# Using the appropriate equipment for the job??? (Advice from a long time studio shooter)



## epatsellis

I'll admit, I've been at this a lot longer than most here have been alive, and come from a traditional studio shooter background. However, a few threads have brought me to the tipping point and I've got to vent. .........

Granted the days of using view cameras for product work are, for the most part, long gone. Yet there are a slew of tools and equipment developed over a century of studio use to make shooting "things" easier. From using a boom to hold a light over a set to studio stands, shooting tables and other studio "furniture". 

A lot of the questions I see asked here are indicators of a lack of the most basic skills, threads about the most basic equipment choices'; what lens should I use, grainy images (sic), etc. Threads about basic lighting questions, from equipment choices to how to eliminate reflections.

I can offer some advice from someone who has probably shot more Polaroids in a studio than most here have shot digital images: Before you convince anybody to pay you to shoot for them, learn the basics, understand how aperture, shutter speed and ISO interrelate, understand why shooting at a camera's base ISO is important to image quality. Learn about lighting, buy "Light: Science and Magic" and really study it. Understand white balance, (for example, when shooting under tungsten light you should use a color correction filter, as all DSLR sensors are daylight balanced and shifting white balance will introduce noise, reduce dynamic range and introduce a non linear response in the blue channel. Using an 80 series filter will restore the image to daylight before it reaches the sensor (at a 2 stop penalty...)) 

Learn, learn, learn. Do what many of us have spent 30+ years doing, and understand photography at an instinctual level. Or as Ansel Adams said (paraphrasing) "Technical proficiency allows creativity".  Shoot hundreds of things from around your house, replicate images you see in magazines and ads, shoot til you can look at an image and deconstruct lighting, focal length, etc. 

To properly shoot products require some equipment and it costs money. Learning takes a lot of time and effort. If you aren't willing to invest in what it takes to do the job properly, both time and money, please save yourself and your reputation, your client and the "trade" by simply declining. I've seen far too many here that take on a job then scramble to get advice on how to do it. You're doing yourself and your clients a disservice, their living may very well depend on your skills, directly or not. It's a huge responsibility that few appreciate, your images represent everything your client is, from the viewer's perspective, and if you have doubts, you shouldn't be doing it, period. There's a saying in racing, "if you want to play, you've got to pay". And if you want to really be at the top of your game shooting product and commercial work, it's just as valid. If you're serious about shooting product, the price of a used studio stand is incredibly cheap...My 12' Cambo UST with every accessory known to man cost me $400 and a tank of gas. I only needed a 9', and had to cut the column down, but if I'm not mistaken,$400 is a lot less than the latest "carbon fiber, practically makes you a photo god, can't possibly be considered a pro without" wonder tripod that seems to be all the rage these days...no accounting for taste I suppose.

Product and commercial work used to be the pinnacle of the photographic business, you had to have a complete, diverse working knowledge of every aspect of photography, set design and building, lighting, working to a layout, and much more. Today, not so much, apparently. The several commercial shooters I know that are still working (four of which "came into their own"/honed their skills in my studio) all have pretty much the same attitude, as soon as they can retire they will, the cost of maintaining a professionally staffed and equipped studio today is at best marginal, from an economic standpoint. Demand keeps dropping, though considering what I've seen in the market, there's a true lack of imaging skill at a technical level today.

Perhaps I'm a dinosaur, but professionalism, skill and ability to deliver a product of the highest quality (in this case an image) in a timely manner are a rare thing these days. While retired from commercial photography, I still find and excuse here and there to shoot, though only a tiny portion of my income is derived from my commercial shooting anymore. The images I get from clients for use, many of them Fortune 500 companies, are shocking. Blown highlights, noisy shadows, white balance that is anything but, and horrible lighting, seem to be the norm these days. 
Probably 5% of the images I see are usable as is, and professionally present the product. 

Of course the (insert air quotes here)photographers are only half of the equation, as AD's and CD's see budgets cut, they trim corners where they can and squeeze every vendor along the way. Ever try bargaining with an ad agency, it plain doesn't happen. They charge what they charge and that's that. (and if you thing lawyers are expensive....) Yet everybody that supplies them is expected to toe the line, every time you hear "then next job will be for more money", your being lied to...Run away, fast....Really, really fast. By working for a photo credit, you've established your price with that client, you'll never get that "next job", I'll put money on that. And, you've unknowingly told the client what you fell your work is worth...think about that for a moment and the reason you're more likely to find a rainbow farting unicorn in your garage tomorrow morning than that mythical "next job" should be obvious. I do a lot of pro bono work, but I approach the company or charity and offer my services, not the other way around, without any the attendant expectations that go with it. 


