Big Budgets or Cheap Setups

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

The difference, Mike, I suspect is that you can live with failure or something going wrong, where as someone on an advertising shoot can't.

---

I'm sure that's true in many cases. However, I've seen other cases when Popular Photography highlighted setups used by people who were simply making photos in their studio to be included in their portfolio. No deadlines. No models or assistants being paid by the hour. No client on the set. In fact, no client waiting to see the photos. Yet lots and lots of expensive, unnecessary equipment. Perhaps they needed the equipment for shoots that are on a deadline and felt the need to demonstrate that they know how to use it.

On the other hand, I've seen tutorial videos made by one particular studio pro whose name I can't remember who explains the simplicity of producing quality shots with relatively little equipment. So, I know at least that pro takes that path.

Legal ramifications aside, I still would suggest that most of those high end location shots could be
done in studio and on a desktop...assuming no time constraints as a wedding shoot or the like.

Granted that there are times that the location shots cannot be duplicated in house, else why would
movies be shot on location...it would be onerously difficult to shoot parts of "The Hobbits" anyplace
other than New Zealand.

I would submit that those movie production companies have folks that consider the cost up/down
sides concerning locations verses studio set shoots. It's gotta be a cost analysis decision.

PS...there is also photographer's ego to consider...is that picture of a lion better if it's shot
in Africa than in a zoo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chauncey

is that picture of a lion better if it's shot in Africa than in a zoo?

---

Almost always because the conditions in Africa, at least the conditions I experienced in my 7 days in the bush, are rarely duplicated in a zoo.

In my long career in defense work, I also noticed the Russian adaptability and cleverness in overcoming their technological limitations. They have some real smart commies over there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chauncey

is that picture of a lion better if it's shot in Africa than in a zoo?

---

That, in my experience I would have to unhesitatingly say "YES!"

If you were shooting a lifestyle commercial, would you go to the local bar and pick up a dozen or so middle aged (and spreading) men and women, or would you head to the local health club or gym and pick up the same number of twenty-somethings that look beautiful and in fantastic shape?

The zoo versus wildlife comparision is similar. Once you have seen the lean, mean killing machines with rippling muscles that live in Africa, a lazy, middle-aged and somewhat ratty looking lion from a zoo simply wouldn't be up to snuff.

Like Mike, I base my comments on having seen lions several times in the wild in Africa. Once we even had a once in a lifetime experiencing a couple of lionesses hunting a water buffalo (the water buffalo got away, and one of the lions got hurt and limped away).

This reverts to the old question...is the method paramount over the final product.
My own opinion is that the print rules. http://www.digitalphotopro.com/profi...l#.VMF9AWfclr8