'Vita. Character created by Jaston Williams. ©2020 Kirk Tuck
11.07.2020
Second Entry: Portrait from a project with Jaston Williams. Different characters for a one person play about a small town in Texas. More coming.
Sandee. Character by Jaston Williams. ©2020 Kirk Tuck
11.05.2020
A Nice Distraction from the Post Election Day Jitters. How about a concert under the stars?
Chanel at Zach Theater's "Songs Under the Stars" concert.
An amazing voice coupled with a wonderful stage presence.
Last night was a night to go a little retro. I was asked to photograph Chanel's show at Zach Theatre for their outdoor concert series. I was delighted to be able to do so. It was a relaxed and chilled out evening and that was in stark contrast to the pervasive angst many people are experiencing because of the election drama. I showed up for our outdoor concert, grabbed a box of buttery popcorn from the concession stand, along with a plastic cup of Cabernet Sauvignon (and a straw....) and grabbed my little square of space. It's a space where I can see all the angles of the main and secondary stage but not be in any audience member's line of sight.
I preset my cameras and munched fresh, hot popcorn as the temperature dropped into the delicious 60's. If my tripod actually had a cup holder I would have put my wine there but I didn't even bring a tripod so even my libation was strictly handheld. I do find it impossible to shoot well with a camera+long lens in one hand and a beverage in the other so I parked the wine cup on the ground, next to my extra camera. I figured they could keep each other company.
I didn't want to carry in a bunch of camera gear because I'm getting lazy and jaded and starting to believe my own propaganda about the photographer being much more important than the gear. Instead of the big S1x cameras and their ponderous (but exquisite) lenses I chose to shoot the entire show with a doddering old Panasonic GH5 (firmware 2.7) and the newly acquired Pana/Leica 50-200mm f2.8-4.0. As an acknowledgment of the high magnification of the lens I grudgingly pulled an ancient monopod from the cargo areas of America's most coveted high performance car, the Subaru Forster. I used it for almost every shot, flurry of shots, collection of images, etc. Belinda gave me that favored monopod for my birthday in 1980. Remind me to tell you about it. Wow. A forty year old piece of photo gear.
Old habits die hard so I brought along a Panasonic G9, and the other Pana/Leica lens I use; the 12-60mm f2.8-4.0. It spent the night keeping my cup of red wine company, down near my feet. I just can't leave home for a job without a back-up solution...
The concerts last about an hour and fifteen minutes and the lighting doesn't change, shift, turn other colors, etc. so once you've ranged in your color temperature and hue corrections, and arrived at a good exposure for each part of the stage areas, your brain work is all done and all that's left is a responding to your visceral reaction to the music and the showwomanship of the performer. And Chanel (love the one name thing) is very much a world class singer. She is performing here in Austin this week but heading over to London's West End theater district to star in a production about Tina Turner. That's the big time.
I over-shot. But that's hardly unusual. I was in the mood so I photographed with raw files instead of Jpegs and the only real difference that makes, which impacts my workflow, is that it takes twice as long for Lightroom to convert from raw to jpeg than from jpeg to "other" jpegs. I was aghast when I looked at the frame count. It was about 1100. I edited down to a bit under 400 for delivery today but I sure left a lot of really good stuff on "the cutting room floor."
There's no job-ness feeling to the stuff I shoot for Zach Theatre. I decide when I'm going to show up. I decide what I'm going to photograph and what I'll deliver. It's up to me to select cameras, lenses, etc. I can wear my most comfortable shoes. I can get discounted beverages from the bar...
When the show ended and the applause died down I tossed a camera over each shoulder, finished my wine and sealed up my popcorn box. I brought the half full box home thinking I'd munch more popcorn as I edited files today but Ben and Belinda beat me to it and wiped out my popcorn stash last night while I worked, unaware, out in the studio.
Job overwhelmyness. I've been shooting non-stop this week and tomorrow we'll cap the work week with a full day of product and process/demo photography over at Luminex. I'm working with a fun and kind art director but he wants us to be there by eight. Yes, a.m. I'm working with a new assistant, a guy named Austin who also designs and implements stage lighting at Zach Theatre. I have high hopes that, with a good assistant, I can become ever lazier and still get overpaid. We have a full day ahead of us, working in the belly of corporate America. I am steeling myself for the experience. But there will be breakfast tacos and coffee so all is not bleak.
