What is considered risky

[Woolsocks]

I could not think the right title. I saw a photographer share his portfolio on another website. He spent $70,000 on a camera, $20,000 on a lens, and $1,000 on a tripod. And some gradient filters.
He went the safe way I believe. Instead of portraiture of famous people or beautiful models he took long exposures of rocks and ocean spray.

But what would be risky. Out of the box. Something that the camera wasn't designed for?

His camera is a Iq4 phase one large format.

 

[woof woof]

He spent $70,000 on a camera, $20,000 on a lens, and $1,000 on a tripod. And some gradient filters.

This makes me feel good about my addiction to buying cheap lenses.

Thanks for posting

 

[myotis]

I could not think the right title. I saw a photographer share his portfolio on another website. He spent $70,000 on a camera, $20,000 on a lens, and $1,000 on a tripod. And some gradient filters.
He went the safe way I believe. Instead of portraiture of famous people or beautiful models he took long exposures of rocks and ocean spray.

But what would be risky. Out of the box. Something that the camera wasn't designed for?

His camera is a Iq4 phase one large format.

I find this a slightly odd question.

I have a lifelong love of the natural world, and while professionally I have photographed famous people and (less often) beautiful models, the photographs I "want" to make are those of natural world because this is the subject matter I feel the greatest affinity with. I choose equipment that suits the type of subjects I'm interested in, And can afford,: I would love to use a Phase One outfit.

Arguably, a Phase One camera (which to be pedantic is medium format, not large format) is a great choice for photographs of famous people, beautiful models and the natural world (including long exposures of rocks and ocean spray, if that is your thing). But it's core market is studio based portrait, fashion and commercial photography.

Are you suggesting that photographers should buy kit ideal for one genre of photography and perversely use it to make photographs in a genre it isn't suited for.

To what end?

Is it to force a new way of "seeing the subject" . Or maybe revisiting an old way of seeing things. For example a Phase One would be ideal tool to return to the wildlife photography of the Kearton Brothers, while also being technologically easier and possibly produce something new. Indeed I have seen some wildlife portfolios made with a Phase One.

As, I said I don't fully follow the question.

 

[woof woof]

Are you suggesting that photographers should buy kit ideal for one genre of photography and perversely use it to make photographs in a genre it isn't suited for.

To what end?

As, I said I don't fully follow the question.

I could not think the right title. I saw a photographer share his portfolio on another website. He spent $70,000 on a camera, $20,000 on a lens, and $1,000 on a tripod. And some gradient filters.
He went the safe way I believe. Instead of portraiture of famous people or beautiful models he took long exposures of rocks and ocean spray.

But what would be risky. Out of the box. Something that the camera wasn't designed for?

His camera is a Iq4 phase one large format.

Seems clear enough to me.

I don't have weather sealed gear and I never have had any but I've always used my kit in any and every weather I've come across including blizzards on the beach in the UK, the cold of a Kazakh winter and the heat and humidity of Thailand. Maybe I've been lucky.

I don't know enough about the IQ4 to comment but I suppose inappropriate uses may be in the field photojournalism, fast action and underwater photography Oh, just thought of another, something I used to do sometimes... gig photography.

 

[myotis]

Seems clear enough to me.

It's the word risk I think I'm struggling with, and this sentence

"He went the safe way I believe. Instead of portraiture of famous people or beautiful models he took long exposures of rocks and ocean spray."

Portraits of famous people or beautiful models is what the Phase cameras have been designed around, so this sentence is a bit confusing for me.

I don't have weather sealed gear and I never have had any but I've always used my kit in any and every weather I've come across including blizzards on the beach in the UK, the cold of a Kazakh winter and the heat and humidity of Thailand. Maybe I've been lucky.

OK, I didn't read it as risks to equipment but as taking photographic risks

I don't know enough about the IQ4 to comment but I suppose inappropriate uses may be in the field photojournalism, fast action and underwater photography

Yes , more this sort of risk, but I refer you back to the sentence I quoted.

