New Member Switching to MF (Intro and Samples)

[Ben Rubinstein]

Marc, do you ever sleep?

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

"Don't do as I do, do as I say" ... :ROTFL:

Thing is Marc, the tounge in cheek question to Guy, I'm a believer that equipment and especially upgrade in equipment must be financially justifiable otherwise we have to admit that we are doing it for ourselves. The point where this line gets blurred is where it makes our job easier but I believe that it too can be assigned a financial value.

If having superior equipment will put you into a higher price bracket or attract clientele that will enable that higher price bracket then the math can be worked out as to whether it's worth it financially. If due to better equipment or software I can work faster and in a better mood then that too will have a direct effect on the business.

If as you explained using different equipment is the route to an opening of the mind, an ability to explore new avenues then that too will have a direct effect on a business if channelled correctly.

Guy, don't kill me for doing some speculation. We have an approximate figure of $75K for the 6 or so years that Guy has been playing hopscotch with his equipment. Whether shooting with this equipment over those 6 years rather than using a 1DsII has brought in $75K (actually longer as his current equipment is a current investment but anyway) is a good question. I have little doubt that it has opened up new markets for his business. Those markets will be bringing in money at a level perhaps impossible in 'lower' markets. Then there is the educational aspect of it. Opening new markets and becoming well versed in MF has made Guy a 'name' in the MF world to the extent that he was an instructor at PODAS. That wouldn't have happened if he was still using a 1DsII. I doubt his high end workshops of which this website is just an offshoot would have become possible without his journey through the MF world and keeping up to date within that world. Your wife may not agree Guy but I'll bet that by the time you retire you will have made a nice profit from this investment which would not have happened if you had not sold that 1DsII all those years ago.

We are however using Marc's concept of MF opening up new markets. If you are doing well in a certain market with your current gear, are unlikely to be able to tap into a higher spending client base within that market based on more expensive gear and are not looking to branch out to newer and higher markets, the math may not work out to the extent of declaring that it is a purely business expense. To use this as a personal example I believe this would be the case for wedding photography and the use of MF for most of the worldwide market.

 

[PeterA]

I was in a gallery displaying some landscape work from a very successful landscape photographer - he has two galleries of his own in Australia and I believe has opened a couple over in the US.

I think MF digital is creating new expectations and new markets for landscape photography printed in large scale.

I was rather disturbed to note that my own critical viewing of his work (which ranged from postcard to 2X6meter in size - for the same shot or source file) was being biased towards those landscapes which evidenced the greatest amount of detail...I am ashamed to admit publicly - that I was (in effect) pixel peeping as a primary filter - in my appreciation and ratings of landscapes. It was obvious which shots were made with traditional film and scan and print - versus the elephant gun back shots...

You really "see' the power of lotsa megapixels when you have the opportunity to see them - in stuff printed humungously large...

I think the choice between a high end SLR35mm or MFD for regular prints??? - well I am thinking that the advantages of MFD recede dramatically...

The same shots printed postcard sized 35mm or XPan or MF film versus MF digital - the difference is essentially non existent to my eyes anyway..

I am guessing for certain high end super duper produced massive budget exercises from the 10 or so luxury cosmetic brands out there or 20 or so haught couture houses - well for sure the MF digi back and ten times that value in lighting / makeup / talent / art direction location etc etc etc

Maybe pitching for work with movie stars - from my experience with a couple - they have become expert packagers of themselves as a product and brand and know enough about the value of a good photograph - to connect high end MFD with requisite symbols indicating validation for the photographer..

Well I guess I am just saying that I can imagine all sorts of uses for a MFD camera - for all sorts of different people and circumstance

however for most parts I am also pretty sure that for most photographers and most photographs and most uses of the photograph - today's pro level 35mm cameras are more than adequate.

It all depends on where a person sees his or her business model or objective being.


In order to avoid regret - it is probably a good idea to really know exactly why you want this stuff...

and then - all you have to blame is yourself for whatever decision you come up with.

 

[fotografz]

Really not sure Marc, when done for lightings sake it looks incredible, when done for effect, that's already getting rather old. I heard that Zack Arias said 'when everyone is shooting ambient, shoot off camera, when everyone is shooting off camera, shoot ambient'. He's got a point. You have to choose a look which is used to say something about an image not just because that's the look at the moment. In the wedding business at least, I don't know enough about the portraiture business to comment though from what I see it is the same, the latter rather than the former is far more common.

