Fashion and Digital...a very nice combination

[racingpinarello]

http://www.leafamerica.com/3701.htm


Douglas Dubler, a person that I really respect in terms of process and style. The link above really emphasis the strengths of digital. Albeit, from a very expensive digital back.

It's a cool clip.

Loren

[another view]

Thanks for sharing. It's interesting that he shoots less because of digital - he knows immediately when he has "the" shot.

[schrackman]

Check out that lighting system! Very cool video. Now where'd I stash that cash for that 22mb camera I wanted to buy?

[Speed]

Check out that lighting system! Very cool video. Now where'd I stash that cash for that 22mb camera I wanted to buy?

You too?

I can't seem to find the dough I stashed away for my D2X, 85mm f1.4, 80-200mm f2.8 and SB-800. Where did I put it?????

:-O

[racingpinarello]

Check out that lighting system! Very cool video. Now where'd I stash that cash for that 22mb camera I wanted to buy?

The sick thing is that those three light bars cost MORE than the digital back. It's definitely a studio of one of the higher end fashion photographers.

I just want to rent a digital back for a weekend...but I have to save for a month.

Loren

[walterick]

mmm... 85mm 1.4... ... you can have the rest

[walterick]

Very cool!

I saw an exhibition at the PMA show in NY a few years ago where a photog was doing a fashion shoot right in front of you with digital. They posed the model, took the shot, processed it and printed it all in about a half an hour. Pretty cool.

Can't wait to get models like that lining up to work with me!

Rick

[Asylum Steve]

This video clip was part of the Epson online workshop I took part in last year, and I remember it well. It really is facinating to see such a craftsman at work using state of the art equipment and top of the line styling.

However, it should be noted that this project was actually more of a beauty shoot than a fashion one, and that fact in itself is one primary reason Dubler used the gear that he did.

Beauty photography places much more emphasis on close-up skin tone and texture, and the lighting and color balance tend to be a lot more critical.

For more conventional fashion shooting, personally I feel his setup would be major overkill.

In fact, I probably would find that incredibly expensive lighting and shooting gear more intimidating and constricitve than creatively liberating. But that's just me...

BTW, one (if not the) main reason Dubler likes that triangular flourescent ligth fixture is because of the catchlights it creates in the model's eyes. Otherwise (trust me), a MUCH cheaper ringflash or softbox would give you the same lighting on the model's face.

BTW2, one thing that Dubler uses that I VERY MUCH would like to have is a "digital retouch" guy whose sole job is too go in and do ALL the digital editing on each image file. THAT would be nice...

And Rick, FYI, the model in that vid was actually a last second REPLACEMENT because the one originally booked got sick (or something). Not a bad understudy, eh???

[Outdoorsman]

You know, I don't see what's so great about 22 MP. I mean, look at some of the backs available for Linhof. one of them is 8000x9700 pixels. Do the math. 77.6 MP. What can beat that? And at what point is this megpixel obsession going to end? There is an upper limit to where so many MP is enough for most applications. I personally would rather have a better bit depth, more exposure latitude, more accurate colors, more inherent sharpness, than more MP. And finally, if you can make a full-size, high-rez poster from a $0.25 slide for easily under $100, why would you want to spend many, many thousands on a digital camera or digital back to get the same result?

[racingpinarello]

You know, I don't see what's so great about 22 MP. I mean, look at some of the backs available for Linhof. one of them is 8000x9700 pixels. Do the math. 77.6 MP. What can beat that? And at what point is this megpixel obsession going to end? There is an upper limit to where so many MP is enough for most applications. I personally would rather have a better bit depth, more exposure latitude, more accurate colors, more inherent sharpness, than more MP. And finally, if you can make a full-size, high-rez poster from a $0.25 slide for easily under $100, why would you want to spend many, many thousands on a digital camera or digital back to get the same result?

I posted, not as an advertisement for a 22mp back, but for the process that digital provides for fashion/beauty shots. As for the Leaf back it provides great tone and skin color than the other 22mp backs.

Douglas Dubler provides a great example of having a beg. to end work flow which is far more important than having all of that mp.

