The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Studio shoot with DMR

fotografz

Well-known member
Perfect. What more could you want?
More? More resolution. More dynamic range. More tonal gradation. I'm relentlessly dogging Guy to get a MF digital system ... he needs one. He needs to step up his gear game to match his creative game. If he can squeeze all this quality from a crop frame sensor DSLR, just image what he'll do with a "big boys" camera ... LOL.

Speaking of "more" ... an in-store poster for a Jewelry sale that I wrote, designed and shot with a 22 meg DB : -)
 
Last edited:
W

workingcamera

Guest
Don’t get me wrong and its probably more the uploaded jpeg … but I’d like to see more definition in her hair. Though I suppose lighting or more to the point DR as marc suggests. The model’s jet black hair reminds me of my Black Labrador she had a deep velvety pelt that sucked in light like a black hole. Damn near impossible to photograph.

Otherwise it’s a magic shot and has a real charm to it, no it exudes charm … I love it the skin tones and everything else is just gorgeous
 
Last edited:

David K

Workshop Member
There's no question that a good MF back will give you more. The question is whether you need it. I started this shoot with the Aptus 75S and Contax 645 using the Zeiss 110 2.0 FE and brought along the DMR "just in case". Good thing I did because I ran out of batteries for the Aptus at the end. For the straight product shots (bag only) which are intended for the web with a popup of detail, MF is clearly the way to go.
 
Last edited:

Hank Graber

New member
I have been considering what DSLR I should get to compliment my M8 since I sold my 1Ds. I'd like a lens along the lines of the Canon 90 TSE and I might buy that lens back if I go the Canon route. I've kicked around MF but I couldn't cost justify the expense of the higher end units and the truth is in CMYK print no one will see the difference.

I thought this was an equipment hole I needed to fill quickly but now that I have shot about 400+ product/tabletop shots with the M8 and 90/4 Macro I'm not in such a hurry.

These are composites. The products are shot individually with reflections and then composited on the created background in Photoshop. It's much faster then creating the whole shebang in camera and the client loves the flexibility of moving elements and tweaking the layout depending on their internal feedback. Final files are equivalent to what you would get from a 22MP file all shot with an M8 and 90/4 macro.

View attachment 875
View attachment 877

View attachment 878
View attachment 876
 

fotografz

Well-known member
DMR enough? M8 enough? Canon 1Ds MK whatever enough?

Not in my world.

Case in point, I was supervising a Unilever food shoot in NYC using a Phase One P45+ on a Sinar with Digital glass ... and with factoring in all the publication crop factors the tech guy running the post work warned us that we were close to running out of resolution to maintain the food detail the stylist had spent hours on, and the photographer had spent even more hours lighting. CMYK conversion for publication is all the more reason to have more going in, not less.

It's NEVER enough. More is always welcome. Product, fashion, food, etc.: the Devil is in in the details : -)
 

Hank Graber

New member
DMR enough? M8 enough? Canon 1Ds MK whatever enough?

Not in my world.

Case in point, I was supervising a Unilever food shoot in NYC using a Phase One P45+ on a Sinar with Digital glass ... and with factoring in all the publication crop factors the tech guy running the post work warned us that we were close to running out of resolution to maintain the food detail the stylist had spent hours on, and the photographer had spent even more hours lighting. CMYK conversion for publication is all the more reason to have more going in, not less.

It's NEVER enough. More is always welcome. Product, fashion, food, etc.: the Devil is in in the details : -)
It depends on what you are shooting and how it will be used. In business - you spend more then you make and you are out of business. Yes I'd rather shoot tabletop and some studio stuff with an MF back and there are jobs where it would be an absolute requirement but I am careful to distinguish between what gear I'd like to own and use and what will meet the clients requirements and I can make a profit on.

So if you have the volume and type of work that will make a MF back a profitable investment go for it. But for lot's of corporate, wedding, event work , most catalog stuff, lower budget ad work or images destined for the web I don't think the added cost can be justified. I just chucked the Broncolor system I'd been using for years because adding grids, reflectors and additional lights was absurdly expensive, great system but the Hensel stuff I'm using now works flawlessly for a third the price.

