haris Posted July 19, 2008 Share #21 Posted July 19, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) If that is so I wonder how Hasselblad has gotten people to pay nearly $40,000 for a body... Same as people pays 100.000 $ for Rolex, and watch of 100 or 50 or 10$ is also or more acurate. Beause they can, want, feed ego, showing they are wealthier (translated: better) than others, are in love with new technologies (and more, new technology with famous name), want to be in trend, must (you are not "real" photographer if you don't use that camera and you lose clients, becaue if you can't pay that camera you don't earn enough, and if you don't earn enough is because you are bad photographer, so clients don't want you), your clients can't showing off themselves: "look I made photograhs with that famous/hip/cool/trendy... photographer who use that famous/hip/cool/trendy... camera (look I didn't pay for this fragrance 30$ in ordinary shop, I payed 200$ for same fragrance in that posh shop, and everyone saw me there, and who didn't saw me there, saw I carry bag from that posh shop)... More reasons? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Hi haris, Take a look here So what does this say about digital?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanG Posted July 19, 2008 Share #22 Posted July 19, 2008 Same as people pays 100.000 $ for Rolex, and watch of 100 or 50 or 10$ is also or more acurate. Beause they can, want, feed ego, showing they are wealthier (translated: better) than others, are in love with new technologies (and more, new technology with famous name), want to be in trend, must (you are not "real" photographer if you don't use that camera and you lose clients, becaue if you can't pay that camera you don't earn enough, and if you don't earn enough is because you are bad photographer, so clients don't want you), your clients can't showing off themselves: "look I made photograhs with that famous/hip/cool/trendy... photographer who use that famous/hip/cool/trendy... camera (look I didn't pay for this fragrance 30$ in ordinary shop, I payed 200$ for same fragrance in that posh shop, and everyone saw me there, and who didn't saw me there, saw I carry bag from that posh shop)... More reasons? Yes those are excellent reasons. Thanks for the thorough well thought out answer. By the way, do you actually have any experience with using a Hasselblad 39 megapixel camera? Yes by all means please post some more "reasons." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted July 19, 2008 Share #23 Posted July 19, 2008 Same as people pays 100.000 $ for Rolex, and watch of 100 or 50 or 10$ is also or more acurate. Beause they can, want, feed ego, showing they are wealthier (translated: better) than others, are in love with new technologies (and more, new technology with famous name), want to be in trend, must (you are not "real" photographer if you don't use that camera and you lose clients, becaue if you can't pay that camera you don't earn enough, and if you don't earn enough is because you are bad photographer, so clients don't want you), your clients can't showing off themselves: "look I made photograhs with that famous/hip/cool/trendy... photographer who use that famous/hip/cool/trendy... camera (look I didn't pay for this fragrance 30$ in ordinary shop, I payed 200$ for same fragrance in that posh shop, and everyone saw me there, and who didn't saw me there, saw I carry bag from that posh shop)... More reasons? I think anyone buying the Hassy will be expecting it to earn its keep, and I doubt any clients would give a toss about the camera the photographer is using as long as the results are up to scratch. OK if he pulled out his mobile phone they might wonder..... As for the posh shop analogy.........you're not being serious though I'm sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted July 20, 2008 Share #24 Posted July 20, 2008 ..... anyone buying the Hassy will be expecting it to earn its keep.... Indeed. I'd actually say insisting rather than 'expecting'. I know two early-digital adopters of 'medium format digital backs'. They both bought into their set-ups to stay ahead of opposition, but the factors which guided their buying decisions then are utterly different to what photography is now. Of course there are some jobs where the utmost quality is desirable and which calls for the best [and hideously expensive] digital backs, but I really don't think the medium format market [small, and shrinking though it is] is driven by necessity. I wonder; if monitors were operating at 300 ppi rather than c.72 whether the sales of medium-format backs might slump to beyond their survival 'tipping point'. Whilst micro inspection of files can be interesting, does it really make sense for digital purchasing to be driven by inspecting files at over 16 times larger than output dpi size, on possibly a giant 30 inch monitor, in an utterly alien colour-space to CMYK output on paper, when the likely finished image will be printed at [maybe A3] but likely A4 and smaller? My suspicion is that the megapixel race is driven by files being viewed far too big on monitors - because they can be. Whilst photographers know the difference between 100% screen size and 300dpi print output, I'm not convinced that non photographers do. In earlier film days it would be a bit like a photographer knowing that a largish roll-film image would reproduce handsomely, but a client needing to see a 12x10 inch transparency in order to be convinced. Thankfully that didn't happen in film days because clients used photographers as professional people and were guided by their experience, everyone, it seems, is now an expert on photography - especially the client base. Photography is in a significant recession, and the financial commitment to medium-format digital makes no sense to most photographers. Who needs it? A few, plus those photographers whose clients think they do. ................ Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 20, 2008 Share #25 Posted July 20, 2008 A little OT...but recently I took 4 35mm negs to my usual lab to have 20x30 cm prints (it'sa good lab, I point, very well tooled for quality prints), it was more than 1 year i did not such a work made (from M8 buy, I only used it... the negs I speak of were old stuff). The lab people asked me if I wanted also the TIFF files of the negs... I asked him if this means that for neg enlargments they make scan+print: the answer was : "of course we do". This has made me think once more to this perennial film vs. digital issue (in amateur's environment) : some friends of mine still stick on film, pretending "there is still nothing like a good neg enlargment" : I suspect they do not know their final product is anyway, probably, coming from a digital process... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 20, 2008 Share #26 Posted July 20, 2008 Photography is in a significant recession, and the financial commitment to medium-format digital makes no sense to most photographers. Who needs it? A few, plus those photographers whose clients think they do. ................ Chris This is why a lot of high end gear gets rented per job. Not that many photographers own high end digital medium format gear. Whereas in the past many owned MF and LF film gear. Some types of photography - food, jewelry, etc. were traditionally done on 4x5 or 8x10 and those clients will demand similar quality from digital photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted July 20, 2008 Share #27 Posted July 20, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is why a lot of high end gear gets rented per job..... Alan - You are in the US, I am in the UK and the photography recession here is at least 5 years deep for a lot of photographers. More photographers, chasing fewer jobs, for less fees and more work, etc. etc. The major city in which I live had numerous studios until fairly recent times; a couple of years ago a good friend [a superb studio/advertising photographer] were chatting and could not think of a studio still operating. I do not know one photographer who can afford the tools of their trade as they did in former times, I think many keen hobbyists would be astonished at this.I too come from owning substantial view-camera, and medium format film gear, but multi-format gear with 'digital' is a thing of the past for most photographers, as is hiring. Some types of photography - food, jewellery, etc. were traditionally done on 4x5 or 8x10 and those clients will demand similar quality from digital photography But they mostly are not paying medium-format fees. I know a good photographer still doing this kind of work. The clients think the photographer's [albeit now ageing] film back is being used for the work; but in private it is all shot on a D300. Re-purchasing digital medium-format gear is impossible for him because the costing makes no sense - and he is the busiest photographer I know. Also [referring to the point I made earlier about screen size versus actual CMYK printing], he emphasises final image reproduction to his clients rather than screen appearance and pixel peeping. Apologies for the ramble. ............... Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 20, 2008 Share #28 Posted July 20, 2008 But they mostly are not paying medium-format fees. I know a good photographer still doing this kind of work. The clients think the photographer's [albeit now ageing] film back is being used for the work; but in private it is all shot on a D300. Re-purchasing digital medium-format gear is impossible for him because the costing makes no sense - and he is the busiest photographer I know. Also [referring to the point I made earlier about screen size versus actual CMYK printing], he emphasises final image reproduction to his clients rather than screen appearance and pixel peeping. I'm sorry for the situation in the UK. And if smaller formats work that is fine and only further proves the point that digital photography is very good indeed. So it started out with the OP's statement that digital photography wasn't as good as film photography and now we are trying to see if many people can justify the higher quality of medium format digital gear. I guess that proves that digital photography is more than good enough doesn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted July 21, 2008 