Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Chris Barrett on June 23, 2015, 04:38:52 pm
-
My IQ260 just left the premises for good. MFDB's make really beautiful files, and I am a little sad to see it go. I just didn't feel like it was the most appropriate workflow for me anymore.
I've had a lot of fun building a smaller kit around the Arca Universalis, A7r and a bunch of Hasselblad CFi lenses (plus the Canon tilt / shifts).
While the images don't start out quite as beautiful as the Phase One files, there is still lots of quality there and the files have quite a bit of malleability in post. The on-set workflow is just so much more efficient and efficiency is quickly becoming the name of the game in commercial imaging.
Gearing for photography seems to be a never-ending adventure and it's one I rather enjoy. I'll still check in to this sub-forum on occasion, but if you're looking for any new work of mine, you'll find it here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99472.0 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99472.0)
Cheers,
CB
-
Hi Chris,
Thanks for sharing your experience here on the MFD forum, and thanks for sharing on the new thread you have started.
Personally, I hang on to my Hasselblad P45+ kit, in part because I guess it is hard to sell it for decent money, but also because I actually like to use it.
On the other hand, I just put an order on a Sony A7rII and a Batis 1.8/85 and will order a Canon 24/3.5 TSE in part due to your recommendations. A Hartblei/Mirex T&S adapter for use with the Hasselblad lenses is also in the pipe line.
Best regards
Erik
My IQ260 just left the premises for good. MFDB's make really beautiful files, and I am a little sad to see it go. I just didn't feel like it was the most appropriate workflow for me anymore.
I've had a lot of fun building a smaller kit around the Arca Universalis, A7r and a bunch of Hasselblad CFi lenses (plus the Canon tilt / shifts).
While the images don't start out quite as beautiful as the Phase One files, there is still lots of quality there and the files have quite a bit of malleability in post. The on-set workflow is just so much more efficient and efficiency is quickly becoming the name of the game in commercial imaging.
Gearing for photography seems to be a never-ending adventure and it's one I rather enjoy. I'll still check in to this sub-forum on occasion, but if you're looking for any new work of mine, you'll find it here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99472.0 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99472.0)
Cheers,
CB
-
... The on-set workflow is just so much more efficient and efficiency is quickly becoming the name of the game in commercial imaging....
CB
and i thought that you were THE photographer that did not have to deal with efficiency, just with outcome...
(What does this say about the rest of us?)
I think it is just evolution... everything can be smaller ; we do not need special photo-trainwagons anymore to make a large print...
There is a physical limit in the lenses going to smaller sensors, but with 35mm we can do very well.
-
and i thought that you were THE photographer that did not have to deal with efficiency, just with outcome...
What Kers said!
I'm keeping my MF for now, but I doubt that I'll stick with it for the next refresh. The A7R II is a very compelling prospect...
Cheers, Hywel
-
If the A7rII works as listed on paper, they can replace both our motion and still cameras.
[...]
and after a period almost disposable. Much like the Sony A7 series.
Coots, for you, I can but imagine what a quantum leap of faith that took!
I hope it works out well for both you and CB - it certainly did for me - just don't be too disappointed when neither of you get any more Valentine Day cards from the MF dealers ... [/light-hearted-quip]
M
-
Man, I can not wait to get the A7r II and do some 4k video on the view camera. That's going to kill it.
-
Man, I can not wait to get the A7r II and do some 4k video on the view camera. That's going to kill it.
You are going to use the Arca Universalis to shift the lens and get correct verticals in 4k video?
-
That's the idea, Abdul. This is also my stills camera now... platforms are converging. I've just received the Canon mount for this system... next up is to start experimenting with zooms to see which are usable with movements.
-
Coots, for you, I can but imagine what a quantum leap of faith that took!
I hope it works out well for both you and CB - it certainly did for me - just don't be too disappointed when neither of you get any more Valentine Day cards from the MF dealers ... [/light-hearted-quip]
M
Manoli,
Let me interpret that for J: A quantum jump is usually the smallest possible detectable change of state :)
I guess he will soon post that the A7RII is the Jcam, and then this forum will dissolve in bansmoke :)
Edmund
-
that is a good prediction...
people at phase didn t understood that they lost the last train...
they didn t launch the full frame cmos , and now is too late you will se the big big squeeze.
i bet it.
best.
-
Interesting post. And I'm on the verge of upgrading my H3DII-39 to a more modern MFDB kit (TBD). I've never found it to be a hindrance on big production days, and for me the viewfinder and larger image / groundglass completely distinguish the MF experience from smaller formats. That alone is a reason to keep MF around, in my opinion. (Not to mention True Focus, which I've never had until now. And I do find the files to be extremely rich and deep.) I find I compose much differently (and better), and I almost can't stand when I have to use the Canon / smaller formats.
My upcoming solution to the changing technology was going to be getting the Canon 50MP when it's out, and better lenses for it, enabling me to shoot commercial-grade files when higher ISOs are needed, and solid video as well. I have no idea about the capabilities of the new A7R. Interesting. I'll check into that.
-
…I guess since I still own a Leica S2 (which I'm not sure is medium format)…
I'm partial to fuller frame myself. :)
-Dave-
-
I'm partial to fuller frame myself. :)
-Dave-
Yeah, medium format ceased to exist when film fell out of favor. Leica's 30x45 isn't MF, and neither is 33x44, 37x49, nor 40x54mm, they are all just arbitrary sensor sizes that happen to utilize the same legacy lenses and camera systems everyone was used to... except for Leica's S, because it was built from the ground-up with no legacy ties, as well as technical cameras which are inherently format agnostic. What is it "medium" compared to? scanning backs? 35mm that's now "full-frame"?
There needs to be a consortium to manage the nomenclature in photography, especially if it means getting rid of the ancient fractional inch measurement system for small sensors that was based on freaking vacuum tube diameter in early video cameras.
-
Hi BC,
Personally I don't really care about terminology. The term "medium format" essentially meant larger than 24x36 but smaller than large format, alternative systems using 120/220 film. Large format was blade.
For me, MFD is systems using sensors larger than 24x36. Leica S fill that bill...
If discussing formats we could as well discuss 24x36 and smaller formats like 4/3. 24x36 is four times the size of 4/3, quite similar to the ration of "full size 645" to 24x36. Still, I don't see that kind of heated discussions about "full frame 24x36" and 4/3.
More importantly, the 4/3 folks are building really good systems. No doubt, a properly adjusted 24x36 camera with an excellent lens will give better detail than a well built 4/3 camera, but if the 4/3 camera is good enough for ones needs, little is gained using a larger camera.
Funny enough, I know a great lady who shoots a Panasonic GH3 and feels it is not professional enough. I told her about one of the leading commercial photographers in the US (JR AKA BC) using the GH3. When we were shooting together she could compare the size of my full frame Sony 70-400 and her 100-300. She also got great shots, I was mostly shooting my Hasselblad/P45+ combo along with the Sony, and we had very different focus.
My take is that we can use any equipment that is god enough for our needs. I used to say what is in front (subject and lens), behind (photographer) and under (tripod) the camera matters more than the camera it self.
Best regards
Erik
I agree, I thought this was always silly until the last few years when full frame 645 came out and even back in the film days few people called that medium format. Most companies advertised it as the "ideal" format, larger than 35mm for better reproduction with more speed and easier use like 35mm cameras, but medium format was always a minimum of 6x6.
I know people love there older and even newer 645 cameras and I can appreciate that, but I always found it kind of strange to have a tiny 645 digital film frame, stuck on the back of a big 6x7 body.
I personally don't care, but I know I didn't sell my p21+ though it got three times the use of the p30+ because it shot faster, more like Contax film per second speed.
That's why this section of the forum always confused me. As I said it originally was just for more advanced photography, either technical or artistic because of the cost buy in for higher end equipment.
Today, it's moved to something different and honestly I don't know what that is, but when you see someone like CB that loves equipment and owns more in one set of re barraled Leica R lenses for Cinema, take a Sony that cost less than his RED cameras viewfinder, you know he didn't change because the Sony is inferior or not workable.
