What camera i would use for specific shoots..

[donny1963]

I had a guy ask me what camera i would use for specific shoots, and that was an easy question to answer..

In all the years i been doing photography, i have covered just about every type of photography out there, with the exception of wild life...

For Portrait depending what kind of portrait. If i was intending to publish the portrait, i would use a Hasselblad H5D, because nothing beats that camera really, as far as quality and sharpness.

if the portrait was for lets say family portrait or children portrait, then i would use my Nikon D810, that would be fine..

for Landscape, again, if i was intending to publish it then i would use the hasselblad..

For shooting weddings most of the time the Nikon D810 would be great.. If it was a high-end wedding maybe for a celeb or wealthy then you would want to use the hasselblad..

Alot of people don't understand the major difference in quality using the hasselblad vs a full frame camera like the Nikon D810 or the canon 5D mark III.

The Hasselblad is much better, sharper better quality, the dynamic range is greater so the color is richer and better.
I've listened to people say a nikon D10 will do just as good a job, but that is not true at all.

If you don't understand the difference or believe me just watch this video from one of the best photographers in the world..

 

[Derrel]

We're you the person hyping Hassy,Hassy,Hassy,Hassy for nude figure sets last month...even though 95 out of 100 of the ones sold and published are shot with a d-slr?

 

[donny1963]

We're you the person hyping Hassy,Hassy,Hassy,Hassy for nude figure sets last month...even though 95 out of 100 of the ones sold and published are shot with a d-slr?

Maybe i did talk about the hassy before, i never said that other camera's can't do the job, but what i did say was that the hassy is the best and med format camera's are far superior to DSLR any qualified professional photographer would agree with that, DSLR's can't compete with the high dynamic range and sharpness the hassy can deliver, and the price of one compared to the DSLR is so much more of course, but there is a reason for that, when you ever use one you will see where all the extra $$ went.

And there is a reason why Playboy used only a hassy to create thier pictures, not just for the magazine but for other medium.

People did try and argue that DSLR camera's can do just as good a job, but that is so laughable, if they could do just as good a job why would one spend 40,000.00 for such a camera if a 3,000.00 Camera can do the same thing?
that's nonsense, it's not the amount of money that makes the camera great, that's not what i'm saying the point was there is a reason why a good hassy is 40k and the best dslr are 4 to 5 k at most..
and one other example, with a hassy you can take a photo at 800 ISO and print it more then 20 feet tall with out noise in it, a DSLR could never produce such quality at 800 ISO in a print that large, not even close, the hassy can because of the size of the recording sensor, and the high dynamic range.
also another great thing about that camera it has no flash sync limitations, that gives you so may options in what you can do.
any way that video i posted explains all that and the photographer who created it is one of the best anywhere, he is a well know photographer and trainer.
you can't say what karl taylor stated on that video is not true...

Donny

 

[spiralout462]

Show me the pics! This thread is pretty worthless without them

 

[jcdeboever]

Hassy, smashy... where's my Pentax K1000... I'm sure they're fine camera's if you got the money for one. I knew a real fine photographer in my day (he passed away) and the guy could get a good photo out of a toy camera. He always told me it is not the camera but the person behind it. I believe him because I keep throwing money at gear and my pics still suck.

 

[donny1963]

Hassy, smashy... where's my Pentax K1000... I'm sure they're fine camera's if you got the money for one. I knew a real fine photographer in my day (he passed away) and the guy could get a good photo out of a toy camera. He always told me it is not the camera but the person behind it. I believe him because I keep throwing money at gear and my pics still suck.

of course you still have to have some skill in photography to get great pictures consistently. If you doing poorly in photography, getting a better camera isn't going to make you a better photographer, for instance just because i go out and buy a $500.00 frying pan isn't going to make me a better chef,.
But, if you understand the essence of how photography works, and have a decent knowledge in lighting then you have something to work with and of course being able to see a great picture before you take the picture and figure out how your going to do it, that is going to help you a great deal.

I'm not saying that the camera makes the photographer great, i was just saying have the superior equipment to work with does help.
another aspect of photography is the ability to apply composition how to frame your picture, they are so many variables of this to cover.
best thing you can do is take some classes from some one who is qualified to teach you, and to take some photography lighting classes.

they are tons of photographers who give tutorials on this, but select who's tutorials you watch selectively, they are some out there claiming to know what they are talking about but have no portfolio, i always believe if your going to watch experts tutorial videos see what there work looks like, if they can't show any great images they done then what makes them qualified to be able to help you produce great images if they can't even accomplish that.
Karl Taylor is one who i watch if there is something i would like to learn about,. no matter how good you are or how great you think you are, there is always something more to learn.. Every good photographer learns something new every day..
check out Karl Taylor's videos i think you will find his video's helpful.