Share #29 Posted July 21, 2008 ...So it started out with the OP's statement that digital photography wasn't as good as film photography and now we are trying to see if many people can justify the higher quality of medium format digital gear... And that nobody really needs expencive 40MP Hassy if "35mm" digital gear gives premium quality... And above quote just prove what I said, before was so politely told to shut up, why to pay 100.000$ Rolex when 100$ Seiko shows time as acurate if not more acurate than Rolex (and translate that to camera world). Pure ego Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted July 21, 2008 Share #30 Posted July 21, 2008 Savor the irony of a post railing against buying an expensive camera that you don't really need in the Leica forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted July 21, 2008 Share #31 Posted July 21, 2008 A little OT...but recently I took 4 35mm negs to my usual lab to have 20x30 cm prints (it'sa good lab, I point, very well tooled for quality prints), it was more than 1 year i did not such a work made (from M8 buy, I only used it... the negs I speak of were old stuff).The lab people asked me if I wanted also the TIFF files of the negs... I asked him if this means that for neg enlargments they make scan+print: the answer was : "of course we do". This has made me think once more to this perennial film vs. digital issue (in amateur's environment) : some friends of mine still stick on film, pretending "there is still nothing like a good neg enlargment" : I suspect they do not know their final product is anyway, probably, coming from a digital process... Several years ago my friend who own lab bought(then) new Fuji Frontier minilab (100.000 Euros, ouch!) . It looked great untill I learned machine scan film and print it by laser(s) on photo paper. Fortunatelly I do my own printing in mt home darkroom, and as I do b/w I have no problems. But, if and when I will do colour, I hope I will do it also in my darkroom too. Even worse, that Frontier scan film at 300 dpi for less than A4 format, and interpolate it to A4. It is just enough for A4 print on Frontier, and for nothing else. I few times tried to scan films to be printed in magazine, and had to find someone with negative scanner to again scan films for magazine, because Frontier scan wasn't quality enough. I use film, and even if I live in real world and (hopefully) understand things, and even if digital getting "better" every day, I still prefer film. And analogue in general. I wach my 200 Euros CTR TV and when compare picture on it with mine girlfriend's 1000 Euro worth plasma TV, picture on my TV is much better (contrast, shadow colours and details, image on plain uniform coloured surfaces, etc...). I really hate waiting 2012. when in my country (and in whole EU) all TV programme will be digital and analogue will stop. Atleast in TV (and in music) digital is worse than analogue. And I think in photography too, but, it is just me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 21, 2008 Share #32 Posted July 21, 2008 And that nobody really needs expencive 40MP Hassy if "35mm" digital gear gives premium quality... And above quote just prove what I said, before was so politely told to shut up, why to pay 100.000$ Rolex when 100$ Seiko shows time as acurate if not more acurate than Rolex (and translate that to camera world). Pure ego Well you clearly don't think you need it. But to say that nobody does is quite a stretch. You could have also asked what was the point of Ansel Adams or Richard Avedon shooting on 8x10 when a smaller camera would take a good picture too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted July 21, 2008 Share #33 Posted July 21, 2008 Savor the irony of a post railing against buying an expensive camera that you don't really need in the Leica forum. Oh, don't get me wrong, I would love to have that Hassy or M8. And even more M7 (after all I am analogue man). Only I will not be afraid to admit, it would be in major part ego trip. After all, I am a man with all bad and good things one man can have You know, ego doesn't have to be bad. Ego is thing which force us to be better, to improve. Without ego, humans will never go forward, ego is what moves us forward. Like jealousy, when you are in love you must be a little jealous. It is only matter of scale, litlle jealousy or ego is good, too much of it is problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted July 21, 2008 Share #34 Posted July 21, 2008 Well you clearly don't think you need it. But to say that nobody does is quite a stretch. You could have also asked what was the point of Ansel Adams or Richard Avedon shooting on 8x10 when a smaller camera would take a good picture too. Alan, I do understand that there are people who think and find they need that camera and find a rational reason to buy it. I wery often think there is marketing hype that force people buying stuff they don't really need. That is why my remarks about clients, there is also marketing thing about client who use this or that photographer. Do you really try to tell me there is no influence of that thinking when client chose photographer. If that is