IMO
BC
-
I agree, I thought this was always silly until the last few years when full frame 645 came out and even back in the film days few people called that medium format. Most companies advertised it as the "ideal" format, larger than 35mm for better reproduction with more speed and easier use like 35mm cameras, but medium format was always a minimum of 6x6.
I know people love there older and even newer 645 cameras and I can appreciate that, but I always found it kind of strange to have a tiny 645 digital film frame, stuck on the back of a big 6x7 body.
I personally don't care, but I know I didn't sell my p21+ though it got three times the use of the p30+ because it shot faster, more like Contax film per second speed.
That's why this section of the forum always confused me. As I said it originally was just for more advanced photography, either technical or artistic because of the cost buy in for higher end equipment.
Today, it's moved to something different and honestly I don't know what that is, but when you see someone like CB that loves equipment and owns more in one set of re barraled Leica R lenses for Cinema, take a Sony that cost less than his RED cameras viewfinder, you know he didn't change because the Sony is inferior or not workable.
IMO
BC
When I worked with film I used 35mm or 6x7. I never even owned or used 645. To me it was too close to 35mm even though there was a difference. But 6x7 offered a very unique look. With digital I did not have a choice since we all know the 60MP Dalsa chip is the largest available. So that is what I got. I find it just large enough to see a good difference from the 35mm size DSLRs. However, I would love a 6x7 digital camera. Doubt we are ever going to see one in the market.
-
Manoli,
Let me interpret that for J: A quantum jump is usually the smallest possible detectable change of state :)
Scientist and their precise interpretations :)
I guess he will soon post that the A7RII is the Jcam, and then this forum will dissolve in bansmoke :)
Bansmoke ? Very creative.
Edmund
-
Medium format in the film days basically meat a significant jump up in quality from the 35mm films of the day. This does not hold true any longer and personally think the emphasis on what format you shoot has no relationship to the quality of work produced. Gear heads on here get so wrapped up in discussion (argument) defending MFD, Leica, Alpa or what ever, when in reality its all just hot air. I'm not bothered any longer what camera brand people choose to use, just as long as they can enjoy it, share and respect other peoples choices.
-
My opinion is different. Format standardisation is important, the main reason being lens coverage.
Lens are often the most expensive part of our purchase, and they are always optimised for specific image circle. We don't want our lenses to be obsolete with a new format in town.
My preference of shooting MF is actually not much to do with image quality, but viewfinder. For me, viewfinder is defining in image making process, it isolate and concentrate your focus, and large optical viewfinder is not replaceable. Secondly, I also like the fact that most MF has a very limited but definitive lens line, about 7-8 lenses for the whole line and most of them of stellar quality. For any 35mm system, there must be about 1 millions compatible lens, and that does nothing good for my OCD.
There should be a different in quality from 35mm to MF though, because what ever advances they make in 35mm, that can be applied into MF with additional advantage of bigger photo wells, lenses do not have to resolve tiny pixel pitches etc ... The reason its not as clear cut as it should be, is because MF manufacturers are tiny in comparison with 35mm's, with limited R&D and shrinking market.
-
While I do suspect that the pro market is shrinking, I think the enthusiast market is growing. Maybe even so much that it sells more MF cameras than before. China and Russia are new markets where you can sell this type of gear to. I have no hard numbers though. I do know that my Linhof dealer has seen a large increase of enthusiast photographers during the past 10 years and it seems to continue growing.
Professionals need to see to workflow efficiency and customer needs, while the enthusiast photographer may just want something different, even some luxury.
I'm an enthusiast photographer myself and use MF tech camera mainly for creative reasons and don't mind the slow workflow. The problem with my category though is that I'm price sensitive. No way I'm paying $35K for a back with slighly better image quality than a $3K 135 camera, so I'm playing the second hand game. I could pay $10K or maybe even $15K though, Pentax 645z is a reasonable price range. I hope Hassy and Phase will target my customer group more in the future, but I doubt it, I think it's the luxury segment that's going to get most of their attention. It's easier and less risky, as you don't need to scale up manufacturing volumes to get down in price.
-
Medium format in the film days basically meat a significant jump up in quality from the 35mm films of the day. This does not hold true any longer and personally think the emphasis on what format you shoot has no relationship to the quality of work produced. Gear heads on here get so wrapped up in discussion (argument) defending MFD, Leica, Alpa or what ever, when in reality its all just hot air. I'm not bothered any longer what camera brand people choose to use, just as long as they can enjoy it, share and respect other peoples choices.
I know this horse has been beaten to death several times now, but there is a middle ground. Certain types of work and certain working styles require certain gear. If not, everyone will be shooting with iPhones now.
Quality of work and gear specifications are not mutually exclusive. The key is to find the synergy between both rather than obsess over either end.
"I don't care what people shoot with, I only look at the final output" and "I don't care what people shoot, I only look at the gear" are both very broad strokes that do not paint the final picture.
-
To me, right now, it is all about the experience and how the camera works.
IQ is good, but a technical camera is still much better at shooting architecture then the T/S lens designs. Having independent x and y movements and tilt/shift that is not dictated by how you need to shift is a real plus. Not to mention the back shifts, not the lens, keeping my perspective in line. I can never go back to working with those T/S lenses; I just never felt conferrable with using them.
I was at one of the XF events last week and I really liked the camera. (I really hated that my P45+ will not work on it and will not consider buying until it does!) The way it felt in your hand was really nice; you could wrap your entire hand around the camera and really hold on. The view finder was nice and large too.
Before going, I was kind of skeptical with how well it would work with the WLF, being that the handle does not pivot. But they added a button at the base of the camera so you could use it like an old Hassy, very nice.
They also had a Sony A7r boomed above the camera and connected to a TV when giving the demo, so we could all see the controls. Afterwards, I picked up the Sony, and although I knew it takes a great picture, it did not feel nice. The handle was not long enough so my pinky finger could fit. Also, it was too thin; I had to hold it with my finger tips, thumb and the top of my palm. My mid and lower fingers were not flush with the camera, which I could tell would eventually cause my hand to hurt if I used it all day.
Sure the XF is heavier, but it felt more comfortable to hold. My girlfriend felt the same way too.
Of course, in CB's case none of this matters. He is still using the Sony on a tech camera and never shoots handheld. I think his system looks pretty cool. However I just would not want to deal with a bellows camera outside of a studio and it does not look like you can attach the Sony to a plate camera.
-
My opinion is different. Format standardisation is important, the main reason being lens coverage.
Lens are often the most expensive part of our purchase, and they are always optimised for specific image circle. We don't want our lenses to be obsolete with a new format in town.
This is actually part of the problem, more often than not we don't even know the IC coverage of the lenses we use, and format is instead based on sensor size, which as we can see has a tendency to be completely erratic. Someone put the Canon 85LII to a digital back and found that if cropped to a square on a full-frame 645 back, you have a usable image circle that basically covers 40x40mm - significantly larger than the 36x24mm is was meant for. If you were to measure the ICs of typical SLR lenses they would range anywhere from almost cropping in on the sensor to being several times larger, all within the same lens ecosystem.
-
This is actually part of the problem, more often than not we don't even know the IC coverage of the lenses we use, and format is instead based on sensor size, which as we can see has a tendency to be completely erratic. Someone put the Canon 85LII to a digital back and found that if cropped to a square on a full-frame 645 back, you have a usable image circle that basically covers 40x40mm - significantly larger than the 36x24mm is was meant for. If you were to measure the ICs of typical SLR lenses they would range anywhere from almost cropping in on the sensor to being several times larger, all within the same lens ecosystem.
Hi KP,
I think the reason for such difference in IC is about sharpness fall off near edge of IC. For a premium lens such as 85LII, Canon wants edge to edge sharpness, hence they have to make IC much larger than normal. For a lower end lens its perfectly acceptable to have some sharpness fall off, then they would make IC smaller. They would reduce IC whenever they can, because it save on cost.
-
Hi KP,
I think the reason for such difference in IC is about sharpness fall off near edge of IC. For a premium lens such as 85LII, Canon wants edge to edge sharpness, hence they have to make IC much larger than normal. For a lower end lens its perfectly acceptable to have some sharpness fall off, then they would make IC smaller. They would reduce IC whenever they can, because it save on cost.
