moses_sparks

Someone should really write a white paper on what it is about digital photography that inspires the near-religious fervor people discussing it take on while defending or attacking it...it's a cultural phenomenon!

Jonathan, I will quote Nick Nolte's character from "Under Fire" and say, "I don't take sides, I take pictures".

But your statement (which I believe has a typo) "there will never be a time when you can't buy or process film" strikes me as optimistic speculation at best.

The day that film sales drop below X number of units for Kodak and Fuji they will discontinue those products, regardless of the reason why. They already do that. Digitial is just accelerating the process of the evolutionary cycle.

If you had a substantial investment in cassette tapes and refused to buy those new-fangled CD's, or loved your Beta VCR and would rather fight than switch, that still wouldn't prevent the marketing realities from sweeping them aside as huge numbers of people DID switch.

I love film, it's been a huge part of my life since I was a teenage photographer, and I am astounded at the prospect of it becoming obsolete in my lifetime. I hope it never does.

But the potential for that to happen is certainly there. I just don't see how anyone could make a sweeping statement like yours, pro or con.

The truth is, no one knows.

Chris,

In the context of this thread, "left behind" means by the market, the people who hire professional photographers.

If you shoot for pleasure it's a non issue, and will be until you can't buy and process film anymore.

But for those of us who earn a living making images, digital is an ugly reality that just won't go away and cannot be ingored. I say "ugly" because I personally have zero interest in it as a medium, I would be quite happy to continue working exclusively in film, and have bucked the trend for as long as I can.

But then I started getting the calls for assignments where the images had to be delivered digitally. Sometimes the time frame would allow me to shoot film and scan them. I took those jobs. But often the deadline would NOT allow that, I had to pass on those jobs and essentially send the client to another photographer.

You can only do that so may times before they stop calling you and just start with the other guy.

You can debate the relative merits of film vs digital all you want, and bemoan the increased post-production workload (and it DOES increase it) but none of that changes the fact that clients want it and will get it from somebody.

If it's your business, you have to decide if that somebody is going to be you, or your competition.

Brady,

I shoot RZ67's and the shutter lag is no different as far as I can tell from the Pentax 6x7's, Hasselblads, or Mamiya 645's I have also owned, BUT the disclaimer is that they are all pretty long compared to something like a 35mm SLR or a rangefinder camera.

The SLR design is the culprit. When you press the shutter release a lot of things have to happen before the light hits the film, and because all the components involved (light trap, mirror, shutter) are bigger than a 35 SLR, the physics involved mean it's going to take longer to perform those actions.

It's not unworkable though, it just takes practice and familiarity with the equipment to get the timimg right.

For example, Lois Greenfield has been photographing multiple dancers in mid-air with a Hasselblad for years and she has no difficulty capturing the peak moment.

I use my RZ's to shoot primarily portrait and fashion work, and while the timing there is not as crucial as something like dance shots, the difference between a good portrait and a great one is always the expression, which means catching the exact instant it happens.

I have never felt like the camera was holding me back in that regard.

Peter,

I'm wrestling with the same issues myself, having put off a digital conversion as long as I can (more due to the inadequacies of the available cameras than anything else) but the market is forcing me to adopt a digital solution very soon.

The people I have spoken with are accustomed to dealing with professional photographers, and they are unanimous in recommending the D1x or D1h over the D100 for my applications.

The reasons are speed, workflow, ISO and flash sync speeds (more on that in a moment) ruggedness, and the quality of the CCD.

I've seen sample prints from all 3, and the D1 photos do indeed look better to me.

The D100's minimum ISO of 200, and flash sync at 1/180th would be problematic for me because I do so much outdoor work wth fill flash. The D1x or h with their sync speed of 1/500th have a huge advantage there.

The viewfinder and focus indicators on the D1x look just like my F100's and are a joy to use, the D100 finder is smaller, darker, and I had trouble seeing the focus indicators, which darken, rather than light up in red like the D1x.

