anders hald

I just wanted to add to this thread. I recently did a shoot where I had to shoot on two setups, more or less simultaneously. The two setups were similar, white paper rolls and the head lightingsetups. One setup was done with my (old) Elinchroms, the 500 heads and the other with a friends Pro system. Using the same camera, a Canons 1Ds II, I shot similar images in the same way on both systems, I was very surprised that only one in 3 or 4 frames on the Pro setup was correctly exposed, some frames were as much as 1-1ﾽ stops under exposed. The Elinchrom shots were all bang on, no difference at all, not even a fraction. I haven't gone into elaborate testing or anything, but I am guessing that the Pro's for some reason fire before they are fully charged, thus allowing an underexposure. With my Elinchroms I have in the past experienced a 'no-fire' because the heads weren't ready, but this was quite a surprise to me that the Pros were that much slower. I guess I could have switched the 'beep' on and waited for them, but it just didn't occer to me that this could be a problem with one of the most expensive systems on the market.

I am guessing that it is cheaper to do your own scanning at Rapid Eye, you can hire the scanner for an hour and do quite a few. Just do the retouching and colour work at home.

 

They will instruct you in the handling of the scanner if you haven't done any before. I think they have the latest Hasselblad (Imacon Flextight) scanner, so you get great scans...quickly.

Consensus Trance...

 

I too love the old aluminium construction on the EL500s, appearantly you can still buy them, they are now called classic (!). The advantage with the plastic is (says the dealer) that it is stronger...it doesn't dent.

 

Styling wise I feel very lucky that I will end up having the RX600s in dark grey, rather than the silly looking transpearant ones I brought home with me last week.

 

I am unfamiliar with the Speedotrons, maybe it's a US thing. Most pro's in the UK use either Pro, Bowens or Elinchrom. I like the Elinchroms for their durability and price compared to Pro.

 

In terms of investing in lights, if they are something that you will actually use, as opposed to 'have', it is essential to buy something that works (for example Elinchrom). They are not VERY expensive and once you have them they will last a decade or two, probaby with very little maintainance.

 

I know people who have bought the cheap ones, all the time they used them, they were an annoyance and not doing what they were meant to, eventually all bought either Elinchrom or Pro... better to buy the right stuff from the start.

Hi David.

 

Forgive me if I have offended you, but I have no idea what you are talking about. My comment was in response to the article in the link. I noticed your comment above about losing your temper but I couldn't see what it was in reference of, so assumed it was not related to this thread...

 

The debate comes every few years when artists depict children and teenagers nude. A member of the public reports the exhibition/book to the police and the authorities clamp down, confiscate prints, negatives, upturn darkrooms, archives and investigate...usually no charges are made and in most cases the confiscated material is returned. I seem to have read that Jock Sturges (who depicts naturists in southern France...mostly female, mostly very young) never got his negatives back, but I am unsure. Mister Sturges was briefly a member of this community, but was quickly ousted by Site Management for showing his controversial work, a great shame, he would have been quite valuable to this community. If you look him up on Photo.net you can read some of his very clever and interesting comments on other members images.

 

If you want to know more about these issues I am sure you can look these artists up on Wikipedia and get a thorough introduction. The artists to look up is: David Hamilton, Sally Mann, Jock Sturges and Nan Goldin (she only got in trouble over one image in an exhibition in the UK recently).

 

By the way. The Sally Mann exhibition was great! There was a short film interview with her where she commented on her image The Three Graces which show her and her two daughters posing nude as the three graces, but peeing. A very funny and whimsical image. She said that she had shown the image to a guy who was a lawyer for Playboy for years and he had adviced her not to exhibit it, not to sell it, not to ship it, basically to bury the image... Too bad, it's a good image and of course completely harmless. See it here: http://tuber.underskog.no/cache/image/29753_570x.jpg

 

If you are anywhere Copenhagen this summer, the exhibition is on until September 20th at the Royal Library and worth a visit.

And here we go again. Isn't it the old David Hamilton/Jock Sturges/Sally Mann (and recently) Nan Goldin debate all over again?

 

I only know Bill Hensons work fron the book Lux et Nox and I find it very beautiful. That book does not contain images as those that are under investigation in this case (I think).

 

It will never be an easy one to nail, it IS after all important to protect children from exploitation AND it is important to protect an artists freedom to produce work.