I've partnered with a guy now and we're shooting the wedding scene here in Jerusalem. Here everyone is and has been using the flash kill ambient look for a while now. We use it when it suits the image but only then, preferring ambient with a touch of fill if necessary. We have the highest prices in the city at present for wedding photography and we only started shooting together last year.

Not that I think we disagree at all, I just think that the flash kill ambient look for portraiture as a style has its days numbered. My partner is actually writing an article for the blog at the moment on the subject of not getting married to a 'look' but rather having a style which is independant of external factors to create that look. You use external lighting when you want to give a certain look Marc and I think that, far more than the fact you use it and the wannabees aren't, is why you will still be head and shoulders above the rabble whatever cameras and lenses they buy.

I did a quick engagement shoot for a couple a few hours ago. 5D with 50mm lens. The guy is a photographer, he couldn't believe what I could accomplish with such simple equipment on some rain soaked steps near my house. They can buy all the gear they want, until they can do magic with it, it doesn't mean anything. Heck just how hard is it to learn off camera lighting? Strobist has pushed it to the forefront till the point that it doesn't take much to do or even to do pretty well but however fast your lenses, however FF your camera, however good your off camera lighting, without vision, without experience it don't mean squat.

How hard is off-camera? Not hard to do it poorly ... not much harder to do in a mediocre manner ... incredibly hard to do it well, especially if you are crippled by using inadequate gear, or stuff involving complex work-arounds.

No question Ben ... talent is the dam buster. That's the fall back position, stock answer for any of these discussions ... "It's the shooter, not the gear". Yet, without certain gear choices, one is boxed in by what is not possible, as opposed to what is possible. (Personally, I do not like wearing hand-cuffs to prove I'm creative ).

The notion of lighting use or not as a style definer is NOT one I subscribe to ... so Zack Aria's quote doesn't resonate with me at all. To me it isn't one or the other, it is a matter of absolute control and choice when and where I chose to exercise my creative vision for any given scenario. I may shoot an ambient engagement session with my M9 and 2 lenses one day, and the next day a session with giant Mola Beamm dish and soft-boxes using 2400w/s with a MFD rig. The subject, and my vision of it dictates what, when, where and how the gear is deployed ... and over the years I've built the capability to do that ... or rent it if it's a rare item.

It never even entered my mind to shoot the attached commissioned portrait image for poster sized prints in a soft dreamy manner with ambient glow ... or use anemic speed-lights that would have melted down into smoldering pile of plastic 20 minutes into the shoot. This session has lead to a slew of commissions to shoot people in peak physical condition (not just body builders), and opened up a whole new untapped category of paying work for me ... so I can be more picky about wedding work.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

Thing is Marc, the tounge in cheek question to Guy, I'm a believer that equipment and especially upgrade in equipment must be financially justifiable otherwise we have to admit that we are doing it for ourselves. The point where this line gets blurred is where it makes our job easier but I believe that it too can be assigned a financial value.

If having superior equipment will put you into a higher price bracket or attract clientele that will enable that higher price bracket then the math can be worked out as to whether it's worth it financially. If due to better equipment or software I can work faster and in a better mood then that too will have a direct effect on the business.

If as you explained using different equipment is the route to an opening of the mind, an ability to explore new avenues then that too will have a direct effect on a business if channelled correctly.

Guy, don't kill me for doing some speculation. We have an approximate figure of $75K for the 6 or so years that Guy has been playing hopscotch with his equipment. Whether shooting with this equipment over those 6 years rather than using a 1DsII has brought in $75K (actually longer as his current equipment is a current investment but anyway) is a good question. I have little doubt that it has opened up new markets for his business. Those markets will be bringing in money at a level perhaps impossible in 'lower' markets. Then there is the educational aspect of it. Opening new markets and becoming well versed in MF has made Guy a 'name' in the MF world to the extent that he was an instructor at PODAS. That wouldn't have happened if he was still using a 1DsII. I doubt his high end workshops of which this website is just an offshoot would have become possible without his journey through the MF world and keeping up to date within that world. Your wife may not agree Guy but I'll bet that by the time you retire you will have made a nice profit from this investment which would not have happened if you had not sold that 1DsII all those years ago.

We are however using Marc's concept of MF opening up new markets. If you are doing well in a certain market with your current gear, are unlikely to be able to tap into a higher spending client base within that market based on more expensive gear and are not looking to branch out to newer and higher markets, the math may not work out to the extent of declaring that it is a purely business expense. To use this as a personal example I believe this would be the case for wedding photography and the use of MF for most of the worldwide market.

