Many photographers are interested in the technical aspects of photography. We used to refer to them politely as "Technical Photographers". They usually got into photography from a technical, scientific or computer technology background. Some photographers are interested in the artistic aspects of photography, they were referred to as "Artist Photographers". They got into photography from an art and design/ creative industries background. The two are very different. Metaphorically speaking one has a "left brain" the other a "right brain". Photography is a very broad medium, It can be used for all manner of things. From recording an event like a wedding, from documenting wildlife, from gathering evidence of an event. from the production of art with no other purpose than being a work of art, which is what fine art is by definition. So it all depends on where you see yourself as a photographer on this spectrum and what your end product is. Not all photographers are created equal. However there are grey areas where the above can overlap. Very rarely, there are photographers who are excellent technicians AND great artists. Most UA-cam channels cater for the "Technical Photographers". Gear comparisons, "Hints and tips", "How to" and "You're doing it wrong".. "Hints and Tips".. Jeezus.. lol. Imagine a doctor, a physician asking another doctor for "Hints and Tips..! This channel and "The Photographic Eye" focus primarily on the artistic aspects of photography by discussing how to THINK about your photography.
I don't call them technical photographers, i call them gear collectors. Talk to them about photography and they will tell you about their gear and show you their gear. Photographers will tell you about their images, how they took them, what they mean and show you images. When I raced sports cars in the 70's, there were the folks out on the track using their sports cars as opposed to those who stayed home and polished them.
@@mrca2004. I confess to being a borderline equipment junkie. Fortunately I do not have the money to indulge my interest in beautiful machines. What counsel would you give to wandering souls who are under the influence of Big Money advertising?
The main reason everyone should not only subscribe and watch and rewatch every video this photographer posts but truly listen to not only what he says but how. I am a graduate from the Ringling School of Art and Design in Photography and Digital imaging and have traveled the world both while in the Navy and Retirement and I have never seen or heard of any professional artist give this amount of what is the absolute best advice that can truly make you a true successful artist. The shear amount of knowledge packed into a single video is better than an entire semester at the finest Art schools in the world, all for the cost of UA-cam and dedicated time to truly listen and understand what you are being told. I know professional artists that charge $50,000 for a seminar to only get maybe an actual hour with the artists time. Unfortunately I must live in a very warm climate near major hospitals due to Combat injuries and several spinal fusions, but anyone wanting to actually make a career at this should watch and rewatch this artist if they want to be a player in a very small pool of professionals that get the very limited pool.
On-point!! Add GAS to it too. (Gear Acquisition Syndrome)… constantly hear the question “what do you shoot with”… my response “my camera”… and they think i am a smart-aleck… when a camera is a tool to get the job done.
I have been writing for various magazines for over 30 years, starting with 35mm film then jumped to a Nikon Coolpix 5100 with 5 MP because that was considered "good enough". Since then I have mostly shot 4/3 and M43 and some 1 inch compacts (Nikon AW-1, Canon G7x) and NEVER had an editor reject or comment on "image quality" - they wanted clean, sharp images that told "the story". Recently one magazine did a double A4 spread of 1 inch sensor image of mine - and it looked brilliant (which frankly I didn't expect!). Unfortunately the decades old annoying "Bokeh" fetish that plays to the 35mm format fast lenses continues to plague a lot of the magazine media.
I'm not sure I will ever be able to adequately express just how much I hate bokeh and the so called photographers that rely on the bokeh crutch to prop up otherwise uninspiring work. Alas, tis a cruel fate we suffer at the hands of Madison Avenue.
Back in the days of printed magazines, editorial photography was a big market. 6 x 4.5 film cameras were popular, partly because the image was roughly the size of a magazine page, and partly because they were about half the price and size of 6 x 7 and 6 x9 cameras. However, sales to pro's and semi-pro's were mainly down to the demands of picture editors, who wanted to remain seated while holding up medium format slides to window light. After all, high content editorial work like the Sunday Times colour supplement and the Nat Geo were happy with 35mm slides, but Cake Making Monthly or Canal and Towpath Magazine would only stand up to turn a light box on and grab a lupe as a last resort.
But you could certainly see the grain in 35mm Kodachrome film in National Geographic for years and years. I think that medium format was the ideal format for years because whenever you would print you would stand back far enough that grain wasn't ever an issue.