Having used the 85LII for many years, I can tell you that there are few aperture steps below f/8 that this lens is sharp edge-to-edge, especially since it's meant to be use wide-open, where maybe the central 30% of the image is sharp (quite decently where it is though). If adding extra image field around the edges, thay are 99% likely to be out of focus anyway, and the sharpness is inconsequential, but it would produce a unique image.
Alternatively you have the Tilt-shift lenses, which some people have adapted to MF backs and are using them as more than a curiosity, as they still maintain edge-sharpness. I bet that if Canon released a square-format 36x36 sensor, a good half of their lenses, at the least, would still produce a decent image.
-
To me, right now, it is all about the experience and how the camera works.
IQ is good, but a technical camera is still much better at shooting architecture then the T/S lens designs. Having independent x and y movements and tilt/shift that is not dictated by how you need to shift is a real plus. Not to mention the back shifts, not the lens, keeping my perspective in line. I can never go back to working with those T/S lenses; I just never felt conferrable with using them.
I was at one of the XF events last week and I really liked the camera. (I really hated that my P45+ will not work on it and will not consider buying until it does!) The way it felt in your hand was really nice; you could wrap your entire hand around the camera and really hold on. The view finder was nice and large too.
Before going, I was kind of skeptical with how well it would work with the WLF, being that the handle does not pivot. But they added a button at the base of the camera so you could use it like an old Hassy, very nice.
They also had a Sony A7r boomed above the camera and connected to a TV when giving the demo, so we could all see the controls. Afterwards, I picked up the Sony, and although I knew it takes a great picture, it did not feel nice. The handle was not long enough so my pinky finger could fit. Also, it was too thin; I had to hold it with my finger tips, thumb and the top of my palm. My mid and lower fingers were not flush with the camera, which I could tell would eventually cause my hand to hurt if I used it all day.
Sure the XF is heavier, but it felt more comfortable to hold. My girlfriend felt the same way too.
Of course, in CB's case none of this matters. He is still using the Sony on a tech camera and never shoots handheld. I think his system looks pretty cool. However I just would not want to deal with a bellows camera outside of a studio and it does not look like you can attach the Sony to a plate camera.
The Sony 7 series first generation is not a pleasant camera to shoot with, especially with the shutter button so far on top that you can only reach it by distorting your hand. The second generation is much better in that respect.
I personally don't think a too much molded grip helps to hold a camera comfortably for a long time, it forces the hand into one position which is strenious. The Hasselblad H is such a camera, especially with the large standard zoom, what a pain to shoot for a long time, even in landscape, don't get me started on portrait.
I think a good example of a design which doesn't rely on a bulbous grip is the last iteration of Leica Film cameras, m6ttl and m7. when you look at them, one cannot imagine how nice the are to be held. the digital bodies got too fat.
I haven't had the change to hold the XF yet.
-
Hi,
I am mostly shooting on tripod so handholding matters little to me.
Best regards
Erik
The Sony 7 series first generation is not a pleasant camera to shoot with, especially with the shutter button so far on top that you can only reach it by distorting your hand. The second generation is much better in that respect.
I personally don't think a too much molded grip helps to hold a camera comfortably for a long time, it forces the hand into one position which is strenious. The Hasselblad H is such a camera, especially with the large standard zoom, what a pain to shoot for a long time, even in landscape, don't get me started on portrait.
I think a good example of a design which doesn't rely on a bulbous grip is the last iteration of Leica Film cameras, m6ttl and m7. when you look at them, one cannot imagine how nice the are to be held. the digital bodies got too fat.
I haven't had the change to hold the XF yet.
-
At least on paper the Sony A7RII has the perfect sensor for most of the folks that constantly complain around here and it is priced right. It is BSi, which you guys asked for quite a bit, so it should work well with many many lenses even the older tech camera lenses, with movements. Dynamic Range should be through the roof and of course shadow noise should be very low and high iso and long exposure image quality should be superb. The only thing in question is Sony's compression of the raw data on the raw file. Also since It does not have an AA filter so a few of you are going to find false color / aliasing artifacts and complain although the pixel density is high enough that those issues will most likely be pretty rare.
-
Hi Ken,
I put an order on it with a Batis 1.8/85 and a Canon 24/3.5 TSE. So I guess I will find out in a month or two.
Regarding Sony's raw compression I am quite familiar with the issue. Im not sure the Sony cameras I own have it. Let's put it this way, I have some basic understanding of signal processing and the raw compression in Sony raws gives me far less concerns than the lack of OLP-filtering.
Lets put it this way, bad OLP-filtering gives you artefacts on 100% of your pictures while Sony raw compression gives you problems on 0.01% of your pictures. Which is your main concern?
Best regards
Erik
At least on paper the Sony A7RII has the perfect sensor for most of the folks that constantly complain around here and it is priced right. It is BSi, which you guys asked for quite a bit, so it should work well with many many lenses even the older tech camera lenses, with movements. Dynamic Range should be through the roof and of course shadow noise should be very low and high iso and long exposure image quality should be superb. The only thing in question is Sony's compression of the raw data on the raw file. Also since It does not have an AA filter so a few of you are going to find false color / aliasing artifacts and complain although the pixel density is high enough that those issues will most likely be pretty rare.
-
One thing little mentioned that would keep me away from anything i've seen in medium format, is the limitation of the center mounted autofocus sensors. Yes, Pentax claims to have more sensors in the 645Z but they're really just a few sensors just a bit away from the center; nothing compared to the Canon 5DMarkIII.
What good is a million megapixels, if they're all focused soft?
Count me still very much in the Canon camp for the foreseeable future.
Last time I checked, focus is still a big issue, especially with digital.
Thanks.
-
Have you tried Hasselblad True Focus?
-
Hi Ken,
I put an order on it with a Batis 1.8/85 and a Canon 24/3.5 TSE. So I guess I will find out in a month or two.
Regarding Sony's raw compression I am quite familiar with the issue. Im not sure the Sony cameras I own have it. Let's put it this way, I have some basic understanding of signal processing and the raw compression in Sony raws gives me far less concerns than the lack of OLP-filtering.
Lets put it this way, bad OLP-filtering gives you artefacts on 100% of your pictures while Sony raw compression gives you problems on 0.01% of your pictures. Which is your main concern?
Best regards
Erik
Looking forward to seeing your results with the A7RII.
So between the 5DS and the 5DSR you would pick the 5DS to minimize the possibility of artifacts?
-
Hi,
The thing is that a sharp lens on a digital sensor will give a lot of artefacts. It is simple laws of math, question is if those artefacts are disturbing or not.
Gapless microlenses, like the ones on modern sensors, reduce aliasing quite a bit.
From what I have seen the OLP filter on the Canon is quite weak, so it does not really suppress aliasing.
Yes, I would choose the 5Ds over the 5DsR. It is good that Canon gives us the choice and bad that Sony and Nikon does not. Stopping down eliminates aliasing as diffraction acts as a softening filter. I would be pretty sure that aliasing would not be observed at f/11 the Canon 5DsR.
The enclosed image is from one of the usual test shots from Imaging Resource. All OLP less cameras show aliasing on that label. Nikon D800, D810, Pentax 645D, Pentax 645Z.
Best regards
Erik
Looking forward to seeing your results with the A7RII.
So between the 5DS and the 5DSR you would pick the 5DS to minimize the possibility of artifacts?
-
The handful I times I've encountered aliasing, I've managed to fix it (sometimes not completely, but enough to get a decent print) with C1P.
Funny enough, the worst case I encountered was not with medium format, but with a Nikon 1 and its tiny pixels and AA filter.
-
Well,
The lenses for the Nikon 1 are intended for those small pixels, so they may produce aliasing at larger apertures.
I can agree that colour moiré can be suppressed in C1P, but a properly designed system would not produce moiré. The best way to get correct rendition is to increase resolution. There will be no aliasing artefacts if the finest detail is properly resolved.
