# What's your approach to gear?



## Tbini87 (Nov 2, 2010)

Hey guys,
   my wife and I are in the process of starting a small photography company. We are planning on doing everything from portraits to newborn to wedding to sports. As you all know there is a lot of work that goes into it, and a decent amount of money being spent on new gear. In researching choices for cameras and lenses and all I am really torn between 2 different approaches. 

The first approach is buying decent gear but not top of the line. This would include stuff like a D90, or sigma or tamron 17-50 2.8 lenses, etc. Some of this gears seems pretty legit, but definitely not top notch. Is this the gear we can have as backup or 2nd shooter gear? This approach saves a lot of money, but will probably leave us looking to upgrade within a year or two. 

Approach number two is shelling out the extra cash now to enjoy top notch gear throughout our startup. This may help our image quality a little bit and will avoid the "need" to upgrade for possibly a long time. The downside is that this will be eating up a huge amount of our budget and there is definitely a limit to our cash supply. 

So, what approach would you professionals recommend? I will give you a list of current gear and then a list of stuff that we may be looking at. Feel free to start any discussions that you feel is important to this topic, or just how you personally dealt with this situation. Thanks.

Gear we have:
D40 with kit lenses (pretty much useless for wedding work no?)
D90 gripped, 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8
SB-600 speedlight

Gear we are looking into:
17-50mm zoom 2.8 (Nikon, Tamron, and Sigma)
50 (80)-200 zoom 2.8 (Nikon, Tamron)
Wide angle zoom 2.8 (Tokina 11-16mm, nikon)

Any general thoughts, specific gear recommendations, etc are totally welcome!


----------



## SLRJoe (Nov 2, 2010)

Not that I'm a professional photographer, but if I was to start my own photography business and was doing it on a budget to begin with, I'd probably stick with what I've got initially, wait until I've got a few contracts in, and then spend the profits from them on improving the gear.

I would then probably try to buy a good condition refurb or 2nd hand D300/D3, the latest version of Photoshop (I know you can use Gimp for free, but after using photoshop for years, I personally would find it would save me hours using what I already know how to use).

I would probably - when funds allow - purchase the best quality lenses I could afford, but wait until I've got money coming in before I start splashing the cash.  Once i've got the top quality kit, i'd then rise my prices a bit.


----------



## Overread (Nov 2, 2010)

Refurbs aren't a bad idea - most are just a good if not better than new (since they undergo individual inspection instead of just batch inspection. 

One thing I would say however is that you are trying to possibly hit too many areas all at once - I don't know your experience level so I can't comment on how good each of your are within the respective areas you're intended to photograph for - however it would make your budget easier to manage if you focus down into select areas that compliment each other. For example focusing on portraits or sport but not both at the same time - thus your setup can focus to that need  - letting your spend what you do have of your budget on higher end gear for that aim.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 2, 2010)

I've had the good fortune to use various levels of equipment,and had many friends who were avidly into photography,in the decades of the 1980's, 1990's,and now the 2000's. I have owned and used equipment made from the 1950's to the current date. Here's my opinion on gear. Gear is gear. There are multiple levels of gear. Some of it is very basic, some middle of the road, some of it is advanced. Some equipment has very high specifications and looks/seems good on paper, in the catalog, or on the web. But specifications are NOT always a good guideline; they need to be tempered with real-world performance evaluation, personal preferences, user experience, and the acid test of practical use for their intended (or not-intended) tasks. Many times, better gear makes life one hell of a lot easier.

There is a lot of equipment available used,as well as new. Look at the D40: with kit lenses, it's not much of a wedding camera, in my opinion. BUT it DOES have one overriding feature that MOST other cameras do not have: the ability to synchronize flash with daylight with "regular" flash bursts, at shutter speeds of up to 1/8000 second. Use a PC cord, and the D40 becomes one of the BEST fill-flash-in-bright sunlight cameras since the Hassy 501C...and 6MP is enough resolution for most wedding snaps these days,especially if the lenses are GOOD. With Nikon's top-grade lenses, the D40 is a capable camera....but with kit lenses, it's not that great. See how that works? Good or great lenses can leverage a D40 or a D90.

I dunno...have you ever used a professional Nikon body? It is hard to understand the added degree of responsiveness, the better viewfinder, the much more powerful autofocusing motor in the camera, the much,much more-powerful autofocusing module,and the overall handling benefits of a true "professional" Nikon camera, compared with the low-end D40, and the consumer D90, or even the pro-sumer level D300 type cameras.