@@keithwiebe1787 Photography in the Sunday Times colour supplement was better than anything found on W H Smith's shelves. Medium format has its place, and it isn't in photojournalism.
@@borderlands6606 Huh? Medium Format was the camera of choice for photojournalism for a time and so was 4x5. The only thing it's not useful for was for extreme telephoto shots on the run.
What you are saying is 100% correct for someone that wants to make a living as a studio/product/advertising photographer. Absolutely. Students hell bent on that path should listen closely. However, for the vast majority of photographers in the world from the wedding photographer to the enthusiast, the criteria may be quite different. At the end of the day, like most arts related things, there are those with a "good eye" and those that like the technology and wonderful history of photography. I'm quite fascinated by the early techniques of Albert Kahn's photographers for instance the way they travelled the world bringing back amazing historic records in colour of people's and ways of life that have now vanished. All these things are part of photography, all equally valid. It depends what you want/like, what you want to do with your images, make money or have fun, print or put on Instagram. Each to their own. But if you want advice about commercial, studio type photography, listen hard to this guy.
I about fell outta my seat in Alabama when you said you start at the GFX 100 when it comes to image quality! I’ve been thinking the same thing. If image quality is the whole game thing I should skip full frame and just go medium format.
Love your insights and reflections! Pro digital cameras brought down the cost of imaging a great deal. No more films, Polaroid backs, lab processing, drum scans, and retouching dust and scratches… Instant gratification, shots can be placed right in a layout with minimal or no digital processing.
Film photography is making a comeback! Digital photography consists of squares, film has another character. To use digital cameras you need to remember an entire menu, which for many is virtually impossible, these are written by a team of designers, hence many use their phone not a camera.
At 68, what’s old is new again. Yep, waaaay back, you migrated from 35 to MF. Or large format/4x5. Then Digital hit early 2000s; initially I wasn’t impressed- the IQ wasn’t there. Yet. Then. Over the years, it caught up. That said, all my cameras are 10+ years old; Nikon D500/D4 for action work, and a pair of D810s (36mp)- for greater IQ, or big ass prints. For me, I’ve hit my max; anything more than 36mp would bottle neck my computers/editing. I don’t NEED a larger file.
My first 6x6 was a Bronica. Sold it after a couple of years for a Hassey plus $1000 for the 100mm lenses because I felt the Zenzanian was soft focus. Never looked back.
Maybe this will help to reinforce. Just happened last week. The Catholic Church is a client of my day business. The Father I work with knew I took pictures. He needed some shots immediately for an event they were promoting and asked if I wouldn't mind taking them as he had no other options at the moment. I agreed. Grabbed the only camera rig I had lying around the office. A early 1960s Nikkor 85mm F/1.8 that looked like it had been to Vietnam ( it had). And a 2008? Early digital Nikon D90 APS (DX). Ancient and definitely not the best. The Monsignor was so impressed with the results I have now been asked to do portraits and events for the entire L.A. area. To start. Who needs a Phase, Blad or a Z9 with the "Eye Of God" on it!
I am an amateur. Sometimes it is difficult to know whether you are talking to amateurs, if not I still enjoy your videos and others similar. I need image quality and high megapixel count, I think, because if I happen to get a good picture of one of my family I will crop it so that person is isolated. I always print good ones 10x8 hence the need for pixels! I cant afford phase one obviously but striving for next best.
As always the photographer is the one who makes the photograph. Most cameras are at least good enough and often way better than the image produced demands. The main difference being what the photographer brought to the image. Modern cameras are great because they bring enough to the table to make a great image possible most of the time. I had an ETRSi for a while and it wasn’t better than a 35mm Pentax MX in either image quality or ergonomics. The results weren’t worth the effort. An RB67 replaced it and worked alongside my MX both were in their own spheres stellar and travelled out on location as options. Digital can stand in for either but feel and rendering are often worth chasing. Great lenses, lighting and post production are even more available on digital. I want to run my RB67 again with film and scan negatives, there seems to be some interesting mileage in digital post-production and negatives expense notwithstanding.
