Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: digital and analogue cost analysis  (Read 14052 times)

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2006, 08:04:02 am »

Quote
Well, reading through this thread I tend to agree with Focusgroup. It seems a lot like blasting, and doesn't look at all like the general atmosphere in these forums. If someone hasn't provided enough relevant information, does it occur to anyone to actual ask for it?
................................................
Let's try to get to the core of the argument. What is it really that makes digital MF unsuited currently for this type of photography for most of you.

....................................................
And for discussions sake, what are everyone's opinions about the following statement:

- Digital MF is currently usable for fine art landscape photography only.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oscar,

On your first point isolated above, I proposed exactly that in point (6) of my last post in this thread. If focusgroup would like to persue this we can get into the information requirements about the two business models (film vs MF digital), outputs, corresponding inputs and costs etc. It will take time to develop this dialogue in a way that will produce useful results for focusgroup, so one would only get into it if there is interest in really drilling down.  

On your second point isolated above, the core of the argument is that if the business needs can be met satisfactorily with a 3500 dollar investment instead of a 35,000 dollar investment, all the economics change fundamentally, so it is useful to help with the definition of an appropriate investment program before delving into comparative cost calculations. That is all everyone has been advising.

On your third point isolated above: that statement cannot be correct.

Cheers,

Mark
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2006, 10:13:16 am »

Quote
On your third point isolated above: that statement cannot be correct.

Why so?
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

n1x0n

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2006, 10:31:05 am »

Quote
Please tell me if you think this is close to accurate.  Purchasing a P45 approx 34K USD.
At 8.5% for 60 months = $ 690/month (excluding tax) (I know this part is correct)

purchasing and processing approx 20 rolls of 35mm at 36 exposures is approx $ 11 per roll?  I think this is close.  This should be about $ 220 per job.  Therefore the break even is approx 3 weddings per month or 36 jobs per year. 

Total cost is somewhere around $ 7900 for film and processing vs.  $ 8,300 for digital.

The major sticking point is this.  Digital becomes a fixed cost vs film which is variable. 

Any thoughts on my numbers for digital negative vs film would be greatly appreciated. 

Well George,
there are few things to consider:

1. P45 is a medium format back, so you should be using the prices of 120/220 film here, not the 35mm.  Which means that you must multiply your film costs at least by 2... at least!
** add $7900 per year to the film budget

2. These $34k will give you about $1300 in interests yearly, if you keep them in the bank. So you must add this number to the price of ownership of P45, since you won't be able to collect them anymore. Same thing if you'll use a loan to purchase the P45.
** add $1300-$1600 per year to the digital budget

3. Price of digital workflow includes a storage and archival expenses. Don't forget to add them up.
** add $1000 per year to the digital budget

All of the above are just simple examlples, they are not precise and have the sole purpose to show you some minor flaws in your calculations.

p.s.
You must be a very famous wedding photographer if you plan to use P45 ONLY for 3 days of shooting monthly! Actually most of the P45 owners are using them daily, for all kinds of jobs, thus making their investment worthy.

As far as the image quality goes - the number of "keepers" form 35mm digital, is much higher than from a digital back. You just cant't shoot a MF camera with such ease as you can with 35mm. Even if you're an experienced MF photographer.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2006, 10:49:02 am »

Quote
Why so?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, the most obvious examples are portraiture and product photography. I can't see any reason why an MF back shouldn't perform superbly for these purposes. And why not astrophotography (unless one considers that a special case of landscape photography)? In fact, anything for which any photographer has successfully used a Hasselblad, a Rolleiflex or a Linhof should be a probable candidate for an MF digital back.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #24 on: August 17, 2006, 11:00:54 am »

Quote
Well, the most obvious examples are portraiture and product photography.

Sure, and for portraiture, can it be done economically viable?
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2006, 12:00:08 pm »

Quote
Sure, and for portraiture, can it be done economically viable?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Depends. Is it a passport photographer or Greg Gorman?
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

mtomalty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
    • http://www.marktomalty.com
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2006, 12:04:41 pm »

Quote
And for discussions sake, what are everyone's opinions about the following statement:

- Digital MF is currently usable for fine art landscape photography only.


I would have to say that that is completely inaccurate

Digital Medium format has long been the domain of commercial and fashion photographers
and really,only recently,has been embraced by a handfull of landscape photographers.


Mark
Logged

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2006, 12:29:39 pm »

Quote
Depends. Is it a passport photographer or Greg Gorman?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL, but from this vantage point: A Greg Gorman of bridal photography, would you still recommend the 1D over an MF back?
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2006, 12:31:34 pm »

Quote
Digital Medium format has long been the domain of commercial and fashion photographers
and really,only recently,has been embraced by a handfull of landscape photographers.

Very true, but why would they have been using an MF back instead of a 1D?
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

mtomalty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
    • http://www.marktomalty.com
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2006, 12:48:56 pm »

Quote
Very true, but why would they have been using an MF back instead of a 1D?

