# Up to a Professional Standard?



## fokker (Mar 9, 2011)

Are these photos of a standard that is good enough to charge for? 
I've been shooting stuff like this (second hand audio mostly) that I sell on ebay for quite a while now, just wondering if it's worthwhile trying to score some jobs doing product photography? If so (talking freelance/small time stuff here, just one off jobs for people with websites etc) what is an appropriate amount to charge per shot? I was thinking about $25 per shot if there were say 5-10 different things, more per shot if there were less items and vice versa. This could be way off the mark though...


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 9, 2011)

I'd say your crops are a bit tight. The products need room to breath, you know? 

The head of the guitar is at the edge of the frame, and the stand leg is chopped. 

The speaker on the left is groping the edge of the frame in shot 2. I dunno, it may just be a personal preference thing. Other than that, they look very clean and nicely lit. Are you using plexiglass to get the reflection in shots 2 & 3?


----------



## fokker (Mar 9, 2011)

Yeah I'm actually using a piece of glass from a coffee table as the reflecting base. Unfortunately it's a bit small which is kind of what is leading to the tight crops. I'm also limited by the size of the background in shots like the guitar one, which is why I had to unfortunately clip the top off it.
Cheers for the comment.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Mar 9, 2011)

A pro who cares about his work will not take on a shoot without the right gear and/or studio space. So, no, it isn't up to pro standard. For example, with the right background, you could have set the guitar further from the back eliminating the shadows which don't look very good. Plus they all look kinda washed out, but that could be this computer I am on right now.


----------



## fokker (Mar 9, 2011)

^ Yeah I know what you mean, I guess what I should have stated more clearly is that if I was actually doing these for a paid assignment then I would be taking more care of the backgrounds (ie buying something more appropriate then pieces of grey plastic I found out in the shed).

I guess I can take that response positively though, if it is only nit-picky stuff like that then I must be on the right track!


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 9, 2011)

Isn't there really two ways of looking at it.

One being, "hey photographers does my work warrant compensation?"

and the other being "Yes, I will pay you to take photos of stuff I plan on selling because it is far better than what I can do and I can sell my products at a higher price"

I think you should strike a balance between those two.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Mar 9, 2011)

fokker said:


> ^ Yeah I know what you mean, I guess what I should have stated more clearly is that if I was actually doing these for a paid assignment then I would be taking more care of the backgrounds (ie buying something more appropriate then pieces of grey plastic I found out in the shed).
> 
> I guess I can take that response positively though, if it is only nit-picky stuff like that then I must be on the right track!


 
Yes, you can take it as a positive. Overall it is not bad. Then again those are not the hardest objects to shoot.

The lighting is a bit flat for my personal taste but there is plenty of work (such as some catalog shots which are a big part of my output) done that way. The PP is my biggest concern as mentioned before. The reflections are also too much but that is, again, a question of personal taste more than anything else.

The "using the right tools" problem is one for you as you can't use those shots in a portfolio if it was one goal. Of course, that could easily be solved by shooting smaller things and getting a piece of poster board as a seamless background.

For a more challenging shoot, try glass, chromed auto parts, or some such thing.


----------



## kasperjd4 (Mar 10, 2011)

The horizon lines bug me for a product on the first three. I feel like different lighting could have helped on the guitar. 1/2 of the amp is in shadow. I like the fourth one of the speakers though. To answer the question i don't think I'd charge for any of these but maybe the 4th one.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 10, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Plus they all look kinda washed out, but that could be this computer I am on right now.


 They look a little washed out to me too.


Everything else I was going to say has already been said...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 13, 2011)

Image of the speakers on the desktop is the best shot, nice, clean, sharp and light looks good. The shadows and hot spots on the guitar pretty much kill the image.  The other speaker shot doesn't work doesn't really work well with parts being soft.  Personally I prefer working with a darker background, helps eliminate the shadows and with a little bit of fill light behind you'll get the instruments to jump out a little more. You're not far off on these.