 

In cases like these there will always be some overzealous member of the public who will make that call to the police. Everytime and no artist, certainly af Bill Hensons status and intellegence (I presume), will be unaware of this. The gallery owner will certainly have known that this could happen...so it is a conscious decision on everyones part to court the controversy. They will get the press, Bill Hensons work will rise in value, it'll probably cost him headache and expensive lawyers and may or may not cause him some form of penalty. I am not sure any of the above mentioned artist were ever punished, but I am sure they all hated the process. I hope there will be a sensible judge who will make an effort to find out if any children were ACTUALLY exploited and rule accordingly. I hope Bill Henson will continue to produce great work if his is found innocent and I hope these types of cases will not prevent artists from producing great work.

 

I am of now to see the Sally Mann exhibition here in Copenhagen, an exhibition containing the image "The Three Graces" an image which Sally Mann has said, will not be included in the exhibition elsewhere than Copenhagen as she is finished with all the controversy (and no member of the Danish public has mad 'that call'). It would have been terrible if the controversy around her work "Immediate Family" had put an end to her carreer...that would have been a terrible loss.

Rapid Eye on Leonard Street, a couple of doors up from the AOP. Friendly, Proffesional and reasonably priced. http://www.rapideye.uk.com/contact.html

 

(And they cater to some of the top advertising and fashion shooters in London)

 

I have hired darkrooms there, had c-type prints made by their excellent printers. When I shoot film, all my film proceesing is done by Eddy (the cleanest c41 process in town, unlike Metro's). They also run a black and white film processing machine. I have also used their scanner hire fascilities.

 

In short, I can't reccommend these people enough.

I have been using Elinchrom for 12 years. I have a 2 head kit (500) and it was 12 years before the one head needed a $180 repair, and the kit has seen a lot of action and been beat-up, fallen out of a moving car (in it's case) so I think I can vouch for the durability of Elinchrom. The car incident was long before one head needed repair.

 

A week ago I bought a kit with three RX600 heads. I found that with digital I often couldn't REDUCE output power enough on the old 500 heads. The new heads have an output range of 600w - 18w, which is perfect. With the skyport system (which is also brilliant and far cheaper and smaller than the pocket wizards) I can even control output power from the transmitter on the camera. The new heads also have a buildt in fan, it's a bit noisy, but with digital I tend to shoot more frames, quicker so the heads also get hotter.

 

My only gripe with the RX600 heads was the awfully ugly styling in clear plastic and logo in a cheap looking windows font. I hated the way they look. It turned out that one of the heads I got had a defective slave, I notified the dealer who offered to replace the head immediately. When I wen't to collect the head, the dealer pulled the head from the box and we were both surprised to see that the plastic casing was now a very attractive dark grey!!! The dark grey heads, it turned out, was due to be introduced at PhotoKina in september, but the dealer got a shipment of them and didn't realise the change in colour. The logo was also redesigned. The dealer remembered that I had expressed my dissatisfaction with the clear plastic look and offered to replace my other two heads as a courtesy. So on Monday I will take my other two heads in and trade to black!!! You also asked about portability, the cases for the heads and stands are compact and of high quality but ofcourse three heads and stands does weigh a fair bit.

It is possible to shoot raw + jpg

The G9 is great. It's a P&S not a DSLR, but it is probably the best P&S on the market. It's fun, has great build quality, the images look great and it's a proper camera with proper camera functions. It can be used as a P&S with everything set to automatic or you can take your time to get to know the camera well and then you can get some really high quality images with this little gem. As it shoots RAW files you have the choice of putting the files through Photoshop for proper processing and colouring. BUT PLEASE NOTE: Only CS3 will process the files, no previous version of Photoshop will. So to make the most of the camera (without having to deal with the Canon software) you will need to upgrade to CS3.

I would agree with the following:

 

- Slightly wider

 

- Fewer megepixels on same size sensor for less noise

 

- Focal Length preset to start at say 50mm (equivalent)

 

- Accurate viewfinder

 

If these things happen, even with the same number of pixels, I would bite.

This camera is great! Image quality is not DSLR and the camera takes a little getting to know, in terms of how it handles colour, focussing and how the flash functions. As do all cameras! It definately works well as a point and shoot. It is maybe a little bit bigger than most P&S, but it has great optics and it will shoot RAW files. I have owned this camera for a few months and it is BRILLIANT, great fun, great image quality for a compact and the ability to shoot RAW is fantastic.The only thing I have found about the camera that isn't outstanding is that in a dark room, say lit only by candles, autofocus seems to struggle a bit. But I love this camera. It's really fun to use, built really well and the battery life is great. This weekend I shot 550 jpgs at a birthdayparty, nearly all using flash, using the monitor as viefinder, without any 'powersaving' settings, just standard, all on ONE CHARGE with the battery. Amazing! If the camera meets your requirements, don't hesitate, get one.

