| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Keeping up with the Jones’
Justin Kase Conder, Photographer
 |
Fresno | CA | USA | Posted: 4:45 AM on 04.26.05 |
->> Keeping up with the Jones’
When a client of mine asked about 9 months ago why my images from a night time football game were noisier than those of another shooter covering the same game, it was apparent to me that it was time to consider the purchase of a Mark II. Up until that point I hadn’t really felt the need to; my 1D work horses’ had satisfied nearly all my and my client’s needs for almost four years.
So when I read the recent “Adobe PS CS 2 - Anyone else received theirs?” post, the thought occurred to me “How much of what we buy is done just in order to keep up with the Jones’?”
The thought was initiated by the question “What in the world can PS CS 2 do for me that PS CS can’t? As it stands now, PS CS has more bells and whistles than I could ever shake a stick at. Granted most of the work that I do is editorial, which means I use the software in the minimalist sense compared to my commercial colleagues whose images demand adjustments that I would never dream of making to my pictures. But is the expense honestly worth its value?
I will admit that I may be naive in my critical questioning using this specific example, I do not in fact know what the new PS CS 2 offers compared to the original, but I sure as heck know that our culture, economy, status, and many aspects of our business are driven by the “mine is bigger/longer than yours” epidemic. And if this thought doesn’t suit this situation there is no doubt that it could be asked of many of the other things we covet.
I do know that part of me can find solace in the fact that not everyone in this business is fooled by this notion. I’m reminded of the last few pages of a Walter Iooss Jr. book, on which he shows “his gear” of which there is a picture of a beat up Canon 1V with a Canon 17-35 f2.8, and a roll of Fuji Velva… Whether was just showing us his gear or whether he and I share the same thoughts about societies ubiquitous desire to upgrade, I will never know, but I’d sure like to think it’s the latter of the two. |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 7:30 AM on 04.26.05 |
->> I believe you need to upgrade in instances like you just described--the client notices your product isn't the quality they can get from another photographer.
There is a second reason I also believe you need to upgrade--perception of the client thinking you are not the same as your colleagues.
This may seem petty, but there are many photographers in the wedding business who are buying the medium format digital cameras more for perception than reality. When you are on the high end of the industry price wise your clients are more likely to show up with a Canon Mark II or Nikon D2X. They may even not own the top end 35mm digital but don't see the difference.
It is easier for the photographer to have equipment at times which appears to separate them from the amateur. You and I know this is overkill. But people don't always come up to you and talk about this kind of situation. They just whisper to their neighbor about how they have the same kind of camera as the pro.
If you have ever watched American Idol you understand how so many people cannot tell they cannot sing. They really think they are the best ever to come on the TV show. Some have been so bad as to make a living at being bad. Don’t think this doesn’t apply to photography. There are a lot of people who just don’t get it.
As far as which software you use or anything which the client will not see this takes on different reason for upgrading.
You need to stay current with software which when your images are delivered to your client there are no compatibility issues. I think it is good to keep your CD burning software pretty current. The latest versions seem to be so much better than a few years ago. The newer versions also make cross platform issues less of a problem. So when you burn on a MAC and your client is PC they can still open the files.
I also believe you need to expect your clients to stay current with some of the major software like Operating Systems. Supporting a client running Windows 95 or OS9 can be a problem when you are shooting 8 Meg files and filling a CD. They often have problems opening the CD.
My take on all of this upgrading is to not let your competition deliver to a client a file which is technically superior to yours. You will not survive very long if the client notices the differences.
Each photographer has a unique market and needs to know their colleagues. Knowing what everyone is shooting with and delivering helps all of us raise the bar for the industry. |
|
Randy Janoski, Photographer
|
Chapel Hill | TN | USA | Posted: 8:50 AM on 04.26.05 |
->> Justin,
I will first ask if your "client" is at the level to know what noise is?
On first reading through your post I got the impression that this sounds like another photographer trying to show someone why their images are better than yours.
I could see someone actually noticing the difference if you shot a 1D at 1600 in poor lighting with no post production adjustments done to the images compared to a MKII with another doing post production. And both images being shown at a significant enlargement percentage.
I've covered night games using both 1Ds and MKIIs together and after some quick post production work of the images and all sized to 10 inches on the long side at 300ppi it is hard to see much of a difference. There are several excellent "noise reduction" software programs available now.
