OT: Sinar Hy6

[MJSfoto1956]

Ok, it's a bit off-topic, but I thought some of you would be interested.

I just had the pleasure of handling (for a few minutes) the new Sinar Hy6 medium format, 6x6 digital camera. The ergonomics are fabulous -- this is a classic, well-designed, European-quality camera that will take professionals into the next 10-20 years. Probably the best thing I liked about the camera was that it works with all Rollei 6008 accessories -- allowing you to shoot both 6x6 film and 36x48mm digital. (the hope is that someone will eventually offer a 6x6 digital back someday) The camera body and back was so light weight that I started complaining about the weight of the lenses -- particularly their 180mm, f2.8 auto focus lens.

I'm looking forward to a three-week evaluation of this camera later this year.

Anyway, while some of you might understandably sneer at mere "medium format" it is very very clear to me that the big players in the industry are investing in quality equipment to improve upon what Canon and their likes have delivered to date. From my perspective, the future of medium and large format looks bright!

[Tom Conway]

Michael: What other lenses are available? How does it compare to the Mamiya "Z"? How about cost for the Hy6? Is it being sold in the US? Thanks, Tom Conway.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The Sinar Hy6/Sinarback eMotion 54LV will have a suggested catalog price of $30,500.

Hmmm..... lets see, a jeep liberty to go take pics or a camera?... :)

Can someone explain to me what is the benefit of a camera like this over a high end DSLR? Neither has movements, magazines and catalog work don't require 1 gig files, a scanning back for a 4x5 would allow me to work more like LF for the same price and the lenses are cheaper. I really don't understand the role of MF in the digital world.

[Gordon Moat]

I recently got an invite from Leaf to try out their version of the Hy6. Don't know if I will be able to make it to do that, though it does seem to be an interesting system.

As far as a usage for something like this, just a quick walk around a mall or trade show will reveal some very large prints on display, especially at clothing stores. The advantage of medium format digital is that the individual cell site sizes on the chips are slightly larger, and cover double the area of a 35mm sized chip. So like medium format allows better tonality than 35mm, these medium format chips allow better tonality than possible with a high end Canon or Nikon.

Unfortunately, the economics are more difficult. A high end and high volume shooter might need such a purchase to get a bigger right-off on their taxes. More likely is that these will be bought by outfits that will then rent them to photographers as needed, or they might end up on lease plans, rather than outright purchase. I might be a candidate for renting one of these, though it would take much convincing for me to use something other than my 4x5 on commercial shoots; I would quite simply miss the movements and the different work-flow.

I still think medium format film is very relevant in commercial shooting. Even that might be overkill for some later printing or publication, though it is better to have too much information on film, than trying to up-size something less to fit.

There are also many early adopters, or simply baby boomer generation with excess cash. Quite likely some of these will sell to hobbiests and enthusiasts, though their purchases will fuel R&D for the next developments.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Doug Dolde]

Kurland has one one Ebay for $10.5K. That's the camera kit, no digital back. And they want $108 to ship UPS Ground. Talk about bullshit !

http://tinyurl.com/3dwuyk

Regarding the above comments, of course MF digital is not a viable economic proposition for a fine arts type shooter. It only pencils out for a working pro commercial photographer.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Kurland has one one Ebay for $10.5K. That's the camera kit, no digital back. And they want $108 to ship UPS Ground. Talk about bullshit !

http://tinyurl.com/3dwuyk

Regarding the above comments, of course MF digital is not a viable economic proposition for a fine arts type shooter. It only pencils out for a working pro commercial photographer.

I still don't get it. A working commercial photographer can get just about anything he needs from a DSLR, I always thought big prints were the realm of fine arts...sure, you might see a big poster at the gap or some such store, but hey the people looking at them are not looking at how well is printed, or if there are any artifacts, they look good from 6 feet... and show the fashion...which is what they care for....

[Gordon Moat]

I think there are barely enough professionals buying these to make them continue. These are very much niche products for the few, whether working or not. My own choice, with that much money, would be to put that into marketing and advertising my capabilities; and I think that would give a greater return on investment. However, I have had the odd client come along thinking these were the next best thing to holes in Swiss cheese . . . so they paid for the rental, and I used a MFDB shot alongside film (which is basically back-up gear) . . . when the client gets a CD-R with the image files (scanned film, or MFDB captures), they cannot pick out which shot originated from which capture method . . . I think that is a good indicator of a few things.

