I'm perfectly aware of that. I'll append a smiley next time...As always, lighting made the difference, it was not so much of a matter of exposure, just good lighting. Photographers had no more information about exposure than we do, in fact, a lot less. They went by rule of thumb, or had a standard exposure setup in their studio where the lighting was fixed.
Why an Eastern European?Call me crazy but the video gives no indication of the dynamic range the photographer was working with so the premise of the thread is flawed and presents the amazing work with a currently controversial tag it simply doesn’t deserve.
That photographers have been able to take compelling, realistic and life like images with the available tech since the 19th century should be no surprise to anybody, the surprise is that so many people feel the ‘need’ for so much more than they currently have to take images with a fraction of the interest or compelling nature. The constant clamor for more DR, IBIS, less “jittery or nervous” AF, etc.really does come across as a bad joke whenever you take the time to actually look at whatever image genre you personally aspire to and see what others achieve those results with. Give an Eastern European a 400D and 50 f1.8 and you’ll often get more compelling images than most of us with an R and RF 85 f1.2 and half a dozen lights.
Just because I have seen an amazing amount of very high quality output from very modest gear from Eastern Europeans, maybe that is a product of my exposure to them, maybe it is a function of their ability to get the best out of what they have. Maybe there is no correlation at all.Why an Eastern European?