not case, it would be no matter does on your t-shirt write nothing or write Lacosta, or CK or whatever. I think fashion rules are not valid only in world of clothing and like, they work in all aspects, including photography. You can tell I simply am not fashion guy But, one who needs it, good luck. Once I read in one photo teaching book (Fotografija, Milan Fizi, 1982.) sentence (paraphrasing): "Why someone needs big negatives (as "big" author think about MF and LF). Imagine photographer photographing landcape. Now imagine kilometers of landscape compressed on 35mm film and quality of that image. It is reasonable that bigger negative will capture more details of scene". Something like that. So, I find reasons for 8x10 film. If quality difference between Canon's 24x36mm and Hassy's 36x48mm chip is same (relatively and absolute) as difference between 24x36mm and 8x10 inch film, then OK. Oh, by the way, I wonder how many MP and Dmax is in 8x10 inch film Whatever, life is too serious and I am just talking a little ironically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted July 22, 2008 Share #35 Posted July 22, 2008 Alan, I do understand that there are people who think and find they need that camera and find a rational reason to buy it... Actually, I am not sure you do. Let me explain what I would call "big time photography." (Not to state or imply that I am a big time photographer.) A major advertising fashion photo for a beauty ad (hair, make-up, etc.) or even a still life of make-up, or perfume may run in many publications for several insertions (months.) The cost of buying the advertising space for this one photograph can easily run into millions of dollars. Then there is point of purchase displays, counter cards, billboards, mailers, etc. Top companies such as Estee Lauder and Revlon will have models under contract for millions of dollars per year. They use top expensive people for make-up, hair, and styling. And of course top, well paid photographers too. On a shoot the photographer will often have a first and second assistant plus a digital technician. (Maybe more.) It is also common for photographers to hire producers and location scouts for more elaborate shoots. Plus many photographers have sales reps working for them. So using a camera such as a Hassy H3 is not such a big deal to anyone involved when the shoots are "big time." Have you ever walked by a store in a mall and seen fashion photos blown up to ten feet across? (3 meters) Sometimes they like the grainy look and sometimes they want them wickedly sharp. I think the September issue of Vogue now runs about 700-800 pages. And if you think there are not many of these customers just look through all of the printed ads in various magazines from major companies such as Nike, Reebok, Coke, all kinds of jewelry, watches, etc., etc. Many of these ads are very expensive to produce so the cost of renting a Hassy H3 is minor. Here's a list from Seth Resnicks illustrating 4 color ad page rates from 1999. Seth Resnick Photography Magazine Circulation and Advertising Rates Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted July 22, 2008 Share #36 Posted July 22, 2008 Haris...the problem is you really don't understand what you're talking about. This is a quote from "PhotoPro", a respected online resource: "Dealing with true 16-bit color depth makes a difference,” says Mark Rezzonico, vice president of Leaf America. “The biggest difference between 35mm sensors and medium-format sensors is that the medium-format pixels are physically much larger, measuring about 9 to 10 micron pixels. This allows medium format to hold far more detail than any 35mm camera, regardless of megapixel size." If you actually make side by side comparisons from a Canon 1DsMIII and a Leaf Aptus 65 (I have)...there are color and tonal gradations in the Aptus print that are just not there in the print from the Canon, though resolution is pretty much the same. It may not be something the average person is going to see, but as someone pointed out, when your talking the kind of budgets major international ad campaigns...someone on the staff will be looking for these minor differences. And BTW...when you actually see a side by side comparison the difference isn't so minor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted July 24, 2008 Share #37 Posted July 24, 2008 Whatever, I am not going to continue this... Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted July 24, 2008 Share #38 Posted July 24, 2008 Just can't admit you're wrong, eh Harris. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy pro Posted July 24, 2008 Share #39 Posted July 24, 2008 If you actually make side by side comparisons from a Canon 1DsMIII and a Leaf Aptus 65 (I have)...there are color and tonal gradations in the Aptus print that are just not there in the print from the Canon It may not be something the average person is going to see Hmmm, sound just a we bit arrogant? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 24, 2008 Share #40 Posted July 24, 2008 Well, considering that the average person does not own this equipment, no - I would say not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.