Golf course photography for print publication

[John Byrne]

Pardon me for this, but any help is much-appreciated. I need help buying the right equipment, traning manual, film, and lenses to shoot golf courses for print publication. I publish a golf magazine that is printed on 80# text and cover weight coated stocks on both sheet-fed and web presses at 200 and 175 line screens respectively.

I am tryingg to make the magazine the most beautiful golf publicaiton I can. As I am on Maui, I have no means of trying LF by renting.

All of the images printed in my publication are scans from 35 or MF trannies, or digital shots taken with Canon SLRs, Olympus SLRs, and a Bright Light scan back on a LF camera. Local shooters on Maui are lazy, and are all migrating to digital, which is exactly what is downgrading the quality of my work. I will say the LF Bright Light scans blow away everything else, although the color fidelity is still rather flat. So, LF fiilm is the direction I am headed.

Can a mediocre photographer, who is rather clubsy and absent-minded, but dedicated, get teh fantastic detail from LF without going broke or making an even bigger dummy out of himself?

Specifically:

1. Can someone please tell me exactly what the best model for shooting golf courses in the am and pm hours would be? 2. Can you tell me what lense for shooting golf would be best, and if a polarizer filter is made for such a lense? 3. Is 8x10 out of my league? Is the quality of it 2x or more better than 4x5? 4. How many film holders for shooting all morning on a golf course would I want to have? 5. What film should I use? Trans or print (bear in mind it wil be scanned and converted to CMYK and printed on a 4/c press). 6. Any suggestions as to how I get film from camera to lab, and a good lab (color?)? 7. Any advice at all on what else I will need? I am intimidated about the DOF topics I've read here. Isn't it a matter of stopping down the lens all the way?

I apologize for so many questions and for my ignorance. Many thanks.

[Bob Fowler]

You can save yourself a lot of hassle, just hire me to come and shoot your courses. My day rates are reasonable, and airfare from New Jersey + lodging + expenses shouldn't be too bad... :-)

Seriously - I'm sure that if there isn't a pro in your area (on your island), there MUST be a dedicated amateur who works in LF who can handle the job. There are many, many non-pro photographers who put out images just as good, if not better, than the pros. Try asking around at some of the larger camera shops (even on one of the other islands). You'd be suprised at what/who is lurking about under a focusing cloth right in your own area.

[Peter Galea]

Since you'll be driving arond the location in a golf cart it doesn't matter if you use a monorail or field camera (a monorail being heavier). You may want a ladder and a way to attach the camera to it. Are you buying new or used? You can shoot golf with only a 150 or 210 on 4x5, however you may like with a longer and shorter lens in addition, polarizers are made for the lenses, albeit expensive. 8x10 is not out of your league and there is nothing like composing on a "window" like ground glass. How many film holders? At least 4 or 5, but as many as you can afford. I shoot Ektachrome for golf, though many go with Velvia. Velvia gets a little surreal at times. Find a local lab on the islands that will process for you, or else you will be shipping it to the mainland. What else will you need? Loupe, dark cloth, light meter and a Polaroid back, search this site for beginner threads. Buy a large format book, either Simmons or Stroebel's. At the distances you will be shooting your subject from depth of field shouldn't be a problem, and with tilts and swings you can really excel. Study the work of Klemme, Bradey, Dost and Henebry. Good luck. You'll love it.

[Frank Petronio]

Take a large format landscape workshop or hire a tutor for a day. Get a late model metal 4x5 field camera with a classic set of wide, normal and long lenses. Use 4x5 Kodak Readyloads or Fuji Quickloads. Shoot a lot and keep things consistent.

8x10 chromes are great, but for all practical publication reasons, your repro quality will be more than wonderful from 4x5. You can shoot far more 4x5s for the same time and money, and with the quick changing winds and skies in HW, you'll want to use the higher shutter speeds to minimize foilage blowing around and give yourself more options. Save the 8x10 for B&W contact printing and very special projects.

You might consider medium format options like a Texas Leica (Fuji 6x9 rangefinder), Horseman 6x12 or Linhof 6x12 or 6x17 cameras - 120 roll film is a lot easier and the results - especially from the panoramics - will be 4x5 quality (4x5 is ~ 9x12; so a 6x12 is the same area as a cropped 4x5).

You could hire me as well. I'll undercut the other guy by $1 AND teach you how to use a view camera! Actually more than half the people here would love a chance to help you if you paid us...