If you haven't held these cameras there's a big difference there too. The D100 sort of feels like a toy to me, whereas the D1x is so solid and well balanced it just feels indestructible.

I tried the Fuji S2 also and HATED the feel of that camera. The all plastic exterior is so slippery I literally could not hang on to it, and it feels like a $300 entry level SLR to me.

You should spend some time handling these different models and see what feels like the right fit for you, and then rent them if you can and print some test shots.

The D1x output looks a lot better right out of the camera to me, and since I'm not anxious to increase the amount of time I spend hunched in front of a computer (too much already!) I like that aspect as well.

Good luck to you.

Markus,

I own the 85/1.8D and the 105/2 DC. Both are excellent for portrait work, but if you are on a budget the 85 is hard to beat. It's a tiny bit soft wide open, but if you stop down to f2.8 sharpness is very good while still providing beautiful out of focus backgrounds. It's not the sturdiest lens in the world, having a plastic barrel, and the focus ring rotates as the camera autofocuses, which can be distracting to me, but I have had no problems with mine.

If quality is a higher priority than budget the 105 DC is the better of the two lenses. This is absolutely the best portrait lens I have ever used in any format. It's incredibly sharp, even wide open, but with the DC option you can fine tune it's look to your own tastes.

I use mine not only for portraits, but also for fashion work when 35mm is called for, and I have done a number of shoots using only this lens.

It's built like a tank, but is not what I would call heavy, and handles beautifully. It really is in a class of it's own.

I have also used the 135 DC, but I agree with the comments about it being a little too long for portraits, the 105 provides a more intimate working distance.

Good luck.

Hiya boys, a couple of responses in kind:

Don - Yes, did the "HMI" shoot. I am mildly retarded about uploading photos and such so I will e-mail you a JPEG.

Scott - Welcome back dude! I thought after you left because the other kids were mean to you, you might return in a better mood...guess not :) I think you're right, I doubt we will see a lot of effort put into developing REALLY new films. It will be Marketing 101, keep the stuff that's selling, change the packaging once in a while, tweak it just enough to say NEW AND IMPROVED! in the ads, etc.

None of that is new or solely because of digital though. Kodak, and to a lesser degree, all the film manufacturers have been doing that for a long time. Kodak's marketing decree has always been "We don't care, we don't have to...we're Kodak" until it was updated to "We don't get it, we don't have to...we're Kodak".

I don't mean to debate myself here, but digital WILL kill off film to some degree, for those of us who shoot professionally, or just want to shoot to the highest possible standards with our big old cameras. And that's because there aren't very many of us in the grand scheme of things. That's a TINY market compared to the amatuer/p&s/digital/we want it cheap and fast crowd.

My personal feeling is that digital is still a medium of convenience, rather than quality, and that most of the hype surrounding it is bullshit. However, it is bullshit that my clients have bought into, and they will get it elsewhere if I can't provide it, so being a little short of retirement age I have no choice but to adopt it.

My only real option is to research it and try to make the best decision.

My decisions about film choices will certainly be narrowed by the market pressures out there, sooner or later.

There! A little bad news for you yin/yang enthusiasts!

Yes, this has been discussed here before, but I thought it might be

nice to share what I thought was a piece of good news for those who

shoot MF.

I had the opportunity to have lunch with a fellow who is a "digital

guru" to the stars recently, and was able to pump this guy for

information for two hours! He will probably never do that again!

His name is Ronn Brown, and he runs the Pro Digital department for

Samys Camera in LA, for those who are interested.

He does consulting, and puts together digital systems for people like

Greg Gorman and Mark Seliger.

At any rate, when I asked him when I could expect all my favorite

films to be discontinued by Fuji and Kodak as the holy grail of

digital killed them off, his response surprised me.

He didn't think it would be any time soon, because reps from both

companies have told him privately that is the ONLY area of their

business where they are actually making money.

The R&D, marketing, and sales of digital technology is what everyone

is talking about, but our old friend celluloid is still paying the

bills for these guys (at least according to him, and he should know).

