> I think ads use 4x5 s mainly so they can pass the
> transparencies around the
> >approving committee to take a look manually. Also, 4x5 view
> cameras have
> >movements that are convenient for product photography.
>
> Large-format photography is far more expensive than
> medium-format, and medium-format is more expensive than 35mm,
> so they would use smaller formats if they could. Magnifiers
> and projectors are cheap.
Actually, I believe the "truth" to be something slightly
different. Commercial photographers and advertising agencies
have, for years, worked together to create a false sense of
"quality" needed for reproduction.
When a commercial photographer is charging $1000 USD per day
plus all expenses and material costs, the cost per picture
between 4x5 and 35mm drops quite a bit. If I, the client, am
paying $2500 for a couple pictures of the widget I manufacure,
I'll spend the extra $200 to have it "done right" on
large-format film. Since I personally do not shoot 4x5, I
cannot command the same price as the other pros in the region,
nor do I get access to all the clients that various ad agencies
represent. If I was a full-time commercial photographer, I
could easily justify the cost of 4x5 equipment.
Advertising agencies are notorious for "over-spec'ing" photo
jobs because they get paid a percentage of all costs. This is
why they prefer television advertising to radio. Television
isn't a vastly more successful of an advertising medium than
radio, but the spot rates are 10-50 times that of radio per
viewer/listener.
I won't forget a particular catalog my last employer had an
advertising agency put together. The photographer shot
everything with 4x5 with zillions of proofs and micromanaging
art directors (clueless lot, if there ever was). The final
result was a duotone where the final print size was SMALLER THAN
the 4x5 size of the transparency. To get the 4x5 scanned, they
used a flatbed scanner instead of having them drumscanned. To
"sharpen" the images a bit (lousy trannie and scan), they
overdid the "unsharp mask" so everything was severely haloed.
Finally, to add ultimate insult to injury, the printing company
had screwed up and the registeration was off on about 6000 of
the catelogs so the duotone alignment was off by about three
millimeters.
But, the advertising agency insisted on 4x5.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|