Hi, this is maybe a little off topic.

I'd just like to say what a great camera this is. Image quality is not DSLR and the camera takes a little getting to know, in terms of how it handles colour, focussing and how the flash functions. As do all cameras!

I have owned this camera for a few months and it is BRILLIANT, great fun, great image quality for a compact and the ability to shoot RAW is fantastic. I love this camera. It's really fun to use, built really well and the battery life is great. This weekend I shot 550 jpgs at a birthdayparty, nearly all using flash, using the monitor as viefinder, without any 'powersaving' settings, just standard, all on ONE CHARGE with the battery. Amazing!

If the camera meets your requirements, don't hesitate, get one.

Probably this is way too late for you, but others may find this and benefit. Here is the best up to date list of hire studios in London:

http://www.studiohire.com/

 

Best regards,

Anders Hald

Google photoguard and read the blogs! I went with Camerasure and they are great. Always helpful and no problem when it comes to claims.

Hi John.

 

I have scanned at Rapid Eye in Leonard Street (next to the AOP) and they have a really good digital suite where you can hire Flextight scanners by the hour. Reasonable rates and very helpful and friendly staff. 08718731257 and choose digital.

 

They also process film and hire darkrooms if you do colour or b&w printing.

 

Best regards,

Anders Hald

Hi Matthew.

 

Check out Rapid Eye in Leonard Street (next to the AOP). they have a good digital Suite and Flextight scanners for hire...and they are nice people too! Call EJ on 08718731257.

 

Anders Hald

As Nikon is putting all their eggs in the digital basket (except for the F6 and the FM10) it would seem odd that ZEISS is rolling out a range of lenses designed to fit a fullframe 35mm Nikon. Unless the next Nikon is a fullframe camera. I believe that Nikons claim is that they use a smaller sensor to use the 'sweet spot' of the lens. Now lenses of 'superior quality' will be available to fit the fullframe D3 :-) (please, please, please...)

Hi Adrian.

 

I would say go with the Imacon. The Imacon scan quality is as good as any drumscan I have seen, particularly with colourneg. If you have many scans to do, take the same neg to both places and compare the results. If you have many many scans to make, buy the Imacon 848.

 

I am about to buy the 848 myself, and the math (here in London at least) is that the 848 costs the same as 220 high res scans from a lab (usually made on a Flextight). The software that comes with the scanner is very good and can be updated via the Imacon website.

 

Imacon has a very good reputation for quality, Leica is appearantly using them to produce their new digital back for the R series.

 

Good luck.

Hi. I bought my P67 in 1996, second hand. I put a new battery in the metered prism at that time, and it's still going. I have never had the MLU problem described above, and tend to forget that it is battery driven. My Nikon F4 on the other hand...

Hi. I have just seen on the LowePro website that they now do a waterproof backback. I have a couple of their other bags and they are excellent!

Hi Gary. I have just read an article in Pictured Magazine (www.picturedinternational.com), that Glen Luchford shoots everything on digital. He argues that rather than coming of a shoot with between 50 and 300 rolls of 120 to process, contact, edit, print and scan, he comes of the shoot with a cd. Images can be approved and even selected on site, and he can start manipulating the images to fit his colourt schemes on location to give the client an impression of the finished result. The client can take home a cd with jpgs for layout purposes. I am all analog and shoot everything on the P67, but it makes sense to shoot digital, and I will definately make the transition at some point (allthough it's a slightly scary prospect). As for quality. If the image goes in a fashion magazine or catalog, it's likely that it will be printed in maybe 100lpi in magazine format, and for that most pro digital cameras will deliver plenty of resolution. Digital does not only save time and scannings, it saves consumerables, water, electricity and chemical waste (and wear on the environment). I think the trick is to get used to that way of working, and to remember to still earn money. My camera dealer mentioned that in these times of recession, he sees photographers shoot packshots by the thoussands on a Canon G3 hooked to a Mac, selling each shot for $20. It's going to be hard for that price to ever come up again. The point is that we earn a little on film, scanning, printing and the extra hours spent in conventional methods. This money should still be earned somewhere. I think in time it will be more and more difficult to persuade clients to pay for the analogue process. Maybe if you are just starting out in fashion, pick up a P67, it's a great camera and affordable, the lenses are good and although perhaps slightly 'old school' by now, it will probably serve you very well for a while. Good luck,