# First Dslr and starting up a photography business whats best for me?



## mcguire717

I am going to be purchasing my first canon dslr and I was looking at getting the canon 7D. I will mainly be taking family, baby, kids and sometimes amusement park visit photos. All will be taken in natural light. I am confused as to what multi purpose lense would be best to start out with as I will be adding more specific lenses down the line as a macro and a wide angle lense. I was looking at getting the canon efs 15-85 mm is lens as my first lense. But I was also looking at the tamron 18-200 mm lens. Which would be best for what my purpose is to start with? I'm new to this and want to invest in the best multi purpose lense to start with. I would love the Carl zeiss lenses but also am unsure as to which lens would best suit my needs. I'm open to suggestions. Thanks


----------



## CCericola

The 18-200 is a horrible lens. It's slow, not crisp. Not a pro lens. I think (and someone correct me if I am wrong) that the lens is an EF-S so if you upgrade to a full frame camera it will not work.

I would start with the 50mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.8. Then buy a 70-200 2.8 then maybe a 17-55mm 2.8

Good luck!


----------



## mcguire717

I just want to make sure I get a lens that works for taking photos in natural light up close and also making sure I can take full body shots as well.


----------



## dakkon76

Before you go out and buy a camera with the sole purpose of going into business, I'd suggest that you talk to someone who's got some extensive experience. You're not going to be able to buy a camera and a lens and start making money - it's much more difficult than that. Best of luck to you.


----------



## CCericola

I'm not going to go into the business side of things. You asked about lenses so here you go. The 50mm 1.4 is very fast so it is good in low light and reflectors are a necessity if you are determined to use natural light only. The 50mm can take full length and close up photos. The "zoom" ability is in your feet


----------



## 12sndsgood

yeah id see if your any good at taking photos before you decide to make a business out of it.


----------



## mcguire717

Yes this I understand. I have a professional photographer that I'm am going to be working with. I have a design degree and know lightroom extensively. I am just in the process of trying to figure out what equipment is best for me at this point. The reason I even mentioned the tamron lens is that the photographer I know uses the 7d camera and the 18-270 lens.


----------



## mcguire717

I know I'm very good at taking pics. This is why I have decided to upgrade and pursue a business out of it.


----------



## CCericola

The 18-270 is even worse than the 18-200 in my opinion. Stay away from the all in one lenses. They not for professionals. Don't forget older lenses can work too. A used 70-200 2.8 is A LOT more valuable to have then a new 18-270 POS.


----------



## mcguire717

Thank you that is helpful.


----------



## bazooka

Mcguire, "first DSLR" and "starting up a photography business" should not be in the same sentence.  That is like saying "I'm shopping for my first paintbrush so I can start my own art gallery".  First you have to learn the trade and then you have to learn about business.  If we're talking about a 10 year plan, then all is well.  But it's hardly relevant to your first lens.

So you need a fast lens for ambient light shooting.  You mentioned getting a macro and wide angle later, and you want something for general purpose.  For a 7D, check out the Tamron 17-50 2.8.  It's a fast zoom and quite sharp for the price.  You can also check out the Canon 24-70 2.8.  This will be more appropriate for later when you get a full frame camera for business purposes if you decide to go that route.  Avoid lenses that have a zoom factor greater than 3x.  Anything beyond 3x and image quality will start to degrade drastically.


----------



## gsgary

mcguire717 said:


> Yes this I understand. I have a professional photographer that I'm am going to be working with. I have a design degree and know lightroom extensively. I am just in the process of trying to figure out what equipment is best for me at this point. The reason I even mentioned the tamron lens is that the photographer I know uses the 7d camera and the 18-270 lens.



A pro would not use that lens


----------



## Tomasko

mcguire717 said:


> Yes this I understand. I have a professional photographer that I'm am going to be working with. I have a design degree and know lightroom extensively. I am just in the process of trying to figure out what equipment is best for me at this point. The reason I even mentioned the tamron lens is that the photographer I know uses the 7d camera and the 18-270 lens.


Just promise you won't learn a thing from that pro....