 

[woof woof]

Yes , more this sort of risk, but I refer you back to the sentence I quoted.

I think you just missed the point. I think I got it, but I could be wrong.

 

[realspeed]

What would b e considered risky is not telling "er indoors" first I was buying more camera gear. Telling her first is far better than getting no meals for a couple of weeks.

 

[myotis]

I think you just missed the point. I think I got it, but I could be wrong.

It won't be the first time

I mean me missing the point., but I thing my question still stands as to the rationale for these risks, Of which I gave a possible example, which the OP could agree with, or confirm, that I missed the point..

 

[sk66]

But what would be risky. Out of the box. Something that the camera wasn't designed for?

Why would someone buy equipment not suitable for, nor intended/designed for, the desired application? That just sounds like stupidity to me... not "risky."

 

[myotis]

Why would someone buy equipment not suitable for, nor intended/designed for, the desired application? That just sounds like stupidity to me...

Maybe the reason I asked about in my post:: to force a different creative approach to the subject.

But only the OP can confirm the rationale behind the question.

 

[swanseamale47]

I suppose you could argure theres a risk taking £90k down the beach or on the rocks, someone said it's not weather sealed and salt waters a killer. That saidI've used cameras in all weathers over the years (more careful now) and I've only seen one killed, by dust off all things, another camera different make in the same conditions is still going, I used it this morning. So it's luck of the draw..

 

[Woolsocks]

Portrait. Fashion. Commercial. Actors. Is all planned out to a step correct?

Is risky improvision? Is hand holding the camera and taking a shot within seconds instead of minutes. I don't know, chasing a storm, Godzilla.

 

[Nod]

I would have thought that landscapes (among other things) WAS what the IQ4 was designed for! Having a sensor a bit smaller than (film) Medium Format (NOT large format!), it's probably hand holdable too. With it's much-longer-than-usual long exposure setting, I'd say that his usage was pretty much its design brief.

Far more money than I'd spend on a camera system but if that's what he feels he needs (or wants), more power to his elbow!

 

[woof woof]

I can't imagine spending that much on a camera with, arguably, limited uses but in the past I have spent too much on cars. Whatever floats your boat I suppose, if you can afford it. I suppose the required kit and output quality should be factored in to the equation somewhere but I don't think it always is. Could good enough results be had from a good mirrorless FF? Or a Fuji or Hasselblad MF? At a fraction of the cost? I don't know.

 

[lindsay]

I think risky was when I was shooting loads of Fujichrome MF on a Bronica ETRSi in the middle of the Namibia desert, with the wind blowing sand around and snakes in the sand dunes. Or shooting a pride of lions 10 feet from me on foot in Kenya, thankfully after they had devoured a zebra. (our guide was trying to help pull another tourist van out of some mud so unloaded us from our van)

 

[myotis]

I would have thought that landscapes (among other things) WAS what the IQ4 was designed for! Having a sensor a bit smaller than (film) Medium Format (NOT large format!), it's probably hand holdable too. With it's much-longer-than-usual long exposure setting, I'd say that his usage was pretty much its design brief.

Far more money than I'd spend on a camera system but if that's what he feels he needs (or wants), more power to his elbow!

Phase One cameras are used across many genre

Medium Format Image Gallery - Ultimate Image Quality

Discover Phase One's gallery of medium format photos that showcase visual excellence. Portraits captured with Phase One medium format cameras.

www.phaseone.com

BUT its historical and core use is studio photography. Tethered to Capture One, and the core discussion around Phase One is still mainly high quality studio work. Certainly people realised the benefits of Phase one backs for landscape, often attached to a "baby" technical camera, but the set up wasn't ideal as initially you still needed to tether to a laptop.

However as the backs have improved (built in memory cards and LCD) it has moved out of the studio and has much wider usage. The most recent addition to the range (XT) has been designed around landscape photography. So although the core customer is still portraits,fashion, commercial, and museums, it's also popular with specialist landscape
photographers.

