
I admire your resolve. However, I never feel like I've captured the final image "at shutter closure". I have an insatiable urge to manipulate. Digital is perfect for manipulators.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Sean,Sean Reid said:
How does the Epson handle the high contrast ranges that you run into with wedding photography. Are you having to be more careful with white gowns and backgrounds than you were with film? How do you meter with digital - high, low, or average?
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Hi Zeos,
It handles them about as well as my DSLRs. Certain RF lenses, of course, make things easier by reducing the scene contrast range somewhat before it reaches the sensor. I often use manual exposure with the R-D1 and, as with all other digital cameras, I try to hold the highlights so that they're not quite touching the right edge of the histogram.
Cheers,
Sean
It handles them about as well as my DSLRs. Certain RF lenses, of course, make things easier by reducing the scene contrast range somewhat before it reaches the sensor. I often use manual exposure with the R-D1 and, as with all other digital cameras, I try to hold the highlights so that they're not quite touching the right edge of the histogram.
Cheers,
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
satbunny
Established
Dan Chang said:
I think not. Even if film was no longer made, and I suspect it will be for a very long time, then the bodies would be worth having just as delightful artefacts.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Sean,
Thank you! Good information.
Thank you! Good information.