OT: Sinar Hy6

[Eric Leppanen]

So how do the statistically lowest paid photographers justify the most expensive equipment?

It is speculative to apply industry generalizations to individual photographers. What if he happens to be in, say, the top 10% of revenue-producing fine art photographers and has a more reasonable revenue flow? Also, it appears to me that you are assuming that all equipment purchase decisions for fine-art photographers are based on short-term cash flow, and that capital investments with longer-term payback periods are not feasible. If someone like Charles Cramer can produce a progressively greater body of work by leveraging the speed and flexibility of a MFDB, then this will have a progressively beneficial effect over time on all his revenue sources (assignments, print sales, stock photography, workshops, etc.). Assuming he has some type of savings nestegg to cover the initial capital investment (and hopefully someone his age will have this), then a payback period of, say, three years is not unreasonable at all. I doubt it would even be this long if he got a good lease deal.

I don't think there is anything taboo about this discussion. I think it is fine to express a concern regarding a seeming discrepancy between the relatively low revenue fine art photography business model and high-end MFDB's. But I think it is a stretch to presume that virtually all fine art photographers cannot afford MFDB's without substantial workshop revenue tie-in's. As for marketing, of course many fine-art photographers market themselves by touting the merits of their equipment and workflow, be it film or digital. My most recent impression after touring this month's Photo LA show is that the method of capture (or even print technology) had little influence on print sales compared with the fame of the photographer, strength of image, limited edition size, etc.

[Marko]

Also, if any one of these photographers using a MFDB stated absolutely nothing about their gear, then I would not consider it marketing. As soon as you state something about gear, or about process, then it is marketing. If an image was simply hanging in a gallery, without any explanation, then that work can be judged on it's merits (and not process). When training or background come into an artist's statement, then we get a feel for who they are, and perhaps insight to there approach. As soon as gear is mentioned, then it is done to make an impression.

If the merit of an image could be judged only if that image was simply hung on the wall in a gallery without any explanation - an approach I do agree very much with - than any statement about an artist, be it the equipment or processes he/she uses or the training the artist completed could be - and is - interpreted as marketing.

In an ideal world, there would be no marketing because everybody would be buying only what one really needs, and, even more to the point, everybody would be able to do so. And consequently, everybody would get recognition (and rewards) they deserve.

But such a world does not exist and we are stuck with what we have, so we will continue to have the high-output, high-income artists stress their expensive modern gear, low output, starving artists will continue putting an emphasis on uniqueness and tediousness of the century-old, hand-made masterpiece while those who can't count on either approach will brag about their training. And each will continue sneering at the other two, out of conviction or out of professional jealousy.

[Eric Leppanen]

I wouldn't call a two hour talk a "short workshop". I attended the last one (see lounge post). To my surprise, she hardly mentioned Hasselblad. An interesting tidbit that I learned was that she almost always shot at f32 (remember the sensor size is smaller than 645, and some in this forum worry about diffraction on 4x5).

I actually was going to attend Elizabeth Carmel's LA workshop, but it got rescheduled and I was unable to make it. In addition to shooting at f/32, did she mention doing depth-of-field bracketing when stopping down wasn't enough? And does she have any personal guidelines on image resolution versus print size (i.e., use only stitched compositions for print sizes over 30x40", etc.)? I notice she just took delivery of an Epson 11880 and her web site mentions making 40x60" prints regularly, so clearly large prints are an important part of her business model. The impression I get is that she just uprezzes a single capture to these large sizes.

[Gordon Moat]

Thanks Marko, nicely stated. Eric, there were several voices of surprise, from individuals who knew Charles Cramer, about his purchase of that MFDB. It is not super difficult to see what sort of sales he has made, and it is not much more of a stretch to see how much his workshops cost, or how many attendees/students show up . . . nothing in exact figures, but not that tough to get a general idea; and all this just from curiosity. So I don't see that his recent print sales profits equal a MFDB, though if you placed workshop income, stock sales, and all other potential sales into it, then it seems to make more sense. The issue is that it is not presented in that manner; the only aspect addressed was print sales.

It is a different story when someone has a pension, retirement, or some other source of income, and simply wants to own something like this. However, I don't think that makes any business sense; it is more of a hobby then. What does everyone feel the cost to profit ratio is with high end art photographers? In the latest PDN industry wide survey, they indicated very few at the top skewing the results due to high income; so you are suggesting that Charles Cramer sells enough prints to be at the high end, or that his overall (workshops, stock sales, prints) places him at the high end? And if he made greater income from workshops, wouldn't that place him more as a photo educator? That's fine too, and I don't have any problem with that.

Early on in this thread, I replied about one architectural photographer friend who is using the latest MFDB set-up, and made a nice profit from that. His purchase decision was based upon that profit potential for what he did, and was directly related to the images his clients get (as opposed to teaching/workshops). I know several others with similar business models; all tie the gear expenses to image revenues. If fine art photographers are not doing that (tie expense to image revenues), then how does there business model account for these things?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[QT Luong]

You factor depreciation in your cost like you factor film/processing. Nothing different.

Elizabeth's best selling image is of a dogwood branch with a background of a river blurred by motion. She mentioned that to get a sharp branch she made 60 exposures. How many would do that with film ? The image is at number 49 and possibly paid for the back.