i still think that 35mm film cameras are better than any digital full frame camera the colours, micro-contrast and textures are simply impossible to reproduce, as for the resolution it simply depends on your scanner ... my lab scans are higher resolution than my former d700 averaging a 180mb tiff file and thats not even drum scanning ... but then again this is not a convenient way to shoot specially in the studio it requires a lightmeter an absolute knowledge of your lighting game and there is no direct viewing after the shot, my processing time for film is about 3 weeks so for many photographer shooting film is simply not possible commercially .... still as you said there is no digital equivalent to a 6x7 film camera let alone 4x5 film camera
I'm a relative amateur compared to you guys, but why is Hasselblad never mentioned with the likes of Phase and GFX? From my point of view, their images are some of the best we mere mortals see online. Their color, range and usability.
The real question is - what is the intended end result? I print in a wet darkroom and print no bigger than 12 x 16. A 645 negative is easily large enough for me. 35mm is too small. Anything bigger than 645 isn't going to add any increase in image quality at this size.
@@randywaldron2715 I agree, I print mostly 8”x8”, 8”x10”, 12”x12”x 11”x14” and 13”x19” and my Hasselblad 500 C/M is more than enough, I can shoot in square or crop to 645, so I think 645 is big enough for most prints. I have a RB67 which is better for larger prints but an overkill for most prints.
for me I am running a APS-C nikon z50, i traded in my GFX for it mind you, no one knows the difference hahaha then again I do portraits and insect type stuff
@@alanjcravophotography4149 that reminds me, I need to grab the XT5 again as well, great value for money, the XH2 as well really decent, both of them I have owned though students bought them from me simply due to stock shortages in my country haha might as well grab them again APS-C sits in the sweet spot for my macro as well portraits since I shoot in studio mainly so F5.6 -F8 all day
So true. My budget allowed me the choice of the following, go Fuji medium format, or go Z8. I decided to go Z8 because of the Swiss army knife. I needed reliable autofocus. Top tier Image Quality is nice but doesn't help my workflow business wise.
Great tips to learn and hope this motivates more people to have their own work style and niche customers, even if it takes years to conquer a market. You may never find one while you are alive: not trying to demotivate here. How many composers got well known after their death? How many people never found their compensation in an art form up until they were old?
I learned to shoot 4x5, and medium in the 80's in high school. I started shooting 35mm (Nikon F2) in 1986. I was in 1998 I was shooting the Nikon F5. In 2001 the paper I was shooting for decided to buy the Canon D30 (3.1 megapixels) which was a POS. They sold a 10,000 film processor for $500. At no point was quality an issue it was about saving money on film and chemicals. I bought the Nikon D2x in 2005 which was the first digital camera that was close to 35mm then in 2007 I bought the Nikon D3 and it was the first Digital camera that was better than 35mm film. I now shoot the Nikon D4s and Nikon D5.
Sorry, what was that you said??? Teddy doing a great job in text book upstaging. Just in frame far better than centre, pup learns fast. Great topic btw, worth hearing.
Do photographers only chase and sell image quality to justify there trade? Because most people cant seem to discern anything that we discuss in reference to quality.
yap.. at some point in the past, consumer grade entry level cameras or even mid grade phones became so useable enough that most casual people wouldnt recognize which image was shot using what. the massive shift to smaller screens as opposed to big monitors also contributed to that. so if the only justification why potentials should pay one is gear and 'image quality', then one has a very big problem.
Some of my favourite visual artists are Patricia Piccinini, Yayoi Kusama, Stelarc, Chiharu Shiota, Francisco Goya, and Francis Bacon. Non of them are photographers!
Ahhh one the biggest questions ever: how to make photographs that "screams" YOU? For example, when I show people some black and white photos, can people notice those are mine, not Ansel Adams, HC Bresson, Michael Kenna etc etc? I think this is irrelevant question until you decide to jump into the pro world. Anyway, thanks to social medias which overload us with visual references 24/7, being original is getting harder... no? It's much easier to copy than creating something new.
1:19 The actual name for "full frame" is "Kleinbild" which means "small frame", as it was always referred to in comparison to medium format. The term "full frame" was a successful and clever marketing label applied by manufacturers pushing the smaller digital format to a larger (professional) market who otherwise could not have afforded digital medium format at scale. And let's be clear here: there are hardly any real digital medium format cameras available to this day.
