Jeff Ascough Interview July 2009

<p>Hi Jeff,<br>

I have to say that more than the pictures you produce, I do admire your work ethic and whether you are trying to do this or not, I do appreciate you using your position of power to maintain a standard in photography and to keep it an art form rather than a stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap digital casualty (quality vs quantity, content vs computer analysed camera sharpness, etc). I have but 3 slightly left-field questions:<br>

1. If you were not doing photography, what do you think you would do and why?<br>

2. What non-photographic gadget/item do you most love that you own and what gadget/item would you most like to own? (If you say iPhone like a number of other people I know, I will lay my head on my table and cry!)<br>

3. What 3 things (more if you want) would you LIKE (rather than predict) for the photography sector in the future?</p>

<p>Laura - No I don't use anything on the lens. If you get in a situation where there is spotlighting present, the light can bounce off the filter and create ghost reflections.</p>

<p>Angus - 1. I'd be a criminal psychologist. It's what I wanted to do before photography came along. I've always been fascinated by the human mind.<br /> 2. Non-photo gadget...be prepared to lay your head on the table and cry ;-) The gadget I'd most like to own...Nespresso TK70 coffee maker.<br /> 3. Wow this is a tough question. I'd like to see a system like they have in parts of Europe whereby photographers have to undergo an apprenticeship for three years with another professional, before they are let loose on the general public, and photographers have to be registered before they can work.<br /> I really would like to see album companies that profess to deal with the professional market, actually deal with the pro market and not just anyone with a camera and cheque book.<br /> I'd like to see pro wedding photographers charge properly for their work, so that we can all benefit.<br /> Ultimately I would like the world to see the wedding photographer in the same light as fashion photographers, photojournalists and so on, and not the genre of photography that most other genres consider to be beneath them. Some of us are making in roads, but the whole industry needs to wake up.<br /> There are too many photographers selling a false dream to others, just to make money out of them and it sucks. I'd like to see that stop. I would also like to see an end to the 'rockstar' mentality that proliferates the industry. This must be the only genre of photography where we worship others in one breath, and spit venom at them in the next. For this industry to have any credibility, we need to start thinking about what is important - great images, at a good price, and lots of happy clients.</p>

 

<p>

<p>Jeff, great images and an excellent style.<br>

I know it's about the photographer's eye, but your<br>

equipment purchases are quite relevant to a question I have.<br>

To my knowledge, here's the kit you've gone through in the last 4 years:<br>

3 Leica M7's<br>

2 Canon 1D MkII N's<br>

2 replacement ditto<br>

2 1Ds MkII<br>

2 1Ds MkIII<br>

1 Leica M8<br>

and now<br>

2 Canon 5D MkII's<br>

At one time, you swore that all that was needed was two zoom lenses and<br>

a dual card body as the essential tools for all wedding cameras. Now they're not ?<br>

On the software front, it's been iView, Photoshop, Lightroom, Photo<br>

Mechanic, Capture One and now Aperture 2.<br>

Now my question, do you think an aspiring wedding photographer needs to go<br>

through this level of switching over four years to become familiar with<br>

what's available on the market and learn his trade? Or would you starting<br>

today go straight to your current kit and cut out the recommendations of the<br>

past?</p>

</p>

<p>Jameel - you must have been deleting your double post same time as I was actually deleting the entire thing and now you have a blank... I guess I delted the other one.. sorry</p>

<p>Mary, here's a copy of Jameel's message:<br>

Jameel:<br>

Jeff would you comment on the increasingly popularized practice of delivering<br /> digital files to clients? I recognize some view this practice as a way of<br /> discharging the responsibility for storage and maintenance of images whereas<br /> others position it as a sales tactic. Is it something that truly bears<br /> consideration or is it just another function of proper management of client<br /> expectations?<br /> I really appreciate the 'likes' list. Well said.</p>

<p>It's alright. I was actually trying to figure out how to delete the post, and didn't know how. Thanks for the copy and paste Fellipe.</p>

<p>Jim - Wow I didn't know people kept a running inventory on me - do you write this stuff down somewhere??<br>

For the record, and I've mentioned it several times in the past, a budding photographer should stick with one lens and one body and get used to those before running a huge amount of debt on stuff they may not use. I started with one body and a 28-70 and that served me well for many years. You don't need more than a couple of bodies and a couple of lenses to do this job well. My back up kit is just that, a couple of zooms and a dual card body.<br>

If I was starting my business today, and funds were available I would buy a couple of 5DMKII's, a 24-70L, and a fast prime. That's all you need. It's only when you get some experience and money under your belt that you can start looking at other options in terms of equipment as you refine your style. Good photographers continually assess where they want to be, what you are seeing with me is a continual development of a very experienced way of working and a constant refinement of my style. I swapped out of the zoom as it was making me lazy. I moved to 5DMKII's because of the high iso. As a result my images have improved.<br>

In terms of software, as you get more experienced and do more work, you will find yourself looking for solutions to problems - in my case the problem has always been efficiency. I'm always looking for ways to streamline everything, hence the culmination of software over the years. To start off with, Photoshop CS4 is all you really need, as it has a browser, RAW convertor and image editor all in one.</p>

 

<p>Thanks - Fellipe</p>

<p>Thanks Jeff - Loved your answer on Raw vs Jpeg - Trust me that I will refer people back to this thread when yet another argument ensues...</p>

<p>Jameel - The unfortunate state of affairs is that client's want digital files. I can understand this in terms of archiving their wedding pictures, but not to produce their own albums. I blame the proliferation of shoot and burn operators, but hey it's here now and it won't go away so let's just accept it and move on. People will write paragraphs of stuff on the ethics of giving files, but like I said it won't change anything. We sell them, and if I'm honest, I'm quite happy to sell them because the clients already have their album; so my integrity, in terms of what I have produced for them, remains intact.</p>

