Why should you shoot film ? : a POV from a digital maven.

[kelly_flanigan1]

50 year old nikkor LTM; filter :) 1/2" thick scratched plexiglass at 55 degree angle to lens. "the hockey glass." An older lens is often abit less sharp wide open; but has better out of focus qualities. This is the Sonnar design 10.5cm lens; at F2.5 <BR><BR> <IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-406.jpg>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I have a Leitz LTM to C mounty adapter; and have used the 10.5cm Nikkor on a 16mm movie camera. With a focus pull; the out of focus areas still appear as an object that can be identified; and not a confusing mess.

[al_kaplan1]

Same optical design as my 85/2 LTM Nikkor. Great lens!

[fotografz]

Grant cracks me up. He fancies himself the artease, and guardian against photopomposity.

A worthy endeavor in some cases. He's a pretty darn good photographer in his distinct

style of work and very good at zeroing in on content IMO. On that subject, I'd listen to him

and look at his work all day long.

 

But if he can't see certain qualities in making photographs that's his problem... why let him

make it your problem? Some people can't hear certain subtitles in music either... but it

doesn't mean they don't exist. To exaggerate the point, I wouldn't waste a second on

arguing colors with a blind man. Reacting to a terse challenge to post examples of those

colors for the blind man to see would be an even bigger waste of time.

 

BTW, I DO set out to get those kinds of backgrounds. I spent a fair amount of money and

time to hunt down lenses that deliver that look, and use them when that's what I'm after ...

so it's not just a mindless accident. And while Grant and his acquaintances may not give a

crap about such things, my acquaintances do ... including the guy I just hired to shoot a

national campaign ... it's part of the emotional content of this particular campaign, and

one reason I selected this photographer from the hundreds available to me.<div></div>

[grant_.]

youre telling me you selected a photographer based on what cameras he uses, or what the quality of his output is....? something tells me its the latter...

[Spearhead]

I like my lenses, but that's because they're what I have. I can't really shoot with what I don't have.<p>

<center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/viet39.jpg"><br>

<i>Mekong Delta, Copyright 2004 Jeff Spirer</i></center>

[al_kaplan1]

LTM Nikkor 50/1.4 and 85/2, all you ever wanted to know:

 

http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/speciallenses/nikkor5080.htm

[EricM]

I was disappointed on how bad digital makes blurry backgrounds with limited dof. It's my biggest, and perhaps only, turn off with digital.

[grant_.]

hmmmm...

<p>

<p>

<img src="http://www.streetzen.net/fashion/model8.jpg">

[grant_.]

hmmmm...

<p>

<p>

<img src="http://www.streetzen.net/fashion/japanese.jpg">

[edmo]

bokeh, shmokey...

<p>

<center><img src="http://www.leveckis.net/images/hosp/images/04115_02.jpg"></center>

[grant_.]

hmmmm...

<p>

<p>

<img src="http://www.streetzen.net/fashion/wisdom.jpg">

[kevin m.]

"kevin, i for one like the smooth bokeh arm comin outta her nose..."

 

The pic was posted as an example of a particular lens characteristic. Can you see it or not? Compare it to your first two pics.

[fotografz]

"youre telling me you selected a photographer based on what cameras he uses, or what

the quality of his output is....? something tells me its the latter."

 

Where did I say I selected the shooter based on which camera he uses? Now you're making

up stuff Grant. Of course it is his samples that I looked at, along with a bunch of other

shooters. This guy's stuff showed me that he had the timing, humanity, eye for

composition AND what I wanted in terms of subject isolation that kept the backgrounds

from being distracting ...more so than the other shooters work I reviewed. I could care

less what gear he uses as long as I get the look I'm after. You shoot pretty raw stuff Grant.

There are other perspectives and photographic visual personalities that fit certain visual

strategies for commercial work. And when millions in media spending are at stake, I pay

attention to every little detail that could make the ad work just a tiny fraction better. You

may think it's all BS, but I've helped clients make Billions with that BS.

 

As to the ladies protesting: please don't lump every man on PN into the same bag just

because one acts belligerent.

[grant_.]

exactly my point marc....to those who know how to shoot the equipment is simply a transcended tool that becomes a passing conversation like one would talk about the weather.....for those that are clueless and believe the camera makes the image, well, just look at pnet...