XT Camera

For outdoor portraits and photography, Phase One's XT camera, captures nature, architecture, and landscapes in high-resolution with our mirrorless system.

www.phaseone.com

The cameras have always been handholdable, as far as I am aware, as they were built around Mamiya bodies, until Phase One bought Mamiya.

As I said in my first post, if I could afford it, I would have a Phase One for landscape.

Edit I forgot about the XC, which is described as a travel/adventure camera:

XC Camera

A travel-friendly camera designed for high-resolution photos, discover the XC Phase One camera and simplify photography with professional quality.

www.phaseone.com

 

[myotis]

Portrait. Fashion. Commercial. Actors. Is all planned out to a step correct?

Not always, but I get the point that with these types of photography there can be more control exercised by the production team than is possible in other types of photography like landscape or wildlife

Is risky improvision? Is hand holding the camera and taking a shot within seconds instead of minutes. I don't know, chasing a storm, Godzilla.

But this doesn't address my question of "why" would you want to do this. I did suggest a reason, but I am just guessing that this is might be the reason behind your question.

 

[Plain Nev]

Well, the obvious example, for me, would be war photography. If you want to take the question literally.

 

[sk66]

Maybe the reason I asked about in my post:: to force a different creative approach to the subject.

I kind of got that by the first part saying landscape is "safe." But even if the intent is creativity... if you have a creative goal/idea then one would purchase equipment that helps you achieve that outcome.

Portrait. Fashion. Commercial. Actors. Is all planned out to a step correct?

Is risky improvision? Is hand holding the camera and taking a shot within seconds instead of minutes.

How about just throwing it into the air during a long exposure? Wait, people already do that...
To me that is not creative/art; it's just dumb luck if you get anything interesting at all. But I also don't consider paint thrown at a wall art/creative either.

I think you've got it backwards... it takes a huge amount of dedication/effort/time to be a great landscape photographer. There is nothing really easy about it. And it takes creative/artistic vision as well.

 

[myotis]

I kind of got that by the first part saying landscape is "safe." But even if the intent is creativity... if you have a creative goal/idea then one would purchase equipment that helps you achieve that outcome.

While I'm still not sure of the OPs point, my point was for when you didn't have a creative goal/idea and you used "not the obvious" equipment to force you to "think out of the box".

The risk being you might get nothing, because it's unsuitable equipment, but the reward might be something unique and new (at least to you).

Off the top of my head, on a visit to a bird reserve, you take GRIII instead of your usual Z9 and 600mm, and instead of coming home with the usual collection of bird in flight pictures, you com back with photographs of bird photographers with flocks of wildfowl in the background, along with some interesting lit pictures of birdwatchers in hides. As a bird photographer you might not normally photograph people.

 

[sk66]

While I'm still not sure of the OPs point, my point was for when you didn't have a creative goal/idea and you used "not the obvious" equipment to force you to "think out of the box".

The risk being you might get nothing, because it's unsuitable equipment, but the reward might be something unique and new (at least to you).

Off the top of my head, on a visit to a bird reserve, you take GRIII instead of your usual Z9 and 600mm, and instead of coming home with the usual collection of bird in flight pictures, you com back with photographs of bird photographers with flocks of wildfowl in the background, along with some interesting lit pictures of birdwatchers in hides. As a bird photographer you might not normally photograph people.

That's a lot like the advice given to new photographers starting out to "explore all aspects/angles of a scene/situation and see what you can get"... the intent is to teach you to be able to see the "potential" of/for an image you might want to take. It's really pretty agnostic of genre or equipment.

I also understand the idea of using X equipment to do Y type of photography outside of your norm; in order to revive some creativity, get out of a rut, etc... but that is still not using equipment not designed for purpose. E.g. I once did a series of "one camera/one lens, a pic/day" for a while and none of it was my typical wildlife photography or kit. I still wouldn't call that risky or improvisation, or even necessarily artistic/creative... I would call it "exploration."