I'll stop ranting now, and welcome other's opinions openly.

erie


----------



## zagg77

You make a lot of interesting points here, Im surprised no one has commented yet as I think its a really interesting topic. Heres my take on a few of the points you've raised.

I haven't been in this business as long as you, but my observation is that, for those working at the 'higher end' of the industry the demand for top quality imagery is as in demand as ever. I think those at the 'mid-end' of the industry (which is where most of us are I guess) have it the hardest, and are being squeezed all the time by people offering sub-par images at rock-bottom prices to clients who can't tell the difference anyway. I think the only way forward is to strive to be produce work at a high enough level that 'cheapo guys with cameras' couldn't even dream of getting close to producing the same kind of work. In my opinion, I think its vital to know photoshop very well (or hire a dedicated retoucher), CGI is also playing a larger part in product photography, in particular automotive. I believe that, sadly, the old model of photography is slowly dying out as the technical side is no longer seen by many as a valuable skill, due to the ease of use of digital and the affordability of good quality of DSLRs (not saying I agree). This has meant that at the lower end of the industry there is practically no barrier entry any more, and anyone with a few hundred quid to spend on kit can set themselves up as a photographer. 

I think in a lot of cases you'll find inexperienced wedding/portrait photographers getting asked (by equally inexperienced clients) to do product shots with absolutely no understanding of whats involved, quoting daft lowball prices,  thinking its easy. Then finding they get unstuck on the basics and expecting people who have actually put the effort and time in to learn to give them the answer, like its that easy. I feel your frustration at this, but at the end of the day these aren't your competitors and the clients who hire them are mostly bottom feeders who would never pay a decent rate anyway. 

Mark


----------



## The_Traveler

I guess I agree with both of you about the decline in skills.

There is a prevailing attitude that, if someone asks you to do it, go right ahead. 
But the world and customer base that you were used to and trained to satisfy has changed dramatically.

What used to be the norm is now upscale and the norm is incredibly larger because the use of images has grown apace. 
Like it or not, it is what it is.

In regards to TPF, unfortunately the old norms have slipped and the site is catering to the greater masses.


----------



## Dave442

I'm sure that being able to offer your services cheaper can generate business. I remember about 20 years ago when our company brought in a photographer to do some product shots, with the entire process done very professionally. Then a couple years ago I remember that someone from our marketing department (amateur photographer) used her P&S for some product shots. 

Of course a most of these images are now just put up on the internet and not used in full page magazine advertisements or printed catalogs and I don't know if that has also been a factor. 

What I remember is the professional photographer knew the photography side and spent most of his time finding out what was to be delivered and preparing ahead of time while our amateur photographer had to go back and retake photos a number of times to finally have something usable.


----------



## vintagesnaps

I don't do commercial work but am an experienced photographer. I see quite a bit that tells me the person taking the picture doesn't seem to have basic skills such as even holding the camera straight sometimes. That's fine if it's a hobby and just for fun or if someone is here to learn but frustrating and discouraging to see the level of work out there as professional. I guess if it's low priced someone will pay for less than great quality. I don't know if some of this will run its course but it certainly seems to be challenging for many working photographers to stay in business.


----------



## epatsellis

Actually Zagg, I'd contend that digital photography requires even more in depth technical knowledge to end up with a quality image. There's a whole lot of technical details few consider which have a drastic effect on final image quality. 