On Saturday we're doing a three camera video shoot of Chanel's concert back at the theater. Sunday is set aside for seemingly endless postproduction and archiving. I am three jobs behind on photo retouching at this point. Monday we're back at Luminex till 2:30 and then back over to the theater at 5:00 to film Chanel for a different (undisclosable --- at this time) project. We'll be doing a three camera filming adventure on the theater's main stage for this. Tuesday we have a full day booked in our studio by an ad agency to shoot lifestyle portraits and then, Wednesday, I'm back at the theater to shoot video of an entirely different concert.
At some point I'll put my foot down and command myself to take the rest of the year off. And that will be good because I'm about to write a fabulously nasty diatribe about Adobe ruining my life (very short term) by changing everything I've spent 20+ years learning in Photoshop. Rat Bastards! One day all my adjustment panels are there and the next....poof! they're all gone. Grrr. Hours and hours wasted yesterday. Stay tuned and I'll help you understand my rage at them. But I am still using their products so I guess, ultimately, they win.
I hope the election stuff doesn't have you mired down in angsty depression. Every body is couching it as the battle royale between socialists and death cult Nazis. But I think that's wrong headed. Democrats aren't socialists...... they're pretty main stream.
11.03.2020
11.02.2020
Seen in downtown Austin yesterday.
They passed the intelligence test.
How can I tell? They're wearing their masks.
They are protecting me while I photograph them.
It's the opposite of selfish.
also, they are not screaming obscenities at me from the cab of
a pick-up truck....
Zooms Versus Primes All Over Again. But with a 2020 perspective.
Noellia at Zilker Park.
50mm Sony lens on an APS-C Nex7.
While growing into photography and all through my career I've understood the underlying truth of lenses as being tools subject to a strict divide; that the very best optical results always come from prime/single focal length lenses while zoom lenses are useful for convenience and, while constantly improving, zooms will never, ever be as good as the best primes. The law of lenses was demonstrably true when I started in photography in the 1970s. Today, maybe not so much.
Back then you had three choices: good single focal length lenses, cheap and crappy zoom lenses or expensive and....usable zoom lenses. As zoom lenses improved there was a new thought wrinkle tossed in to appease the hurt feelings of people who really, really want to use zooms. It was a new amendment to the law which postulated that while zooms would never match the performance of the same range of individual prime lenses the shorter the zoom ratio the better your chances were of getting something decent out of your zoom. But the new amendment was always greeted with the sideways look of disdain and the assumption that pros and real artists always pulled a prime lens out of their bags when they were aiming for perfection.
Change comes slow when it's wrapped in unsubstantiated opinion. Somewhere in early 2000's camera makers started producing zoom lenses that gave film era primes a decent run for their money. In particular the optical performance of the more expensive 28-70mm f2.8, 24-70mm 2.8 and 80-200mm f2.8 lenses took a big leap forward. Followed by several extra-wide angle zooms. I remember being surprised and impressed by the first Canon EOS 20-35mm L zoom and then again by Nikon's 14-24mm zoom. For the first time these zooms actually produced better images (in most regards) than some of their contemporary single focal length brethren.
Ten years later the dam burst open and the majority of photographers opted to make the "holy trinity" of zooms (16-35, 24-70 and 70-200, all f2.8) their first choice for professional tools. But in spite of this lens makers continue to design, make and offer ever more complex and performance intensive primes. And some of us keep buying them. It makes me wonder where the truth lies. Or if there are different truths for every user.
In my mind, given the wonderful quality I'm getting from the Panasonic S-Pro zooms, and the great optical quality I see from Canon and Nikon premium zoom lenses, I'm starting to wonder if the only reasons to own prime lenses anymore are for situations that call for very fast apertures (and every new prime seems to be entered into a race for the biggest maximum aperture) to create very, very narrow depth of field or....for bragging rights created by the enduring presupposition that the primes are "always" better.
I sometimes allow myself to be seduced by the promise of almost infinite quality available from some prime lenses. How else to explain the expenditure of $2300 for the Panasonic 50mm f1.4 when I have a perfectly serviceable Sigma 45mm, a Zeiss 50mm f1.7, and a few other adapted 50s; along with two different, high quality zooms that cover the same 50mm focal length. I've never had occasion to use the S-Pro 50mm for any commercial assignment at anywhere near its maximum aperture and while I like the manual focus clutch mechanism it's hardly worth the money I paid for the lens. I understand that if I had a style of photography that was dependent on shooting everything wide open this would be a good solution for that focal length but therein lies the rub.
