1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

OM-D at studio shoot

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by landshark, Jul 15, 2012.

  1. landshark

    landshark Mu-43 Veteran

    307
    Apr 27, 2010
    SO CAL
    With all this talk of Pro use, I though i would post some shots of super professional but fun crew from a recent shoot. All shot with the OM-D and 12 F2
    The assistants




     
    • Like Like x 8
  2. So I'm curious; being someone who has never really thought very much about studio photography, what roles do all of the assistants have over the course of a shoot?
     
  3. efoo

    efoo Mu-43 Regular

    91
    Jun 5, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Eddie
    Role of cheerleaders? :rofl:

    Seriously, I'm interested to know too. Must be a big photo studio.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Bhupinder2002

    Bhupinder2002 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Lol .. Very simple Eddie.. Assistants hold Canon 5DmarkIII , Nikon D800 and Sony A900 etc etc to shoot photographer who is shooting with OMD...:wink:
    :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
    Cheers
    Bhupinder
     
  5. 0dBm

    0dBm Mu-43 Top Veteran

    859
    Jun 30, 2011
    Western United States
    "...what roles do all of the assistants have over the course of a shoot?"
    I customarily work with at least one assistant. My wife volunteers to keep the cost down.

    With the huge amount of equipment that is present in a typical professional studio setting, assistants are there to facilitate moving the "gear." Otherwise, it is tedious just to setup even one shot; and the entire shoot becomes protracted. If I am developing a portfolio for myself, I hire models. Without help to move the equipment, my cost begin to rise quickly without the muscle to help with the moving.

    With women, I have my wife present to help keep the client(s) relaxed. With the elevated temperatures from studio lights, the dust buildup from the larger room, and the uncomfortable setting that is the studio, she helps a lot; however, I DO NOT have her move equipment.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. landshark

    landshark Mu-43 Veteran

    307
    Apr 27, 2010
    SO CAL
    The crew actually has a lot of responsibilities, I average between three and six assistants. The first assistant is basically in charge of all of the logistics and is someone you hopefully work with all the time, so there is some continuity to the production. For me, my first and I talk over the shoot, deciding how big a crew we need, what and how much equipment we bring and/or rent, what the look of the shoot will be and how I want it lit. The he hires the crew, sets up the rentals, sets up the basic lighting plan and also for me he is my digital tech during the shoot.
    The other assistant do unload and move the equipment around but they also setup the lighting and watch that all of the lights are firing during the shoot, some may have to follow the talent with a light in an action type shoot, one of them will be assigned to take care of the cameras. At the end of the shoot I go home to edit they wrap it out and pack up the truck.

    here is an example of the amount of strobe packs we use on an average shoot
     
    • Like Like x 6
  7. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
  8. s0nus

    s0nus Mu-43 Veteran

    424
    Dec 13, 2010
    Chicago
    Sure ... sure.

    :wink:
     
  9. wildwildwes

    wildwildwes Mu-43 Veteran

    456
    Jun 9, 2012
    Brooklyn, NY
    Profoto 7s UGH. My back is aching just looking at those packs! :eek:
     
  10. landshark

    landshark Mu-43 Veteran

    307
    Apr 27, 2010
    SO CAL
    more goodies
    the cameras on most every shoot
    Hassy


    Leaf


    the pile of Canons and Hassy

    the lights


    the trucks
     
    • Like Like x 8
  11. Empireme

    Empireme Mu-43 Regular

    150
    Aug 25, 2011
    LA, CA
    I can't believe the amount of equipment used for photoshoots! But thanks for sharing those images...
     
  12. landshark

    landshark Mu-43 Veteran

    307
    Apr 27, 2010
    SO CAL
    The reason for all the equipment is that the shoots have grown to gigantic productions over the last 15 to 20 years, because the subjects have no time and the clients want more images, so the only way to do it is to have every setup built and set before the shoot, which then requires a lot equipment and space, tomorrow while shooting 'Castle" we will be in two large studios and in three on Tuesday and Wednesday for "Revenge".
    When I first started everything fit in a small car and everybody waiting while I relight and setup the next shot. If I am really honest I admit I prefer the preset style of today but miss some of the shoot from the hip creative of the old days.
     
  13. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    Thanks for sharing that, Bob. Especially for some folks who don't realize what high end professional photography often entails.

    Finally, this will demonstrate to some what you and I and others here have been trying to say to those on the forum who state that m4/3 cameras are 'suitable for professional photography' - implying that as capable as m4/3 gear has become, larger gear is becoming unnecessary. In a some realms this is not doubt gradually happening, however, in many other realms of professional photography nothing could be farther from the truth.

    Suitability for 'pro' work has to do with a LOT more than whether the IQ is sufficient.

    Certainly, m4/3 can be used in some types of photography 'for pay' and do a good job of it. But there are many aspects of professional photography where m4/3 gear, much as we enjoy it, simply isn't suitable for the tasks at hand.

    While we here all love our little m4/3 set-ups, they have their niche and often, it's not in professional circles.

    Lastly, I might mention that at present I no longer need my larger gear for pro work so I am liquidating it all to help fund ever more m4/3 gear which is perfectly suitable for the work I ask of it these days. I shoot with E-M5, G3, GH-2, and E-PL3 and about 7 native m4/3 lenses, plus some legacy glass. I'm an avid m4/3 shooter, but have no defensiveness about comments that for a lot of tasks, it's not the right tool.