Colour aliasing is not the same as moiré, check sunlit hair on the enclosed images. P45+ processed in C1 (top) and LR6 (bottom). This was from my only portrait session in modern times.
Best regards
Erik
The handful I times I've encountered aliasing, I've managed to fix it (sometimes not completely, but enough to get a decent print) with C1P.
Funny enough, the worst case I encountered was nit with medium format, but with a Nikon 1 and its tiny pixels.
-
I'm thinking about putting my IQ 260 up for sale. I have no idea what these things are going for. Anybody have a clue?
Mamiya mount, mint condition & apprx 8500 actuations. Since these were, what, about 35k new... If I couldn't get 25k, I'd just keep it. Thanks for the feedback.
CB
It's good to see that you have moved on. If the digital back is not suitable for your use case then there is little point keeping it as it would just continue to depreciate over time. A rational decision would be to ignore the sunk cost and make the best for the future. Letting some non-performing assets change your shooting style or slow down your workflow is not a brilliant idea.
-
It's good to see that you have moved on. If the digital back is not suitable for your use case then there is little point keeping it as it would just continue to depreciate over time. A rational decision would be to ignore the sunk cost and make the best for the future. Letting some non-performing assets change your shooting style or slow down your workflow is not a brilliant idea.
Ya know, I think Void is right, less is more, in this case at least 5 A7RII bodies, enough to see you through several generations of equipment renewal
Edmund
-
...what is a 'digital capture fee' - and will the amount ... charge[d] ... change as a result of ... using a different type of camera system ...
It's explained better than I can here (http://exposed.co.za/recommended-rates/digital-capture-fees/). Since a capture is a capture, what is charged is (in theory) independent of the gear used.
-
It's explained better than I can here (http://exposed.co.za/recommended-rates/digital-capture-fees/). Since a capture is a capture, what is charged is (in theory) independent of the gear used.
In that case, the number which you sell the back for in DOLLARS doesn't matter, what matters is how many CAPTURES with new equipment it buys you.
Edmund
-
In that case, the number which you sell the back for in DOLLARS doesn't matter, what matters is how many CAPTURES with new equipment it buys you.
Edmund
Digital capture fees basically covers post-production and (some) retouching work for the final images. The actual camera used is of no concern. It is pretty much the digital equivalent of film lab and retouching fees.
Not counting my test captures, if I were to deliver 6 final images to my client, I would be charging them $750 for digital capture. This usually covers all the work required for post-production.
If the client wants serious retouching made to the images, then we would start to charge additional fees. For instance, when shooting the image below, the MRI machine had not yet be completely unpacked, and would not be until Siemens came back to calibrate the machine. Considering it was a $10M+ machine, nobody wanted to remove the wrapping and we considered unwrapping it in post. This was far beyond the work I include in my digital capture, not to mention something I could not do myself. In the end, it was too much money to "unwrap" the machine in post, especially since this was more of a documentary shot to be used internally, not a main marketing image.
-
It's explained better than I can here (http://exposed.co.za/recommended-rates/digital-capture-fees/). Since a capture is a capture, what is charged is (in theory) independent of the gear used.
If I understand the explanation you cited correctly, the "capture" fee is, in part, based on the cost of the equipment used to create the digital file.
-
That's a decent general overview, but I don't adhere to everything the guy says in practice - e.g. for clarity's sake, I keep the DCP flat-rated no matter what gear I use (doesn’t make sense to ‘charge 3x’ as much when using a secondhand P25+ that cost 1/2 the price of a new Canon 1DX (or whatever)).
-
Is this instead of you asking them to pay you a licence fee for the use of your images then ?
And if you were to deliver more than 6, would they then need to pay you more - even if they only wanted to use 2 of the images you did deliver... on their website for a few months for example, rather in all media for the next 10 years throughout the world ??
And if you were just to take the pictures with your iPhone instead, would they still need to pay you this same amount, for this 'digital capture' thing that you are talking about here ?
No, I still require a license to use the images. For those in the design and construction industry, I am more asking for a license fee to cover the overall project, not a per image basis. This is due to the lower budgets, and lower usage, in that industry and that those clients are more interested in the overall project, not individual images. For hospitality and ad firms, I also charge a licensing fee per image.
Usually the amount of images I will shoot is already deiced upon before I show up. However, sometimes I shoot an additional image. If this is the case, I will send a very quick edit to see if they want to use it. If so, then an additional capture fee will be charged for design and construction clients. (If ad firms or hospitality, additional licensing fees will be discussed as well.) If not, then I will not work on the image, or at least not allow them to use it.
iPhone? I guess if they really wanted to use an image from my iPhone, I would consider charging them a capture fee, but probably not. Personally, I would not want an iPhone image with my name on it being used in marketing materials. Or at least not an interior image that requires lighting and staging.
FYI Ashley, I have read and reference your blog posts on licensing and how you charge, and feel it is very well thought out. I try to emulate it as much as possible, however design and construction clients (as you have mentioned in the past) just have smaller budgets and usage requirements. Being such, I can not just get the same kind of response in those markets. I am currently changing gears to be more involved with advertising and hospitality firms.
I know from your posts that capture fees do not exactly go inline with your fee structure, but that is something I might consider altering as well.
-
There are a number of different viable business policies across the medium. Some guys have given up dayrates and charge per image. I charge my clients a dayrate based on a 10 hour day. Then there is also a per image charge. I call this charge "Capture, Processing & Retouching". This is based on delivered final images. Every setup I shoot becomes a deliverable, there are not really ever any rejects. I include the licensing within my dayrate. I think this overall structure is pretty common amongst U.S. Architectural Shooters. I often get calls from third parties wishing to license images and I have a separate fee (or fees) for that.
-
There are a number of different viable business policies across the medium. Some guys have given up dayrates and charge per image. I charge my clients a dayrate based on a 10 hour day. Then there is also a per image charge. I call this charge "Capture, Processing & Retouching". This is based on delivered final images. Every setup I shoot becomes a deliverable, there are not really ever any rejects. I include the licensing within my dayrate. I think this overall structure is pretty common amongst U.S. Architectural Shooters. I often get calls from third parties wishing to license images and I have a separate fee (or fees) for that.
Do you then adjust your day rate depending upon whether the client is an architect or, say, a product manufacturer, to account for the different licensing needs? When licensing to architects, do you include paid advertising usage within your day rate, or is it just Internet, awards submissions and brochures and such?
-
Chris' explanation is also pretty standard amongst APs in Canada and Oz.
Though I do know of some in both locations with different models.
Not many I know have a 10 outta 10 hit ratio though!
There are a number of different viable business policies across the medium. Some guys have given up dayrates and charge per image. I charge my clients a dayrate based on a 10 hour day. Then there is also a per image charge. I call this charge "Capture, Processing & Retouching". This is based on delivered final images. Every setup I shoot becomes a deliverable, there are not really ever any rejects. I include the licensing within my dayrate. I think this overall structure is pretty common amongst U.S. Architectural Shooters. I often get calls from third parties wishing to license images and I have a separate fee (or fees) for that.
-
Hi,
Being able to deliver excellent results may matter…
Also, keep in mind that there is much more equipment involved than just a digital back.It is not very probable that you transport a truckload of lighting equipment to a place and shoot with an iPhone on a heavy tripod.
I would guess that Chris has found that the A7r delivers the results he need while offering an efficient workflow.
I don't know why and how, but I would assume that good live view may be a part of the explanation.
It would be interesting to hear Chris explaining what he gained.
Best regards
Erik
So when you are asking these people to hire you here to do this work for them beforehand Chris - and pay you for your time to turn up and be there for 10 hours - do you also let them know what equipment you think you will need to use here, and what the cost of that would be to hire out per day ?
In other words, do you give them a choice here beforehand and then charge them according to what equipment they want you to use - and does that then also make a difference to the price you would charge them for "Capture, Processing & Retouching" - or do you charge them a set price for that, no matter what camera system they wanted you to use ?
Just trying to figure out what the difference would possibly be here, between you using the IQ260 back and your smartphone for example, or the A7r or whatever you happened to have with you that day - because obviously for this to make any sense, then there would need to be a big difference here - otherwise, I'd be wondering why you were even using the IQ260 back in the first place.
