Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: 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.
-
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
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
. 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?
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102720\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Gary, going OT...
How do you find the performance you get from using a P20 with V system? Would you say that V system lenses are not as capable when compared to the newer and more modern H lenses? Would these lenses be able to resolve sufficiently if used with higher MP backs? (your guess, please)
Thanks.
Henry
-
Gary, going OT...
How do you find the performance you get from using a P20 with V system? Would you say that V system lenses are not as capable when compared to the newer and more modern H lenses? Would these lenses be able to resolve sufficiently if used with higher MP backs? (your guess, please)
Thanks.
Henry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102724\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Henry,
Without a shadow of a doubt the 'V' lenses are more than adequate for both the P20 & P25. Whether they are up to P45 i don't know as i have not tried one. Of the 'H' lenses i have tried there is not a single one that was better than my 'V' lenses, however it is fair to say that i own some of the 'V' system best glass: 40CFEIF (latest)/ 60CFI/100CFI/180CFI. Considering i am happy to shoot with the Contax on a P30+ i would say the 'V' lenses will be fine, again none of my Contax lenses were better, some worse, than the Hassy. The only issues i have had with the 'V' glass is some fringing wide open with the 40 & 100 but i think most glass in certain instances exhibits this when carefully checked at 100%.
Regards, Gary.
-
Henry,
Without a shadow of a doubt the 'V' lenses are more than adequate for both the P20 & P25. Whether they are up to P45 i don't know as i have not tried one. Of the 'H' lenses i have tried there is not a single one that was better than my 'V' lenses, however it is fair to say that i own some of the 'V' system best glass: 40CFEIF (latest)/ 60CFI/100CFI/180CFI. Considering i am happy to shoot with the Contax on a P30+ i would say the 'V' lenses will be fine, again none of my Contax lenses were better, some worse, than the Hassy. The only issues i have had with the 'V' glass is some fringing wide open with the 40 & 100 but i think most glass in certain instances exhibits this when carefully checked at 100%.
Regards, Gary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you Gary.
That is very useful information for me as I still have 3 Hasselblad V bodies and 4 lenses. I have been trying to find information/images to evaluate if I should keep them and buy a back to fit or to sell them off and buy a new platform all together.
Henry
-
Thank you Gary.
That is very useful information for me as I still have 3 Hasselblad V bodies and 4 lenses. I have been trying to find information/images to evaluate if I should keep them and buy a back to fit or to sell them off and buy a new platform all together.
Henry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Henry,
The 'V' system is still very capable and i would be happy to carry on with it, however some of the integration and ease of use as well as the format itself has made me re-evaluate, and the Contax being a system i am very happy with was for me the obvious choice.
I would not sell your Hassy system on the basis of inadequacies in lenses, on other grounds maybe, but only you can decide.
Regards, Gary.
-
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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Getty now accepts larger files from Medium Format backs. I own a Phase P30 and my editor confirmed that she wants me to submit the full-rez image from the camera. Not sure if the 48-52 mb was a max size. But for now, you can submit a full rez image that is larger than 52mb - after March 1 - all images have to be submitted as jpegs after conversion with the Getty Pre-Flight software. The Pre-Flight software takes the TIFF file and checks the file against a set of parameters and then converts the file to jpeg. The files that clients license from Getty are delivered as jpegs.
-
Sofar found no advantage in shooting mfd in terms of stock.
My agent's initial requirements were at least a 50 mb tif
Now I am supplying them with a 100+mb file.
Some editors have submitted some crops after realizing how big the files were.
I think there is still some education needed to make the right people aware of
these advantages
cheers
Marc
-
Thanks again everyone for the follow-on comments, and for the very interesting side discussion on Hasselblad V and Contax 645 systems. On that side note, does anyone know if new Contax 645 systems can still be found? I've done a cursory search and so far have only found used systems. Also, I understand that while the Contax 645 body has ceased production, the lenses for it are still in production. Can anyone confirm this about the lenses?
As a follow-up to some of the replies to my initial post, my main interest in MF is for fine art landscapes sold thru local galleries. I view stock as a supplemental source of income. Landscapes represent some stock submittals, but not my primary submittals. Primary stock submittals include hometown St. Louis landmarks and events for local consumption and urban, rural and Americana scenes for general stock. While my primary interest in MF is for fine art work, I expect I'd use it as well for a lot of the stock imagery - hence my question.
Hans.
-
Hans,
It completely depends on the size of print you are going to want to make.
The long and short of it is that if you do not wish to print over 16x12 inches then a top dslr will give you great quality even with lightjet / lambda prints for your landscape images..if you want to print anything bigger then, and this is of course my opinion based on making large lightjet prints from both dslr and medium format 645 / 66 / 67 etc, you may well be not satisfied with the quality from a dslr and therefore need to shoot with mf film or mf digital for larger prints..but even there depending on the digital back you get you may still prefer the look for large prints from 67 etc film.
But mf film is not that flexible for stock so...
It certainly is a pain to have to take two systems with you but I feel the best kit combination in that case is something like mamiya 7 for your landscape work and a dslr for your stock work..the mamiya 7 is of such a size / weight that you can afford to carry both it and a dslr together.
Of course having two cameras is not the best situation but it will give you both the digital stock option and top large print image quality for your landscape work.
You simply can not afford to compromise on image quality if you wish to sell prints and if landscape is you subject then more than likely you will want to print large..24x20 and 40x30 inches etc and for that 67 film will give you the quality you need.
I actually currently shoot with both dslr for stock and ebony with 612 and 69 roll film for print sale work..anything I happen to shoot with the dslr that i also wish to sell as a print i simply do not sell at a size larger than 16x12 inches but then I come from the background of film and large prints and so have high standards to keep up to. To do so even with a mfdb would require, I feel, one of the very high resolution backs and that is not finacially an option for me right now so I have not bothered to go half way there and so currently shoot with the two kits where possible (although with my dslr of choice being a 1ds that is not allways possible!)...there are of course times I only have the dslr with me and I threfore miss out on the odd large print shot but there you go.
Marc