In article ,
says…
On Feb 3, 7:05 pm, (Hunt) wrote:
I always
shoot the best, that I can, then manipulate it for the final product. All
it
takes is one concept change to spoil a shoot. Capture with soft-focus, and
the
end-client will then want it "sharp as a tack!"
Glad you got it,
Hunt
Hi Hunt,
Does that mean you shoot with the idea of capturing as many sharp pixels as possible? In my camera group there is a definite bias towards getting everything right inside the camera. I don’t know if it is a point of pride or maybe legacy issues of dealing with film but they are adamant. I bought into that idea until I began to realize how much can be done easily with PS. Now I am beginning to think, not being a photo journalist, that I should just concentrate on composition and lens selection, with the goal of maximizing sharp pixels, and leave all special effects for later. Is this what you are talking about when you say you shoot the "best" you can?
Brgds,
Ron
Ron,
Pretty much. I come from a history of having a fine custom lab next to my studio. They did emulsion-stripping, and compositing long before Scitex was invented. They had a cut-n-paste guy with the sharpest X-acto you have ever seen, and a lady, who could do things with dyes and bleach, that still amaze me. Also, my client-base is international advertising, so some of the "golly- gee-whiz" effects were not in use then. I learned to create the best possible image, then use the tools available to make it fit the AD’s concept. Also, many images were used for a dozen different ads/brochures, so it was always better to have the best raw [note lower-case "r," to differentiate between RAW] image.
I saw a lot of shooters, who filed out negative carriers/trans. carriers, etc. to "prove" that they cropped in camera. I always shot "tight," and many AD’s learned that they had to make me move the camera back, just a bit, to give them "wiggle-room."
With the advent of Scitex, I knew that I was looking at the future, and almost bought an early unit – ~US$1M for SW & HW. Luckily, my partner, and I, did not, as there were soon too many in Denver, to support the need. A lot of sep -houses took a big hit on those machines. However, I embraced PhotoStyler, when it hit the PC. Moved to PS, when it was ported for the PC and have never looked back.
If one has the best possible image, and an understanding of the tools to create the client’s wildest dreams, that is the way that I’d go. Besides, Vaseline on an optical flat, in front of the lens, is just a tool, right?
Now, if my clients had been of the "cutting-edge" mindset, I may have learned to to it ALL in the camera. As it is, I do all that I feel will contribute, then just use different tools to complete the process. Looking back, I still see that about 60% of my portfolio is analog, with much "assembly" in-camera, then the final work in the lab. The rest is digital.
I do not fault those, who feel that everything MUST be done in-camera. That is what they feel most comfortable doing. I do feel that a few wear a "badge of courage," and will defend a less than optimum result, by saying, "hey, what do you want? I did it ALL in-camera." Whatever makes the client happy. Besides, what are the various items that one hangs in front of the lens, over the lights, etc., but TOOLS? PS is only a tool to an end.
Hunt