Hi Julie, It was not mean't to be a tad on the negative side, it was negative. I live and work in an area where businesses have been gutted like fish. Several large studios have gone under and general layoffs in this area have been 20% higher than the national average. We have photographers from NY and LA moving here to try and get gigs. They move back pretty quick. Many of my best clients have disappeared over the last 18 months. I had 4 employees, and three part time assistants working for me and I had to let them all go. The day I finally saw your post, I had just spent the better part of a week assembling a team to do a large project, after a bid was accepted by a new client. At the last second an admin staff member informed the AD that she could shoot the project in house for costs well below mine because there is no labor fees or usage. I brought the idea for the shoot to the client, they loved it, I assembled the pre and post production team needed and they loved that as well. The campaign would have been the largest I've had in nearly 18 months and would have provided good income for three people besides me just in time for Christmas. All shot to shit by an admin staffer who says that she can shoot it because she has a new digital camera and took photo 101 course in JC. Fast forward to today, I got a call that the shoot is back on, and that budget has been cut somewhat, but the images shot by the staffer were not up to the QUALITY the client was looking for. That is why they hire me, NOT because I use a certain type of lighting/camera/film/digital. You are 100% correct my earlier post was negative and somewhat jaded. And it was and still is, spot on. It used to be that pros had to compete with pros for a gig and your rep and creativity were what got you the gigs. That was then this is now. Now we compete w/ uncles, secretaries, and any shmo w/ a digital camera and the ability to focus and push the shutter. I have even had people show up at my shoots with there own camera thinking they could just "shoot over my shoulder" and use more than I was selling. You stated that you were using the images for "marketing purposes". I was not aware that marketing was an internal function. After all I don't market to my self. If you want to ask technical questions to increase your chops go for it. We all had to. I would love to help just like all the others on the list. But I will not help you take jobs and money from pros. So were you honest in your first use or your second? Questions? Les Baldwin BTW I did not start from the cradle but I was in grade school. Hmm.... interesting reply. A tad on the negative side considering all the helpful (and humorous) replies I received before yours. Unlike yourself, I was not born a professional photographer. I am trying to learn what I can about photography techniques while I tackle my other job responsibilities. We do use an independant, professional, non-jaded type photographer for some photo shoots, but we cannot always justify the price he charges for every purpose. Most of what I do is for internal use, so it doesn't need to be 'ass-kicking' quality, but I try to do the best I can. That's all. --- Les Baldwin <fotofx@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > Hi Julie, > > Unlike my colleagues on this list I feel that the > actual question is not > HOW we can help, but it should be, IF you should be > helped. The pros on > this list are not helping themselves or the other > pros by assisting you. > > No offense intended but this is really the realm of > the professional, > qualified commercial photographer. The reason your > images are low in > quality has nothing to do with the EQUIPMENT, but > your actual skills. > > Your company has several sites, and what looks like > enough income to > hire a good photographer to do your marketing > images, yet they want you > to do it for free. Even if you have basic photo > skills you should not do > any photography for them without either charging > them extra or (unless > you were hired to be a photographer in which case > you do not have even > basic skills). > But if you are here in our forum asking basic > questions you should not > be charging for image creation either. > > That leads me to think that you and/your company > feels that having a > better camera makes you a better photographer, which > is also false. The > images you posted are barely good enough for the > average company access > badge much less advertising or marketing. > > Go to your manager and tell them to hire a pro you > will get better > results, faster, and the images will help generate > the needed business, > and you can go back to your regular job. Nothing > looks worse on the > printed page then bad photography. > > Les Baldwin > Professional photographer > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Julie A" <juliebread@yahoo.com> > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - > Professionals - Students" > <photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:06 AM > Subject: Question about lighting... > > > > Hi ho, > > > > I'm Julie. > > I'm trying to get some advice on lighting. Please > let > > me know if this is not the appropriate place to > ask > > this. > > > > Here's the deal. At work I take pictures of > > co-workers for marketing purposes. The camera I > use > > is a basic Sony digital camera (2.1 megapixel) > with a > > simple flash. > > > > Needless to say, indoor pictures stink with this > > set-up. The pictures come out dark, the digital > color > > information isn't there, and the light diffusion > is > > virtually non-existent. > > > > I recently borrowed a Canon digital camera with a > > nicer flash. One that I could tilt towards the > > ceiling to bounce the flash to diffuse the light. > The > > lighting in these pics was fantastic compared to > the > > Sony set-up. > > > > Unfortunately, our budget is limited so the Canon > > w/nice flash is out (~$1,200). And I cannot buy > the > > flash only because the Sony doesn't support > external > > flashes. > > > > For reference, here's a pic from each camera - > don't > > laugh ;) > > Sony: > > http://www.precisionind.com/pic1.png > > Canon: > > http://www.precisionind.com/pic2.png > > > > So my (long winded) question is, assuming the Sony > CAN > > take good pictures w/appropriate lighting, what > kind > > of indoor lighting solution would anyone > recommend? > > I've thought of the nice big, round diffusing > lights > > you see at the photography studio. Would that do > the > > trick? Are these affordable (around $300-400)? > > > > Anyway, sorry for my lack of proper terminology. > > Thanks for any advice! > > Julie > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. > > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > > > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
