Well, I'm new to the list and got my intro by reading your response to Julie and I have to say I was more than a bit disappointed. I"m no doubt commiting political suicide on this list by doing this as my first post but here goes--I've never managed to be much of a wallflower, so why start now (wry grin)..... 1) as a former AD for a few upscale national retailers, I can see both sides of this puzzle, and it's not anyone's fault. AD's and others are under increased pressure to produce work inhouse, and they are fighting for their jobs no less than anyone else, and with just as much reason and just as much compunction. No less are those individuals working for smaller firms, that yes, I suppose have the dollars to allocate to properly done portraits, but don't want to allocate those dollars for reasons beyond the control of the marketing/advertising/graphics person.Try to talk a guy who owns a company selling industrical valves the need for a photographer--it ain't gonna happen in most instances. 2) every AD and other individual I've talked to has deplored the fact they are being asked to produce product, staff, and lifestyle photos, but when your job is at risk, it's difficult to deal with. Am I supposed to put my job at risk because your photography studio is suffering (and I don't mean that facetiously)?? Sorry, my but my kids groceries are more important. 3) In every circumstance I possibly could, I pushed having a professional photographer to do a shoot--unfortunately that backfired in many instances--many dollars worth of poorly done work--we did the research, but ended up with poorly done work in numerous instances. Too many very high strung individuals who couldn't do the deadlines, even given a couple of months warning. Too many "artistes"--not enough workers. Not enough talent. 4) the former did much to undermine my ability to succour commercial photographers--more and more I was supposed to do my own photos, which I NEVER but I did secure stock photos or find photographers thru getty or some such agency I knew I could trust. Actually, we researched them thru getty or corbis, and bought shots they hadn't sold as yet 5) Because of all of that, many advertising campaigns that were very promising went down the tubes. You are placing the blame on the wrong individual. She is trying to do the best in the position she's stuck in. Just like you. Just because she isn't a "professional" photographer doesn't give you the right to harangue or blame her for the losses you've suffered, which we can all sympathize with. But don't forget that everyone in this world of print is suffering. Photographers aren't the only ones. And so let's not point fingers. Helping Julie isn't going to cost you a job. That job is already gone. We have to accept that the world is different, and there are many out there that feel that they can do these things themselves. Some will succeed-they will think their work is wonderful and many will think it abysmal, but that doesn't really matter. Because they will do it anyway. So to punish someone who is just trying to do her work doesn't help, and won't fix your world. The truth is the world is changing, and those of us who have worked in print, whether it's photography or design, must adapt or wither. and that is my ever so humble submission on this night of new happenings, respectfully yours, dawn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Les Baldwin" <fotofx@ix.netcom.com> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 11:22 PM Subject: RE: Question about lighting... > 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/ > > >
