Topic: Shooting Stock With Medium Format?? (Read 9461 times)

Mort54 · « **on:** February 22, 2007, 09:30:20 pm »

Is there any inherent earnings benefit to the photographer in shooting stock with a medium format digital back vs a high end 35mm DSLR? I'm primarily thinking 22 to 39 MP backs (not the older smaller backs).

Technically, MF backs can deliver considerably better resolution, sharper images without sharpening (due to no anti-alias filter on the MF backs), greater shadow detail, and finer tonal gradations. But do these technical benefits translate into more sales?

I've looked at a number of Alamy images, and there are quite a few offered with more than 16 MP (their minimum requirement), and the higher MP images command a higher price as you would expect. So I'm not asking whether a person can license higher MP images for more, since that's obviously the case. I'm really asking whether having the higher MP increases the liklihood of a sale.

Thanks,
Hans.

nik · « **Reply #1 on:** February 23, 2007, 12:48:33 am »

Quote

I'm really asking whether having the higher MP increases the liklihood of a sale.

Thanks,
Hans.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102503\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A loaded question but, No, it's content which icreases likelihood of sales. There's a lot of good work out there done on 35mm, APS-H, holga's and diana's that's selling well.

-N

mtomalty · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2007, 01:07:17 am »

Hans

Other than the different 'look' that distinguishes a medium format capture from a
35mm capture you,as a photographer,will likely never realize any sales benefit in
choosing one format over another for stock sales in generalist agencies.

99.9 % of the clients buying probably hundreds of thousands of stock images annually
do so based on a 1 inch thumbnail and a 3 x 4 inch enlarged preview.

At that size,even if clients were knowledgeable enough to distinguish between formats,
the field is equal and it is the strength of your image that will make the sale.

I don't know what you are specifically looking at on Alamy to see different prices for
differing file sizes but I believe you are probably looking at Royalty Free content which is
usually priced based on file size. Rights managed is almost exclusicely priced based on
a number of factors including end use,size of use,and geography.

Mark

marcwilson · « **Reply #3 on:** February 23, 2007, 08:50:32 am »

I don't know what you are specifically looking at on Alamy to see different prices for
differing file sizes but I believe you are probably looking at Royalty Free content which is
usually priced based on file size. Rights managed is almost exclusicely priced based on
a number of factors including end use,size of use,and geography.

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

That is exactly correct.
Unless you wish to shoot medium format for purely personal / style reasons..be it film or db then all of the general stock libraors including getty and corbis are more than happy with the image quality possible from good dslr's..but of course ther photographer still needs to use this equipment correctly to get the best out of them..as an example..getty who have very high technical image quality standards will accepy files from at the lowest end a nikon D200 and canon 30D but with these camera you will need to be vary wary of highlight, shadow detail, etc.
Alamy are much less strict and although requiring the same final image size (approx 50mb) seem to be less strict on image origins.

Of course specailst stock librairies such as architectural ones will again be different but for general stock work the enhanced image quality of a mfdb over a good 35mmdslr is wasted...that said my 2 best selling stock images were both shot on medium format film!

Gary Yeowell · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2007, 09:08:42 am »

Hans,

Medium format digital in itself by virtue of its bigger files and sharpness etc will as others have noted will not add anything to sales potential. However other factors which can alter the style and interpretation of a subject, just as it did with medium format cameras, can be just as valid now. As Marc noted, most of my best sellers happen to be shot on medium format film.

Gary.

Mort54 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 23, 2007, 11:26:30 am »

Hi everyone. Thank you for your responses so far.

As several of you mentioned, stock buyers make their decisions on small thumbnails, so any qualitative advantages of MF won't be visible. However, the available file sizes are visible to the buyer. So the question I've been asking myself, and which I posed in this thread, is whether having the larger file sizes gives one photograph an advantage over others, all else being equal. Obviously buyers make their decision on content first and foremost, but once they narrow their selection down to a few equally acceptable photos, I'm wondering whether the larger available file size will end up being a deciding factor. In a highly competitive environment, every advantage helps.

Regarding charging more for bigger file sizes, I was indeed referring to Alamy's royalty free license model. I guess I should use their cost calculator on their rights managed files to see if file size comes into play, but I don't recall seeing file size as one of the variables the last time I looked.

One thing I didn't mention initially is that my main focus is (or will be soon) fine art landscapes sold thru galleries and direct web sales. I view stock sales as a supplemental source of income. My main interest in MF is to get the highest quality files possible (and still shoot digital) for the fine art landscapes. But that got me to thinking about whether MF files also conferred some advantage in stock sales. So that's why I posed my question.

Thanks,
Hans

KAP · « **Reply #6 on:** February 23, 2007, 12:48:02 pm »

Quote

Hi everyone. Thank you for your responses so far.

