Canon 5d Question
- Started
- Last post
- 42 Responses
- Machuse
About a year + .5 ago I was thinking of getting into photography. I thought of starting off with medium format, learn about developing film - work with slide film ...the whole nine yards
Soon after the canon 5d Mark 2 or whatever came out. I have yet to see anything look bad coming out of this thing (I reserve that this may be b/c only good photographers buy them, and get enough publicity that i see their pictures)
But at what point will this make creating good looking films / photography, simply the summation of :: an idea, a few lights, and a $5k camera? [Which along with piracy is at least part of the problem with the influx of web designers we see now...(low barriers to entry , easy access and tutorials to pro tools) ]
In general is it easy to just point shoot and be pro with the 5d - (which i may be oversimplifying) and what do you think that means for the photography videography industry?
partial source list:
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/ca…
- mydo0
taking a good photo with a good camera isn't hard. I've kinda given up photography as a hobby. it was all a bit easy. you take a nice photo because you went somewhere a took a lot of photos.
however. I think there is a big difference between a nice photo, or even a stunning photo (this is just practise) and a great photographer.
- Machuse0
understood , and thats the art of it - and I concur with that.
but I think your saying what I'm thinking - the practicals of making a professional looking picture...is all in the technology. If its going to be something people want to put in the Smithsonian is another question....but....i digress for further input- let's hope not. i find photography exhibitions lack grandure since flickr.mydo
- Tungsten0
Haha,
I've heard that the more expensive your computer is the better your flash banners turn out. Is this true?- no, nor does it compare to this argument - although people do say when they buy ssd's their productivity skyrocketsMachuse
- I wouldn't call this an argument,Tungsten
- If you have a cheap computer you won't even render a movie in after effectsPixter
- I would. this is an argument.mydo
- totally relativeversion3
- lvl_130
there is something to be said about getting your hands dirty with the whole process of actually developing film with chemicals. it just feels a bit more accomplished... although in actuality, the average viewer can't tell the damn difference.
i now only shoot digital (amateur of course) because of the ease of printing and the ridiculous amount of cheap printing websites out there. plus, i no longer have access or personal space to use a darkroom/lab.
i still miss it though. there is something very satisfying about creating a nice print sans photoshop.
- beautiful , thats what i thought; even for the romantic idea that this would make me a more pure photographerMachuse
- Darkroom printing is still such a rewarding (and frustrating) experience, something alot of people don't appreciate anymore.Tungsten
- totally agree tungsten. it's almost like letterpress. you just can't replicate it unless you are using the equipment.lvl_13
- mydo0
i guess it will raise the bar for the "professional" photographers.
you're not going to get away with taking stuff like this and telling the world you're an amazing photographer.
thinking about it, i'm kinda happy about this. I did photography at university 10 years ago, our lecturer was all about doing everything in the most complicated long winded way possible. knowledge is power and he made sure we knew that he knew more than we would ever know! nice to know a 4 year old can now point and shoot and take a better light metered shot than him.
- mydo0
it's also worth noting, since the birth of digital, the standard of photography has gone through the roof. just look at wildlife photography from the 80's. it's piss poor in comparison
I for one am looking forward to super high iso cameras that will allow low light action shots. something that (as far as i'm aware) has never been possible with any format. this is the future.
- mydo0
that or higher quality lolcats.
- MrOneHundred0
Expensive cameras don’t take great photos – great photographers take great photos.
- Tungsten0
I agree that technology is allowing more people to produce better quality images, but quality is subjective. My unkle Reggie can now easily shoot tack sharp images at iso 12,000 of the shed he just built in his backyard, but I wouldn't exactly call it great photography. I think it's great that the ease of digital has encouraged more people to pick photography up as a hobby, but for professionals it just means providing your clients with a product more quickly and at a lower cost. I'm sure the volume of bad images has increased at the same rate as the volume of good ones in the last ten years. We're just seeing a lot more of everything these days.
