[Alex645]

For publicity stills?

I used to be a Unit and Special Stills Photographer on film and television sets. For legal and logistical reasons, 90% of all still images used in promotion, media, posters, insurance, behind-the-scenes, and props are not taken from the cinematographer/videographer's raw footage, but taken by a "stills photographer".

The unit photographer was on the set every day, documenting everything in front and behind the camera. To do this, you needed something like a Jacobson barney or blimp to silence the camera because it would interfere with audio recording.

Home - SoundBlimp

In this photo, it must be a special stills photographer, as he is shooting sans blimp. Special Stills photographers are paid 5-10x more and are hired to come in only once or twice to set up their own shots (not replicate the cameraman). These are usually shots on posters and billboards that are totally different than an actual scene from the film or show.

Medium format is ideal because these images will be enlarged to poster to billboard sizes and resolution, file size, and dynamic range are essential. Film (vs. digital) is more secure for producers, agencies, studios, and networks, as the original can be kept vaulted and more secure from potential pirates and hackers.

What makes this photo rare is that almost no one shoots the still photographer unless he asked or it was taken by a GF/BF, or maybe an intern with their cell phone because they'd never seen a film camera before.

[Mikesul]

Thanks, Alex. You gave more than expected and it was very interesting. Nice to see the old film equipment still being used.

[normhead]

I still feel the biggest problem is lack of advertising, which promotes lack of education, and just
plain arrogance. Just like people buy expensive cars and expensive homes to show
others how well they are doing, they buy the perceived more luxurious products just
to show that they can. It then trickles down to the wannabe's as well. I have a degree in
marketing, and all Pentax needs is to show a couple famous people using a Pentax,
and/or get a couple product shots in a popular TV show or movie, and watch how fast
demand would rise. I know this is expensive, but you know the old saying: It takes money
to make money. Maybe we could find someone famous among our ranks that would
be willing to step up.

The rumour mill has i that when Ricoh bought Pentax they got marketing estimates on what it would cost to bring Pentax back into the Canon/Nikon prominence. The price tag came in a at about 1.4 USD. They decided to go another route. It's been considered and rejected. That is one heck of a gamble to undertake.

[Digitalis]

In this photo, it must be a special stills photographer, as he is shooting sans blimp.

I don't think there is a blimp big enough that could silence a Pentax 67.The mirror slap sounds like someone dropping a brass coin in a tin bucket.

I have done a fair number of stills shoots for TV and local movie productions - I'd typically use my Leica/Konica Rangefinders for that, you don't need a blimp for those. Though I have seen TLRs used on live sets.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 11-23-2017 at 03:07 PM.

[Alex645]

I don't think there is a blimp big enough that could silence a Pentax 67.The mirror slap sounds like someone dropping a brass coin in a tin bucket.
I have done a fair number of stills shoots for TV and local movie productions - I'd typically use my Leica/Konica Rangefinders for that, you don't need a blimp for those. Though I have seen TLRs used on live sets.

True, rangefinders are quiet enough, but are less common because of cost and smaller apertures (back in the film days).

For the 67 to go into a blimp, it would also need a motor drive which would make it way too big and heavy. I don't think silencing would be an issue with a Jacobson blimp. I owned three and had Nikon F3HPs with motor drives in them. Not quite as loud as a 67, but definitely louder than a modern autowinder.

Imagine me standing around a film set, on location, for 12-18 hours, 6 days per week, with three cameras (color neg, slide, and b&w), different primes, ten rolls of film, spare AA batteries (each motor drive used 8), etc. Hard physical work. In retrospect, using a rangefinder would've been so much lighter IF it was an exterior day shoot. But with all that Fuller's Earth and tough shooting conditions, the blimp also protected my gear from the elements.

[Digitalis]

Interesting. Any idea what the lens is? For publicity stills?

SMC Takumar 67 400mm f/4 with an aftermarket Lens collar.

True, rangefinders are quiet enough, but are less common because of cost and smaller apertures (back in the film days).

The Leica M-Noctilux 50mm f/1.2 ASPH was in production in 1966. Long before then, there have been 50mm lenses faster than that. Also due to the lack of mirror vibrations rangefinders can typically be hand held at shutter speeds 1~3 stops* slower than an SLR and still produce sharp results - depending upon subject motion of course.

For the 67 to go into a blimp, it would also need a motor drive which would make it way too big and heavy.

I don't even think I have ever seen a Pentax 67 with a winder, do they even exist? a Fuji 6X9 RF, Mamiya 6~7II or Bronica 645 RF** would be good choices for film set use - though i'm sure winders for any of those would be pretty rare.

The Konica hexar RF has an built in winder that has a silent mode, the Hexar AF has a completely silent auto winder***. Leica camera auto winders are not so quiet, compared to the cameras with them built in.

Imagine me standing around a film set, on location, for 12-18 hours, 6 days per week, with three cameras (color neg, slide, and b&w), different primes, ten rolls of film, spare AA batteries (each motor drive used 8), etc. Hard physical work. In retrospect, using a rangefinder would've been so much lighter IF it was an exterior day shoot. But with all that Fuller's Earth and tough shooting conditions, the blimp also protected my gear from the elements.