I think there is a notion behind it that is dismissive; that planning and control exclude creativity/artistry. I would argue the opposite... There are a couple genres that are almost entirely technical IMO, like astro and macro. But pretty much all others require a good bit of creativity/artistry to do particularly well. And some also require either a very high level of technical skill, or a very high level of determination/dedication, often both.
There's a reason I'm not a big into landscape photography... I have taken a couple images that literally took years and many attempts to come together and record.

 

[woof woof]

There's a reason I'm not a big into landscape photography... I have taken a couple images that literally took years and many attempts to come together and record.

I suppose it depends how your mind works.

I can see how people might visit the same place many times over a period of time to get the perfect light and composition but the vast percentage of my picture taking is to record something that will evoke a memory and response within me and sadly many of my favourite places are very often... just... drab... and I can get a drab shot of them just about any day of the week. I don't have to wait years

 

[Harlequin565]

While I'm still not sure of the OPs point

This is me.

 

[sk66]

I suppose it depends how your mind works.

I can see how people might visit the same place many times over a period of time to get the perfect light and composition but the vast percentage of my picture taking is to record something that will evoke a memory and response within me and sadly many of my favourite places are very often... just... drab... and I can get a drab shot of them just about any day of the week. I don't have to wait years

Snapshots for personal purpose are perfectly fine... we all do/should take those types of images. But IMO it is not particularly creative, artistic, nor interesting... it is not "photography" done to a particularly high level.

Are those places always drab w/o exception? And even drab/gloomy/etc is useful for a purpose/idea if you have one suited to it.

 

[myotis]

That's a lot like the advice given to new photographers starting out to "explore all aspects/angles of a scene/situation and see what you can get"... the intent is to teach you to be able to see the "potential" of/for an image you might want to take. It's really pretty agnostic of genre or equipment.

Well, I of course don't know if that was the intent of the OP, I'm just making guesses.

However, on more general point , I'm not sure I agree wih you. I "see" the world very differently when hand holding a Fuji X100 compared to the way I see it using a 5x4 monorail on a tripod.

I also understand the idea of using X equipment to do Y type of photography outside of your norm; in order to revive some creativity, get out of a rut, etc... but that is still not using equipment not designed for purpose. E.g. I once did a series of "one camera/one lens, a pic/day" for a while and none of it was my typical wildlife photography or kit. I still wouldn't call that risky or improvisation, or even necessarily artistic/creative... I would call it "exploration."

But isn't using the "wrong" equipment the point of the OPs post..

As I said, I just saw using the wrong equipment, as an easy way of "forcing" you into a different approach. I thought the criticism was of someone spending a lot of money on an "ideal" landscape kit, and all they did was use it to make photographs of landscapes.

I don't really know what is meant by "safe", but it isn't necessarily about getting out of rut, it could be just about doing something different to take you out of your comfort zone for a spell to broaden your awareness, The risk part of doing this depends on how you view things. I agree with you on the exploration label, but I knew someone who posted photographs on Flickr, of a particular style, every day. He would never try something different because he couldn't risk failing to post pictures he knew his followers liked,

I think there is a notion behind it that is dismissive; that planning and control exclude creativity/artistry. I would argue the opposite... There are a couple genres that are almost entirely technical IMO, like astro and macro. But pretty much all others require a good bit of creativity/artistry to do particularly well. And some also require either a very high level of technical skill, or a very high level of determination/dedication, or both.
There's a reason I'm not a big into landscape photography... I have taken a couple images that literally took years and many attempts to come together and record.

I'm not sure what is being dismissed, Initially it seemed to be landscape photography, but the second post suggested it was "planned" photography like portrait, fashion and commercial

I think the amount of creativity/artistry required depends on the intent of the photograph. I wouldn't assess it a genre level. I don't agree with your comment on astro and macro (or, photomacrography, as I would call it): being highly technical, doesn't exclude the potential for creative/artistic work.