I hope he's right!

I'm not anti-digital, and in fact I'm going to be moving into a

digital system in early 2003, but I have been shooting and loving

film for a very long time, and I'm in no hurry to see it become

extinct, so I found his comments refreshing.

For what it's worth...

MOSES SPARKS - STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER, UNIVERSAL STUDIOS

I have to go with Mr. Schrader on this one...the business degree will give you a definite edge in making a career as a photographer.

I don't have one, wish I had known to get one, would have made the road a LOT easier for me.

I have worked for extremely high profile clients for years, NOBODY has ever asked or cared about my education as a photographer, even though I devoted years to studying and learning everything I could about the art and craft of photography.

My portfolio, people skills, and previous clients got me the gigs, nothing else mattered.

But knowing more about marketing and managing a business would have gotten me there a lot faster I feel. I learned those things on my own, the hard way.

I'm not saying young photographers shouldn't have a formal education in photography, quite the opposite, I think it's vital. But as long as you have those skills and knowledge, nobody will care how you got them or how long it took. The business skills will greatly increase the likelihood of success with the photo skills, you have to survive long enough to let people discover how wonderful you are at making pictures. MOST young shooters don't.

And the other, darker side of photography as a career, is that it can become just another job. The thing you loved becomes the thing you have to do to earn a living, and I've seen that drain the magic of it for more than one pro.

It would be nice to have some options if you ever get to that point, and a broader based education could provide that.

Better to have a "day job" and shoot what you want as a hobby rather than having to drag yourself out to shoot something you don't care about and have no passion for.

Food for thought...

Best of luck to you.

MOSES SPARKS - STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER, UNIVERSAL STUDIOS

John!

Where's that stiff upper lip dude?!

Sometimes you have to face your fear and work through it.

Sometimes you have to get right back on the horse that threw you.

Sometimes you have to embrace the nudity and let it take you where it will.

Sometimes you have to cut back on the caffeine and stop posting ludicrous remarks (I'm working on that one).

:)

John,

Your problem is obvious. What you need is a naked girl. To take pictures of.

My point being that shooting something other than what you're used to can be very stimulating (mentally boys...mentally).

I can't comment on landscape photography because I personally can't think of anything more boring, but after shooting commercial gigs for months on end, I like nothing better than taking a vacation from myself and shooting nudes in the studio, or an afternoon chasing my kids around with a camera at the park.

Miles apart, I grant you, but both are very theraputic for me.

AND, you live in England, where you can actually rent a studio that comes with a naked girl to shoot! I could not believe my eyes the first time I bought a copy of Practical Photography and saw all the ads in the back for this very thing.

So while my post might sound flippant, the intent is sincere :)

Good luck!

MOSES SPARKS - STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER, UNIVERSAL STUDIOS - LOS ANGELES

David makes a very good point about the sensation of viewing a scene through the viewfinder, and the difference in "feel" that the aspect ratio introduces.

6x6 always looks abstract and arty to me, so I like it as long as I'm going to print the entire image. Don't like to crop it however.

BIG difference between 645 and 6x7 though: 645 reminds me of television, 6x7 is like going to the movies!

Richard,

As the previous posts mentioned the Kodak DCS back seems to be the preferred digital solution for the RZ and is fully compatible. "Affordable" is a relative term however, and for me, it's not that. But I can and have rented it when needed and that made me glad I owned an RZ system.

The RZ's electronic shutter is definitely more accurate and consistent than any mechanical shutter, and that includes the RB and Hasselblad lenses. I used to own H'blad and could see the difference in exposures between low and high speeds (high speeds would often be overexposed because the shutter wasn't really moving at 1/250 or 1/500) and also between different lenses, i.e. 1/250 was not the same on 80 and 150mm lenses. This is remarkably consistent with all 5 of my RZ lenses.

The RZ also offers much faster operating characteristics than the RB, at least for my style of shooting, and just feels smoother to me.

