For Marc: Hessie or Digital

Marc,

 

I was watching the TODAY show on NBC for their annual wedding event.

 

The photographer of choice for this annual event is Denis Reggie.

The wedding was today and they interviewed Denis Reggie. When he

first started he used only Hasselblads. Today he uses a digital

with a long lens. His photo method is totally PJ.

 

He said that he enjoys wedding photography because he never knows

what's going to happen, and the spontaneity is exciting.

 

This is also true of Monte Zuker who now uses a Canon 20D and not a

Hasselblad but is much more formal than Denis Reggie.

 

I am using a digital now, and no film at all, and I'm not looking

back with any regrets.

 

Anyone want to buy a nice F90 and SB25? (^0^)

 

I simply do not use film anymore....at all! I know I have a lot to

learn, but that's Ok...I'm learning!

 

Any thoughts, or sample photos?

the only thing that gets me about my 10D is not being able to focus on subjests under low-light situations. therefore the pictures come up some times blurry.I know I should set the lens on MF but some times I can even tell myself when in focus.this is my only complaind.<div></div>

So you know the cat was the subjet

Allow me to post a sample photo.

 

This photo was one in a sequesnce of very fast images taken while the groom was singing a song to his bride. This was taken about three weeks ago.

 

I used a Canon 10D digital with flash in rapid sequence.

 

It would haven been difficult to do this with a Hasselblad.

 

I totally appreciate the Hasselblad concept but it it is not appropriate for every photo venue.

 

Note: All photo systems have their appropriate uses.<div></div>

Rodolfo...

 

What is the problem?!

 

That should NEVER happen. We need to talk about this.

Rodolfo,

 

I think you need to take your camera in for repair and a good checking. What you photographed of your cat is not in focus at all. You have a camera focus problem.

 

Please keep us informed on this.

Todd,

 

With good anticipation, you could have shot this with any camera. The Hassleblad can be shot at about 2-4 frames per second with practice. With a flash that could keep up, no problems.

"with anticipation" mmm.that is what I do not like. having to prefocus,pre-expose,nor pre-set the white balance.

 

but this way I am able to get better pictures every time.

 

check this one out.

 

and if you keep on telling me that there is something wrong with my camera ,I am going to start boliving that, inconsecuence no being able to shut an eye tonight.(I hope you are wrong) let me think that the focus is not that good and I need to buy a "better"camera.<div></div>

I'm not too sure what the problem is.

 

Rodolfo...your latest photo is beautiful. The cat photo is not beautiful.

 

We are also talking about Hasselblad photography and digital photography...that confuses everything.

 

Hassie and digital are a bit different.

 

Let's begin at the beginning...what's the problem?

 

Let's start again

my point is that my digital camrera does not focus as my old film-camera.but I do love my digi-camera.

 

I can not wait to read,what's Marc's input on your comment.Altough I am sure He is working right now.

Just add a digital back on your Hasselblad anf there you are !<br>

Do not oppose systems like this. Each has its use. The blad can do many things the 10D in

incapable of (mainly when you will need large prints and very high quality).<br>

The 10D (or any other digital SLR) will often be easier to use, lighter, etc.<br>

Both are great !<br>

Lenny<br>

<a href="http://www.afimage.com">AFimage - Photographe</a>

To Rodolfo Negrete:

 

Slap a 550 (Flash off) or ST-E2 for AF assist and kitty would look cuddly!

Right on Lenny! That's exactly the point. Keep an open mind based on application.

 

Rodolfo, I suspect your cat photo may not be out of focus, but could be more due to

camera movement from a longer hand held shutter speed in low light. Slight

underexposure will also blend the shakey edges to mask that movement from detection

turning the black cat into a fuzzy blob against an already out of focus background that the

wider lens aperture produces.

 

I had a similar experience the first time I used my new D20. The camera is smaller and a

lot lighter than the 1Ds, thus harder to hold steady at lower shutter speeds especially with

lenses over 50mm. Too many of my images showed camera shake in "roving around"

available light ceremony shots. I solved it by using a monopod for that kind of available

light work (see extreme demonstration example below).<div></div>

Todd, as I said in the other thread, I'm not advocating anything one way or the other. Just

that there are still alternatives for those looking for excellent image quality. A hasselblad

may indeed be over-kill for weddings. Yet, the beauty of the images are worth

consideration.

 

I returned to using a MF camera (not exclusively) for 2 reasons:

 

1) some mandatory shots are repetitively boring to process in Photoshop. Like all the

formals, endless family portraits, and the procession/recessionals. I don't put those shots

in the album, except for the dad escorting the bride and the entire wedding party, so I

only scan and process 2 shots from negs for printing instead of 40-50 RAW files. The lab

does the rest. I'd hazard a guess that Monte and Denis aren't sitting in front of a computer

for days after a wedding, but instead some paid PS expert does it under their direction.

 

2) I found for me, using the same camera and set of lenses becomes formulaic and boring.

I like the challenge of using a different set of disciplines. It doesn't have to be an

expensive alternative, just different. It's all potentially beautiful, digital or MF film, in the

right hands with the right sensibilities. Funny thing, which is strictly personal, I don't like

shooting with any of my Canons or even Nikons when I had them. I'm not fond of using

the Contax 645 either. The only cameras I love to use, at every opportunity I can, are the

Leica M and the Hasselblad 503CW... I guess it's an old fashioned tactile thing and the

challenge they represent.

