A camera and arranger keyboard are only...

as good as the person behind it. I learned about the camera from Lefty Kreh, one of the world's best known fly anglers and outdoor photographers. Care to venture a guess who this one is?

Have fun,

Gary

WHAT - No guesses yet?

Gary

Believe it or not, this is a young Captain Russ.

All the best,

Gary

When was it taken, 1918?



chas

Yea, it's me, about 2011. The camera is a Calumet, about 10 years old. It's a monorail or view camera, and believe it or not, still a primary tool for certain work: particularly architectural photography. Companies like Toyo still make them. The body is relatively cheap...about $1500-5,000.00. Lenses can go $5,000 up.

Why use such a dinosaur? Two things:

First, the lense(s) often stop down to f64. The f stop adjustment is how you adjust depth of field, a critical variable in fine photography and architectural work. A good digital hand held lens usually stops down to 22 at a maximum.

2nd, the front lens board and the back which holds the digital sensor or film plate, and the side adjusters tilt and swing. If you use a stock camera, without this capability, everything is fine if you are shooting something "straight on". But, shooting from the top, the top is wider than the bottom. From the base of a building, for instance, the base is wider than the top. The wider the angle of the lens, the more pronounced is the distortion.

While you can correct some of this with Photoshop, you really need to use tilts and swings to get it right. You simply adjust the front, back and side standards so the taking medium is parallel to the object being photographed. The back of the film/digital unit holder has a glass with grids to use to correct the distortion.

The plate size (film or digital back) is 4x5 inches. By the time you use film, with one shot "on" exposure and a back-up, develop the negs and proof, you're talking about $10.00 a shot. With digital, the files are so big that nothing but a hard-wired computer with massive memory works. If you use film, you still have to do an expensive scan. But, if the final image is 20 x 30 feet, this is the only way to go. Even at $100.00 a finished shot cost, if the project: say a 16 page brochure contains 25 images, cost is $2500.00 of the $50,000.00 a top end run of 100,000.00 would be. And the smaller images with no parallel lines can be shot with smaller, faster and cheaper cameras (no scans). Scans vary in price by size.

On top of that, the images are upside down and backwards, and you close the lens before each shot, so you don't see what you're shooting last minute.

Why use this kind of equipment? For one reason, a full 8"x10" is 200% of the whole image. With old 35mm film, a complete image blow-up was 10"x12", which required careful shooting, cropping and additional grain.

When you shoot magazine covers, you simply place a negative containing the image of the masthead and the copy and shoot the image around those elements.

For rectangular products (washer and dryers, amplifiers, etc.) and architectural work correcting this kind of distortion separates the "men from the boys".

Lack of speed makes this a camera best suited to meticulous composition and extended sessions.

Excuse the rant, but we talk cameras here often. Wouldn't recommend one of these for most work, but for specific high end commercial stuff, its the best way to go. And, rates, depending on your reputation, go as high as $2,400.00 per day, plus $600 up for an assistant.

Take a 2nd look at photos next week. It's easy to tell where this kind of equipment was used, ad where it should have been.

Pop quiz to follow.

Russ(4-eyes) Lay

You need an assistant?

Chas, I rendered the output to change color and contrast, into a black and white, just to be sneaky.

Don, you know photographers charge for the assistant, but pay
about $20.00 per hour. The extra charge is for gaffers, support crew, etc. Some recent shoots required 5 people from the office.

R.

Found another shot of Russ at work.

Really like that one! Camera works the same! That's at least an 8"x10" probably bigger. That's partially because finished photos were exactly the size of negs...no enlargements.

Lighting is a little better today. And, my mustache isn't as cool!

Thanks,

Russ

Hmmmm! There is a striking resemblance, Russ.

As for the assistants, I sold a lot of cover shots in my day, but never felt the need for an assistant to do anything. Now, I did have to pay some models once in a while, but the fee was just $30 an hour plus travel expenses. With few exceptions, the models were mostly male, dressed in specific outdoor attire suitable for the subject matter of the magazine, and all they had to do was be able to cast a dry fly while standing in a creek, or run a boat while I shot the photos from the shore or a bridge. Most of the time, I used my teenage children for those cover shots - they loved the money, loved being on the cover of a major sports magazine, and they loved the outdoors. Wow, that was a long time ago.

Here's the cover shot I like the best, though. It is my grandson when he made the cover of a sporting apparel catalog.



Gary

Gary, some shoots require more than one strobe system, generators (to eliminate face shadows between 10 AM and 2:00 PM), and enclosure for changing and lots more. Often, video and stills are shot at the same time and location.

Like everything else, what pays (photos of washers and dryers...UGH) pays more than say, scantily clad women...DAMN!

Mostly, the fee is a function of the size of the print run or web exposure, the rep of the model and the size of the print, collateral or media budget as much as it is talent of the photographer.

Great shot of your grandson!


R.

Russ, one of the neatest things I learned from Lefty Kreh about facial shadows was there are no shadows in the shade. Worked like a charm! When I could not avoid the sun, I had some spring loaded reflectors that I used to hot light certain areas. Might still have some around here, and I do, you are more than welcome to them.

My proudest cover shot was one of a red fox sleeping in the snow, which was shot from my living room window using a relatively low resolution digital camera. The camera was just 2.1 megapixel, however, the lens was a 20:1 macro-zoom with outstanding optics. I sold this one to the Weekend Section of the Washington Post and also wrote the feature story around the photo that pertained to photographing wildlife during the dead of winter. Back then, the Post only paid me an extra $100 for the cover photo and $200 for the feature store, but that was in 1982. I suspect the price range for a cover photo has increased substantially since then - at least I would hope so.

All the best,

Gary