 

[Woolsocks]

This is me.

That's because your thinking inside the box instead of out of it

Joking aside. I suppose shooting in the dead of winter -45'c when no one is out and about. Or Shooting a scene that hasn't been photographed a billion times. I suppose the cliche out of the box thinking would be shoot the same scene that a billion have shot but shoot it differently and with luck someone else likes it.

 

[TheBigYin]

There's a reason I'm not a big into landscape photography... I have taken a couple images that literally took years and many attempts to come together and record.

These days, thats where I'm at - i've realised i'm far too much of a "control freak" after spending masses of time shooting studio and still life work, where I've got total control of the composition, subject matter, and crucially, the lighting.

Even before my current realisation, I used to be one of those people that slept on the side, or top of a mountain, and woke up in the dark to get the best chance of the light I wanted at daybreak. But years and years of waking to being in a cloud / rain and yet another washout made me more of a "take a camera with me and just accept what happens, and anything over a "record shot" is a bonus. And, honestly, for my personal satisfaction that's fine - but it's not enough to say "I shoot landscapes" anymore.

Of course, 2 heart attacks and a covid hospitalisation on, I'm lucky to be able to walk more than a couple of miles, so i'm coming to the realisation that my hillwalking days may now be up - certainly my backpacking and bivi-ing on mountains days definitely are.

 

[imattersuk]

Time to up your game @trevorbray someone has finally outspent you

 

[sk66]

I think the amount of creativity/artistry required depends on the intent of the photograph. I wouldn't assess it a genre level. I don't agree with your comment on astro and macro (or, photomacrography, as I would call it): being highly technical, doesn't exclude the potential for creative/artistic work.

Of course; and I knew the inclusion of macro would bite me! I have seen some "near macro" work that was very creative... offhand I can't think of anything taken at ≥ 1:1 that was though.
Wait, maybe this composite is close...

 

[sk66]

These days, thats where I'm at - i've realised i'm far too much of a "control freak" after spending masses of time shooting studio and still life work, where I've got total control of the composition, subject matter, and crucially, the lighting.

Even before my current realisation, I used to be one of those people that slept on the side, or top of a mountain, and woke up in the dark to get the best chance of the light I wanted at daybreak. But years and years of waking to being in a cloud / rain and yet another washout made me more of a "take a camera with me and just accept what happens, and anything over a "record shot" is a bonus. And, honestly, for my personal satisfaction that's fine - but it's not enough to say "I shoot landscapes" anymore.

Of course, 2 heart attacks and a covid hospitalisation on, I'm lucky to be able to walk more than a couple of miles, so i'm coming to the realisation that my hillwalking days may now be up - certainly my backpacking and bivi-ing on mountains days definitely are.

I'm starting to find wildlife photography is getting to be that way for me now as well... I spend a ton of time/effort not taking any pictures.

 

[sk66]

However, on more general point , I'm not sure I agree wih you. I "see" the world very differently when hand holding a Fuji X100 compared to the way I see it using a 5x4 monorail on a tripod.

I think the truly gifted/creative see the picture in their mind... the equipment has nothing to do with it other than allowing the picture to be taken. But there are certainly other forms of talent/gift that may be required... probably the most important part of being a great portrait photographer is being great with people/interactions.

 

[myotis]

I think the truly gifted/creative see the picture in their mind... the equipment has nothing to do with it other than allowing the picture to be taken. But there are certainly other forms of talent/gift that may be required... probably the most important part of being a great portrait photographer is being great with people/interactions.

When I'm making a picture, I try and visualise what it's going to look like as print. And this visualisation dictates the composition and indeed the moment I press the shutter. I don't pretend to be truly gifted or creative, I just don't know of any other way to do it.

But, I agree with you about a range of skills being needed. going well beyond the obvious photographic skills.