-
With rare exceptions, I don't think a client should have a say in what equipment you use. They don't rent your camera, they hire you to make finished images. How you get there and what you use in the process is part of what you bring to the table.
-
I think you guys are over-thinking this a bit. Equipment is never up to the client. They trust in my experience and ongoing expertise to choose the gear that is most appropriate to the project. I've found lately that what is most Appropriate is not the highest megapixel capture device.
One thing that really bothers me about the model of just charging licensing on the images produced is that implies that my time has no value. That can be a dangerous slope to be on.
Sometimes I really envy Film Production Companies, who can charge the client rental on every piece of kit brought out, whether they own it or not.
Regardless of the capture device, I'm still showing up with a View Camera and 8 of the best lenses money can buy... and oh... all this crap too...
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/21790_10205375066151182_8662041226852972006_n.jpg?oh=eda557c78863769c08e19481cb701768&oe=55EB66FF)
-
One thing that really bothers me about the model of just charging licensing on the images produced is that implies that my time has no value. That can be a dangerous slope to be on.
I go back and forth on this all of the time and just can not come up with something that makes me feel right and competitive, especially with the architect market. If I am shooting complicated interiors, it may take me 10 hours to produce 4 images. However, if I am shooting just day lit exteriors that require no staging or lighting (other then timing), I can capture a good deal more.
Overall I am getting paid less per image in the second example while spending more time creating them, after taking post into consideration. It always makes me feel like I am shorting myself and devaluing exteriors, which are just as important.
-
Ashley, I know you like playing devil's advocate with business models and what not, throwing out thought provoking questions, which I enjoy. However, one thing that I think gives you a great advantage and allows you to price the way you do is that your partner is an interior stylist. (Or at least it appears that she is your partner, not 100% sure.)
I have been getting more and more into hotel and ad work (or at least trying to), and push for using a prop stylist. However, I need to hire one and need to ensure those expenses are covered. I have a hard way of incorporating this into a per image fee since those expenses are based on the day, not the number of shots. (Yes, prop expenses would change a bit, but overall the price is dependent on the days working for the stylist.)
Not to mention, there is sometimes a good deal of push back from the client on if it is really necessary to hire a stylist. I am trying to come up with ways to make it seem more necessary.
-
In the entertainment business most photographers get a day-rate. My rate is strictly for myself and includes between 6-10 images that are touched up, including all the photos I've shot on a usb drive. The rate doesn't include the studio rental, makeup & hair folks, wardrobe, an art director (if needed) and my assistants. And though I have an extensive amount of gear, I also expense rental equipment to the client.
My rates changes based upon the client and the job. Some clients will come to me pleading poverty due to a number of circumstances. I often take these knowing that they'll reward me with future jobs for helping them out budget-wise. I rarely do this for one-ups or independents. The companies I work for are film studios and TV networks, so they provide the most jobs and good pay (most of the time). Sometimes I get licensing fees, other times not. There are a lot of photographers competing for these jobs, so sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and decide whether or not you wish to continue working with a client.
-
Sometimes I really envy Film Production Companies, who can charge the client rental on every piece of kit brought out, whether they own it or not.
And as someone who does most of his work in film production, I've envied the usage fees that still photographers are able to charge.
The grass always looks a little greener...
-
A 1 day shoot I did a couple months ago has netted me about $6k in usage licensing. So, yeah, good point.
-
In the entertainment business most photographers get a day-rate. My rate is strictly for myself and includes between 6-10 images that are touched up, including all the photos I've shot on a usb drive. The rate doesn't include the studio rental, makeup & hair folks, wardrobe, an art director (if needed) and my assistants. And though I have an extensive amount of gear, I also expense rental equipment to the client.
My rates changes based upon the client and the job. Some clients will come to me pleading poverty due to a number of circumstances. I often take these knowing that they'll reward me with future jobs for helping them out budget-wise. I rarely do this for one-ups or independents. The companies I work for are film studios and TV networks, so they provide the most jobs and good pay (most of the time). Sometimes I get licensing fees, other times not. There are a lot of photographers competing for these jobs, so sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and decide whether or not you wish to continue working with a client.
It looks to me as though you often do a lot of touch up to your images. Do you also include that work within the day rate or break it out separately? What if the client comes back to you after you have delivered the photos and wants a lot more of this touching up?
-
Yelhsa,
This image...was worth a lot more to my client than this image...because they wanted to use the 1st one a lot more than the 2nd one.
As a result, they paid me a lot more for the use of the 1st image than they did for the 2nd image - even though the 2nd image took me a lot longer to shoot and cost me more to produce.
Was the price set before or after you determined which of the two images was worth the most to your client?
-
Did these people also agree beforehand, to pay you for 'your time' to do this work for them, plus X amount for each 'deliverable image' too - on top of this 6k amount, to be able to actually use that work afterwards ?
Or did these people just agree to pay you 6K for the use of your work afterwards, rather than anything beforehand for you to do the work ?
No, my 'time' was paid for by the architect and their project participants (property owner and engineers). Beyond them, there were 6 additional parties interested in images, who paid a per image flat fee for stock image usage. So, for the originating clients, there is my dayrate plus per image (post-production) costs and for third parties there is just a flat per image license cost. For the original clients, the total costs per image are actually a bit lower than stock usage fees as their licensing is bundled in to my dayrate.
Your model of clients paying more for images that are more Valuable to them has a perfect logic to it. Then again, if I operated that way, I would begin to ask myself why I should put three hours into lighting a particularly tricky interior that may not be that valuable to the client? This, in the end, might cause the quality of my work to suffer. You put a lot of work into every shot and they're all beautiful, but how do you balance that with knowing that all that hard work has less value to a client than a 20 minute exterior?
I think most of us have varying approaches and in the end it's all about whatever is financially viable for your market, keeps your clients happy and you in business. So, by and large, this discussion is rather academic.
CB
-
Hi Chris, with your time being paid by the three different persons or company's, did the architects assume that because your cost for your time was being shared that the other 2 parties had equal rights to use your images?
Example: on a 1 or 2 day shoot, your day rate and post production costs divided by 3, Versus a situation if you only had one original client asking you to shoot for them then charging other party's a flat rate?
Michael
-
Michael,
Yes, I have a "Multiple Client" rate that allows for image and cost sharing across a small group of participants... at a higher rate, of course, than the Single Client rate. This was a practice that began at the studio I previously shot for and has been adopted by many arch shooters that I know.
CB
-
Yelhsa,
Thank you.
-
I don't really see how the timing of the payment is relevant. What they are paying me for is outlined in my estimate and later my invoice. These are the terms agreed to by the client and myself prior to beginning work.
By the same logic you, could argue that since you don't pay the plumber until AFTER he fixes your toilet that you are actually paying a crap/piss charge and not for his services.
-
I think the reason for such difference in IC is about sharpness fall off near edge of IC. For a premium lens such as 85LII, Canon wants edge to edge sharpness, hence they have to make IC much larger than normal. For a lower end lens its perfectly acceptable to have some sharpness fall off, then they would make IC smaller. They would reduce IC whenever they can, because it save on cost.
I doubt that this the issue with an 85mm lens for the 43mm image circle diameter of 35mm format. Having a big enough 'usable image circle' before things go bad near the edges and corners is a major challenge for wide to normal lens designs, but optical designs for "longer" lenses naturally cover about 50º, for an image circle diameter lost as big as foal length, so essentially all lens designs for narrower than normal field of view produce a bigger image circle than needed. This is then "cropped" to the needed image by the sensor/film, and perhaps by baffles and other obstructions inside the lens and camera body. You get a hint of this from MTF graphs: as you move to focal lengths significantly longer than the format diagonal length, the MTF falls of very little from center to corner of frame.
In short, an 85mm lens design will be about the same for everything up to about 6x6 or 6x7 format; only for a larger format where 85mm requires wide angle coverage does the lens design vary much, so it is no surprise that such a lens for 35mm format also covers "medium format" sensors. Try again with a 50mm or shorter lens for 35mm format!
