Does top end equipment produce exceptional images...??

I recently posted a Fine Art Nude image on a photography site - www.photosig.com - which seems to be one of the better managed sites focusing on image critique.

I had an interesting comment from a photographer who questioned quality of images vs quaity of equipment.  Another sage observation by a sculptor photographer who commended the apparent three dimensionality of the image. I replied to both of these critiques briefly on the site and mentioned that I would prefer to discuss both the query and the observation in depth on my fledgling blog -  so today I am tackling the equipment issue.

In Fine Art Nude studies the model to me is the primary input and key to a successful image. Without a great model who takes direction well and is willing to to go the extra yard to finesse an image - the project will be stillborn. Lighting folows in second place and the camera - for sure - taking the bronze.

Lighting set ups can be as simple or complex as the photographer desires. The key being, to keep the set up as simple as possible making sure that any additional lighting instruments added, whether backgrounds, hair /accents/rims and kickers actualy improve and augment the image and are not there just to show off your prowess as a master lighter or your inventory of toys and tricks.

Cameras in third place?  Absolutely. A bottom of the range DSLR today with a cheap prime is all you need to capture gallery quaity images - so why spend more?  Many photographers - myself included - will try and justify the additional expense of buying top of the range cameras and lenses. We all have our reasons, some more sensible than others.  Personally I capture 90% of my images on digital medium format.  I can - and will in this blog - extoll the virtues of MF above that of 35mm. The fact though remains that great images can be captured on entry level cameras.

Is flash photography going to make an exit.....?

I have a friend who is a pro photographer in Boston. A few years ago when the US economy was lying mauled and bleeding and the rent he was paying for his high street studio was approaching the income derived from it, he made this observation.

"It's this cheap Chinese studio equipment that's killing the pro market." He whinged.
"Couple of hundred bucks, two lights a few umbrellas and a backdrop and your'e a portrait photographer."

Realistically good studio lighting kit doesn't come cheap. I recently bought ten 450 joule/second monoblocks of the Chinese persuasion for less than a single ProFoto head.  Could they replace professional equipment by Bron, Hensel and others?  No of course not but for the occasional high risk or specific application where cycle times, colour consistency or longevity isn't an issue, they are fine.

I am sure photographers have been complaining about innovative cheap products making the profession more accessible since Kodak introduced the "box" brownie in 1900. Bet you the same thing happened after WW2 when the Germans and then the Japanese started manufacturing affordable entry level SLR's and that's before digital. When the first digital cameras came out pros didn't seem to be overly concerned as the thought that these digital toys could compete at the same level as film cameras seemed absurd. It only took a few years before film cameras were becoming obsolete. Then die hard film aficionados were predicting the end of the professional photography world so to speak.  The professional imaging industry is a pretty resilient beast though. Even today where a few hundred dollars will buy you a camera and lens so good that professionals were using the same system a few years ago, there is still a need for professional photographers. It's really about the ability to produce consistently good images often under difficult or less than ideal circumstances that identify the pro.

The real game changer in this evolution of image capturing instruments  and accessories is ISO.  With useable ISO now in the thousands you really don't need to blast away with gallons of watt seconds of strobe lighting. Pro wedding photographers are capturing glorious images on Canons and Nikons with f1.2 and f1.4 lenses inside places of worship in available light. Ten years ago the same image would be illuminated with hundreds of watts of ozone burning lumens as the vicar glared at the photographer with disdain.  Portrait photographers are beginning to use continuous light to illuminate their clients. Not continuous as in blinding hot 1000 watt Arris but gentle 100 watt light sources equivalent to your bedside reading lamp. The advantages are enormous working this way. The obvious  being that this truely is a  WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) approach. Sure strobes have got modeling lights that enable you to anticipate the final result of the capture but anticipate it is. Once the strobe fires the surge of light is a lot different from the modeling light as the pulse is diffused, bounced and scattered around the subject. Using a continuous light source makes it much easier to refine and finesse an image resulting in better images that are easier to produce - now that's a recipe that should make the pros loose a bit of sleep.