When I looked through the latest Lürzer's Archive 200 Best Advertising Photographers, what I found was that over half the shots similar to the work realms that I shoot, originated on large format (usually 4x5). The only other aspect is that all that film was scanned and post processed. To a client who gets image files, scanned film is no different than direct digital capture, and in many cases probably more than they need. So I have no economic incentive to switch to using a MFDB at the current level.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I think there are barely enough professionals buying these to make them continue. These are very much niche products for the few, whether working or not. My own choice, with that much money, would be to put that into marketing and advertising my capabilities; and I think that would give a greater return on investment. However, I have had the odd client come along thinking these were the next best thing to holes in Swiss cheese . . . so they paid for the rental, and I used a MFDB shot alongside film (which is basically back-up gear) . . . when the client gets a CD-R with the image files (scanned film, or MFDB captures), they cannot pick out which shot originated from which capture method . . . I think that is a good indicator of a few things.

When I looked through the latest Lürzer's Archive 200 Best Advertising Photographers, what I found was that over half the shots similar to the work realms that I shoot, originated on large format (usually 4x5). The only other aspect is that all that film was scanned and post processed. To a client who gets image files, scanned film is no different than direct digital capture, and in many cases probably more than they need. So I have no economic incentive to switch to using a MFDB at the current level.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

I don?t want to put words in your mouth but it seems that what you are saying is that for shots that will be enlarged to a greater degree then a 4x5 with film will be just as good and that or anything else a dslr would work....and that the only reason to buy one of these would be to impress the clients....

[Frank Petronio]

Jorge, with the MF Digital you do getting a nice clean file with better detail in the shadows and highlights compared to a DSLR. This makes a difference on things like some of the highly detailed, high quality fashion/beauty/cosmetic ads where shooting a 39mp MF is so much nicer than trying to shoot a model with a 4x5. It is going to be so much nicer to her skin than any DSLR, and the raw shot provides a lot more for the retoucher to work with.

Otherwise, I think some food and auto ad photos really benefit from the extended range that the DSLR would clip.

Basically skin, chrome, and delicate highlights are what really benefit...

And if you walk around a big modern US Mall store, some of the banners and large photos are reproduced quite nicely, with a lot of detail, even up close.

BUT yeah, if you're careful I am sure a good photographer could do fine with a D3 or 1DSmk3... a large part is snob appeal and to impress the client. And the big chip gives you a margin of error that helps too. Look at the shots Tyra did on America's Next Top Model using a digital Blad -- the greyscale conversions were top notch.

[Gordon Moat]

I don?t want to put words in your mouth but it seems that what you are saying is that for shots that will be enlarged to a greater degree then a 4x5 with film will be just as good and that or anything else a dslr would work....and that the only reason to buy one of these would be to impress the clients....

LOL:D

One way to look at this is that a client usually will review images on their computer monitor. A computer monitor will only show so much, and even if they go to 300% magnification, they are still only seeing a reduced image. It really takes prints to make better decisions.

Compare that to plopping a 4x5 transparency on a light table, then handing the client a 7x loupe. Nearly everyone I have done that for has been blown away at the level of detail. Try to view anything on a computer monitor at 700% magnification, and it becomes too difficult to figure out what one is seeing . . . computer loupes/displays have a long way to go still.

I personally know one architectural shooter who justifiably uses the latest PhaseOne digital back, and has it on a Cambo. The images he shoots with that set-up get printed quite large for in-store display usage (like Apple Store in NYC). Of course, he paid for the entire set-up and lenses after the first shoot he did with that. So . . . it is possible to justify, but quite likely some people are just out to impress their clients.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[QT Luong]

The advantage of a MF back over a DSLR is significant improvement in image quality (sort of like going from 35mm to MF, but maybe less).

The advantage of a MF back over a scanning LF back is the quickness and ease of set-up and ability to photograph subjects with motion.

In the digital world, MF is more squished by 35mm (35mm digital is quite good), but on the other hand, the differences in usability between MF and LF are larger, because LF is not one-shot.

High-end commercial jobs run in the 5 figures and often in the 6 figures, so for that amount of money clients prefer to get the best files available, just in case the extra quality is needed. Rental fees for a MF digital system are quite low in comparison to the total budget of a high-end shoot.

