medium format and lights

[mary_martin4]

I have access to a dyna light kit and an industrial profoto kit that I use with

nikon digital cameras. I am looking into playing with medium format film and am

thinking of getting a second hand HAsselblad--maybe an H1 or H2 autofocus--and

would like whatever I get to work with the lights I have access to so that I can

use it in a studio setting. Any feedback regarding medium format compatibility

with light systems would be great. Also any feedback regarding camera choices

would be good since I have not gotten one yet. I just always hear Hasselblad is

God-like and I think I can get one for a decent price.

 

thanks

[david_altmann]

i have no clue what and why you are planning. h1 r h2 and you dont know if they work together with the lights ? a god like camera ? maybe i have some translation issues, but that sounds weird.

 

the recommendation for medium format goes like this: you can shoot anything but a billboard in digital. and you will have to because of cost. if you shoot a billboard you wont shoot it with 645, wich rules out 6x6. so 6x7 is the way. wich means RZ67. you can use any lights with that camera. i dont know many cameras that wont work with normal lights, except r�ntgen cameras.

 

D.

[mary_martin4]

OK right now I shoot most of the time with a Nikon D2Hs--newspaper and it is fine for that but the detail is not there and I am gravitating more and more toward studio portraiture and the reproduction from this camera is lacking.Perhaps film is a foolish thought because of cost but how will the higher end Nikons hold up in a studio. Can it compare to the images in glamor magazines and other high end commercial ads for instance?

In the end if I shift toward commercial work and do not have $30k for a high end digital camera where do I start?

thanks

[ken_schuster]

For simple flash synchronization, all studio electronic flash units should work with any medium format camera that accepts a flash sync cord. The only possible conflict that I can think of would be with through-the-lens (TTL) or off-the-film (OTF) automatic exposures. Then it's a matter of getting the correct adapter. However, when you pair-up very delicate electronics in a digital back with a powerful flash unit, you run the chance of frying the back's sync. Hasselblad indicates the maximum jolt their digital units can manage. If the flash manufacturer doesn't provide that data, or if their data is too close for comfort, the safest thing is a wireless trigger... which is a nice way of working anyway.

 

High-end digital photography is still in a developmental period, and no manufacturer has it perfected yet. Hasselblad is just as far from flawlessness as any other. If you accept that, and roll with the glitches, you'll be a happy camper.

[danny_wong2]

Use a Wireless trigger or a safe sync which filters the trigger voltage from the pack to the camera.

 

I have used Dynalite and Profoto lights this way with H1 and H2.

[davemoss]

i think you are asking the wrong question here. any camera will work with any light. the sun is a light. anyway, if it's that you think the hasselblad will be a lot better camera than the nikon, that's for you to decide. if you are saying that the pics you are getting now with the nikon and those lights are no good, and you think the hasselblad will make THE difference, you are mistaken.

 

the d2h is capable of getting fantastic results with those lights. you may need to study portrait lighting, or studio lighting in general.

 

the hassie would have some advantages over the d2h, but it would b a whole new learning curve. i'd learn to light first, then see if you want to buy another camera.

 

now...i own many cameras, and use them for various "looks". if the hassie LOOK is what you want, then i'd get it. but if you are just thinking it will do better because it is what it is, WRONG....

[craig_shearman1]

Mary--Of course Dynalights and Profoto lights will work with a Hasselblad. But to be completely absolutely honest, if you're that much of an idiot to have to ask that question, you have no business with a Hasselblad or a D2H for that matter. As somebody who had to scrape pennies for his first Nikon as a kid 30 years ago it really ticks me off to see people who don't know what they're doing playing with equipment they don't deserve. Forgive my frankness. If you can't get good pictures out of the D2H you're not going to become a God like photographer no matter how God like the camera. Cut me a break.

[fotografz]

"In the end if I shift toward commercial work and do not have $30k for a high end digital

camera where do I start? thanks."