As several of you mentioned, stock buyers make their decisions on small thumbnails, so any qualitative advantages of MF won't be visible. However, the available file sizes are visible to the buyer. So the question I've been asking myself, and which I posed in this thread, is whether having the larger file sizes gives one photograph an advantage over others, all else being equal. Obviously buyers make their decision on content first and foremost, but once they narrow their selection down to a few equally acceptable photos, I'm wondering whether the larger available file size will end up being a deciding factor. In a highly competitive environment, every advantage helps.

Regarding charging more for bigger file sizes, I was indeed referring to Alamy's royalty free license model. I guess I should use their cost calculator on their rights managed files to see if file size comes into play, but I don't recall seeing file size as one of the variables the last time I looked.

One thing I didn't mention initially is that my main focus is (or will be soon) fine art landscapes sold thru galleries and direct web sales. I view stock sales as a supplemental source of income. My main interest in MF is to get the highest quality files possible (and still shoot digital) for the fine art landscapes. But that got me to thinking about whether MF files also conferred some advantage in stock sales. So that's why I posed my question.

Thanks,
Hans
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102613\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You will struggle with landscapes on sites like Alamy, there's so many of them. No matter how wonderfull your 39 mp's images reproduce that thumb and preview is the great leveller, I've got some 5mp point and shoot jpg's up-sized with them. At the viewing size they could of been shot on 10x8 no one can tel.

Kevin.

stevecoleccs · « **Reply #7 on:** February 23, 2007, 12:53:34 pm »

Quote from: Mort54,Feb 23 2007, 11:26 AM

Hi everyone. Thank you for your responses so far.

the larger file sizes gives one photograph an advantage over others,

Hi, I'm a full time stock shooter & have been for the past 10 years, I shoot Canon 1ds MKll.
My images are with Getty, Masterfile & Corbis. - The Large file sizes has almost no real advantage,
in fact Getty will not even accept files that are larger than 52MB - Corbis goes alittle higher.

One big advanage fro the MF back is you wind up with a 100MB + size. Thus you are able
to crop in & be much looser when shooting - giving you that 50MB later. I'm on the fence
right now in buying a MF - just waiting on Phase & the H3.

~ steve

jecxz · « **Reply #8 on:** February 23, 2007, 01:07:51 pm »

Quote

I'm on the fence
right now in buying a MF - just waiting on Phase & the H3.

~ steve
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Steve,

Being a former Canon shooter and having switched to an H2--get ready for a change in style, approach and method with MF. Rent first. Coming from Canon--nothing comes closer than an H series camera. I have not looked back. H3 + Phase--was that a joke?

Good luck. As for the original posted question, I think it's been answered.

Gary Yeowell · « **Reply #9 on:** February 23, 2007, 01:37:10 pm »

Quote from: stevecoleccs,Feb 23 2007, 05:53 PM

Quote from: Mort54,Feb 23 2007, 11:26 AM
Hi everyone. Thank you for your responses so far.

One big advanage fro the MF back is you wind up with a 100MB + size. Thus you are able
to crop in & be much looser when shooting - giving you that 50MB later.
~ steve
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Very good point, i forgot to mention the filesize crop ability, this is another reason i have gone for the P30+ as i used to shoot a fair amount of panoramics, and now i can cut the centre out of the chip and still achieve the 50MB filesize required.

stevecoleccs · « **Reply #10 on:** February 23, 2007, 01:46:55 pm »

. H3 + Phase--was that a joke?

Nope, just a mistake, I should of said: H2 & P30+ back, but what I mean is
I'm waiting on a demo to compaire the H3 & the P30+ Side by side, my major
concern is handholding at 1/60th (mirror slap?) Are you getting sharp by hand holding?

Gary Yeowell · « **Reply #11 on:** February 23, 2007, 01:55:07 pm »

Steve,
If you don't mind using a discontinued system for the P30+ then the Contax 645 makes a compelling arguement as a pairing, absolutely no shake at 1/60th, probably the softest shutter/mirror slap of any medium format, every H2 i have used goes off like a tractor by comparison. The only snag is 1/125th sync if you are a flash user.

Gary.

stevecoleccs · « **Reply #12 on:** February 23, 2007, 02:06:55 pm »

Quote from: Gary Yeowell,Feb 23 2007, 01:55 PM

Steve,
If you don't mind using a discontinued system for the P30+ then the Contax 645 makes a compelling arguement as a pairing, absolutely no shake at 1/60th, probably the softest shutter/mirror slap of any medium format, every H2 i have used goes off like a tractor by comparison. The only snag is 1/125th sync if you are a flash user.

Thanks for the replys Gary, do you know anything about the Mamiya? (Besides the sync speed)

Gary Yeowell · « **Reply #13 on:** February 23, 2007, 02:18:45 pm »

Steve,

I have never really warmed to the Mamiya 645's of old due to the build quality which was not like an RZ, however the newer ones look a lot nicer, and the shutter is really quite smooth. Even as a Hasselbled user of 25 years i would still not put my money in an H2/H3 due to many reasons, the biggest being the constant error messages and poor build quality. As i do almost exclusively location stuff reliability is the most important factor for me, and i don't want to have to take extra kit as a back-up.

