Leaderboard

Yeah, first camera I ever used (in a studio setting) was a Sinar 4x5, and you could only clearly see the image under a dark cloth (with your head to one side, of course, because the image was upside down). Punch-in focus in those days meant using a stamp magnifier on the ground glass screen, and the exposure check was a Polaroid back slotted in to give some idea of what the exposure (usually measured in seconds) might actually look like.

That's why I only mentioned the smallest gimbals out there - I only use small cameras / lenses as possible (that's why I will never go full frame unless there is no option), and the smallest possible gimbal, to attract minimum attention on the streets when travelling. My last setup travelling pre-Covid was a GX85 with the 12-32 and the OG Crane M. Not a single glance from anyone. My current camera is a bit larger (X-S10) but the G6 Max is much smaller than the OG Crane M (it indeed almost look like a bottom handle), probably will not get attention too. But you are right, with a monitor and cable, probably will not be so discreet. And @webrunner5 have a point too, gimbals have a visual very different from handheld.

I only work with the Flat profile for all my work, but Panasonic Flat profile. Previously, I was a ‘Natural’ guy but I tried Flat earlier this year and immediately noticed I liked it more. I shoot S35 crop mode across all 4 bodies and with the S5 and S1H, 4k 50p and with my pair of S1R’s 5k 25p. If anything, I prefer the 5k footage. I guess it’s the different sensor it has, but IMO there’s some magic about the supposedly least video-centric of the S cameras. I just wish it would do 50p in this 10 bit 5k mode… The footage I like the least is that from the S1H shock horror. I think it’s due to the anti-aliasing filter and so I have the sharpening set higher in this unit and use my 2 sharpest lenses. And before anyone says you don’t want sharp output blah blah blah, actually I do because I can always reduce it in post whereas if it’s captured as mush… And by ‘sharp’ I don’t mean over-sharpened, but just something to my eye that does not look soft. Anyway, grading it… Simple and doesn’t need much. I use Première and simply adjust the highs, lows and sometimes mids. Then I might boost sat to 120% in landscape footage. Twiddle the colour balance if needed but skin tones tend to be pretty decent. As always, getting it as right in camera as possible is our friend, so WB along with exposure. Then a single layer Film Convert Nitrate film stock customised to my tastes plus a second single layer of secret sauce that just adds the final ingredient to my ‘look’ et voila, done. But SOOC, Flat is my standard and I like it 👍

Have you tried playing with Saturation vs Colour Boost? Sat expands all saturation evenly, whereas CB only expands the low-sat stuff and doesn't increase the high-sat stuff, so using various combinations of them you might have a setting that doesn't need any masks. Maybe a combo of Sat with negative CB to boost stronger colours and not over-do the skintones? Any time you can apply an overall adjustment vs pulling a key is always safer. You could also try the spider-web tool (Colour Warper) to boost sat for all hues except the skintones?

Yeah, they seem to over-blur the things close behind the subject and under-blur the things a long way behind the subject. I would have thought that they'd apply a progressive blur? The depth-camera is surely able to give zones where things are further away, although the more zones you have the more edges you have to navigate so I guess that's a potential issue. For me it's the lack of progression to being blurred that makes them look odd. I saw a video the other day where the subject filmed at a wide aperture in front of a landscape with everything a long way from the subject and it created this two-levels kind of look which immediately looked fake, but I think it was real and just how the scene was. It's kind of like when 3D graphics first got good and you'd get used to the tell-tale signs of how they looked fake, but every now and then you'd see one of those signs in real-life and do a double-take.

Sensor size will increase, but it will be subject to limiting factors. One, diminishing returns and less demand for what a larger sensor size can get you. Not everybody in the market will need or care. Second, AI will increasingly simulate what larger sensors offer. Doesn't mean Apple and Google will dominate the pro industry. The pros will remain; what won't be the large prosumer market that buys pro gear for no good reason. They won't be able to afford the pro gear nor will they need it.