----------



## MJLphotographics (Mar 17, 2011)

Really depends on you clients requirements. I find there is a bigger market for web and catalogue image on pure white backgrounds. It depends what market you are aiming your work at though. I agree with the 'crop' comments above but then again a client may want a tightly cropped image....Overall I like the pictures, well lit, good angles and lots of interest. Try some more shots that are less tightly cropped and maybe some images with more colour to broaden your portfolio. All you need to do then is find a client and ascertain what they want!


----------



## bennielou (Mar 17, 2011)

I'm gonna say no.  It's not that there is anything wrong with actual photos, there just isn't any POP.  Maybe re-process and see if you can make the images jump off the screen.  Good start though.


----------



## vitor (Apr 9, 2011)

No. Not up to professional standards.  Cropped subjects are a rookie mistakes.  Could also use some work on the background - too dark and shadows are too predominant.


----------



## epatsellis (Apr 11, 2011)

vitor said:


> No. Not up to professional standards.  Cropped subjects are a rookie mistakes.  Could also use some work on the background - too dark and shadows are too predominant.


 
Interesting, as I did an entire series of products for a now defunct high end audio manufacturer where 90% of them were tightly cropped, detail type work. Maybe we work at different levels.


----------



## Minga (Apr 13, 2011)

Are these photos of a standard that is good enough to charge for? ..

No.


----------



## Christie Photo (Apr 15, 2011)

fokker said:


> Up to a Professional Standard?
> Are these photos of a standard that is good enough to charge for?



These are two different questions.

Up to a professional standard?  No.
Are these photos of a standard that is good enough to charge for?  Sure...  at $25 per. 

The need for product photography spans quite a large range.  These are not catalog quality work, but not every one needs that level of work or has a budget for it.

-Pete


----------



## Cushty (May 13, 2011)

Crop, No crop, whatever whatever. Me - personally - Im a cropper. Your picture says - "Its a guitar", what it needs to say is "I want a guitar" or "I want that amplifier". The text boys then add some must have features then its "I need that Amplifier" then hopefully out comes the credit card, Job done! 
Sometimes you need to crop to show the USP (Unique selling point). In the case of the speakers it could be a special diaphram or cone suspension. Get in on that. We all know they are rectangular and have 4 corners so the viewers brain will add that in anyway. If however you're shooting for an instruction manual then rethink your game. Head on shots showing key operating points might be eeded. There is work for enthusiast level photogs for lower budget clients but you womt get the top end stuff. My daughter works as a refinisher on £800 a shot and thier Camera cost more than my house so the competition is tough!


----------



## STM (May 14, 2011)

They are good enough for a hobbyist, but sorry, not up to pro standards. Pro work requires lots of "negative space" so that logos and other information can be added afterwards without having to resort to Photoshop. Also, the contrast is weak on the first three images. Below is an ad I did for a jewelry shop who sold Rolex watches. I have a Stainless Steel Submariner so I photographed it with my Hasselblad in a light tent. The photo I submitted had a lot of free space around it. The marketing company who did their ad work added the Jewler's information in post processing. It was eventually made into a billboard ad. The image should be sharp and contrasty and have a nice "snap" to it. You really want it to jump off the page. 

The original 5000 ppi scan of the Ektar 100 negative was upwards of 60MB and was sharp as a razor. This image is _much_ reduced in size and therefore suffers from some compression and sharpening but it should give you some idea of what you need. 




 

The photo below I did for a guitar shop selling Epiphone guitars. They lent me a guitar to do the shoot because my Gibson SG looks a little different from the Epi. The original image showed a lot more of the guitar and was again photographed with the Hasselblad and TMAX-100 film in a light tent. The shop wanted it in black and white rather than color because it had more graphical impact. Their ad company (the same as the jewelers, by the way) added the Epi logo and cropped it to their needs. Again, this image is a pretty severe reduction in size from the original so it suffers from some compression. In the original image you can see the individual windings on all of the strings, including the "G" string, which is the closest and thinnest. This one was made into a 9 foot long Hi-res banner that they had hanging on the wall in the shop.​


----------



## tirediron (May 15, 2011)

Christie Photo said:


> ...These are two different questions.


