Reader Question: Where's the Content?
Reader Adam McAnaney was left feeling both used and confused after the Wired BTS post earlier today. So much so, that he fired back the following question:I have a sincere question. I know this is going to sound like I'm being a smart-aleck or a pain in the *ss, but I am being sincere. My question is:
What were we supposed to get out of that post or the pictures? There just didn't seem to be any worthwhile content in either. I assume there is something in those pictures that I'm just not getting. To me it just seemed like a random statement that "Hey, we just shot some pictures of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Isn't that cool?", coupled with a couple of boring and random shots from the shoot to prove that yes, indeed, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg were there.
Signed,
Confused
Yer honor, the defense will approach the bench after the jump.
__________
First, thanks for the question, Adam. I respect your sincerity and your preface does indeed keep you from sounding whiney at all. Not a given on the internet, either.
You say "we" as if you are assuming homogeneity among the readership on this site, I can assure you that is not the case. It's more accurate to assume a wide range of experience among the readers.
I have no idea specifically what you got out of the photos. Probably not very much, given your comment. Sorry about that. All I can tell you is what I learned, and why I thought it merited a look.
For simplicity's sake, you may want to open the Wired photo set up in a new window. (Should open in a new window with that link.)
First Pic: Empty Setup Shot
1. Height of the room: This is something I am becoming increasingly attentive to, as my basement studio is very restricted vertically in addition to square feet. So much so, in fact, that for the last two shoots at my house I abandoned my basement and spent hours cleaning out the garage (some) and carting lights upstairs and back.
Long story short, I am paying attention to how people use vertical space in shoots as well as horizontal space.
2. The stool: That looks way more comfy and functional than the one that came with the POS posing table set I bought last year. Spent ten mins in the Ikea bar stool web page (ADHD much?) and got several cheap alternative ideas for my next trip down to the Greenbelt, MD Ikea store.
3. Big fill panel: WTF? Is he getting reflective fill out of it that far away? Can't be.
Second Pic: Gates / Anderson in Front of Para
4. Bird dog: Serrao is shooting as Gates talks thorium reactors with Anderson. Anderson is a broadly smart guy (not everyone can hold Gates' attention) and Serrao is wisely using Anderson as a distraction so he can get some more natural shots of Gates.
I used to use reporters the same way, and it was mutually beneficial. Essentially, we were each other's distraction. I miss having reporters just for that reason. I need to manufacture conversationalists on set more often.
5. Para: Why so far back? Why so big? The two go hand in hand. Moved far back, it is still moderately soft. And since it is so efficient, you keep a lot of lumens on the subject.
But the distance also gives you flexibility, as the exposure will be fairly consistent across the shooting zone. I will use that idea with my PLM, probably for less than the cost of the sales tax on (or rental fee for) the Para.
6. Stability: Not a lick of wind -- even so, everything is bagged. The two subjects have a combined net worth bigger than the GDP of some countries. Word to the wise -- no gear accidents.
Third Pic: Monitor Shot
7. Gold mine: I am seeing exactly what is coming out of Serrao's camera.
This is very informative, as it shows me how much was done in camera and how much in post.Frankly, I like it better before the post work. But that is purely subjective. Further, these two versions helps me to better understand how much of Serrao's other work is likely in camera, vs. in post. I spent a lot of time on his site, BTW. Really interesting stuff.
Fourth Pic: Gates / Anderson
8. Backlights: WTF? Why a gridded dish on one side and a silver umbrella on the other? This makes no sense to me, if only from a spill control sense.
Best guess: Two different schemes, pre-set for quick change.
Fifth Pic: Anderson / Zuckerberg
9. Using a table for a two-person posing surface: Gotta remember that. And the silver table would pick up the background reflection and give it a tech-y look. Great idea.
Sixth Pic: Serrao and Assistant
10. Umbrella through scrim: Ahh, that makes more sense. It is a big light source, not a reflector. Same as the Para -- big and far away gives you exposure flexibility.
At this point, I am more likely to do it ghetto style with a bed sheet, but still worth remembering.
__________
So that's what I saw, Adam.
Long story short, I am probably a little more curious than you are. At least that's the impression I get from your note. And that's okay -- I am probably a little more curious than many people who read this stuff. That's how I keep learning.
UPDATE: And, as several people pointed out, there is an Octa up in the ceiling (he removed some panels for that, too.) Lots to learn when you look carefully...
__________
New to Strobist, or lighting? Start here.