-
It looks to me as though you often do a lot of touch up to your images. Do you also include that work within the day rate or break it out separately? What if the client comes back to you after you have delivered the photos and wants a lot more of this touching up?
Most of my shoots are typically done in front of a white seamless background (paper or cyc), and the images and are handed over to the client on an external drive with no retouching. The reason for this is that the photos are passed on to a creative agency that will utilize the photos to create a poster (key art), which is then repurposed for collateral materials (billboards, building sides, bus sides, banners, digital, etc.). Because of this, the art directors and graphic designers do all the touch-ups – so I don't often touch up images.
Sometimes, I'm asked to get some portrait shots during the shoot for publicity purposes. These are generally the shots that I touch up, but before I can do that, the actor/actress will have a chance to review the photos and can kill a certain % of photos that they don't like. After the approval process is done, I can then touch up the approved photos. Sometimes it's just one photo that the client picked on behalf of the talent, other times it's 3 or 4 images. Most times it's retouching is a part of my daily fee, but if it's a lot more images they want to see, I charge around 250-300 to clean up an image, and I will revise the photo if the client wants a little more work on a photo. Doesn't happen too often, and when it does, it's typically something minor. I generally do this for no charge because it helps retain the client and makes them happy.
-
Ashley, while we may disagree over business practices, and I don't think any of this is worth the time we've spent on it... I hope you know that I have immense respect for you and your work. Shall we move on?
CB
-
Hi Chris,
Could you write down some words about the benefits using the present combination of tools you have?
Best regards
Erik
Ashley, while we may disagree over business practices, and I don't think any of this is worth the time we've spent on it... I hope you know that I have immense respect for you and your work. Shall we move on?
CB
-
"Amateurs talk about equipment, Pros talk about money, Masters talk about light" - type of thing.
So, what? You don't think concert violinists talk to one another about bows and strings, and Amati versus Stradivarius and such?
On the other hand, there is a story that some kids asked the saxophonist Cannonball Adderley what equipment he used, and his reply was that he could play just about anything, that mostly what he wanted was something that didn't get in his way.
-
Oh... I wasn't getting that at all (what you were asking). Really, at the forefront of my thoughts was just that the new gear makes my day to day work easier and more enjoyable. If it allows me to make one more image in a day, then I'll still charge digital fees (including post) for that image... which is mostly profit. My clients will get more images, I'll make a little more money, work will be easier... we'll all be happy.
Fifteen years ago I shot film. I typically made 3 images in a day. Today my clients are getting twice as many shots in a day but only paying 35% more. While I am making less 'per image' than I used to, my annual billing remains steady. The market here expects about 5 interiors in a day. I have to remain competitive in my market. The efficiency of the new system allows me to do so more easily.
When deciding on a photographer to hire, architects consider image quality, quantity of shots and cost. So, it's good business to try to maintain a strong balance between the three. In the long run, ensuring my competitiveness in the market adds more to my bottom line than how much I make per shot.
I hope that clarifies any remaining questions.
CB
Erik, I'll be doing an extensive review on the system and will post here when that's available online.
-
So, what? You don't think concert violinists talk to one another about bows and strings, and Amati versus Stradivarius and such?
On the other hand, there is a story that some kids asked the saxophonist Cannonball Adderley what equipment he used, and his reply was that he could play just about anything, that mostly what he wanted was something that didn't get in his way.
Kreisler once played a piece at a concert, smashed the violin, said that was something cheap I picked up, now I will play my Strad!
The artist who calls himself "Cooter" once posted a story about some Polaroid Swinger images which nowadays would probably translate to iphone captures ...
Edmund
-
The on-set workflow is just so much more efficient and efficiency is quickly becoming the name of the game in commercial imaging.
Speaking about efficiency, how are you able to take bracketed shots with the A7R? I read many reviews that were critical of the camera bracketing feature. Basically you get two bracketing options: 3 or 5 exposures. The 5 exposure bracketing is restricted to either .3 or .7 exposure increments. How are you working around that, just bracketing by changing the exposure manually on your tethered laptop?
-
...just bracketing by changing the exposure manually on your tethered laptop?
Yep, I never use automated camera settings on professional shoots. For one thing, there's not enough control and for another I never need brighter exposures. Also, to answer one of your questions somewhere else... I do my base exposure and then bracket darker from there in 1 stop increments. I usually get all the info I need within the range of Normal to -5 stops. You can probably do broader brackets, 1.5 to 2 stops is supposed to be fine. I've been doing 1 stop increments forever and continue to do so out of habit.
-
Yep, I never use automated camera settings on professional shoots. For one thing, there's not enough control and for another I never need brighter exposures. Also, to answer one of your questions somewhere else... I do my base exposure and then bracket darker from there in 1 stop increments. I usually get all the info I need within the range of Normal to -5 stops. You can probably do broader brackets, 1.5 to 2 stops is supposed to be fine. I've been doing 1 stop increments forever and continue to do so out of habit.
Thanks, that's what I have been doing with my 5D mk2 until now, shooting manual and bracketing in 1 exposure increments. However, I just got the mk3 (used) and I was tempted to use it's auto 7 exposure bracketing. Normally I shoot high contrast scenes (very common in commercial 5 star hotels) in 11 one stop increments; 3 above base and 7 below. I figured if I increase the increments to 1.6 I can squeeze everything into 7 exposures. I will have to try it out in the next opportunity.
How do you get away with just base plus -5 exposures? I am going to venture a guess that:
A) the spaces you are shooting are very well lite with broad windows, soft artificial light sources and well balanced outdoor/indoor light ratios.
B) the high dynamic range of digital back and the A7R that you are using
c) additional lighting you are setting up, although I tend to think of that as for enhancing not changing overall all ratios.
Which is correct?
-
I know setting up the Phase One system is slightly slower than setting up the Canon system - but the difference for me, Chris, would probably be less than minute each time.
And so when looking at creating a number of images which will probably take me over an hour each to set-up (style, light, move stuff, etc, etc) - well then the real difference between using one system or the other, would not be influenced by how long it took me to put the capturing device on the tripod.
How much time do you spend per picture on average? Do some pictures take long? Do you find some pictures take longer because you have to spend more time finding an angle or setting up the space (example banquette setup)?
-
Yes, but you and Chris are often shooting different sorts of subject matter. That is, you are typically shooting residential properties, especially single family, but also some hotels/resorts, whereas Chris is mainly shooting commercial and institutional properties. On average, I would say Chris tends to shoot more complex spaces that are larger, and with more interconnecting spaces, than you tend to shoot. Yes, I know that your shots of the larger common areas of hotels might be similar in terms of the complexity of the spaces. However, for the rest, on average, the spaces you tend to shoot do seem less complex to me. That said, different lighting styles and other characteristics of the rooms might affect how technically challenging a space is to shoot, regardless of the size and complexity of the spaces themselves. Thus, it seems to me that it can be hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison regarding the quantity of photos that interiors/architectural photographers can shoot in a given period of time. I am not saying that you were necessarily trying to make such a specific comparison; however, I think some might tend to try to make such a comparison regardless.
When producing images for mainly 'magazine editorial use', I would aim to produce about 15 images like this...
(http://www.ampimage.com/amp-homes/20150618-Loughery/images/Loughery-184389.jpg)
.. in a day, i.e. in about 8 hours / 9 to 5 type of thing.
When producing images for just 'personal preview use' only, I would aim to produce about 40 or 50 images like this...
(http://www.ampimage.com/20150310-KillarneyPark/images/Capture-009458.jpg)
.. in less than an hour.
When producing images for someone who I'm hoping will want to use my images a lot, I may only produce about 2 or 3 images like this...
(http://www.ampimage.com/20150610-Castles/images/Cabra-184187.jpg)
.. in day - and that day could be a long day or a short one, depending on a number of things... which would include how I was feeling :)
Yes - see above - as a lot would depend on the use, as well as the amount of money I'm likely to make / they are prepared to pay.
Yes - the setting-up of the image, is usually the part that takes up most of the time I find - and it's not just my time neither in a lot of cases, because the Stylist may actually start working on the shots, days before we arrive.
