Traditional Curmudgeon wrote:
A relatively large capital expense is worth it if it increases your revenue per hour of labor.
If you want megapixels, however, do a calculation of the effective megapixels of a large sheet of film (4x5 or 8x10 inch), which can be exposed with less than $4000 of capital cost (even at new prices for camera and lens).

Yes but...

- you have to wait and see if you actually got it or not.
- you have to wait and develope the pictures then scan them.

I'd rather work with getting the images right now, showing them to the client on a large screen tv in both the shooting area and waiting room right now, and knowing that a digi tech has backed them up in two places right now.

I'd be charging for all of that, and it would add at the very least $1000-1500 on the shoot.

As far as getting a camera, around here we could just rent them, and in a larger market I don't see a reason why a person wouldn't have a camera like this because as Mr Eastwood said, they pay for themselves.

Clique7 Studios wrote:
Hasselblad offers it's latest creation priced at $22,000.00 to $36,000.00 for the pro pack. Granted it shoots at 50 megapixels, but $36,000.00?

Does anyone own one of these beasts, handled one or used one? Obviously it's an excellent camera, but $36,000.00???

i shot great pictures with my point and shoot camera, why in hell would i need to blow that much money on that camera. what does it offer?

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
i shot great pictures with my point and shoot camera, why in hell would i need to blow that much money on that camera. what does it offer?

resolution, DR, contrast, client appeasement.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

BCADULTART wrote:
Hey,

I still got one of my Kodak / Nikon DCS 460 bodies
Back in 1997 it was $36,000.  The Blad sounds like
a deal?

Chuck

I saw one of those or whatever Kodak was based on a 8008 body, it was $200 or $150 on craigslist. I almost bought it just to have one...

StephenEastwood wrote:
resolution, DR, contrast, client appeasement.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Couldn't you get a loan for one that would come out to $500-600 a month for a few years?

Either way 2-3 regular jobs a month in your market would easily pay for it.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
Couldn't you get a loan for one that would come out to $500-600 a month for a few years?

Either way 2-3 regular jobs a month in your market would easily pay for it.

people do lease them, its a business expense either way, pays for itself in charges for digital capture and processing once its paid off the charges are still profitable at a higher percentage point over base.  Same for all digital capture, the film, developing and processing fees were replaced with capture and processing fees as an industry norm.  Main difference is film and developing always remained a constant expense, where as once the gear is paid off, they are more money in your pocket.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
so Stephen,

How do you go about flaunting this large camera and do it in a way that gets the clients attention while not making it look like you're bragging.

Is there a way to hold one or have one laying around that is industry standard?

don't flaunt, just point out the benifts to those who matter, they know what marketing has brainwashed them into thinking, and that is often that numbers matter.

If you don't have one, you flaunt why you don't.

The old wedding photographer philosophy applies.

If you have a studio you explain how all photographers that are worth anything have a great studio for creating the perfect portraits of the happy couples in a controlled environment to enhance the happy couples album.

If you don't have a studio and work from home, you stress that its because you take pride in your skills to take full advantage of the catering hall that they spent so much money on, and you want to include that in their pictures as an extra reminder of what a perfect setting they had chosen to celebrate that momentous event.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Clique7 Studios wrote:
Hasselblad offers it's latest creation priced at $22,000.00 to $36,000.00 for the pro pack. Granted it shoots at 50 megapixels, but $36,000.00?

Does anyone own one of these beasts, handled one or used one? Obviously it's an excellent camera, but $36,000.00???

Oh SHIT, even MORE reason for photographers to whine about how expensive their gear was!

D:

StephenEastwood wrote:

resolution, DR, contrast, client appeasement.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

rsolution: are you shooting for a billboard poster or what?
not sure what you mean by DP
Contrast you can edit in photoshop.

client appeasement? since when will the client know and care what you shoot with? as long as its good.

StephenEastwood wrote:
resolution, DR, contrast, client appeasement.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
rsolution: are you shooting for a billboard poster or what?
not sure what you mean by DP
Contrast you can edit in photoshop.

client appeasement? since when will the client know and care what you shoot with? as long as its good.

- Some retouching takes that extra space, ask Bob Randall about it.
- he said DP?
- Again, sometimes it's fun starting out with a really nice file rather than adding stuff in later. (edit, and it's "retouching" not editing)

- Clients pay the bills, gotta make them happy.

Apfel Photography wrote:

That's if the client wants a sheet of film as the final product.  On top of that you will need the polaroid back to make sure you everything is right before you expose the frame.  Then you will either need to have the processors inhouse or outsource.  So few people require these services that prolabs are charging a nice peice of change.  Then you either need the drum scanner....or again, outsource it.  The average cost per image scan is $220 to $240 at a lab. 

So, as a commercial photographer....$30K is reasonable.  For a fine art, portraits or wedding photographer.....maybe not so much.

