@Tao... I love the video as well. Just a really neat thing to watch. Good folks, honest presentation. Nice.
Next time I am in Calgary.... about $2500 in diesel fuel for me.... ha, ha, ha
NR road trip?
where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Well, maybe not. I have had clients who wanted the exact color in the transparency that the product had in real life. And we produced this. Clients are extremely particular and have a lot of "presets" themselves. Many are totally unreasonable simply saying "I want this on 2 and a quarter" back when Hassys were just that. So, even if the end result is the same, I would doubt someone could steal a client list unless they were the best salespeople in the world in their approach. And I worked with some biggies at one time....
Time will tell. I know that Art Directors with shrinking budgets in the last few years may not have that choice. Or more to the point, the standards are changing and all players in the commercial industry are seeing pricing pressure on their budgets/services. The downward pressure on bids from DSLR photogs is intense now and with videos like this change will accelerate. Change is good for those not invested in the past.
It was a fun video to watch.
When I worked in a shop that had unlimited funds, we had whatever we wanted and that included some Hasselblad equipment. It was nice. Some guys used it, but most didn't. While it produced larger negatives (which were easier to work with in the darkroom), for what we were doing, it was a pain to change out backs or load backs. Digital backs would, of course, be different.
But really, what's at issue is not just a cost difference in camera body, but the cost difference of the lenses, and even what you can do shooting with those lenses. The costs would be much, much higher, and the bokeh would be different, and some shots and the wide and telephoto wouldn't even be possible; the lens lineup isn't available at those extreme focal lengths in the Hasselblads.
Lastly, and a sore spot from someone who has been at this a long time, selling one's abilities to do the job on toolset instead of skillset seems lame. This past week I did a segment for a PBS (a network channel here in the USA) using a Nikon D7000 and shotgun microphone using pieces of NRG and Lowel light kits. The only thing that 'looked pro' were the lights and stands. The camera looked like it came from Costco, and it could have (Costco sold a boatload of the D7000s last Summer) - the footage was terrific.
There's no doubt that the Hasselblad is a great camera. At it's price, it should be. But there's a lot that goes into the business of photography to include paying bills. It strikes me that one can manage on less and do more with a good Nikon and a few lenses than the similar Hasselblad moniker-ed than try to keep up with the joneses and ultimately switch jobs.
My best to all,
This is interesting and I think everyone has a point. We have in a way, thrown all the wide ranging photo techniques into one bag and are trying to figure out which camera will work best. It is difficult to replace a studio camera like a Hassy with a small format camera. Even if the end quality is very close. Yet, as has been pointed out, as budgets come under the crunch, it certainly makes sense that lower cost equipment can help to reduce costs. And in small companies this is even more critical.
As Mike points out, a lot of the stuff being shot today simply cannot be shot with medium format. Can you imagine a Hassy trying to compete with a 600mm f/4 Nikkor on a D800 or D4? Or even the PC lenses on the NIKON, which Hassy does not have. So, there are a lot of different things photographers do with cameras. And each camera has a special place. While the D800 or one of the future NIKON cameras may approach the Hassy, it is just a very difficult process to make a 24 x 36 mm area perform like a 40 x 54 mm sensor. So, we shall enjoy the discussions and all learn, as the new stuff comes out and the new challenges are met. I wonder if any of those on this forum are into the really large 4" x 5" digital backs.....or maybe they have gone by the wayside now with the 80MP Mamiya back.....
Mike Gunter is right of course, when he says it's unfortunate that toolset instead of skillset is sometimes what sells. I think it's always been this way, however, and I fear it always will be. When hiring a photographer, since it's almost never a cash-and-carry experience, people are buying the sizzle as much as they're buying the steak. A weird looking camera here, an industro-strength tripod there, a couple lights that look like they were ripped off a movie set over there, tethering, a tormented assistant seething "Stop it down! We've got to stop it down!", and all of a sudden the client thinks he has his money's worth.
