BBC Pro?

Phall82

Phall82

Messages
1,254
Name
Colin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all!

I've just come back from a night out in Rochdale where they held a "feel good festival" with food, live music etc.

I was in a bar where live bands were playing and the BBC were covering it, not TV, just hosting and things.

A photographer was taking all sorts of angles and things with a Canon and flash with sellotaped paper diffuser. Looked like the Pro because he was hovering around the stage.

I went over afterwards and asked him questions because I'm keen to learn and apparently he works for the BBC.

I found it strange that he was using a 400D with Sigma 18-200 and sellotaped diffuser for professional BBC shoots!

Am I being snobbish with equipment or does it seem strange for a pro to use a 400D with Sigma 18-200 in very low light in a bar?

Any comments?

Thanks

Colin
 
Just because he works for the BBC doesn't mean he's a professional tog. He could work in the accountancy department and be "the bloke who's got a good camera".

That said, just because he's using a 400D, Sigma lens and sellotaped diffuser doesn't mean he doesn't know how to use them. ;)
 
Personally I'd judge his output. Far too much emphasis on kit and far too many people getting sucked in to all the hype (including myself).

I've seen some stunning pictures captured by people with rubbish kit and some really ropey shots from people running around with the best money can buy.

Whilst you wouldn't normally see a professional carying this kit there should be no reason someone couldn't produce shots worthy of publication with it.
 
gingerweasel said:
Personally I'd judge his output. Far too much emphasis on kit and far too many people getting sucked in to all the hype (including myself).

I've seen some stunning pictures captured by people with rubbish kit and some really ropey shots from people running around with the best money can buy.

Whilst you wouldn't normally see a professional carying this kit there should be no reason someone couldn't produce shots worthy of publication with it.
Click to expand...

Exactly, check this link for some images taken on a £50 (used) digital bridge camera

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/fujifilm/finepix_s5600/
 
Funny how then when someone says they are shooting a wedding using a d90 and kit lens the get slated for nit having the right kit!!!
 
cambsno said:
Funny how then when someone says they are shooting a wedding using a d90 and kit lens the get slated for nit having the right kit!!!
Click to expand...

AH! but that's because they are stepping on the toes of the elitist Wedding Togs who think nobody else in the world should be allowed to shoot a wedding.
 
cambsno said:
Funny how then when someone says they are shooting a wedding using a d90 and kit lens the get slated for nit having the right kit!!!
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I spotted that post and spend twenty minutes writting a reply. When I was finished I decided it wasn't worth the hassle posting it just to get pounced on.

There seems to be a rule that if you don't own two D700 bodies, and the Nikon trinity (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) then you can't be a serious wedding photographer.

Although the way main stream prices seem to be going for most weddings (£500 being a very common sight these days) you wonder how a photographer could afford that level of kit.

I'm not having a go at the professionals, if you can afford the best and it makes your life that little bit easier then good on you but don't write someone off because they don't happen to have a bag full of kit that cost mega bucks.
 
BBC doesn't employ tv cameramen nowadays, let alone stills photographers. In fact, the only full-time (non-contract or freelance) staff they have push paper around offices.

The rest of people's comments above are spot-on though!
 
I remember a thread on here a while back about a wedding tog who was in his fifties IIRC and was producing exceptional images. His kit? Canon 30D, flash and 28-80 lens.

It's not what you've got but how you use it!
 
The BBC definitely brings in freelance photographers.
I've photographed alongside Kate Southall, she's Wiltshire based, loves her music photography and seems to get a lot of work from the BBC...

Back on topic - her kit's a darned sight better than that spotted by the OP!
 
gingerweasel said:
Personally I'd judge his output. Far too much emphasis on kit and far too many people getting sucked in to all the hype (including myself).

I've seen some stunning pictures captured by people with rubbish kit and some really ropey shots from people running around with the best money can buy.

Whilst you wouldn't normally see a professional carying this kit there should be no reason someone couldn't produce shots worthy of publication with it.
Click to expand...

:plusone:
 
Too many people spend way too much time obsessing over kit, and far too little time obsessing over photography.

Yes, I'm guilty of that as well, but have come to a realisation that it doesn't matter whether I take my old D40x or my D7000, I'll still come back with the same photographs - equally good and equally bad.

A good tog should be able to shoot with any DSLR made over the last 8 years and still get similarly good results.

It really isn't about the kit. It's about the skill.
 
Last edited:
Was talking to this woman in the Apple store while having a personal project and she was telling me about this photographer that came to her croquet club she's a member off to do the photos. He took about 900 shots, and gave then to her - all 900 of them no editing, no getting rid of the garbage or anything. Anyway I looked ta hen on her Aperture and teyre absolute rubbish!! Oh - they were all shot on an EOS 1DS MK 3 an Canon 70-200 2.8 L - charged the club £200! Obviously either one of those that's well of and is his 'hobby' or a tw**!!
 