Exactly this, and with more R&D going into "Full-frame" instead of real Digital Medium Format we ended up cropped 44x33mm bodies that is held back since sony doesnt wanna release higher end bodies. We can make much better APS-C bodies or Real Digital Medium Format bodies today but thats not where the companies are deciding to push
18 years editing video, and I have yet to buy a camera. It's just so much faster to grab it off the web, or now... have AI generate it without ever leaving a computer chair. and you can't buy a camera... they are so outrageously priced. i was like, well maybe i should at least get an insta360 x4... but 500 bucks? plus all the accessories on top of that... why? i'd just go back to using AI to generate any footage i need.
Opt for the 5dm3 as the video quality if much better. I sold mine though and got the R8 and went that route. Much better yet for video and much better focusing for birding, etc.
@@cheesebvrgers If you don't shoot action photos and the 5dm2 is in good shape. I bought one used and it developed lines through the pic that were visible when blowing up. Traded for 5dm3 which didn't give me any troubles. Love my R8 more though.
@@keithwiebe1787 I’ve heard really good things about the 5DMKII and the price point is pretty good. I’d only be doing still life stuff. My next step is to figure out a lens. How much is the R8?
Actually the 645 is smaller than the 6x7 but I get you. However, the equivalent resolution of a 645 is about 48mp, which is pretty good if you think about. I shoot on GFX 100s however and I see it's advantages, I think it beats the film, but the lenses were the main reason. The GF lenses are just amazing. PS: It's really tricky to create a context and a distinct style.
Is that not the point Scott is making? Making a technically perfect photo is something many people can do; being original in a context and having an own stile is quite another skill; and it does not depend on the equipment (or to a lesser extend).
I've scan thousands of 4x5 and medium format negatives the last year and to my eye the 24 mpx digital I use beats medium format especially the smaller ones like 645. And in my 35mm days my lenses were all crap compared to modern lenses on digital bodies that correct for deficiencies.
@@keithwiebe1787 Beats medium format how? Sharpness/resolution? That's what computer geeks say. I just showed a 15" print from a 75% crop of a 12 mp d700. I edited it the first week of covid so took 7 hours to turn an event image with good light (created with a 40' bounce) and composition into a work of art. Sharpness and resolution doesn't make a crap image excellent or art, it just makes a sharper crap image. And most folks, including most photographer as he pointed out, can't tell the difference in resolution sharpness. But you can bet the camera/ lens manufacturers and their marketing people can tell the difference in their bottom line compliments of the pixel peepers. Sharpness is not what is important, it is mastery of the craft and crafting a powerful image.
I would say that Sony are the leaders in image quality as they make all the sensors in the high end medium format cameras. Sony sensors are used absolutely everywhere.
thank you for not cutting out the dog action shot
Doggo ✊
Many photographers are interested in the technical aspects of photography. We used to refer to them politely as "Technical Photographers". They usually got into photography from a technical, scientific or computer technology background.
Some photographers are interested in the artistic aspects of photography, they were referred to as "Artist Photographers". They got into photography from an art and design/ creative industries background.
The two are very different.
Metaphorically speaking one has a "left brain" the other a "right brain".
Photography is a very broad medium, It can be used for all manner of things. From recording an event like a wedding, from documenting wildlife, from gathering evidence of an event. from the production of art with no other purpose than being a work of art, which is what fine art is by definition.
So it all depends on where you see yourself as a photographer on this spectrum and what your end product is.
Not all photographers are created equal.
However there are grey areas where the above can overlap.
Very rarely, there are photographers who are excellent technicians AND great artists.
Most UA-cam channels cater for the "Technical Photographers".
Gear comparisons, "Hints and tips", "How to" and "You're doing it wrong"..
"Hints and Tips".. Jeezus.. lol.
Imagine a doctor, a physician asking another doctor for "Hints and Tips..!
This channel and "The Photographic Eye" focus primarily on the artistic aspects of photography by discussing how to THINK about your photography.
I don't call them technical photographers, i call them gear collectors. Talk to them about photography and they will tell you about their gear and show you their gear. Photographers will tell you about their images, how they took them, what they mean and show you images. When I raced sports cars in the 70's, there were the folks out on the track using their sports cars as opposed to those who stayed home and polished them.