However, , I continue to disagree with you about the effect the camera has on the way you interact with the subject. To expand on what I said before I am far more spontaneous with the fuji x100, and I'm visualising pictures differently to the way I visualise with a tripod mounted camera. This also of course got a lot to do with the fact that I am generally photographing different subject matter with different cameras. And there could be a range of other things going on. e.g I'm channelling Winogrand or Bresson with the Fuji but Adams or Karsh with the 5x4 (not that I us one anymore). As I think about it, I also feel very different when I'm using primes or a zoom

Regardless of the reasons, for me there is a strong psychological impact on how I go about making photographs, which is associated with the equipment I'm using.

Alec Soth discusses this in a recent interview discussing his newest book "Advice for young artists" where the project wasn't working until he switched to using a handheld DSLR (something he had never used before). It's not the best interview in the world.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjZb7BaQzns

 

[woof woof]

Snapshots for personal purpose are perfectly fine... we all do/should take those types of images. But IMO it is not particularly creative, artistic, nor interesting... it is not "photography" done to a particularly high level.

Are those places always drab w/o exception? And even drab/gloomy/etc is useful for a purpose/idea if you have one suited to it.

Who mentioned snap shots? I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I'd never describe my pictures as "work" but that doesn't mean I see all of my photographs as snapshot either. Far from it. For me it's partly about the process and the enjoyment (because I like photography) but the pictures that really matter to me matter because it's about the connection, the emotion and the memory. Anyway. We should all take snapshots (in the true meaning of the phrase) as they can be the most honest pictures we take and they can contain more feeling and emotion and be more evocative than any prepared and practiced piece of "work" we've waited years and made multiple visits to get.

I probably shouldn't have posted what I did but the thought of visiting a place multiple times over years to get a specific picture isn't usually the top of my list or my thing unless I'm bored and that does happen. When we do that I think we run the risk of taking a picture which is satisfying because we've finally done it. So what? It might be technically good, it might be attractive and it might be identical to what others have taken a thousand times but not really artistic, not creative in any real sense, only superficially pleasing and pretty meaningless unless it means something more than "I finally got it." That's not high level for me but good luck to those who do that and it does show dedication and I can see the appeal but to me it runs the risk of being a box ticking exercise. I suppose we all do that to some extent at least now and again. A photograph of mine that I'm going to look at repeatedly over the years has to stir something in me beyond "I got it" and whilst the familiar and the drab can be boring and sometimes I want blue skies and colour and contrast just for a change the drab photo might be how I remember that place and how I want to remember it.

I read a thread once on a mostly American forum in which they were enthusing about the light above a certain latitude and I could see what they were getting at but it's a two edged sword. What's new and unfamiliar above that latitude can be very attractive because the visitor isn't used to it but to those living in that environment the visitors home conditions might at least initially be more attractive because it's different. I have to think what picture is going to be the most evocative and mean the most to me? As I mostly take pictures of people and places that matter to me possibly the drab one and as above I don't have wait years for that as I could take the picture today but I do have to wait for the day the moment in which the picture is going to mean something happens and makes it worth pressing the shutter button. This might not be how all our minds work but as above, it depends how your mind works.

 

[woof woof]

I think the truly gifted/creative see the picture in their mind... the equipment has nothing to do with it other than allowing the picture to be taken. But there are certainly other forms of talent/gift that may be required... probably the most important part of being a great portrait photographer is being great with people/interactions.

I was drawing and painting before I picked up a camera and although it's years since I did that sort of art I see the similarities but for me photography isn't usually about waiting until what I see conforms to what's in my mind or actively creating an image of what's in my mind it's about taking a meaningful picture. It may not strictly be an accurate recording of reality but it could be. I think the word "creative" has too much weight sometimes. I think recognition of what's worth capturing and what means something to us is perfectly valid and maybe at times more important than creativity. It depends what you want to achieve and what you want from your art.