In my experience, taking an extra few minutes to dust off a product, ensure framing is correct, ensuring you're filtering to correct the light hitting the sensor to 5000K, or filtering, etc. saves hours of editing time. My edits typically consist of import raw into light room, double check for clipping and export to final file format. Or, as I explain to clients, you can pay me now, or pay me for editing, since most jobs these days don't have the several week life cycle we used to have, Time saved gets the final image in their hands quicker. (And is more profitable)

And surprisingly, I still have a few clients that prefer large format film. There's a level of image quality that far exceeds nearly anything most people are doing these days, though my scanback is used for more time sensitive jobs. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## zagg77

Don't misunderstand me, I completely agree with you, I was commenting really about the perception that digital photography is 'easy', its certainly not my view.  I agree that taking time to clean the product, making sure white balance is correct etc. etc saves retouching time,  but for the commercial work I do, post-production and CGI is an integral part of producing a certain look or realising a concept (not just to fix production mistakes), which is what I was talking about. I appreciate this is moving away from the realms of traditional photography, but that was my point about the definition of a professional photographer changing, just my opinion though. 

Unfortunately, there are a huge number of clients now who see quality photography as an unnecessary expense, and just aren't willing to invest the money in true 'professional'  product imagery. I believe much of the problem is to do with (some) peoples inability to tell the difference between a good or bad images (or perhaps lack of understanding of the value of good imagery?). Many clients are happy with images 'that will do' as long as their cheap, and just can't see the value in quality. 

I am talking as a specialist still life photographer who has invested hugely in equipment and has their own studio, so I understand the frustration.


----------



## epatsellis

zagg77 said:


> Don't misunderstand me, I completely agree with you, I was commenting really about the perception that digital photography is 'easy', its certainly not my view.  I agree that taking time to clean the product, making sure white balance is correct etc. etc saves retouching time,  but for the commercial work I do, post-production and CGI is an integral part of producing a certain look or realising a concept (not just to fix production mistakes), which is what I was talking about. I appreciate this is moving away from the realms of traditional photography, but that was my point about the definition of a professional photographer changing, just my opinion though.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are a huge number of clients now who see quality photography as an unnecessary expense, and just aren't willing to invest the money in true 'professional'  product imagery. I believe much of the problem is to do with (some) peoples inability to tell the difference between a good or bad images (or perhaps lack of understanding of the value of good imagery?). Many clients are happy with images 'that will do' as long as their cheap, and just can't see the value in quality.
> 
> I am talking as a specialist still life photographer who has invested hugely in equipment and has their own studio, so I understand the frustration.



There's a perception of ease, I agree. While the difference between good, good enough, and excellent have narrowed, truly exceptional images still garner attention. One of the things I learned returning to school to get my BA was the value of a formal art education. Not so much the photography side, for me, but the ability to have a common language, to speak about images from a critical perspective. The terminology, compositional methods and color theory can make a so-so photographer exceptional. I worked with three fellow students and over the course of one year, the difference was astounding. A big part of that was brutally honest critique sessions, learning to separate criticism about your work and you, the person.

Technical skill still plays a huge role though, I shot this image as portfolio piece, which ultimately gained me three local wineries as clients: winecomposite Explore epatsellis photos on Flickr. epatse Flickr - Photo Sharing 

(I'll have to upload the image from my desktop, iPads suck for some things)

It's an excellent example of dark field lighting and compositing methods. This is a composite of 4 images shot on a custom built wine bottle fixture I built years ago that allows one to get the light to wrap around the bottom edge of the bottle.


----------



## chuasam

I took a class on still life product and I hated it. 
My chosen field is portraiture and it's all about bantering and keeping your sitter at ease and focused. Knowing the right angles and having a good makeup artist. 
It shocks me to see photographers not use colorcheckers to make sure their balance is right.
Bear in mind clients have gotten really cheap. 
I once quoted for a real estate agent for portrait and headshots. He bargained for 2 more associates to have quick snaps using the same light for the price of his full session. I was like ok fine. Didn't want to lose a job over a quick addition. 

A week before the shoot, he said that he wanted to add in 5 more people in total and a shoot with his dog (literally). I revised the quote accordingly. He also wanted a full body shot of that group with pure white background; which if you know anything is more expensive to pull off in terms of lighting and backdrops and studio size required. He said it was too expensive and he's worked with other photographers willing to do that for a lot less. I told him that was great and he can work with them. 
He came back a day later trying to renegotiate but I told him that he wouldn't be a good fit. 

Moral of the story- clients aren't paying enough to get the real professionals.


----------



## beagle100

chuasam said:


> Moral of the story- clients aren't paying enough to get the real professionals.



right, and of course there is a reason clients aren't paying to get "real professionals".       All the cheap digital cameras enable an amateur to get decent pics for next to nothing.
Photography as a profession is unlike dentistry or engineering or even plumbing,  etc.  where amateur efforts can be not good enough~!