The ability to load different films in different backs (Pola or film) and then have them key the correct ISO to the camera's meter prism is also very handy and speeds up the process of changing set-ups.

I also like having LONG timed speeds, up to 8 seconds, and the ability to fire the camera remotely using it's winder and a Pocket Wizard.

Many of the differences between the RB and RZ are very subjective and intimately related to your style of working, but the RB feels very slow and clunky compared to the RZ for the people/fashion/commercial work I do.

Good luck to you...

Is this mythical beast actually in stores anywhere yet?

I am very intrigued by it and would love to try one out.

(I like the 6x6 format but not Hasselblads ).

Thanks.

John,

If your intent is to settle on one camera system, and your subject matter and style of working allows that, 645 is the way to go in my opinion. (I would love to do that, but because I shoot commercially and have varied needs for varied clients it's just not workable for me).

645 is a great compromise between the speed and automation of 35mm, and the modular design and image quality of medium format, so in a way you get the best of both worlds.

But compromise is the operative word here, because the other view is that you also get the worst of both worlds!

There is no 645 system (and I've tried them all) that can compete with the AF speed, metering, flash capabilities, and lens selection of my Nikon F100's. It's not even close.

And although a 645 SLR system comes with a lot of the same weight, bulk, expense, and "hassle factor" that a 6x7 does, it gives up a lot to that format in terms of ultimate image quality.

I spent a lot of money on a Mamiya 645 ProTL system, and although I was pretty impressed with it overall, it simply couldn't cut it as my only MF system, and it couldn't do what my 35mm gear does for me, so I sold it.

So my point is that for a guy that can really cover his bases with one system I don't think you can beat 645.

But the combo of 35mm and 6x7 is certainly going to give you options that no 645 system can.

Good luck in your quest!

MOSES SPARKS - STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER, UNIVERSAL STUDIOS

Bill has it right, Type 672. It's B&W, 400 ISO (not really, closer to EI 320) and it works great.

Roger...evaluating Polaroids and then knowing how to translate the difference in tonality and contrast is a skill that can be developed just like any other technical matter in photography.

I can look at a Black & White polaroid ( I almost never shoot color ones unless a client requires it) and I can tell exactly how that image will look on film...much more accurately than from any digital LCD I've seen so far. Little televisions simply look nothing like film to me, and neither do the digital files (yeah, I know, let's not have THAT discussion for the billionth time!)

It just takes practice. And I've done a lot of that over the last 15 years or so!

When/if Polaroid proofing materials become extinct, I think that will be my cue to bid farewell to commercial shooting, it's just hard to imagine the process without that step for the way I work.

But I never say never...

Steve,

I can't speak for anyone else (since I'm not an elected official :) but from my experience the bigger the project, the more money there is on the table, and if I'm smart about it, the more I get to keep.

I used to do a fair amount of large commercial projects, moved away from it, and in a strange twist of fate, have gotten involved in it once again. I will qualify what "large" means to me, because that's all over the map in photography...$10,000 is a large project to me,

and I rarely get involved in anything bigger than that...although I would like to, but there are a number of issues that go with that, and I'll try to touch on them.

I often function as a "producer" on such shoots, meaning that the client gives me a budget to coordinate pretty much everything necessary to arrange a shoot. A typical shoot will include crew (assistants), talent (models), locations and permits, makeup, hair, and wardrobe stylists, props, motorhome rental, and any special equipment needed such as generators for lights, wind machines, etc.

Every project is different of course, but generally speaking I will quote a fee for my services, an ESTIMATE (very important distinction) for the expenses, and then try to arrange for all those expenses so that I can get them economically and make more money on that as well. My goal is to walk away with at least half of that $10,000 as profit, and I have usually (but not always) done pretty well with that. My quote states a total estimate, and that only the expense cost will vary. That way I reserve the right to charge more for those things if they run over budget and the client agrees they are reasonable, and that gets approved BEFORE I spend the money, but if I do a good job of producing and bring the expenses in UNDER budget, I get to keep the difference.