[Bob Fowler]

Frank, Do I sense a bidding war starting? :-)

hehehe

[Ron Bose]

John,

I have a question for you. If your magazine uses LF images instead of the cheaper (?) digital 35mm will that extra cost be passed onto your readers ?

If the answer is yes, then will your readership be prepared to pay the premium ? In other words, will they appreciate the higher quality images and thus pay a premium for it ??

I have a cynical view of Joe Public, too many people aren't prepared to pay for quality anymore. They want low cost and convenience.

All that aside I think that finding a good amateur LF shooter might be a good route. But I'm not too sure how many will have a scanning digital back. So you'll need a means of scanning 4x5 trannies or buying your own digital back (ouch !).

btw, when I was in a London LF store recently, the guy told me that the results from a 645 PhaseOne digital back on a 'blad produced images approaching 4x5. Worth a shoot out between a couple of your pro shooters ??

Cheers ...

[Ralph Barker]

Before making a final decision about using LF, John, I'd suggest that you first confirm the necessary pre-press support services, and how they fit with your production cycle. First, is there a local lab that will process 4x5 E-6? How about 8x10? If so, how much LF business are they getting, and are they likely to continue to provide the service? Next, examine the scanning issue. Many labs are capable of scanning 35mm, but not medium or large format. Finally, examine your production issues of working with large image files.

If the necessary pre-press support services aren't available locally, or on one of the nearby islands, you may need to ship film to the mainland. Doing so involves both risks of lost or damaged film and considerable impact on your production cycle. You could always develop the film yourself, using a Jobo processor, and scan the film yourself, using a mid-level to high-end scanner capable of handling 4x5. But, doing so may have unwanted implications for your production cycle. Note, too, that opting for 8x10 complicates these aspects even more than 4x5 - both with using local services and doing it yourself.

Another alternative would be to hire me, of course. Flights from California are less expensive, and I'll under-bid Frank by $2 (making me $3 cheaper than Bob). (lol)

[matthew blais]

I tend to agree with Ron regarding Joe Public. Most, if not all your readers/subscribers, will not discern between the quality of images at magazine publication size. I'm assuming the occassional full or two page spread photo might lack the appearance of quality vs. the typical inset photo. And, starting with the best possible image before it goes to cmyk (flatter color) and a web press would obviously be beneficial.

You are definitely an exception, and I admire your determination for quality, but honestly would suggest a high end digital, (i.e. kodak pro, canon 1Ds or the medium format backs), which might be available for rental there (?). My experience would say these would be of satisfactory quality for John Q. Public. But I realize the need to satisfy one's own requirements.

Is this a monthly publication?

If digital is truly not acceptable, "I work for golf"......Best of luck

[David A. Goldfarb]

Hey, I actually go to Hawai'i once or twice a year to visit my wife's family in Honolulu, and we usually try to get to one of the other islands to explore and have some time to ourselves.

I know there are a couple of LF photographers in Hawai'i who show up on these forums. What I would do if I were you, would be to look for them by searching the Hawai'i threads here (the search engine is a little wonky, so you might want to look manually through the index a bit--there will be threads like "where to I buy/process sheet film in Hawai'i" or "must see locations on Mau'i", etc. ), look on the LF photographers' index on lfphoto.info, and maybe call up the major pro labs in Honolulu to see if they know who is shooting LF on the islands. Most people who shoot LF in Hawai'i will likely be ordering film from the mainland, but you might also check pro photo suppliers in Honolulu to see if they have any LF clients.

[Bob Fowler]

"I have a question for you. If your magazine uses LF images instead of the cheaper (?) digital 35mm will that extra cost be passed onto your readers ?

If the answer is yes, then will your readership be prepared to pay the premium ? In other words, will they appreciate the higher quality images and thus pay a premium for it ??

I have a cynical view of Joe Public, too many people aren't prepared to pay for quality anymore. They want low cost and convenience."

I would think that any cost difference would be made up for in advertising rates. It's easier to justify expen$ive advertising rates in a magazine with a higher level of production quality.

As for a 645 PhaseOne digital back producing images approaching 4x5 - I doubt it, unless the 4X5 had crappy glass hanging on the front. The sensor area is just too small compared to a large chrome. Sounds like more marketing "Magic Kool-Aid" to me...

Take a look at this article on "Arizona Highways" web site:
here