As to MF digital making sense economically for the fine art photographer, Charles Cramer writes:

"Over the last three years my expenses for film and processing came to around 60% of a P45 (large format film is expensive!) Although I do my own drum-scans, I contribute to a Tango scanner's maintenance contract to the tune of $2,000 per year. Add those up, and I'm 80% of the way to a P45. "

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, with the MF Digital you do getting a nice clean file with better detail in the shadows and highlights compared to a DSLR. This makes a difference on things like some of the highly detailed, high quality fashion/beauty/cosmetic ads where shooting a 39mp MF is so much nicer than trying to shoot a model with a 4x5. It is going to be so much nicer to her skin than any DSLR, and the raw shot provides a lot more for the retoucher to work with.

Otherwise, I think some food and auto ad photos really benefit from the extended range that the DSLR would clip.

Basically skin, chrome, and delicate highlights are what really benefit...

And if you walk around a big modern US Mall store, some of the banners and large photos are reproduced quite nicely, with a lot of detail, even up close.

BUT yeah, if you're careful I am sure a good photographer could do fine with a D3 or 1DSmk3... a large part is snob appeal and to impress the client. And the big chip gives you a margin of error that helps too. Look at the shots Tyra did on America's Next Top Model using a digital Blad -- the greyscale conversions were top notch.

Hmmm...well, you know I know nothing about digital cameras, but if you are doing a studio shot where you are able to control the lighting ratios, is the "clipping" you mention that important? Seems to me that if you mantain lighting ratios that are within what a dslr can register, then you are home safe.

I don't know, aren't dslrs now at 16 megapixels? Isn't this enough for magazine print quality, even if it is for Vogue?

BTW, if you are watching Tyra and ANTM you are not taking enough pictures.. :)

[Gordon Moat]

I have met Charles Cramer, and he does some quite nice landscape images. My impression was that his primary income is from workshops. In that direction, if you own something more impressive than the average baby boomer who wants to attend one of his workshops, then it might be a bigger draw than stating that you scan film (even on a drum scanner). In other words, I think his move to a MFDB shows a few things: that his business model for fine art prints did not adequately factor the cost of film, and that he saw an opportunity to get more digital shooters into workshops, and lastly the the economics of buying the MFDB were partially justified because it became a form of advertising for his workshops.

I think one of the disappointing aspects of that move was a print I saw of his that had a few pixelation flaws. This was hanging at the Ordover Gallery area of the Museum of Natural History in Balboa Park. Maybe it was honestly missed, a lack or time, or carelessness, or it could have even been bad post processing; or I could be expecting too much (feel free to sling sh*t my direction). Anyway, I find some aspects and claims baffling, despite how nice people are, or their level of talent/recognition.

Sure, a MFDB made in the last three years of so can give you quite a nice image file, and the latest high end D-SLRs can do the same thing. I don't think it is about the gear so much, and I am glad to see the outrageous claims disappearing slowly, and a return to emphasis on the content of the images . . . and not what f*(king over-priced tool you choose . . . the camera does not take itself out an make compelling images.

I stand by the fact that if you can tell what camera, or what post-processing, or any other aspect of technology was used to create an image, then you are losing the magic in the images. Maybe something is obvious to a professional, and not to the average guy on the street, but if you are not making people go wow, at least some of the time, then it makes little difference what gear you are using.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Ben R]

The first thing I noticed when I shot 4X5 in specific comparison to my DSLR's was not resolution but how the resolution was shown, the tonality was incredible and far more 'real' than the compressed data at either end of the spectrum of the DSLR files especially at the limits of resolved detail. Oh did I mention that I was using the same DSLR stitching with the Camera Fusion adaptor for the comparison? It's the same reason that I still prefer my 645 trannies to my 5D, more real estate and resolution means better and far more realistic representation of 3D objects on a 2D medium. I have little doubt that especially with advertising photography this is precisely why those photographers are using MFDB's. It's so easy to tell the store signs and posters shot with a 35mm DSLR, the tonality looks, well, 35mm...

[QT Luong]

This assessment seems unfair to Charles Cramer. To begin with, all his workshops appear to be computer classes, so students won't even see him shooting. Lake Tahoe based landscape photographer Elizabeth Carmel (also represented by Ordover) uses also a 39MP Medium format back, and she hasn't taught any workshop.

