Ben Rubinstein
Active member
Marc, do you ever sleep?
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Thing is Marc, the tounge in cheek question to Guy, I'm a believer that equipment and especially upgrade in equipment must be financially justifiable otherwise we have to admit that we are doing it for ourselves. The point where this line gets blurred is where it makes our job easier but I believe that it too can be assigned a financial value."Don't do as I do, do as I say" ... :ROTFL:
How hard is off-camera? Not hard to do it poorly ... not much harder to do in a mediocre manner ... incredibly hard to do it well, especially if you are crippled by using inadequate gear, or stuff involving complex work-arounds.Really not sure Marc, when done for lightings sake it looks incredible, when done for effect, that's already getting rather old. I heard that Zack Arias said 'when everyone is shooting ambient, shoot off camera, when everyone is shooting off camera, shoot ambient'. He's got a point. You have to choose a look which is used to say something about an image not just because that's the look at the moment. In the wedding business at least, I don't know enough about the portraiture business to comment though from what I see it is the same, the latter rather than the former is far more common.
I've partnered with a guy now and we're shooting the wedding scene here in Jerusalem. Here everyone is and has been using the flash kill ambient look for a while now. We use it when it suits the image but only then, preferring ambient with a touch of fill if necessary. We have the highest prices in the city at present for wedding photography and we only started shooting together last year.
Not that I think we disagree at all, I just think that the flash kill ambient look for portraiture as a style has its days numbered. My partner is actually writing an article for the blog at the moment on the subject of not getting married to a 'look' but rather having a style which is independant of external factors to create that look. You use external lighting when you want to give a certain look Marc and I think that, far more than the fact you use it and the wannabees aren't, is why you will still be head and shoulders above the rabble whatever cameras and lenses they buy.
I did a quick engagement shoot for a couple a few hours ago. 5D with 50mm lens. The guy is a photographer, he couldn't believe what I could accomplish with such simple equipment on some rain soaked steps near my house. They can buy all the gear they want, until they can do magic with it, it doesn't mean anything. Heck just how hard is it to learn off camera lighting? Strobist has pushed it to the forefront till the point that it doesn't take much to do or even to do pretty well but however fast your lenses, however FF your camera, however good your off camera lighting, without vision, without experience it don't mean squat.
Ben, re: opening up new horizons, see my post in this thread because it just happened to me ...Thing is Marc, the tounge in cheek question to Guy, I'm a believer that equipment and especially upgrade in equipment must be financially justifiable otherwise we have to admit that we are doing it for ourselves. The point where this line gets blurred is where it makes our job easier but I believe that it too can be assigned a financial value.
If having superior equipment will put you into a higher price bracket or attract clientele that will enable that higher price bracket then the math can be worked out as to whether it's worth it financially. If due to better equipment or software I can work faster and in a better mood then that too will have a direct effect on the business.
If as you explained using different equipment is the route to an opening of the mind, an ability to explore new avenues then that too will have a direct effect on a business if channelled correctly.
Guy, don't kill me for doing some speculation. We have an approximate figure of $75K for the 6 or so years that Guy has been playing hopscotch with his equipment. Whether shooting with this equipment over those 6 years rather than using a 1DsII has brought in $75K (actually longer as his current equipment is a current investment but anyway) is a good question. I have little doubt that it has opened up new markets for his business. Those markets will be bringing in money at a level perhaps impossible in 'lower' markets. Then there is the educational aspect of it. Opening new markets and becoming well versed in MF has made Guy a 'name' in the MF world to the extent that he was an instructor at PODAS. That wouldn't have happened if he was still using a 1DsII. I doubt his high end workshops of which this website is just an offshoot would have become possible without his journey through the MF world and keeping up to date within that world. Your wife may not agree Guy but I'll bet that by the time you retire you will have made a nice profit from this investment which would not have happened if you had not sold that 1DsII all those years ago.
We are however using Marc's concept of MF opening up new markets. If you are doing well in a certain market with your current gear, are unlikely to be able to tap into a higher spending client base within that market based on more expensive gear and are not looking to branch out to newer and higher markets, the math may not work out to the extent of declaring that it is a purely business expense. To use this as a personal example I believe this would be the case for wedding photography and the use of MF for most of the worldwide market.