----------



## dots

mcguire717 said:


> All will be taken in natural light.


  You'll need a flash and the accessories/technique to use it.


----------



## bazooka

Gary is correct.

Furthermore, it's best to approach this forum with a healthy helping of humility.  90% of the people that say things like "I know I'm very good at taking pics" don't know what they are doing.


----------



## mcguire717

Thanks for the help. I should have mentioned that this is a plan to evole this into a business over several years. Right now it is in the beginning learning process and then as part time to bring in extra money on the side for my family. Eventually I would love for it to be a full time business.


----------



## mcguire717

I made the comment because of the rude comments I felt like I was getting. That is why. I do not feel that is nice.


----------



## jake337

mcguire717 said:


> I know I'm very good at taking pics. This is why I have decided to upgrade and pursue a business out of it.



Show some of your work then.....


----------



## MLeeK

I don't think they were being rude on purpose, but I am as new as you are so... I don't know! 
Usually when you see a post like yours it's someone who got this bright idea to buy a camera and open a studio. 
I'd really seriously question the pro you are working with too. That isn't a great quality lens and any professional worth their salt wouldn't want to use it. It's a vacation walk around lens. 
When a lens covers that much zoom there is a lot of compromising on how the elements work together through that zoom... Compromising isn't something any good professional wants to do with image quality. 
An all-in-one lens is for someone who wants to have a lens that covers everything like for traveling or something. The only thing that comes to mind is vacation where you don't want to take a bunch of lenses.

Instead of buying another lens right away, why not get the camera and the kit lens. Start using and learning on it. Then you will get an idea what you need and want. If you just buy something now because it looks like it will be neat, you probably won't like it later. That would be a bunch of money you could have saved.


----------



## Overread

Friendly reminder to keep things civil and polite to each other


mcguire717 - it would be best if you can outline more of your plan both short and long term as what you have presented thus far (esp in your opening post) is sounding a lot of warning sirens in many professionals minds on this site. The more detail you can put up the better people will be able to understand your full position in this and your full longer-term goals. They might also be able to make some suggestions as to changes or alternatives that you could make which might well allow you to avoid common pitfalls. 


With regard to the superzoom lenses mentioned; I know pros who will use those lenses, but they only use them as a light scouting lens for scouting out a location prior to a shoot. The lens is not intended to form any part of their main shooting nor their main shots barring all their other gear being lost/damaged on route to location.


----------



## dakkon76

jake337 said:


> mcguire717 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I'm very good at taking pics. This is why I have decided to upgrade and pursue a business out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show some of your work then.....
Click to expand...


It's not your job to police his level of competence. He asked for advice. Either give it to him, or choose not to... but demanding proof is a bit childish, isn't it?


----------



## o hey tyler

mcguire717 said:


> I know I'm very good at taking pics. This is why I have decided to upgrade and pursue a business out of it.



It takes more than believing that you can "take very good pics". You also need to understand the concepts of photography, understand lighting and how it effects your photos, and how the exposure triangle works. I have a strong design background myself, but I haven't started really charging for photography until 3.5yrs into my photographic journey. It's imperative that you understand WHAT lens and settings you use for a certain situation, but you have no grasp on the characteristics of lenses, or how to properly expose shots... yet.

The 'professional' (notice the quotes) photographer you know is using a 7D and an 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3? That's one of the worst lenses to have on the camera, and is nowhere near what a professional should be using. It's a superzoom lens, it has a massively convenient zoom range, but not a master of optical quality in any regard. I would not charge a client for images taken with a lens of that caliber, as it would be a disservice to them, and other photographers. I'd use it for a leisure lens, when you don't want to swap between primes. To couple a 7D with that lens is borderline blasphemous, as it's capable of so much more if it had good quality glass in front of it. 

Imagine buying yourself a fast, agile, and sexy Porsche 911. Then taking the Porsche to an automotive shop to put a Geo Metro 3cyl 1.6L engine in it, AND THEN beating the body of the Porsche with a baseball bat. That's the real world equivalent to what's happening on the "professional's photographer's" camera. 