----------



## KmH

Yes, the end user has significantly lowered their standards and are today happy to accept well less than professional quality images because those images are cheap or even free.
"You get what you pay for."

Of course when it comes to products and commercial use, accepting well less than professional quality images can have a negative effect on the revenue and profitability of  companies that routinely accept low quality product/commercial images.


----------



## astroNikon

Dad/Mom goes to Walmart
Buys a $300 dslr
Dad/Mom takes picture of his baby, wife/husband loves it.  Family loves it,  Friends love it.
Dad/Mom continues on to take pictures of family, and friends, and then charges non-friends.
They come here to show their photos of all the "fantastic. incredible, top-notch artistic" baby photos they took from within 3 months of owning a camera and want positive C&C and get "negative" of DOF, blurry, WB, etc comments .. then disappears disappointed from the replies.

Yeah, you'll see this story a lot after Christmas around here.  I'm sure they keep shooting for money too.


----------



## chuasam

These are the sort of competitors that are not worth competing against.
These are the sort of clients you're better off just ignoring.


----------



## Ruth Ellen Brown

I'm not sure about a general decline in skills. I think there have always been a small handful of photographers that can actually deliver a high quality picture - and that's why they get all the highest paying jobs! I think it's more a case of everyone has a camera now, so there are lots of amateurs labeling themselves as professionals and delivering sub-standard commercial work. But in the end, the work speaks for itself and the exceptions to the majority will always be the ones that really stand out and are producing stand-out work on a consistent basis. I don't think it undermines the industry that there is sub-standard results being delivered out there - you get what you pay for and most clients need educating as to why real professional photography is worth forking out for. The ones that don't need educating - well, they're the ones with all the money to spend in the first place!


----------



## zagg77

I don't think there is a decline in skills, in fact I would say that, in general, the standard of photography is probably higher than ever before - due to affordability of high quality equipment, a general interest in photography as a hobby and easy access to information and education on the internet  etc. However, with this comes a huge over saturation of 'decent' images. Combine this with the fact that people are willing to work for nothing, and everyone now owns a decent camera (and can do an ok job a lot of the time)  I think that to try and make a good living as a commercial photographer, just taking good photos is becoming incredibly difficult (unless you have extraordinary market skills).


----------



## epatsellis

Zagg,
From my perspective, while the ability to get extremely high quality images with today's equipment is far easier than in the past, the general technical skill set, vis a vis lighting, exposure, compositional skills, etc, is severely lacking. 

It's gotten bad enough that If a design client insists on using their own images, I get either raw files or very carefully generated tif files from the photographer to a very specific set of requirements, and verify licensing as well. All too often I've been handed jpg images that were severely clipped, or curved to the point of non-reproducibility. Never had that problem with 'chromes....lol

I've gotten to the point where I think some of there "photographers" need to spend a few weeks in prepress and actually working on a printing press, my experience with the few I've convinced to do that was an aha moment, where all those silly requirements I have listed all make sense. And, yes, the majority of my work still ends up as ink on paper.


----------



## shmne

I'm not sure how or why but wedding photographers get a much better pay rate from brides than commercial photographers do from businesses. Anyone know how this ended up this way?

I've always wanted to pursue being a commercial photographer by shooting advertisements and product photography because thats what I really love. It just seems that companies aren't seeing the ROI, even if they are getting it. I know there are still product photographers out there but it seems like a very small percentage anymore.


----------



## cherylynne1

shmne said:


> I'm not sure how or why but wedding photographers get a much better pay rate from brides than commercial photographers do from businesses. Anyone know how this ended up this way?



I don't know about the world at large, but I know that when my friends are planning a wedding I always tell them not to skimp on the photographer, because the photos are the only part of the day that will last forever, and they'll probably be looking at the prints every single day. A great photographer will make you look better in a $500 dress than a bad photographer will make you look in a $5,000 dress. And of course, you can't put a price on the sentimentally that is associated with weddings. 

Businesses, on the other hand, are by definition not sentimental. They want the cheapest product they can justify purchasing. 

On the other hand, with business increasingly being done online, I think commercial photography will become much more important. Potential clients aren't meandering through stores anymore, and businesses have literally less than a second to get their attention with just a photo of the product.