Ben, re: opening up new horizons, see my post in this thread because it just happened to me ...

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/mediu...er-switching-mf-intro-samples-post385361.html

I also wouldn't equate wedding work to portrait work ... weddings wouldn't necessarily justify MFD because of the volume and pace ... although I have shot up to a 90% portion of a few weddings with MFD.

Portrait work has had a long tradition of using both medium format and even view cameras. Stylistically, it just depends on whether one want's to shoot one thing, one way for the rest of their life ... or branch out, evolve and create one's own new horizons.

The trouble with that is you have to make the investment in time and any necessary gear. Sometimes, opportunity comes knocking, and you scramble to meet it (like your photographing rare documents involvement, and subsequent rocket sled learning curve) ... but most of the time you create your own opportunity and bring the business to you.

The whole notion of "Business" is an interesting one because in a pure business sense, photographer's that specialize are exercising a personal decision to do what they like as opposed to what makes money. So it isn't pure business, and never was. I sort of evolved in a parallel manner that's an anomaly ... in summer I shoot weddings mostly in a candid manner and during the off-season some portraits, but overwhelmingly do studio product work. I make more $ shooting at my own pace, sometimes in my pajamas , then an entire season of long hours and physically punishing weddings. I like wedding work and am good at it, and I do it for that reason not because it pays well ... if pure business considerations prevailed, I wouldn't shoot another wedding ever again ... at least not in this market.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

I was in a gallery displaying some landscape work from a very successful landscape photographer - he has two galleries of his own in Australia and I believe has opened a couple over in the US.

I think MF digital is creating new expectations and new markets for landscape photography printed in large scale.

I was rather disturbed to note that my own critical viewing of his work (which ranged from postcard to 2X6meter in size - for the same shot or source file) was being biased towards those landscapes which evidenced the greatest amount of detail...I am ashamed to admit publicly - that I was (in effect) pixel peeping as a primary filter - in my appreciation and ratings of landscapes. It was obvious which shots were made with traditional film and scan and print - versus the elephant gun back shots...

You really "see' the power of lotsa megapixels when you have the opportunity to see them - in stuff printed humungously large...

I think the choice between a high end SLR35mm or MFD for regular prints??? - well I am thinking that the advantages of MFD recede dramatically...

The same shots printed postcard sized 35mm or XPan or MF film versus MF digital - the difference is essentially non existent to my eyes anyway..

I am guessing for certain high end super duper produced massive budget exercises from the 10 or so luxury cosmetic brands out there or 20 or so haught couture houses - well for sure the MF digi back and ten times that value in lighting / makeup / talent / art direction location etc etc etc

Maybe pitching for work with movie stars - from my experience with a couple - they have become expert packagers of themselves as a product and brand and know enough about the value of a good photograph - to connect high end MFD with requisite symbols indicating validation for the photographer..

Well I guess I am just saying that I can imagine all sorts of uses for a MFD camera - for all sorts of different people and circumstance

however for most parts I am also pretty sure that for most photographers and most photographs and most uses of the photograph - today's pro level 35mm cameras are more than adequate.

It all depends on where a person sees his or her business model or objective being.


In order to avoid regret - it is probably a good idea to really know exactly why you want this stuff...

and then - all you have to blame is yourself for whatever decision you come up with.

Clear-headed thinking as usual Peter.

I do think that interest in MFD often springs from using the higher end 35mm DSLRs ... one gets a taste for IQ like that and it's tough going back ... and even tougher standing still.

MFD is often spoke of in the sense of constraints compared to 35mm DSLRs, with better IQ being the aspect given to MFD. Yet, there is more to it. Some things mentioned get glossed over, because a non-MFD user can't relate to it or can't see it at first. Dynamic range, tonal spread, and subtile color separation that's even visible on an 8X10 print compared to 35mm DSLR files of the same thing. The ability to manipulate MFD files to a much greater degree with less apparent destructive consequences. And esoteric stuff like knock-out outlining which is done a 300% and so on.

BTW, a photographer needn't be doing high end, massive budget work for pay. Even the most modest client may want to make 6' panels for a trade show that people will be standing 2' from, or crop some tiny portion of a file for a product detail ... you just never know these days. Guy has mentioned this a number of times in past.