I'm using an M8 because of my personal work. I'd probably be squeezing another year out of the my old 1Ds if all I did was commercial work.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I agree with both of you Marc you know how much i would love to move on a MF and Jack and I just let a nice Hassy 31 deal go through our fingers very reluctantly but like Hanks says that damn ROI comes to play games with you and depending on what your doing. Damn just got a gig that MF would be nice too. I can't win . LOL
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Don't get me wrong, I'm all about staying in business and making some money.

And I most certainly would agree that for event work, weddings and most corporate stuff, a MFD kit is overkill. I use one for that kind of stuff, but only because I already have it, and pay for it via digital capture fees on commercial work.

Yet, when I read and see the efforts to make the smaller formats act like MFD, it seems to indicate the desire or need for that level of image quality. Excellent MFD equipment is available for a lot less than most people think. It's just the cutting edge stuff that's really difficult on ROI.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Ah, the Talking Heads....same as it ever was.

That's a bit cryptic, but meant to be a joke. But really, it is the same as it ever was. 35mm is sufficient and excellent for most work, but other work requires medium or large format. The only difference is that medium and large format digital are proportionally much more expensive than they used to be, while the corresponding difference in quality is pretty much the same as it used to be.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
A simple and sober analysis Stuart. Welcome to the "Talking Heads" : -)

However, I think the business model has changed on the MF side to defray the expense. And an in-depth study of the accounting can assure ROI is there.

We used to have a healthy line item for MF film, processing (usually rush premium), and boxes of Polaroid in each commercial bid that's now replaced with a digital capture fee/rental fee that helps pay for the more expensive digital backs. Mine is now $200. per day. After depreciation, and factoring in resale value, I need to get about 50 days of work to pay for a $20,000. MFD kit. I'm not full time, so it takes me about 1.5 years to pay that to zero. I would think a full time Pro should be able to do that in less than 1 year. Even paid to zero, the camera is still worth more than zero. I paid $12,000. for my first Kodak ProBack 645C, and sold it 3.5 years later for $6,500.

Once in, the upgrade paths are often considerably less. For example, my upgrade from an Leaf Aptus 75 to a brand new replacement 75s was $3,000.

I also disagree that MF digital has to be all that more expensive to enter. I sold a H2/CFH22 for $12,000. that was like new. That camera's real estate will still easily outperform an $8,000. Canon 1DsMKIII or anything Nikon or Leica makes. A 39 meg Phase One P-45 for a Hasselblad V system can easily be had for $17,000. with a 1 year warranty.

I can be quite expensive if you go crazy ... which is exactly what I am about to do ... no more screwing around ... I'm going for the ultimate ... A H3D/39 Multishot.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I think you are right, but the "price of entry" is still much more expensive than it ever was. 12,000 dollars is a good deal, but it is not something that you can find regularly at a store or something like that. You can find older, tethered 22mp backs for 7000+, a V96C in that range too. But in order to go medium format all you needed to do in the past was buy a Bronica, a Yashica TLR, etc for very little and then buy a roll of film. The absolute most expensive things were exotic cameras and lenses, and very few were above 5000 dollars. I think you said before that the a Hy6 kit now priced out to about 60,000 dollars. Entry level medium format digital is still around 12000-15000 for the back alone or a single body and lens. While you are saving a lot in film costs over the long run, the amount you save is only relevant if you have a very high turnover.

As for upgrading, it may not be as expensive, but you have to do it much more often. How many times have you switched or updgraded camera systems in the past five years? There are still a bunch of people using 500c/m's, Pentax 67s and Mamiya RB67's that are over 20 years old. They have upgraded in a sense, in that as film emulsions have improved, they can use the newer films.

Anyway, I think they are a great tool for the very busy pro, but I don't think it can really be argued that they are cheaper for anyone else...even professionals with lower volumes.
 
Top