Gary.

jecxz · « **Reply #14 on:** February 23, 2007, 02:59:00 pm »

Quote

. H3 + Phase--was that a joke?

Nope, just a mistake, I should of said: H2 & P30+ back, but what I mean is
I'm waiting on a demo to compaire the H3 & the P30+ Side by side, my major
concern is handholding at 1/60th (mirror slap?) Are you getting sharp by hand holding?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't hand hold. I use a tripod. I have shot hand held, but not enough to give you a good answer. Perhaps others can help you there. Good luck.

jecxz · « **Reply #15 on:** February 23, 2007, 03:12:16 pm »

Quote

Steve,

I have never really warmed to the Mamiya 645's of old due to the build quality which was not like an RZ, however the newer ones look a lot nicer, and the shutter is really quite smooth. Even as a Hasselbled user of 25 years i would still not put my money in an H2/H3 due to many reasons, the biggest being the constant error messages and poor build quality. As i do almost exclusively location stuff reliability is the most important factor for me, and i don't want to have to take extra kit as a back-up.

Gary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You should seriously try the system first before criticizing it--and I don't mean drooling over it at your local camera dealer. I have shot thousands of rolls with my H2, without the problems you mention, and the very minor issues I've had were taken care of by Hasselblad. I have never been "down" in the field or on a long hike and I shoot in harsh climates (like -19F or 114F temperatures).

It is unfortunate that you malign the H system by claiming it has poor build quality-this is very far from the truth. Next you will probably complain that it is manufactured in Japan or made from plastic. FYI-the core is solid metal and it's very rugged and durable. It doesn't have a plastic feel to it.

If you are considering an H system, read Michael's reviews here, rent an H and take it out for a day or two. Good luck.

ericstaud · « **Reply #16 on:** February 23, 2007, 05:59:02 pm »

A good friend is an art director at Getty. He says that his shooters compose more sloppy with their 35mm DSLRs than when they shoot with Medium format. So the medium format shoots produce more usable images with a lower overall frame count. When I shoot larger formats it is about composing and working on an image. With smaller formats it is more about volume and editing.

Gary Yeowell · « **Reply #17 on:** February 23, 2007, 06:19:07 pm »

Quote

You should seriously try the system first before criticizing it--and I don't mean drooling over it at your local camera dealer. I have shot thousands of rolls with my H2, without the problems you mention, and the very minor issues I've had were taken care of by Hasselblad. I have never been "down" in the field or on a long hike and I shoot in harsh climates (like -19F or 114F temperatures).

It is unfortunate that you malign the H system by claiming it has poor build quality-this is very far from the truth. Next you will probably complain that it is manufactured in Japan or made from plastic. FYI-the core is solid metal and it's very rugged and durable. It doesn't have a plastic feel to it.

If you are considering an H system, read Michael's reviews here, rent an H and take it out for a day or two. Good luck.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

With respect, i don't think that i would critisize a system without experience. I have rented many times (client ), been given three demonstrations of prospective digital backs where all had issues with the camera, and two complete lockups which required back to factory fixes. Two very good friends and photographers have used them for three years and have a back catologue of disasters that would make a great sketch show.

Please do not infer i am some kind of a camera geek who rants without some prior experience. I am a working pro and personally would not touch the 'H' system with a barge pole. Just my experience and opinion, but an honest one.

Regards, Gary.

jecxz · « **Reply #18 on:** February 23, 2007, 06:52:28 pm »

Quote

With respect, i don't think that i would critisize a system without experience. I have rented many times (client ), been given three demonstrations of prospective digital backs where all had issues with the camera, and two complete lockups which required back to factory fixes. Two very good friends and photographers have used them for three years and have a back catologue of disasters that would make a great sketch show.

Please do not infer i am some kind of a camera geek who rants without some prior experience. I am a working pro and personally would not touch the 'H' system with a barge pole. Just my experience and opinion, but an honest one.

Regards, Gary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102698\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I hear you. Sorry you had these experiences. What do you shoot with now? Best regards.

Gary Yeowell · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2007, 08:32:38 pm »

Quote

I hear you. Sorry you had these experiences. What do you shoot with now? Best regards.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At this moment still using the Hasselblad 'V' system with a Phase P20, but have just ordered a P30+ in Contax fitting and have re-aquired my Contax outfit which i sold off regretably after having constant film flatness and battery issues. These issues aside i think the Contax was and still is a great platform, and given that the battery problems were related mostly to winding my 220 film and film flatness is not a digital problem i am more than happy to re-aquaint myself.

Regards, Gary.

Author Topic: Shooting Stock With Medium Format?? (Read 9461 times)