@@mrca2004 As I said ,we were being polite lol. Anyway there's plenty of them on UA-cam.
@@mrca2004. I confess to being a borderline equipment junkie. Fortunately I do not have the money to indulge my interest in beautiful machines. What counsel would you give to wandering souls who are under the influence of Big Money advertising?
The amount of times I pressed rewind to watch the doggo not letting go of the strap. Lol
The main reason everyone should not only subscribe and watch and rewatch every video this photographer posts but truly listen to not only what he says but how. I am a graduate from the Ringling School of Art and Design in Photography and Digital imaging and have traveled the world both while in the Navy and Retirement and I have never seen or heard of any professional artist give this amount of what is the absolute best advice that can truly make you a true successful artist. The shear amount of knowledge packed into a single video is better than an entire semester at the finest Art schools in the world, all for the cost of UA-cam and dedicated time to truly listen and understand what you are being told. I know professional artists that charge $50,000 for a seminar to only get maybe an actual hour with the artists time. Unfortunately I must live in a very warm climate near major hospitals due to Combat injuries and several spinal fusions, but anyone wanting to actually make a career at this should watch and rewatch this artist if they want to be a player in a very small pool of professionals that get the very limited pool.
On-point!! Add GAS to it too. (Gear Acquisition Syndrome)… constantly hear the question “what do you shoot with”… my response “my camera”… and they think i am a smart-aleck… when a camera is a tool to get the job done.
love the episode, especially when you walked off camera. real.
I have been writing for various magazines for over 30 years, starting with 35mm film then jumped to a Nikon Coolpix 5100 with 5 MP because that was considered "good enough". Since then I have mostly shot 4/3 and M43 and some 1 inch compacts (Nikon AW-1, Canon G7x) and NEVER had an editor reject or comment on "image quality" - they wanted clean, sharp images that told "the story". Recently one magazine did a double A4 spread of 1 inch sensor image of mine - and it looked brilliant (which frankly I didn't expect!). Unfortunately the decades old annoying "Bokeh" fetish that plays to the 35mm format fast lenses continues to plague a lot of the magazine media.
I'm not sure I will ever be able to adequately express just how much I hate bokeh and the so called photographers that rely on the bokeh crutch to prop up otherwise uninspiring work. Alas, tis a cruel fate we suffer at the hands of Madison Avenue.
@@markhoffman9655 l totally agree . The moment photographers start to talk about brokeh , credibility is gone
the way that your pup was doing made my laugh
Back in the early 2000s I bought my 4x5 camera used from a photographer who replaced it with a 1Ds (mk one).
Your conclusion statement about what you look for in a photographer is Gold.
Back in the days of printed magazines, editorial photography was a big market. 6 x 4.5 film cameras were popular, partly because the image was roughly the size of a magazine page, and partly because they were about half the price and size of 6 x 7 and 6 x9 cameras. However, sales to pro's and semi-pro's were mainly down to the demands of picture editors, who wanted to remain seated while holding up medium format slides to window light. After all, high content editorial work like the Sunday Times colour supplement and the Nat Geo were happy with 35mm slides, but Cake Making Monthly or Canal and Towpath Magazine would only stand up to turn a light box on and grab a lupe as a last resort.
But you could certainly see the grain in 35mm Kodachrome film in National Geographic for years and years. I think that medium format was the ideal format for years because whenever you would print you would stand back far enough that grain wasn't ever an issue.
@@keithwiebe1787 The Sunday Times and Nat geo realised grain was never an obstacle to a great photograph.
@@borderlands6606 Yes, but they would have been better without the grain. It's like noise in music.
@@keithwiebe1787 Photography in the Sunday Times colour supplement was better than anything found on W H Smith's shelves. Medium format has its place, and it isn't in photojournalism.
@@borderlands6606 Huh? Medium Format was the camera of choice for photojournalism for a time and so was 4x5. The only thing it's not useful for was for extreme telephoto shots on the run.
Brilliant and a wake up call. Thank you for sharing!