Like this one we shot yesterday...
(http://www.ampimage.com/amp-homes/20150701-Crawford/images/Crawford-185071.jpg)
.. which had Marie (my stylist) on her knees by 3 o'clock or this one we shot last week...
(http://www.ampimage.com/amp-homes/20150622-Graham/images/Graham-184974.jpg)
.. which you can read all about here: Creating the dream (https://ashleymorrisonphotography.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/creating-the-dream/) - as well as see what we walked into, when we arrived.
Hence my comments about the actual length of time it takes to set-up the capture device, when doing work like this - which I assume is very similar to what Chris does too, as his images are even more faultless than mine, in every way.
-
When producing images for mainly 'magazine editorial use', I would aim to produce about 15 images like this...
.. in a day, i.e. in about 8 hours / 9 to 5 type of thing.
When producing images for just 'personal preview use' only, I would aim to produce about 40 or 50 images like this...
.. in less than an hour.
When producing images for someone who I'm hoping will want to use my images a lot, I may only produce about 2 or 3 images like this...
.. in day - and that day could be a long day or a short one, depending on a number of things... which would include how I was feeling :)
Yes - see above - as a lot would depend on the use, as well as the amount of money I'm likely to make / they are prepared to pay.
Yes - the setting-up of the image, is usually the part that takes up most of the time I find - and it's not just my time neither in a lot of cases, because the Stylist may actually start working on the shots, days before we arrive.
Like this one we shot yesterday...
.. which had Marie (my stylist) on her knees by 3 o'clock or this one we shot last week...
.. which you can read all about here: Creating the dream (https://ashleymorrisonphotography.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/creating-the-dream/) - as well as see what we walked into, when we arrived.
Hence my comments about the actual length of time it takes to set-up the capture device, when doing work like this - which I assume is very similar to what Chris does too, as his images are even more faultless than mine, in every way.
Thanks allot for the detailed reply Ashley. Parts of your feedback left me a bit confused though. The exterior being an example of time consuming picture was odd because it dose not require allot of work like setting up or lighting, unless, of course, you are referring to scouting before shooting. In that case I agree an exterior picture can be time consuming to scout, but the actual time for the photoshoot is normally among the shortest.
I was expecting that you would provide an average, for example 8 pictures per day when shooting hotels. That's after all how the industry functions, major hotel chains require a rate card detailing everything including average daily production rate. The more you provide them detailed pricing (in a brief way) the better and they always require exclusive full usage rights for every picture. The pricing method you use is really different, I never seen any major international hotel chains use it, and it seems to me closer to how advertizing and stock is priced.
-
Thanks allot for the detailed reply Ashley. Parts of your feedback left me a bit confused though. The exterior being an example of time consuming picture was odd because it dose not require allot of work like setting up or lighting, unless, of course, you are referring to scouting before shooting. In that case I agree an exterior picture can be time consuming to scout, but the actual time for the photoshoot is normally among the shortest.
I was expecting that you would provide an average, for example 8 pictures per day when shooting hotels. That's after all how the industry functions, major hotel chains require a rate card detailing everything including average daily production rate. The more you provide them detailed pricing (in a brief way) the better and they always require exclusive full usage rights for every picture. The pricing method you use is really different, I never seen any major international hotel chains use it, and it seems to me closer to how advertizing and stock is priced.
Interesting how people can think daytime exterior architectural photography can be quick and easy, just because supplementary lighting or obvious props may not be involved. It is not just the scouting that can take time. The set up may not necessarily take a lot of time, but, oh, the waiting....
-
Interesting how people can think daytime exterior architectural photography can be quick and easy, just because there is not supplementary lighting or obvious props involved. It is not just the scouting that can take time. The set up may not necessarily take a lot of time, but, oh, the waiting....
haha! waiting for you, here it's always sunny!
by the way this serves as a perfect example of where "people can't see" the time required because it's not obvious.
-
Interesting how people can think daytime exterior architectural photography can be quick and easy, just because supplementary lighting or obvious props may not be involved. It is not just the scouting that can take time. The set up may not necessarily take a lot of time, but, oh, the waiting....
Yes, exactly. Or people think that the time of day I want to shoot that exterior I just pulled out of the air.
Day before the 4th of July, everybody will be gone in NYC, hire a photographer to shoot our building.
Day before the 4th of July, everybody will be gone in NYC, lets also hire someone to perform maintenance on our building and just have the photographer show up an hour earlier then what he recommended, no biggie.
Only the sun will not be hitting the building an hour earlier then what I recommended. (What I'm dealing with now.)
-
Waiting...
...for the clouds to move...
...for the rain to stop...
...for cars to move...
...for the wind to stop...
...for the wind to start...
...for someone to get the pool cover open...
...for the construction crew, or cleaning crew, or landscaping maintenance crew or client to get out of the damn way.
-
Waiting...
...for the clouds to move...
...for the rain to stop...
...for cars to move...
...for the wind to stop...
...for the wind to start...
...for someone to get the pool cover open...
...for the construction crew, or cleaning crew, or landscaping maintenance crew or client to get out of the damn way.
yes yes,
waiting for all the curtains and lights to be turned on in a 1200 room hotel
waiting for the government relations manager to show up so he can accompany me (people delay here)
waiting for the police officer to leave me alone so I can continue with my shot and not miss the sun-set
going up a mountain to take the shot
going up 20 floor stairs in a construction site to get to the perfect spot
and on and on, but if we continue like this the thread will turn into a pissing match. Can we agree on one thing, the picture Ashley posted is just NOT a good example. Heck it doesn't even include half the things you listed, lol!
-
yes yes,
waiting for all the curtains and lights to be turned on in a 1200 room hotel
waiting for the government relations manager to show up so he can accompany me (people delay here)
waiting for the police officer to leave me alone so I can continue with my shot and not miss the sun-set
going up a mountain to take the shot
going up 20 floor stairs in a construction site to get to the perfect spot
and on and on, but if we continue like this the thread will turn into a pissing match. Can we agree on one thing, the picture Ashley posted is just NOT a good example. Heck it doesn't even include half the things you listed, lol!
I would guess you have never been to a place like Ireland, where I understand that weather conditions can be quite variable and there is a lot of rain and cloudiness. However, only Ashley can explain any particular environmental challenges of that particular shot, though I would guess that clouds and/or rain had something to do with it.
-
Why don't you ask them for a price sometime and then look at what they ask you to pay for, when they quote that price.
Number of people (images): 1
Media use: Bed & Breakfast only.
Period of use: 1 day (ends 11am tomorrow morning).
Territory of use: Jeddah only.
Fee (for the use of the thing that they have produced for you to use) based on the above: .........
Which I bet would be for a very different amount, if you where to say to them: "But I want exclusive use of all your hotels throughout the world, and everything included for the next 10 years, for me and all my mates" :)
So I think you will find, that the pricing system I use, isn't really any different to their own - which is why I find, most of them don't have a problem understanding how it works.
I am sorry I don't understand your comment, ask who?
I was referring to the major hotel chains (ex: Starwood, Marriott, IHG, Hilton, Accor, etc).
-
Why don't you ask them for a price sometime and then look at what they ask you to pay for, when they quote that price.
Number of people (images): 1
Media use: Bed & Breakfast only.
Period of use: 1 day (ends 11am tomorrow morning).
Territory of use: Jeddah only.
Fee (for the use of the thing that they have produced for you to use) based on the above information: .........
Which I bet would be for a very different amount, if you where to say to them: "But I want exclusive use of all your hotels throughout the world, and everything included for the next 10 years, for me and all my mates" :)
So I think you will find, that the pricing system I use, isn't really any different to their own - which is why I find, most of them don't have a problem understanding how it works.
That is a great explanation, but when do you bring up this conversation?
I ask because it seems to be that you never really know that they did not understand it until you pick up the phone a few weeks later and find out they already signed with someone who gave them everything.
-
I would guess you have never been to a place like Ireland, where I understand that weather conditions can be quite variable and there is a lot of rain and cloudiness. However, only Ashley can explain any particular environmental challenges of that particular shot, though I would guess that clouds and/or rain had something to do with it.