Been there done that, though I never bothered with slide film: the dynamic range was too small. My Leicas have survived 58 degree desert heat, and the -60 chill of an arctic winter [admittedly there was some servicing involved ,truth be told] they have managed to operate as well as they did the day they were bought.

* 5 stops... if your technique is up to snuff. Remember, Leicaphiles invented the term available darkness.
** lenses are a bit slow for the Bronica, but the camera+lens wasn't all that much bigger than a 35mm RF:

The only drawback of the Bronica is that the baselength was probably too short for any lens outside of a normal with an aperture wider than f/4

***the regular winder is quiet enough, there is an incredibly obscure custom function the manufacturers hidden in the camera that allows it to get extra stealthy.

[Alex645]

The Leica M-Noctilux 50mm f/1.2 ASPH was in production in 1966.

Touché. But if I could afford a Leica, let alone a Noctilux, I probably would have produced films, not slave on them. Nevertheless, I respect any photographer that uses beautifully engineered gear, regardless of price.

I don't even think I have ever seen a Pentax 67 with a winder, do they even exist? a Fuji 6X9 RF, Mamiya 6~7II or Bronica 6X7 RF would be good choices for film set use - though i'm sure winders for any of those would be pretty rare.

Due to size and weight, I doubt that the 67 ever had a motor drive. All blimps I've used allowed manual focus, but not manual advance. And just the shear size and weight of medium format plus a winder and then a blimp which would double the weight....forget it. I can carry my Pentax 645 all day, but not if I had to have two or three in blimps. Also a motor drive was essential for action sequences. As you know, they may do it in ten takes, but they'd only let me shoot one or two takes.

Some agencies, or for example CBS, required slide film, which put me at a huge disadvantage in terms of shooting a set lit (contrast ratio/DR) for color negs plus having to choose between Kodak Ektachrome 160T or Scotch 3M 640T tungsten balanced emulsions. Using a color correction filter was usually not feasible due to loss of light.

I imagine digital is so much easier these days on many levels. But as much as I love SLRs, I'd seriously consider a mirrorless Sony to avoid the bulk and weight of blimps.

[Nicolas06]

Touché. But if I could afford a Leica, let alone a Noctilux, I probably would have produced films, not slave on them. Nevertheless, I respect any photographer that uses beautifully engineered gear, regardless of price.

Yet the typical plumber or taxi driver has more expenses than a photographer. Even if you get 50K$ on photographic gear every 5 years, this is not much by any means. 10K$/year before taxes... And I am quite confident that as a pro you don't have to pay VAT and other various taxes on your gear...

To produce a movie, I think the budget is more in millions .

Many activities require lot of money, and taking photo is one of the activities that require the least.

[Digitalis]

Many activities require lot of money, and taking photo is one of the activities that require the least.

I have been fortunate enough to have photographic equipment that has earned me enough money to offset the price of purchase...sometimes several times over.

[IgorZ]

I have been fortunate enough to have photographic equipment that has earned me enough money to offset the price of purchase...sometimes several times over.

That's a great position to be in... But did your gear earn you money, or your skills?

[Digitalis]

But did your gear earn you money, or your skills?

The skills I have earned me enough money to get the gear, the gear combined with my skills made even more money.

[Alex645]

Even if you get 50K$ on photographic gear every 5 years, this is not much by any means.
To produce a movie, I think the budget is more in millions .

When I was young, and starting out, $10k/year (or even half that) was a lot of money that I needed for rent, food, car bills, etc.
And although this thread is not going to be derailed anytime soon, if it wasn't for the relative affordability, durability, and quality of the Pentax 645 system, I could not have gotten into MF and the next level of my work and career as a photographer.

Also note, that film and television producers are usually business people but not necessarily millionaires. They are responsible for working with investors, studios, networks, banks to make profits and justify losses, but it's rare that a project is actually funded by a producer's own bank account.

[BarryE]

"Are we THAT rare?" Mmmm going a little off topic I fear. But wait. I now see...

I have been fortunate enough to have photographic equipment that has earned me enough money to offset the price of purchase...sometimes several times over.

. Got it. A Pentax user who is making good money from their gear. That's the rarity angle ;-)

[Nicolas06]

When I was young, and starting out, $10k/year (or even half that) was a lot of money that I needed for rent, food, car bills, etc.
And although this thread is not going to be derailed anytime soon, if it wasn't for the relative affordability, durability, and quality of the Pentax 645 system, I could not have gotten into MF and the next level of my work and career as a photographer.

Also note, that film and television producers are usually business people but not necessarily millionaires. They are responsible for working with investors, studios, networks, banks to make profits and justify losses, but it's rare that a project is actually funded by a producer's own bank account.

I am thinking current dollars... Of course if you did start 20 or 30 year ago the price would be different. But the think is, if you work all day as a pro, you'd expect 50, 100K or more raw income a year, especially if you put in 12-18 hours a day, 6 day a week.

Please remember that even photographers also may need a car for transportation as well as a place to work or receive clients. This alone can cost more than photographic gear...

Even so as today, you can likely be done with more like 2K/year for photographic gear.

[Digitalis]

A Pentax user who is making good money from their gear. That's the rarity angle ;-)

I don't just use Pentax equipment though. I work with Leica and Nikon cameras too. Hasselblad, Phase one, and Pentax medium format, Ebony and Sinar large format cameras as well when clients request - which a number of them do.