39 megapixels vs. 4x5

Mike wrote:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

Doesn't rattle my world because I don't have $40,000 to dish out for a P45
digital back and I enjoy traditional B&W work with my view camera



Man, sometimes you just have to laugh about this stuff. He complains
about $3 each for 4x5 Velvia, then plunks down money on a P45, but makes
it seem okay because it can be a "tax deduction". Then a bit later he
implies that the images he could be making with the P45 "cost nothing",
since his friend with the Canon was doing just that.

Now I know some people are more well off than others, and I even know
several rich people . . . I don't think any of them would dismiss nearly
$40k so easily. Of course, I recently read an article by Seth Resnick in
The Big Picture magazine, where he writes about the high annual cost of
shooting digitally, as compared to when he shot on film. Now anyone who
knows Seth Resnick will realize he is one of the biggest direct digital
advocates on the planet, and that he is sponsored by Canon.

I am sure Mr. Cramer probably makes lots of money from his prints, so
the cost of the P45 was probably easy to justify (or maybe not, and that
is why he wrote the article). I think anyone would acknowledge that it
should be possible to make good prints from either 4x5 or a P45 back, so
I don't mean that to be an issue. I have rented a PhaseOne back and
Contax 645 combo a few times, and the results are quite nice.

What gets me is when I read about big name photographers still using
large format, especially when they are bringing in enough money to buy
several digital backs. Andic and Olaf Veltman are a couple, if anyone
wants some names . . . especially interesting in that Andic is fairly
new at this professional, and he brings in somewhere around $8000 a day
when he is working on ad campaigns. My guess is that both make more
annual income than Mr. Cramer, even with his workshop income . . . so
why are they still using large format cameras and film?

http://www.olafveltman.com No, he is not a landscape fine art
photographer, but I hope some people here like his images. Personally, I
find his work to be of very high quality, though that might just be my
opinion.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

Mike wrote:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

Doesn't rattle my world because I don't have $40,000 to dish out for a P45
digital back and I enjoy traditional B&W work with my view camera



Man, sometimes you just have to laugh about this stuff. He complains
about $3 each for 4x5 Velvia, then plunks down money on a P45, but makes
it seem okay because it can be a "tax deduction". Then a bit later he
implies that the images he could be making with the P45 "cost nothing",
since his friend with the Canon was doing just that.

Now I know some people are more well off than others, and I even know
several rich people . . . I don't think any of them would dismiss nearly
$40k so easily. Of course, I recently read an article by Seth Resnick in
The Big Picture magazine, where he writes about the high annual cost of
shooting digitally, as compared to when he shot on film. Now anyone who
knows Seth Resnick will realize he is one of the biggest direct digital
advocates on the planet, and that he is sponsored by Canon.

I am sure Mr. Cramer probably makes lots of money from his prints, so
the cost of the P45 was probably easy to justify (or maybe not, and that
is why he wrote the article). I think anyone would acknowledge that it
should be possible to make good prints from either 4x5 or a P45 back, so
I don't mean that to be an issue. I have rented a PhaseOne back and
Contax 645 combo a few times, and the results are quite nice.

Quite frankly but not to disparage Mr Charles Cramer, but I am not a big
fan of of his work. I don't know why VC runs so many of his treatises
but In my opinion there are quite a few better shooters worthy of the
article space- myself excluded.


What gets me is when I read about big name photographers still using
large format, especially when they are bringing in enough money to buy
several digital backs. Andic and Olaf Veltman are a couple, if anyone
wants some names . . . especially interesting in that Andic is fairly
new at this professional, and he brings in somewhere around $8000 a day
when he is working on ad campaigns. My guess is that both make more
annual income than Mr. Cramer, even with his workshop income . . . so
why are they still using large format cameras and film?

Its because they are good and know film that gets them noticed.



http://www.olafveltman.com No, he is not a landscape fine art
photographer, but I hope some people here like his images. Personally, I
find his work to be of very high quality, though that might just be my
opinion.

Its nice work and some good concept photography.



Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com



--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

Gordon Moat wrote:

What gets me is when I read about big name photographers still using
large format, especially when they are bringing in enough money to buy
several digital backs. Andic and Olaf Veltman are a couple, if anyone
wants some names . . . especially interesting in that Andic is fairly
new at this professional, and he brings in somewhere around $8000 a day
when he is working on ad campaigns. My guess is that both make more
annual income than Mr. Cramer, even with his workshop income . . . so
why are they still using large format cameras and film?
If you are making $8000 / day you can afford to use film, and might not
want to change
what is working. But let's assume for the moment that most
photographers don't pull
in $8K / day. If your getting drum scans done it does not take many
scans to pay for the $40K.

In another thread you pointed out that you can buy a used drum scanning
for something like $10K, but then you have to either pay someone to use
it or take the time yourself.

Lets say you make $8K a day and from the shoot you need to scan 10
slides/ call it $500 cost for scanning, you still have $7500 and
that's not bad. But now let's say you don't make the really big
bucks and are only getting $2000 for your 10 shots, you would burn up
25% of your gross income just on scans.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote:


What gets me is when I read about big name photographers still using
large format, especially when they are bringing in enough money to buy
several digital backs. Andic and Olaf Veltman are a couple, if anyone
wants some names . . . especially interesting in that Andic is fairly
new at this professional, and he brings in somewhere around $8000 a day
when he is working on ad campaigns. My guess is that both make more
annual income than Mr. Cramer, even with his workshop income . . . so
why are they still using large format cameras and film?