<p>Mr. Ascough - I remember you mentioning the importance of subdued lighting when editing pictures. Forgive me if I'm remembering incorrectly, but why exactly is that important?</p>

<p>Also in regards to editing pictures, do you have any rituals? Sit down with your favorite drink, dog at your feet, indie music blasting in your headphones? Complete silence and utterly concentrated? One long session? Separated steps with a break in between?</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

 

 

<p>Jeff, thank you for doing this! I have three questions for you:</p>

<p>How do you handle stopping motion during dancing in low light? Is the high ISO capability of your cameras sufficient for this? I tend to not use a wide open aperture due to the subject moving while dancing, which of course results in slower shutter speeds. I'd like to try shooting dancing without flash and I'd appreciate any insight you have.</p>

<p>You prefer using small cameras. Do you think rangefinders offer a real advantage here? If a digital rangefinder was ever made that produced images with a quality that satisfied you, would you use it for weddings?</p>

<p>Do you ever have to handle parents of your clients complaining to you because they expect more "traditional" coverage? Do you have any advice for answering their objections?</p>

<p>Thank you for your time!</p>

 

 

<p>Joseph - In order to correctly assess colour balance and density, you need to work in a subdued lighting environment which is ideally colour managed. The monitor should be the brightest thing in that environment. If you edit in a bright environment, usually brightness and contrast of the image is affected as you compensate for the light hitting the screen.<br>

I tend to pretty much try and do all the selecting in one session (15-20 mins) and then have a five minute break, then get stuck into the actual editing. I try and break every hour for a few mins to allow my eyes to readjust. I will then go back over the last few pics that I did before the break to make sure fatigue in my eyes didn't make me do something to the images that I didn't want.<br>

I don't have any ritual as such, but I usually like some peace and quiet away from the phones.</p>

<p>Aaron - The iso capability of the 5DII along with apertures of 1.2 that are available to me usually means I can achieve at least 1/60th sec shutter speed, which is normally ample for a first dance. Prior to the 5DII I would have used flash to stop the motion. I also try to shoot when the couple are lit by other lighting such as that coming off the stage, or from the disco.<br>

Rangefinders are the ultimate camera for me. If someone produced a small, compact, full frame rangefinder with image quality and high iso like the 5DII, then I would certainly consider it. Unfortunately, that camera is still the stuff of dreams.<br>

No. I don't deal with the parents when it comes to the coverage, even if they are paying the bill. So if they do complain, they do it to the bride and groom, and I rarely get to hear about it.</p>

<p>Jeff, thanks again for your time. I've found this Q&A session very beneficial and enjoyable. <br>

With the 5DII, do you normally set the ISO manually and change it as the lighting conditions change? What's the maximum acceptable high ISO for you? Thanks! </p>

<p>Derrick - ISO is always set manually to either 800, 1600, 3200, or 6400 depending on the light conditions. I have shot 12800 iso and this is acceptable in certain lighting conditions.</p>

<p>Jeff, on average, what are the sizes of prints that you use in album? if you go you can take a look at my site www.detitofotografie.com, I'm love to hear your opinion on my photos, I accept any criticism and / or advice.<br /> thanks<br /> Francesco</p>

<p>Before this exercise is finished, I'd simply like to add that not only are your images extraordinary and inspiring in so many ways, but you have a captivating writing style as well. You are able to express techniques, lessons, stories, openness, honesty, insight, strategy, emotion, irony in a way that makes the learning both straightforward while at the same time engaging and just plain fun.</p>

<p>I, for one, am so grateful for your contributions to this forum and grateful to photo.net for helping me to find you.</p>

<p>Consider me a new fan.<br>

(I tried not to gush. Honest.)</p>

<p>Jeff,<br>

I picked up the canon g10 a few weeks back to have a point and shoot for family stuff. It's really a beast of a camera albeight in a different way from an slr. How would you set it up for street photography? Do you have any tips for using the 16-35 2.8L lens, I just feel lke I don't really have a great handle on the wides. I use the 24-70L a lot, but feel limited by the 16-35 largely because I'm fairly uncomfortable taking anything but scapes with it. I know it is the choice of many photojournalists, but I feel a lot better getting in the mix with a 50 1.4. Tell me what you think technique wise to help make that lens grow on me a little.</p>

<p>Best, Nate</p>

<p>Lisa - thanks so much. I actually blushed :-)</p>

<p>Nate -

I set mine up the same as Gary, but I've got a Voigtlander viewfinder on mine. I also set the focus to manual and focus on 2 metres. So that everything is pretty much sharp from front to back, so I don't need to focus.<br>

Regarding the 16-35, you need to be in pretty close to get the best from this lens. Have a look at James Nachtwey's work. A lot of his stuff is done on the 16-35. If you can get hold of a copy of 'War Photographer' on DVD, that's perhaps the best schooling for using the 16-35 (or 17-35 in the case of Jim on the DVD).</p>

<p>Ok guys it's Friday evening over here, and I've got to get everything sorted out for tomorrow's wedding. So I just want to say that it's been a blast doing this interview this week, and I've thoroughly enjoyed the questions. Some of them challenged me, which is great, and some really made me think.<br>

Thanks to you all for the kind comments, and also for the interest in my work.<br>

I'll be popping in on Photo.net over the coming months, so you won't get rid of me that easily ;-)<br>

Cheers<br>

Jeff</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for sharing Jeff, you are the man :-) You are one of only two wedding photographers that I follow on a continual basis and you continue to inspire me all the time. As Lisa also said, you are a master at writing in a very informative and straight manner and I get excited when I see a new long post on your blog whenever I visit.<br>

Ben</a></p>

<p>Thanks Jeff!!</p>