Of course, with Mamiya RB67, you have a choice.
Most magazines need vertical portrait shots as well as landscape formats like for double spread. Many pros would always shoot two shots of each subject - one in portrait mode and one in landscape mode, just in case the portrait mode was selected for the mag cover. It gave the editors flexibility. An RB67 rotating back made that easy to do. You didn't have to rotate the camera on its tripod. The RB67 was a great advertiser's camera cranking out photos of stuff to be sold from close-ups of cuff links to dresses and cars.You certainly do. Mamiya sold film backs for the system in 6x4.5 as well as 6x7 and 6x8 (not sure I see much if any advantage to the latter), and any 2x3 Graflok back will fit, so you can shoot 6x6 as well if you choose. I can well see why this was the system of choice for so many professionals when it was current.
I like that ad!Anyway you look at it, 50% more image
the rolls were short
If you could afford an RB67 and a reasonable range of lenses, viewfinders, grip, etc., you could almost certainly afford two or three film backs. AND an assistant, perhaps two! Naturally, the helicopter charter is priced into the shoot, so the client is paying that...
one way to be a rich photographer is to be rich
before one started.
I have never heard of that before, and I have been a working in the field for years.although, those were the days when "equipment is free" became a thing; you could buy, use it for five years or so, and sell it for what you paid; your only cost was maintenance)
I have never heard of that before, and I have been a working in the field for years.
why aren't you using something bigger anyway?
but I've heard that both here and on photo.net
This is from my experience a half-dozen years ago: It all depends, whether the assignment is editorial or advertising. Advertising clients usually paid much higher fees and covered all expenses, crew, talent, food, transportation and rental fees for equipment. Many photographers would (and still do) charge equipment and studio rental fees, even when they already had a fullty-equipped studio and are not renting gear. Some would only charge for extra gear or if they needed a larger space than what the had. Editorial really depended on the assignment and the budget, how much the magazine could get for free (like location and talent), but was (and probably still is unless you're a star photographer) much, much less than what was paid for a national print ad. Small clients, advertising locally, with limited budgets paid very little and had to make do with much less. And although some photographers had a lot of money, they commonly charged fees commensurate with their experience, quality and demand for their work, and how well-known they were. Unless it was a favor for and existing client or trying to get a new, lucrative client or fancy business, they never gave anything away or reduced their fees by much. In the 90's, cost consultants became more common, hired by clients to scrutinize estimates and final invoices to make sure fees and charges were in line with the current market.Donald
not every commercial / assignment shooter could afford the things you have suggested were commonplace for everyone to most certainly afford.
most all the people I assisted when I was starting out certainly could not afford all those things, except the one who was the son of royalty,
he could afford a 3 Hasselhoff bodies about 5 lenses and 6 backs (that cost 900$ each). every 6 months lenses and bodies and back were sent to hassy
to be worked on, which was like the helicopter rental priced into the cost of doing business. he and his wife ate a baked potato for dinner whenever I was there, and he
so who knows maybe he couldn't afford it and was playing the fake it till you make it game... like they say, one way to be a rich photographer is to be rich
before one started. its a nice fantasy to think that everyone could afford top end gear a sweet studio and 2 assistants, its probably tv that propagated these myths.
I doubt very much you could get anything near new prices for 5-year-old gear. Especially today, when 5-year-old digital gear is so out of date as to be practically worthless compare to new prices. A working pro can depreciate the equipment for tax purposes (in the US at least). But even then, I don't think photo gear depreciates totally over 5 years.huh. .. I'd love to read that thread. LOL... to me at least it sounds like wishful thinking that after 5 years of professional use gear would be able to be sold for what it sold for new when purchased
but what do I know. I'd love to read who said / suggested that cause from personal experience and association and knowing people who worked in pro shops it sounds like bunk, but what do I know...
can anyone explain the math behind the claims in the Mamiya ad that 6x7 results in 50% more usable image than 6x6, and that with 6x7 you don't have to crop anything out to get 8x10 and 16x20?
I doubt very much you could get anything near new prices for 5-year-old gear. Especially today, when 5-year-old digital gear is so out of date as to be practically worthless compare to new prices. A working pro can depreciate the equipment for tax purposes (in the US at least). But even then, I don't think photo gear depreciates totally over 5 years.
Well, rather self-serving of them to say that.Of course, with Mamiya RB67, you have a choice. "Landscape or portrait for the discriminating photographer" Don't know what their motto was but this one would have been pretty good.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?