Primarily,I would say that the two main reasons would be,firstly, sheer quality of the
medium format files,even at the penatly of inconvenience in certain situations
and,secondly,the ability of a digital back to integrate with their existing camera hardware.

A number of successfull commerfcial and fashion phorographers would also openly admit
that industry peer pressure and the the oversimplified assumption that medium format
digital equates to 'more' professional results also would play into their decision.

Mark
Logged

Hank

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #30 on: August 17, 2006, 01:29:24 pm »

We actually had the chance to use a MF system with a digiback in the studio and one wedding, as one of the companies was pimping us pretty hard to make the switch.  After the trial my wife said she would consider it for the formal shots with specific high dollar weddings when a canvas larger than 30x40 might be in the offing.  That's about as rare as an honest politician in our world.

Further reaction was that the setup was entirely unsuitable for her uses in other wedding shots both in terms of speed of use and ISO.  She would still have to have her 35mm DSLR and the full kit over and above the weight, bulk and expense of the MF.

In the studio it would have more utility, but our sales size and volume seldom dictate the need.  Individual sales justifying the system are also lurking among the honest politicians.

For product shots I would consider a digiback for one of our 4x5's before succumbing to the MF digiback, simply for the movements we need so desperately in those shots.  Having that in hand, we would go ahead and use it for the formal wedding shots rather than investing in MF.

All in all, I simply can't find justification for a MF digiback in any aspect of our business.  Kind of a cute toy and fun to play with, but a poor way to spend money better used for more important things. YMMV.

Sorry.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #31 on: August 17, 2006, 03:18:55 pm »

Quote
LOL, but from this vantage point: A Greg Gorman of bridal photography, would you still recommend the 1D over an MF back?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oscar, I think it depends on the intended output, and this seems to be what Hank is getting at as well. Just taking for example weddings, being the case at hand, if the wedding output will be a nice big white album full of 8*10s or even 11*14s, a Canon 5D would do the job admirably well, and of course so would a 1Ds 11.1mp  or 16mp versions. If the intended output will be very big enlargements that require excrutiating detail and the most luxurious of tonal gradations, an MF back would seem to be indicated, based on material I've seen. One should be aiming to adapt the technology to the business model and the market.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

focusgroup

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2006, 06:50:55 pm »

thank you all.  

There are many excellent points within this post and I have suggested that my client become a member here.

What is interesting is the statement about making money with landscape photography and a MF back.  Im surprised there is such a great demand that so many could make a living at landscape photography with such an expensive investment.  

Heck Im always complaining about the cost of my tax software which is about 10K per year.  It sounds like a bargain after adding all of your costs up.  

George
Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #33 on: August 17, 2006, 07:08:39 pm »

Um...to be honest there are only a tiny, and I mean tiny fraction of landscape photographers who can justify a P45 based on costs alone. For most of them it is an expensive - very expensive - toy.

Seriously how many professional landscape photographers are there in the world anyway? How many are shooting enough to justify that kind of cost?!

For all that I like the way MR thinks and I have a lot of respect for him, I doubt he makes anywhere near enough from his photography alone to justify his digital medium format expenditures!

Nope, I think it is more dentists using these cameras for their landscape work...
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #34 on: August 17, 2006, 07:56:45 pm »

Quote
Seriously how many professional landscape photographers are there in the world anyway? How many are shooting enough to justify that kind of cost?!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, there's Michael, and Alain, and . . . anybody else? Yes, there used to be Ansel, too. But all three of them do/did a lot of teaching, and/or other kinds of photography.

I think you're right about the dentists, Pom.  

-Eric
« Last Edit: August 17, 2006, 07:57:14 pm by EricM »
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2006, 07:58:11 pm »

Ben, c'mon now, why single out dentists - what about doctors, lawyers, accountants, real-estate agents, investment bankers, ...................................is it that you've been to the dentist lately?  

Seriously though, there have to be enough professional photographers making money with these backs, which combined with the small minority of those types above who spend lavishly on photography, make-up a sufficient market for the likes of Phase to be manufacturing them - in small quantities to be sure.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

James DeMoss

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
    • http://jbdemossphotography.com/aboutus.aspx
digital and analogue cost analysis
« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2006, 05:33:23 am »

Quote
thank you all. 

There are many excellent points within this post and I have suggested that my client become a member here.

What is interesting is the statement about making money with landscape photography and a MF back.  Im surprised there is such a great demand that so many could make a living at landscape photography with such an expensive investment. 

Heck Im always complaining about the cost of my tax software which is about 10K per year.  It sounds like a bargain after adding all of your costs up. 

George
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry you did not really get the answer you were seeking, but the simple reality is, the better the photographer in "todays" megapixel DSLRs, the ROI for MF will be tough. It may be best to hold back a bit till pricing gets a tad more realistic.

All the replies are right, but may be wrong for your client. MY ADVICE, get everything and pass the costs to his customers. What he/she does not provide, can't be sold.

-
James
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up