trix
Established
dovevadar
DoveVadar
Mate, you have some awesome images with your 24 lux. Im very impressed. is it just me or the pictures? they gave off a very pleasing 3d feel like that of hasselblad's.. amazing lens...
Riccis
Well-known
Riccis
Well-known
You are correct, I've only shot the 24 lux wide open and even when not at the closest focusing distance, the main subjects are very 3 dimensional and pop nicely from the rest of the frame.
Take care,
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Hey, Rui, that's a trade secret!
(And yup, I've seen it done too -- and I've seen my 6x7s duped to 4x5, if not to 8x10, to get more money out of the client.)
Tashi delek
colker
Well-known
it doesn't matter the least what camera you use when doing fashion. you can use a pinhole.
it's not the camera or lens signature... it's the photographer's signature what matters.
it's how he directs the model, what they do under his control.
colker
Well-known
hey Frank,
i am interested in that experience. i am debating a D700, D300 over my D200.
the file size is not much bigger but i hear th technology makes for better fles w/ better range, dynamics etc..
i would use it for professional work. i don't lust right now for new digi gear and i am tired of junking digi cameras every 2 yrs.
i would like to hear opinions and experience.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I've only gone as far as the D300, but roughly speaking I think you get at least a stop more ISO speed for the same quality with each generation. The D300 seems a bit better than the D2X I had though, even though it is the same sensor, so the camera's firmtware must improve too.
D70/D100 @ ISO 200 = D80/D200 @ ISO 400 = D90/300 @ ISO 800.
So I think the D40x/D60 is around the D80/D200 generation in terms of performance.
The Raw software also has improved a lot over the years so you can pull more out of RAW file than ever before.
If all you need are web display or 8x10 portraits, then the D70 is fine. Going larger and shooting at 400 starts to show things breaking up though. On my site you would have a hard time distinguishing which camera shot what, based on 600x900 pixel jpgs. I barely see a difference in the 8x10 prints either.
D70/D100 @ ISO 200 = D80/D200 @ ISO 400 = D90/300 @ ISO 800.
So I think the D40x/D60 is around the D80/D200 generation in terms of performance.
The Raw software also has improved a lot over the years so you can pull more out of RAW file than ever before.
If all you need are web display or 8x10 portraits, then the D70 is fine. Going larger and shooting at 400 starts to show things breaking up though. On my site you would have a hard time distinguishing which camera shot what, based on 600x900 pixel jpgs. I barely see a difference in the 8x10 prints either.
blazeicehockey
Brand New In Box
I read somewhere that there is still a strong and growning preference for film in some asian markets, to the extent that some celebs will be shot in no other way.....not to say that Leica is the preference here of course.
dovevadar
DoveVadar
oh yes... film.. another important factor..
when doing commercial work, what colour film do you guys use?
when doing commercial work, what colour film do you guys use?
hans voralberg
Veteran
Provia 100F / Astia, something that doesn't turn out funky colour on a regular basis.
colker
Well-known
which comercial work: architecture? furniture catalogue? fashion catalogue? cd cover portrait?
which light are you planning to use: natural? flash? tungsten?
which film size: 120? 4x5? 8x10? 35mm for a grainy effect?
what size will be final product: huge? medium? small?
which medium: electronic? printed? photographic print?
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Architecture:
Portra 160VC and 160NC (120 and 4x5)
Provia 400F for special circumstances
Still life:*
Studio (120 or 4x5)- Portra 160VC/NC or and once they give me it in 120, Ektar 100.
Astia/Provia - depending on need, and desired look.
*until I can afford/justify a decent MF digital back for the viewcameras.
I don't use 35mm color film for commercial work. If it's a job that requires the format, I'm probably shooting it digitally. But 80% of my commercial work is done in 120 or 4x5. The few RF jobs I've done commercially have all been BW.
x-ray
Veteran
I can't remember when I used my M's for a commercial shoot. I do use MF and LF a few times a year however. I'm fortunate to have clients that let me make that decision based on my experience of what will execute the job the best. A month ago I finished a magazine shoot that I shot on film. It was all B&W and 35mm to 5x7. I selected 5x7 because I shot some of the images with a 150 year old Petzval lens. It produces amazing images with out of focus area swirling around the subject and on 5x7 it gives a round image. I elected to use mostly MF and shot around thirty rolls. I shot one roll of macro work with my Nikon F2 and Micro Nikkor. MY choice to use film was based on having the time to do it and the richness of a really nice B&W film image. A few times a year I shoot LF for jobs because of the extreme repro size, 38 ft for the last shoot , or the need for extreme perspective control that I just can't get any other way. In years past if I shot 35mm I reached for my Nikons first due to range of optics. About the only place I now use my M's is in documentary work but I'm even using MF and LF more than my M's for that.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
'Fortunate' is one word. 'Good enough' is perhaps closer to the mark.
Only for REALLY TEDIOUS jobs have I ever had clients insist on film formats, and even then, as Rui said, there's always duping.
If you're any good, they're buying your eye and your expertise, based on your portfolio. Do they know/give a toss how you got that result? No. It may even be part of the photographer's job to shine 'em on. To quote the late, great Terence Donovan, when he was complimented on something he'd shot on 11x14 inch: "Yeah, f***ing incredible lens, that Micro Nikkor.
