5.07.2009

Getting what you want with digital.

I've made no bones about my appreciation of film and film cameras but there is a certain reality that has to be interjected when we talk about the world of photography in 2009. For better or worse clients expect things to be done faster than a haircut and for little or no money.

There was even a goofy idea on the web that somehow we'd all get rich if we just gave everything away for free. But the guy who came up with that stupid idea starved to death a few 

weeks ago and his intellectual supporters have moved on to the thorny problem of how to "monetize" Twitter. (that means "make money" for all the gentle readers who haven't kept up with the frighteningly fast destruction of common language...).

The rest of us are left with the task of bringing some sort of sanity back to the financial models of our industries. Here's a novel idea:  Let's charge money for what we do.  A cheerful amendment:  Let's charge additional money for using the images more than once!  A third idea:  Let's charge more than it actually costs us to make the image.  (That would include materials, cameras and our time!!!)

That was all non-sequitar.  What I really want to talk about is how to arm wrestle with the digital media to get the images you really like.

All three of the attached images were done for an advertising campaign for the Austin Lyric Opera.  In each shot I wanted to get the kind of soft, non detailed background we used to get when we shot portraits with a long lens on a view camera. In this case our non-profit client had a very "non-profity" budget so our choice was digital or.....digital.  And here's where it gets interesting.  As soulless as I make digital photography out to be I am sometimes (wife and friends snicker...) given to hyperbole.  I must grudgingly admit that a number of the digital cameras produced in the recent past are possessed with an intangible but very visible character that makes them wonderfully different from the run of the mill.

Top of my list is the Kodak family.  My regard for the DCS 760, six megapixel camera from 2002 is unabated.  I battle for dominance with my DCS SLR/n and on the times when I win and the camera grudgingly accepts my direction I am truly delighted with the files.   I sometimes sit on the back porch with a warm cup of coffee and a lone tear comes to my eye when I ponder the irony of Kodak inventing all the good stuff but no longer able to compete in the market......

In the Nikon family, the D700 is a great camera but it lacks personality.  The D2h is a so-s0 image producer but has the personality of a border collie.  The D300 and the D100 both exude soul like a box of Motown 45's.  The Sony R1 is an axe bumbling idiot with flashes of savant genius.  And so on.  But I digress.

When I started planning this campaign for the ALO I know I wanted shallow depth and a color palette that was different than the latest eagerly precise and clinically sterile cameras.  I choose the DCS 760  and decided to shoot at ISO 80.  To get the tiny depth of field I craved I looked through the lens drawer and, after long consideration, I pulled out my unreliable sleeper, the Nikon 105 f2 DC (defocus coupling) lens.  I say unreliable because no matter how often I use it I'm never able to really predict the outcome.  Perfect for a job like this.

And, of course you know that I had to choose a continuous light source to make the wide open aperture work the way I wanted it to.  I used a light that is no longer made.  A Profoto Protungsten.  A fan cooled fixture that mimics the ergonomics of the Profoto flash heads and takes all the same light modifiers.  I used a Magnum reflector with a wide spread and coaxed the light through two layers of white scrim material clinging to a six foot by six foot frame. This was suspended above and to the right of the subject just as close as I could place it without making it a co-star in the frame.

Here's the secret of making tungsten work with an old Kodak that was famous for it's noisy blue channel:  Gel the light with a 1/2 CTB.  That's a filter that gets you half way from tungsten color balance to daylight balance.  Essentially you are trying to keep the camera from compensating from the lack of blue in 3200K light by ramping up the amplification on the blue channel and flooding the image with noise.

I used a small Desisti 300 watt spotlight in its wide flood position for the background.  The only other trick is to try to position the bright spots and the shadows that appear in the background in the proper relationship to the subject.

I love shooting this way.  One part of me always longs for stuff like Leaf medium format digital cameras and Nikon D3x's but as soon as I've got them in hand I feel like a slave.  I'm always trying to show off their capabilities instead of mine.  Mine are all about design and rapport and posing and thinking.  They want me to show off sharpness and accuracy and other things that computers do so well.  It's a hell of a fight when you have to go mano a mano with the very tools that should be serving your vision instead of trying to create it.

Random Note:  Please check out my second book.  I think it's quite good and though you may be too advanced for it at this stage in your career I'm sure that your wives and mothers would love a copy for mother's day.......Minimalist Lighting:  etc. Studio

23 comments:

Bruce Robbins said...

Hi Kirk,

I've just managed to tear myself away from gazing at Michele's portrait (one of the best I've seen for ages) in your post about medium format black and white to catch up with your latest posts. I have a D700 with the 85mm f1.8 Nikkor which should give more or less the same depth of field (or lack thereof) as a 150mm at f2.8 on the 6x6 format. If you accept that, do you think focus will fall away just as beautifully from the eyes with the D700/85mm?