To be completely honest with you, you're way in over your head. You need to step back, and think about this. 

You say you have a degree in design, so let me use this as an example... What would you think of someone who has had no design training or coaching that goes out to purchase the Adobe Design Suite (PS, InDesign, Illustrator, etc.), and decides they want to be a graphic designer? They will start promoting themselves as a designer, and charging for designs. They won't know how to effectively use any of the immensely powerful programs at their disposal, but they'll wade through tutorials on youtube and scare something up for the client. It won't be good. As a matter of fact, it will probably be downright terrible. They won't know how to charge their clients for the amount of work that they're doing, because they've had no business experience. 

My suggestion to you, would be to start out with a 60D with a kit lens and an 50mm f/1.4. If you are really serious about photography, that will give you a great start.


----------



## mcguire717

Like I said before a few times now. That I am trying to learn and thought that this forum would help with that. I said I am doing this as part time income in the next 9 months and then working on making this a full time functioning business in about 3-4 years. I would only shoot families, babies/kids in natural light. I was only looking for advise in which multi purpose lens would be good to start out learning how to shoot with for what my needs would be with shooting families and kids. This isn't a quick decision to start up a business and I know it takes time to learn and I am willing to do that. I would hope people on here who are the professionals would give me good advise and those who don't know how to be professional please don't comment as I'm just trying to learn ad you once did. Thank you.


----------



## Overread

Can you give us a working idea of your starting budget that you have to work with (country/where you are also helps since local prices will differ nation to nation)


----------



## mcguire717

I would like to stay around $2000 and I'm in the US and in southwest Florida.


----------



## MLeeK

mcguire717 said:


> I would like to stay around $2000 and I'm in the US and in southwest Florida.


 That is for camera with kit lens and secondary lens or camera body only and a good lens? (sorry!)


----------



## MissCream

mcguire717 said:


> Like I said before a few times now. That I am trying to learn and thought that this forum would help with that. *I said I am doing this as part time income in the next 9 months and then working on making this a full time functioning business in about 3-4 years.* I would only shoot families, babies/kids in natural light. I was only looking for advise in which multi purpose lens would be good to start out learning how to shoot with for what my needs would be with shooting families and kids. This isn't a quick decision to start up a business and I know it takes time to learn and I am willing to do that. I would hope people on here who are the professionals would give me good advise and those who don't know how to be professional please don't comment as I'm just trying to learn ad you once did. Thank you.



It took me 3-4 years to start doing it part time. Even then I started off not charging anything...


The lenses I use right now (I know nothing about Canon lenses) are a Sigma 50mm 2.8, Pentax 50mm1.4 and, believe it or not, my kit lens. I have a 50-200 that I'm tempted just to throw in the garbage because I don't want anyone to end up having to use it because it is just plain awful!! Like the others have said I would start out with a 50mm and your kit lens to learn the basics. Good luck  And just out of curiosity I also want to see some of your great pictures


----------



## mcguire717

The $2000 would be for the camera body and good lenses. Sorry I didn't clarify. I would not be charging until I felt I had a professional product. If it took me 3 years to achieve that then that is when I would charge or if it was sooner than so be. I want to learn and be professional but have to start somewhere and I realize that I have alot to learn.


----------



## jake337

dakkon76 said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mcguire717 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I'm very good at taking pics. This is why I have decided to upgrade and pursue a business out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show some of your work then.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not your job to police his level of competence. He asked for advice. Either give it to him, or choose not to... but demanding proof is a bit childish, isn't it?
Click to expand...


I just wanted to see some of Their work. How is this childish. Where the individuals skillset sits now can be a factor in giving advice.

Maybe their work is pretty damn good already. I may suggest taking out a large loan and get an entire pro system in place. If it's a beginner one may suggest a different route. How is this childish.


----------



## mcguire717

I am a female if you still think its childish.


----------



## jake337

mcguire717 said:


> I am a female if you still think its childish.



Huh?

Either way I just wanted to see some photos.  This is a photo forum.