Correct I never been to a Ireland specifically, but I traveled to many part of Europe and lived in North America. The weather is different from where I live for sure and all of my hotel photography is around the equator so the weather is consistent and to an extent predictable.
I think this serves as a perfect example why people cannot see any extra effort required to get the picture done, hence I am specialized photographer in the field and did not see it.
-
Here you go: How much does it cost to take a picture ? (https://ashleymorrisonphotography.wordpress.com/2015/06/21/how-much-does-it-cost-to-take-a-picture/)
Okay, well that answers the question about that particular image. However, what if the weather forecast looked favorable and then turned out to be unfavorable on the day of the shoot, for days at a time? With your model, you eat the cost of any additional travel, assistants' fees, equipment rental costs, etc., and perhaps also lodging (unless the hotel puts you up), not to mention a lot of your time, whereas with the more typical model the client covers those costs (though the charge for time for waiting or travel may be less than the photographer's day rate). It is a question of who assumes the financial risk for circumstances that are beyond the photographer's control, and what the potential reward is for the level of that risk. In that calculus, the cost of the equipment you use is a significant consideration, since that is either a part of your ongoing cost of doing business (for depreciation, maintenance, updating and insurance) that you factor into your day rate or a rental expense.
-
Wow, you guys have been busy. My wife has the day off, so we had breakfast and caught an early showing of Terminator...mindless but totally entertaining. Now I'm off to work in the yard (which is so much cheaper than therapy).
I'll have to catch up on all this after I've come back in and had a chance to mix up some margaritas.
Cheers,
CB
-
Waiting...
...for the clouds to move...
...for the rain to stop...
...for cars to move...
...for the wind to stop...
...for the wind to start...
...for someone to get the pool cover open...
...for the construction crew, or cleaning crew, or landscaping maintenance crew or client to get out of the damn way.
Also waiting for the smokers standing around the doorway feeding their addiction to finish up and go back inside.
-
You sound like someone, David - since this does seem to be your No.1 concern - who regularly fails to be able to provide your clients with some images that they would want to use afterwards, for the price you have quoted them beforehand - even though you seem to be fully aware that things like this could happen beforehand.
So I guess that's why you want people beforehand, to agree to hire you and pay you for 'your time & expenses' instead - because then all you have to do is turn-up, with whatever equipment they have also agreed to pay you for, to bring along... which I assume your clients do, unlike Chris', since you mentioned 'the cost of the equipment' here.
Is that correct ??
Just so you know, that figure I mentioned to you in private the other day, when I asked you "how many hotels in your part of the world would be willing to that amount" - to which you replied "very few" - well that is in fact how much these people paid me here, for the Rights to use each of these 2 images, after seeing the final results.
So my question to you here is: If that was the sort of money that you could possibly make, for taking two very simple exterior shots like this, how many days would be willing to put aside here, to ensure you got something that they would want to use in the end - besides another excuse for you having failed once again, due to you either not having done your homework beforehand or you not caring, because all you are really interested in, is being paid for 'your time & expenses' to turn-up ??
Very few people want to pay me for excuses David, or for something that they can't use or are able to use - so when I quote a price beforehand, that price is based on me providing them with something that they will want to use, rather than based on me just turning-up - and so the fee is based on the use, rather than on an excuse :D
I have never failed to provide a client with images they wanted to use and you have misrepresented what I said in the conversation you cite. We were discussing long-distance travel, and you said for you to travel half way around the world that you would need a client who wanted a minimum of 5 images at a fee of a minimum of $2,000 apiece, and you asked me whether I thought there were many hotels in my area, for example, that would have that sort of need and budget, to which I replied that I thought that there were very few hotels in my area that would pay that rate per image, and that at that rate they would probably only want one or two images. This is consistent with the example you just cited above, which involves a couple of extremely high-end hotels that only wanted one or two images from you at that rate.
Would I take some additional risks for the kind of fee that you mention? Possibly. It would depend upon what the overall deal was, and what I would be risking beyond my own time. Taking the hotel exteriors you have given as an example, if the weather had not been clear, do you think the client would have wanted to use photos shot under cloudy or rainy conditions? If not, for how many days or weeks would you have been willing to stay at those locations, or how many return trips would you have been willing to make, in order to be able to shoot under clear weather conditions, so that you could get a result that you were reasonably confident that the client would want? Let's take it even further and say that the hotels were not in Ireland but in a completely different part of the world. The way you seem to be describing it, if necessary, you would be willing to take a loss in order to deliver photos that the client wanted. Is that correct?
As to "homework", there is only so much of that you can do when it comes to the weather in some parts of the world.
-
For God's sake Ashley, will you let it go.
"Different strokes for different folks", and if someone doesn't use your pricing method it doesn't make them an idiot.
This thread started out on a different subject and you have completely hijacked it by trying to ram your pricing model down everybody's throat.
Give it a rest for once.
-
I have learned from this thread that amateurs quarrel over gear and professionals quarrel over pricing.
Thanks for the education, folks. It was very insightful!
-
How about a new thread, " pricing agnostic business discussions"?
-
BC, Just a bit of a joke, I agree that the discussion on pricing is relevant (and interesting).
In the past 30 years I have experienced day rates in the six figures and in the single figures. One thing that I have learned is that every client & market is different so it is very interesting but difficult to compare/ debate different pricing structures. Clearly we are all in it for the love of photography (at least I am) and I am just grateful to be able to do this for a living and not have to sit behind a desk somewhere.
Regarding pricing, A friend of mine who represents film directors once told me that she has she considers three criteria for accepting a job.
1) quality of work
2) quality of the pay
3) quality of the connections.
If the job satisfies two of the three criteria she takes it if not she walks away. I have found her criteria system to be a really great way to decide on pricing.
IMO
-
BC: I am a guy with an educational background in art, but currently working a day job that supports these crazy hobbies I have. Photography is just something I enjoy doing. :)
-
And btw: I'm far from xenophobic, as I have a British wife, a London flat and pay a whole raft of fees, taxes, and VAT in the UK.
Nice one, Coots - so now we have an updated definition of a 'xenophile' :
Marry a Brit, buy a flat, pay some VAT and you're good to go ...
-
Always here to help.
B Cooter
Prez
Cooterpedia
Luv' it !
;D
Happy 4th of July.
M
-
snip
But to keep it on topic, hey how bout that Sony A7IIR? Looks good huh?
snip
I was really surprised to see Chris taking this route but hey, we used to do all of our work with MFD and just pulled stills from 6K motion for double site magazine print… and it´s looking good.
Demand is changing so your workflow has to adopt, so yes shoot whatever fits your style. Did the A7RII already hit the road?
Cheers, Ulf
-
They stab it with their steely knives...
I'm lakeside at a barbecue in Indiana. The batch of sangria I brought has just run out but the slices of peach at the,bottom of my glass are the sweetestt thing I've tasted all day, besting the America flag iced rice crispy treats.
Whatever. Man. Whatever.
-
Nice one, Coots - so now we have an updated definition of a 'xenophile' :
Marry a Brit, buy a flat, pay some VAT and you're good to go ...
Well at least he sure ain't a xenobite!
I still get to wait a week for the local beheading celebration :)
Enjoy your drinks, J -
Edmund
-
It's funny, I always thought Texas was the land of "pour me a double", until living some time in London. Wow, those folks can knock it down.
...
But to keep it on topic, hey how bout that Sony A7IIR? Looks good huh?
IMO
BC
Early in the second World War, Winston Churchill came to Washington and stayed at the White House for a few weeks. On the day of his arrival, Churchill told Mr. Fields, the White House butler, how to keep him happy. The menu is recorded in Cita Stelzer's "Dinner With Churchill": "I must have a tumbler of sherry in my room before breakfast, a couple of glasses of scotch and soda before lunch, and French Champagne and 90-year-old brandy before I go to sleep at night."
And back on topic... I'm playing now with a Sony A7s that looks nice, but could use a bit more resolution. For the first time I'm intrigued by the A7RII, even if it's named after a Star Wars robot.