Most clients are agreeable to this as long as it's spelled out that way at the time the deal is made. They've already gotten approval for the amount you quoted, so they don't usually care how it breaks down.

The most profitable commodity you can sell in photography is "style", and in the case of the big boys that can be a very large number indeed. We all know about Herb Ritts and the rest of the A team who can fetch $20K per day to shoot. That is a truly exclusive club I can tell you, and not that many shooters belong to it. But the point is that most clients are paying for two things when they hire a photographer at this level: Style, and the ability to produce and direct a big shoot.

Bigger production, bigger budget, bigger profit.

But also much more time required to plan and coordinate, so you need to be sure you are charging enough to make it worthwhile, and that means knowing what your overhead costs are in advance.

The other thing you don't often hear people talk about is that a photographer doing a large commercial shoot may well have to finance part or all of the production cost until the job is completed, and then wait 30 days or more while your invoice is processed for payment.

But you are probably not going to be able to postpone paying all those expenses we talked about until that check arrives.

THAT has a lot to do with my $10,000 ceiling! You can get into serious cashflow issues if you are a one-man-band like me and you have thousands of dollars outstanding this way.

Depending on the client, I will ask for a 50% deposit to cover expenses, and then all I'm waiting for is my profit, but that's often not possible.

If you are working for a large, prestigious client you can definitely send the wrong message by asking for a deposit...first of all, you are telling them "I don't really trust you", and secondly, "I am a small operator and in over my head here", neither of which is likely to convince them to cough up the bucks for that elusive "style" or to do business with you on a regular basis.

Deposits are a pain in the ass for big companies to deal with, so if you want to compete with the big boys, you have to look like the big boys, and take the risk.

Always a few ants at the picnic, huh?

So anyway, I hope that's helpful to you.

Good luck.

Jeff,

Reflectivity of Polaroid film is indeed different from celluloid, and that will cause TTL systems to overexpose it as they adjust the flash for more output.

I find that the difference is about 1 - 1 1/2 stops depending on the scene, so you can dial in a higher ISO to compensate, or if your flash allows, minus 1 stop on the flash itself. The problem is you obviously have to reset it for film.

Some brands like the Mamiya pola backs have an ISO dial and electronic interface, so that makes it foolproof, you just dial in the ISO you want and then whenever you mount the pola back it's covered.

It's a myth alright...

Wait till you're ready to buy a wide angle for your set-up, you'll probably see fairies in your back yard after parting with that much cash.

The left brain must justify that which the right brain compels you to purchase.

Well, as some others pointed out, many MF cameras don't have TTL flash capability, and that's true of my favorite, the Mamiya RZ Pro II.

I use mine in pretty dynamic situations though, and the results are great as long as I have enough time to Polaroid and fine tune to ensure exposures are what I want.

I use a Quantum Q-flash X2 powered by a 400 watt Lumedyne pack, so output is never an issue. If the set-ups are changing quickly (like weddings or group portraits) I use it on Auto so that I can change camera position without worrying about the flash-to-subject distance.

I usually start by setting the flash to 2 stops under my ambient light reading, using Polaroid to evaluate and tune exposure, and then just shoot. The Polaroid step is critical to me because ALL Auto flash is highly variable depending on subject distance, reflectance, etc. and even with color negative film I am not content to just "get close" with my exposure, I want it dead on.

Once I have it dialed in it's very consistent.

The Auto mode actually has an advantage over TTL this way, because I can set any output I want and see that value on the LCD display, without having to dial in compensation or trick the flash into thinking it's lighting faster film, etc.

I don't like doing a lot of math when people are looking at their watches and wanting to leave!

There is also no compensation necessary because of the difference in reflectance between Polaroid and celluloid. TTL flash used with a Polaroid back will always overexpose the subject because it's not as reflective as film, which is what the TTL is calibrated to.

Then you're back to compensating on the flash to handle the two different materials.