$220-$240/scan?!!! are you kidding me?... heck no. Every lab I scanned at is $50-60. Think about it. Drum scanners have come down in price and you can get one for $12K and that's for a Hasselblad drum scanner, I've seen some go for $3-5K. All you would have to do is scan 1 set and you'd meet that price. Maybe some labs are different then others but all the medium format slides I took to my lab were only $50-$60/per.

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:

rsolution: are you shooting for a billboard poster or what?
not sure what you mean by DP
Contrast you can edit in photoshop.

client appeasement? since when will the client know and care what you shoot with? as long as its good.

NOT DP  DR = Dynamic Range.

Point & SHoot even the Canon G9 & G10 are not even close to the best DSLR and thoser are not close to the 50+ MP digital MF backs.

Contrast is partly the sensor and the lenses (MF lenses rock)

Jon Lilley wrote:
I'm guessing most of these units will be sold to pro hire companies who will hire out at a day rate to commercial snappers.

I can't see a large percentage sold to end users.

Yeah, what he said.  Isn't it all moot anyway?  I would think most people that use cameras in this range are renting them and charging it back to the clients anyway.  So what does it matter what it costs as long as the client is willing to pay for it?

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:

StephenEastwood wrote:
resolution, DR, contrast, client appeasement.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

rsolution: are you shooting for a billboard poster or what?
not sure what you mean by DP
Contrast you can edit in photoshop.

Actually, billboards don't need all that much resolution; they're viewed from far enough away that surprisingly small files can be used. OTOH, point-of-purchase material, especially for higher-end products (cosmetics) can benefit from ridiculous amounts of data, as they're often very large and will be viewed very close-up.

DR is dynamic range, and the MF backs still have an edge in how they handle the extremes; there's a smoother roll-off as the highlights transition to clipping, and that can be significant for some kinds of photography. (Some clients won't notice; many will.)

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
i shot great pictures with my point and shoot camera, why in hell would i need to blow that much money on that camera. what does it offer?

Perhaps you don't need to blow that much money on that camera. For clients who really look into the finest of details, however, it can often mean they won't hire you.

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
client appeasement? since when will the client know and care what you shoot with? as long as its good.

Whether it's necessary or not, there is a perception on the part of many clients that the hardware is a defining characteristic, or a minimum standard. This is especially true in certain markets. Sometimes it actually is necessary, and such equipment is needed to achieve their goal. Sometimes it's not, but it's still necessary if you want to get hired to achieve their goal.

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:

rsolution: are you shooting for a billboard poster or what?
not sure what you mean by DP
Contrast you can edit in photoshop.

client appeasement? since when will the client know and care what you shoot with? as long as its good.

Let me disagree. If you and Sam Jones (he owns a Hassy) are vying to get an agency job shooting a line of new cars I guarantee you the agency (assuming skill levels are equal) will choose Sam and his Hassy.

How did they know Sam has a Hassy? He told them! If I owned one of the damn things I'd tell everyone on the planet.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:

StephenEastwood wrote:
resolution, DR, contrast, client appeasement.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

rsolution: are you shooting for a billboard poster or what?
not sure what you mean by DP
Contrast you can edit in photoshop.

Actually, billboards don't need all that much resolution; they're viewed from far enough away that surprisingly small files can be used. OTOH, point-of-purchase material, especially for higher-end products (cosmetics) can benefit from ridiculous amounts of data, as they're often very large and will be viewed very close-up.

DR is dynamic range, and the MF backs still have an edge in how they handle the extremes; there's a smoother roll-off as the highlights transition to clipping, and that can be significant for some kinds of photography. (Some clients won't notice; many will.)

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
i shot great pictures with my point and shoot camera, why in hell would i need to blow that much money on that camera. what does it offer?

Perhaps you don't need to blow that much money on that camera. For clients who really look into the finest of details, however, it can often mean they won't hire you.

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
client appeasement? since when will the client know and care what you shoot with? as long as its good.

Whether it's necessary or not, there is a perception on the part of many clients that the hardware is a defining characteristic, or a minimum standard. This is especially true in certain markets. Sometimes it actually is necessary, and such equipment is needed to achieve their goal. Sometimes it's not, but it's still necessary if you want to get hired to achieve their goal.

Vlad, dude, he is correct.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

StephenEastwood wrote:
resolution, DR, contrast, client appeasement.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

- Some retouching takes that extra space, ask Bob Randall about it.
- he said DP?
- Again, sometimes it's fun starting out with a really nice file rather than adding stuff in later. (edit, and it's "retouching" not editing)

- Clients pay the bills, gotta make them happy.

Bob Randall has a Hassy?

Immortality wrote:

Oh SHIT, even MORE reason for photographers to whine about how expensive their gear was!

D:

I love your posts!

Apfel Photography wrote:

Well, seeing that there many commercial photographers doing $30,000.00 to $100,000.00 commercial assignments, this price is completely acceptable.

Quite agree. Makes sense.

Clique7 Studios wrote:

Bob Randall has a Hassy?

2

Robert Randall wrote:
one inch square from a Canon 1Ds Mark III using default settings.



one inch square from a Leaf Aptus 75S on A Hasselblad H2 using default settings.



