Comments on: Industrial Color Helps Photographers Shoot The RED One

By: A.C.

A.C. — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:14:03 +0000

@Wolf189, You should shoot it next time.

By: STONER

STONER — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:49:47 +0000

@bigdaddy,
Yeah, they really are. I’m looking forward to seeing more work produced with this setup…

By: bigdaddy

bigdaddy — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:28:43 +0000

Box did the retouching on that W story with Bruce Willis. Looks great!!

By: bigdaddy

bigdaddy — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:27:32 +0000

@STONER,

Box did the retouching on the images. They are very beautiful right?

By: foster002

foster002 — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:52:59 +0000

Many companies are engaged with Red and these services. Shop around for a competitive packages, especially if you’re in New York City.

By: Don Cudney

Don Cudney — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:03:53 +0000

Like it or not …. the fact is …. the Canon 5D Mark II has a larger chip, is capable of faster shutter speeds and captures better quality film stills …. hands down! I am a long time large format, medium format and now HD digital photographer slash videographer and I AM LOVING IT ! I have honestly doubled my income overnight! The RED is an awesome “camera” but ten times bigger than my old Mamiya RZ……why step backwards?

By: A Photo Editor

A Photo Editor — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:58:05 +0000

@Bill Davis,
Wow really. So fascinating.

By: Bill Davis

Bill Davis — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:52:32 +0000

@Robert P,
The give away is the photo. It doesn’t look like any shoots I’ve been on before, too clean. It doesn’t look like Tracy Feith either unless he has shaved his surfer beard and hair. Nor does anyone else resemble Tom Betterton. It looks like a well staged photograph instead of a shoot. Is the model being interviewed by the still photographer, the sound guy must be getting aggravated picking up the sounds of the photographers shutter over the guy pretending to be Tracy Feith’s voice and what is the digital tech doing on a screen with nothing on it. But the IC logo is nicely placed for all to see. This is all good press kit material for Kalalian. He got the front page of this blog.

By: Westering Fever

Westering Fever — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:00:13 +0000

@Sergey, how is going to a more expensive intricate digital package going to lower costs for publishers? in any case it’ll make thing more expensive, which isn’t necessarily a great thing… but i dont understand how, Sergey if you could explain to me, being the person accepting the natural progress of technology will lower your profits… sergey, continuing to have this small minded “i just do this, i just do that” attitude will leave you very little work… think about how introducing video to your repertoire can get you video commercial shoots. The RED isn’t really being used for stills but rather a means of introducing photographers to the now less expensive world of video.

By: Westering Fever

Westering Fever — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:51:35 +0000

@joe, i never said anything about shooting Bruce Willis for free, and many people would shoot and have shot Bruce Willis, or any celebrity for that matter for free or very little money, theres royalties and licensing fees attached which will garner you money, but for the actual shoot itself, expect little to nothing UNLESS its an advertising job. also, you should try reading the post you’re replying to…

By: El futur de la fotografia II ( « Memòries de Brooklyn

El futur de la fotografia II ( « Memòries de Brooklyn — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:47:07 +0000

[...] Font: A Photo Editor [...]

By: Gordon Moat

Gordon Moat — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:01:23 +0000

Saw the images, and they are all soft. The concept would have benefited from a hard edged approach, so I think in a way that softness detracts from the images. A few of the images also show the perils of electronic viewfinders, in that critical focus is off. While a focus puller and measured marks can work well when the actors and cameraman are in motion, it becomes far more difficult to hit those marks at 1/24 to 1/30 for stills.

At least with strobes and a stills shoot, you can get away with slow shutter speeds because the strobes freeze enough of the motion. Some of the RED shots in the W shoot seem to have suffered from movement of the talent too. While I would bet the final motion piece from this shoot looks cool on a big screen HDTV, it simply does not hold up when printed. I think this shows the problem of viewing while the shoot is happening, and thinking everything is working great. Even the best HDTV is low resolution compared to a two page spread in a big magazine.

By: phyllis

phyllis — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:40:08 +0000

it seems again that the world of commercial is cheapening an art form. No need to develop an eye anymore-let’s just grab an image!