-Marc

 

[Guy Mancuso]

For me and I will touch on what Ben was saying about me is MF has paid off very well. Outside the workshops, PODAS and co owner of this site for clients it really has improved my game as far as my clients know I put a lot of money in this and i am serious about quality and yes Marc is absolutely correct you simply do not always know what clients will do. Not only LARGE but may crop in , take a piece of one image and merge it with another. I get lots of compliments and oohs and holy cows over the sheer volume of the file to work with plus its easier on my clients to deal with this. In the corporate shooting world the unknowns are many on what the heck they will do with your file. I have seen lets shoot this for web turn into lets make this a trade show image than a annual report image. Besides all that anyone shooting MF knows with good processing all the other things that come with the simple ease of working your images which is minimal and the range is there, color and tonal qualities are just unbeaten.

I know we all bitch about the investment but if your in this to create the best you can than end of the day be it working for commerce or working for hobby reasons it really is worth it in the end. I have seen so many workshop folks grow to stardom with there shooting and i really believe MF has helped them tremendously. I could really care less about the mpx anything starting even at the 22mpx level is in another league over 35mm. I honestly don't think these new Nikon 36 mpx will still not even come to pass MF. Bottom line and we have said this for years with film and it transcends right into digital bigger is better. Or at least i can't find anyone to prove me wrong on it. LOL

Honestly coming from the beginning of the digital era folks don't realize how far it has grown. It does not get much better than this unless someone all of sudden comes out with a technology to blow our doors off. I don't see it in the near future myself. We are at the very peak of CCD sensors right now. What is improving is the lower end products and only real functionality of the higher end ones.

 

[PeterA]

Clear-headed thinking as usual Peter.

I do think that interest in MFD often springs from using the higher end 35mm DSLRs ... one gets a taste for IQ like that and it's tough going back ... and even tougher standing still.

MFD is often spoke of in the sense of constraints compared to 35mm DSLRs, with better IQ being the aspect given to MFD. Yet, there is more to it. Some things mentioned get glossed over, because a non-MFD user can't relate to it or can't see it at first. Dynamic range, tonal spread, and subtile color separation that's even visible on an 8X10 print compared to 35mm DSLR files of the same thing. The ability to manipulate MFD files to a much greater degree with less apparent destructive consequences. And esoteric stuff like knock-out outlining which is done a 300% and so on.

BTW, a photographer needn't be doing high end, massive budget work for pay. Even the most modest client may want to make 6' panels for a trade show that people will be standing 2' from, or crop some tiny portion of a file for a product detail ... you just never know these days. Guy has mentioned this a number of times in past.

-Marc

Totally agree with the other examples of uses for MFD backs above Marc - A good friend of mine does a lot of repro work for galleries - using a multi-shot back - for exactly the reasons you mention above. I guess we can add archival work to the list as well - a lot of uses for high quality large files...

It is all up to the imagination of the creative person doing the work.

Also Guy I guess all people who take their work seriously - want to have access to the best tools they can get do the work - it is a natural human thing to do.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I also wouldn't equate wedding work to portrait work ... weddings wouldn't necessarily justify MFD because of the volume and pace ... although I have shot up to a 90% portion of a few weddings with MFD.

But that isn't the reason I think it's not appropriate, I just don't think that using MF for weddings is going to bring in enough money to justify the investment given that you would need to run a parallel DSLR system. I think that is an important point and worth mentioning for portraiture as well. Are you going to see enough larger prints or make more sales in general to pay the $10K for that MF system? The question could well be yes but it needs to be asked.

As to broadening one's horizons, no question from me, in this economy you diversify or sink, like a stone :scry:. Unless you are one of a select few who define a genre and even they are doing non stop workshops these days.

As for the MF ability to addict faster than heroin. :angel: I'm teaching myself C1 at a higher level, downloaded some Aptus II-7 files to play with f***ing h** and many other exclamations, that's just 28 megapixels, makes my 1Ds3 look like a toy. With the Schneider 80mm the files are horrifically sharp. Horrific especially for that model who could have done with a lot softer lens Boy but it's addictive though. Just wish C1 would play as nicely with my Canon files, does incredible stuff with that Leaf file due to a very strong profile.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Totally agree with the other examples of uses for MFD backs above Marc - A good friend of mine does a lot of repro work for galleries - using a multi-shot back - for exactly the reasons you mention above. I guess we can add archival work to the list as well - a lot of uses for high quality large files...

It is all up to the imagination of the creative person doing the work.