The 1D is still an excellent camera, the CCD does have its own advantages over CMOS sensors. On a news, magazine, sports, editorial, heck any assignment (when lighting and ISO stays in the 200-400 range) that has to be transmitted in a rush I will use a 1D over a MKII because of the attributes of its CCD, sharpness, contrast...minimal post production needs.
I will say this, in over 25 years I have never been asked by a client (wire service directors, agency presidents, magazine publishers/editors, on and on...) what equipment I own, use, or have. They just want the images that I'm known to deliver.
Remember the fanciest, slickest, newest of any equipment is just one thing...a tool to get your job done. Use it until it cannot do the job satisfactorily anymore! |
|
Chris Stanley, Photographer
|
Lansdale | PA | USA | Posted: 8:51 AM on 04.26.05 |
->> When somebody comes up to you to show off their similar (or better) camera, just smile and say something like, "That's great! Those cameras make terrific photos. You must be having alot of fun with that."
Then confidently keep shooting with the equipment you brought.
I believe your attitude will say alot more about your professionalism than what you are shooting with. |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 3:12 PM on 04.26.05 |
->> I like to remember that Ernest Hemingway wrote his novels on a manual typewriter, and Mark Twain used a pencil. Both wrote exceedingly well without using a computer and word-processor. It's not the technology, it's the person using it that makes a difference.
When a customer tries to make that be the determining factor then they need to be reminded of the Hemingway and Twain thought.
The time to consider playing that game is when you're competing against an equally knowledgable and talented photographer who has made that technology step. If you can't keep up or show you're better by out-shooting and out-delivering them, then it makes sense to step to the next generation camera.
I have mixed feelings about upgrading my 1D to a 1DMk2. I decided to start using RAW on the 1D because Photo Mechanic makes it pretty painless to use them, and because Photoshop CS does a good job of integrating the TIFF files into my workflow, and because I'm already getting big files from the 20D. By stepping to the RAW files on the 1D, I'm getting a sweeter image with very little cost on that body and it didn't impact my processing time. And dang!, those files will go big!
I still have some reasons the 1DMk2 will outperform the 1D, mostly because of the low-light capability of the newer body - I shoot in marginal light a lot and focus and noise are still an issue with the 1D, but the quality of the photo in normal shooting no longer bothers me. |
|
Andrew Kornylak, Photographer
|
Decatur | GA | USA | Posted: 3:24 PM on 04.26.05 |
->> Yes, but if you handed a bookseller Twain's "final" product, a bunch of chicken scratch on loose paper, and Hemingway's, some typed loose pages, and finally, a well-bound finished book, what would they be more likely to buy? (not knowing the authors...)
I think we are used to the relatively flat technology curve we've been enjoying for so many years, and suddenly its a vertical. |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 5:30 PM on 04.26.05 |
->> I thought it was the book publisher that created the finished books that would be presented to the book seller, not the authors.
And, because the book seller is aware that it's the content in the book that is important, they would look past the cover to see what's in it. A book seller who judges a book by its cover is destined to become a cliche.
There are consumers who will buy the "pretty" book, but they are not serious readers or serious buyers. The ones reading the books are the ones spending the money.
In our world, those who we deliver a photo to should be educated enough to recognize the quality of the content. A killer photo with noise should be the easy choice over a mediocre photo, no matter what was used to create it. And, it's our job and to our advantage if we stay current, to help educate our customers so they can recognize what makes a good photo.
If our tools get in the way of delivering product that equals what our competitors put out then we have a problem because obsolescence will have set in. For instance, a film shooter trying to deliver images to a shop that is purely digital will have to upgrade something - either buy a digital camera, or a good scanner to bridge that gap.
Back to the subject of jumping off the porch to chase the shiny new technology car driving down the street...
Like a lot of people I wonder what Adobe has put into the new CS that the old one doesn't have, but I won't upgrade just to find out. There's some things I'd like to see changed in the "old" one and if they were changed for the better then I'd consider the upgrade. But I won't do it just to say I've upgraded.
When the 1DsMkII and the D2X were announced, I got a kick out of all the people willing to be early adopters. Sight-unseen they'd committed to change without knowing for sure what they'd gain or lose. I'm sure there's some D2X owners who are not too happy with Nikon's little debacle over RAW white-balance encoding.