By: craig

craig — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:43:37 +0000

@Donnar Party,

I’m not so sure the comparison to the film – digital changeover is the same. My studio invested 100k in digital equipment in the late 90s, the first in the state to do so. We then charged double for digital shooting. It was a huge hit – paid the camera off in about 4 months. 1 year later, we sold off the RZ’s because they hadn’t been used in 6 months.

The reason for the popularity wasn’t the quality (early back was 6 mp 3 shot capture.. great color but thats it), it was the speed and convenience. Agencies would come with a tight deadline and walk out of the studio with a CD *in hand*. No more film lab delay. And no polaroids to develop, what you saw was what you got. THIS is why digital took over from film in mainstream commercial work. Speed.

Now with video frame grabs, okay you have to send your raw data to the post house to be turned into usable visuals, this takes time, okay you’re shooting at 1/30th of a second so if you’re shooting a moving person you gotta do it faster, but thats way more data, takes the post house more time… more time is more money… etc etc. Too much time.

And yes, I’m sure on some large ad shoots with both the budget and the patience to handle this, a digital video camera with decent frame grabs will take stills using the already crewed up lighting and set. No doubt. But I will say, that shoots with that level of resources are not so common.

And it’s not like that isn’t what already happens today anyway – the production company sets up a still camera on set…

Not everyone has a half million dollar budget though.

By: Donnar Party

Donnar Party — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:22:21 +0000

@Alan Matthews, rates are too high from a place like IC, like Splashlight, etc. They make it seem complicated and overwhelming, which it isn’t, so they can justify that high rate. Frame pulls from a Red is a gimmick, really, and won’t be how the Epic/Scarlet will be used.

By: Donnar Party

Donnar Party — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:12:10 +0000

@joe, In major markets you shoot editorial for free or nearly free. The client pays for the production. In NYC you shoot fashion/portraits for nearly free, then use that exposure to get some bread and butter catalogue work or even better, a campaign. In LA its the same, but you shoot celebs. Its marketing. It is very different than shooting a wedding or other dreck for free.

By: RP

RP — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:57:39 +0000

I heard somewhere that Taryn Simon is using the RED at the moment……

By: Robert P

Robert P — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:49:38 +0000

@A Photo Editor, I must agree it felt like that to me as well, he was speaking a little like a press release.

By: joe

joe — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:37:05 +0000

@Westering Fever, if you are shooting bruce willis for free then you need to be put up against a wall and shot, god what are you smoking man you really do have a fever

By: Brett Deering

Brett Deering — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:20:31 +0000

@Gordon Moat, Exactly, and that’s already a problem….

By: Alan Matthews

Alan Matthews — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:01:24 +0000

@Donnar Party,
Yeah I know. I think what I’m saying is change is coming but how fast is a question. I think the rates are too high and the complexity is too great for such early adoption and early panic.

By: Donnar Party

Donnar Party — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:00:48 +0000

@Alan Matthews, I thought the same thing with digital. One day I was loading my 12 RZ backs with Provia, the next day I was on line for a 1ds.

By: Donnar Party

Donnar Party — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:57:44 +0000

@bb, yes. But pure still grabs will be a pain in the ass, so they will simply use the new Red cameras which should allow the camera to be used like a medium format camera for a stills portion, perhaps during rehearsal. Then it could be used with strobes as well if thats your thing.

By: Donnar Party

Donnar Party — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:55:05 +0000

@Sergey, translation services is a growing field, perhaps look into that line of work. But seriously, as magazines die and are reborn on the web, the magazine stills shooter must follow. The future of web is in motion. Its not like stills will be gone, but they will be marginalized to the point you may be looking for a different or additional job, like web design or video editing. I make gaf, act as DP, shoot stills, write, produce, whatever, but its mainly motion. Two years ago it was all stills.

By: Alan Matthews

Alan Matthews — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:30:12 +0000

I agree this should have a note at top “Special Advertising Section”

This convergence is still a few years off but the novelty is enough to scare the heck out of photographers who suddenly think they will be out of a job unless they learn a new trade.

