chipgreenberg
Well-known
KoFe’s Amateur vs Pro thread got me thinking a bit about the two fashion photographers I worked for right out of college.
Dave seemed to have some money behind him. He had a huge, beautiful studio. His cabinets were bristling with just about everything the latest Nikon and Hasselblad had to offer. He had banks of Broncolor lights when most everyone else used less expensive stuff. He had an army of Mathews stands, sturdy well made gear used by the film industry that were much more expensive than the Bogen stuff most people used.
Thing is I don’t remember Dave shooting a lot of jobs. Most of his shoots were “testing” to work on his portfolio. He spent a lot of time interviewing models and looking at their portfolios to make sure he got just the right model for his portfolio pieces. Since the gear wasn’t used much it remained new and shiny.
When I wasn’t working for Dave “helping” him interview models I worked for his friend Paul. Dave told me Paul had recently gone through a nasty divorce. His wife locked him out of the apartment with all his photo gear inside. It seems whenever he would show up and try to talk to her something expensive would fly out the window.
Paul was using the ugliest gear I had ever seen. Rather than a dozen Nikkor lenses on new F3HP bodies he had an F and a couple lenses that looked like they used to belong to a war photographer. Rather than the latest from Hasselblad he had a 500c and an 80c that looked like maybe they were amongst the first to roll off the line in the late 50’s. His 2 backs needed to be taped together to make sure they didn’t come apart during the roll.
Paul spent time interviewing models also, but he booked them for paying jobs. I remember helping him with quite a few cool jobs including some double page spreads for Italian Vogue.
Paul didn’t have the luxury of of saying, “I really need to trade in my ancient C lens for a CF lens that is multi coated. C lenses are so 1960. I’ll never do great work with a single coated lens.” or “Gee, I think I need to upgrade my 500c to a 501CM to get the new gliding mirror. That gliding mirror is what will really separate my work from the crowd.” (yes I know the 501 didn’t have a gliding mirror, just making a point)
His gear was fugly but he made a lot of great images on a regular basis.
Not long after I stopped working for these guys I heard Dave was also going through a nasty divorce.
I got two take aways from this.
1. Having the best gear didn’t make you the best photographer.
2. Too much time interviewing models was a hazard to your married life.
What do you think? More or less relevant today in the digital age?
Dave seemed to have some money behind him. He had a huge, beautiful studio. His cabinets were bristling with just about everything the latest Nikon and Hasselblad had to offer. He had banks of Broncolor lights when most everyone else used less expensive stuff. He had an army of Mathews stands, sturdy well made gear used by the film industry that were much more expensive than the Bogen stuff most people used.
Thing is I don’t remember Dave shooting a lot of jobs. Most of his shoots were “testing” to work on his portfolio. He spent a lot of time interviewing models and looking at their portfolios to make sure he got just the right model for his portfolio pieces. Since the gear wasn’t used much it remained new and shiny.
When I wasn’t working for Dave “helping” him interview models I worked for his friend Paul. Dave told me Paul had recently gone through a nasty divorce. His wife locked him out of the apartment with all his photo gear inside. It seems whenever he would show up and try to talk to her something expensive would fly out the window.
Paul was using the ugliest gear I had ever seen. Rather than a dozen Nikkor lenses on new F3HP bodies he had an F and a couple lenses that looked like they used to belong to a war photographer. Rather than the latest from Hasselblad he had a 500c and an 80c that looked like maybe they were amongst the first to roll off the line in the late 50’s. His 2 backs needed to be taped together to make sure they didn’t come apart during the roll.
Paul spent time interviewing models also, but he booked them for paying jobs. I remember helping him with quite a few cool jobs including some double page spreads for Italian Vogue.
Paul didn’t have the luxury of of saying, “I really need to trade in my ancient C lens for a CF lens that is multi coated. C lenses are so 1960. I’ll never do great work with a single coated lens.” or “Gee, I think I need to upgrade my 500c to a 501CM to get the new gliding mirror. That gliding mirror is what will really separate my work from the crowd.” (yes I know the 501 didn’t have a gliding mirror, just making a point)
His gear was fugly but he made a lot of great images on a regular basis.
Not long after I stopped working for these guys I heard Dave was also going through a nasty divorce.
I got two take aways from this.
1. Having the best gear didn’t make you the best photographer.
2. Too much time interviewing models was a hazard to your married life.
What do you think? More or less relevant today in the digital age?
kshapero
South Florida Man
When I look in my gear closet, I feel a bit embarrassed about my stash. With all the suffering from this terrible virus, GAS seems stupid as **** (can I say that?).
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have a vast amount of stuff in my equipment cabinets. It's a matter of years of accretion as I did things and experimented. Am I embarrassed by it? Not one bit. Is it "necessary"? That depends on how it was accumulated and what I did/will do with it.
Much of it is no longer necessary, for sure. I've gotten the value of it out through use, in things learned, and don't need/use much of it anymore. I regularly sell of stuff I'm not using, particularly stuff that has a lot of value, because it's only sensible to not leave good equipment sitting on a shelf depreciating when you can use that value to move forward with other work, other ideas. I'm not collecting or a collector...