Also Guy I guess all people who take their work seriously - want to have access to the best tools they can get do the work - it is a natural human thing to do.

Absolutely no question about it. People love to use good tools and let's face it we are all a little on the gear slut side of the world. Where MEN it's only natural. :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[Paratom]

As a pro one might have to think about it just as business in ROI.

As a hobby-photographer buyig a camera is not an investment and its more a question if one can afford it and if one wants something.

And then there are artists.

And probably combination of the three.

For me it is reason enough to capture small moments of my (and my families) life in a quality which doesnt let me feel looking at a "digital" image.
Color, tonality, out of focus transition are main factors here.

In my case I have found "freedom" with the S2 system. For one it delivers the IQ I like, but it also offers a user interface with a certain simplicity which I have not found in digital SLRs. And - for some reasons there are some "normal" lenses for medium format cameras which seem better than the counterparts for dslrs.
(Neither the Sony nor the Nikon 50mm/1.4 deliver such a nice bokeh, such good behaviour in regards of vignetting and such a good close focusing distance like the Leica S 70mm/3.5 lens; The Rollei Xenotar 80/2.8 is also one of those lenses I loved, or the Zeiss 110/2.0, the Leica S 120 is exceptional, and I bet many of the Phase lenses are as well)
And then there is the bigger viewfinder of medium format, beautiful and you really do see what you shoot.
What else...room to print big in case you get the once in your lifetime shot.

Many of my friends would say: "sounds nice but is it really worth that much money?" For me yes, for others maybe not.
One other thing is that we have do compromises so often at work and in life, that it feels good to live one thing with passion and to use what one feels is best.

I guess a pro has a very different approach, but with competition getting harder and harder I assume it is also important to allways try to be a little bit better then others, and I assume if 2 have the same level of skills then a MF camera could make this little difference in IQ.
Plus I bet there are still customers who are impressed by gear. (I have experienced this when a photographer with medium format gear photographed our company for a brochure).
Cheers, Tom

 

[Guy Mancuso]

But that isn't the reason I think it's not appropriate, I just don't think that using MF for weddings is going to bring in enough money to justify the investment given that you would need to run a parallel DSLR system. I think that is an important point and worth mentioning for portraiture as well. Are you going to see enough larger prints or make more sales in general to pay the $10K for that MF system? The question could well be yes but it needs to be asked.

As to broadening one's horizons, no question from me, in this economy you diversify or sink, like a stone :scry:. Unless you are one of a select few who define a genre and even they are doing non stop workshops these days.

As for the MF ability to addict faster than heroin. :angel: I'm teaching myself C1 at a higher level, downloaded some Aptus II-7 files to play with f***ing h** and many other exclamations, that's just 28 megapixels, makes my 1Ds3 look like a toy. With the Schneider 80mm the files are horrifically sharp. Horrific especially for that model who could have done with a lot softer lens Boy but it's addictive though. Just wish C1 would play as nicely with my Canon files, does incredible stuff with that Leaf file due to a very strong profile.

Well it does not always equate to ROI and that is a fact. Its expensive and it takes longer to recoup that investment but your second part of your comments the word addictive is a serious understatement. LOL

BTW I agree it is not the holy grail for everything and sometimes it makes no sense but once you start shooting it the 35mm looks like a toy and I have never heard anyone say otherwise. But 35mm certainly has its place as the tool to use. I don't think anyone would argue that either.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

As a pro one might have to think about it just as business in ROI.

As a hobby-photographer buyig a camera is not an investment and its more a question if one can afford it and if one wants something.

And then there are artists.

And probably combination of the three.



Well said and very true. For me it's a combination the ROI may suck but it is what i want to use and deliver images to my clients and for myself. Sometimes as a Pro you ignore the ROI and do what YOU want. That is my case and after a all these years shooting, i want the best damn thing in my hands now. I have gotten to the point of I earned it and screw the ROI. Maybe sometimes a bad business decision but hell I only am here a short while anyway. LOL

Geez I just described a gear slut whore. LOL

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Well it does not always equate to ROI and that is a fact. Its expensive and it takes longer to recoup that investment but your second part of your comments the word addictive is a serious understatement. LOL

I think however that it's important to realise where the cut off point is between business and personal requirements that's all. I think the line is being blurred rather too much in the name of enthusiasm and excitement over IQ to judge objectively in many cases.