I'm also intrigued by your assessment of the different character of various DSLRs. Can you explain a bit more about this? I use DSLRs but also prefer film and think that the results from DSLRs all look more or less the same, give or take.

Anonymous said...

I too would like to know what you mean by different digital cameras having different looks! Intriguing.

luis said...

Great Post Kirk.

You always seem to have a great perspective on the balance of photography/life/art.

If I'm ever in Austin I would to assist you in a Photo Shoot. I can hold a reflector like nobody else. LOL.

Cheers.
Luis

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

Boy oh boy. Where to start? The best way to see the difference between digital cameras is to set up some lights and shoot some frames but not everyone has access to a backlog of this century's most expensive product with implied expiration labels. So how do we call it?

Let's start with the Olympus stuff. I recently compared images taken with an E-1 and an E-300. The E-300 is a sharp camera. The first impression is of heightened sharpness and a clinical rendering of tones that doesn't echo and boom around in your eyes. The E-1 is more demure as though the tones and colors are smooth and solid but given to a little bleeding that makes each tonal transition a bit gentler and maybe more in line with how a 40 year old sees the world.

The Kodaks both have tones straight out of the cameras that have milky or noisy blacks. You have to crush them down a bit to make the files work. That means pulling down the shadows with curves a bit and that adds contrast to the files that they need. The other end of the curve is fantastic. These cameras hold detail in the highlights but not at the expense of the shadows. With a Nikon, if you under expose to preserve the highlights you'll get blacks that feel like they're on the edge of banding. When you open them up you realize that there's not as much detail in the deep shadows as you would like. With the Kodaks the softer mushier shadows (right out of camera) exist even when the camera is perfectly exposed for the highlights so when you crush the blacks nothing gets left behind. The quality is wonderful.

Even though the tones are soft out of camera and the contrast range is very, very wide both of the Kodaks have very sharp images. This is a result of having NO anti aliasing filters. So when (if) you sharpen the files their is less to be done and this adds less interpolation and haloing while preserving the softness of the contrast curve.

The D700 is so good it's like an exact duplication of what you could measure in real life. And that can be boring. The D300 by constrast has the same basic colors but the tonal distribution is different and the shadows are grittier in a good way. It looks like scanned Kodachrome while the D700 looks like scanned MF e-6.

The Canons seem to be pre-processed on chip so you have less fine control over the microscopic relation between noise and picture quality and sharpness.

I guess some of this is the way your raw system handles each different file and if that's the case then maybe all this is bullshit but I think the differences i see would be averaged out by ACR or Capture One. After all, the software engineers have broken down the files to see what makes them tick and I assume they are driving toward a mean interpretation that is as neutral as possible. So maybe what I see really does get locked in when it's shot.

Do a test. Shoot a Fuji S5 file and then shoot the same thing on your camera. I guarantee you there will be all kinds of differences and you will see them. Now you begin the hunt for the palette that pleases you. I have too much invested in Nikon glass to feel comfortable starting over in the middle of a deep depression but if money were no object I would say that currently the files from the Olympus system are so fine.

don't judge a system on specs. See it on paper. See it on your screen. They are all different.

Jan Moren said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

New rule. If you are writing to defend the idea of giving away work, photos, writing or other intellectual property for free to "for profit" corporations or organizations or collectors I will delete your post. I will not be party to the destruction of the means for artists to earn a living.

Bruce Robbins said...

Thanks for your answer to the digital differences, Kirk. Very interesting indeed.

I was going to ask you what you think of the microstock business but I think I'll look out the kevlar vest and helmet first. ;-)

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

I think the best way to make money in microstock is to own the agency. Selling commodities is a great idea for farmers and a poor idea for single person creative businesses. Like photographers.

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

I deleted two posts. One was from a reader who was making the case that working for free didn't affect the market for professional photography. The second post was me vigorously disagreeing. Neither of them really were germane to the post. I deleted them so we don't get side tracked.

Bottom line, if you transfer usage rights to something of value you need to make sure you get value in return. There is no free lunch.

Anonymous said...

I figured the pics were with your 105 dc. I'm slowly leaning towards that lens and the soul-less d700 ;)

I know what you mean about the d3x and medium format, I figure when you spend that much money there is a need to get every penny of usability out of it.

gary said...

Hi Kirk,
I was recently introduced to your blog through flickr. It's always a good read. I'm purely an amateur and dare I say film enthusiast. I was recently contacted by a bank who wanted to use one of my photos they saw on flickr. They seemed to think they should get it for free and having my photo in a bank was all the reward I needed. I talked to as many pros as I could because I am an amateur and I felt uneasy about how to say I would prefer payment. In the end, I did charge. My reasoning. 1)All art has monetary value to someone. 2)Not charging is like taking money from pro photographers that do this for a living 3)They are a bank after all. Haha!
Thanks for the blog.
Gary

Anonymous said...