Some might argue that the TTL will be inherently more accurate than Auto, making the Polaroid step unnecessary, but I feel a lot more confident seeing the exposure myself instead of letting the camera make that decision.

David,

Lots of confusion on this issue, and I have tried unsuccessfully to get a definitive answer myself.

Before Scott Eaton flamed out and disintegrated he posted a number of responses indicating that Superia Reala and CS Reala 120 were in fact different emulsions, but I don't know where he got that information.

I shoot a TON of both, and I can't see any significant difference between them, other than what you would expect because of format differences (35mm vs 6x7, in my case).

Both are excellent, and I would agree with those who say this is Fuji's best all around color negative film.

It most definitely is not the same as NPS, which always looks as though it were shot through a dirty window to me, or NPH, and "anemic" is as apt a description as I have heard for that film.

These are very subjective matters of course, and these are simply my opinions.

I would shoot some and see for yourself why it's so nice...

MOSES SPARKS - STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER, UNIVERSAL STUDIOS - LOS ANGELES

I have a chance to buy a long discontinued 6x6 120/220 back for my RZ

Pro II, but I have never seen one, nor can anyone at Mamiya tell me

anything about it (I guess they have never seen one either!)

Does anyone know...

1. Is it compatible with my RZ Pro II bodies? It was designed for the

original RZ, but most accessories are interchangeable.

2. Does it mask off the viewfinder when attached to show the aspect

ratio like the 6x7 backs?

I like the square format for personal work, and this would let me

shoot it with my existing system.

Thanks!

Dave,

Excellent feedback, thank you.

Let me pose a few questions if I may:

The 65mm lens is roughly equivalent to a 32mm in 35 format I think, do you find that wide enough to adequately take in interior areas? I ask because I DO have a 50 for my RZ, and it's all I ever use for this work. The 65mm I also own never quite covers it, although I don't have movements as you commented on.

Do you use the porro finder? I am a real stickler about composition, so I find the prism invaluable with my RZ, but I would be willing to forego that for the sake of saving some money if I buy the Fuji.

(This is a tough decision for me, because I have so much money invested in RZ gear, and I have pretty much bowed to the commercial reality of making any future equipment investments in digital gear only).

Forgive me if this has been covered before...didn't see it in the

archives, and I can't get anyone on the phone at Fuji.

Although I am primarily a people shooter, I have done a fair amount

of architectural and interior work, and recently completed a couple

of large commercial projects that I think will lead to more of the

same kind of work ( as they turned out really well! :)

I shoot them with my Mamiya RZII system, which works well, but is not

ideal for this subject matter of course, as I occasionally need

perspective controls, and the available options for this with the RZ

are too limited.

At the risk of offending the large format afficionados out there (not

my intention) I dislike working with view cameras. I know how to use

one, but don't use it often enough to be comfortable with the upside

down composition and slow pace of shooting.

SO, I have been toying with the idea of getting an older model Fuji

680I or 680II if I can find a really good price on it. I only need

the body, the 50mm lens, a 6x8 back, and the Pola back. Maybe a prism

finder too.

That seems like the ideal tool for my needs.

I have always been concerned about cameras that require proprietary

batteries however, and if I remember correctly these do...right?

Are they still available? Are they the same as the one that powers

the current GX680III ?

Is there any other reason not to invest in an older (and MUCH

cheaper) version of this camera?

It would not replace my RZ's, as that is my bread and butter system,

so I just can't spend a lot of $ on this.

Thanks!

David,

You should check with MAC (Mamiya America Corp), but I'm only aware of 2 versions of the 250mm lens for the RZ...the APO and the non-APO.

I purchased a new non-APO model last year and it's a great lens. Easily rivals my other RZ lenses, which are all proven performers. Those include the 50/4.5 (non ULD version), 65/4 LA, 110/2.8, and 180/4.5.

This lens works very well for headshots, although you will be at it's minimum focus distance to fill the frame. The 180 focuses closer, with very similar perspective, so it's a better choice if you need tight face shots.