Tashi delek,
Roger
Last edited:
x-ray
Veteran
The controlling factors in most jobs, film vs digital, are time and cost. Film processing takes time and then it has to be converted, scanned, to a digital file at a prepress house. Cost of film, polaroid (Fujiroid), processing and scans all add up to major expense now. I always work on time plus materials and have often had materials, processing and scans cost more than my time. In the peak of my film shooting about twelve years ago My film (B&W & E-6) and E-6 lab bills would run well over $100,000 per year. It was not uncommon to shoot 300 rolls of 120 E-6, about the same in B&W 120 plus a hundred sheets of 4x5 and 8x10 a month. In the 70's before scanners I shot a case of 8x10 Ektachrome a week plus 4x5 and 11x14 chromes. NOw clients would stroke at the cost.
I find there are very few AD's now that have ever worked with film and have no idea of what to do with a contact sheet or a glossy fiber base print. For fun about ten years ago I had a B&W job that I had time to shoot film on. I wound up delivering double weight glossy fiber base prints to my YOUNG AD client to see his reaction. He had never seen a FB print other than in his parents photo album. The beauty of a high gloss FB DW print freaked him out. Then the question, what do I do with this now?
Most of the AD's that I work with are under thirty now. One this week told me he had digital camera at sixteen and that's all he had ever seen or used.
I find there are very few AD's now that have ever worked with film and have no idea of what to do with a contact sheet or a glossy fiber base print. For fun about ten years ago I had a B&W job that I had time to shoot film on. I wound up delivering double weight glossy fiber base prints to my YOUNG AD client to see his reaction. He had never seen a FB print other than in his parents photo album. The beauty of a high gloss FB DW print freaked him out. Then the question, what do I do with this now?
Most of the AD's that I work with are under thirty now. One this week told me he had digital camera at sixteen and that's all he had ever seen or used.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Your points are all well taken. All I meant was, if they like what you're doing, and are willing to pay, that's what matters. Obsession with which camera and lens is rare (to vanishing point) among ADs and editors, and the ones who think they know what they are talking about are in some cases easiest to deceive.
Tashi delek,
R.
x-ray
Veteran
I've never had a client say to shoot Leica, Nikon, Hasselblad or any other brand. Once in a while I have had one say let's use a wide lens or a tele lens etc. for this shot but that's been very rare. Certain situations dictate using specific equipment. It's not always a matter of choice. In the past I would never have considered 35mm for serious architecture other than for quick slides and never considered 8x10 for an action shot. This brings up an interesting consideration regarding the equipment we use today. In the film days we used a wide array of cameras from 35mm to 11x14. Each were suited for a particular job and selected because we knew it would do the best job for the client. Today we expect our DSLR to take the place of all of those cameras. We do the job with it but there are better choices sometimes and as a professional it's our responsibility to at least suggest the best alternative. Clients might not listen but at least we gave it a shot.
calexg
Established
I really like the Porta 160NC and VC films for portraits. They make absolutely amazing negs when properly exposed! There are so many great films out there though...
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I rarely look at a craftsman's tools and decide the job from that. the carpenter who made my workspace furniture had good, everyday stuff and did a great job. The obsession with various tools is a "wankers" game in most cases!
OK. occasionally I have had to shoot 8x10 chromes for jobs. They do look spectacular as 11x17 folded 600dpi color covers! Usually the client know what he/she wanted or could recognize it on the light table.
Most other stuff was done with at the most 4x5 for swings and tilts or extreme close ups/details.
Run of the mill stuff was usually with Hasselblad's and a variety of lenses - big enough chrome to show and judge from. 35mm slides does require a bit of "savvy" to judge.
Aerial stuff was different. For site shots it was always a 500ELM with a set pair of 100f3.5 Planars and usually slow black white film (tech Pan/Pan F) or if it was "pretty" shots - a M with a 90f2.8 Elmarit and a high wing Cessna 150 with either the door removed or the window out of it. The M works fine here as you can see a image coming in from outside the framelines and you didn't have to reload all the time (multiple bodies loaded and just switch the lens over. Shooting K25 or 64 it was easy to have them duped to 6x9cm too.
It is different from job to job. It depends on the clients know-how (does he/she know what they want - or are they looking to you for solutions) and occasionally you have to succumb to an AD who is trying to impress the client by trying to sound like he know what he was talking about.
Occasionally they did - but most of the time they took out their frustrations on you, because they didn't want to tell off the client, who is paying for it, that they had no idea what was going on!
Shooting digital must be a whole different ball game and i am glad that I got out of commercial/industrial stuff and now make my Rapidwinders at whatever pace the customer and i agree on!
OK. occasionally I have had to shoot 8x10 chromes for jobs. They do look spectacular as 11x17 folded 600dpi color covers! Usually the client know what he/she wanted or could recognize it on the light table.
Most other stuff was done with at the most 4x5 for swings and tilts or extreme close ups/details.
Run of the mill stuff was usually with Hasselblad's and a variety of lenses - big enough chrome to show and judge from. 35mm slides does require a bit of "savvy" to judge.
Aerial stuff was different. For site shots it was always a 500ELM with a set pair of 100f3.5 Planars and usually slow black white film (tech Pan/Pan F) or if it was "pretty" shots - a M with a 90f2.8 Elmarit and a high wing Cessna 150 with either the door removed or the window out of it. The M works fine here as you can see a image coming in from outside the framelines and you didn't have to reload all the time (multiple bodies loaded and just switch the lens over. Shooting K25 or 64 it was easy to have them duped to 6x9cm too.
It is different from job to job. It depends on the clients know-how (does he/she know what they want - or are they looking to you for solutions) and occasionally you have to succumb to an AD who is trying to impress the client by trying to sound like he know what he was talking about.
Occasionally they did - but most of the time they took out their frustrations on you, because they didn't want to tell off the client, who is paying for it, that they had no idea what was going on!
Shooting digital must be a whole different ball game and i am glad that I got out of commercial/industrial stuff and now make my Rapidwinders at whatever pace the customer and i agree on!