a (fashion) shooter

    cameras

    • Canon 5D Mark II: new day for still photographers?
    • Canon 1Ds Mark III notes
    • Canon 5D notes
    • the Canon 50mm 1.2 L lens
    • Canon 5D Mark II notes
    • black dots, black dots everyewhere...
    • Twisty lens on the 5D2
    • 5D2 AF in dim light: :-(
    • Canon 5D Mark II, Take II
    • Sveta Utkina

    food

    • food, dude (off on a tangent)
    • food and drink with the Canon Rebel T21

    lighting & technique

    • one light wonders - using a single light source in the studio
    • 5D2 test shoot
    • Sveta Utkina
    • Waterways (lucky landscapes)
    • one light wonders: a magazine + video shoot with just one light
    • finally, the workshops!
    • Workshops: the Creative Director
    • girl with head
    • homeofthevain.com's Nikola Tamindzic
    • food, dude (off on a tangent)

    lighting workshops

    • lighting workshops!
    • First lighting workshop (not really)
    • Allie Crandell of MTV’s "The City"
    • finally, the workshops!
    • Workshops: the Creative Director
    • girl with head

    the industry

    • what's in the galleries:
    • web vs. print
    • Annie Leibovitz /Miley Cyrus
    • good guys
    • The Rep: help or hindrance?
    • Magnum photographer at the New York Times
    • some hot spreads
    • food, dude (off on a tangent)
    © 2011 - 2012
    Theme by WPShower

    the “upgrade”

    Some thoughts in response to whether or not to upgrade from the Canon system to medium format digital. The Medium format systems typically cost $25K and up when camera, back, and lenses are included. One could easily spend $60K or more on a new system. The below is in response to a conversation on LL where some photographers were comparing  (at 100% zooms in photoshop) the various pros and cons of the systems…

    “I think it’s humorous reading about these differences and comparisons between cameras. Of course I don’t shoot huge landscapes for a living, but I do wonder just how many people in the world are in fact making a good living at it. I can think of not one of my hundreds of favorite images over the years which would have improved from more “micro-detail.” I am talking about my own work, prints I see in galleries, magazines, museums, etc., etc. 

    I believe there are micro-differences, but I believe that these have little to do with the goodness of an image. I mean seriously, go over to your bookshelf, flip through the pages of some of your coffee table tomes, and tell me what you see. How many would have much greater impact with 20% more detail?

    And as has been said many times, do what your business requires. Have your clients ever asked for more micro-detail? Do they even see it? Do they care? I use a variely of camera formats from 4×5 to polaroid to 5D2s. Just the 5D Mark I cameras have earned me 6 figures per year for the past several years, without any complaints from clients. One client had their best sales day ever during the economic meltdown just this past November – with sales exceeding $1.1 million on the Monday following Thanksgiving. The ads were all shot with the lowly 5D, with no complaints about micro detail or anything else. (and no moire either ;-) )

    I know that in terms of investing in my business, spending on plane tickets makes a lot more sense and will better my portfoilios to a MUCH greater degree than spending huge amounts on cameras.

    I think about it this way: given my portfolios as they are today – if I were to have shot everything inside with a 40 or 60mp back, they would essentially look the same. Now if I had spent that same $30K or so on traveling, hiring talented stylists, locations, models, there would be a huge difference in my portfolios. $30K sends me on a lot of trips, and could potentially transform my portfolios. In my experience, what you put in front of your camera is 95% of the battle. The camera itself: 5%.”