----------



## MLeeK

I'd go with the 7D with the 28-135 lens $1700
Canon 50mm f/1.8. Even though it's a cheap lens, it's a good learning tool for a lot of reasons. $115
8G memory card of at least decent quality $50 or somewhere around there.


----------



## mcguire717

I appreciate everyone who is being helpful.


----------



## mcguire717

I have a friend who has a NIKON d90 and she suggested that I may want to look into this also instead of the canon 7d. Does anyone have a any thoughts on this? It was under my impression that the canon 7d was a better dslr. As I don't want to have to buy multiple cameras. I would prefer to purchase one then up grade to a full frame model. Any thoughts on which one is better?


----------



## dots

You're welcome.


----------



## MLeeK

The D7000 is more comparable with the 7D if you want to go with Nikon. It replaced the D90.


----------



## dots

5D is full-frame.


----------



## mcguire717

Does anyone have any opinion on who's got the better camera Canon or NIKON?


----------



## jake337

I would suggest looking into used bodies and used lens.  I get confused about canon's different mounts available.  If it were nikon it would be easy, grab a cheap used body and spend as much as you can on used pro glass.  The thing is with Nikon almost every lens ever made will mount on almost every body they've made. 

So find a cheap, used body that will mount canons pro glass and use that body to learn.  When your ready to start making some money, upgrade to canons newest FF body(or whatever body will fit your needs) and you'll already have your lens system in place.


----------



## jake337

mcguire717 said:


> Does anyone have any opinion on who's got the better camera Canon or NIKON?



There is no one is better than the other. Most responses would be based on personal preference.  The only reason I went with nikon over canon is almost every nikon lens made will mount and work on a nikon camera.

Is there a local camera store near you?  Preferably a small, local store not your best buys store?  Go and ask to hold a few, take a few pictures with each.  One just might feel more comfortable in your hands than the other.


----------



## mcguire717

Thank you is there anything I should look out for when purchasing a camera body or lenses used?


----------



## dots

Buy from an established dealer in used gear.


----------



## dots

Like these...
Mifsuds Photographic Ltd

Online Camera Retailers with Stores in London and Chelmsford - CameraWorld.co.uk


...or American/ROTW etc equivalents.


----------



## MTVision

mcguire717 said:
			
		

> Thank you is there anything I should look out for when purchasing a camera body or lenses used?



It's always nice to know the shutter count when you buy a used body.


----------



## Kerbouchard

mcguire717 said:


> I have a friend who has a NIKON d90 and she suggested that I may want to look into this also instead of the canon 7d. Does anyone have a any thoughts on this? It was under my impression that the canon 7d was a better dslr. As I don't want to have to buy multiple cameras. I would prefer to purchase one then up grade to a full frame model. Any thoughts on which one is better?



Intriguing.  Okay, you have one friend with a Canon 7D and a 18-270 and another friend with a Nikon D90 and ?

When somebody asks what camera system they should buy, there are a few important things to consider.  All of the manufacturers make good cameras, and just about all of the camera models are priced pretty competitively with similar features.  There is no best.  If there was, the others would be out of business.

Next thing, most will say go with what feels best in your hands.  I typically agree with this line of thought, but I have also been conditioned by what I have used in the past.  For me, shooting with a Canon is like trying to staple two pieces of paper together with a hammer.  It can be done, but it's not exactly natural.  Nikon for me just feels right.  Canon shooters feel the same way.  I think it's more the familiarity than the 'comfort'.  In any case, it one is just horrible for you, rule it out.

Last consideration is why I found your post intriguing...All things being equal(which they usually are), I would say go with what your friends shoot.  They provide an invaluable support network.  Everything from questions about how to do things, borrowing gear you don't have, getting to use gear before you buy it, and last minute emergencies.  When I first started assisting weddings, my battery charger for my camera died(I dropped it).  Couldn't charge my battery.  I was in a panic, and the day of the wedding was standing outside the only camera store in my area that carried it(45 miles away) at 6 a.m. waiting for them to open.  It would have been a lot easier to call up a friend the night it happened and ask to borrow theirs.