 

Finally, (sorry for the long post), concerning this quote referencing your spontaneous

"singing groom" shot:

 

"It would haven been difficult to do this with a Hasselblad".

 

I agree, somewhat. The Hassey is slow to focus and certainly no match for a modern AF

SLR by any stretch of the imagination. However, practice and the powers of anticipation

can go a long way to close the gap. Like this...<div></div>

Marc, I don't know if difficulty is a good criterion. The wedding party could get the easy

shots themselves. Few of them could ever get a shot as beautiful as the one you've just

posted, which is, I presume, why they pay you: to get the difficult shots and make them

look beautiful.

 

Todd, I wonder if ease is a good thing - your shot captures an important moment, but the

background and the foreground are very distracting. If it hadn't been so easy to capture

the shot with digital and TTL auto flash, might you have dialed down the flash intensity to

open up the aperture and isolate the bride & groom? Though I suck at Photoshop and lack

any masking tool which would help me build a complex layer to isolate them in a

reasonable amount of time, I hacked your image up to blur the foreground and

background and convert to greyscale to give you an idea of what I have in mind:<div></div>

Why do some people think of Denis and Monte as if they are some kind of God?<br>

We don't Derek. It's just they paved the way in some areas by making certain approaches

popular on more of a mass scale. Mass scale doesn't necessarily mean fabulous and

innovative photography, just more acceptable to more people. Denis didn't invent the PJ

style of wedding photography, he made it more popular (shot the Kennedy weddings and

got all the PR that goes with such a visible client).

 

But by your criteria, (making oodles of money), they are Gods.

The 20D is noticeably improved in low-light autofocus over the 10D. And the 550EX actually works without any fuss on the 20D too. Hassie has an advertisement on the back page of this month's Shutterbug for their newly-acquired 16 Mpixel digital back for the 500 series 'blads at $9,795. (Just a few years ago that would've been 20 grand!) If you really need that much resolution and are a Canon shooter, you'd have to decide between the MF digital back and the 1Ds MKII (also 16 Mp) at around $8,000. I would think the former would do nicely in the studio and the latter would do nicely for weddings. Hey, why not both! ;-) Best wishes . . .

You know Marc, I'm curious about something. By your own

admission, many times over, you make plenty of $ as an AD at

the agency you own, at your new commercial photo space and

doing weddings. You love working with M's and Blad's more than

everything else, don't enjoy processing oodles of RAW files and

don't enjoy shooting with the jukeboxes known as DSLR's, so

why do it? What's the average cost of F&P for a big wedding?

$500? How many print sales is that?

Why not just work with M's and Blad's and forego the rest? Don't

you think your art would be better served?

Just curious. Does anyone know what brand and model of digital Reggie is using?

Well Karl, if memory serves me, I never said I made huge amounts of $ with the Ad agency,

let alone said it "many times over". I'm certainly not poor, but I'm not rich... my ex-wife is

the one who's rich ; -) Nor do I own commercial studio space, my studio is in my home.

 

Trying to squeeze more profit out of weddings is important to me because, like a lot of

folks, my retirement funds withered in the recent past, and I don't want to be eating cat

food sandwiches 5 years from now. In the market I operate in, digital IS more profitable. I

say so, my accountant says so, and my retirement fund says so. Mostly because

commercial assignments pay for all the costly digital gear and computers via rental fees.

 

That said, I do believe you are dead on the money concerning "art being better served".

When reviewing past work that's the same conclusion I've arrived at. So I'm trying to

balance it out by shooting both film and digital, especially when my partner is also

shooting since he hates film and hasn't touched a roll in 3 years.<div></div>

Marc, what is the size and brand of that large softbox?

Marc, beautiful studio. I don't dare show mine! (^O^)

 

As said, Monte and Denis are not gods. I could list many more consummate photographers, many on this forum...it's just that we tend to recognize their names and both work in the same field with different styles.

 

Both have started using digital as well having used only Hassies previously.

 

Monte uses a Canon 20D being sponsored by Canon (and Hasselblad). I was not able to recognize what camera Denis was holding. He did say he prefers to shoot with long lenses from a distance to aid his stealthy PJ style.

 

Marc, I love your available light ceremony photo. I do need to work a bit more without flash. Flash often tends to be a crutch.

Bob,

 

How'd you do that?!

 

Actually, regarding Groom's Song...no one knew he was going to sing to her. My friend and wife (videographers) and I were eating outside the main hall (no seats for us inside) and a guest told us to get in fast. No time to fiddle with camera settings.

 

You're right, of course, the widest aperture would have been best.

Cynthia, last I knew, Denis Reggie was using a Canon 1Ds full frame digital, but that was about a year or more ago. He has always used Canons, even when he was using film.

 

About not being able to get fast happening candids with a Hasselblad--if you're pretty good with pre-focus, you can react very quickly. With a 60mm or 50mm, you can use f5.6 and f4 with no problems with pre-focus. With an 80mm and longer lenses it's a little bit harder, but I've had good success pre-focusing with f5.6 and f4. Using pre-focus, it's faster than using an autofocus zoom. By the time you zoom, autofocus and frame, the picture has been long taken with pre-focus technique. I often use pure pre-focus during the reception. Sometimes, if I see something developing, I just shoot without viewing with the viewfinder. Dragging the shutter, you get pretty good background detail.