It's not the camera, it's the photographer...and good light

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>This guy wanted to prove that you didn't need expensive camera equipment to shoot fashion....</p>

<p><a href="http://vimeo.com/13081827">http://vimeo.com/13081827</a></p>

 

[Spearhead]

<p>I think Terry Richardson made the same point a few years ago...</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"you didn't need expensive camera equipment to shoot fashion."</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's right, all you need are models, clothing, makeup, lighting, venue, support staff, and the means to pay for it. Take all that away and you have everyone else with cellphone cameras wishing pretty girls will model for them. <em> <br /></em></p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>Care to guess what that lighting set up cost?</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>....at least it's not the camera that matters......that is my only point....and his. And Jeff is correct, Terry Richardson did an excellent job of proving this years ago.....but it never hurts to remind people every once in awhile of that fact. Especially on this site, where the hue and cry is constantly about the camera equipment being the factor.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

They looked a bit soft to me.

[xxloverxx]

<p>Love when the phone rings…</p>

[mart_e]

<p>Does 'camera equipment' not include lighting ?</p>

<p>It's a fair point, and one that is often made - but for me, this it's just an Apple ad.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

[wogears]

<p>The 'bokeh' sucks on those. :)<br>

The point he makes is totally valid. Clients do NOT ask what equipment you use; they look for the result. Has it got the 'look' they asked for? Sold. Brides don't look at sharpness, CA, soft corners--they look for the genuine capture of their day.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>some people seem to be closed mind....</p>

<p>the point is (as everybody now, but some people still think they need a Mk2 to get that), that you can do a nice image with anything.. a shoebox, a plastic camera, a p&s or a Iphone... it is just a tool, and having the biggest most expensive one doestn make your image amazing everytime. Get the best tool for the final product you need.</p>

<p>The point with this video was to show that you can take amazing image with the Iphone 3GS.. with $$$$$$ of light ; )</p>

<p>I post the same link yesterday in the New Iphone 4G post..</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00WciY</p>

<p> </p>

[patricklavoie]

<p><em>Clients do NOT ask what equipment you use</em></p>

<p>unfortunatly some do ... A big and serious ad agency where i live (i cant tell there name) ask in there contract that you use a P45 minimum or something better for your photo shoot.. even if its for magazine only use.. they dont care, what they know it that ist <strong>THE</strong> big daddy of the <strong>camera</strong> as today (wait until they hear about the P65+) . sad but true.<em> </em></p>

<p>Asking this, they make sure that;</p>

<p>1_you are a serious photographer if you can afford one of those</p>

<p>2_that they should receie a quality raw file good for anykind of use.<em><br /></em></p>

[photojen]

<p>A good watch...</p>

[Spearhead]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Especially on this site, where the hue and cry is constantly about the camera equipment being the factor.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Tom makes a good point here. Most people would rather think that a great photo is made by having the right camera or the right lens. It's easier to spend money than to actually learn to use and control light, or to understand how to post-process a photo for a given look. The reason people's photos aren't "good enough" is generally that they haven't learned how to make it look "good enough," not that they don't have the right equipment (excluding lighting equipment.) </p>

<p>However, the nature of photography forums is that much of the time is spent talking about what equipment they should have rather than how they should look at using what they have to get better results. I don't think that's going to change.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>The Plan. Nobody mentioned the plan. The video itself, with the way it flows through the story, shows they had a good plan from the beginning. One of the leading ideas here is not just that they had a bunch of supporting equipment, but that they used that equipment with some kind of idea.</p>

<p>If you had a bunch of that stuff, and you didn't set it up that way, how would you get those results? They had to think this thing through at least enough to figure out where to put and aim the lightstands and lamps. It took some planning to get those support crews there; to get the people, and so on.</p>

<p>I only got about halfway through the video. The background music was a little much for me. It reminded me of a chain store back in the 1980s called "Merry Go Round." They sold a lot of parachute pants. I couldn't take it any more and checked out of the video after he made the first few photos.</p>

<p>Aside from the music, I thought that was a well-polished how-to photography video. Good use of lateral dolly.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Same thoughts I had as John O. What audience was Lee Morris trying to enlighten with this video? P&S'ers with a cell phone?</p>

<p>You still must be endowed with a sense of purpose, intent and planning in knowing what to do next in making it come out professionally as he did. That takes experience, training and money as others have said.</p>

<p>And to add what Michael Chang pointed out he also used a professional retoucher and they ain't cheap either.</p>

<p>It's like those guys that sell the Bleach Bypass, Cross Process and other color style effect plug-ins thinking they'll work on every photo but with some PP editing and preplanning on exposure and lighting.</p>