I appreciate your comments about having to earn a living however one of the problems that professionals run into is that anyone can buy a decent camera and after some training a percentage can take "acceptable" pictures. Years ago I did about 5 weddings as the families did not want to pay for a pro. I took the pictures because I knew that they were not going to pay someone and I figured my time was part of my wedding gift to the family. I am not a pro but my pictures were very good and that is why I kept being asked. I stopped when I was asked to take pictures of non-family weddings for free.

My point is that non-professionals can buy pro equipment, buy books such as you write to learn technique, attend training classes and at some point go out and take "acceptable" pictures for free and to massage their egos. Unless professional photographers can get the state to issue photography license you will always be forced to compete with "free." Digital has only made the issue worst.

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

Anonymous, See Gary's post above. I'm not saying you should not do free wedding for your family as a gift but a stranger's? Dumb. There's a difference between enjoying the craft and being a destructive force.

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

Neopavlik, The D700 reference is totally subjective. I use mine a lot. It is ultimately reliable. I just can't connect with it emotionally. Important for some not for others.

Anonymous said...

That was one of my points that may not have come through. I did free for blood family but would not for strangers or those who had enough money to pay for a pro. Also, I should have made my point a bit clearer about digital in that film is not free as you have the cost of the film and processing along with proofs. Digital, once you have a camera and equipment is considered free as there are no associated material cost until you print. Most people don't consider the cost of the brain associated with using the camera and the computer for post-processing nor the original investment for the equipment.

Kurt Shoens said...

This article made me curious about the cost of MF film and processing. It looks like about $1/picture with film from B&H and local lab processing. That might be a deal breaker already for a low cost job like this, but then they want $5/image to scan. Sure, you scan only your selects, but that still adds up. To cut costs you might make flatbed scans of your own, but that just trades your time for money to the lab.

On the whole competing with amateurs thing, photography (like everything else) involves both craft and creativity. The craft has gotten easier to learn with the latest gadgets, but really it wasn't all that difficult with film. Even I can take a properly exposed and focused film or digital picture.

Creativity takes more time and effort to acquire, but has much more impact on the result.

What appears different now is that buyers of photography have lower cost/quality alternatives now and take that route surprisingly often.

Glen Goffin said...

Just wanted to say
a. Thanks!
b. I hate you (in the kindest possible way) because I thought I was locked-n-loaded to get a canon 5D mkII and now I'm second guessing myself, and
c. Those portraits are drop-dead gorgeous work!
Cheers,
Glen

Herman said...

Speaking of doing work for nothing.
It reminds me of this great rant by Harlan Ellison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

I often have the problem that after I have done a gig and got published I get an email from the artist I pictured asking about the photography.
Which is very flattering offcourse.
However, why is it the case that every time you mention money you never hear from them again?
Or worse, they get angry at you as it should be an honor that they find your photo's good enough. (this mainly happens with bigger names though).
So Kirk, how do you deal with that? Shrug and move on?

Also, I think your post illustrates the value of unique optics. Sometimes flaws are beautiful.
(offcourse the DC optics are flawed in a precise, designed way)

Nakia Photos said...

I' a Fuji S5 owner along with a Nikon D2H. I must admit I secretly admire the images from D2H. D2H is my 3rd Nikon and is the first one I really like the images from. To the point where I might use it before I grab the S5.

Now on to the film. I started shooting film both 35mm and MF. I didn't want to drop $$ for a Full Frame Digital. Plus I develop my own color film at home. so it make shooting Film a lot easier both B&W and Color. Plus it only takes about 15 minutes to do a roll of color film.

Thanks for the blog!!!

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

Nakia, I wish I never sold my D2h. It is an incredible camera in the right hands. I needed a few more years practice with mine......

Gene Trent said...

Kirk,you can tell I am reading your posts backwards. I am really enjoying your insights (they mirror many of my own) and the subsequent discussions. Bottomline, I love the images. Gives me some new ideas to try out.

I always say "Why work for free when the "client" has money?"

My perspective is that I don't charge for my time. My value add is my distinct vision and/or sense of creativity. That should be the differentiating factor distinguishing me from all other photographers, amateur or professional. That should be why the client is drawn to me. Otherwise, why have me take the pictures at all?

As has been mentioned above, pretty much anyone with a little instruction and decent equipment can make good, clear images. But, they can't do what you have done in the images above, that takes deeper skills, talent, vision, creativity and a "feel" for what could work well for the client's project.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is helping to give me some clarity about the relative non-importance of having state of the art equipment and getting focused on what I really love about photography, paid assignment or person work, making great images.

Gene Trent said...

One more thought...I don't know how you do your "free" non-profit work but even when I have a non-profit whose mission I believe in and they don't have budget for my work, I still charge them for the project and then either discount it by a percentage or donate the whole amount as an "in kind" donation. That way there is always some value associated with the production of my work. There is really no such thing as "free". Your thoughts?