- Machuse0
I'm not actually speaking of great photo's - or the artistic merit of photo's produced from expensive cameras. Obviously that is only the product of a good photographer.
What I'm speaking about is the easy of creating profesional looking quality material.
example: circa 10 years ago
Compare what a 1000$ consumer/prosumer camcorder could produce video-wise compared to what the news was producing, again in 1995.Compare what your mom's photos looked like compared to what the studio photographer could create just 10 years ago
Compare what local dealership commercials look like compared to the main brand commercials for the cars they sell
in all of these examples we see a clear disparition in quality - artistic merit notwithstanding - between what the professionals could do - and someone with half a months pay in video equipment could produce.
Now compare what the canon 5d does and it rivals motion pictures...probably looks better than whats on the news - and is easily accessible by anyone with 3grand - just point and shoot - dont need lighting just go outside and produce.
go outside - no lights needed, no studio setup - just a good lens and 5d -
- version30
quite simply, a poor craftsman blames his tools... i felt more inspired taking random photography with my rebel than i do with my 5d because the 5d only reminds me of work. photography is having an eye for composition combined with the skill to present that "eye" via the photographs development/processing for others to experience
- DoTheMacarena0
This is something apparent in every creative genre (music, design, film...) . As technology progresses, the quality of the material that is able to be produced increases, while the ease and overall cost decreases. The average consumer can now record an album, or design a web page or print magazine, or shoot a movie; each for under $5k of equipment and materials.
Now, this does not mean that little cousin Jerry will be able to pick up a 5D and be Ansel Adams or Darren Aronofsky. What it does mean, is that the drivel that they DO produce, will have more pixels, and probably be exposed correctly. If you take photos with any really high end camera equipment, digital or not, it can make mediocre shots not look as mediocre. Grab a Hasselblad, good film, a light meter, and a 10 minute crash course, and you will have some great looking shots, this is nothing new. What you won't have are amazing pieces of art. As mentioned before, all this does is raise the bar of excellence.
In the past, what separated the average consumer from the professional was not only skill, but equipment. Now that equipment gap is closing, and we are left with what we do with it. It IS exciting, because we will see art and creativity from people whom wouldn't have previously had access to quality items. Now the genius kid can actually produce a concerto in his bedroom, or fields like editing and compositing can be preformed from home. Does this threaten the low to mid-level working professional? Yes. People can now provide services for a fraction of the cost, but a true quality product will always remain at a premium. So what does that mean? Embrace it, learn it, expand your skillset, and work your ass off, and you can still get your optimal day rate.
- Machuse0
I understand and agree.
Especially where your talking about the genius kid down the street not having the limitations on equipment.
Where I somewhat deviate, is talking about the average consumer, I feel like we put some pride of place on art - as if its something that most people cant achieve or understand. I think, if we gave 5d's to 1000 average highschoolers (and told them to throw away everything they did for the first month) - once they got into it , there would be little difference to what Ansel adamn and Darren Aronofsky. At the end of the day, art is just expression of the human psyche / experience or thought. If any part of photography is up for discussion, interpretation or if any part comes natural...its the art part. I feel , in a way its always been the equipment that discourages...and now that is gone. The budding artist - sees the crappy result due to a cheap lens, holds it up to a professional and says ... I cant do that. Now all he has to work on his/her framing, reference, storytelling etc. But we do that everyday in everything we do ... it would just need to be applied to photogrpahy
i think where the problem lies, is the photographer that has nothing to do with art - the freelancer without a cult following. The guy who takes shots of clothes, or buildings, they guy who takes photo's of models to express a new fashion line. Yes there is always art involved, but espically in the fashion industry, its all thoughts and feelings - and anyone can produce that - anyone who cares about their work will take their work to that artistic level; and try to find interesting angles, and interplays of material - concepts and piggybacking off of client requests with their own experiences.
