Adobe / Hasselblad Press Release

[David Watson]

I think that the future of Phase One and Hasselblad may be more tied up with high end amateurs than they or this forum may feel comfortable with.  As a pro (which I am not - at least only part time when we are filming) I cannot think of any good reason to buy a MFD system when I can hire it as and when required.  Some pro's (like bcooter) may be so successful and so busy that they can own all the kit they need but this applies to a small minority.

I have a friend (in his 50's) who is half way through a photography degree and has not touched a digital camera or a computer yet.  I asked him what he was going to do with it and he said - I don't know but I do enjoy the process.  Perhaps there is something in that and from my own point of view cannot but agree.   

[ziocan]

What BC is describing, looks like a nightmare.

[LKaven]

BC -- are you planning to check out the D800?

[bcooter]

zio,

I think your reading into this.

Our way of working isn't a negative process, it's a planned effective, efficient process and though shoot days are compressed, pre production is the same, if not longer.

Actually on last weeks project, we worked more late hours in pre production that we did on set.  On set we started at 8am, finished at 5pm with a lunch break.   

We do work fast, we do work constant because time is money but there are only three ways to approach the new economy.  1. scale back   2.  adapt and become more efficient while offering more.    3.  Make less profit.

I prefer door 2.

You know, If you want to follow the changes of professional photography production, read the wall street journal.

Honestly, American corporations and their overseas counterparts are not selling that much more product and services in the last 4 years  (unless you factor in asia/southeast asia), but they are turning more profit from the same sales.

So working backwards from this, if good and services are not selling more volume, for profits to increase the money has to come from somewhere and that usually means expenditures.

From the outside looking in, the world is always different, or as a friend of mine says, "it's never what you think".    I've seen/known directors on large commercial or film projects that you would think looking at the size of production and crew are making bank but when you total the numbers, their gaffers, or dp's might be making more.

Same with still photography.    You can look into a huge studio and see 20 people, though 10 may be crew, 10 may be clients, but one positive I've seen from the recent economic changes is good clients work more in partnership than ever before.  Rarely do I get the client that doesn't understand the process, or asks for images that are unreasonable.

They understand given x dollars, x time, what they will receive and they want to be as clear about what they get up front as we want to be clear about what we will deliver.  There is a lot more sharing today than in previous years, at least in my experience.

There are exceptions to every rule, but I always say unless someone opens their accounting books, I don't believe anything, because I work with a wide diverse range of clients and they all responded to the recession in exactly the same way . . . at least in my experience.

That's what this thread is all about, profit and sales.   Hasselblad didn't offer Lightroom because it fell in their lap, it probably was the most efficient way to offer a post production suite that works with Hasselblad and other format cameras and not completely invest and redesign Phocus.

In my view it's a good move, but I haven't tried a Hasselblad camera with Lightroom.

In regards to everyone working different, of course and that is their business.  I'd never suggest anyone work the way I do, because I/we work in our own studio's culture.   If anyone can make a living standing in nature and shooting in a slow, one or two settings a day manner and make a good living then I applaud them.

It's not what I do, not what I want to do, but that's me and we're all different.

All I know is I stay busy and I like working hard, so I guess things are ok.

Klaban,

No I don't plan on the new Nikon, don't see the point.  Right now we can shoot a 4:3 ratio with a 5d2 or 1ds3 of a full length subject and zoom in on the face and see eyelashes and skin pores.  Nobody I work for is asking for more detail than that.

Also we've moved more to motion and that's an expensive arena, so we dedicate our resources to what is working for us.

IMO

BC

[MrSmith]

Our way of working isn't a negative process, it's a planned effective, efficient process and though shoot days are compressed, pre production is the same, if not longer.

and don't forget the years of on the fly decision making and problem solving that's in your head which makes these shoots deliver (no matter how big/small the production or lo/high budget).
this is why we charge the day rates (and get them) that the man in the street or amateur photographer can't get their head round.

doesn't sound like a nightmare to me, a nightmare would be being in a situation out of your depth and not having the answers to keep client happy. :-)

[Steve Hendrix]

I think that the future of Phase One and Hasselblad may be more tied up with high end amateurs than they or this forum may feel comfortable with.  As a pro (which I am not - at least only part time when we are filming) I cannot think of any good reason to buy a MFD system when I can hire it as and when required.  Some pro's (like bcooter) may be so successful and so busy that they can own all the kit they need but this applies to a small minority.

