On the 2D side of things, ProductPhotography.com, located in Las Vegas, has what I think of as a good business workflow for 2D product photography. They call it mail order photography service. The customer ships their product(s) to ProductPhotography.com, they take in the products, stage them, take the photographs, do light photo editing, send the customer the digital images and return the products at the customer's cost. In the past 12 years, they say they have delivered 60,000+ photos to 1,100 clients in over 20 countries. They operate out of a large studio, which used to be described on their site as a warehouse (which makes sense based on the shipping-centric model), where their photography pipeline sounds like a pretty well-oiled machine. They are now starting to develop a small team of full-time photographers and support staff.
Their approach would be a logical model for the 3D product photographer as well. After all, the significant difference between 2 and 3D photography is the equipment to be used to capture the 3D object and the post-processing (which will almost certainly be more extensive in the 3D context). But that post-processing and more information is why you can charge more per object. Interestingly, where a customer might want multiple images of a product when purchasing 2D photography, there is likely no need for multiple 3D images as the whole point is that you can see the front, back, top and bottom in 3D.
The Back of the Envelope Business Case
So, what does the back of the envelope business case teach us about this opportunity? First, let's make some baseline assumptions:
- Amazon (or another large on-line merchant) plans to use/permit 3D images (in addition to or as opposed to 360 degree photography) on its website in the relatively near future;
- There are over 200,000,000 products for sale on Amazon.com websites and if only 5% are appropriate for or would benefit from 3D display, that would represent an addressable market of 10,000,000 unique products;
- The product image to be produced must be of very high quality, photorealistic, accurate, comparable to professional 2D photography;
- The photographer/team can produce each 3D product image meeting that quality standard in an average of about 30 minutes of set-up and capture time and no more than 1-2 hours of post-processing time; and
- The approach will be primarily photogrammetry based rather than laser scanners.
Revenue Assumptions
- Product Pricing. The business will charge $150 per 3D product image. The traditional 2D market price comparison: 3 photos at www.productphotos.com cost $135.
- Products with more complicated geometries and certain other factors (glossy, translucent, etc.) could be priced higher.
- If the business charges $150 per 3D image, then at increments of five 3D images per day, daily revenue equals $750 or $150,000 per 200 day year. At 50 product images per day, annual revenue would be $1.5 million. The long term objective would be to automate the process to handle large volumes efficiently.
- Primary customer target would be Amazon sellers. Alternate customer classes include on-line product merchants, product development / prototyping teams, marketing teams / market research teams, and assets for game developers.
- Additional revenue sources. Offer templatized 3D product rendering/ staging (e.g., side lighting, product on a table, etc.) for an additional fee, or the business could possibly develop an inventory of 3D assets (generic objects and, with permission, branded items) for later sale/licensing individually or as a collection.
Expense Assumptions
- I am going to assume here that initially at least, 3D photographers will use some form of photogrammetry, which uses multiple 2D photos to create a 3D mesh.
- Customer pays any shipping costs (send or return)
- Warehouse/office space near where I live in New Jersey is somewhere around $10-$15 per square foot. If 2,000 ft.², then it would cost $20-30,000 per year or $2,500 per month. The business might likely start in a simpler space until demand is proven.
- Camera and lighting cost will be somewhere from the low end of $2,500 for the lowest of low-end setups to north of $50,000 (and can be much, much more).
- Software. For example, Autodesk's 123D Catch or their new beta Memento is a free software program for taking photos to 3D. If you choose that, you will spend significant time understanding how to take photos that will work in the software. You may want to try other photogrammetry software. There is a comparison in Wikipedia which quotes prices from free to $10,000 for a variety of photogrammetry options.
- Personnel. Technician(s) -- warehouse/camera at $15-$20 per hour and Technicians -- skilled post-processing artists at $20-$25 per hour.