For many photography assignments, the camera itself is not super-critical to success, but the lenses ARE critical. But I'd say in about 20% of situations, the camera body can make the work much,much,much easier than fighting a body that's not really up to the task. And in maybe 10% of situations, a pro-level or state of the art camera can make a HUGE difference between getting lots of good shots, and fighting the equipment, or continually bumping up against its limitations and having success "some of the time" instead of ALL of the time.

For "professional" jobs that are demanding, I would not go with either a D40 or a D90 unless I absolutely had no other camera I could use. Same goes for lenses...the "kit" lenses are simply not capable,and primes like the 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron you are looking at are a major step up.

The 80-200 zoom is okay, but I prefer a 70-200. If you really plan on doing "everything" on your list, I'd say buy a D3s and skip the mid-level stuff. Back it up with a D700. Buy the BEST lenses you can afford.


----------



## DC-Photog (Nov 2, 2010)

I shoot weddings and portraits, and I would suggest expanding your equipment budget. I would recommend, at minimum, two D300 bodies, 17-55 2.8, and the 80-200 2.8. I would buy two used SB-800s, or an SB-900 with a SB-600 as a backup. 

Stick with Nikon glass. You will never have to worry about it, and it will always perform. The D300 is a fabulous tool. I actually use mine more than my D3s bodies during the day. Much lighter, and I swear the final images look identical to the D3s frames.

If you are planning on a big sports business, then replace the 80-200 with the 70-200. You will improve your keeper rate.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 2, 2010)

I would go with what you have for now, but as you buy new gear, buy the best you can.  As Derrel said, until you've had a D3 with a 24-70 in your hands, it's hard to describe how much nicer it is, BUT that's NOT the reason.  The reason that I always stress buying the best gear you can afford is because with better gear comes better build quality, and the survival rate of D3s dropped off of counter tops vs. D40s...  The same applies to lenses, tripods, and lighting.


----------



## j-dogg (Nov 2, 2010)

Derrel said:


> I've had the good fortune to use various levels of equipment,and had many friends who were avidly into photography,in the decades of the 1980's, 1990's,and now the 2000's. I have owned and used equipment made from the 1950's to the current date. Here's my opinion on gear. Gear is gear. There are multiple levels of gear. Some of it is very basic, some middle of the road, some of it is advanced. Some equipment has very high specifications and looks/seems good on paper, in the catalog, or on the web. But specifications are NOT always a good guideline; they need to be tempered with real-world performance evaluation, personal preferences, user experience, and the acid test of practical use for their intended (or not-intended) tasks. Many times, better gear makes life one hell of a lot easier.
> 
> There is a lot of equipment available used,as well as new. Look at the D40: with kit lenses, it's not much of a wedding camera, in my opinion. BUT it DOES have one overriding feature that MOST other cameras do not have: the ability to synchronize flash with daylight with "regular" flash bursts, at shutter speeds of up to 1/8000 second. Use a PC cord, and the D40 becomes one of the BEST fill-flash-in-bright sunlight cameras since the Hassy 501C...and 6MP is enough resolution for most wedding snaps these days,especially if the lenses are GOOD. With Nikon's top-grade lenses, the D40 is a capable camera....but with kit lenses, it's not that great. See how that works? Good or great lenses can leverage a D40 or a D90.
> 
> ...



Hit the nail on the head. Lenses can make or break a shot, I ditched my kit lenses and bumped up to some decent glass. No L lenses yet but I've shot them on my digital Rebel, and what a difference. The Rebel XTi is a sort of entry-level DSLR it's not a 1ds but it isn't a cheap point and shoot.

A kit lens is good for walking around, they are usually light and plasticky, and will get you a decent shot most of the time, but compare an 18-55 to say a 24-70 L and it's like apples and oranges.

As for camera bodies, do you NEED a D3? No, my Rebel has taken shots with a little post and some good glass that rival a D3.....is the D3 a great addition to any professional photographer's stable? You ****ing bet it is, and you DO get what you pay for. The Digital Rebel can do about 90% of the stuff the D3 can do, but that 10% of things it can't do is a BIG 10%, drop a D3 and my Rebel from 5ft onto concrete I bet the D3 still works. Try to take 8 frames a second of a fast moving object like a train or a sports car, the Rebel will only get you 3 or 4 and it only has I think a 9-frame burst in RAW mode if at least 7 out of 8 planets are aligned.

Spend the cash for good lenses first, you can always upgrade your body. :mrgreen:


----------



## KmH (Nov 2, 2010)

DC-Photog said:


> ....I would recommend, at minimum, two D300 bodies....
> .....I would buy two used SB-800s......
> .....The D300 is a fabulous tool. I actually use mine more than my D3s bodies during the day. Much lighter, and I swear the final images look identical to the D3s frames......


+1 

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/222897-fs-nikon-d300-body.html No returns for shutter/mirror slap noise. 