Now shipping, in DVD box set or download: Lighting in Layers
Connect: Discussion Threads | Reader Photos | Twitter
Posted at 1:21 PM.
67 Comments:
I enjoyed looking at the shoot pictures the first time David but even more so when I read through your explanation of what you saw.. By the way you noticed a lot more than I did and I appreciate the time you took to explain all that.
This is probably one of the best posts I've ever read from you. I'm trying to become more and more attentive to the little details, but you really nailed it here.
Thanks for taking the time to write it.
And don't forget the 7th shot..
My eye followed the cable up and into the suspended ceiling.. is that a small octa overhead? Removing 3 tiles and using the grid to hold up this light instead of a boom stand? Or am I seeing something that I'm not seeing? Either way, interesting use of what looks to be a hotel or corporate meeting room.
MikeScott
David, let me say that this post is a shining examples of what makes Strobist the best lighting site, period. You have the heart of a teacher and a tremendous skill in conveying both physical and mental processes. As a teacher myself, I'm grateful for all that you offer, both in the realm of photography and as an example of how to help others grow in knowledge and passion. Thank you.
David, PLEASE write more of these BTS breakdowns. You are like House and Mulder rolled into one.
David,
WoW.... Thank you for the post on your thought process in analyzing the photos. That helps us newbies in looking as a professional does to see the "issues" and methodologies incorporated during a shoot.
Some of us have never been in a similar situation (I'm sure that I am in the minority on this site) and wonder all the technical and non-technical issues that can present themselves during a typical shoot.
Again, thank you Adam for raising the question, and David for answering in such a professional manner.
Tom
Dave, you missed out a light source (I think) in the 7th shot.
If you look into the ceiling right above the background drop, there is a light appears to be a brolly or strip box hidden inside, with ceiling panels removed.
The power cable running on the left hand side is another hint.
Perhaps something for the background?
Gu
http://guphotography.com
I will add that you explaining what you saw and why it was interesting to you makes the combination of the original post and that explanation even more valuable to me as a loyal reader of your blog. Thanks David.
MikeScott
Glad Adam asked the question cause I loved your answer - learned a lot from all you considered. Thanks.
Chris
David,
This is better than excellent, not only sharing a view into how a photographer approaches his art and craft but also how another respected photographer (you) gleans information from that view. Thanks for expanding on the post and thanks to Adam McAnaney for getting it started.
Thanks for the walk-through David. Your post was much more informative with the comments about what you saw.
Great post! After attending McNally's seminar yesterday I noticed a lot of the same things in these pictures. Although I didn't give much notice to the vertical height. I will definitely have to experiment more with double and triple diffusion although I wish I could find a simple solution to keep stuff from tipping over without hauling 1000 pounds of sand. Also did he really put a light in the ceiling?
@MikeScott & Gu
I thought the same thing and I'm soo adding that trick to my arsenal.
—Chad
Great addendum to your original post. I learned a lot from your observances!
Possibly more curious, or possibly you just know more to begin with (I don't know the initial questioner, maybe that's an absurd idea).
I know enough to follow your notes on the setups, but about half the questions didn't occur to me when I glanced through the set of scene pics.
It's good for me to have those questions popped up in front of my face, anyway. Thanks!
Thank you David
You laid out a bunch of things that I didn't think about when I first read the post. Its great to see more and more BTS videos and photos being posted. Aside from teaching, it lets everybody inside what Chase refers to as "the black box" of photography. They show that sometimes the coolest photos are created in a corporate lunchroom or in a basement somewhere.
Adam, I hope this post showed you that there is a lot of information that you seem to be passing over. Don't take that for granted. and thanks for asking the question. We all learned a lot more because of it.
I at first thought the same about this post as 'confused', what to get out of this post. But your view on how to learn from others and your writing skills make this a great post! I will never look at behind-the-scenes-pictures the same way again. Thanks!!
Technically, it's the Beltsville Ikea, though more commonly known as the College Park Ikea ;)
You rock!
I think if Adam wasn't as curious, he wouldn't have asked the question. Like me, he probably didn't know what to look for in the pictures to get all the information you saw. Thanks for the wonderful explanation.
I'm sorry to hear that Adam missed the value in this post. Being able to take a peek behind the scenes at a professional lighting setup is always a valuable learning experience - especially a setup as unique as this one.
I particularly enjoyed the background light mounted above the drop ceiling; what a brilliant use of a confined space.
