jeffascough

<p>Some good stuff in there Marc.<br>

Just one query - I was told by some image stabilization experts that putting IS in camera does not work as well as putting it in lenses. The premise being that a 200mm lens requires more IS than a 85mm. Something like Nikon's new 70-200 VRII really pushes what is feasible with IS and I would be really surprised if Sony got anywhere near that level of performance using camera based IS.<br>

I'd be interested to hear any comments you have on this.<br>

Also, regarding the Canon files you mentioned - I've found the current crop of Canon DSLR's need RAW presharpening, and then output sharpening as well. More so than others I have used. Get this right and the files absolutely sing.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alastair - with respect, if you had read the post correctly you will have seen that this post is in response to several emails that I have had from photographers asking me about the M9 and whether I would go back to using them in my work. If you read the subsequent comments, you will also see one of the commentators acknowledging that fact :) I certainly don't have to justify to anyone, least of all myself, as to what I choose to use. In fact before I was asked about the M9 I hadn't even paid it any attention.<br>

In response to your points;<br>

a) I am perfectly happy with Canon lenses. I am fully aware of what Leica lenses are capable of - I own seven of the best. I haven't sold any of my Leica gear because of nostalgic reasons; my name was put on the map in terms of wedding photography largely because of my association with that gear - and it feels wrong to me to get rid of it. In fact it all sits in a presentation cabinet in my reception area. As I say for my day job - the Canon primes are more than capable of producing results which I and my clients are happy with.<br>

b) The smaller/lighter issue is something which is a compromise for me and will remain so as long as I choose to shoot with DSLR's.<br>

c) Nobody claimed you can do both at the same time :) <br>

d) The two eyes open is how I counteract that issue. I still see the moment of exposure. I also lift my head up from the camera and look over the top of the camera as I press the shutter. I have a technique whereby I rest the camera on my forearm so that it's position doesn't move. It's hard to explain - maybe I need to do a video :D<br>

What I think is more important is that with the release of the M9, there will be a lot of people looking at the option of using this camera for wedding photography. Having used RF and DSLR for my work extensively, I am in the position of being able to offer an opinion. A lot of people are seduced by the Leica mystique, and some feel that they almost achieve cult status by using one of these cameras - and with respect a lot of photographers will defend them to their core. Let's be honest, if Canon or Nikon produced a camera with as many basic faults as the M8 had - they would have been lynched, and yet many Leica users simply paid the money and lived with the camera. Some users paid Leica again to upgrade their cameras to correct some of the faults which shouldn't have been there in the first place.<br>

As a pro photographer I had a need for a camera that could shoot effectively in low light with film - I chose Leica M6's because in my opinion they were the best at doing that. In terms of being outside in good light, then I was often stuck with a shutter speed that wasn't fast enough and stopping the lens down to f8 which wasn't ideal. When digital hit with huge improvements in high iso ability, that requirement of being able to shoot in low light could be fulfilled by the DSLR and I could also use the camera to shoot at f1.4 in daylight, so I switched from Leica to digital, and have not seen any reason so far to switch back.<br>

My choices in equipment have always come about as a result of a need for the camera to do something, not because it has a badge or a mystique about it, or because XYZ photographer uses one, otherwise I would be shooting all my stuff on a Leica M3 with a 50mm a la Cartier-Bresson. :)</p>

<p>From a UK perspective. I ranked really highly in their competitions and got next to nothing in terms of enquiries.</p>

<p>Hey Marc, I have a spare black balaclava, if you want to complete the 'ninja' look :-D<br>

For me it's a designer suit, open neck church, black converse shoes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 5DMKII is a huge upgrade on the 5D. In terms of weather sealing, the MKII version is better, as more seals have been added and the construction of the body has been designed so that the each joint overlaps the other. In terms of weather sealing it is comparable to the old Eos 1N. <br>

It has more megapixels which result in higher quality images with more detail. If you are a wide angle shooter this extra resolution makes a huge difference. In terms of high iso capability, this camera is the best that Canon has, and it is stunning. Tonal range and flesh tone integrity have been kept right up to 6400 iso.<br>

The video is amazing if you are into that kind of thing, and as a consequence of the video option, the LCD screen is a huge upgrade on the 5D. It is viewable from different angles, and used with live view, you can have a really easy to use, silent camera.<br>

I was a die hard 1 series Canon user. I still have 3 1dsMK3 camera bodies, but they have been resigned to back up since the 5DMKII came along - yes it is that good!!<br>

The 50L is worlds apart from the 50 1.4. I have two 50 L's and three broken 50 1.4's. The build quality alone is the main reason why I would go with the 50L. The 50L bokeh is fantastic, it doesn't flare, and manually focusing is a breeze. It is my main lens for weddings, and is one of Canon's best.<br>

If I had to say which option would make the biggest difference to your pictures - 5DMKII for the high iso alone. It does make a major difference to the type of images you can get in low light.<br>