In any case, Nikon/Canon/any of the big names will serve you well.  My advice would be to go with where you have the biggest support network.  FWIW, if I had been shooting Pentax/Sony/Sigma, I would have missed that wedding, because there is no way a local camera store would have had it in stock.


----------



## mcguire717

Thank you so much! I will have to visit a local specialty camera store and see which one is best in hand. I think I may have been swade to the NIKON to ensure that most likely the lenses will fit a future camera upgrade and my friend who has the NIKON really liked the d90 before upgrading to the d3s I believe. Her photos are amazing.


----------



## jake337

mcguire717 said:


> Thank you so much! I will have to visit a local specialty camera store and see which one is best in hand. I think I may have been swade to the NIKON to ensure that most likely the lenses will fit a future camera upgrade and my friend who has the NIKON really liked the d90 before upgrading to the d3s I believe. Her photos are amazing.



Again whatever fits your hands the best. It's also nice having a friend who's using the same platform. But if your jumping into pro level gear you can't go wrong either way. Canon and nikon pro level gear is just that, pro level gear.


----------



## mcguire717

One last question does anyone have any thoughts on the 35mm lens on the NIKON?


----------



## dots

Start a 1.8/35 thread in the Nikon section :thumbup:


----------



## dots

...oop...or even use search, for it. They may be one (at least) already.

I haven't used that lens..


cheers,


----------



## cgipson1

OP... please post some shots... would love to see how good you are!


----------



## Zrock

As stated above several times go with what feels comfortable in your hands. Its the person behind the equipment that makes the picture not the name of the camera. When i got mine i tried them both and felt the Nikon did not balance well in my hands and just did not feel comfortable. Not to mention Canon has a smoking deal on my camera when i got it. When i got mine it was a rush buy my point and shoot was way to slow and i missed one of those "once in a lifetime pic's" of my 2 month old little girl. Grabbed the visa and out the door i went


----------



## Village Idiot

Overread said:


> Friendly reminder to keep things civil and polite to each other



Yes mother.



mcguire717 said:


> I would only shoot families, babies/kids in natural light.



Do you understand the implications of this statement? This limits you to two or three times a day when you can shoot to get a good sky if you're outside with no cover and that's in mostly rapidly changing lighting conditions. This means that if you do shoot outside, you'll be primarily seeking shade and at the mercy of any stray light. This means that if you're shooting indoors, you'll constantly be fighting WB of ambient light sources and if you have two separate light sources in the room (say light from a window and a standard incandescent bulb), you're going to have a huge mess that you may not be able to sort in post, no matter how experienced you are?

That also means that if you're shooting indoors, your subjects will look like corpses with bags under their eyes. This means you'll always fight to have a good catch light, a good rim light, a good hair light, a good key light, and a good contrast from lighting. This also means that the most amateur person with an off camera flash and a little bit of knowledge will most always have a one up on you no matter how much experience you have.

Photography is about capturing light and if you don't have the gumption to create the right lighting conditions, your photography will suffer. Well, at least in portraiture.

Shot mid day at a horse farm. It wouldn't have been possible without lighting equipment. *NOT SHOT IN A STUDIO.

*


----------



## bazooka

Well said VI.


----------



## mcguire717

I can see most people on here prefer lighting equipment. That said I am not ruling out lighting equipment for a studio one day. I prefer not to invest a ton of money into equipment when I am a beginner. There are plenty of natural light photographers out there. One of my friends has a very successful natural light photography business and never uses any additional lighting equipment. I realize that I can only shoot at certain times of the day and that I am reliant on the weather conditons. This does not bother me in the least. I would prefer to gain knowledge with natural light first then when I am more knowledgeable I would venture into lighting for a studio. I'm not sure if it was meant to be helpful but some comments come across as rude. Rememeber I am a beginner and just learning.


----------



## Village Idiot

mcguire717 said:


> I can see most people on here prefer lighting equipment. That said I am not ruling out lighting equipment for a studio one day. I prefer not to invest a ton of money into equipment when I am a beginner. There are plenty of natural light photographers out there. One of my friends has a very successful natural light photography business and never uses any additional lighting equipment. I realize that I can only shoot at certain times of the day and that I am reliant on the weather conditons. This does not bother me in the least. I would prefer to gain knowledge with natural light first then when I am more knowledgeable I would venture into lighting for a studio. I'm not sure if it was meant to be helpful but some comments come across as rude. Rememeber I am a beginner and just learning.