Clear-headed thinking as usual Peter.I was in a gallery displaying some landscape work from a very successful landscape photographer - he has two galleries of his own in Australia and I believe has opened a couple over in the US.
I think MF digital is creating new expectations and new markets for landscape photography printed in large scale.
I was rather disturbed to note that my own critical viewing of his work (which ranged from postcard to 2X6meter in size - for the same shot or source file) was being biased towards those landscapes which evidenced the greatest amount of detail...I am ashamed to admit publicly - that I was (in effect) pixel peeping as a primary filter - in my appreciation and ratings of landscapes. It was obvious which shots were made with traditional film and scan and print - versus the elephant gun back shots...
You really "see' the power of lotsa megapixels when you have the opportunity to see them - in stuff printed humungously large...
I think the choice between a high end SLR35mm or MFD for regular prints??? - well I am thinking that the advantages of MFD recede dramatically...
The same shots printed postcard sized 35mm or XPan or MF film versus MF digital - the difference is essentially non existent to my eyes anyway..
I am guessing for certain high end super duper produced massive budget exercises from the 10 or so luxury cosmetic brands out there or 20 or so haught couture houses - well for sure the MF digi back and ten times that value in lighting / makeup / talent / art direction location etc etc etc
Maybe pitching for work with movie stars - from my experience with a couple - they have become expert packagers of themselves as a product and brand and know enough about the value of a good photograph - to connect high end MFD with requisite symbols indicating validation for the photographer..
Well I guess I am just saying that I can imagine all sorts of uses for a MFD camera - for all sorts of different people and circumstance
however for most parts I am also pretty sure that for most photographers and most photographs and most uses of the photograph - today's pro level 35mm cameras are more than adequate.
It all depends on where a person sees his or her business model or objective being.
In order to avoid regret - it is probably a good idea to really know exactly why you want this stuff...
and then - all you have to blame is yourself for whatever decision you come up with.
Totally agree with the other examples of uses for MFD backs above Marc - A good friend of mine does a lot of repro work for galleries - using a multi-shot back - for exactly the reasons you mention above. I guess we can add archival work to the list as well - a lot of uses for high quality large files...Clear-headed thinking as usual Peter.
I do think that interest in MFD often springs from using the higher end 35mm DSLRs ... one gets a taste for IQ like that and it's tough going back ... and even tougher standing still.
MFD is often spoke of in the sense of constraints compared to 35mm DSLRs, with better IQ being the aspect given to MFD. Yet, there is more to it. Some things mentioned get glossed over, because a non-MFD user can't relate to it or can't see it at first. Dynamic range, tonal spread, and subtile color separation that's even visible on an 8X10 print compared to 35mm DSLR files of the same thing. The ability to manipulate MFD files to a much greater degree with less apparent destructive consequences. And esoteric stuff like knock-out outlining which is done a 300% and so on.
BTW, a photographer needn't be doing high end, massive budget work for pay. Even the most modest client may want to make 6' panels for a trade show that people will be standing 2' from, or crop some tiny portion of a file for a product detail ... you just never know these days. Guy has mentioned this a number of times in past.
-Marc
I also wouldn't equate wedding work to portrait work ... weddings wouldn't necessarily justify MFD because of the volume and pace ... although I have shot up to a 90% portion of a few weddings with MFD.
Absolutely no question about it. People love to use good tools and let's face it we are all a little on the gear slut side of the world. Where MEN it's only natural. :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:Totally agree with the other examples of uses for MFD backs above Marc - A good friend of mine does a lot of repro work for galleries - using a multi-shot back - for exactly the reasons you mention above. I guess we can add archival work to the list as well - a lot of uses for high quality large files...
It is all up to the imagination of the creative person doing the work.
Also Guy I guess all people who take their work seriously - want to have access to the best tools they can get do the work - it is a natural human thing to do.
Well it does not always equate to ROI and that is a fact. Its expensive and it takes longer to recoup that investment but your second part of your comments the word addictive is a serious understatement. LOLBut that isn't the reason I think it's not appropriate, I just don't think that using MF for weddings is going to bring in enough money to justify the investment given that you would need to run a parallel DSLR system. I think that is an important point and worth mentioning for portraiture as well. Are you going to see enough larger prints or make more sales in general to pay the $10K for that MF system? The question could well be yes but it needs to be asked.
