I’m still not sure which machine I prefer, Pentax K5 or Pentax 645Z. All of these images were captured at two separate shows of the same name, same location, performers and lighting conditions. Great show too – with enough variety, also in light, colour and word play to keep me coming back for more.
special thanks to all the performing artists
The images are comparable. There’s certainly a lot to be said for medium format quality; not the least of which is of its superior performance in the dark, producing usable shots at ISO 6400 and higher. My crop K5 measures up remarkably well though, now that I’ve had a chance to see the difference. Can’t shake the thought that since I feel so much more nimble with a K5, not being too scared to drop it and all – I get more interesting angles. It all just comes down to knowing your machines to squeeze out the best impressions.
Anyway as usual getting the original shot is just part of the process; a large part of the fun comes from the post-processing. With as much respect as I have for analogue photography, the thing that will add a differentiating quality to my approach; digital, is the fact that I’m not exactly trying to get a perfect shot on the spot – but also thinking about also what my computer can do with it afterwards, and what I’ll learn to do by the time I get to post-process.
Clinical documentation I’ve found to be less fun than taking the space to style-up my work. Medium format grabs twice as much data, and seems to seductively offer twice as many possibilities for “styling-up”. Costs will help to keep this small obsession in check, and I’ll just have to make do with the material that I already have. Shooting in RAW is a given.