<p>It may look good on ONE photo but would someone inexperienced at retouching or post processing KNOW what tool and when and how to use it to fix it when it doesn't look good?</p>

<p>Are all our photographic skill sets going to be marginalized by cell phone P&S'ers?</p>

<p>Oh wait, I get it now. Lee Morris is actually advertising for his skill set and other's behind the scene.</p>

<p>Very clever.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p><em>...he also used a professional retoucher and they ain't cheap either...</em></p>

<p>Those dam retoucher! always involved...i know a good one if anyone ever need a pro look of is shot, from Iphone to a pro digital P45 back.. he can make a OK shot look better, or a good shot look freaking amazing i can garantee that : P<em><br /></em></p>

<p><em><br /></em></p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Okay, after establishing a twilight-style of darkness in the studio, we're going to place the model's entire head in a cone of light. Doesn't she look better with the iPhone now? Add pro cosmetics. Check it: add five hot lights and a backdrop to completely wrap your topic in light, then use the iPhone. Much better than that last drunk photo in a bar.</p>

<p>You don't need a better camera. You need enough skill to do this in your sleep in the first place.</p>

<p>Which, I think, is true, but somehow went unsaid in the video.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Had not had much luck capturing a bird in flight with my Blackberry.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>I only got about halfway through the video. The background music was a little much for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The song is cool enough if you listen to it with the original videoclip, who says props don't matter...</p>

<p><a href="

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Hey, I'm 50 and even I like "Ok Go" especially that particular tune in the video.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Just a few points here beyond just using a cell phone. 1. he starts with a beautiful model and uses a mua and hairstylist. Lost most folks already. ( just made Patrick's life much easier) 2. Use studio lights or home depot lights and modifiers well. Must have them and use them well. I think we lost some more folks. 4. Do great retouching or send to Patrick. Yeah, this video shows it can be done and makes the point good photos can be taken without top of line gear. In limited circumstances and with limited potential results. Dont know about you, but my creativity doesnt work that way. When a location or subject calls for X, I want to be able to pull it off. I did like his creative velcroing of the phone to his tripod. My speedlights all have sprouted fuzz for modifiers and triggers. Also liked him adapting from strobe to hot lights because no triggers. I guess because some of the fun for me is finding creative solutions for problems as they arise. Would be good for every beginner photographer to see this. It might help them with their equipment choices. </p>

[dave_b15]

<p>1. He shoos fashion: Model moves, stops, photo. Move, stop (pose), photo. etc...<br>

Shutterlag is not an issue. Shutter speed is not an issue<br>

Is there anyone who shoots sports with a P&S or iPhone? I don't think so.</p>

<p>2. Image quality: Fashion photographers don't need it.<br>

Here's what kills me. Fashion photogs spend tens of thousands of dollars on equipment, and then run the photo through PS and basically redo the image. All that image quality and pixels was a waste of time.<br>

Why not shoot the model with a $39.99 Vivitar P&S from Walmart? You're just going to "paint" in what you want anyway. Or for that matter, don't use a model. Today's computers can draw women or men more beautiful than Nature could ever create. Or use a mannequin if you need some sort of shape and make it look the way you want it too in the image.</p>

<p> </p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Dave, the point here was not to show the world that the Iphone will kill the dslr market or even the p&s one.. it is simply to show you that with a Iphone you can also do a pretty cool image, so with a shoe box, a holga, a brownie, a telescope...whatever the tool you use to make your vision across. If you use a Iphone for sport action type photo i think you (well not YOU) are a idiot that dont understand the tool you use for the product you shoot... every tools have is function, and any tool can by use to make your vision a reality.</p>

<p>Fashion photog dont need quality?.. OK here you just lost all the credibitliy you could have in the first sentence. Fashion photog are after quality like anyone else even if there image are not timeless and will probably dont live outside the Vogue or another obscure magazine.. The image quality and pixel are not a waste of time or material, saying so im wondering what you shoot or what you do for a living that you consider to be Photoshop or digital worthy?... clearly here you are out of your league.. no offense.</p>

<p>The thing to remember is that you dont need a expensive camera to get good image, you need a vision.. have a look at many flikr account ; )</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>The <em>it's not the camera, it's the photographer </em>has become as much a cliché as anything else out there regarding *good* photographs. </p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> The thing to remember is that you dont need a expensive camera to get good image, you need a vision..</p>

<p>Bingo! So true...</p>

<p>>>> The <em>it's not the camera, it's the photographer </em>has become as much a cliché as anything else out there regarding *good* photographs.</p>

<p>Cliché or not, its true.</p>