 

Get the Hasselblad H2 with a film back for now Mary ... and rent a Hasselblad CFH 22 or

39 or Phase One back for certain projects. If you have select 645 films drum scanned or

done on a high end scanner like an Imacon 949 you can also get "commercal quality"

results.

 

As far as lighting is concerned it's good to inquire about it. Some older strobe systems

have to high a voltage and can fry the electronics of some modern cameras. The strobes

you have access to most likely have a plate or sticker indicating the specs ... just cross

reference that info against that of the camera specs. Those strobes are most likely fine,

but it doesn't hurt to check.

 

IMO, when it comes to using a digital back with strobes you can't be to cautious. I use

Pocket Wizards with my H3Ds when using my Profoto strobes.

 

If you go the route of a H camera and rent a digital back, your mind will be blown when

you see the difference in image quality compared to the Nikon you are currently using.

[davemoss]

in all fairness, we haven't seen any examples of mary's work. yes, it does seem like she may be a bit naive, but maybe she just isn't getting her point across well either. i see where craig is coming from, but he could be over-reacting a little.

 

marc's point is not helpful though either. someone will always tell you that bigger is better, more expensive is better, etc. but if that was true, we'd all be driving a Ferrari (here goes another argument).

 

if you aren't getting GREAT results from the nikon, it's your fault; plain and simple. if you are getting good results, but want better, or still yet, DIFFERENT results, then ANY other manufacturer's camera will do that.

 

start with what lenses you are using with the nikon. and quite frankly, what ISO are you shooting at? are you shooting low res jpegs? or RAW? explain how the camera is "lacking detail". i can assure you that with all but the worst lenses, that camera is capable of stunning results. are you using a lens hood when shooting with the lights?

 

throwing money at ignorance just breeds more ignorance, but with a lighter wallet.

 

if you shoot for a newspaper, then someone there should know lighting, and how to properly setup the camera for any kind of shoot. ask around there too.

 

if you want to dump the nikon, let me know! you got an 85mm 1.4 you don't like either? ;=)

[craig_shearman1]

Dave is right, I was overreacting. Please accept my apologies for my rudeness to someone asking an honest question.

[mary_martin4]

I do not think the D2H i being used for higher end magazine/ commercial work. If I did not get nice photos in a studio I would not even be considering a new camera. I do not own what I shoot with or the lights for that matter so in the end if I do get gorgeous results I do not own them. Hence the need for a new camera and why not explore what is being used in the higher end studio photos before making any decisions.

 

I am so familiar with Nikon that I am thrilled to stick with it but my research leads me to believe that Nikon is not the camera of choice in the studio

[craig_shearman1]

It depends on what you define as studio work -- portrait studio, as in portrait and wedding work? Commercial studio, as in product shots or illustration sort of shots? Medium format including Hasselblad was traditional for either kind of studio work until the digital age. Wedding/portrait photographers have gone mostly to 35mm-based digital cameras including both Nikon and Canon while commercial shooters have tended to go toward digital backs for their medium format cameras, although many are going Nikon/Canon as the number of megapixels available in those cameras has grown. Nikon is widely used in many portrait studios and gives excellent results even for large "wall" portraits. The D2H you're using is only 4 megapixels because it was designed for newspaper work where that's adequate. You should try a D2x, which is the same camera with 12 megapixels. both Nikons and Canon digital cameras are standard for any kind of news magazine work and probably for just about any magazine work at all these days. Publications are shooting very little on film anymore.

[wayne_crider4]

Mary I'd spend the money as I needed to based on my current situation and year out projected analysis. Meaning honestly, what do you really expect to see as far as work coming in is concerned, and what kind of real income, not fantasized income, is expected? The worst thing that people do is load up the overhead in a market that won't sustain them. Now if you are a cut above photographer with a great book and contacts to provide work to you, and have gotten great feedback from your peer's, you may very well be right in looking at some of the best equipment out there. But if in your REAL analysis your situation and projections look no better then anyone else's when going into a business that can be a "who you know", or on the other end, requiring a dedicated HARD selling, hard working lifestyle, then I would pull back and start more in the middle of the pack with equipment. Still digital, but not top end.