"Having the best gear doesn't make you the best photographer" is a truth. What makes you the best photographer (even that is a judgment call: what exactly would you say is "best"?) is lots of hard work to develop your ideas/vision, your photographs, your photography business, your relationship with clients, etc etc.
Having a lot of good equipment shouldn't be a source of ethical or moral issues. Just like living in a comfortable home and earning a good income shouldn't be a source of ethical or moral issues.
G
Much of it is no longer necessary, for sure. I've gotten the value of it out through use, in things learned, and don't need/use much of it anymore. I regularly sell of stuff I'm not using, particularly stuff that has a lot of value, because it's only sensible to not leave good equipment sitting on a shelf depreciating when you can use that value to move forward with other work, other ideas. I'm not collecting or a collector...
"Having the best gear doesn't make you the best photographer" is a truth. What makes you the best photographer (even that is a judgment call: what exactly would you say is "best"?) is lots of hard work to develop your ideas/vision, your photographs, your photography business, your relationship with clients, etc etc.
Having a lot of good equipment shouldn't be a source of ethical or moral issues. Just like living in a comfortable home and earning a good income shouldn't be a source of ethical or moral issues.
G
css9450
Veteran
Obviously your gear won't save your marriage!
But seriously though... I've told the story here before about a friend who went back and forth between Nikon and Canon SLR systems about a dozen different times; always with a couple of pro-level bodies and accessories and 2.8 zooms of all sizes. From the film era to digital, he was always dumping one system and buying the other, always trying to achieve some elusive perfection. He must've bought and sold the same basic lineup of gear many times.
And no, no one has ever seen his photos. They were always "tests".
Tom R
Established
Over the years, I have used the same "gear" without needing to do much other than CLA's and keeping things relatively clean.
The only time I recall thinking lots about gear was when something wasn't working.
The only time I recall thinking lots about gear was when something wasn't working.
nightfly
Well-known
If we gave you the real answer this forum would cease to exist.
chipgreenberg
Well-known
"Having the best gear doesn't make you the best photographer" is a truth. What makes you the best photographer (even that is a judgment call: what exactly would you say is "best"?)
True. What's good is quite subjective do to one preferences and prejudices.
Having a lot of good equipment shouldn't be a source of ethical or moral issues. Just like living in a comfortable home and earning a good income shouldn't be a source of ethical or moral issues.
I didn't intend to make that implication
G[/QUOTE]
True. What's good is quite subjective do to one preferences and prejudices.
Having a lot of good equipment shouldn't be a source of ethical or moral issues. Just like living in a comfortable home and earning a good income shouldn't be a source of ethical or moral issues.
I didn't intend to make that implication
G[/QUOTE]
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Dave with money, but not doing his official job as photographer, only for his portfolio?
He was, is sex trafficker.
He was, is sex trafficker.
Sure, but Paul still had a Nikon and a Hassleblad...
It isn't like he had substandard equipment, it was just well-used. I think the key, more so than having the best equipment, is to have the equipment that you are most comfortable with and that allows you to do your best.
Haha... could be, could be...
chipgreenberg
Well-known
I considered this, which is true. Not having the latest and greatest didn't keep Paul from making great images.
Sure, but Paul still had a Nikon and a Hassleblad...
chipgreenberg
Well-known
I was too young to really question how Dave paid the overhead. But from what I saw some of the models seemed to be in the sex trade. That's a story for another day.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
If you want to make money doing this..then the lowest price point to get the results you need is the key..
But then there is the issue..do you actually like the equip you use..for personal usage..
But then there is the issue..do you actually like the equip you use..for personal usage..
chipgreenberg
Well-known
sure. When it was my turn to buy stuff most was bought new but back up bodies, little used lens were second hand because they weren't used enough to justify buying new. That was a business decision.
Ste_S
Well-known
Large +1 to this. Essentially you want a camera you like using and doesn't get in the way.
Most cameras produce image quality that's good enough. Subject, composition and light are key.
Dogman
Veteran
I have much nicer gear now than when I was working as a news photographer. My cameras and lenses got beat up daily and they all looked like hell. But they all worked and were kept in good working order. And the gear kept me in a paycheck and, thus, with meals on the table and the rent paid. That's what was important.
Today, I take better care of my gear. At least it doesn't get beat up so much. It's still important to me but I don't depend on it for income.
Today, I take better care of my gear. At least it doesn't get beat up so much. It's still important to me but I don't depend on it for income.
Samouraï
Well-known
Just the workflow of operating different cameras can make a huge difference in how one shoots, and that's just step one. The way different sensors handle less than ideal conditions changes the subject matter that you might be looking to shoot. Or about how good the automatic functions of a high-end DSLR/ILM camera are for the average sports or wedding photographer, or how unobtrusive a Leica M3 is when shooting street photography. One could go on and on.
I think gear matters tremendously in a way, but in a way different than you describe; I'm sure a Canon 5D MkII could still hang with everything else on the market for most jobs.