[Gordon Moat]

Elizabeth Carmel (http://www.elizabethcarmel.com/#mi=1&pt=0&pi=5&s=0&p=-1&a=0&at=0), who does some very nice images, is sponsored by Hasselblad and Calument Photographic, who pay for her to give short workshops that are free to the public. Her and her husband also own a successful gallery.

I don't see where I was being unfair to Charles Cramer. This is really quite simple: if he makes enough money off his prints to pay for a 39MP MFDB, then I suppose it somehow makes good business sense. The impression I got from him, and others who know him, was a somewhat curious one. It nearly seemed that it was not possible that he was selling enough prints to justify the substantial expenses of his gear. On the other hand, there was quite good indication that he was making very good money off his workshops.

If art photography was treated like a business, then a simple cost to profit analysis would suffice to show where any value might be in using a MFDB, especially at the highest and most expensive level. In a situation where someone has the money for such things, and simply wants to use them regardless of profit potential (or loss), then that is (to me) not a business decision.

None of this detracts from their images. They both produce quite nice work, and are very nice people to talk with about their images. So how is that unfair?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Eric Leppanen]

Short-term economics and workshops notwithstanding, I believe much of the reason Charles Cramer migrated to MFDB was because he honestly felt it would increase the quality and volume of his color landscape work. When I last corresponded with him about nine months ago, he said he was quite content with his P45 setup, and had really not used his 4x5 for the previous year (although he was not ready to sell it quite yet). He felt that, for print sizes up to 24x30", the P45 produces results just a good as 4x5; the small image capture area translates into greater depth of field; and the speed and spontaneity of using zoom lenses on an SLR camera was really addictive. He doesn't shoot architecture, so he doesn't really miss not having rise/fall, and for the infrequent cases where he misses tilt he purchased a used RZ system with P45 and tilt/shift adapters. Also, if I recall a previous discussion with him correctly, previewing his images on the LCD also helps him instantaneously gauge proper shutter speed for dynamic subjects such a running water, whereas with film he would have to bracket several speeds and hope for the best.

Switching to digital capture presumably makes marketing his workshops a bit easier to the legions of DSLR owners in the world. But I think it is unfair to presume that it was the preponderant motivation. I think having a continuing stream of new, high quality work visible in photographic publications and mass media is more far valuable to recruiting students than the specifics of one's capture method.

[QT Luong]

Elizabeth Carmel (http://www.elizabethcarmel.com/#mi=1&pt=0&pi=5&s=0&p=-1&a=0&at=0), who does some very nice images, is sponsored by Hasselblad and Calument Photographic, who pay for her to give short workshops that are free to the public. Her and her husband also own a successful gallery.

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). To suggest that an artist makes equipment choices for marketing reasons rather than for the impact on his work is not necessarily flattering. To me, it makes much sense for a landscape photographer to use MF digital, because it is simply considerably easier to get a good image (and even more so, images) that way.

[Gordon Moat]

I am not questioning the relative quality of images from a MFDB; in fact I have rented a 22MP several times in the past. If one is not making a profit from their photography, and simply has the money to use something like this, then it becomes an expensive hobby. If the intention is to make profit, then it should be handled as a business decision. In that consideration, I seriously doubt if print sales generate enough to justify the substantial expense. The other argument I have heard is one of reducing costs, though in reality if you had not factored film and processing costs into your sales, then the business model was flawed.

So for an art photographer, what is a reasonable justification for buying a MFDB? According to every survey and statistic I have read on professional realms on photography, fine art photographers are the worst paid of all, even lower on the scale than photojournalists (PDN, US Gov., and UK surveys). I will refer back to the long thread on fine art photography on this forum, in which one of the implied/suggested messages was that few were making much of any profit from their endeavors. So how do the statistically lowest paid photographers justify the most expensive equipment?

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. There is not a question of right or wrong here, and I only feel my statements would be unfair if an individual was embarrassed by what I wrote.

Anyway, if some of my writing about this subject is such a bad thing, then I will be happy to accommodate changes. I would even be willing to delete the posts I have made in this thread, if anyone requests that. Perhaps I have stepped upon a taboo subject?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Asher Kelman]

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. There is not a question of right or wrong here, and I only feel my statements would be unfair if an individual was embarrassed by what I wrote.
Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

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

[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 (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[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 (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[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 (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[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.