I have a friend (in his 50's) who is half way through a photography degree and has not touched a digital camera or a computer yet.  I asked him what he was going to do with it and he said - I don't know but I do enjoy the process.  Perhaps there is something in that and from my own point of view cannot but agree.   

There is a tradition of dis-comfort with amateurs using the same equipment that professionals use, this did not start with digital. However, the resentment does kick in from professionals who cannot afford the same equipment that (wealthy) amateurs can purchase. That is probably an aspect that has deepened in recent years.

Regarding market expansion, I do not feel medium format doesn't "move forward" as BC puts it. They do move forward. But I don't necessarily agree a company has to grow or expand their business to be successful. That doesn't mean there isn't some inherent risk in that strategy. Especially in today's world where things turn on a dime and evolve technically at such a fast pace. And I will concede that it is better to grow and expand if you can successfully do so.

The question was where can medium format expand? Name it. Where can they not expand? The markets that have lost the most share for medium format have been weddings and commercial. From that standpoint, I see opportunity (though I would say that wedding shooter opportunities might be classified under the term "a select number of...". There are many vertical markets that are being explored right now that fly below the radar. In fact, last week I spent a day looking at an impressive new camera for 2 such vertical markets.

Now don't get me wrong, where BC is at, medium format is at a productive disadvantage. But not everyone is in that same production environment. Looking back over my digital back installations over the past half year or so for professional photographers, I see architectural clients, food shooters, car photographers, product/lifestyle shooters. The number of DSLR unit sales that have been sold to the same type of shooters dwarfs these numbers. But that is kind of my point. It is not necessarily about scale.

When I look at Phase One/Leaf, I see a very healthy company that is enjoying excellent sales results -  to the degree that 2011 was a record year for revenues. Medium format has lost most of the the "commercial" market, in terms of numbers when compared to its analogue heyday. But there are still opportunities for growth in many vertical markets and the commercial market as well. And while a substantial number of placements are upgrades, the majority of sales last year were non-upgraded, new product.

Market-wise, I think if you looked at gains and losses, the past 6 years have seen commercial losing ground, amateur gaining ground. I see those 2 markets essentially balancing out. To the degree the commercial market lost ground, the amateur market recovered that lost ground. To that degree I feel that the amateur market can continue to maintain that pace and commercial, in my mind has bottomed out, so there is potential to gain. And I see specialized vertical markets as avenues for growth. Remember, we're only talking about 3,000 - 4,000 annual unit sales for a single medium format digital manufacturer as being a good year (and this is not a recent sales volume that has been lowered, this is a traditional number), so a good push, into even a very niche market can have a significant effect on the bottom line.


Steve Hendrix

[bcooter]

Steve,

I'm not that sure that professionals are envious of any equipment amateurs use.   In fact most of us realize that sales is what drives R+D along with lowering prices, so in my view selling  a 15,000 backs to amateurs, 10,000 leicas doesn't produce envy, it just adds more equity to the various brands.

Then in medium format we'd probably have cmos sensors, wifi cameras, better focus, even multi point focus that covers the frame.

I also have mixed feelings about moving forward and adding overhead, in any business.  The economy is fragile in most parts of the western world and though our studio has added people and expenditures and so far it's worked, it can be a little scary.  Ask Dave how he feels when he writes out payroll checks?

Now with all of this I feel all digital capture, still, motion, medium format, 35mm format has moved at a glacier pace compared to consumer products and content delivery systems.

I mean except for better lcds, higher iso, more megapixels, there is not that much difference between a Canon 1ds 3 or X than their is the original Canon 1ds.  Sure it's a little faster, shoots video and has a better lcd screen, but since I have my original 1ds and rarely but do use it sometimes I can tell you that old camera is still somewhat viable.