Having said that, my recent upgrade to D200 and D90 from D5000 has dramatically improved my hit rate of action images - all the sailing ones over the past couple of weeks have been a million times better because of the increased speed and performance. Though, if I had to do a model shoot (I wish!) with D200 or D5000, d5k each time as I really notoe and appreciate the finer quality of the sensor for controlled situations.
 
Firstly, I'm quite amazed how well I wrote the original post here on my iPhone without many mistakes considering the amount of alcohol I'd consumed at the time ;-)

Secondly, I understand that it's the photographer, not just the equipment, but surely in such a low light environment he would have been better with either a FF camera or a much quicker lens etc?

A casual photographer I would understand, but somebody who is being paid for it?

You hear a lot said about equipment on these forums and how brilliant or amazing a lens or a body is but most of the comments on here seem to suggest it doesnt matter.

Just a point but I'm glad it's got people discussing it.
 
Is he being paid for it?? :thinking:

These days there are a lot of people doing stuff for TV and other organisations who don't actually get paid.

A relative of mine is currently doing some unpaid stuff for TV and was recruited by someone else who isn't getting paid... :| Such is life and the realities of getting a foot in the door or on the ladder these days.
 
I did some freelance work for the BBC a few months ago, agreed my day rate before hand, and all photos then become their property - you have to agree to surrender all copyright (including moral).

The contract also stipulated that you should deliver 40Mb RAW files...
 
I got talked into shooting a small video for the BBC, that got bigger,they supplies the video camera,let just say it was very basic :D
 
Matholwch said:
I did some freelance work for the BBC a few months ago, agreed my day rate before hand, and all photos then become their property - you have to agree to surrender all copyright (including moral).

The contract also stipulated that you should deliver 40Mb RAW files...
Click to expand...


Were they after medium format only then?
 
With correct exposure you can produce excellent images on most any camera.

Besides, tiny web sized pics don't require huge files. Not to mention printing on newspapers is what I equate to printing on toilet paper. Printing on quality paper is where you begin to see the differences in noise and detail of better sensors, ISO capability, and sharper lenses.
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
Blimey :lol:
You don't get RAW files that big of my 5DII, someone is having a laugh.
I presume you ignored the term?
Click to expand...

Yep, had to politely explain that my 5D mkII's RAW files didn't deliver files that big (I think the largest I've had is about 29 or 30Mb).

DemiLion said:
Were they after medium format only then?
Click to expand...
Well that's what the contract looked like, which yes made me think they only wanted hasselblad digital back camera or something.

Thing is I was given the terms of the contract after I'd shot the day - I was drafted in last minute. It took sometime for me to get someone to reply to my concerns about the contract, as I couldn't adhere to its terms and conditions due to the limitations of my gear.

Eventually, I was told that certain elements of the contract could be ignored (this was all via email). The contract also states that where requested, they would want the images processed. Also, that I would have to surrender all the images taken (deleting my own copies), and if I wanted to use them for my own portfolio - I'd have to contact the BBC, and request copies at my own expense.
So I asked up front if I could use them for my portfolio and keep some copies, it which again they said that it would be fine, and I could skip that issue. Only when all these queries had to been answered did I send them the images. And was paid soon after.
Incidentally, their cameraman was also freelance, and they apparently charge their day-rate, then their camera's day rate, then the transport costs of their camera, etc.
 
texfoto said:
With correct exposure you can produce excellent images on most any camera.

Besides, tiny web sized pics don't require huge files. Not to mention printing on newspapers is what I equate to printing on toilet paper. Printing on quality paper is where you begin to see the differences in noise and detail of better sensors, ISO capability, and sharper lenses.
Click to expand...

True enough, depends for what purpose the image is for. The photos I took for my BBC assignment, potentially may be used for bill boards. I was working for the BBC marketing team, as they're expecting to heavily publicise the BBC Wales production early next year.
 
Something that did occur to me...
Canon (and Nikon) use lossless compression on their RAW files; some manufacturers don't and their RAW files are HUGE.

Back of a fag packet maths
21Mp x 16 bit x 3 channels gives an uncompressed file size of 126Mb
That's plenty big enough...

The only hassle is convincing them that RAW file size does not make a very meaningful contract term.
 
people do obsess about cameras too much. Not so many years ago, wedding photograhers all wanted FujiS3's Then S5's Nowadays the same photographers that lusted after this PRO gear Poo Poo it as not being full frame or having low ISO performance or not having a high megapixel count

Were the photographs that were shot 5 years ago substantively different to the ones shot today? Are the clients demanding anything different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top