Sure: https://firehorsephotographyfrance.com/2022-weddings/the-two-sams-wedding 90% handheld with a pair of S1R’s, Sigma 35mm f2 and 65mm f2, 5k 30p plus church (dim) and barn speeches (dark, lit with single LED panel), S1H and S5 in 4k 60p. There’s shade, bright sunlight, backlighting, golden hour…the lot. There’s even some AF tracking! 😬 And a bit of lighting flicker/banding so gone back to shooting 25p and 50p as a result! Flat profile, light grade as previously described. I’m not a grading expert so it’s more a ‘good enough for the purpose’ grade. Pity the 5k is not available in 50/60p, but then there’s a 15 minute record limit for 5k on the S1R so not good for ceremonies or speeches. So for now, I use the 4/5k mix and look forward to seeing what Panny do next with the S line.

Yeah, you have to nearly shoot wide open using film that you are bound to get X amount out of focus. Film is not easy to use in any aspect of it. Although if you have ever seen some of Ansel Adams B&W stuff in person it is pretty special. But using an 8x10 negative sort of helps lol. Largest view camera I ever had was a 5x7. Had lots of 4x5 ones. I loved shooting with them. A Toyo field camera is a treat also.

The P2K is under 70mm tall. The Crane M is 346mm tall, and the rig looks like it would be taller with the camera mounted on it... so literally 5 times taller! I'm not even sure it would fit into my bag either 🙂 Maybe you don't get odd looks when you're using it in public, but I've used a phone gimbal before and people looked at me like I was carrying a sword rather than a gimbal. I'm not entirely convinced that it would hold up in the howling wind either, which is basically the point - if the wind wasn't so strong I wouldn't have had so much of a rotation problem to begin with and OIS would have been fine.

Actually, about 4 years ago I was having coffee with a wedding planner and she was gushing about 'Mr Bigshot film photographer' and how he used film and was "the best" so could charge so much more than anyone else. In her words, "he's on another level". So later, out of curiosity, I looked him up and his wedding work at the same venue I have worked at. And then fell about the floor laughing as at least 1/4 of his work was out of focus or had so much motion blur, it was obvious he was using far too slow a film stock in lower light conditions. On "another level"? On "another planet" more like. The little known planet called Delusion. His portrait stuff was good, but he was and still is a one trick pony. The rest of his wedding coverage was below average in my opinion. But hey, what do I know...

My first wedding and from then on until I went digital was 8 rolls of 36 exp, 4x colour and 4x B&W in 2x Nikon F3 bodies, each with a 50mm, so 288 max poss. I then had a cost option to go to 10 or 12. Developed and printed the first one (B&W) at home. Never again. Today I shoot an average 2000-3000 frames at a wedding depending on whether it's 1, 2 or 3 days coverage (with those days either side being 1/2 days and often limited in material) and typically 500-700 make the cull to edit and then present to clients. I do double tap most shots and may take 5-6 of the same scene from slightly different angles or more as it develops. Could I go back to 'shoot 300, provide 300'? Probably, but the safety net would have been removed as would a large chunk of creativity because whilst some may machine gun for no reason other than a lack of confidence, the biggest bonus of digital has been we can be more creative without it costing us anything. How much is a typical buy/expose/scan/cheap print roll of 36exp film today? 25 dollars/euros/pounds? That would be 200 gone today, every job. To shoot what even I do on film today, cost per job would be an average 1736 dollars/euros/pounds with an average 69 roll changes and would require large stocks of all kinds of different film speeds. What. A. Frikkin. Nightmare. I think there is a market for film photography for weddings, but it's not shooting it like digital because that would be insane.

Yeah, they haven't got it figured out yet, but no doubt they will fix in the long run. Just a matter of time.

Hahaha... the flat background is unmistakable. I like it how in an attempt to make the photo have more depth, it just makes the background look like a green-screen or a poster mounted a few feet behind the subject of the photo.

That looks really good - great use of tech and I'm sure that it would be really useful to lots of people. You need an electronically controlled lens of course, but I wonder if a similar setup might be possible using something like a wireless follow-focus perhaps.

Good points! I suppose with practice I’ll get good results. Gotta be much more careful in camera lol!

Well for all you BM guys out there looking for focus and AF help this may be a cheap answer.

It looks way more natural than a Gimbal. I am a old ENG guy I know what a weighted camera does. But they weigh 20 plus pounds. And even then you don't learn how to use them overnight, or a Stedicam either.. Video is hard.

