Comments on: To Gear or Not To Gear

By: Macro Love « Photography By Leighton

Macro Love « Photography By Leighton — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 22:55:04 +0000

[...] really hard to break out my zoom lens these days. I found this really interesting article on “gearing down“. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Change is Good.Last nightI fall to [...]

By: Just a Camera and a Subject. Simplicity Can Be Fun. | LIGHTING ESSENTIALS For Photographers

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:35:50 +0000

[...] other post I wanted to mention was the ‘To Gear or Not To Gear’ article where there was a discussion about exactly that. I think this was actually the first [...]

By: Grant Harder

Grant Harder — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:56:26 +0000

Frank was in Vancouver last year for a job and I had the pleasure of assisting him. Yes, he brings a lot of gear. He’s well prepared. It can take a serious kit to make something look naturally lit in less than optimum conditions. I think I took more away from that job than any other and I know a couple of others feel the same way. I definitely have an appreciation for work that may look effortless….because it probably wasn’t.

By: Bree

Bree — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:16:23 +0000

True dat Heather! The Obama set was superboring.
A volume deal.

By: Heather

Heather — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:37:15 +0000

Hey assistant- just to clarify, I have worked with Frank and know what it takes to get that natural light he so carefully crafts. Frank definitely falls into the camp of my next line: (or maybe they use a lot of gear to make it look natural- regardless…).

And Bree- thanks, as ever for the scholarship but I’d add Nadav’s NYTMag shoot with the Obama peeps to my list of disappointments in a second. In this case, even the master can’t rise above the constraints of the time he had with each subject. And, without a gimic (Platon/Schoeller) it didn’t work on any level.

Soley: No, LA. Actually, the criticism against Peggy and this photoshoot can be levelled more squarely if you consider the outtakes which can be found on the Vanity Fair site. In these you see extremely contrived poses. I don’t fault her for doing them- sure, try it out (shoot that shit- see tomorrow’s post) but why oh why would Vanity Fair show these (HMAb considered) outtakes?

By: Soley

Soley — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:57:20 +0000

Bree has a point especially if this is shot digitally. The only challenging part on the photographers part of making this image was if she had shot it with film, and even then its a pretty standard portrait. The actors are doing what they do best as well as the directors of VF. Having lit this with strobes properly in studio or in a dark locale would be as pleasing as there have been nice shots of this gang done this way, but the question would be if she is diverse enough to change from different mediums of lighting and produce an ultra fab result. I take it she does not live in Seattle?

By: assistant

assistant — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:22:32 +0000

Frank Hoedl ungeared? Of all the people I’ve assisted for, Frank (on location) brings, by far, the most gear. Nothing against him by any means, but lord, he brings a lot of stuff.

By: Watson

Watson — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:41:02 +0000

I agree that it is good to keep the gear light and concentrate on your subject. It also offers a change of pace and forces you to trouble shoot in a different way.

However I suggest to all new shooters to also learn how to light with strobes. Don’t ignore it. I have encountered many junior and senior level photo students who out of convenience (not style choice) only shoot in natural light. The key to this info about Sirota is that she still modifies and controls the light even though it is just natural light. It also fits her style and subject. Ironically modifying natural light with an overhead silk can require more gear and set up time than a portable strobe set up.

By: Bree

Bree — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:09:35 +0000

Yes to Peggy Sirota. She’s gifted with tapping into fun spirited results. However i would say photographing the young beautiful and rich is not a challenging ground from which to work. There is an undeniable default that makes this work successful.
Mining nearly ecstatic energy from lay people or wannabees takes levity of character and practice. You can’t learn that at school!

Of course it also takes a formidable personality to move in close on the power circuit, the likes of Abminijad or Mugabe. Platon’s account of shooting Putin is incredible for its adventure and endurance factors. Platon is also a decent guy but c’mon …..the head shot is sooooo unremarkable.
It is formulaic and banal – ESPECIALLY when dealing with a powerful figures who offer (even high profile outlets) 5-10 mins of their precious time. These pictures act like a vault – got ‘em he/she is in the vault – they show a high degree of grooming detail but little else.
They serve as a great problem solving method but they fail to be intimate even while being intimately close. Bummer.
Is it only me who is unmoved by them?

And likewise the ‘artistic scheme’ – the light the framing the lens – sails close to the wind. Did not Avedon, Pyke and Scholler (others before now…)trade on this treatment in earlier days? I am quite sure at higher echelons than I work; that authorship factors are questioned in regards to this popular style.
I think we have been sold a bill of goods on this one .

For The New Yorker to publish this series now illustrates a surprising lack of vision in relation to their history with pioneering photographers. If they published this portfolio several/ ten years ago it would have been fresh.

I’ll take Nadav’s slight turn on the head shot theme any day of the week. At least it implies a response to an individual rather than one size fits all.