To me, product photography (self-expalnitory) is a smaller subset of advertising photography which could be just about anything used in an ad. (i.e.stock)
JCO -----Original Message----- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D image quality-_Was -Stupid Question #999 Advertising photography is generally products shot by top-dollar pros for magazine ads. Car photography is probably the most lucrative. Food and fashion are important as well. Toys, guns, hardware, what have you. All are advertised. All are photographed. Local advertising is generally the work of middle level pros, and many of them may still be using film. National advertising in expensive magazines is handled almost exclusively by large agencies who hire very expensive, very skilled photographers. That is the work to which I referred below. It is almost exclusively digital. Fashion may be an exception. A photographer's assistant told me that a lot of NY fashion photogs still shoot MF film. Quite a few use the Pentax 6x7. The subject came up because he said he didn't like to work with them. Loading the camera was to difficult. However, I'm not sure he was working with top dollar fashion guys. (Even for an assistant, he's somewhat juniof.) I suspect most of the best fashion photogs are shooting MF digital, perhaps with Hasselblads. On Oct 14, 2004, at 8:31 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I think someone needs to define "advertising photography" > and "product photography" because in my mind they are not > the same thing.... > > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 6:23 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: *ist D image quality-_Was -Stupid Question #999 > > > > On Oct 14, 2004, at 1:16 AM, William Robb wrote: > >> >> Stenquist probably has a better idea of this than I do, but I bet >> that most high end product photography is still being shot on large >> format film. >> >> > As far as I've been able to determine, almost all advertising > photography is now digital. A lot of the studio work is done with > Cambio 4x5s and digital backs. Much of the location shooting is done > with Canon 1DS. A few are still shooting with 6 megapixel Nikons. Just > the other day the agency I'm working at (Young & Rubicam) brought in a > dozen pro reps for a portfolio show. I spoke with three or four > (trying to pry loose some low buck assignments for you know who), and > asked how many of their guys were shooting film. They all said that > their shooters were exclusively digital. A couple mentioned the Cambio > and digital back combo for the studio. And I know from experience that > many of the field guys have gone with the Canon. In part, because > Canon supplied all the top names with cameras even prior to > introduction. I know Clint Clemens was shooting with a brace of 1DS a > month before it was publicly available. On his location shoots he now > carries three or four Canon bodes, a big stack of CF cards, two Mac > Powerbooks for on-site processing, and at least two assistants who are > competent photographers and expert processors. Paul >