What you are saying is 100% correct for someone that wants to make a living as a studio/product/advertising photographer. Absolutely. Students hell bent on that path should listen closely. However, for the vast majority of photographers in the world from the wedding photographer to the enthusiast, the criteria may be quite different. At the end of the day, like most arts related things, there are those with a "good eye" and those that like the technology and wonderful history of photography. I'm quite fascinated by the early techniques of Albert Kahn's photographers for instance the way they travelled the world bringing back amazing historic records in colour of people's and ways of life that have now vanished. All these things are part of photography, all equally valid. It depends what you want/like, what you want to do with your images, make money or have fun, print or put on Instagram. Each to their own. But if you want advice about commercial, studio type photography, listen hard to this guy.
Brilliant commentary Scott!!
I about fell outta my seat in Alabama when you said you start at the GFX 100 when it comes to image quality!
I’ve been thinking the same thing. If image quality is the whole game thing I should skip full frame and just go medium format.
Love your insights and reflections! Pro digital cameras brought down the cost of imaging a great deal. No more films, Polaroid backs, lab processing, drum scans, and retouching dust and scratches… Instant gratification, shots can be placed right in a layout with minimal or no digital processing.
Film photography is making a comeback! Digital photography consists of squares, film has another character. To use digital cameras you need to remember an entire menu, which for many is virtually impossible, these are written by a team of designers, hence many use their phone not a camera.
Thank you!
At 68, what’s old is new again. Yep, waaaay back, you migrated from 35 to MF. Or large format/4x5. Then Digital hit early 2000s; initially I wasn’t impressed- the IQ wasn’t there. Yet. Then. Over the years, it caught up.
That said, all my cameras are 10+ years old; Nikon D500/D4 for action work, and a pair of D810s (36mp)- for greater IQ, or big ass prints. For me, I’ve hit my max; anything more than 36mp would bottle neck my computers/editing. I don’t NEED a larger file.
My first 6x6 was a Bronica. Sold it after a couple of years for a Hassey plus $1000 for the 100mm lenses because I felt the Zenzanian was soft focus. Never looked back.
Maybe this will help to reinforce. Just happened last week. The Catholic Church is a client of my day business. The Father I work with knew I took pictures. He needed some shots immediately for an event they were promoting and asked if I wouldn't mind taking them as he had no other options at the moment. I agreed.
Grabbed the only camera rig I had lying around the office. A early 1960s Nikkor 85mm F/1.8 that looked like it had been to Vietnam ( it had). And a 2008? Early digital Nikon D90 APS (DX). Ancient and definitely not the best.
The Monsignor was so impressed with the results I have now been asked to do portraits and events for the entire L.A. area. To start.
Who needs a Phase, Blad or a Z9 with the "Eye Of God" on it!
The answer has no meaning if you don't know the question
I am an amateur. Sometimes it is difficult to know whether you are talking to amateurs, if not I still enjoy your videos and others similar. I need image quality and high megapixel count, I think, because if I happen to get a good picture of one of my family I will crop it so that person is isolated. I always print good ones 10x8 hence the need for pixels! I cant afford phase one obviously but striving for next best.
Yest another great video! :-) Is there any way to see the new photographers you picked up recently, would be good to see their work.
Go shopping!
Keep harping!
More of the pup too.
It is why I use MFT body because it is light and portable .
From a business standpoint I agree. But from a personal artistic standpoint I disagree.
As always the photographer is the one who makes the photograph. Most cameras are at least good enough and often way better than the image produced demands. The main difference being what the photographer brought to the image. Modern cameras are great because they bring enough to the table to make a great image possible most of the time. I had an ETRSi for a while and it wasn’t better than a 35mm Pentax MX in either image quality or ergonomics. The results weren’t worth the effort. An RB67 replaced it and worked alongside my MX both were in their own spheres stellar and travelled out on location as options. Digital can stand in for either but feel and rendering are often worth chasing. Great lenses, lighting and post production are even more available on digital. I want to run my RB67 again with film and scan negatives, there seems to be some interesting mileage in digital post-production and negatives expense notwithstanding.
i still think that 35mm film cameras are better than any digital full frame camera the colours, micro-contrast and textures are simply impossible to reproduce, as for the resolution it simply depends on your scanner ... my lab scans are higher resolution than my former d700 averaging a 180mb tiff file and thats not even drum scanning ... but then again this is not a convenient way to shoot specially in the studio it requires a lightmeter an absolute knowledge of your lighting game and there is no direct viewing after the shot, my processing time for film is about 3 weeks so for many photographer shooting film is simply not possible commercially .... still as you said there is no digital equivalent to a 6x7 film camera let alone 4x5 film camera
Or an 8x10...!!