Sorry Pete, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.  "Professional" simply means that someone is paid for their work whether it's as a photographer or a historian.  The real question, I think is:  "Are these images of a standard that a client would pay for the rights to them for commercial use?"  I think the answer is "No, not yet", but they are getting close.  Some more practice, and you'll be there.


----------



## MWG (May 15, 2011)

Only thing I can comment on is the composition of these shots. I think you are there as far just the composition of the shots. I personally like all of them, but my eye is young. Good work and best of luck to you.


----------



## Christie Photo (May 16, 2011)

tirediron said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > ...These are two different questions.
> ...



Wow, John.  Thanks you!  I'm not used to that.  Folks usually just tell me I'm wrong.  And I'm married, so....



tirediron said:


> "Professional" simply means that someone is paid for their work whether it's as a photographer or a historian.



I know it CAN mean that.  It can mean other things too, such as:  showing a high degree of skill or competence.

I think the connotation here (used to modify the word "standard") is clearly in regards to competence.

-Pete


----------



## bennielou (May 17, 2011)

LOL Pete, every time I read one of your posts I just smile.  I don't see you post very often, but when you do, you are always right on target.


----------



## bluebendphoto (Jun 24, 2011)

for me it's not the cropping (although it could be a bit better). the biggest thing that separates great photography from good photography is lighting. the photo of the amp seems to be the closest when it comes to professional lighting. when i was learning lighting what helped me the most was to look at really well lit photos and analyze their lighting and see if you can recreate it. photoshop is a crutch and doesn't create good lighting. no real photographer spends that much time in post-processing. anyone that really knows what they are doing spends most of their time setting up lights and getting them balanced. this doesn't mean that it has to be tons of expensive lights. i started with umbrellas, pocket wizards and 90 dollar vivitar flash heads. if you can master that, you can shoot almost any lighting setup after that.


----------



## Balmiesgirl (Feb 13, 2012)

tirediron said:
			
		

> Sorry Pete, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.  "Professional" simply means that someone is paid for their work whether it's as a photographer or a historian.  The real question, I think is:  "Are these images of a standard that a client would pay for the rights to them for commercial use?"  I think the answer is "No, not yet", but they are getting close.  Some more practice, and you'll be there.


Technically professional means you earn over 51% of your total income from photography. But to be a true professional you should be able to produce high quality photographs and deliver them in a professional manner. You should be responsible, fully insured, have the equipment and the KNOWLEDGE and SKILL to get the job done. I know many photographers who claim to be pros because they got paid for a job then they bite off more than they can chew and go ruining the reputation of pros in general! I have been dealing with this in my community. A lady who calls herself a pro has been destroying the local market with her ignorance and stupidity! After dealing with her the local clients would rather buy a camera and try to do it themselves than deal with what she puts them through! 
That said, don't let it discourage you from trying, just DON'T CLAIM TO BE SOMETHING YOU ARE NOT! Do your best, be honest with the clients and charge for your work. Experience will get you to the "pro" level


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 13, 2012)

Also there is little or no room/dead for the ad agency to place the text or room for options to frame them in?


----------



## MReid (Feb 13, 2012)

Go look at product brochures for this type of product and see for yourself.  For now the answer is no, closer to snapshots than professional level work.


----------



## CCericola (Feb 13, 2012)




----------



## JReichert (Feb 15, 2012)

Oh man - there's so much you can do with instruments!  (please ignore chromatic aberration over the pickup)   I used to work for the biggest music store in the nation and one afternoon got to play around with a few PRS guitars that a long-distance customer was interested in and wanted photos of.  I used my camera and dug out the old studio stuff that the co. used before they got rid of their photography dept.  I've never worked with studio equipment, but it didn't take any time to set up the lights and position myself to get the catchlights I wanted.

Honestly - I would not say you're in a position to be paid - but who knows, you may actually find people willing to pay you.  Get a dark backdrop, pay attention to the details, and google other product photographers to see what techniques they're using.


----------