[grant_.]

what good are diff lens qualities if you dont know how to make an image work? its like trying to emulate van gogh and not knowing how to mix paint....

[scott squire nonfiction]

You can put Michael Shumacher in a Hyundai Elantra, and he'll still be a hell of a driver,

but he ain't gonna win many F1 races. Driving the right car and being a good driver are

two different things (which sometimes overlap). Being provocative and making intelligent

arguments are likewise two different things.

 

Until Grant came and started pissing on bokeh (gosh, is that tired much?), this was an

excellent thread, full of smart people saying thoughtful things and 'listenening' to one

another.

 

By the way, couple of those pictures are smokin, Grant... which Hyundai did you say you

shoot with again?

[al_kaplan1]

Grant, cameras and lenses are tools, nothing more. When I bring my car for servicing I expect the mechanic to have the proper set of wrenches on hand. Sure, he could take apart and reassemble just about the entire engine with Vice Grips, but they leave the bolt heads with bad bokeh, no matter how talented the mechanic!

 

Would you want your camera tech to ding up all the screw heads and retaining rings on your cameras and lenses for lack of the best tools for the job? I guess Marc feels that way about the photographers he's hiring. Marc wants a certain "look" in the photo and that person doing the shoot is probably getting paid more for the day than some arrogant folks earn in a month. Do your homework. Learning won't destroy your brain cells.

[fotografz]

Well, I hate to burst Grant's purist bubble concerning the nature and mindset of fine artists

and well respected photographers. Technique and tools are pretty inseparable, and are the

basis of a fair amount of discussion. Certainly not to the exclusion of ideas, content and

emotional focus. But those aspects tend to be more introspective, personal and difficult to

discuss. Yes, philosophical and artistic POVs are of paramount importance in the

development of ones style and approach. So is one's understanding of the tools available

and how to use them , and even break the rules with them.

 

When I was an avid painter, I was experimenting with a lot of new techniques and

application tools. Most modern artists do that at some time in their development, and

surprise! they discuss it amongst themselves. Technique and tools have been part and

parcel of some important advancements in fine art (dripping house paint, unsized canvas,

the spray can of Graffiti artists to name a few recent ones). For those don't know that,

perhaps an art history course may be in order.

 

Photographically, HCB publicly eschewed such talk, but indulged in it just the same... he

consciously selected a particular type of camera and a specific focal length to match his

vision or idea of how to view the world around him. But not all technique/tool decisions

are that simple.

 

Once a photographer reaches his or her stride, even the little things can offer up a new

twist to a creative sensibility. It's like rearranging a well known song and using different

instruments to express that twist. I once saw Yo Yo Ma play "Somewhere Over The

Rainbow" solo on his Stradivarius Cello. A tired old tune played on an instrument capable

of magnificent subtleties in the hands of a master. Ripped your heart out. To say it would

have been the same on a cheap cello is naive and simply argumentative, just as it would be

if I said a beginner could pull out all the Strad had to offer.

 

There are also some photographic tools capable of magnificent subtleties... from all

makers at some time in their history. To ignore such tools and not hunt them down if they

fit an artistic vision you are forming is just perpetuating ignorance and handicapping

yourself IMO.

 

During the long process of pre-production last week I had delightful discussions with the

photographer and his tech assistants. After reviewing my work, he pointed out how certain

lenses and lens characteristics could aid in accomplishing some of the artistic things I was

experimenting with. They dragged out a lot of lenses I had never looked through before.

And the photographer pointed out how they can affect the art of photography. Some of it

was a revelation, and some surprisingly inexpensive (not all of it, a few pieces were

horrifyingly expensive because of rarity). I'll be adopting the ones I can afford and

hopefully they will advance the cause a step or two. Funny, but I was able to return the

favor because I am further ahead in digital than he was, so I showed him a couple

techniques to achieve a thought he was experimenting with ... surprise again, they

required some specific tools and a demonstration on how to use them.