@@jb-xc4oh you are right... i always forget 8x10 but 8x10 photography is the king of all :)
I'm a relative amateur compared to you guys, but why is Hasselblad never mentioned with the likes of Phase and GFX?
From my point of view, their images are some of the best we mere mortals see online. Their color, range and usability.
Because they don’t work either capture one and they no longer support their slr cameras that made them so famous.
The real question is - what is the intended end result? I print in a wet darkroom and print no bigger than 12 x 16. A 645 negative is easily large enough for me. 35mm is too small. Anything bigger than 645 isn't going to add any increase in image quality at this size.
@@randywaldron2715 use Fuji GFX line. 44x33 sensor
@@randywaldron2715 I agree, I print mostly 8”x8”, 8”x10”, 12”x12”x 11”x14” and 13”x19” and my Hasselblad 500 C/M is more than enough, I can shoot in square or crop to 645, so I think 645 is big enough for most prints. I have a RB67 which is better for larger prints but an overkill for most prints.
for me I am running a APS-C nikon z50, i traded in my GFX for it mind you, no one knows the difference hahaha then again I do portraits and insect type stuff
100% agree with you… I’m running on XT5 for my professional work. Is down to the photographer to be artistic not the camera
@@alanjcravophotography4149 that reminds me, I need to grab the XT5 again as well, great value for money, the XH2 as well really decent, both of them I have owned though students bought them from me simply due to stock shortages in my country haha might as well grab them again APS-C sits in the sweet spot for my macro as well portraits since I shoot in studio mainly so F5.6 -F8 all day
So true. My budget allowed me the choice of the following, go Fuji medium format, or go Z8. I decided to go Z8 because of the Swiss army knife. I needed reliable autofocus. Top tier Image Quality is nice but doesn't help my workflow business wise.
Great tips to learn and hope this motivates more people to have their own work style and niche customers, even if it takes years to conquer a market. You may never find one while you are alive: not trying to demotivate here. How many composers got well known after their death? How many people never found their compensation in an art form up until they were old?
Blimey, that missing apostrophe is worrying me! 😂
Well said!
There is a Bronica at the pawn shoppe next door. I might pop on it.
Well this sums it up! 👍
Very relevant exposé! I've been in the Biz since the late 80's and have been published in VOGUE Italia using disposable Fuji cameras.
!!! Get outa here!
Please post a link. They are obviously photographic gold-dust. I’d love to see them 🙏
I learned to shoot 4x5, and medium in the 80's in high school. I started shooting 35mm (Nikon F2) in 1986. I was in 1998 I was shooting the Nikon F5. In 2001 the paper I was shooting for decided to buy the Canon D30 (3.1 megapixels) which was a POS. They sold a 10,000 film processor for $500. At no point was quality an issue it was about saving money on film and chemicals. I bought the Nikon D2x in 2005 which was the first digital camera that was close to 35mm then in 2007 I bought the Nikon D3 and it was the first Digital camera that was better than 35mm film. I now shoot the Nikon D4s and Nikon D5.
Point taken, but if you're printing, size matters.
Love it!
Overall I agree with you. But there are cases when image quality is important.
Sorry, what was that you said??? Teddy doing a great job in text book upstaging. Just in frame far better than centre, pup learns fast. Great topic btw, worth hearing.
Do photographers only chase and sell image quality to justify there trade? Because most people cant seem to discern anything that we discuss in reference to quality.
yap.. at some point in the past, consumer grade entry level cameras or even mid grade phones became so useable enough that most casual people wouldnt recognize which image was shot using what. the massive shift to smaller screens as opposed to big monitors also contributed to that. so if the only justification why potentials should pay one is gear and 'image quality', then one has a very big problem.
Why is that old canon camera looking new?
Some of my favourite visual artists are Patricia Piccinini, Yayoi Kusama, Stelarc, Chiharu Shiota, Francisco Goya, and Francis Bacon. Non of them are photographers!
Pffft, if you aren't shooting 16"x20" wet plates are you really a photographer?