Then stop being stubborn and telling us what you don't need. Lighting for a studio? Why? Why not lighting in general? A ton of money into equipment? For under $200 you can get a single off camera flash speedlight or monolight. I don't have a studio and all my shooting is done on location. I own a set of powerful lights and a set of speedlights for portability. Granted, I spent some money on them, but you don't need to spend $300-$400 on one speedlight or you don't need a $4,000 set of lights and modifiers while learning.

I don't know any natural light portrait photographers that are in business; every successful photographer that I know that's in business for themselves or for someone else uses just natural light. It's a tool just like a lens or a camera and not learning how to use it properly will cause your photography to suffer. Hell, even a fill flash on the camera can go a long way to eliminating shadows and highlights when shooting outside.

Read this:
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html

Look at all the OCF photos here:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/


----------



## dots

mcguire717, 
Fair enough. Taking potshots at less-than-useful assumptions isn't the way. You'll achieve what you see in your mind's eye or you'll realise you need creative lighting..even in situations you thought it unnecessary. Subtle use of additional lighting isn't always obvious to everyone.


----------



## mcguire717

How childish se people by calling someone stubborn. I do happen to know a natural light photographer who is fab and is doing extremely well for herself. I have come onto this forum for advise and not to be critized for the way I am trying to do something. I don't find it professional that people would attack me for no reason. I'm a beginner and not trying to compete with a professional at this point. Info is all I was looking for with the way I want to do things.


----------



## Village Idiot

Being a beginner and whining about the fact that we're telling you information that you don't want to hear is indeed childish. Calling someone stubborn is being realistic.


----------



## Overread

But the more experienced photographers are trying to point out that the way you want to do things is not the most advised path to take.

Try seeing it this way - you can be a natural light photographer, but if you want to be one by choice you have to first learn fully how to control and manipulate both natural and artificial light. In other words you've got to learn how to use a flash properly - then how to use two or three or more. You have to build up the skills to use those tools to a good degree and then you can make the informed choice yourself to not use those tools; whilst fully understanding what situations and conditions you are limiting yourself to. 

If you approach things by not learning to use those tools you'll be a "natural light photographer" but you'll be one through a lack of understanding of anything else which will seriously hamper your results. Asides which most of the learning of flash control and light manipulation still applies for the natural light photographer - reflectors, diffusers, shade and the like are all part and parcel of both fields.


----------



## Derrel

bazooka said:


> Mcguire, "first DSLR" and "starting up a photography business" should not be in the same sentence.  That is like saying "I'm shopping for my first paintbrush so I can start my own art gallery".  First you have to learn the trade and then you have to learn about business.  If we're talking about a 10 year plan, then all is well.  But it's hardly relevant to your first lens.



Tough love there.


----------



## mcguire717

Again I do not feel like anyone is listening. This is a group of photographers who I deem unprofessional and would never want to pay for any kind of job. I'll stick with what my natural light photographer is going and her way since she's making $5000 a month found it her way. I'm sure most of you don't even come close to that. Pity on you for putting people down. I'm deleting this app. A bunch of unprofessional people


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

mcguire717 said:


> I would only shoot families, babies/kids in natural light.


You might want to rethink that plan.
It would be in your best interest to learn how to use supplemental lighting if you really want to make money.
"Natural Light" fotographers are literally a dime a dozen.


----------



## Village Idiot

mcguire717 said:


> Again I do not feel like anyone is listening. This is a group of photographers who I deem unprofessional and would never want to pay for any kind of job. I'll stick with what my natural light photographer is going and her way since she's making *$5000 a month *found it her way. I'm sure most of you don't even come close to that. Pity on you for putting people down. I'm deleting this app. A bunch of unprofessional people



:-\

The last new photographer I met wouldn't touch a wedding for that price with a 10' pole and brings in over $500,000 a year. He uses a flash.