As to broadening one's horizons, no question from me, in this economy you diversify or sink, like a stone :scry:. Unless you are one of a select few who define a genre and even they are doing non stop workshops these days.
As for the MF ability to addict faster than heroin. :angel: I'm teaching myself C1 at a higher level, downloaded some Aptus II-7 files to play with f***ing h** and many other exclamations, that's just 28 megapixels, makes my 1Ds3 look like a toy. With the Schneider 80mm the files are horrifically sharp. Horrific especially for that model who could have done with a lot softer lens Boy but it's addictive though. Just wish C1 would play as nicely with my Canon files, does incredible stuff with that Leaf file due to a very strong profile.
I think however that it's important to realise where the cut off point is between business and personal requirements that's all. I think the line is being blurred rather too much in the name of enthusiasm and excitement over IQ to judge objectively in many cases.Well it does not always equate to ROI and that is a fact. Its expensive and it takes longer to recoup that investment but your second part of your comments the word addictive is a serious understatement. LOL
I would add if you have to sell your dslr system to purchase your Mf system and you are a professional, what are you using for back-up?Only because of the more recent cost of Medium Format digital has it become an either/or scenario for some shooters. IMO, if you have to sacrifice having a decent 35mm solution to afford MFD, then MFD is too expensive an option. The caveat to that is if you know MFD can do everything you want, or you want to focus entirely on mastering MFD and have the luxury of time to do that.
I just saw this post and you dead on the money my friend but one other thing you did not mention is for me it has kept me from burning out as well. I have had some serious screw this crap moments in my career and just buying another piece of gear has stopped me from jumping off the building. Yes we are enthusiast as well and we certainly need to be entertained.Answering this question always cracks me up Guy. As I was "Spring Cleaning" my studio area the past 2 weeks, and tossing the equivalent of thousands of $ in obsolete gear and outdated junk, etc. etc. I mused how I'd like all that money back. Yet, the reason I wanted it back ... was to buy more stuff for the studio :ROTFL:
We buy gear because it is part of keeping our interest charged up ... to explore different areas, to expand, or just to have creative options at our finger-tips. Photographers are part artist and part MacGyver during some part of the trek.
No matter how business savvy a Pro might be, there is a bit of the enthusiast in them to some degree or another, and most would be hard pressed to justify what they have in their gear vault in pure logical terms.
Working professional or terminally infected enthusiast, photography is what we do.
Quite frankly, people come to sites like this not only to make an informed decision, but sometimes to gather logical justification for a lustful "Want & Gimme"
Marc
I would certainly not disagree with you here as well. You should be careful no question. I could easily say i have fallen off the deep end and probably a fair statement at times. I had a rough 2 years with my wife being sick and I should have probably pulled back on some things. Certainly is all about balance.I think however that it's important to realise where the cut off point is between business and personal requirements that's all. I think the line is being blurred rather too much in the name of enthusiasm and excitement over IQ to judge objectively in many cases.
Ben, I've never advocated MFD for weddings especially NOW! If you have it for other application then fine, but not alone IMO.But that isn't the reason I think it's not appropriate, I just don't think that using MF for weddings is going to bring in enough money to justify the investment given that you would need to run a parallel DSLR system. I think that is an important point and worth mentioning for portraiture as well. Are you going to see enough larger prints or make more sales in general to pay the $10K for that MF system? The question could well be yes but it needs to be asked.
As to broadening one's horizons, no question from me, in this economy you diversify or sink, like a stone :scry:. Unless you are one of a select few who define a genre and even they are doing non stop workshops these days.
As for the MF ability to addict faster than heroin. :angel: I'm teaching myself C1 at a higher level, downloaded some Aptus II-7 files to play with f***ing h** and many other exclamations, that's just 28 megapixels, makes my 1Ds3 look like a toy. With the Schneider 80mm the files are horrifically sharp. Horrific especially for that model who could have done with a lot softer lens Boy but it's addictive though. Just wish C1 would play as nicely with my Canon files, does incredible stuff with that Leaf file due to a very strong profile.