Phase One and Hasselblad Ads

<p>Inasmuch as I'm a hobbyist, not a pro, I don't own a medium format back, but I imagine that one day I will (perhaps after winning a lottery). So I keep track of developments in the products and have over the years noticed (or think I've noticed) the following oddity: the images Phase One uses to advertise its backs are high in contrast and saturation while those Hasselblad chooses are not. So, compare, for example, the following images chosen to illustrate the image quality of the very same (Sony) sensor:</p>

<p>http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/IQ2-Series.aspx with</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h5d-50c.aspx">http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system/h5d-50c.aspx</a> .</p>

<p>From what I have read, there is little actual difference in what the Phase One and Hasselblad backs are capable of producing, and it is not that the consumer-friendly contrast and saturation are necessarily better illustrations of the quality of a professional instrument. But inasmuch as both companies are, presumably, targeting the same audience, I do wonder at what appears to me to be a distinctly different marketing choice. Any ideas as to why?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As a consumer, it is funny how you build perceptions around certain products, whether you own them or not (I was able to briefly acquire an older back for my Hasselblad, before realizing it was just too costly and had a more burdensome workflow than just shooting images with a Nikon DSLR. <br>

At any rate, my perception of the Hasselblad line is that the image was more true to life in terms of color and contrast control, much the same way I perceive Nikon DSLRs to be compared to Canon, which seems punchier. Not that either is bad, but it depends on what you're after. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>At any rate, my perception of the Hasselblad line is that the image was more true to life in terms of color and contrast control, much the same way I perceive Nikon DSLRs to be compared to Canon, which seems punchier. Not that either is bad, but it depends on what you're after.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My impression, exactly, both the comparison of Nikon to Canon and of Phase One (ads) to Hasselblad (ads). This reminds me of a survey I once read where consumers who prefer Pepsi to Coke and those who prefer Coke to Pepsi gave the <em>same</em>, mutually inconsistent, reason: that their favorite was "less sweet," as if it were a virtue to favor a less sweet soft drink. So perhaps consumers prefer the punchier Canon images while pros are mixed or prefer the more realistic Nikon images. Because Canon sells a lot of cameras to consumers, I wouldn't be surprised, then, if their ads highlighted contrast and saturation. But I doubt that Phase One sells many digital backs (which are priced like cars) to consumers. That is, I would have predicted that Phase One and Hasselblad were after the same audience and so would have expected uniformity in their ads, but that's not what seems to be the case. Perhaps even pros are split on punch versus realism and there is a bit of clientele effect. I wonder.</p>

Even pros are human, and a punchier image is called that because of the impact it has on people.<br>It's advertising. The aim is to catch people's attention. But people planning to spend as much money as needed to get a PhaseOne or Hasselblad back will look beyond that before deciding which to spend it on.<br>Some people like yellow, others prefer blue. But whether one of these backs were yellow, the other blue, or neither one either yellow or blue, it's not a deciding factor. Some advertising designers like 'punch'. Other designers like muted colours. Yet other designers like other things. Not important. Not something we need delve deep into, because there is nothing to find should we do anyway.

<blockquote>

<p>Some advertising designers like 'punch'. Other designers like muted colours. Yet other designers like other things.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True enough, but it does strike me as curious that there is seemingly such a consistent pattern over the years between the two companies. There may be nothing to find from delving deeper, as you say, but it is a conundrum, at least in my opinion.</p>

<p>If photography is your profession, advertising and moods in images **can** influence your decision to a certain degree. But there is more in the deal: customer service, quality of data the sensor will deliver, available software to squeeze the maximum out of the data, reliability (so far I've never seen a photographer with a second digi back as a 'spare' part). And then there are the lenses in your closet. If you already have an array of Mamiya/PhaseOne lenses, chances are high that you will decide in favor of your current brand.</p>

<p>Last but not least you can manipulate any image a sensor delivers to your software the way **you** want the final image to look.</p>

<p>For example I based my decision for my first digi cam on the quality and resolution of the sensor and the 'old' manual lenses I already used for decades. The sensor was better than the one of the flagship body, and I even could mount the lenses from 1978 without any modification. Pretty simple decision. Maybe that happened because I don't read any photography magazines, don't have a TV to watch commercials of the leading manufacturers, etc. On the other hand simplicity is always a good starting point ;-)</p>

The consistency is there, Lobalobo. The difference between the styles probably doesn't involve more than the advertising agency each company have been using.<br>They create a style book, describing what they want to project, how they plan to portrait the corporate image, and giving rules to adhere to so the image they project is consistent. That often involves some explanation why the corporate image has to be 'punchy' or the opposite, or anything else, but that usualy is a load of hogwash. Decisions more random than supported by something of substance.<br>Consistency is important to create and maintain a corporate identity, easily recognized (preferably, that is) by whoever sees the corporate style even without the name of the company on display. That corporate identity is why an agency is retained, or at least why different agencies given jobs are obliged to stick to the style book.<br>Something like that.

<blockquote>

<p>That corporate identity is why an agency is retained, or at least why different agencies given jobs are obliged to stick to the style book.<br />Something like that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Makes sense.</p>