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/222900-fs-nikon-sb-800-speedlight.html


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 2, 2010)

My approach is:  

Simple.  Less is more! 

Theres not much you cant shoot in the way of weddings or portraits with a 24-70 2.8 and a 80-200 2.8.

Id probably throw a 3rd body in there also incase one of them takes a dump on you while on a shoot....its a matter of when, not if.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 2, 2010)

Not sure what sports your going to shoot but 200mm is not good enough for field sports, have you shot sports because it's a lot different to portraits


----------



## Tbini87 (Nov 2, 2010)

Great Discussion so far guys! Thanks for all the input. I have been looking around at different bodies, and have never even TOUCHED a D300 or 700, so I have no idea how nice they must be. I have recently seen some talk about a D7000, which seems to be really nice, and more like a d40 or d90 ergonomically which I think my wife and I prefer. Any substance behind this big talk for the D7000?

As far as experience I have to admit that we don't have tons yet. I grew up shooting sports on my mom's film Canon with a 50-200 kit lens I think. Nothing special, but when you have 4 siblings that are all incredible athletes (all 3 sisters got scholarships to D1 schools for field hockey) then you get used to taking plenty of pictures on the field! I have also been shooting wakeboarding for 3 or 4 years now during the summer. We have been the "photgraphers" of family gatherings for a few years now, and have done 3 or 4 real shoots for seniors and family portraits. We have a newborn shoot coming up in 2 months which we are not ready for, but I have also been looking into off camera flash options with our SB-600.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 2, 2010)

Tbini87 said:
			
		

> Any substance behind this big talk for the D7000?



Check out Thom Hogan's web site for his early comments on the D7000; he says it is the best HIGH-ISO crop-sensor body he has ever tested, from either Canon or Nikon. 

I've seen one side-by-side on-line comparison of the EOS 7D with 24-70 L zoom versus the Nikon D7000 with the low-cost 18-105 zoom; the Nikon was "brighter" in terms of actual exposure by 1.20 EV values than the 7D at ISO 3,200, and had much better-looking image quality, with much,much less noise than the 7D, so the D7000 does appear to have a pretty good overall image quality for an APS-C body. Price is quite good too.

It's not even on the market yet though: Best Buy let some out early,and was reprimanded.


----------



## Tbini87 (Nov 2, 2010)

Thanks Derrel,
   we will certainly be looking into this camera in the near future then. Would this be considered a "pro-grade" camera that would be usable full time for wedding shooting?


----------



## KmH (Nov 2, 2010)

gsgary said:


> Not sure what sports your going to shoot but 200mm is not good enough for field sports, have you shot sports because it's a lot different to portraits


+1.

The Multi-CAM3500DX AF module with 51 auto focus points, 15 of them cross-type focus points in the D300 is SWEET.

For field sports - daylight only..http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/222898-fs-sigma-150-500-mm-hi-power-zoom.html


----------



## Derrel (Nov 2, 2010)

Tbini87 said:


> Thanks Derrel,
> we will certainly be looking into this camera in the near future then. Would this be considered a "pro-grade" camera that would be usable full time for wedding shooting?



Well, frankly, no, it's not a "pro-grade" Nikon. It's an advanced-level d-slr model, but Nikon's "pro-grade" cameras always have their top-tier autofocusing system. I personally think that APS-C sized sensor cameras are not the best choice for wedding photography; to me, the full-frame cameras are the "pro-grade" tools. Many people do not share that sentiment,however.

The D7000 has a brand-new AF system in it,with 39 AF areas, and is I would say a representation of the next generation Nikon mid-level camera. From what I have read about the D7000 from Chase Jarvis, it has a very solid feel, a magnesium inner chassis, and it "feels" very much like a higher-level camera than one would expect. The 39-point AF module is different,and newer, than the 51-area AF system used in the D300,D700,and D3s cameras. I suspect that the D7000 with a quality lens (zoom or prime) would be a more than adequate wedding camera under most circumstances. The thing is, there are the REAL, true, "pro-grade" Nikon bodies, and then there is everything else, beneath them.

The D7000 is not as good as the D3s is at high iso settings. It simply can not be as good. But that does not make the D7000 a bad camera, or incapable. The fact is, the flagship Nikon bodies have the best performance, the best of everything; all the other cameras have,well, less...as cameras advance, the mid-level bodies get better and better and better. Many people never need anything more than a higher-end mid-level camera. The D7000 represents the next generation mid-level Nikon; I expect the D400 and D4 to be significantly better that their current counterparts. What the D7000 represents is like the Canon 7D to its family: a shifting of gears, a moving-on-up-to-the-East Side generational shift.