The challenge is that I want to keep the rig as small as possible - the beauty of the camera is that it's so small. I also own the BMMCC but with a monitor and cables you get strange looks which I'd like to avoid. A gimbal would make the vertical size of the camera 10x larger, hardly a compact solution! Realistically, the smallest addition would be a side-handle, but even then it's doubling the width of the camera and making it look far more odd to the public. I was using it in wind so strong that I couldn't keep the camera still enough with my two hands. A steadicam would probably break in the kind of conditions I was in - let alone make the shaking worse by acting as a large sail. Yeah, the handle / viewfinder is the typical solution, but it doesn't work well for what I want. Firstly, the viewfinder is great if you want to make your cinematography "I shoot from eye-level" but that's not a great way to make interesting images. The handle underneath the camera also doesn't work in strong winds as the issue is that the wind hits the camera from the side and the camera rotates around where you're holding it - which in that case would be below the camera - creating a roll. People don't seem to understand my original post - I was cradling the camera with my left hand which was under the body of the camera and holding the lens, and my right hand was firmly on the hand-grip on the right-hand-side of the camera (and is actually quite a good grip as it's quite deep and covered in grippy rubber) but the camera was still being severely shaken with the wind.

I would love to try out those large sensor phones. It's pretty incredible already what my Huawei P30 (which I bought for $250 CAD) can do by guessing at focal distance and combining images from it's three lenses. What I'll often do on a recreational excursion is bring a longer prime for my Nikon Z6 (either an 85 or 50 usually) and use the smartphone for wide shots, where depth of focus can be deeper. I absolutely adore the in-body raw photo editing in the Nikon, and Adobe Photoshop Raw on the phone is a pretty annoying and terrible program, but I would imagine that software will advance quickly and that'll help further blur the difference between the two devices. We can't really fight change, I'm learning to use both. Here are some shots from each, I'm sure you'll be able to tell which are which, but I think you'll be surprised how similar they are.

Define ‘good’…. A bit mental is the term I would use. Since 8th April, other than 2 family days off, I have worked every day min 12 hours, whether that be shooting, traveling to or from, or editing/doing admin. I am currently 4.5 weddings behind on the editing side. By the end of this month, I will be 9 weddings behind… I am never behind. Well rarely by 1 or 2 max and I quickly catch up during the season, but this one is the mother of all seasons. And then there will still be the Sep jobs and 1 in early Oct. Some great events and couples. Some less so… It will take me up until the end of Nov at least to catch up and then I can breathe once more. The downside has been that in 2021 when I shifted to L Mount, I had a more limited kit but made the best use of it. This year has added more (needed) kit and I have juggled various combos around but the problem has been I have had to shoot another 2-3 weddings before I fully know the result of any prior wedding where I have made changes. Only a few blips along the way and a couple of bits of kit I intended to sell, I have kept and I don’t miss anything I have sold. Sold the Panny 85mm f1.8 and the freebie Sigma 45mm f2.8 with zero regrets. Not yet sold the DJI Action 2 which is the only bit of kit I am not using. Back on the fence over the VND EF to L Mount adapter and Meike cine lens and it’s the other bit of kit I have shelved. Just can’t find a place for it now I’ve moved a few lenses around. Pity because the quality it produces is great.

Sure - I'll revise my statement to "They're essentially really good, really small, really affordable, camcorders." Were you comparing the "Smell of Village" video to the OG BMPCC? If so, the video looked good and was obviously shot as RAW, but beyond it being RAW and deep DoF, it doesn't look anything like a OG BMPCC to me. It looks more like a smartphone that can record RAW. I looked at OG BMPCC footage only days ago, and even SOOC the footage just screamed "film" to me. The grain and texture and resolution and sharpness are all on-point for film, and nothing like the high-quality high-resolution very-modern presentation of that "Smell of Village" film. I've said it in other threads but it's worth repeating - I think people have forgotten what film actually used to look like. If someone posted stills of non-recognisable moments from big blockbuster films and TV shows shot on film, the response would be akin to "your lens is broken" rather than "looks cinematic".