I'm not saying this as an unappreciated artist--I know my D90 outpaces my technique. (I'm working at it, honest!) It's just a comment on what one element of the public expects.
Thats funny and may be true for a few years. But just as digital changed the film base process, medium format and the business models based on it are on their way out. How many young Art Directors know what a lab is or even a light table? The big camera companies know this and are moving to capture market share in the commercial world. They will do the marketing for legions of young photogs with D800's who want to be the next Revlon shooter. The barriers keep falling and all aspects of the profession are becoming more skills based while using free marketing and leveraging facebook, 500px or even pinterest....ask any wedding photog. This is the future and in this economy, it may be the present tomorrow.
I really think you have a point, in spite of what I have written. At age 26, in the 1960's, I had the chutzpah to say to a large magazine, House Beautiful, I think, that I could do 35mm Ektachromes for the magazine and we could do these while the High Point International Furniture Market was ongoing. And they gave me a chance which resulted in the first ever photos used in this way by a magazine which had until that time used 4x5 transparency. I shot a NIKON F, 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor, on a small tripod, sometimes a Leitz tabletop tripod, and did some stuff they had never seen before. A few years later I was shooting a Hassy for billboards for Wachovia Bank (think Wells Fargo now). In the past, only 4x5 was being used.
This was thinking out of the box. And I was as head strong as ever. The only thing that kept me from continuing in the photographic profession was a side trip to medical school where I could play doctor for a few years.
But, you may be correct in predicting changes in the industry. I would have no problem now saying to a client I could do a billboard with my D4. It takes a bit of care, actually a lot of care, shooting many, many shots, tripod even with VR, bracketing to find the "perfect range" when the camera has a dynamic range of about a zillion... but so far I am confident I could do it. So, maybe a D800 will do it too.
This forum has as its strength those who spit it out and say what they think. Keep up the good work.....
What an inspirational story, thanks for that!
It's not just about a piece of gear, its about what a new tool can do for a persons career, or even define it. Every once in a while a tool is invented that offers unprecedented capability. Those that can think out of the box and that have the ambition to challenge and convince the gatekeepers often are able to change the status quo and redefine an industry or create a new one. Think about what the PC did to the print industry or what the snowboard did to the ski industry.
Even though we are talking incremental increases in dynamic range and resolution, the D800 will allow DSLR professionals to compete in quality where before there was real tangible difference between formats. Savvy photographers with limited budgets will market this fact to their clients and define their careers and their niche by it.
I know I will be able to approach commercial architecture clients that previously expected image quality that only $50,000+ of gear could provide. In this way the D800 is industry changing for those who understand how to really exploit its capabilities beyond simple specifications numbers. Most people comparing frames per second or complaining about large file size just don't get this. They are not the target audience. The D800 was not built for the average wedding photog or rich hobbyist who wants braggin rights to owning the "best DSLR in the world" They all miss the point and can't imagine what the dynamic range and 36mp can do or how to employ it.
That's ok, there will be D400 for those with more conservative requirements and in the meantime the D4 will impress anyone with its price tag alone.
I think this video illuminates more about the antiquated marketing model of high in commercial photographers than the capabilities or even the products of either of the cameras. The days of landing contracts with clients based on the cost of your gear are limited and since 2008, waning fast.
What I saw from the video was a huge differentiation in exposure, little if any post and possible inaccurate raw rendering of the nikon file in Lightroom (instead of CaptureNX2).
If I was 22 and just out of Brooks, I would buy a D800, Shoot EV -1/3 to protect the highlights and take advantage of the D800's shadow recovery, setup a few presets to correct the skin tone and Bata-BOOM…you're in there. Then I would bust ass with a $27,000 marketing plan and I would own Dale and Michelle's client inside of two years. The field is level.
LR4 is much superior to nx2 in clarity in my opinion and it is possible to set it up to fairly closely match nx2's color profile.
You must log in to post.