Karl Taylor

Take Better Photographs Quickly - Better Photography Tips by Karl Taylor Photography Courses.

 

[donny1963]

Show me the pics! This thread is pretty worthless without them

I can't post his pictures on here, that belongs to him, but you can see all that stuff below,

this guy does shoots for Hollywood, Gaming industry,
some of the shoots he does just to produce cost more then a $100,000.00 some of them not all..




www.karltaylorportfolio.com
Karl Taylor

Take Better Photographs Quickly - Better Photography Tips by Karl Taylor Photography Courses.

here is some great stuff he did on video,
Film/Video

 

[Derrel]

I can't go to the store this weekend...I do not have a Maserati...

 

[Tim Tucker]

I have to admit that I got a little bored and didn't read all your post. Once I read the first line I really only skimmed the rest.
It is a well known phenomenon that technology stifles creativity. Very simply, when you rely on the technology, (i.e. the camera), to take the shot you tend to let the technology take care of the details and you cease to look quite so hard at what your doing. You stop observing and when you stop observing you also stop understanding.
This is demonstrated very nicely in your third sentence of your original post. You think it's the camera that creates a sharp image so you've stopped looking and consequently don't understand the principles of sharpness in images.

Here are two examples that will throw a spanner in the works and show that it's you who doesn't understand photographic principles because you rely on technology so you've simply stopped looking and understanding the results:

1) Take any image that looks sharp on your screen and zoom in on it. Go to 200% and see the sharpness disappear. Underlying principal: no image is sharp they only appear sharp when viewed a a certain size and distance. It's really as simple as that, understanding that images only possess apparent sharpness and not actual sharpness will lead you to the inevitable question, "what is it that makes images appear sharp?" You observe and you understand.

2) Here is a shot of mine that I've posted before, and I'll post again because it demonstrates something very interesting. It clearly demonstrates that sharpness is not absolute but relative and as much a function of your subject as it is the camera. Shot with a D600 and a mid 70's manual focus Nikkor lens. The plane of sharp focus is very definitely on the foreground window pane, I know it is because I took the shot and that's exactly what I focussed on. Now look at the pier in the lower right and you'll see that even at this re-size it appears slightly softer. Now look at the water through the two lower left panes and you'll see that it appears sharper and more in focus to a distance far beyond that of the pier. How can something that's further out of focus appear sharper than something clearly further in focus in the same shot? The technology, (i.e. the camera and lens), is constant across the frame so the effect of the greater apparent sharpness of the water is clearly independent of this. And if I can show you a shot where something that's clearly out of focus can look apparently sharp how much of an effect do you think sensor resolution really has? You observe and you understand.

I'll not go into the relative merits of different formats, only point out that they have different relative merits, differing strengths and weaknesses. If you observe you will understand. After all the claims you re-post are probably made by people who are trying to sell you a more expensive camera.

 

[donny1963]

I have to admit that I got a little bored and didn't read all your post. Once I read the first line I really only skimmed the rest.
It is a well known phenomenon that technology stifles creativity. Very simply, when you rely on the technology, (i.e. the camera), to take the shot you tend to let the technology take care of the details and you cease to look quite so hard at what your doing. You stop observing and when you stop observing you also stop understanding.
This is demonstrated very nicely in your third sentence of your original post. You think it's the camera that creates a sharp image so you've stopped looking and consequently don't understand the principles of sharpness in images.

Here are two examples that will throw a spanner in the works and show that it's you who doesn't understand photographic principles because you rely on technology so you've simply stopped looking and understanding the results:

1) Take any image that looks sharp on your screen and zoom in on it. Go to 200% and see the sharpness disappear. Underlying principal: no image is sharp they only appear sharp when viewed a a certain size and distance. It's really as simple as that, understanding that images only possess apparent sharpness and not actual sharpness will lead you to the inevitable question, "what is it that makes images appear sharp?" You observe and you understand.

2) Here is a shot of mine that I've posted before, and I'll post again because it demonstrates something very interesting. It clearly demonstrates that sharpness is not absolute but relative and as much a function of your subject as it is the camera. Shot with a D600 and a mid 70's manual focus Nikkor lens. The plane of sharp focus is very definitely on the foreground window pane, I know it is because I took the shot and that's exactly what I focussed on. Now look at the pier in the lower right and you'll see that even at this re-size it appears slightly softer. Now look at the water through the two lower left panes and you'll see that it appears sharper and more in focus to a distance far beyond that of the pier. How can something that's further out of focus appear sharper than something clearly further in focus in the same shot? The technology, (i.e. the camera and lens), is constant across the frame so the effect of the greater apparent sharpness of the water is clearly independent of this. And if I can show you a shot where something that's clearly out of focus can look apparently sharp how much of an effect do you think sensor resolution really has? You observe and you understand.