Same girl, same lipstick, same gray card for white balance, same lighting. The girl was slightly smaller in terms of composition in the Leaf image.

that's cool but in my opinion unnecessary.

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
that's cool but in my opinion unnecessary.

Why unnecessary, Vlad? It's the whole point, the perfect illustration of what you get for the money and another reason why clients will hire one photographer rather than another!

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
i had people buy some of my images  and they didn't care so much for the most finest of details. they did compliment on how the wheat stood out, how the sky stood out and so forth.

if a client goes over images with a microscope then id rather not work with them as they are just going to be bridezillas.

That's your choice.

I will note, however, that a substantial number of the clients who are paying $10,000-$100,000 for a shoot fall into the category of people you dismiss as 'bridezillas'.

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
for what im hearing really, is that buy the camera cause its

a. a hasselblad
b. its expensive

You may want to read the posts again, then, as that's not what's been written.

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
that's cool but in my opinion unnecessary.

That's cool. Are you hiring photographers for tens of thousands of dollars on a regular basis, or is there some other reason they should pay any attention to your unsupported opinion? (Anyone can have an opinion. It takes more than having one to make it worth listening to.)

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
i notice that my thoughts are completely different than any other photographer and it appears that it came to this.

Many of the photographers who have commented have worked with the gear you label unnecessary, and find it useful. Many of those photographers have worked with clients whose opinion you disdain.

Yes. Your thoughts are clearly different from many photographers here who have experience in the field. Perhaps you may want to examine the reasons for the differences in interpretation.

Bobby Mozumder wrote:
The $36k for the camera is nothing for a national ad.  The lighting can cost $100k for everything.

Don't get him started on lighting...

Clique7 Studios wrote:

Aaaah, Jack. I looked at your port. Excellent work and way above average. Question is this: could you have shot the same images with my D700?

Not for a commercial client that required a larger file.

Robert Randall wrote:
one inch square shot with a Canon 1Ds Mark III, default settings.



one inch square shot with a Leaf Aptus 75S on an H2, default settings



I though if people were going to argue the virtues of one tool over the other, it might be nice for them to see what they were actually arguing about.

Wait wait wait...won't this just result in a whine-group because of extra retouching? "All those tiny wrinkles, her skin is just HORRIBLE!"





Nah nah, I'm just kidding, I'm a retoucher myself, I know how this works.

Robert Randall wrote:
one inch square shot with a Canon 1Ds Mark III, default settings.



one inch square shot with a Leaf Aptus 75S on an H2, default settings



I though if people were going to argue the virtues of one tool over the other, it might be nice for them to see what they were actually arguing about.

im going to go and say those different photos entirely.

Robert Randall wrote:
one inch square shot with a Canon 1Ds Mark III, default settings.



one inch square shot with a Leaf Aptus 75S on an H2, default settings



I though if people were going to argue the virtues of one tool over the other, it might be nice for them to see what they were actually arguing about.

Cheers for the examples!

I love it when some people make claims that a DLSR with 21mp is as good as MF digital! LOL! & they probably have never held let alone worked with MF!

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:

im going to go and say those different photos entirely.

You are very observant. As you will note from the original post, one was shot with a Leaf back, and one was shot with a Canon.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
i had people buy some of my images  and they didn't care so much for the most finest of details. they did compliment on how the wheat stood out, how the sky stood out and so forth.

if a client goes over images with a microscope then id rather not work with them as they are just going to be bridezillas.

That's your choice.

I will note, however, that a substantial number of the clients who are paying $10,000-$100,000 for a shoot fall into the category of people you dismiss as 'bridezillas'.

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
for what im hearing really, is that buy the camera cause its

a. a hasselblad
b. its expensive

You may want to read the posts again, then, as that's not what's been written.

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
that's cool but in my opinion unnecessary.

That's cool. Are you hiring photographers for tens of thousands of dollars on a regular basis, or is there some other reason they should pay any attention to your unsupported opinion? (Anyone can have an opinion. It takes more than having one to make it worth listening to.)

Vlad Kryvdyk wrote:
i notice that my thoughts are completely different than any other photographer and it appears that it came to this.

Many of the photographers who have commented have worked with the gear you label unnecessary, and find it useful. Many of those photographers have worked with clients whose opinion you disdain.

Yes. Your thoughts are clearly different from many photographers here who have experience in the field. Perhaps you may want to examine the reasons for the differences in interpretation.



Don't get him started on lighting...

so my hands are going to be cut off for thinking differently? its always funny how that comes out and i thought photography was quite liberal

the hasselblad is expensive cause they use bs marketing. its a nice technique to jack up the price high. mainly cause the market is small. as i said, are you going to get hired cause of your work or cause you have a hasselblad?

oh and i know quite something about bs selling, point of sale systems are basically bs systems, the bottom line of how much those systems cost can be up to $5,500 max, they are sold starting from $45,000 per station and a store might have at least 8 stations.