She mentioned trying focus bracketing, but that it was too difficult to make a good merge. My understanding is that he only circumstance when she stitched was from backpacking, where she takes a single lens.

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon,

This last weekend I looked at nearly all the images in the 2008 Photo LA exhibition. The large expensive prints mentioned nothing about the camera used. Just the price, for example, $,7400 and the method printing: C print, Chromagenic print, Archival Pigment Ink or Platinum print.

However, if one asked, the gallery owner generally knew what camera was used.

One artist was making prints from an antique Fuji version of the Kodak box camera I used as a boy. Except for lens it had some sort of window glass it seems! Here prints had an ethereal feel and went for about $1500-$200.

So is all that still marketing?

Asher

Hello Asher,

Absolutely it is marketing. I think Marco made a good statement about this.

As a painter, I state no more than oil on canvas for my paintings. I make no claims about archival quality, nor do I state what brand of brushes I use, nor even what paints I use. Those paintings of mine stand on their own. Why should photography be different?

I know a few people who went to Photo LA, and have been going to this and similar events for many years. There has been a trend towards larger images, yet it still seems that sales are not that much different. The impression I get is to do anything and everything to try stimulating more sales . . . but is it working?

I know collectors buy based upon knowing something about the artist. As Marko stated, the artist statement is a form of marketing; which implies it can help sales. In a similar manner, being at an exhibit opening, in which the artist can meet people, has generally resulted in more sales than when images are just hanging at a gallery.

Sadly enough, I meet more people who make money off artists, than I meet successful artists; probably the nature of the business. This is nothing new, and even now very famous artists made very little during their lifetimes. Just as there is an industry built around aspiring musicians, there is an industry built around aspiring artists and even more so around aspiring photographic artists. I don't know that approaching decisions more as a business would change much, but it might point out that thinking a bit more might make decision making more careful.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Eric Leppanen]

Gordon, I don't think anyone is arguing that gear expenses should not be tied to projected revenues. I think our differences lay in how immediate the payback is, and whether less readily quantifiable benefits can also justify capital investment.

Charles Cramer has already indicated that the elimination of film, processing and scanning expenses have covered roughly 80% of his MFDB capital cost over a three-year period. If we arbitrarily assume that his MFDB cost $35K and he incurs no additional on-going costs associated with the back (I'm assuming a maintenance/support contract is included in the purchase price), then 80% of $35K equals $28K of film/processing/scanning savings over three years. So he need only show roughly $7K of additional revenue from any source over three years to break even. I don't think $7K / 3 = $2.5K of additional revenue per year is a tough goal for him to meet, as his shooting style seems to match MFDB almost to a tee (virtually no need for camera movements, shoots exclusively color, already has a digital printing infrastructure, etc.) and he certainly would produce saleable images that he would never obtain with LF.

Of course, if his business doesn't have $35K of available capital lying around, then he'd have to get a lease deal or other financing. But I doubt this would make for any major changes in the final numbers.

I think we also differ as to whether financial payback should be the exclusive criterion for capital investment in a photography business. Fine art photography is to a certain extent a lifestyle choice, arguably more so than commercial photography. Otherwise, why would people pursue it even though it pays relatively poorly? If Mr. Cramer enjoys being freed from the cumbersome aspects of LF photography (more productive image capture, less bulk, easier travel, etc.), then this is worth something too, even though the financial impact is not immediately quantifiable. Such considerations are still quite professional in nature, and do not make him a "hobbyist". Quality of life is important, even in a professional setting.

[Gordon Moat]

I still find it odd to hear art photographers only consider film as an expense item. Nearly every commercial shooter I have met either marked up their expenses (thereby generating additional profits), or factored there expenses at no mark-up (which is mostly what I do). So my film and processing costs end up being zero; I suppose if I supplied a different logic to this, if I could buy a digital back for nothing, then I would be at break even . . . of course, I have an art degree, and not an accounting degree . . . never mind.

Lifestyle choice . . . okay . . . I suppose. Hey, if that is what makes someone happy, then I am certainly not the person to try to change that.

When I did the math/accounting to see if getting a MFDB made sense for my business, what I found was that it only made sense if I could make the back available for rental to others. The reality is that I spend far more time in meetings than I do making images. So when I looked at the cost to profit ratio, given an expected 30 month working lifespan (maximum) on a MFDB. Remember, the way my business model works is that film and processing are not an expense. Anyway, going back to that thread last year about art photographers, that realm is highly speculative, so I guess I should not be surprised at how some people work in that realm.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Peter De Smidt]

We have five phase MFDBs at work, H20s and H25s, which we bought a couple of years ago. At that time, Dslrs had considerably less resolution, and the Phase software was clearly superior to other raw programs at that time. In addition, we have lot's of great Hasselblad and Sinar equipment that we can make use of. Canon Dslr's are great, but the Phases do give better quality in the studio. Does that really matter for most of the work? Probably not. We used to shoot 4x5" film for small catalog pictures, though. Wide angle lens performance does impact the Canon Dslrs, and this is easily visible even in small prints. Zeiss medium format glass is much better, although we don't have Zeiss lenses that can go as wide as the Canon ones that we have.