----------



## Tbini87 (Nov 3, 2010)

Thanks Derrel for all the insight. My wife and I have only really worked with low grade gear (D40 and Rebel), and have just grown used to having small, light cameras. The D7000 might be a good mix of higher quality but similar ergonomics, and a stepping stone to bigger, heavier models.


----------



## orljustin (Nov 3, 2010)

"We are planning on doing everything from portraits to newborn to wedding to sports."

Sounds like a plan for failure.

"So, what approach would you professionals recommend?"

What does your business plan that you've developed tell you?  Or are you just off to B&H to buy whatever you end up deciding on and hoping for the best?


----------



## Tbini87 (Nov 3, 2010)

orljustin said:


> "We are planning on doing everything from portraits to newborn to wedding to sports."
> 
> Sounds like a plan for failure.
> 
> ...



Not sure how this is a plan for failure. Blanket statements like that without anything to back them up are useless on forums like this. I also don't understand how the first part of your post has anything to do with the approach professionals take towards purchasing gear. The first part has to do with what type of photography we will be doing. The second part has to do with pros think it is better to start with smaller, cheaper gear and build up, or spend a lot more money right off the bat to get the best gear available. 

I don't understand how our business plan could "tell" us what approach to use when deciding what gear to buy. Weddings, portaits and newborn shots are going to be using a lot of the same gear and lighting. We have also enjoyed shooting a ton of landscape stuff when we visiting 13 national parks this summer, and the results were great using a D40 and kit lenses. I understand that sports are much different, and I don't think that this would be an area we would focus on or make much money on. However, having lettered in 3 sports in highschool, then playing tennis in college, and having lived and breathed sports for the first 21 years of my life, I wouldn't mind doing some work on the field or court if possible. I would not tailor our gear around sports, but I don't see why it would be impossible to shoot sports with a D90 or D300 and a 50-200 2.8 lens.

Now if you had some specific stuff you would like to add or talk about that would be great. I am obviously not "off to B&H to buy whatever and hope for the best". If that was the case would i be ASKING THESE QUESTIONS on this forum?! I am hearing different approaches from people who are making useful posts filled with useful information and then will make educated purchases from there. Thanks.


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 3, 2010)

orljustin said:


> Sounds like a plan for failure.



Not necessarily.

They are new to the scene of professional photographers and not everyone, right out of the gate, knows what they want to shoot in the long term.

I got into the game being a "jack of all trades".  Id shoot anything for money...weddings, parties, sporting events, portraits, advertisement, stock, etc.  I thought sports would be where I wanted to go but somehow ended up with portraits being my biggest volume of customers and what I ended up being my best at.

I still do a little bit of everything but have focused my attention on portraits and social events and have built a fairly successful little business out of it, all the while having other pros tell me I would fail miserably because I refused to pick one specific niche and follow it.  Well, I did eventually mostly settle on something that I enjoy but im not afraid to go into the realm of the unfamiliar and give it a go.  Thats how we grow...

Find your area of expertise...and dont be afraid to shoot anything under the sun to find it.  Charge accordingly...


----------



## Tbini87 (Nov 3, 2010)

JerrfyLube said:


> orljustin said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like a plan for failure.
> ...


 
This is kind of the approach we are going to try out. We will probably be primarily wedding and senior/family portrait photographers. However, adding maternity and newborn shooting seems like a no brainer. And I would be more than open to shoot sports if people wanted me to do that. I love sports and nature and would have no problem shooting mountain bikers, football, basketball, soccer, etc. We are in a smallish town in CA that probably does not have a huge market for any 1 of these areas, so branching out may be the best way to stay busy for us.


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 3, 2010)

Tbini87 said:


> We are in a smallish town in CA that probably does not have a huge market for any 1 of these areas, so branching out may be the best way to stay busy for us.



Exactly.  

The High Desert region where I live is saturated with Portrait photographers, which is what I market myself as and honestly, I can see the big hits it takes against my business.  I constantly have potential clients telling me "well so and so said they would do the same shoot for half the price..."  Well, go with "so and so" then because im not going to jockey around my prices to stay competitive with other photographers who do a subpar job.

But while I have marketed myself as a portrait photographer, im still amazed at the constant flow of people, mostly former clients of friends and family of former clients, who approach me and want me to shoot weddings, bar\bat mitzhavs, their kids little league or soccer games, etc...  Just yesterday I booked a fairly large job shooting and putting together a product brochure for a small company that specializes in boating accessories...all because I shot senior pictures for one of the employees daughters.

I guess what im saying is that different markets support all ranges of photography, whether it be a specific niche or photographers who shoot everything under the sun.  Don't let the few negative nancy's who say you will fail just because you market yourself as versatile spoil the party for ya!


