AG-Schnozz,
>Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:12:56 -0800 (PST)
>From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] Why bigger images are better 4
>
> > 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.
I've seen side-by-side comparison photos, and there *is* a real difference.
So, I would turn it around. If we are paying $1,000/day, why not get the
better images? The cost differential is minimal.
>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 can't speak about Europe, but in the US anyway, TV is *far* more powerful an
advertising medium than radio.
>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 registration 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.
It's a wonderful war story. And hideously expensive, too. Is this agency
still in business? One ardently hopes not.
Joe Gwinn
< 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 >
|