View attachment 115708

I'll not go into the relative merits of different formats, only point out that they have different relative merits, differing strengths and weaknesses. If you observe you will understand. After all the claims you re-post are probably made by people who are trying to sell you a more expensive camera.

I do agree with your post, obviously if you rely on technology then everything about photography goes away, at least for me, what got me hooked on photography was the challenge, i stared before the Digital days, and when i started shooting models, i didn't have a digital camera, i started shooting models in 1995.
i used a nikon coolscan to scan my slides, Yes i said slides, i use Fuji Velvia ISO 50, because if the extra sharpness, how ever, doing so the trade off was in light, in order to get a proper exposure with that i had to have more light, and when shooting in slides, slides are unforgiving if you make a mistake, you have very little adjustments you can make to correct any errors, with print how ever they can fix that to a point, but with the slides, " what you see is what you get"
The reason i used that film was because of the sharpness, see Fuji Velvia was sappose to be for landscape because it was saturated , maybe too saturated, but i developed a system that worked for me, i use that on a NIkon F5 , using Minolta Portrayer softening filter.
Weather it was in the studio or out on location i used that.
How ever just Because i love the Hassy , doesn't mean i rely on technology, i use that to my advantage and do shoots i could never do before with DSLR, for instance take advantage of the fact there is no Flash sync so i can be more created with light, and the ability to get 28% more light into my camera then i could with a DSLR system.... And and since camera's went digital NO DLSR camera will do true iso 50 speed.. Which is what i loved to used back in the days before digital the best i get is 64 ISO with my NIKON D810, yes i can set it to 50, but that is not true ISO 50.. The Hasselblad does.. Of course i can afford to own one, because they range in the 40,000.00 for just the body, but i have a friend who has one and i uses his, or there is this place close by that rents professional equipment out, and i take advantage of that when i have a project going..

here is a picture done back before digital days and that was done with iso 50 slides,,
i have to reduce the size because this form says the images are too large so..

View attachment 115723 View attachment 115724

 

[donny1963]

now here is something done with digital camera..

 

[tirediron]

I had a guy ask me what camera i would use for specific shoots, and that was an easy question to answer..

In all the years i been doing photography, i have covered just about every type of photography out there, with the exception of wild life...

For Portrait depending what kind of portrait. If i was intending to publish the portrait, i would use a Hasselblad H5D, because nothing beats that camera really, as far as quality and sharpness.

if the portrait was for lets say family portrait or children portrait, then i would use my Nikon D810, that would be fine..

for Landscape, again, if i was intending to publish it then i would use the hasselblad..

For shooting weddings most of the time the Nikon D810 would be great.. If it was a high-end wedding maybe for a celeb or wealthy then you would want to use the hasselblad..

Alot of people don't understand the major difference in quality using the hasselblad vs a full frame camera like the Nikon D810 or the canon 5D mark III.

The Hasselblad is much better, sharper better quality, the dynamic range is greater so the color is richer and better.
I've listened to people say a nikon D10 will do just as good a job, but that is not true at all.

If you don't understand the difference or believe me just watch this video from one of the best photographers in the world..

Are you applying for Ken Rockwell's position with Hasselblad?

 

[donny1963]

I had a guy ask me what camera i would use for specific shoots, and that was an easy question to answer..

In all the years i been doing photography, i have covered just about every type of photography out there, with the exception of wild life...

For Portrait depending what kind of portrait. If i was intending to publish the portrait, i would use a Hasselblad H5D, because nothing beats that camera really, as far as quality and sharpness.

if the portrait was for lets say family portrait or children portrait, then i would use my Nikon D810, that would be fine..

for Landscape, again, if i was intending to publish it then i would use the hasselblad..

For shooting weddings most of the time the Nikon D810 would be great.. If it was a high-end wedding maybe for a celeb or wealthy then you would want to use the hasselblad..

Alot of people don't understand the major difference in quality using the hasselblad vs a full frame camera like the Nikon D810 or the canon 5D mark III.

The Hasselblad is much better, sharper better quality, the dynamic range is greater so the color is richer and better.
I've listened to people say a nikon D10 will do just as good a job, but that is not true at all.

If you don't understand the difference or believe me just watch this video from one of the best photographers in the world..

Are you applying for Ken Rockwell's position with Hasselblad?

ha funny, nope, not promoting it, but love the camera..

 

[donny1963]

of course i love doing Black&White not sure if i'm able to post nudity on here, but i like the texture with black&whiteView attachment 115731

 

[donny1963]

Not sure if posting a nude pic is ok, but I love the texture of black&White..

Sorry, but nudity is restricted to the Nude/NSFW forum. Thanks.