There are a number of times that I do want to shoot with a fast lens wide open but usually it's not at the focal length of the lens at hand. I might see a shot that would look great at 30mm or 90mm or 75mm or 22mm but which looks boring at 50mm. It's true that I could buy lenses that are approximate to almost every focal length I might want to use but I'd be carrying around a bag (or several bags) with dozens of pounds of lenses in it. And then I'd have to sort through the selection, find the right lens, remove the existing lens from the camera, place the chosen lens on the camera and then watch as whatever subject I was getting ready to photograph exits the area and vanishes altogether. Wholly un-photographed.
Many photographers of my age (plus or minus ten, or even twenty years) point to the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson and announce that he did quite well as a photographer and only used his 50mm lens 90% of the time. The implication being that HCB declined to use zooms or even a big range of lenses because he found them unworthy. The reality, I suspect, is two fold: First there were no zooms available in the time period during which he worked, and secondly, he traveled extensively and often declared that he worked best when he packed lightly. He was concerned not with getting the perfect shot but in capturing the perfect moment - which is a much different thing. He was also intent on navigating through public spaces in the most anonymous and discreet way possible. One small camera clutched by his side in one hand so as not to call attention to himself...
I find myself in a quandary created by my own situation of having a foot in each camp; mostly as a result of living through the tumultuous evolution of lenses. From the primacy and availability of single focal length lenses to an age where zooms are ubiquitous, accepted, acknowledged and mostly given parity with primes by all but the most dedicated or deluded photographers and clients.
How else to explain it?
I raise the question after using a number of zooms over the past few weeks. And most recently after having used the new (to me) Panasonic/Leica 50-200mm f2.8-f4.0 zoom on a GH5. While I have a bunch of random primes for the m4:3 system the two most recent zooms, the 50-200mm and the 12-60mm Panasonic/Leica lenses, are giving me results that are every bit as good or better -- from a photographic standpoint -- than the prime lenses. The only real benefit I get from the primes at this point is the ability to use wider apertures for pictorial effect. But that's profoundly offset by the ability of a zoom to cover so many focal lengths well.
I laughed to myself the other night. I had a 16mm f1.4 Sigma lens mounted on my GX8 camera and I was using the combo as a fourth video camera for a project. I presumed that I should be using the fastest lens possible until I thought through the process. I would be pre-focusing the lens to cover a range and then turn the camera on and leave it unattended for an hour. It would crank away creating endless 4K video files. But you already see the disconnection here, I'm sure. How on earth would the fast aperture (even if it's crazy sharp) help me keep a fairly wide range of performers in acceptable focus? Of course shooting at f1.4 would be silly. I selected f4.0 instead and focused carefully so the plane of sharpness would start at the closer performer and progressively fall off behind her. But since she was at 18 feet the f4.0 aperture would just about cover both her and the two performers on the other side of her. At f1.4? Not a chance. But at f4.0 the performance, especially for video, would have been equivalent with a zoom.
When I talked to a friend about the same project and about my frustration at not getting great close-up shots of performers (mostly from a compositional point of view) from a long distance he immediately suggested that I needed to get a 300mm or 400mm f2.8 lens for the full frame system and that would take care of my problem. There were a few issues with that solution. Either one of those lenses would cost me half the price of a new car. But that wouldn't matter since neither focal length is available for my system. And either choice would be extremely heavy. I'd need to buy a much more expensive video tripod and head to hold it all.
Since either lens would have a fixed focal length I'd have absolutely no control over composition as the performers moved closer and further away from my fixed location. Changing lenses during the shoot was a non-starter concept as the performance ran continuously and the video needed to be continuous as well. A fast enough zoom on a smaller format was exactly what I needed and having the ability to go from a mild telephoto point of view to an extreme telephoto one with the turn of a ring was just right.
Of course, there are times when the fast primes are just what the doctor ordered but those times are quickly getting narrowed down by the ever increasing positive evolution of zooms combined with better and better camera sensors.
Just thinking here but are primes destined to follow VHS tapes to the trash heaps of history? Will photographers continue to buy expensive, heavy and fast primes after zooms catch up with current prime lens performance? For many of us the real (and embarrassing) question is whether even our current (lack of) technical skills all but mask any current optical advantage of primes over zooms.
So, hypothetical: If you dropped me into some beautiful city and tasked me to make great images would I rather have a bag full of primes or one really well chosen zoom. Would I go with one body and one lens? Something like an S1 and the 50mm? Or a Leica digital rangefinder and a 35mm? Or would it be something more flexible like the S1R and a wider ranging zoom like the 24-105mm?