.Net coding language or java eventually gained footholds over Cobol but guess what? There are still Cobol programmers and banks still being run by millions of lines of Cobol code. What makes anyone think that overnight or in the span of a year or two video and frame grabs are going to supersede still photography?

Was it Virtual Reality at one time that threatened to replace the need for live actors? Or now who is sick of yet one more animated movie? The novelty has so worn off and I predict so too will the novelty of Red One as the revolution.

But I may brush up on my video and editing skills JUST in case.

By: bb

bb — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:05:49 +0000

the real conversation here should be that ad agencies will be shooting broadcast commercials and just pulling still frames for there print campaigns. the photographers who are also directors will get the opportunities for these kind of productions. or else in many cases the photographer will get bypassed and the agency (i’m talking about ads) will say they own all the footage of the commercial. thus, goodbye to the © and usage agreements that have always been apart of ad shooting’s revenue.

By: Wolf189

Wolf189 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:12:51 +0000

Regarding Honeymoon hotel set in W: (just a personal opinion of course)

Page 46 and 47: Emma Willis seems under exposed, specially in a comparison with lighting situation on Bruce Willis, while she is supposed to be the shock value of the shot…so it’s not a nitpick on aesthetic but a nitpick on “if aesthetic is serving the concept properly”. Lack of control in the camera?

Page 48 and 49: The mood and Emma are beautiful but I can’t stop looking at the shiny faucet (because of a sharper focus and reflection)…which makes it like a futuristic ad for kohler faucets. Again, perhaps the control in RED camera for still shots won’t work at all times….or is it hard to find the right shots?

Page 50 and 51: Since reflection is the main concept, the mood and aesthetics work together.

Page 52 and 53: The soft focus on Emma does not translate into motion nor the silhouette of Bruce Willis translate into mystery (it’s too bulky and flat)….again in my opinion focus and exposures and shutter speed (can we say that?) are not helping the concept.

Page 54 and 55: nice focus perhaps because of a still pose and nicer lighting on Emma, however the texture of the wall and sharp focus on the yellow railing steals the show just a bit…

Page 56 and 57: interesting but mostly a set filler…although I like the subtle movement on the bracelet, but it feels more shaky than a movement really.

Page 58 and 59: Sharper focus on Emma’s knee than Emma’s face…intentional? I think perhaps we can detect a pattern here.

Page 60 and 61: Soft on Bruce and Emma? to create an atmosphere? not really sure…my guess is not.

Page 62 and 63: Under exposure is apparent for/on relevant dramatic elements in the image.

Page 64 and 65: focus and exposure and lack of proper texture cheapens the shot in my opinion…it does read well with the rest of set….the concept is fun of course.

Page 66 and 67: while the lovely post work on Emma has created a beautiful aesthetic, the motion in Bruce’s head and hand seems too soft without any intensity …. it’s simply too mushy…

In my humble opinion, the camera “probably” doesn’t give enough control to photographers who are after precise aesthetics… then it becomes a very expensive gimmick tool (to create/imitate certain looks) …or if it does give the power of control, it’s not evident in the W set (while in a quick review it’s a very attractive and eye catching story of course)

By: craig

craig — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:16:24 +0000

@Matthew G. Monroe,

You nail it on the head here. I’m sure the bean counters on major productions are drooling by the thought of “hey, we don’t need a stills guy, we’ll just grab some frames from this new fancy digital motion camera!”

But then the technical quality issues of having everything shot at the equivalent of 1/30th of a second, or then the problem of focus being slightly off from frame to frame as the focus puller moves…

You point out that shoot at a higher speed and then use some voodoo in post to “fix” the stutter… but the cost of doing that + handling the increase amount of data from using a higher shutter would negate any savings of not hiring a stills photog.

The death of still photography is greatly exagerrated…

By: Sergey

Sergey — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:46:23 +0000

@Westering Fever,

COMPLETELY WRONG.

it just lowers costs for publishers while lowering profits for photographers.

i’m glad i just do editorial and travel, good luck guys.

By: Sergey

Sergey — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:21:35 +0000

camera stills is b-ulls-hit.

it completely defies the very concept of photography.

what about 16 RED cameras around a subject and people
paid to sort the good stills ?

if this is the future i’m better getting another job.