If you are making $8000 / day you can afford to use film, and might not
want to change
what is working. But let's assume for the moment that most
photographers don't pull
in $8K / day. If your getting drum scans done it does not take many
scans to pay for the $40K.



More typical commercial advertising work maybe closer to half that,
though lesser photographers might not be quite as busy. Some also make
quite a bit more . . . I don't know what Olaf Veltman gets, though he
has been at this much longer than Andic, so probably quite a bit more.

Average architecture photographer probably doing closer to $1500 to
$4000 a day, depending upon workload and clients. However, the range of
movements with a view camera could be enough to stick with large format
film. A scanning back is another option, but I have yet to get much
feedback about people using them.

In another thread you pointed out that you can buy a used drum scanning
for something like $10K, but then you have to either pay someone to use
it or take the time yourself.


Sure, pretty hefty learning curve. I think the only reasonable way to
budget for one (as a professional) is to consider selling scanning
services. The Creo iQSmart is much more user friendly, but still has a
bit of a learning curve. Direct digital capture, with a high end back,
has the potential to be easier to learn. One would have to decide if
they want to be creating more content (taking photos), or spending more
time on a computer at a scanning station.


Lets say you make $8K a day and from the shoot you need to scan 10
slides/ call it $500 cost for scanning, you still have $7500 and
that's not bad. But now let's say you don't make the really big
bucks and are only getting $2000 for your 10 shots, you would burn up
25% of your gross income just on scans.


Every pro I know that has a lab or service bureau do drum scans (or high
end flat scans) bills out for those scans. The advantages of having your
own high end scanner (again, as a professional) is the time savings, and
(after you learn to use it at best potential) the control over the
results. There are several ways to bill out, including just factoring it
into a flat rate for a given assignment.

As an amateur, or maybe even a not so well known fine art photographer,
it would be very difficult to justify getting a high end scanner. I find
more fine art photographers I speak to using low to mid range gear,
because anything more expensive would eat into any earnings from sales.
It does surprise me that Mr. Cramer makes enough from fine art sales to
fund a P45, but he has been at it a few decades.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:41:56 -0800, Gordon Moat
wrote:


Man, sometimes you just have to laugh about this stuff. He complains
about $3 each for 4x5 Velvia, then plunks down money on a P45, but makes
it seem okay because it can be a "tax deduction". Then a bit later he
implies that the images he could be making with the P45 "cost nothing",
since his friend with the Canon was doing just that.

Now I know some people are more well off than others, and I even know
several rich people . . . I don't think any of them would dismiss nearly
$40k so easily. Of course, I recently read an article by Seth Resnick in
The Big Picture magazine, where he writes about the high annual cost of
shooting digitally, as compared to when he shot on film. Now anyone who
knows Seth Resnick will realize he is one of the biggest direct digital
advocates on the planet, and that he is sponsored by Canon.

I am sure Mr. Cramer probably makes lots of money from his prints, so
the cost of the P45 was probably easy to justify (or maybe not, and that
is why he wrote the article). I think anyone would acknowledge that it
should be possible to make good prints from either 4x5 or a P45 back, so
I don't mean that to be an issue. I have rented a PhaseOne back and
Contax 645 combo a few times, and the results are quite nice.

What gets me is when I read about big name photographers still using
large format, especially when they are bringing in enough money to buy
several digital backs. Andic and Olaf Veltman are a couple, if anyone
wants some names . . . especially interesting in that Andic is fairly
new at this professional, and he brings in somewhere around $8000 a day
when he is working on ad campaigns. My guess is that both make more
annual income than Mr. Cramer, even with his workshop income . . . so
why are they still using large format cameras and film?

http://www.olafveltman.com No, he is not a landscape fine art
photographer, but I hope some people here like his images. Personally, I
find his work to be of very high quality, though that might just be my
opinion.

Excellent post Gordon. And thanks for the link.

John

In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:

Lets say you make $8K a day and from the shoot you need to scan 10
slides/ call it $500 cost for scanning, you still have $7500 and
that's not bad. But now let's say you don't make the really big
bucks and are only getting $2000 for your 10 shots, you would burn up
25% of your gross income just on scans.

Scott

A Pro bills the client for the scan, otherwise they are idiots.


--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

It does surprise me that Mr. Cramer makes enough from fine art sales to
fund a P45, but he has been at it a few decades.

SmirkIt surprise the heck out of me too

--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:02:24 -0500, G- Blank
wrote:

In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:

Lets say you make $8K a day and from the shoot you need to scan 10
slides/ call it $500 cost for scanning, you still have $7500 and
that's not bad. But now let's say you don't make the really big
bucks and are only getting $2000 for your 10 shots, you would burn up
25% of your gross income just on scans.

Scott

A Pro bills the client for the scan, otherwise they are idiots.

And adds a little padding !


==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

G- Blank wrote:

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

It does surprise me that Mr. Cramer makes enough from fine art sales to
fund a P45, but he has been at it a few decades.

SmirkIt surprise the heck out of me too



Like I said, mediocrity sells. It's the basis
for mass market consumerism and is why digital
P&S are so popular. I find it telling that those
of us lugging around our LFs are being called
luddites by digital geeks for our committment to
quality

As rafy boy just admitted to John, he ain't even
familar with TMX...

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

[...] I find it telling that those
of us lugging around our LFs are being called
luddites by digital geeks for our committment to
quality

Actually, I've found LF photographers called 'elitist', and the photographer
is only doing what he/she's done for thirty years!