Stairs

MLKstudios wrote: Who do you work with who shoots with an H4D-60? Not many ever reach that level. It's simply the price that blows most people away. Like 5x the cost of the house I grew up in.

Is editing your stock and trade?

Movie studios. I'll leave it at that.

Interested to see what the D4X offers though. Honestly the Blad is probably too much camera for me. I'm not that disciplined yet.

OK. I've taught many who light and shoot movie cameras. Plus some of the prettiest girls in HO.

I really like my job!

MLKstudios wrote: OK. I've taught many who light and shoot movie cameras. Plus some of the prettiest girls in HO.

I really like my job!

Know Lon Strickland? I think he worked or works still with Lionsgate out in Cali.

To go back a few posts... didn't that Nat Geo photographer go back and photograph the woman who was the girl who posed for that famous photo? I thought I read something about it when Dwayne's was developing the last of the Kodachrome. CBS Sunday morning did a special on it, that may be where I saw it.

I got the commemorative T shirt - in Kodak yellow. Now back to Blads...

Nope sorry. Am good friends with William Fraker, ASC and John Landis (dir. Animal House, Blues Brothers, etc.). And I know a lot of celebs. Also, I've been invited to a few ASC meetings. You get to meet and greet the real greats of 2D vision. Including the guy who invented the Steadi-Cam and dining with Faye Dunaway.

Was really nice when Jessica Biel took my class. Knock, knock. Hi Jess. Please, do come in! She learned on a Nikon FM2 and posts photography as a hobby on her website now.

This business has shown me a fantastic life. There were plenty of bumps along the way (like hocking my gear to pay rent). But in the end, its been quite a ride.

When I first got to HO (Hollywood) A & I did process K-14 (Kodachrome). It was great driving a few miles to get my Kodachrome film processed. But yes, Dwaynes ended up being the ending for K. Kinda sad, but I'll be happy when I can afford a RED Epic:

www.red.com/store/epic/product/epic-m

I doubt I'll be missing film much then.

Nat Geo's site will have the history of Steve. I think he did go looking for her at some point. Those green eyes were so beautiful. I'm quite sure almost EVERYONE has seen that pic.

The most reproduced image in the world is Che Guevera, shot with a Leica.

We all dream of RED. Im actually in the market for medium format film for black and white.

In the market for the film? - as in looking for it or selling it?

How in the world could anyone afford a 58thou camera!! A company would use it I suppose.

Pros use them. There is a level of shooters that few people know about. They make a ton of money, but their names are not well known.

We can all name a handful of film directors -- Hitchcock, Spielberg and etc. But how many famous photographers can you name? In Europe, they know of many. Here, maybe Geddes, Liebowitz, Adams... then nada. Art is not a big part of our culture. Football (and Facebook) is.

Matthew

Now you got me curious - who would use them? Most well known photographers who come to mind are probably dead - Kertesz, Brassai, Mapplethorpe etc. Leibovitz? - think she was going thru bankruptcy, almost sold off rights to her collection. I'm more familiar w/sports photographers - Vincent Laforet, Walter Iooss.

MLKstudios wrote: Pros use them. There is a level of shooters that few people know about. They make a ton of money, but their names are not well known.

We can all name a handful of film directors -- Hitchcock, Spielberg and etc. But how many famous photographers can you name? In Europe, they know of many. Here, maybe Geddes, Liebowitz, Adams... then nada. Art is not a big part of our culture. Football (and Facebook) is.

Matthew

Its like ferrari. Who is going to spend 279,000 dollars on a sports car?
Its got a small market that uses it.

icepics wrote: Now you got me curious - who would use them? Most well known photographers who come to mind are probably dead - Kertesz, Brassai, Mapplethorpe etc. Leibovitz? - think she was going thru bankruptcy, almost sold off rights to her collection. I'm more familiar w/sports photographers - Vincent Laforet, Walter Iooss.

In short, those who earn a living shooting covers and ads. Commercial photographers.

Many in the "biz" rent or lease their gear. It makes more sense fiscally. Vincent owns RED lenses, but I don't know if he owns the body. He might have the original which runs about $25K -- less than an H4D.

You are more versed in photo history than most. There are but a few FAMOUS ones, and the others are known only by people like us, who spend the time searching them out. Ask a common man (or woman) on the streets of America, and you'll often get a blank stare. They don't know of ANY.

It's a point I make early in my classes. If you want fame and fortune, try another trade. We can see a thousand pictures in a day, and no one knows, or cares, who took them. We just expect good quality work in advertising, and etc.

But, I've made ridiculous amounts as a freelancer. It takes building a clientele and a reputation in certain circles. It isn't how well you market yourself. Those who say that are usually struggling and talking to themselves -- wishing they were better at marketing. It's about establishing relationships.

Or hiring a monkey. A clean one.

I have over $100K in gear gathered over the years. If I sold some I could buy a RED or other high end digital. But, I like my cameras too much to let them go. I'll have to save a bit for the RED.

FYI the $58K is for the body only. The lenses it uses run around $5-10K each. A full kit is closer to $100K.

I'd have to hit the lottery bigtime to have either the sports car or that level of photography gear!

I've taken some art over the years too so I probably have studied more art and photography than a lot of people. Commercial photography is an area I don't know a lot about other than looking at PDN occasionally. I didn't know particularly what gear Laforet has used but he does some interesting work.

The gear you OWN doesn't matter. It's what (and who) you know. You can always rent or lease the best tools.

MLKstudios wrote:

icepics wrote: Now you got me curious - who would use them? Most well known photographers who come to mind are probably dead - Kertesz, Brassai, Mapplethorpe etc. Leibovitz? - think she was going thru bankruptcy, almost sold off rights to her collection. I'm more familiar w/sports photographers - Vincent Laforet, Walter Iooss.

In short, those who earn a living shooting covers and ads. Commercial photographers.

Many in the "biz" rent or lease their gear. It makes more sense fiscally. Vincent owns RED lenses, but I don't know if he owns the body. He might have the original which runs about $25K -- less than an H4D.

You are more versed in photo history than most. There are but a few FAMOUS ones, and the others are known only by people like us, who spend the time searching them out. Ask a common man (or woman) on the streets of America, and you'll often get a blank stare. They don't know of ANY.

It's a point I make early in my classes. If you want fame and fortune, try another trade. We can see a thousand pictures in a day, and no one knows, or cares, who took them. We just expect good quality work in advertising, and etc.

But, I've made ridiculous amounts as a freelancer. It takes building a clientele and a reputation in certain circles. It isn't how well you market yourself. Those who say that are usually struggling and talking to themselves -- wishing they were better at marketing. It's about establishing relationships.

Or hiring a monkey. A clean one.

I have over $100K in gear gathered over the years. If I sold some I could buy a RED or other high end digital. But, I like my cameras too much to let them go. I'll have to save a bit for the RED.

FYI the $58K is for the body only. The lenses it uses run around $5-10K each. A full kit is closer to $100K.

I agree with relationships, but disagree with marketing.