I've become skeptical over the last couple years, and am more concerned with what I can do with the existing things, because I'm the limiting factor for the most part. When the software or hardware limits me and I can clearly see that and I can't find a work-around and its impacting my sales, then it's time to make the jump.
Knowing how long to wait while I look for the work-around is the trick. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Tucson | AZ | USA | Posted: 6:19 PM on 04.26.05 |
->> Hey Justin, thanks for starting this thread. More than anything, I've always wondered where people found the money to upgrade to all this new upgraded gear and software on some of the salaries photographers are paid.
When a lot of folks are switching over to Canon, I recently used someone's Nikon D2H and I found the shutter action of the camera much smoother than the 1D I was using - and I switched over to Nikon. I may end up switching back to Canon at some point, because I do like Canon's glass, but at least for the time being, I am enjoying working with some different gear and drawing my own conclusions.
But I didn't upgrade to a D2X for a simple reason: money. I can't justify $4,500 especially to keep up with the Jones'. In the end, I don't feel any clients really care what you use as long as you deliver what they want.
I have found the problem of compatibility issues sort of in reverse. What I mean is I have the latest Photoshop and Mac OSX system software and some persons I have sent materials to on a CD could not open it because they had older versions of Windows. |
|
Richard Orr, Photographer
|
Longmeadow | MA | USA | Posted: 7:32 PM on 04.26.05 |
| ->> And Moses worked in stone.....can you imagine trying to peddle that around today? |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
|
Santa Ana | CA | USA | Posted: 8:50 AM on 04.27.05 |
| ->> I too would rather shoot with a 1v and a roll of Velvia, I just like it. However when the client says we would like to have you upload the mens finals within an hour or two after the event, the question of keeping up with the competition is over if you want to keep the client. Keeping up with the competition is what you must do to stay in business. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 11:19 AM on 04.27.05 |
->> Jeff- That's the sad part. Some guys have no problem plunking $10,000 down on a credit card without first having the client base (speaking only for freelancers, staffers are usually SOL on equipement purchases) to support the purchase. Some people say you should be able to pay it off within one year... I prefer to pay it off in two months, three months max because the interest on that debt is going to kill you in the long run and make it harder to pay off expediciously.
The formula I use is pretty aggressive but it works for me. I have to have 90% invoiced before I'll put it on a credit card. So while I'm sitting here waiting to buy another Mark 2 I can do two things; put it on the business credit without anything due to me or wait until I have $3200 in phantom cash. This is why being paid within 30 days is such an intransigent topic and why late fee warnings are incorporated on all invoices.
You should only buy the things that you need to do the job. For some, that's one body and a 300mm. For me, that's four bodies, ten lenses and enough lighting gear to collapse the rear strut mounts on a Jetta. For Frakes, that's the East Wing of the Canon warehouse. We all have different needs. Some people don't realize you can acquire slowly over time. You can't (and shouldn't try to) just graduate college (or quit your job) and buy $60,000 worth of gear. If you're going to freelance, you're going to need to control your costs and have a firm reality based idea of what you'll be making your first 5 years.
To Justin's question, I've never bought a major item solely because someone else had it. I have however picked up things that repeated editors asked about or I found myself renting. "Rent twice then buy".
I've gotten repeatedly sidetracked trying to write this so if it doesn't make sense, just call me on it so I can clarify. |
|
Craig Peterson, Photographer
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 1:13 PM on 04.27.05 |
| ->> Close... Number 8 on my page if from five years ago just before I bought my own lights (was borrowing the schools that day). This is also before the Pelican 1650, lightware cases, booms, remote bag, and clamp bag. So with the new Jetta I got the GLI which had the stiffer suspension (because the wheels were inside the well in this photo) and the V6 rather than that pansy little 1.8 turbo. (no offense for those who are more frugal than I.) |
|
Marie Hughes, Photographer
|
Fremont | CA | USA | Posted: 2:57 PM on 04.27.05 |
->> If a client is asking why your images are noisier than your competition, I think that's a strong reason to upgrade. You aren't delivering what the client wants in this case. It would be different if the client had been hassling Jason because his camera didn't have Mark II on the front and "all the other guys" had MarkIIs.
Something similar happened to me when I was shooting gymnastics with some guys with MarkIIs. When processing the images that customers had bought, I could see that their images were cleaner than mine and also could be cropped tighter and blown up more. So as soon as I could afford it, I got a used MarkII.