I enjoyed seeing the photos through your eyes. Thanks, David! I never would have noticed all the things you commented on.
@Adam
Thanks for having the guts to ask. I learned more with David's explaination that I would have otherwise.
@David
Great explaination and observations. Thanks for another great post.
There's a guinness in Ireland with your name on it :)
I'm gonna sound boring now but this is important. PLEASE nobody go removing ceiling tiles to put up octa's or anything else in buildings you don't know. My day job is in asbestos removal, you would be amazed at how many suspended ceilings are hiding contaminated voids. Fine if you leave them alone, but don't go tampering unless you've checked! Asbestosis/mesothilioma are not nice ways to go people.
/lecture
On a more positive note, thanks for your explanation David, it made the pictures more revealing to me. It's like when you're watching a ball game on tv you'll have an old pro (yeah, sorry about the 'old' bit!) giving you the inside scoop if you get what I mean. Really helpful.
Pip Neville.
Your commentary adds much more to the original. I went through and studied them more because of it.
I missed the camera (which I'm sure isn't a cheapo) laying on the floor in shot #6 the first time.
Excellent response to the question. IMHO with the advent of web 2.0 comes the mentality that everything needs to be spelled out.
It is easy to become lazy when so much is documented with behind-the-scenes and "setup is mandatory" posts. Back in the film days as well as when less information was shared in general, it was more necessary to figure things out yourself with very little to nil to go on.
Not saying the original question wasn't valid. But I think it reflects how things have changed with the creative learning process.
awesome, love the way you broke that down, saw a lot more and learned something more from it. my first look at that article was more about wow that guys has cool stuff.
I am glad this question arose. As a newbie myself, I often have a hard time understanding why so many lights are being used. And for what purpose. (I am still in the one light phase of learning.) I agree with one of the other comments. It's not that us newbies are not curious enough. We just don't have the same background to understand the whole thing in one quick glance. Sometimes after even studying a set-up I have a hard time picturing it without the initial pictures and what was lacking in them. But thanks so much for expanding on your thoughts. That kind of stuff helps a lot... even if it is redundant for a lot of your readers.
I think being more curious comes with more knowledge. The more I learn, the more I realize there is to learn. But without that knowledge base it is hard to know what you don't know (if that makes sense?).
It is truly a privilege to be able to see into the mind of someone with your experience and understanding of photography, and who is willing to share this knowledge with us. Thank you.
Thanks for this, Adam and David.
This was at least ten times more useful than the original video. It's great to get an analysis of the shoot along with the video itself.
Dankedanke
Well! I'm certainly glad I asked, even if I am feeling slightly sheepish. I certainly wouldn't have gotten any of that out the pictures on my own. I think that's for a variety of reasons:
1) I've never been on a commercial shoot. So one thing that wasn't clear to me, but perhaps should have been, was that all of the stuff in the pictures was being used for the shots of Gates and Zuckermann. I assumed they just brought the whole kit-and-kaboodle and were taking a number of pictures with different lighting setups throughout the day. So some of the stuff that was off to the side (the scrim and the giant parabolic reflector, for example), I didn't even realize was being used here.
2) I also didn't recognize most of the gear in these pictures, much less know what it does. I realize that the concepts and physics of using big lights are the same as when using small speedlights, but I've never worked with any of this kind of gear (or even seen it in person). I find the array of modifiers available for studio lights bewildering. Here is an example: in the first picture, David commented on the big fill panel. I had no idea what that thing was until I read his comment. For all I knew, it was a temporary room divider to keep hotel guests and conference attendees from gawking...
Another example: the parabolic reflector in the second picture. I get that it is big and I assume the reflector makes it efficient. But I have no idea what the difference is as compared to a giant softbox. I would have thought that efficiency wouldn't be a big deal with these kinds of lights at these distances.
Stool (picture 1) and table (picture 5). I've never used a posing stool. I got that it was a posing stool, but since I've never used one, this one didn't stand out in any way. As for the table, I naively assumed it was from the conference and was just in the room, rather than a posing prop.
Anyway, thanks for the explanations. My wife and I are signed up for your session in London and we're really looking forward to it!
Best regards,
Slightly-less-confused
P.S. For what it's worth, I AM curious. That's what led me to ask the question, that's why I read this blog and that's why I signed up for your seminar... :-)
Adam-
I am glad you asked! Sometimes I assume too much knowledge on this site and I have to remember that not everyone has been reading the site for many months.