----------



## Overread

Ok I'm confused - you're openly arguing against and rejecting the advice of considering learning using supporting lighting and yet you've also started this thread:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-lighting-needs-first-time-studio-set-up.html

So why are you having a go at people for giving you one line of advice when you are already accepting it and considering it as a viable option?


----------



## bazooka

Mcguire, did my comments seem rude to you? If so, I ask you to re-read it knowing that I meant no such thing.

I tried the 'natural light' attempt for a few months, mostly because I was more into landscapes and outdoor photography than anything. But it wasn't until I got a flash, (then 2, then 3 and 4 and 5, can't seem to get enough!) that I started to understand the subtle differences in outdoor atmospheric light, and indoor constant, often uncontrollable light. It greatly accelerated my learning. Even if you want to not have to mess with additional light in the end, just learning it is incredibly educational. There are direct parallel's between a small strobe and modifiers, and the light provided by the sun and atmosphere. I don't think I would have fully realized this, and am in fact still trying to learn as fast as I can, without experience with portable off camera flashes and modifiers.

We're really trying to help you out here.


----------



## JimCoventry

Amen bazooka...


----------



## mangtarn

she's a goner.
I can't believe i actually took my time to read through all this just for the sole purpose of helping a person who is reluctant to help.


----------



## MLeeK

This thread is insane. 
First I want to tell you: I could NOT be a natural light photographer. _*It's harder than HELL.*_ 
If a client asks you to shoot HERE and you are in harsh sun, back lit with issues? You have to tell the client you can't use their choice because it won't work without flash. It just won't. Once you expose properly for the subject in that situation you then begin to have lens issues and the subject begins to disapper in the incredible amount of light from the sun. You MUST always shoot in open shade on a sunny day and you are EXTREMELY limited in the time of day you can shoot. And those times aren't incredibly convient to clients' schedules. 
There are a FEW photographers who do it and do it well. The GOOD ones are _*very few*_, and the ones who aren't so great are a dime a dozen. How do I know that? I go to WPPi every year and every year I see the first year newbies like you thinking just like you do. The second year they are either long gone or they are taking classes on lighting because they want to succeed. The ability to shoot ONE shoot a day and only on the good days is not condusive to a good income from this. And if you think $5000 a month is a good income from this, well you just paid my overhead, but that's about all. It's PEANUTS compared to what a GOOD photographer with skills who can deliver exactly what the client wants WHEN the client wants it (not at dusk or dawn or a cloudy day) has the potential to make. Your friend is hitting the ceiling at $5k for natural light. If that's fine for you, I guess it's fine for you. Be at the whim of nature and turn down the demanding client who pays BIG BUCKS to be demanding. 
Do you see any of my point? It's not being rude or mean or hateful, it's telling you the things I have learned in my 20 years in this business. 

You asked for advice from a group of SEASONED professionals who have been there, done that. You are arguing the same argument that some of them thought or even argued when they started out-and learned the hard way. If that isn't stubborn? Well, then I really don't know what is. 

At this point you are going to pack up all of your righteous indignation and leave. It's the people like you I meet at WPPi and Imaging every year who are no longer in the business. They don't want to learn it, and don't. So, the business is more expensive to be in than you can imagine and they aren't getting the income they need to make it. They're gone in a year. No one here wants to see you fail. They're answering and giving their experiences so that you can learn. No one is sitting here typing because it's fun for them to spend time talking to thin air. They are doing it because they enjoy sharing their knowledge with us and if it helps someone to succeed down the line that's a pretty amazing feeling. 
These people have been there done that. You have the potential to be your friend's low end competition or you have the potential to be a completely different type of photographer than her, to compliment each other and lastly to supass her income because of your flexibility.


----------



## jake337

In life, one can have many friends, you have to ask yourself this though.  Are these friends telling you the truth or just telling you what you want to hear.

I prefer honesty...


----------



## MTVision

I can't believe a thread titled "first dslr and starting up a photography business" got 69 replies. 

Or wait....

I can believe it!


----------