Loren

[Outdoorsman]

I posted, not as an advertisement for a 22mp back, but for the process that digital provides for fashion/beauty shots. As for the Leaf back it provides great tone and skin color than the other 22mp backs.

Douglas Dubler provides a great example of having a beg. to end work flow which is far more important than having all of that mp.

Loren

Ahhh. Do you shoot with digital backs? If so, how is it when compared to integral digital sensors?
The only local studio here finally switched to digital last year- using the high-end Canon DSLRs. They have them hooked up to the computers for a live feed, as has been possible for years now. So many pro digital photogs have the same setup, in varying configurations. How do the press get their images to the office instantly? They're tied in to laptops on location, ready to shoot, edit, and send their images with little time lag. This kind of technology is old hat- we're all aware of what is possible. I'm not trying to negate the value of your post, but what's the news here? Digital studios have been doing this for some time... is there something new or special about Dubler's process (aside from his way cool triangle light)?
And the clip actually is an advertisement for Leaf backs. It's part of their website!
Don't slay me for this post, just know I'm looking at it objectively, and I'm not getting the point I guess.

[racingpinarello]

[QUOTE=Outdoorsman]Ahhh. Do you shoot with digital backs?

Yes.

A couple of points...

1) I put up the link because it was cool. I'm not saying that everybody needs to rush down to spend big money. In the end, it's about workflow and nothing about product endorsement.

2) I have shot with digital backs in the past, and they offer results because they have larger sensors and larger pixels.

3) Douglas Dubler has written numerous articles on digital backs, cameras, and film. He has everything calibrated in his studio from exposure meters, color meters, cameras, and monitors. Maybe I should have prefaced my post with some history of Douglas Dubler to put things in perspective.

4) I still don't know where my enthusiasm for a video has anything to do with the quest for the holy grail of digital backs. We have all read about the workflow, but when have we seen a visual?

btw..If I had the money I would choose the 1DS mk2.

5) Most people knock it, but I am extremely motivated, hard working, and willing to help others. It's all that I have to get me through a tough job at Citigroup, so please excuse my enthusiasm. Plus, I respect Dubler more than the Leaf product.

Loren

[racingpinarello]

Hi Penny,

I would choose the 1DS mk2 just because it solves more problems. I can use it for travel and landscape, or commercial/stock photography. Plus lenses are more affordable. When I had my Contax, a lens would cost about the same as a Canon 20D, which is obscene.

At the moment when I shoot for my agency, I have to shoot film because 8 mp is less than the required resolution. If money wasn't an issue, I would love to have the Leaf digital back. It's truly a digital wonder, but only 1% of the photographic community really needs it.

Luckily, one can rent if they had too. At Keeble and Shuchat you can rent a Leaf digital back with a H1 for $400/day or weekend. It may seem a lot, but if you can bill it back to the client then it's a steal and you don't have to pony up your soul and your first born.

So..to make long story short. I would chose the Canon for the versality and quality, while always wishing that I had big clients that could warrant a Leaf digital back for my Mamiya RZ 67.

Loren

[tijean]

It's truly a digital wonder, but only 1% of the photographic community really needs it.

[...]

Luckily, one can rent if they had too. At Keeble and Shuchat you can rent a Leaf digital back with a H1 for $400/day or weekend. It may seem a lot, but if you can bill it back to the client then it's a steal and you don't have to pony up your soul and your first born.

Yes, and if one has the clientel to warrent an H1, then a billable $400 may not be completely out of the question. I think that we sometimes forget in photography when we look at something and think "why in the world would someone need THAT," that there are working pros out there -- and I mean the working pros that are shooting for magazines and agencies, not for the local newspaper. Nothing against the local newspaper, event shoots, ect. but they are less taxing technically. The pricetags may too ridiculous, but they are serving a much smaller market.

[92135011]

I think digi backs go for about 10 grand these days, which is down from probably 50 grand of only a few years back.
I have heard Mamiya soon to release one (or already has) and Hasselblad's partnership with imacon also yeilded a 16MP back 40Gb hard drive 8 hours run time I think. Both 10k