I will say that, if you are coming to London, I would run through Lighting 101 and Lighting 102 first. London is not starting from zero, and some background info will be a big help.
I've noticed that throughout the shoot all the overhead lights are on, including fluorescents and even pot lights. With the lighting that they are using are they killing the ambient and so no need to adjust white balance to compensate?
I am pretty sure they were working many stops over the ambient. Probably ISO 100 / max sync / f/11-f/22 range.
Had to hold focus between the two -- on medium format, too.
David just wanted to say great info and follow up, but what I think the people want to hear about also, is your fully fleshed out review of the new paul buff einstein light :)
David,
I have read Lighting 101 and 102 and I have probably been reading the blog for over two years now. I am not completely ignorant of lighting concepts and I regularly use off-camera flash, albeit with speedlights, not studio lights. I just didn't get what you saw in the pictures without your commentary. As set-up and behind-the-scenes shots/posts go, I didn't find that Wired put much effort into the commentary. Here are the picture captions:
(1) "Photo set at the Westin Long Beach during the TED conference for a Wired cover shoot with Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg."
(2) "Chris Anderson, Wired’s editor-in-chief joins Bill Gates on set and a lively discussion of nuclear physics ensues while photographer Carlos Serrao shoots. John Pinette, communications director for bgC3, looks on."
(3) "As Carlos shoots, images of Gates appear on iMac 24-inch Cinema display screen for review by Wired’s creative director Scott Dadich and photo editor Zana Woods."
(4) "Bill Gates takes a break during the photo session to continue conversations about thorium."
(5) "Chris Anderson chats with Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder, on set."
(6) "Photographer Carlos Serrao plans for the next setup with Monica May, one of three photo assistants on set."
(7) "Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg get ready for final cover shot."
Don't get me wrong, I like seeing these kinds of things. But others have done it much better and this one just didn't speak to me on its own. Your commentary certainly helped.
Regards,
Adam
Adam - thanks for asking the question I didn't think to.
David - To me the first post was like a college pop quiz you get when the prof thinks you are being complacent. Here's a million extra points if you can tell me why I bothered to post some pics of a guy wearing a hat indoors.
Duh, I was FAIL on this one. I should have been visually digging deeper at what was going on. Like Adam, I'm not 100% on the gear shown but I certainly could have gleaned much more than I did. Most professors would have yelled at us in the second post about how we were not paying attention. You sir, do have the heart of a teacher. Thanks.
I think you were a bit harsh on the guy. He could be a curious person too, but just not with your level of expertise in this area. Chill. It was a good question, and made the post better by nudging you to add more insights. Regards,
yeah David ... I learn much from your commentary on Wired Photoshoot than I learnt it myself.
Thanks for posting and later commenting it deeper down in Strobist way.
Good post!
@mjmaser-
I do not think I was harsh on him at all. I thanked him for asking the question after he said he did not think there was any worthwhile content in the post or the photos.
I disagreed. I thought there was a *lot* to be gleaned, if you were willing to look. Sometimes I feel as tho some people who read this site expect to be spoon fed every bit of info.
If I did that, it would sound condescending as hell. It's a balance, and it is impossible to get the balance right all of the time.
What a fantastic post! Just brilliant. Love the way the question was asked, the way you answered it professionally and the subsequent comments.
I am one of those who like to be spoon fed and this post really illustrates that. Whereas I only saw a series of pictures, you saw where the light was coming from, how and even came up with theories for the why. That's why you are the one and only STROBIST and we are just your followers (insert homage to fountain of knowledge joke here).
Picking up on a comment, you are like an intelligent version of The Mentalist and Monk! :D
Ugh. This has all the classic signs of an Internet communication gone wrong. If David and I were in the same room speaking face-to-face, this discussion never would have reached this level.
So on the subject of striking the right balance, let me say that I probably didn't do such a great job. My question was sincere, but in hindsight I probably tried a little too hard to be funny. If I had been on the receiving end of my comment, I probably would have been more than a little annoyed, so props to David for keeping it cool and taking the time to respond with a thoughtful post.
On the other side of the balance issue, I just wanted to make it clear that I am both interested and willing to look. I'm also willing to experiment and try things out for myself. But there are things I don't know and won't get without some additional guidance (although I realize that, as David said, other people already have a certain level of knowledge and are likely to find explanations that are too basic boring and repetitive). And with a non-photography related job that frequently requires me to work until the wee hours of the morning and on weekends (something that plenty of others have as well) and twin toddlers at home, not to mention a wife that I don't get to spend enough time with, there just aren't enough hours in the day to try out all the stuff I would love to do. So even if it seemed lazy to some people, I really appreciated David's follow-up post. And judging by some of the comments, I don't appear to be the only one who benefitted from a little more color to the original post, so it all worked out for the best.