----------



## shmne

cherylynne1 said:


> ...On the other hand...



I mentioned it briefly but I really believe most businesses just can't see the return on their photos. I also know some small businesses that honestly take outstanding photos of their own products with a pretty simple set up (especially since online photos are so small you miss many of the details) so that may also have to do with it. The "do it yourself" mentality may also be at work here. Brides simply can't do it themselves to ensure a quality product so they have to rely on whomever they hire, and since so much is already invest I guess it makes sense to protect that invest as much as possible.

Without the ability to monitor my photo's success in an online advertisement or sale it'd be very difficult to prove to any business really that it was a factor in a purchase. Now I'm going to have to create an A/B test with my photo and a client photo to test consumers on it >.> if only I had the proper php skills to set something like this up at a large enough company.


----------



## Derrel

shmne said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how or why but wedding photographers get a much better pay rate from brides than commercial photographers do from businesses. Anyone know how this ended up this way?
> 
> I've always wanted to pursue being a commercial photographer by shooting advertisements and product photography because thats what I really love. It just seems that companies aren't seeing the ROI, even if they are getting it. I know there are still product photographers out there but it seems like a very small percentage anymore.



I'm pretty sure you are correct, and I think it is because of a change in the way marketing, and advertising, are being done; the new way for many companies seems to involve a stream of images, released  very quickly, in fairly rapid succession, and with one image coming into the marketplace right after another; the old idea of ONE, single advertisement running for eight months or more in a major glossy magazine seems to have disappeared for many products. The old idea of media and still photo advertising was geared toward the major venue to advertise in: printed magazines and printed newspapers. Magazines and newspaper circulations have declined, precipitously.

Magazines offered the best reproduction quality, and big-budget campaigns still exist in them. But the idea of a highly-detailed, perfectly executed, studio-lighted,* single-image* campaign has morphed into the idea of spitting out new images, rapidly, and sending those to social media, where people can "share" the images on Facebook has led to a smaller-file look... The actual advertisements of many companies these days are being spread through social media, and through websites, where New! New! New! is the philosophy associated most highly with their content; gotta' keep that *stream of images* flowing. New images this week! New pics! New! New! New! Which means lower-budget stuff, stuff created quickly.

The switch from the big, high-budget, single-image advertising concept to a cheaper, more easily-created, less-studio-y type of representation of the company and its products has I think, led to lower-quality, and lower-priced images. The idea is no longer to shoot ONE actress, showing ONE item, and then to run that ad only in magazines, for a one-year campaign...now it's more like a constant stream of average-to-good photos that are launched on the web, and through social media...this favors smaller images, lower-resolutioin type shots, "mood" and "lifestyle" type appeals to consumers. The days of trying to "Wow!" consumers with one, single, or double-page photo spread in a glossy magazine has shifted to a wider net.

There are now a LOT of smaller companies who have "some guy on staff" who shoots crappy pics with his camera, and they use those (from awful to decent) images in their media campaigns. When the images are seen at the size of a FB post, it doesn't take much.


----------



## beagle100

zagg77 said:


> I don't think there is a decline in skills, in fact I would say that, in general, the standard of photography is probably higher than ever before - due to affordability of high quality equipment, a general interest in photography as a hobby and easy access to information and education on the internet  etc. However, with this comes a huge over saturation of 'decent' images. Combine this with the fact that people are willing to work for nothing, and everyone now owns a decent camera (and can do an ok job a lot of the time)  I think that to try and make a good living as a commercial photographer, just taking good photos is becoming incredibly difficult (unless you have extraordinary market skills).



true, there are also 000's of unemployed (or underemployed)  ex-newspaper photographers looking for commercial photography jobs


----------



## epatsellis

zagg77 said:


> true, there are also 000's of unemployed (or underemployed)  ex-newspaper photographers looking for commercial photography jobs



Yup, because you know, it's so cheap to outfit a complete working commercial studio...LOL

Even buying used, judiciously over a 4+ year period, and having a lot of the equipment already, I bet I've spent upwards of $75K NOT counting cameras and optics to outfit a small commercial studio. 

I can tell you that in the mid 80's, to set up a working commercial studio with in house lab, multiple Sinar Cameras and Broncolor lighting would run you over $500K...way over.


----------