----------



## orljustin (Nov 3, 2010)

"Not sure how this is a plan for failure. Blanket statements like that  without anything to back them up are useless on forums like this. I also  don't understand how the first part of your post has anything to do  with the approach professionals take towards purchasing gear. The first  part has to do with what type of photography we will be doing. The  second part has to do with pros think it is better to start with  smaller, cheaper gear and build up, or spend a lot more money right off  the bat to get the best gear available."

Well, ok.  "Newborn to wedding to sports".  How do you plan to be an instant expert in every variety of photography genre to be able to fully satisfy your clients?  By "newborn", I assume you mean in studio portraits.  Do you have plans to purchase posing tables, fabric, backgrounds and setup an online proofing gallery for parents to look at?  Simple shots of a newborn in a studio does not require a camera with a high frame rate shooting ability.

Weddings - Are you instantly well versed in producing trendy albums, you know all the shots that clients expect, do you have a camera that can shoot in low light due to venue restrictions?  Do you have proper attire for events, as well as the extended hours to shoot?  Small flashes and modifiers that allow you to move about the reception, getting good exposure while keeping the ambient high, or are you going to look like Uncle Joe with his P&S?

Sports?  Do you have a camera with a high FPS, like a 1dsMk3?  A wide range of autofocus points to be able to lock on to the action?  An account at a printer offering all those keychain and calendar things?  Or are you planning portraits, and you have 4 shooters, with duplicate cameras, lighting setups, and a system for tracking what team and individual you are shooting?

See?  You can't really just walk into Photography, and say "I'm going to shoot everything.  What's the best camera to buy?".  You will try to satisfy everyone and end up making no one happy, because you don't have the experience, or connections, or equipment or knowledge.  Best to concentrate on one thing first, master it, and then spread out.

With a business plan, you would know what market you are concentrating on, what the planned return would be for that market, and what equipment you should purchase to meet the needs and return for that market.  ie., for portraits, you don't need an $8000 1dsMk3.

See?


----------



## Tbini87 (Nov 3, 2010)

orljustin said:


> "Not sure how this is a plan for failure. Blanket statements like that without anything to back them up are useless on forums like this. I also don't understand how the first part of your post has anything to do with the approach professionals take towards purchasing gear. The first part has to do with what type of photography we will be doing. The second part has to do with pros think it is better to start with smaller, cheaper gear and build up, or spend a lot more money right off the bat to get the best gear available."
> 
> Well, ok. "Newborn to wedding to sports". How do you plan to be an instant expert in every variety of photography genre to be able to fully satisfy your clients? By "newborn", I assume you mean in studio portraits. Do you have plans to purchase posing tables, fabric, backgrounds and setup an online proofing gallery for parents to look at? Simple shots of a newborn in a studio does not require a camera with a high frame rate shooting ability.
> 
> ...


 
We don't plan on being experts in ANY of these fields instantly. Is anyone instantly an expert in anything? I don't think so. We plan on starting small, and working our way up.

Newborns- we plan on traveling to the home of the client, working in their place, and making a make shift studio. Couldn't be that hard to do for newborn shots. We won't need a studio, and the same gear can be used with all other portait and wedding shots. 

Weddings- we have talked about different ways of doing things. Offering prints vs. a CD and giving them the printing rights. Offering albums is another option. Not experts yet... but working out the details. That is why I am on these forums trying to learn. 

Sports- I would do this on the occasion of being asked to do so by family, friends, or coaches that I know. Not an expert, but have plenty of knowledge in the area. This would require the biggest change in gear, but like I said, I don't think it would be impossible to get some decent shots with a D300 and 50-200 2.8. Could be totally wrong, but again, no I am not an expert.

I don't understand where you come off thinking that someone has to be a "master" of something before doing it. How does someone become a "master"? By getting out there and doing it! I am not going to act like we are experienced professionals, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't go from shooting portraits, to newborns, to weddings. Will it take a lot of work and research? Sure. Luckily there is a wealth of knowledge around this forum and people that are willing to help us out and reduce the learning curve. Thanks for your input.


----------



## Overread (Nov 3, 2010)

Tbini87 said:


> I don't understand where you come off thinking that someone has to be a "master" of something before doing it. How does someone become a "master"? By getting out there and doing it! I am not going to act like we are experienced professionals, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't go from shooting portraits, to newborns, to weddings. Will it take a lot of work and research? Sure. Luckily there is a wealth of knowledge around this forum and people that are willing to help us out and reduce the learning curve. Thanks for your input.



Careful with bold statements like that 

Also I think the argument is more that before you take up professional work (that is being paid for your product) you first ensure that you are able to create the product and within the area of photography ensure that you have the gear and experience to get the product in a variety of lighting and situational conditions likely to arise.