With the primes one might find oneself ignoring anything that didn't fit into the provided frame. With the zoom you'd have more options for composition but fewer options for really low light.
You can only carry so much. You can only make so many compositional selections. What is the right mix and, are we even asking the right questions?
I have a foot in both time periods. Both sides of the prejudice. I loved my Leica M3 with the 50mm Summicron. I took one to Paris as an only camera and had a blast not having to make too many choices. But then again, I loved the Sony RX10 3 with it's 24-600mm lens (which was remarkably good!!!) and the opportunity to shoot just about anything.
I'd be curious to know where readers stand on the issue. Or if there is really an issue or whether I'm just making another mountain out of a mole hill.
11.01.2020
Nearly four year old GH5 versus Nearly new Lumix S1H. Which is the more useful video camera? Well, I guess that all depends on what you're shooting...
Yeah. I know. You got a spreadsheet. You can prove you made the right choice.
But what if you get to make more than one choice?
I think it's so... cute... that many video content creators are forever searching for the "perfect" camera. You know, the ONE camera what will do EVERYTHING for them, and do all the stuff at the highest level. Of course those folks also presume that they can get all that for around $3,000. Maybe less. And off they'll go shooting miraculous stuff which they hope will buy them notoriety and/or fame on YouTube. Gosh, I wish life were so simple.
It seems to me that life and video both require a diverse collection of skills and gear with which to navigate well. Lately I am struck between my divided regard for two different cameras from the same company; the old GH5 and the newly arrived S1H camera, both from Panasonic.
You've read it everywhere before but the main differences between cameras with smaller, micro four thirds imaging sensors and full frame sensor cameras are these features: state of the art image stabilization, smaller size, lower weight, and (best of all) smaller and lighter lenses. The "smaller and lighter lenses" also means that the small sensor cameras are easier to design and build long lenses for.
The full frame cameras feature: bigger sensors, the benefits of which are bigger pixels/lower noise at high ISOs, more control over depth of field (in one direction < blur) and more surface area on the bodies on which to put more and better physical contact and control points.
Since the Lumix S1H is newer and higher priced camera it offers more state of the art, video-centric features; but not so many as to render the older camera totally obsolete. You have nicer screens and better EVFs on the S1H but in video a good external monitor quickly levels that playing field. Most of the improvements are in the realm of greater and greater flexibility for settings and codecs. The S1H has a full-fledged, professional V-Log codec while the GH5 has Panasonic's V-Log lite.
I really like the S1H and use it in a lot of controlled interview shoots and in situations where I know we'll be working at ISO 3200 to 6400. That's the sweet spot in which the newer camera starts to show its advantages over the smaller, older tech sensor. The S1H also has a nicer set of audio features and more "dynamic range" in the sound output. Along with more audio controls.
The S1H is a camera I'll grow into. The GH5 is a camera I'll leverage to the max right now.
Case in point. The S1H, and the entire Panasonic S1 system doesn't have a native lens longer than 200mm. I'm sure they'll get there but when they do it's going to be expensive. Maybe frightfully so. But with the GH5 there are two or three lenses right out of the gate that can get me the reach I sometimes need along with the quality I think I want.
I've spent two Saturdays now trying to use the S1H as a higher magnification, follow camera for night time concerts at Zach Theatre. I like using native lenses on the cameras because I can set the camera to deliver linear focus and I can also choose the total angle of rotation for the focusing ring that works best when I'm manually focusing. I'm finding that the physical operation, in this instance, is much, much more important that that mythic last ounce of quality in the files. If the footage is jittery, out of focus, and hard to focus then all the magic of 4K and high data throughput is meaningless. Especially so to the viewer.
I'm set up in a fixed position at these outdoor concerts because I need to cover two areas with one follow camera. I can get great wide and medium shots with stationary cameras but I'd really like to get tight coverage as well. When I hit the limits of the 200mm long end of the lens on the S1H I have to switch to an APS-C crop from full frame to get some extra reach. Now instead of using the full frame I'm using a crop in the middle of the frame. If I want to get closer still I can switch to the pixel to pixel setting which gives me a 2X crop but when shooting in 4K the lens is basically reading the same area as a GH5 would but the GH5 is sampling from all 20 megapixels instead of 8. Lenses created for smaller format cameras are optimized to provide more resolution and performance than the lenses designed to cover full frame sensors so, at least in theory, not only is the GH5 downsampling to 4K which should give us less noise but it's also delivering details to the pixels by way of a much higher resolving lens (if we're buying the good stuff from the lens offerings...).