- DoktorDavid0
"People can now provide services for a fraction of the cost, but a true quality product will always remain at a premium. So what does that mean? Embrace it, learn it, expand your skillset, and work your ass off, and you can still get your optimal day rate." <clap clap clap>
In the late 80's I was making a reasonable living doing typographic layout and composition - call it desktop publishing, if you want, that was what is was. I was using a product called Ventura Publisher; what I was doing digitally was a complement to the amount of hand layout work I had done for a few years before. It didn't replace that skill set; it made it me efficient/faster and thus allowed the opportunity to do more and make more for my employer (and me).
The firm I worked for charged, at the time, a pretty penny for the work we did - and it was good work. Around that same time a little software application called Publish It! was released. Say the application name fast and you'll get an impression of what we thought of it. Everybody and their mother bought the damn thing and suddenly they were desktop publishers and who needs us? Years of training and skill replaced by a piece of software.
Ventura disappeared around '93; you can still buy Publish It! for around $25.
The point I'm trying to make is that although the technology has improved, thus allowing more to do more than ever before, the qualitative standards have not changed. Shit is still shit, no matter if you used a $5000 piece of hardware or a $25 piece of software. The quality is still what matters.
- pr20
If i may, i'm not sure how much real filmmaking experience you have because if you knew even the basics you would know that the only thing that got cut out of the budget is the $15k for the high end camera rental (out of say $300k total budget). And even that is dubious as i have worked with both 5D and 7D and if i was going to shoot a film that has potential to be projected theatrically those DSLRs are simply not sharp enough because to get the HD signal the camera rejects every 2nd (maybe even every 3rd) line of resolution (but they are very good for HD web and SD DVD).
Being able to get exposure without lights was with us since the late 60s. Lights are not used just to get the exposure (again, i'm sorry, but it only shows your limited understanding of lighting) but to achieve effect and for that you need lights.
In other words nothing has changed. I'm on a pre pro to shoot 2.2 mil feature film and even though the producer keeps on nagging me to cut down the camera budget we still go with something that delivers images that can hold up on the big screen (Sony F35) -- even though as indie films go it most likely will never play on a big screen other then in some film fest.
- btw, here is Canon 7D being stacked against $700 Canon HV20:
http://patrykrebisz.…pr2 - I'm not sure where I refereed to lights being needed to get exposure. Nor cameras creating feature filmsMachuse
- I am simply stating that with a stock camera - out of the box - no lighting, you can achieve phenomenal results.Machuse
- btw, here is Canon 7D being stacked against $700 Canon HV20:
- DoTheMacarena0
Ah this is fun!
Ok, now that I've had a few Samuel Smith's and a few Maker's, let me ramble some more.
So we've argued a few points:
1) If you give a bunch of non-experienced individuals some high end camera equipment (it really could equipment for any medium, but for sake of argument we'll stick with photo), out of say.... 1000 people, you will end up with a handful of people whom are dedicated, show promise, and deliver quality product.
2) Digital has not yet completely taken over analog mediums yet, but it's getting there.
Ok let's say we DO give 1000 high school kids a 5D. I am absolutely SURE we would have some quality products out of some of them, after they assimilated themselves with their equipment. They would most likely be the ones that took the time to learn the craft, and got into it. I also believe that these would be the same kids that would possibly become involved in photography anyway.
IMO, no matter how inexpensive high-end equipment becomes, the people that WANT to make beautiful images WILL be the ones that do, no matter what the cost or process. When a 50 megapixel camera that can shoot low-grain @ 409,600 ISO gets released, I seriously doubt that the market for professionals will be diminished. The professionals at that point, though, will be incredibly versed in all aspects of post processing, compositing, and whatever else the industry has driven (as they are now, just more so). Who knows, there even could be *gasp* a trend in analog mediums or even a new organic/digital blend of imaging that we can't even fathom now.
What I'm saying is that whether it's photography, music, art, film, or otherwise, technology will change the process, but the demand for artistic ability will stay the same. The industry and the people in it, just need to be able to evolve with it. Art school (and even high school) kids are being taught now what I have only recently been able to teach myself, and in a much more efficient matter (with a much more absorbant brain). They have a foundation that far exceeds mine, and they will learn that much faster. Thank god for these internets.