 

[David Schneider]

Only because of the more recent cost of Medium Format digital has it become an either/or scenario for some shooters. IMO, if you have to sacrifice having a decent 35mm solution to afford MFD, then MFD is too expensive an option. The caveat to that is if you know MFD can do everything you want, or you want to focus entirely on mastering MFD and have the luxury of time to do that.

I would add if you have to sell your dslr system to purchase your Mf system and you are a professional, what are you using for back-up?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Answering this question always cracks me up Guy. As I was "Spring Cleaning" my studio area the past 2 weeks, and tossing the equivalent of thousands of $ in obsolete gear and outdated junk, etc. etc. I mused how I'd like all that money back. Yet, the reason I wanted it back ... was to buy more stuff for the studio :ROTFL:

We buy gear because it is part of keeping our interest charged up ... to explore different areas, to expand, or just to have creative options at our finger-tips. Photographers are part artist and part MacGyver during some part of the trek.

No matter how business savvy a Pro might be, there is a bit of the enthusiast in them to some degree or another, and most would be hard pressed to justify what they have in their gear vault in pure logical terms.

Working professional or terminally infected enthusiast, photography is what we do.

Quite frankly, people come to sites like this not only to make an informed decision, but sometimes to gather logical justification for a lustful "Want & Gimme"

Marc

I just saw this post and you dead on the money my friend but one other thing you did not mention is for me it has kept me from burning out as well. I have had some serious screw this crap moments in my career and just buying another piece of gear has stopped me from jumping off the building. Yes we are enthusiast as well and we certainly need to be entertained.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think however that it's important to realise where the cut off point is between business and personal requirements that's all. I think the line is being blurred rather too much in the name of enthusiasm and excitement over IQ to judge objectively in many cases.

I would certainly not disagree with you here as well. You should be careful no question. I could easily say i have fallen off the deep end and probably a fair statement at times. I had a rough 2 years with my wife being sick and I should have probably pulled back on some things. Certainly is all about balance.

BTW good points for newbies jumping in MF. I consider myself a little crazy here so maintain your balance and your check book.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Mario,

There's a P25+ w/H1 on the F/S section. The photographer is Jeff Mosier, one of the best in NYC. He does lots of portraits and weddings in the very demanding NYC market.

I believe most images on his website are shot with this combo. Very nice!

 

[fotografz]

But that isn't the reason I think it's not appropriate, I just don't think that using MF for weddings is going to bring in enough money to justify the investment given that you would need to run a parallel DSLR system. I think that is an important point and worth mentioning for portraiture as well. Are you going to see enough larger prints or make more sales in general to pay the $10K for that MF system? The question could well be yes but it needs to be asked.

As to broadening one's horizons, no question from me, in this economy you diversify or sink, like a stone :scry:. Unless you are one of a select few who define a genre and even they are doing non stop workshops these days.

As for the MF ability to addict faster than heroin. :angel: I'm teaching myself C1 at a higher level, downloaded some Aptus II-7 files to play with f***ing h** and many other exclamations, that's just 28 megapixels, makes my 1Ds3 look like a toy. With the Schneider 80mm the files are horrifically sharp. Horrific especially for that model who could have done with a lot softer lens Boy but it's addictive though. Just wish C1 would play as nicely with my Canon files, does incredible stuff with that Leaf file due to a very strong profile.

Ben, I've never advocated MFD for weddings especially NOW! If you have it for other application then fine, but not alone IMO.

Not sure Portraits are the same ... whenever I've sold used MFD myself, it's been to a portrait studio. Same for good lighting. However, times do change, and they have.

When I entered MFD I had a distinct advantage. I was shooting a lot more commercial work and that was at a time when it was still a bit of transition from film. What happened was you could charge a rental fee or digital capture fee, because otherwise, a client using film had to pay for high res scans @ $40 to $70 a keeper. Do a 3 day catalog shoot with 100 items and they were looking at 25 rolls of film and processing plus $5,500 scanning cost for the 100 keepers. With mark-up that could top $7K.

A digital capture fee of $1,000 a day, totaling $3K, and instant results looked pretty good in comparison. That paid for the initiation into MFD, and once you get there it is a lot less expensive to keep pace just like with any format.

-Marc

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

What's it like in the commercial world these days though Marc? All I hear about is from my local pro stores in the UK saying that yet another high end studio just went belly up because their clients just took the work in house or pro's saying that they're working 5 times as hard for the same or less pay

It's not a hugely encouraging world out there but I'm not in the market, what's your take on it?