(I started writing this before I left the office to go and shoot video last night... what follows this sentence was written this morning...)
I have two previous weeks of data and observation to call on for an even tighter comparison between the hands-on video performance of the two cameras. Last night I used the GH5 as my main video camera. It's the one I operate during the entire show, following whichever performer is the soloist at the time and on whichever stage he or she happens to wonder off to. I used the 50-200mm f4.0 (which is a full frame angle of view equivalent of 100-400mm at f4). I immediately observed that the additional depth of field of the smaller sensor made fine focusing much more forgiving. Even without access to linear focusing or more generous lens throws I was easily able to use the lens with manual focusing; checking the results in real time on the Atomos Ninja V monitor.
While I found myself, earlier in the week, needing some extra ISO for stills that's a function of the need to use shutter speeds that can do a better job at freezing action. With photographs that tends to be in the range of 1/200th to 1/250th of a second. Even with the f4.0 lenses used wide open the need for more ISO is evident.
But it's not at all the same when shooting video. My theater client (and editor) likes to work in 24 fps which means we're setting the cameras for 1/48th of a second shutter speeds (180°). Some will do the exact frame rate while others need to be set to 1/50th of a second because that's the closest we can get. But that's still two or two and a half stops slower than our required photographic shutter speeds so I'm able to use the camera, when shooting video, at around ISO 800, a setting which is easily handled by any of our front line camera units.
While the 70-200mm f4.0 S-Pro is a great performer, wide open, on a full frame camera; and a very able performer on APS-C video, by the time I have to crop down to a pixel-to-pixel magnification it's no great shakes. The 50-200mm lens for the m4:3 format is using the full frame at the same magnification and benefits from both the downsampling benefits and also having a design optimized to deliver great results with the small pixels.
Here's another thing I noticed when comparing my experience with both systems used in the same set up: The first week I was a sucker and bought into the "wisdom of the web" and turned off the image stabilization because the camera and lens were mounted on a tripod. What that really meant at the highest magnification was that I was giving up a lot of quality when actually handling the camera to make focus or zoom changes. While you might get artifacts when using the image stabilization with still photographs at certain shutter speeds the issues don't necessarily translate to tripod mounted cameras used in video mode.
Last week I turned on the lens and body image stabilization and was rewarded with much less camera jitter in those times when I had to handle the camera or lens. And the stabilization in the S1H worked well. But the dual stabilization in the GH5 is better! And when you add in the e-stabilization you can get away with a lot more camera handling without obvious penalties. You will go through batteries quicker but even with all the I.S. engaged I finished up the hour and fifteen minutes of performance with two bars out of five left on the battery indicator on the GH5. For comparison, I used an S1 with all the extra features turned off, as a stationary camera, and at the end of the same time period the battery indicator in that camera read 57% remaining. Nice.
If I were to base my video-oriented camera preferences solely on how well they shoot high magnification, moving performers from a stand-off distance I'd choose the GH5. Even more so when you calculate that you could buy three of them for the price of one S1H; and with the idea that creative content, in this instance, is even more important than any small difference in overall quality. Having three cameras gives you the chance to shoot three angles of events simultaneously which will make a lot of difference, in a nice way, when you sit down to edit the project.
But you knew a caveat was coming so here it is: While the GH5 is still totally relevant today (Yes, you can shoot high quality 60 fps at high data rates with no crop) the S1H has the potential to deliver higher quality content. The audio pre-amplifiers are cleaner, nicer to listen to and have more dynamic range. With the right subject matter the full frame video is sharper, cleaner and has more dynamic range. I also like the colors right out of the S1H better than those from the GH5 which I believe is the result of a new generation of color science versus the last gen. The version of V-Log in the S1H is better. The EVF and rear screen on the S1H are much better. And all of the setting features, meters and professional tools in the newer camera make it easier to get great results with. It's the camera I'd always bring to do corporate interviews or project on which the video footage has to be as good as I can get it.
And now the S1H has a bigger quality differentiator in the ability to shoot Pro Res Raw video in conjunction with the Atomos Ninja V. We've tested the footage shot that way and while it sucks up memory space it has the potential to be really, really good. Especially on those times when I've slowed down enough to get my initial settings right. In the best of both worlds I'd have at least one of each camera so I could match them to the kinds of project on which they would excel. And since we live in the best of both worlds that's pretty much what I've done.
