Well, the business model I mentioned does depend on the area you work in, what level of photography you do, and what the bid protocol may be with your clients. Never said it would work for everyone, I said it worked for me ... and worked for quite a few other photographers that I know around the USA ... which is where I learned how to do this in the first place. It wasn't my original idea, it is common practice.
My actual life-long career was as an advertising Art-Director, then CD, then Executive Creative Director for ad agencies like Young and Rubicam ... where over the years I have bid out and reviewed multi-million$ of dollars in photography. In addition, I also started a commercial photo studio using my contacts in the ad industry.
An insight from the other side: (Boring blah, blah for non-comercial shooters: -)
Generally, a photographer is selected for their specific expertise, energy, attitude, talent, and infrastructure. In a typical bid situation, the agency/client must locate 3 or more studios that can do the job at hand. Contrary to what many photographers think, this process isn't done to just select the lowest bid. It is to keep things relative to one another. In most cases, the photographer includes an approach treatment with the bid indicating their creative take on the project. The ad agency then submits the 3 bids, and makes the recommendation to the advertiser .... which often is not the lowest bid, but the one that best accomplishes the creative marketing intent in relationship to the bottom line bid.
Since larger advertisers, like Unilever for example, normally don't keep pace with market developments in the photographic world, many employ third-party watch-dogs to do that for them. These are staffed with pretty savvy people who review the submitted bids and ask questions, or suggest cost saving alternatives ... often in a pre-production meeting before the final recommendation is forwarded to the client. Unknown to many photographers, the Art Director/CD on the job often fights for the use of their choice to do the job, so his ideas and vision for the project can be fulfilled.
Technical aspects:
When I said the H camera is the most ubiquitous camera in the fashion world, I actually could have said that for all commercial photographic areas. The number one unit is a H1/H2 with a Phase One H mount back ... which is why Hasselblad now offers the H4X open platform systems camera as a replacement for those aging cameras.
Sorry, but I'll disagree that using a system that requires a sync cord to operate is anywhere as reliable as an integrated system. In my direct experience, that part becomes the weakest link in the shooting chain of events ...except for maybe the tether cord when shooting to a computer. None of the modern camera systems requires that, which is a hint.
Same disagreement regarding taking a back off camera to rotate it ... the internet is loaded with those complaining about the dust issue, and having to send their camera in for scratched IR filters ... stuff happens. If that hasn't been your experience, I'd say you are not only very careful, you are very lucky.
TRUE, larger MFD capture is NOT needed for all commercial work these days, but it is desirable/required for clients with a diverse application of images and/or severe cropping of details. One can use almost any systems camera to do work exclusively for internet marketing, and even many smaller print applications. However, these days many clients use images for a pretty wide spread of applications.
For example, an image may be used for the client's website, a magazine ad, brochures and a trade show booth. Even the magazine ad can be a headache when the media selections range from half page digest, to a spread in a slick trade tabloid sized publication ... each with its own crop ratios and bleed requirements requiring a LOT of extra background ...thus reducing the actual subject matter size to accommodate such a variety. This has been one of my biggest pet peeves with photographers who don't understand this and shoot to tight causing the need for expensive retouching.
I shot a job for a client that used the images on their website, in their catalog, AND printed 8' wall sized mounted prints for their trade-show both where the viewers would be right on top of the image. For another industrial client, I shot their R&D and Manufacturing facilities plus portraits of their executives ... for the internet, power-point presentations, leave-behind brochures and for large prints for their corporate HQs lobby. In both cases MFD was not only desirable, it was a necessity.
Moiré IS an issue with many photographic subjects, especially anything including fabrics or fine detail which creates spatial vibrations when translated to web sized views, CMYK print using various crops, and other applications. I currently have a job in house shooting fabric for GM catalog presentation of seating materials, a job I do each year. Boring work, but it pays the bills. I cannot use a 35mm DSLR for this work, I tried. Eventually, I used a 39 meg Multi-shot that eliminates moiré and produces more faithful colors ... and not until the H4D/60 could I avoid using the Multi-Shot for these projects. I have to shoot 12" pieces of the fabric for the client, who then selects the best 2" square and blows it up to show the pattern. I also shoot GM chrome wheels and found the dynamic range of MFD to be a God sent for such work.
-Marc