This is done in many ways depending on your area, conditions, finances and the type of photography you are going into. For example in weddings you can mentor/ghost/second shoot for an existing photographer - thus letting you get experience in the field without putting the clients at risk of a poor product (because the "pro" is there to do that for the day). It also lets you have total freedom to experiment again without risks and further for something like a wedding it gets you used to the time and organisational factors of the day.

For something like portraits friends, family and (if you go into modeling) trade for prints and the like are again all ways to practice before putting yourself up for hire.



The key to this approach is ensuring that you know you CAN deliver the product and deliver it at a high quality before you charge for your work. It also has the great benefits that you have a working portfolio to attract clients and can start with a good quality product to attract good clients (and charge accordingly).
Of course we say this all without knowing your current talent level so in some part it might be a moot point - but its not about being the master - just about being competent and experienced


----------



## Tbini87 (Nov 3, 2010)

Overread said:


> Tbini87 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand where you come off thinking that someone has to be a "master" of something before doing it. How does someone become a "master"? By getting out there and doing it! I am not going to act like we are experienced professionals, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't go from shooting portraits, to newborns, to weddings. Will it take a lot of work and research? Sure. Luckily there is a wealth of knowledge around this forum and people that are willing to help us out and reduce the learning curve. Thanks for your input.
> ...



We have been doing a lot of free shoots to gain experience, and have recently had people contacting us and "paying" us for some shoots. We charge next to nothing, but have been really pleased with the results so far. We are just in the beginning stages of starting up, and we will not be charging any ridiculous amounts for portrait sessions or weddings until we have had success and feel confident in ourselves. With that being said, I think we are definitely capable of getting some very good results, and have been for a while, just using a D40 and 35mm prime. 

I am glad these extra discussions have been brought up. An entire different discussion could be on the topic of "is it better to specialize or to be more well rounded"? Can a photographer make more money or be more successful shooting ONLY weddings, portraits, or newborns... or can they be more successful shooting weddings, portraits, maternity, AND newborns. 

I understand that sports is an entirely different topic, but the basics of photography apply to all different types of photography still, right? I mean you need to get some good light, properly expose your image, look through the hole and push the button. I understand that each of those little tasks can take a lifetime to perfect, but in general the basics apply to shooting a pregnant mom, her newborn baby, or her oldest daughter's wedding.


----------



## Tbini87 (Nov 3, 2010)

Oh and Overread, just noticed on your flickr you do a lot of animal and landscape stuff. Don't have a flickr (yet?) but got a ton of cool shots from our road trip this summer where we hit up almost all the national parks on the western half of the US. Also, most of our portrait work is on our blog Capturing One Moment at a Time if you have any interest in commenting on our "talent level". The road trip pics are from june-september on the blog.


----------



## Overread (Nov 3, 2010)

Be careful with starting out with low prices - if you market yourself (through advertisments and through word of mouth and your customers) as low budget photographers when you come to try and up your prices to a more healthy level you'll have to rebuild your whole client base all over again since many before will be disinclined to pay more for what they've had similar of in the past.
Also be careful if you are working in the lower boundaries - make sure you have clear and concise contracts for each client and shoot and make sure you stick to your guns as you'll meet a lot of the penny pinchers. 


Also as to marketing yourself have a watch of the crits here:
http://www.zarias.com/category/critique/

they go not only into photography but there is also advice on marketing, website design and a host of other things as well as (somewhere) Zacks opinions and ideas on marketing toward either a do everything or a selective company.


As for the basics - sure the basics can be very similar with regard to techinical exposures - but the environments are very different - its a whole different skill in posing a mother and child for the camera than it is to capture a great shot of someone playing in football - don't be too quick to underestimate the differences


----------



## Tbini87 (Nov 3, 2010)

Overread said:


> Be careful with starting out with low prices - if you market yourself (through advertisments and through word of mouth and your customers) as low budget photographers when you come to try and up your prices to a more healthy level you'll have to rebuild your whole client base all over again since many before will be disinclined to pay more for what they've had similar of in the past.
> Also be careful if you are working in the lower boundaries - make sure you have clear and concise contracts for each client and shoot and make sure you stick to your guns as you'll meet a lot of the penny pinchers.
> 
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the link and input. We have only really been working with friends and acquaintences through our church and university. We have not been charging much, but probably never will charge these type people much unless we were just swamped in work and didn't have free time to shoot (which I can't see happening for a while... or probably ever due to where we live). 

We are working on a website, and will have competitive prices, but definitely not incredibly low. Probably a little bit lower than the competition in the area (some of which is not very good, and some we would aspire to be like).