Jeff</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>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>Lisa - thanks so much. I actually blushed :-)</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>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>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>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>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>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>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>Jameel - I don't limit the number of images I take, and I take way more memory than I will ever actually need. I just turn up and see where the shooting takes me. I don't have a set minimum number of images that I have to take, and don't have a maximum either. I couldn't work like that anymore. If I don't take an image for ten minutes, it's not a problem; and if I need to shoot a lot of images quickly, that isn't a problem either.</p>

<p>Michael - It was easier for me with film too ;-)<br>

I don't tend to think about it too much, because I haven't got to make a decision as to which camera I need to put to my eye, I just look for pictures. This is a good thing in one respect because you can just concentrate on the image; but on the other hand it can lead to second guessing as you mentioned. With film we made the decision before pressing the shutter and that was that, we didn't even think about it.<br>

What I have noticed is that I could easily keep all my images in colour these days, because colour is the most exciting thing for me at the moment, and I'm constantly working out colours in my head when shooting. The 5DII really helps here because I can get great looking colour in really low light; something which I couldn't get with film, or previous generations of DSLRs.<br>

So I tend to start off looking for the strongest colour images, in terms of colour harmony and rhythm of the image, and keep these as colour. Then I'll look for those images which have a strong sense of line and geometry and look at these in b/w. The rest of the images will then be looked at in terms of flow through the wedding. I tend to know which images will look best in b/w or colour so it's quite an easy process.</p>

 

<p>Andrew - I used to scout locations when I shot traditional work, but that's some fifteen years ago now. I never scout a location these days. I'll find out where the locations are and the best way of getting to them, but I won't walk about looking for the best places to take pictures. It's up to my clients where they decide to go on the day; and wherever they are, that's where I'll take the pictures, even if there is a stunning location right around the corner.</p>

<p>Jameel - I don't use filters as they significantly degrade the image, especially in low light. I don't tend to use hoods unless I'm outside in full sun, as they get in the way and make the lenses look really intimidating.</p>

<p>Laura - I don't own a macro. I never have done. I tend to use a 24mm for close ups or an 85mm and come back a bit to get the detail images.</p>

<p>Michael - I do them, but I don't show them and I don't like them. I don't think they add anything to a coverage. I would prefer to shoot them as part of a moment where perhaps they aren't the most significant thing in the shot, but it isn't always possible to do this.</p>

<p>Fellipe - I have small hands and find the battery grip to be uncomfortable for long periods. It also makes the camera significantly heavier and bigger.</p>

<p>Mary - I don't think it matters what you use, as long as you are happy using it. I've shot jpeg in the past and now I choose to shoot RAW. Some of my peers still prefer to shoot jpeg. In an ideal world I would still shoot jpeg but RAW gives me some latitude for error, and that is important especially with b/w work.<br>

To me, even though jpeg requires more discipline in actual shooting, that can be a very good thing. Jpeg also speeds up camera operation and post processing quite significantly. You don't need as much storage, and everything just works more efficiently with jpeg.<br>

However, I use RAW because I can see the benefits of highlight and shadow recovery. Being able to pull highlight detail back, and open up shadows was important to my b/w work, and that is the deciding factor.<br>

In terms of quality of output, I doubt that anyone on this board would be able to see the difference between an image taken on jpeg and on RAW. I often scratch my head as to why people get so protective of the format they shoot in. Does it really matter?<br>

If I was a traditional wedding photographer, studio portrait photographer, or I was able to guarantee the lighting situation, then I would shoot jpeg without hesitation. I've often wondered about shooting jpeg + RAW and just going to the RAW files when I need some extra latitude, but that would just complicate my workflow, which is why I haven't done it.<br>

RAW software is getting better and faster but I still find it a PITA sometimes. I would save several hours in PP by shooting jpeg, but RAW just gives me that margin for any error and that is the pay off.</p>

 

<p>Brian - I don't ever think that I can fix anything in photoshop. I think it was Joe Buissink that said "You can't polish a turd." A bad picture fixed in photoshop is still a bad picture; and getting into the mindest of fixing an image after the act is a bad place to be.<br>

If the image has decent light and storytelling, or storytelling and composition then that's fine. If it has just one element, then that's not so good unless that element is so strong that it can make the image stand out on it's own. So that one-time shot needs to be pretty special for me to accept it.</p>

<p>John - Yes I pose the people for group pictures and bride and groom images. I just get them to get together very naturally and quickly.<br>

Overhead lighting isn't an issue normally but if it is very direct, then like you say I will often wait for a moment when the lighting works with the subject. If it is a group of people, then I will often look for the bodies creating fill light if they have light clothes on, or subtractive light to create shape if they have dark clothes on. In any lighting situation there are always points where the light is soft and usually shaded, and I try to work in those areas. Even harsh downlighters will have an area right next to the main beam of light where the light is even and soft.</p>