I know my p21+ and p30+ are still viable when I can use them, though if I had to rate the ground breaking digital cameras, it would be 1. the original 1ds because it was the first dslr that was full frame, didn't alias and shot like a film camera, 2. the 5d2 because of the low cost and the video functions and 3. The Red Scarlet, for more reasons than this section wants to talk about.

As far as medium format recouping sales, or growing, I still think it's the chicken and egg thing.  Price limits market share, limited market share means higher prices to sustain a company.

Now I will admit it looks a little silly to see those amateurs with a 400mm lens walking around Hollywood Blvd., or the rich cat with a shelf full of snake skinned leicas.  Still they enjoy them so what's the harm, except to the snake.



IMO

BC

[fredjeang]

I also have mixed feelings about moving forward and adding overhead, in any business.  The economy is fragile in most parts of the western world and though our studio has added people and expenditures and so far it's worked, it can be a little scary.  Ask Dave how he feels when he writes out payroll checks?

I think, and we already tend to it, that the future will be in relatively reduced team but highly skilled and multitasks, adaptable and flexible.
That will be more and more possible if manufacturers and software companies colaborate. Or more exactly, the ones that will offer the tools that correspond to this reality will grow.

The problem is that we can't keep going working in a world that has changed very fast, with tools that were designed in a completly different socio-economical world. There will be no Peter Lindberg any more.
The days of rock-star photographers and cineasts with zillion assistant-crew, no limited budget, to make the machinery works are numbered.

MF is somewhere in a no-man's land to be honest. It reminds me, to make paralell, of those enormous battle ship of the first ww. Heavy, powerfull but power and crew consummers, unmanouverable, slow, and ultimately they had to stop using them when lighter, faster and more flexible designs appeared.

I think that the MF need a complete rethinking of the situation, they need new young designers, they need ideas and how to grow in world that has changed.    

[Rob C]

I'm sort of double-minded about company growth. I always worked alone except for my wife who assisted doing all sorts of other, non-camera jobs on shoots.

Of course, that was totally in the time of film, and do-able. We had good years and bad years, but we never had debts we couldn't clear if we wanted to so do. I would be happy, no, thrilled to have been working today at the same figures I was making in the mid-80s; there was enough work to provide a damned good life and not that much to give me anxiety. Trouble was, the world changed and my specialty vanished into the fog. It wouldn't have made the slightest diffence if I'd been turning over double, treble, the end result would still have meant ultimate unemployment.

Sure, it's okay to suggest one not specialize, then, but it was specializing that made it work, that gave the edge the competition lacked. And I have to ask, would being a jack-of-all-trades really have helped? I knew large studios doing exactly that, GP work, and they folded before I stared into the abyss.

Anyway, it's nothing new to understand that it's the amateur market that drives equipment manufacturers on and even perhaps forward; it was always the case insofar as general, non-specialized camera equipment is concerned. The numbers have the power.

Rob C

[ziocan]

The Hasselblad and Lightroom combination worked really well for me.
Last week I used an hasselblad h3 with 50mp back for a jewelery campaign.
I shot using Phocus, then sorted selects out using lightroom and processed the files for post prod as well.
I used lightroom for processing, since I know LR very well and I know Phocus very little.
Anyway the quality of the files was outstanding and everything worked like a charm.
Also the star rating that we gave in phocus during the shooot, were transfered to lightroom.

I came from 5 years of Phase one and I have to say that the Hasseblad experience with LR editing was as good as Phase backs and Capture one.
Both systems are amazing.
 
cheers.

[BrendanStewart]

I agree with that sentiment. I shot my H3DII-31 this weekend and I was a user of Phocus, i say 'was' because Lightroom has made it so much easier to work with. No import/export crap. Just import and start working.

I hear the CaptureOne/Phase workflow is also fantastic. But i'm stuck on the Hasselblad side of the bridge.

Pics: http://www.symbolphoto.com/blog/2012/04/andrea-boston-bridal-session/

[elf]

I think they have it backwards.  Adobe should be giving away the Hasselblad