----------



## Overread (Nov 3, 2010)

Be a little cautious of undercutting the market - for one (esp in current times) the market is often working close to the limit and undercutting from there might harm your long term considerations (eg not leaving enough budget over for expansion/upgrades).

Secondly (esp if you get into the wedding market) having a good working relationship with other local pros can be a great benefit. If you get overbooked you can direct clients there way and vis veras, but also if  you happen to have an emergancy or illness that prevents you attending a wedding/other major booked one time event you can contact other pros to have them cover for you.

Those are generalist points to consider and individual relationships will detail out how such setups work (ie who pays who and what not), but its a good healthy thing to have in the bag as a backup


----------



## orljustin (Nov 3, 2010)

"We don't plan on being experts in ANY of these fields instantly. Is  anyone instantly an expert in anything? I don't think so. We plan on  starting small, and working our way up."

Good, so you should start small, in one genre and work your way up.  Trying to play to all categories means you are sub-par at all.

"Newborns- we plan on traveling to the home of the client, working in  their place, and making a make shift studio. Couldn't be that hard to do  for newborn shots. We won't need a studio, and the same gear can be  used with all other portait and wedding shots. "

Wow, a make shift studio.  I'm sure the client will be thrilled at a bed sheet and a lamp.  "Couldn't be that hard to do".  I'm telling you it is not that easy.  But you'll find that out.  "The same gear" - did you even read what I wrote before?

Weddings- we have talked about different ways of doing things. Offering  prints vs. a CD and giving them the printing rights. Offering albums is  another option. Not experts yet... but working out the details. That is  why I am on these forums trying to learn. 

"Sports- I would do this on the occasion of being asked to do so by  family, friends, or coaches that I know. Not an expert, but have plenty  of knowledge in the area. This would require the biggest change in gear,  but like I said, I don't think it would be impossible to get some  decent shots with a D300 and 50-200 2.8. Could be totally wrong, but  again, no I am not an expert."

I'm sure the clients will understand "you're not an expert".

"I don't understand where you come off thinking that someone has to be a  "master" of something before doing it. How does someone become a  "master"? By getting out there and doing it! I am not going to act like  we are experienced professionals"

If you're charging money, you are a "professional", and you should be able to competently deliver.  More and more, you're sounding like someone who got some good snaps with their birthday DSLR, and fancy themselves a photography company.  Sorry, but it just ain't that simple.


----------



## Tbini87 (Nov 3, 2010)

orljustin said:


> "We don't plan on being experts in ANY of these fields instantly. Is anyone instantly an expert in anything? I don't think so. We plan on starting small, and working our way up."
> 
> Good, so you should start small, in one genre and work your way up. Trying to play to all categories means you are sub-par at all.
> 
> ...


 
We absolutely plan on starting small and working our way up. However, that does NOT mean that we have to stick to one form of photography to do that. What makes you think that someone who is a skilled portrait photographer couldn't do some research and try their hand at wedding photography? Isn't much of the needed gear the same? And for maternity and newborn shots... is there THAT much more experience needed that it would be impossible for a wedding or portrait photog to do a good job on newborn shots? 

May I ask which niche part of photography you are a master of? You sound like someone who can do 1 thing and can't seem to be creative in finding ways to get into other types of photography. I have seen lots of photographers do shoots at the client homes and get WONDERFUL results! Most sites I visit have wedding, portrait (senior and family), and baby galleries. 

I think a skilled photographer should be able to fairly easily shift between portraits, wedding, and newborn photography. We aren't experts, but we are working on learning and gaining experience, just like many photographers out there. Many "pro" photogs we know wouldn't walk around calling themselves "experts" in any one field. They shoot weddings and portraits and newborn and maternity... and that's that. I don't see the need to be some "expert" of one thing before trying something else. These types of photography compliment each other nicely.

Maybe my posts came off as me saying we are going to be charging out the nose for all those types of photography. All I was saying is that those are the types of stuff that we would be open to doing, depending on the market and everything.


----------



## ironsidephoto (Nov 6, 2010)

Don't spend the money for photoshop just yet--Lightroom might be your best bet.

I have a D300s, but for the high iso I'd get a d7000 before I got a D300s. Of course, the D700 would be ideal for you, but it costs more.


----------



## Tbini87 (Nov 7, 2010)

ironsidephoto said:


> Don't spend the money for photoshop just yet--Lightroom might be your best bet.
> 
> I have a D300s, but for the high iso I'd get a d7000 before I got a D300s. Of course, the D700 would be ideal for you, but it costs more.



We recently picked up Lightroom and have been liking it so far. Still learning to use it to its full potential. Seems like a great program, and teaming it up with Photoshop sounds like a killer combo, but we will stick with just LR3 for a while until we feel we need something more. 