Ahhh one the biggest questions ever: how to make photographs that "screams" YOU? For example, when I show people some black and white photos, can people notice those are mine, not Ansel Adams, HC Bresson, Michael Kenna etc etc?
I think this is irrelevant question until you decide to jump into the pro world. Anyway, thanks to social medias which overload us with visual references 24/7, being original is getting harder... no? It's much easier to copy than creating something new.
I would not say that 35mm digital cameras are better than 35 film. They are different qualities.
1:19 The actual name for "full frame" is "Kleinbild" which means "small frame", as it was always referred to in comparison to medium format. The term "full frame" was a successful and clever marketing label applied by manufacturers pushing the smaller digital format to a larger (professional) market who otherwise could not have afforded digital medium format at scale. And let's be clear here: there are hardly any real digital medium format cameras available to this day.
Exactly this, and with more R&D going into "Full-frame" instead of real Digital Medium Format we ended up cropped 44x33mm bodies that is held back since sony doesnt wanna release higher end bodies.
We can make much better APS-C bodies or Real Digital Medium Format bodies today but thats not where the companies are deciding to push
Does anybody know... a Firewire 6 pin cable from a Phase One 645 back, what it terminates as the other end of the cable?
no
18 years editing video, and I have yet to buy a camera.
It's just so much faster to grab it off the web, or now... have AI generate it without ever leaving a computer chair.
and you can't buy a camera... they are so outrageously priced.
i was like, well maybe i should at least get an insta360 x4... but 500 bucks? plus all the accessories on top of that... why? i'd just go back to using AI to generate any footage i need.
I think my first camera is going to be a Canon 5D MKII but I have no idea what lens to get.
Opt for the 5dm3 as the video quality if much better. I sold mine though and got the R8 and went that route. Much better yet for video and much better focusing for birding, etc.
@@keithwiebe1787 Should I if video is not what I’m doing? I won’t be doing any action photography.
@@cheesebvrgers If you don't shoot action photos and the 5dm2 is in good shape. I bought one used and it developed lines through the pic that were visible when blowing up. Traded for 5dm3 which didn't give me any troubles. Love my R8 more though.
@@keithwiebe1787 I’ve heard really good things about the 5DMKII and the price point is pretty good. I’d only be doing still life stuff. My next step is to figure out a lens. How much is the R8?
@@cheesebvrgers 1200 bucks plus lenses.
Full frame is laughably small. It’s a great marketing term, though.
ISN'T not *ISNT.
did any work with a Canon 1300d? was still the one i use and train with.
Actually the 645 is smaller than the 6x7 but I get you. However, the equivalent resolution of a 645 is about 48mp, which is pretty good if you think about.
I shoot on GFX 100s however and I see it's advantages, I think it beats the film, but the lenses were the main reason. The GF lenses are just amazing.
PS: It's really tricky to create a context and a distinct style.
Is that not the point Scott is making? Making a technically perfect photo is something many people can do; being original in a context and having an own stile is quite another skill; and it does not depend on the equipment (or to a lesser extend).
I've scan thousands of 4x5 and medium format negatives the last year and to my eye the 24 mpx digital I use beats medium format especially the smaller ones like 645. And in my 35mm days my lenses were all crap compared to modern lenses on digital bodies that correct for deficiencies.
Even more than 48mp if you account for T-Grain and higher LP/mm films
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI lenses are never that good.
@@keithwiebe1787 Beats medium format how? Sharpness/resolution? That's what computer geeks say. I just showed a 15" print from a 75% crop of a 12 mp d700. I edited it the first week of covid so took 7 hours to turn an event image with good light (created with a 40' bounce) and composition into a work of art. Sharpness and resolution doesn't make a crap image excellent or art, it just makes a sharper crap image. And most folks, including most photographer as he pointed out, can't tell the difference in resolution sharpness. But you can bet the camera/ lens manufacturers and their marketing people can tell the difference in their bottom line compliments of the pixel peepers. Sharpness is not what is important, it is mastery of the craft and crafting a powerful image.
What if you are not selling your stuff but making it for yourself.
Your generalization is far too wide.
Plz some more puppy action ❤
I would say that Sony are the leaders in image quality as they make all the sensors in the high end medium format cameras. Sony sensors are used absolutely everywhere.