But be aware that this is a moving target and my calculations might change if I test the Sigma 100-400 and find that it's great. Or, even better, Panasonic comes out with a long, fast native zoom for the S1 system. But for now I'll choose the GH5 and the 50-200mm lens for all the stuff that needs to be shot at a standoff distance and pull out the S1H when I can take complete control of the shooting parameters.
So, what kind of craziness did I engineer last night?
I was getting bored just shooting the Saturday concerts (a different cast and theme each week) with only three cameras so I added a forth one. I had one camera on a tripod with a long lens that could pan and cover the whole complex of stages. I had a second camera directly in front of the main stage and set to 35mm to cover the main action. I had a third camera on the "B" stage. That stages gets about 15% of the total play time that the main stage does but we need a camera there for wide coverage. Then, I added a fourth camera off at an angle to the main stage fitted with 16mm lens (32mm ff, eq.). Here they are in their configurations.
This was my main/follow camera. It's the GH5 outfitted with the new (to me)
50-200mm Panasonic/Leica lens, the Panasonic audio interface with
a feed from the main sound board, and an Atomos Ninja V monitor
which allows me to punch in to 1:1 or 2:1 while shooting to
fine tune focus. Something you can't do on the camera's own monitors.
A project saving accessory. And yes, it works with stills.
This is my camera used looking straight into the main stage. It's an S1 (with the upgrade) outfitted
with a Sigma 35mm Art lens and sitting on a Sirui tripod.
Do you see all the white tape everywhere? It's on the tripod, lens, on the camera and
on the lens hood That's so crew doesn't miss seeing the camera
as they move through the set and run into it. The camera is parked next to a railing
but you can never be too careful.
This little pup is a Panasonic GX8.
I've outfitted it with a Sigma 16mm f1.4 lens
used at f5.6. It's sitting on a Leica table top tripod
and that's sitting on the ground just next to a wall. On the far side of the wall
is the audience area. In front of the camera, at a 45° angle, is
the main stage. I just wanted something a bit different
and when I discovered that the "old" GX8 could
shoot 4K (in M4P) for an unlimited time I pressed it into service.
The files actually look great!!!
Finally, I'm using the S1H with a 24-105mm S lens as
the wide camera for the secondary stage area.
This camera got demoted when I discovered how good
the GH5+50-200mm lens could be.
It did a great job though.
Sitting on top of an old Gitzo tripod and a Manfrotto ball head.
One thing I did differently last night: There had been a lot of lighting changes since I last shot the show here but unlike a highly rehearsed and practiced stage show the lighting doesn't change during an individual performance of these smaller productions. I remembered to take along a favorite incident light meter and I carefully measured the actual light in the areas covered by all three of the fixed position cameras and then set them very exactly. The result is a bunch of technically better files to work with today.
On the main/follow camera I fine-tuned the exposure with a waveform reading on the screen of the Ninja, setting darker skin tone to 45-50%. It also produced technically perfect files for our use. The meter was much better than eye-balling stuff. And I can't remember the last time I saw a professional whip out a meter and use it. I bet I looked so cool. (That's a joke --- a program note for visitors from the humorless site).
So, "No good deed goes unpunished." Yep, we finally nailed the technical aspects of perfectly shooting a live stage show. The theater uses the finished, edited videos to make some extra cash by offering them behind a paywall on Vimeo. This should have been the video for this particular production. But, as fate would have it, the female performer was having some issues with her voice and two of her songs were scrubbed at the last minute. The creative team punted by adding a song each for the two male performers. I'm sure though that the artistic director had/has the original playlist burned into his brain and we'll be shooting this show again in two weeks when they hold it over for a three week run before Thanksgiving. Dammit. I was so close.
Funny. We say that cameras are just tools. But then we expect one camera to do everything. Like hammering framing nails with a Swiss Army knife. I really do believe that cameras are visual construction tools and like every other endeavor we do need different tools for different applications. Few people would be obtuse enough to try and put a four by five inch, technical view camera onto a drone. You might not want to shoot highly detailed material destined for monster big enlargements with an iPhone 5S camera. The fun thing about doing artistic work is that you get to choose the tools (plural) with which you'd like to work. And you aren't limited to having only one.
On the other hand, last night sure would have been interesting if all four of the camera had been GH5s...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)