 

Here's a snapshot taken during the actual shoot. The photographer's assistant is holding a

Leica 180/2 APO lens which produces a beautiful effect when separating subject from

background. Note the arsenal of stuff partially shown on the table. Each set-up was looked

at through different lenses (both 35mm and MF) and often shot using different glass for

the specific feel it imparted on the scene. My job next week will be to edit those for each

ad in the campaign using the ones that most powerfully communicate the subject's

expressions as connected to the idea, along with which provides the emotional

subtleties that draw the eye and heart into an ad.<div></div>

[mattalofs]

This has been an instructive dialog; I don't think I have seen anywhere else such a detailed discussion of bokeh/optical signature with examples.

 

Marc, how do you like the VC 35 1.2?

[fotografz]

Jury's still out on the V/C 35/1.2 Matt. Got to push more rolls past it before I decide.

Promising so far though.

[blakley]

<i>Technique and tools are pretty inseparable, and are the basis of a fair amount of

discussion.</i>

<p>

Mark Vieira's book "Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits" traces the development of George

Hurrell's technique in a lot of detail, including extensive discussions of the specific

characteristics of the lenses he used on his 8x10 cameras, his assistants' methods of

retouching negatives, and his invention and use of an overhead boom light.

<p>

The accompanying photos make it clear that Hurrell's visual signature changed distinctly

each

time he adopted a new piece of equipment; the text makes it clear that he looked around

for equipment to support specific techniques he wanted to add to his repertoire.

<p>

The weird thing about Grant's discussion above, if you go back and look through his

posts, is that ALL the pictures he posted to support his argument that bokeh doesn't

matter have horrible bokeh, and ALL the pictures he posted later have really nice bokeh.

As the man himself said, hmmmmmmmm.

<p>

If it weren't Grant, I'd suspect it was a test for the audience.

[Spearhead]

The problem is really that here on photo.net, people substitute equipment choice for a real understanding of what makes great photos.

 

Grant left it unsaid, but post-processing matters far more than any lens choice. It's easy to spot a change in paper, a change in printing style, even a change in enlarger type, than it is to see a change in lens brand. In shows I've had, nobody has ever commented on the difference between a print taken with a late-model Leica lens and one taken with a very cheap fixed lens camera. On the other hand, even a paper change has caused a comment. Also, format changes usually get commented on, at least by other photographers.

 

If you look at the photos posted here, it's pretty obvious that most people don't want to go through the arduous process of learning to make a great image, nor do they want to pay the kind of money it takes to buy great printing. They don't want to spend years in the darkroom learning, and it's obvious from the comments that they don't want to spend the time learning Photoshop and related tools. So instead, they spend inordinate amounts of time commenting on this lens vs that lens, factors that really matter far less than other issues when making a photograph.

 

It's worth pointing out that Avedon's prints could have 100 local corrections in order to look the way Avedon wanted them to. It's also worth pointing out that photos taken with almost any camera can have a "glow" if the printer is really capapble of great printing.

 

All of this extends to the film/digital arena as well. Most of the anti-digital comments from people who have neither seen nor tried to make a great digital print. It's possible, but it takes a skill level that rivals great darkroom printing.

 

I'd add that the lack of comments on the images I posted would seem to indicate that people can't recognize the bokeh of a Leica lens.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Lighting seems to get a back seat on Pnet; which is abit odd. On a movie sets great lengths are spent with lighting setups; to get the "look" the crew wants. In a scene that requires a fast lens with a focus pull; the background lighting is often adjusted to reduce distracting "out of focus lens artifacts" ; if they compete with the story. With reduced background lighting; the artifacts are less noticeable; and are less distracting. The entire work of the movie sets lighting crews are often poo-pooed by still photographers who have never visted; or worked on a set. Often chaps dwell way too much on a what specific lens was used in a scene; instead of understanding and experimenting with lighting too.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> people substitute equipment choice for a real understanding of what

makes great photos. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Too true. I've seen people here and elsewhere switching lenses, bodies, brands and

formats several times a year, for years, never willing to believe that their lack of comfort

with their gear was helping to stunt their aesthetic growth. They prefer(red) to believe

that the gear was at fault, not their technique or how they approach their photos or

what they do after they shoot. <p>

 

It's sad, and it's costly to them. Almost as bad are those who delude themselves into

seeing gold in dross from their expensive gear.