    The term 'professional photographer' applies equally to those with exceptional skill and talent serving clients with exceptionally high demands and a vast sea of people who possess relatively little talent and skill and have paying clients with very minimal demands. There are MANY amateur photographers with exceptional talent and skill who have never worked professionally with a camera and whose results easily eclipse that of many so called 'pros'. This is why the discussion of suitabllity of any camera system for 'pro' use is largely fruitless.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. efoo

    efoo Mu-43 Regular

    91
    Jun 5, 2012
    Sydney, Australia
    Eddie
    Wow, thanks landshark for sharing with us your pro experience. Always interesting to hear how a pro works and his/her equipments. For me, I think I'll stay with my day job for now. :smile:
     
  15. Livnius

    Livnius Super Moderator

    Jul 7, 2011
    Melbourne. Australia
    Joe
    Wow indeed. Thanks for posting this Bob...not that I can relate at all to shooting anything even remotely like that kind of project but it's great to peak inside your world none the less. Had a look through your website too....man that's quite the portfolio.
     
  16. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    Bah!

    As much as you feel that others are overstating the usefulness of smaller formats in a professional environment you are biased the other way. Your use of specific language to belittle m4/3 against larger formats ("for pay" to describe m4/3 and "professional" to describe other formats for example) proves your obvious bias. Not against m4/3 but rather, against professional photographers that don't agree with you. your style of writing makes it sound like any pro who uses m4/3 is a lesser level of pro. Well they're not.

    When "those on the forum who state that m4/3 cameras are 'suitable for professional photography'", all they're stating is that m4/3 can be suitable for professional photography. Anything else you're reading into it all by yourself. Absolutely no pro on this forum has ever said that m4/3 is for all types of pro work or that other formats are unneccesary.

    The reality is that, as impressive as Bobs gear list is, he is in a tiny minority amoungst pros as to the amount of gear he needs. I'm not doubting he needs all of it and I'm positive he has made the best choices for him. But for most commercial photographers shooting budgets are shrinking at an exponential rate and for the most part that much gear is excessive and totally unsuitable. The group of pros for whom mmedium format is suitable is tiny. Probably smaller than the suitable group for m4/3. Even the majority of enviroments where medium format is a great choice smaller formats rule supreme. Either because the client wont pay or because the clients can't see the difference.

    Lets look at the areas where a Hassleblad is unsuitable for "for pay". There's sports, journalism, street, conflict, high ISO, and anything that needs a super telephoto or anything that moves for a start. 99% or the wedding and portrait market don't use medium format. I haven't seen to many pro underwater photographers with a 'blad or wildlife photographers. What about fusion? Any of the Phase one cameras doing video and stills? I thought not. That doesn't make medium format unsuitable for professional use.

    I'm sure the list where m4/3 is unsuitable is long. But I'd hazard a guess that its more suitable in more environments than medium format. No camera is suitable for all professional use. So what?

    For someone who calims to be a fan of m/43 you sure do spend a lot of time telling us all what it can't do and not what it can.

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 3
  17. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    All I know is in my 25-year career (editorial work) I am so glad I never had to deal with all the stuff Bob is dealing with, that looks like a nightmare (again, for me. I never much enjoyed studio work).

    Small and light (Leica's, Contax G2's) were perfect for much of my work. There is no doubt the OM-D would or could surpass those two systems for how I worked. There is also no doubt the stuff Bob is shooting wouldn't be suitable for m43.

    As a pro, these are tools, no more, no less. You use the tool that is best suited to the job.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    Flash... Bah! :rofl: Reality check, man. No need to be so defensive. Take a pill or something and read it again. It's all gear, each suited to some applications and none to all. I'm speaking to those who imply that m4/3 can do it all. :wink: At this point in my career, m4/3 meets all of my needs. But for many, it doesn't. Big deal.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Hats off sir. Sincerely.

    May I add a couple of points please...

    1) I've read several times over the Net, "I need to buy a battery grip for my OM-D, because making it look bigger would make a better impression with my clients"

    I wonder how much truth this observation carries... hmmm...

    2) I have a history of ~20 years as a semi-pro musician (including about 5 as my only source of income, which means "pro", I suppose). Guitar player to be specific.

    Especially during the late 80s and most of the 90s, the trend was for studio players to show up carrying a huge rack (or two) plus 4-5 guitars plus a couple of 4X12" guitar cabinets. Still, the best performances I've witnessed where of some dude with a Tele, one pedal and a crappy old amp.

    Today, natural selection led us to where you can have much better results (and a lot less hassle and expense) using modestly small modeling processors in the studio. Let me tell you, there is absolutely no way a listener would now the difference. As a matter of fact, even some people with "golden ears" insisting that they hear a difference were misserably proven wrong in several blind tests.

    To carry the analogy to photography, the world is full of photographers making fantastic pictures with one camera, one or two lenses and a couple of flashguns. Let's not forget it's the result that matters. And how the "consumer" appreciates and validates this result. If any system can produce said result, then it's adequate for the project. If it's not, it's not; this is something only experience and testing should prove.
     
  20. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    And notably, there are a great many 'amateurs' who produce work that runs circles around the work of many who earn money with cameras. There's entirely too much babble about what cameras are good for 'professional photographers' and what isn't. Each individual case is independent on the basis of a wide variety of different reasons.

    The fact is that a skilled, talented photographer can make awesome images with cameras as small and simple as an iPhone.

    Pro or not pro puffery and talk on amateur-oriented forums is often a bunch of babble.