Anyhoo, I look forward to seeing David live, where neither of us has to communicate through easily misunderstood blog posts/comments!
:-)
Adam
Great post!
I definitely don't consider myself a newb anymore, but the things you saw opened my eyes up to some things I missed. I too greatly appreciate your take on these BTS posts.
I've been reading Strobist now for quite a few years, and my analytical skills have vastly improved, however another set of eyes is always a good thing.
I appreciate Adam asking the question and your answer.
Good stuff!
Great post, David. With these elaborate setups I always wonder whether the same result could have been accomplished with a lot less gear. I happen to have that Wired issue on my desk, and in this case, I think the answer is yes.
One thing that I noted was the design of his non-photo lighting. The entire area around the backdrop is surrounded by ceiling lights. I would not have considered that but it makes sense. With the right color balance it could also be used as abient.
Wow. All that stuff is in those pictures?
David, thanks for pointing out the details I am not fluent enough to pick up on my own. A really fascinating post.
It's great you can pick out the teaching opportunity in the question. I got a lot out of it.
David, I like the way you think! Reverse engineering, putting the pieces together for us none too discerning folks.[without the time to go through it with a fine tooth comb mostly-that's my excuse!]
Best post yet, thanks in part to Andy.
This is like going through the viewfinder, some people just look through that and some see the picture. I'm nowhere near this standard, don't even know many of those lights and modifiers, thus I can see that the learning process is for people who are willing to see things and get never tired of widening their knowledge
My 1st encounter with Strobist and what a great and lively discussion! I could not help but learn something. I will definitely be returning on a regular basis. Thanks to all.
Thanks so much both to David for a very interesting rundown on things I just didn't pick up on when looking at the Wired pictures, and to Adam without whose question I too would have had a quick skim of the pictures and moved on.
Slowly but surely, experience - and the shared wit & wisdom of others (i.e. Strobist) - is educating me :)
Thanks to David and Adam for generating a very interesting discussion. It is surely a testament to David's skill as a teacher that the site continuously appeals to people with such a wide range of abilities.
I am delighted with how much knowledge I have acquired over the past year or so since I have been visiting Strobist. L101 and L102 were vital - that's where I realised that this off camera flash stuff wasn't beyond my capabilities at all.
I have tons still to learn but the point I wanted to make was that I don't expect to pick everything up first time around, nor do I feel intimidated by the things that I don't yet know! I've found a lot of value in re-reading previous posts and their associated comments - The information is available to me anytime I'm ready, I can go back to it repeatedly and I always get something new on the second or third reading.
Big LOL after reading some of the comments on the Wired page pointing out the fact that Bill Gates is checking out his pics on a MAC... A MAC?? rofl much
What I love about this post is:
Finding out how someone else (you) looks at the setup, contrasting what you look out for from what grabs my attention.
And secondly it made me look again at the series, and made me pick up on the stereo on the floor as well as the drawn curtains. Nothing big but it reminds me once more that photography is all about seeing.
Thanks.
DH: don't worry about sounding condescending. I have attended free lighting seminars and beginner things that are 'beneath' me, but I go anyway. If the presenter has one tiny bit of insight I hadn't thought of before, then it's totally worth it. If not, there's no harm in having the basics reinforced. You can talk to me like a child, as long as it's in a matter-of-fact kind of way, as opposed to I'm-talking-slow-because-you-are-a-moron type deal. That line is really fine over the interwebs in text, but I think you straddled it perfectly this time. Keep it up. Anybody who feels condescended has their own ego issues to deal with. Don't worry about them, worry about the rest of us who like to learn.
David,
Thanks again ...
I laughed several times while reading this post because without your commentary, I was unknowingly in a similar boat as Adam (and thanks Adam!).
Examples:
1.) Why was there a grid on one side and not on the other? Obviously because he's like me and he just uses what he has. There couldn't actually be a results-oriented reason for that.
2.) Sandbags? What a waste of time hauling that freight. Maybe it looks more professional.
3.) "Hey, he's using a big reflector. That's where I need to position mine!"
Thanks for making me look past my ASSumptions and help me learn something.