I think gear matters tremendously in a way, but in a way different than you describe; I'm sure a Canon 5D MkII could still hang with everything else on the market for most jobs.
benlees
Well-known
Gear matters, otherwise we're taking pictures with our minds. That never ends well...
The latest and greatest is about our soul sapping consumer, umm I mean individualist tasteful freedom warrior, culture. If the tool ( ie a camera) lets you do what you want then off you go... Finding the 'right tool' is just a rationalization; but within confines of our technocratic expert consumer model quite a pleasant one...
The latest and greatest is about our soul sapping consumer, umm I mean individualist tasteful freedom warrior, culture. If the tool ( ie a camera) lets you do what you want then off you go... Finding the 'right tool' is just a rationalization; but within confines of our technocratic expert consumer model quite a pleasant one...
Kamurah
Member
I'll bite . I was one of the folks who chimed in on the Pro/Am thread...and I also spent a few years working as a fashion photog with NYC and London agencies.
Here is my 0.2 cents: Gear matters, but only so much as to allow a certain quality of output and to be reliable.
I worked with other fashion shooters that only used 35mm equipment. In those days, medium format had a distinct advantage over 35mm film or chrome....and you could see it in the end result.
Now...once you went up to MF, did it matter if someone was using Hasselblad, or Mamiya, or Bronica? No not really. In fact, I ended up selling my Hassey system and went with Mamiya 645 after a while. It was easier...you got all the quality of MF, but none of the 'editorial' haggling over how something should be cropped. Plus I could shoot the Mamiya handheld (something I never really did with the Hasselblad), and it had an eye level finder and a motor drive. And it still took a polaroid back (I don't think the Pentax system did).
In MY experience, showing 120 chromes was much more impressive than 35mm. Easier to see...and the color just popped on the light table.
On the other hand, I knew a great fashion shooter who used a Pentax K1000 and some cheap Vivitar zoom...and he got great results. Was it as reliable day-in day-out as a Nikon? Not likely....in fact, I remember he once asked to borrow my handheld light meter because the meter in his K1000 (only had a single body!) had crapped out. He was definitely not in the GAS frame of mind. He used the camera as a tool....and I remember thinking that it was both pretty cool and terrifying at the same time he was so disinterested in equipment.
Obviously, if you are trying to achieve the look of a ring light, you need a ring light. So in that case, gear matters. But do you need a Broncolor ring light? I don't think so, but at the time I would have probably sold a kidney to buy one.
Pro gear is Pro (IMO) because it has proven itself to be predictably reliable and deliver quality results in the proper hands. This is basically the same mythical equipment trap guitarists get caught up in. Will that 1956 Les Paul make you a better player or sound noticeably better than a new Les Paul? Probably not, but so many of the musicians you aspire to play like have used something similar so it must be better right?
I am as guilty as the next guy for having gear lust. But at the end of the day, I would take whatever I could find to get the job done...if I was getting paid for the job. Since it's all a hobby....I dream.....
. I was one of the folks who chimed in on the Pro/Am thread...and I also spent a few years working as a fashion photog with NYC and London agencies.Here is my 0.2 cents: Gear matters, but only so much as to allow a certain quality of output and to be reliable.
I worked with other fashion shooters that only used 35mm equipment. In those days, medium format had a distinct advantage over 35mm film or chrome....and you could see it in the end result.
Now...once you went up to MF, did it matter if someone was using Hasselblad, or Mamiya, or Bronica? No not really. In fact, I ended up selling my Hassey system and went with Mamiya 645 after a while. It was easier...you got all the quality of MF, but none of the 'editorial' haggling over how something should be cropped. Plus I could shoot the Mamiya handheld (something I never really did with the Hasselblad), and it had an eye level finder and a motor drive. And it still took a polaroid back (I don't think the Pentax system did).
In MY experience, showing 120 chromes was much more impressive than 35mm. Easier to see...and the color just popped on the light table.
On the other hand, I knew a great fashion shooter who used a Pentax K1000 and some cheap Vivitar zoom...and he got great results. Was it as reliable day-in day-out as a Nikon? Not likely....in fact, I remember he once asked to borrow my handheld light meter because the meter in his K1000 (only had a single body!) had crapped out. He was definitely not in the GAS frame of mind. He used the camera as a tool....and I remember thinking that it was both pretty cool and terrifying at the same time he was so disinterested in equipment.
Obviously, if you are trying to achieve the look of a ring light, you need a ring light. So in that case, gear matters. But do you need a Broncolor ring light? I don't think so, but at the time I would have probably sold a kidney to buy one.
Pro gear is Pro (IMO) because it has proven itself to be predictably reliable and deliver quality results in the proper hands. This is basically the same mythical equipment trap guitarists get caught up in. Will that 1956 Les Paul make you a better player or sound noticeably better than a new Les Paul? Probably not, but so many of the musicians you aspire to play like have used something similar so it must be better right?
I am as guilty as the next guy for having gear lust. But at the end of the day, I would take whatever I could find to get the job done...if I was getting paid for the job. Since it's all a hobby....I dream.....