The D700 is way out of our range at the moment, but I am definitely interested in the D7000. I think the D90 should be able to handle what we are doing for now, but we are certainly going to be picking up lots of new gear before our first wedding in September. Thanks for your input.


----------



## KmH (Nov 7, 2010)

ironsidephoto said:


> Don't spend the money for photoshop just yet--Lightroom might be your best bet.
> 
> I have a D300s, but for the high iso I'd get a d7000 before I got a D300s. Of course, the D700 would be ideal for you, but it costs more.


With Lightroom it is difficult, and often impossible, to do many of the edit types that retail photography buyers want.

For a retail shooter using lighting, high ISO is a non issue, but the resolution gained from full frame is definately a plus.


----------



## bobbedson (Nov 8, 2010)

If you use high iso make sure you have a decent noise filter, I use the Nik Software filters in photoshop, especially useful if you do not use a full frame camera. Also only buy gear when you believe it will make you money and have backups.


----------



## Tbini87 (Nov 8, 2010)

bobbedson said:


> If you use high iso make sure you have a decent noise filter, I use the Nik Software filters in photoshop, especially useful if you do not use a full frame camera. Also only buy gear when you believe it will make you money and have backups.


 
I thought that Lightroom3 actually had good noise reduction capabilities. We haven't run into too many spots where we needed to be shooting at high iso since we have been choosing decent times to shoot outside with plenty of light... but I am sure those times will be popping up more frequently as we start doing more work. Obviously in doing weddings we will be running into many tougher lighting situations than simple senior portrait shoots at the location and time of our choice (or the choice of our client). 

Like the idea of not buying gear until it will make us money. We have been putting off any major zoom lens upgrades until we get closer to our first wedding shoot since our prime lenses have been doing a great job so far. We will certainly need a lot more gear for a wedding though, including fast zoom lenses and at least 1 more body (hopefully better than a D90 too, since everyone has been telling me that a D90 really isn't ideal to be shooting weddings with). Thanks for the input.


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 8, 2010)

Tbini87 said:


> I thought that Lightroom3 actually had good noise reduction capabilities.



It does!


----------



## KmH (Nov 8, 2010)

JerrfyLube said:


> Tbini87 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought that Lightroom3 actually had good noise reduction capabilities.
> ...


But, when you reduce noise you also decrease detail.

Sharpening and noise reduction are opposite sides of the same coin.

If you increase the sharpening you induce noise. If you reduce noise you decrease the sharpness of the image.


----------



## Tbini87 (Nov 8, 2010)

KmH said:


> JerrfyLube said:
> 
> 
> > Tbini87 said:
> ...



This only applies to LR and not photoshop? We have actually been trying to find ways to make our images sharper or more crisp or something... we can't quite put our finger on it.


----------



## JerrfyLube (Nov 8, 2010)

Tbini87 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > JerrfyLube said:
> ...



It applies to both.

Anytime you remove noise, you are also removing detail and softening the entire image.  Some can be brought back with carefully applied sharpening.  The latest versions of LR3 is actually quite good at removing noise yet retaining detail and sharpness...much more so than previous versions.

Its a delicate balance when dealing with noise reduction...finding that right combination of reduction yet still retaining detail and sharpness can often be a little bit of a challenge.  The people who like to pixel peep are the ones you will find complaining about this most often...

Generally speaking though, most mild\moderate noise reduction wont give much of a noticeable decrease in detail in smaller prints or in larger ones viewed from more than a couple feet away.  In the grand scheme of things, the detail loss is quite minimal unless you apply some seriously hardcore noise reduction.


----------



## Overread (Nov 8, 2010)

Indeed which is one reason that photoshop CS has an edge over many of the lower tier adobe editing products (elements and Lightroom as well, though I don't know about LR3specifically) as it has a smarter more indepth control over layers and more specifically layer masks. You'll find if you search around that along with external software (like Noise Ninja and Neat Image) using layermasks to limit sharpening to only the areas with detail that you want sharpened and noise reduction to the blurry areas you want noise removed from can give a massive difference noticeable in print and resizings. 
You can also do funky sharpening methods with colourchannels and LAB colour space - again this is mostly limited to photoshop and its methods that require a fair amount of reading into in order to get proper control over them, a proper understanding and thus be able to implement them in a manner that will not only work, but get the advantage out that you seek. It's also something that might not be needed on every shot, but which is good to have "in the skills bag" for when you do need it.


----------



## Watchful (Mar 18, 2016)

My approach has always been, buy way more than I can ever use and use almost none of what I own.
(I know it's an old thread, but the forum recommended it for me.)


----------



## Overread (Mar 19, 2016)

The forum might recommend threads for you to read, but please don't resurrect old threads.


----------