But I waited until I had the revenue coming in and I bought used instead of new to keep within my budget. OTOH I haven't even looked at PS CS2 and I won't until I finish my Photoshop for Photographers book and start using more of what is in the version I have. I only have CS because my husband gave it to me for Christmas. :) |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 4:44 PM on 04.27.05 |
->> I think Marie and I addressed the problem. The client talked about the image quality and not about the camera. Justin's post said nothing about the client talking about the camera. They may have been were wondering if his settings may have been different and this caused the difference--but the point is the image quality is the problem.
People this is when you seriously consider upgrading. Many are trying to avoid the client from seeing a superior image from their competition due to superior equipment.
If everyone of your clients is happy with your quality of images, then looking at new equipment may not be prudent.
Sometimes you must risk a little, just don't go stupid with over investing.
Most people finance cars. Most businesses finance some equipment when it's cost are too much to recover right away. You can also lease the equipment from Roberts. It is a tax deduction if you are doing this professionally. |
|
Tony Donaldson, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 5:36 PM on 04.27.05 |
->> Amen to Thomas' comment. Though I usually look at gear purchases a little differently. I buy the things I rent often, I'm lazy and I hate taking the time to go to Hollywood all the time. But in the end it pays for itself in the time and rental cost.
Keeping current on not just the software but actually learning to USE that software, and testing a lot with your cameras to find out what settings work for what types of images you're creating and to optimize your workflow for both image quality AND speed. It takes a lot of time, and most of that isn't directly billable to clients, but has to be built into your creative fees.
Buying the latest and greatest isn't always needed, especially these days. And it can be bad, if you're the first guy on your block to have the latest OS version, or camera (remember the Japanese language problem with the first batch of D1xs that came out? Or the current issues with the 1DsmkII?).
Digital capture offers greater control, but also offers obligations to maximize what you have to make sure your vision gets transferred to the printed page or whatever final media the product will be. Nobody says you have to spend all your money keeping up, actually you need to make more since you're cutting labs, etc. out of the chain, and you have to be able to justify it with the work you have. No need to go into debt over it. |
|
Matt Hevezi, Photo Editor
|
Camp Pendleton | CA | USA | Posted: 12:47 AM on 04.28.05 |
->> Not to discount any of the great info or opinions shared above via this thread, but there sure is a lot of hub-bub about gear-this and gear-that.
What I believe is most important is the one piece of gear that is never goes obsolete ... your mind.
Invest in your mind (visual nutrition) and watch your clients flock and your career soar.
You don't need the fastest lens or the latest software version to make solid pictures that will stand straight up to images made with the fanciest equipment.
Does latest-version gear and high-tech gadgetry help? Sure, most of the time.
Is that fancy stuff as critical to getting the job done as many make it to be ...?
You be the judge.
I don't believe in any of it. |
|
Matt Cashore, Photographer
|
South Bend | IN | USA | Posted: 6:07 AM on 04.28.05 |
| ->> I think I was muttering about the latest local hobbyist who'd just bought a 600mm or some similar scenario and a friend of mine referred to the phenomenon as the "Photographer Arms Race." Made me laugh. |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 7:17 AM on 04.28.05 |
->> When it comes to buying equipment, I sure do hold out a long time and even shoot with a lot of Sigma Glass.
So I concur with most everyone who is slow to buy new equipment just to buy new equipment.
But Justin's first sentence is as much about loosing a potential client as just getting new equipment. Read it again, "When a client of mine asked about 9 months ago why my images from a night time football game were noisier than those of another shooter covering the same game, it was apparent to me that it was time to consider the purchase of a Mark II."
Maybe the question which needed to be asked first is, "how do I decrease the noise in my photos?" He could have then outlined what he was doing, put up a gallery of a few images and then maybe this is another way to solve the problem in a less expensive matter.
When having the latest camera is driving your next purchase I would concur with all those who are reacting more to the title of the post rather than reading the first sentence of the post.
Maybe the post demonstrates many overlooking actual posts and just reacting to the headlines.
Whatever the case, I think everyone who is discouraging the upgrade without addressing the noise issue and how he can fix the problem only demonstrate they didn't read. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 12:00 PM on 04.29.05 |
| ->> I Always buy the best glass I can get and the best digital bodies,because if all things equal in terms of an action shot best image quality will win, however my computers are 3 years old because they work just fine for there pupose. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|