- Computers/server/website/Internet cloud storage (e.g., ) $15,000
- Office equipment $5,000
- Advertising $5-10,000
- Accounting $5,000
- Other
So, the initial year one costs (assuming you don't have any of this equipment / facilities or personnel already as a 2D photography studio) would be about $150,000. That means that y0u would need to average five 3D product images per day to break even. If you want to pay yourself (unless you are counting yourself as one of the two technicians), you will need to sell incremental daily images. As noted above, the incremental revenue of 5 images daily is $750 per day. In order to pay yourself $50k per year after expenses if you have the two technicians who are good at taking the photos, post-processing them and you do everything else, you would need to be able to get customers to purchase about seven 3D images from you every day of a 200 day work year. Many people work a lot more than 200 days per year so it could be easier -- I like to use 200 days as that is conservative and gives you some breathing room as you work up to getting those 7-10 products per day from customers to image. Any more than that number per day and that revenue will largely go directly to the bottom line, until you need to bring on incremental employees to get the increased workload done.
Basic Facility Requirements
I think that the best way to think of the workflow for profitable 3D product photography is the basic good old fashioned assembly line. There is a very logical flow of products from receiving to product preparation to photography followed (probably off-line) by post-processing and finally to image delivery and product returns/disposition. This suggests that a basic, clean warehouse facility may be all that you need.
Competitive Landscape
The current competition in this space includes:
- Traditional 2D photography
- 360 spin viewers such as Arqball Spin or photospherix.com. In the short term, this is a very real competitive threat and frankly, perhaps a good option for photographers who are dipping their toes into this type of product photography. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it takes minutes to "create a spin." Spin viewers basically take a series of photos around the object and the 360 degree view is created by viewing a series of images one after another generating an artificial 3D view. I do not think this is the end game here, but may well work as an interim viable proposition. I think that ultimately the richer, more useful data involved in a true 3D object will have great marketability.
- Ortery 360 degree photography and 3D products which is a supplier to competitive offerings TruView 360 360 Image Stitching Software which creates HTML5 and Flash format product views with deep zoom, image tagging, audio, and product tours.
- 2D product photography studios. Some times two dimensions are enough. After all, you can include high quality front, side, top and bottom pictures in most formats.
- 3D scanning companies who generally use fairly expensive scanners ($15,000-$100,000+) like Artec Eva, Creaform Handyscan, Mantis Vision F5, and Steinbichler Comet to create high quality 3D images.
- Google’s Project Tango, 3D System's Sense Scanner and similar consumer 3D apps. These generally are not a threat at this point because they do not produce high quality images and many are not yet commercially available. Someday these may represent a threat, but based on what I have seen watching this space over the last 4 years, the cheap scanners with high resolution are at least several years out. There are a number of companies working in the light field space and others working on multi-sensor phone-based approaches which show promise but they are just not yet available.
As this market develops, the uses for 3D objects will grow and that may be where the forward-thinking 3D photographer can make significant incremental revenue. By holding onto the necessary rights to use the 3D images you create, you may be able to make money. Some customers may balk at using their products in games, VR and AR and 3D printing, but you may be able to deal with those objections by making the product generic and removing distinguishing branding, trade dress or other IP. That will be one of the areas to watch, but those who navigate those waters properly may well have a valuable asset when the big demand for real world 3D objects arrives.
Waiting for a Winner on Best Reality Capture System
Alas, what 3D capture system should the professional 3D photographer use? That may need to be for a future post. The choices are stunningly broad. It seems like there is a new scanner, photogrammetry solution or 3D capture method being developed every two weeks. That said, I am not convinced there is a clear winner yet.
So what are the biggest obstacles for this business? Three primary things: 1) uncertainty as to the timing of broad demand for 3D product images and a related issue, 2) the viewer method that will be accepted by the largest on-line merchants, and 3) uncertainty over the best reality capture method (360 spin, photogrammetry or scanning). If you are interested in this space, you should keep aware of these few issues. I think they are ready to be resolved soon, particularly what format the merchants will accept and there will be a good addressable market for those familiar with the technology and the workflow to meet that demand.
So, what did I get wrong? Any photography or 3D scanning studios out there want to correct any of my numbers? I'm happy to hear real numbers based on experience. It is always better to base a business case on numbers actually experienced. Thanks for your feedback!