Craig
Sorry for this David,
But I will assume this Adam or 'confused' guy owns a point and shoot... or... he's a 'natural light' photographer... or perhaps we will give him the benefit of the doubt and it's his first visit to the site where my off camera strobe work went off the charts (thanks very much).
Keep us informed, please! Your insight goes beyond words in the help it brings to all of us fellow 'strobist.'
Rueben
I got a couple of humorous things from the post.
1. They converted a used satellite dish into a giant strobe. Someone please post the DIY instructions.
2. For the father of Windows, his photos were being edited on a mac. Too funny.
-e
I must admit when I first saw the post I quickly browsed through it and nothing held my attention.
I realized that Adam's sentiment reflected my own (probably in a less accusatory tone!), and it was very refreshing to read your breakdown of the shoot. I learned a ton that I didn't the first time around.
Thanks to both of you. Adam, for bringing up the question and David for being open to criticism and answering it so clearly for newbies such as me :)
Dave - That 'big fill panel' is a piece of equipment called a butterfly, more common in the film/video world but starting to catch on in still. Anyway, it's a butterfly, looks to be about 6x6', and the piece of fabric on it (as indicated by the white strip) (could) be a piece of diffusion fabric called gridcloth, which cuts about 2.6 stops of light. (I say could as the type of fabric ,along with the fabric itself, is indicated by the webbing around it. White can stand for a few different things - but with a big white diffusion like that it's probably gridcloth, or as we call it in the film world, grid.) Also, whoever set the c-stands on a butterfly better learn "righty-tighty, lefty-loosey" because with some pushing those could fail.
Great walk through.
I'm a newbie and didn't notice 3/4 of that stuff until you pointed it out.
Very informative and also many clues as to how I can better analyse a shoot.
Cheers
Here's my sort of irreverent question (I'll be in a similar boat as Adam, in a moment). I don't get why this much gear, talent and economic gigantism produces such average looking results. Maybe we are only seeing the "safety" shots. Maybe it's the overdone and inappropriate gangsta palette. But the final image, a perfectly adequate but unremarkable portrait, doesn't warrant the logistical effort. Turn Zack A or David H or any talented editorial photographer loose with these two guys, even with only what they could carry into the building in two bags (well, three bags and a good assistant), and I'll bet they'd get better, more personal and more interesting stuff... t
@ Tom-
I would say a couple of things. Remarkable and unremarkable is in the eye of the beholder.
And it is a very different thing to actually be live in that situation, shooting two people of that magnitude As compared to merely commenting on it after the fact in a blog post.
And while I appreciate your vote of confidence, I do not necessarily agree with your prediction. ;)
Profoto head in a broncolor para? for shame!
Also would like to point out that they were on the west coast, and if you don't sand bag a stand, you get fired. Come to think of it, we do that on the east coast too.
Nicely done Adam ... and David.
This second post with David's actual observations is what a blog is all about, imo.
I also noticed that it seems like every strobe has a batterypack attached and isn't on AC. I wonder why that is?
David - great post. I find myself constantly dissecting set shots to figure out what is going on or trying to be achieved. It is part of being a photographer. Everyone does things differently and a lot can be learned from a simple set shot.
----Jesse
I shoot a lot of this kind of stuff, VIP's with limited time for editorial etc, and perhaps I can provide some insight on a few comments I read here.
1. Lots of stuff around. Planning is key. We often have several setups to use, duo shots, singles, group etc. It is most efficient to set all this up before hand, so each set merely involves flipping switches, moving some plugs around. 30 minutes would be generous with these folks, so you would not want to waste a moment by futzing around with gear.
2. Battery gear. I like my equipment battery powered, even indoors. Don't have to find a power outlet and run cables and most importantly, no risk of tripping a circuit breaker. Just last weekend we tripped a locker room breaker with a couple of my non-battery heads because a video crew had plugged some 1k hot lights into the same circuit. Time was lost and so was the pace.
3. Sandbags. Can't figure out the dig against sandbags... there are lots of people around, one klutz brings the whole thing down and you've got a disaster on your hands, or worse, an injury.
4. Biggest pain about shoots like this is the low ceiling bouncing light everywhere. Things go flat quick.
5. Artistic direction. Despite all our years of experience, gear and crew, sometimes mediocre results happens. There are a lot more folks involved in this shoot than just the photographer and his assistant. Everyone has their say, and the 'too many cooks in the kitchen' problem is all too common.
Or as the saying goes... Mo' money Mo' problems.
I know i know...cry me a river
Post a Comment
<< Home