 

Studio portraiture is a hard business in that you really have to sell yourself and come up with a genre that suits you and that will allow you to establish a name. With women photographers, two examples can be pregnancy and boudoir photography. Since women spend more money then men outside commercial photography, these are two sample area's where women feel easier with women photographing them. I'm also seeing more women photographers doing weddings, especially with the bride before the wedding. Commercial work is a whole nuther thing and there are others here who can speak with a insiders knowledge better then I, but it will come down to your skills, your contacts, your book and dedication in the face of adversity.

 

Realize also that beyond the camera equipment exist the need for computer skills, having a good working knowledge of programs such as Photoshop, having an understanding of the printing business and for alot of photographers, good computer equipment at home, another big expense. Then add in the overhead of a business license, car expenses, perhaps a business location or location in a home with the need for other equipment, and other business associated cost, and it can be a hard business which requires dedication to succeed in. So, start small if need be, put together a great book, and sell your ass off!

 

For equipment when doing personal photography a higher end DSLR will have more abilities. For commercial work I'd look at renting, or if there is alot of work available, buying into anything that I can attach a used digital back to. Just don't dump $50,000 into camera stuff unless you absolutely have off the wall business knocking at your door.

[fotografz]

Mary defined her criteria, "high end magazine and commercial work"... not portraits or

weddings or Boudoir photography. Unless it's for some special purpose artistic look, 4

megs generally won't cut it.

 

What's seems to not be understood here is that the commercial world of advertising and

promotion often (not always) requires flexability of image use. Art Directors are applying

images across media that can range from internet postings to magazines to a outdoor

board and bus stop posters. Magazine use alone can range from a spread in a Tabloid

sized publication to digest sized pubs. Multipurpose application of the same image is NOT

the exception to the rule. The most demanding resolution critera is the driving force, not

the smallest.

 

"Marc's point is not helpful though either. someone will always tell you that bigger is

better, more expensive is better, etc. but if that was true, we'd all be driving a Ferrari"

 

Unfortunately Dave that's an uninformed POV concerning this specific subject as explained

above. So, while it may be true enough in general, but not when it comes to competiting in

the commercal world.

 

Does Mary need a H2? Of course not. But she already said she can get one at a good

price ... thus the recommendation. There ARE deals out there ... I recently secured a

complete H2D/22 kit with a H/C 120 macro for $14,000. that also came with a film back.

 

Also, I did say "RENT" a digital back, not buy one. Many commercial studios rent based on

the job at hand ... so Mary need not pay out anything until she has a client Purchase Order

in hand. To get samples she can either shoot film and scan, or rent a MF digital back by

the day.

 

Another piece of info often not understood on these forms is that there are many

successful commercial photographers who know less than you could imagine about all this

tech stuff that occupies these threads ... they hire people to do a lot of it. I have yet to

shoot with a top photographer who did not have a tech person running the digital capture

system.

[ken_schuster]

In response to Marc Williams' comments... YES! I agree with everything he wrote (and the way he wrote it).

 

I would like to add an important technical point that I had neglected in my original response, and which also relates to Marc's comments... bit depth. Right now, medium format 14+ bit digital capture is the only way to get close to the enormous number of colors and tonalities we can see. That translates to superior output to film, video, CYMK separations, high-end inkjet printing... and any other use down the road. You can rez-up size, but bit depth is only in the capture, so far.

[wayne_crider4]

Mary's quote "I am gravitating more and more toward studio portraiture"

 

Mary's quote "In the end if I shift toward commercial work and do not have $30k for a high end digital camera where do I start?"

 

This is why I talked about portraiture Mark.