As far as digital eclipsing analog, we know we're right on the cusp of it really getting there. The RED was a great demonstration of that, and the new VDSLRs have introduced consumer HD on a whole new level. Does my $800 VDSLR rival 35mm? No. But it probably will in 5 years. And what does THAT mean? That my script better be pretty fucking good, and I can't complain about that one bit.
- W O R Dgjd
- I can agree with most of this. Although I think it will threaten certain aspects of the photography industry.Machuse
- And probably the non-art related. i.e who is going to pay for portraits - with the out of the box quality u get from 7d?Machuse
- Thanks a million for your input and insightMachuse
- ethanfink0
5D making you a good photographer is preposterous...
Walker Evans once said "People always ask me what camera I use. It's not the camera, it's - - - " and he tapped his temple with his index finger.
"That reminds me about the guy who breaks a wrist and asks his doctor: "Doctor, will I be able to play the piano after this heals?" The doctor replies "Absolutely, no problem!" The man laughs, and points out that that's great, because he never could play the piano before!"
- < but as far as actually needing a camera to take the picture, the 5D isn't a bad choice!gjd
- stop reading ken rockwell.rogersterling
- That ken rockwell article is what got me motivated to start with medium format slide filmMachuse
- But he is talking about alot of the art of photography . And he is making the argument of having an intimateMachuse
- understanding of your equipment. Plus I think the 7d - 5d break his argument a bit.Machuse
- Plus his pictures are FUCKING BORINGgjd
- lukus_W0
Maybe people who are willing to spend 5k on a camera, are already pretty sure that they're going to be able to take good photos with it? Maybe this is the reason for more good quality photos + Canon 5d?
An amateur would be pretty stupid to spend a large amount of money on a camera before they have the necessary skills.
- ...or long term desire. Its the same with a monthly bangbros membership after 1 wankgjd
- Machuse0
pr2 thanks for the link - in another post he makes a similar argument to mine
http://patrykrebisz.wordpress.co…
- This is not a comprehensive shoot out between those 2 cameras if anything it’s just to prove my theory that when it comes to HDV because so much of color information gets thrown out when compressing to MPEG2 then whether it’s 1 or 3 chip camera doesn’t really matter. Don’t get me wrong JVC is a superb camera so this is not to diss JVC but rather to prove that you can have pro-level quality for $700 of HV20/30/40 so if you ever though about making movies... Well there is no excuses available anymore!To everyone above who is arguing about the art of photography, and playing the piano - and other strictly skill and time based activities that is not the discussion.
Taking a picture is like mowing the lawn - press the button. How PROFESSIONAL that result is, is a function of how good your equipment is ... at least now it is.
If you want to create a crosshatch pattern, or if your not experienced enough with the lawnmower to actually cut straight is a different discussion.
See playing the piano is completely skill based. And the skill takes along time to develop - i played violin for the first 18 years of my life (first 5 notwithstanding) . If I gave you my violin after playing a sonata and handed you a violin to replicate the shot - it wouldn't happen. If a professional photographer took a picture of a family at a wedding - then handed the same camera to an assistant and said, yea I'm aiming at that - you'll get the same shot.
I'm not talking about people who don't understand photography, or people who don't want to spend the time - at least in the long run - to use their equipment properly, and study the masters.
But if your tasked with creating a great looking interview - you don't need to hire out a great videographer anymore - think of some good angles and interesting shot structures . Don't buy any lights (for effect here) - and go out and shoot the shots you want. The quality wont let you down. You couldn't do this when I was in highschool. I had a project where my teacher loved our product - I spend hours working on it - studying films and what it was to setup a shot - lighting etc. Contacted videographers in the area - taught myself Premiere. Had a great product theoretically - But it looked like someones professionally edited home video ... because we were using someones dad's cheap little camera. Now if I had a canon 5d......