«

RE/
>Am I being too much of a fashion snob, or is there any truth to the
>"Dress for Success" doctrine?

Speaking as a customer - and as one who knows next to nothing about photography
(digital or otherwise), I'd say that how you look and comport yourself is quite
important.

Considering that many customers don't know much about photography, they're still
human beings and they have an innate need to judge you. Not knowing much about
your craft, how're they going to judge you? I'd say by how you look and act -
and, by extrapolation, how your equipment looks if/when they get to see it.

Seems to me, though, that when they're making that "buy" decision, they usually
wouldn't be seeing any equipment - so that leaves you spiel, your clothes, and
your general manner.

OTOH, if you come to their wedding with the same kind of camera that half the
wedding parth has in their pocket there's going to be some heavy-duty anxiety
until everybody sees how wonderful your pix are.
--
PeteCresswell

"Michael" <> wrote in message
news:Xns944D568789276michaelmflyahoocom@24.25.9.42 ...
> The Past: My photography teacher in college 25 years ago had the nastiest
> looking, most basic Pentax 35mm SLR I ever saw. He was a really good
> photographer. He and I both shot artistic photographs. One day he asked
> me if money was important to me because there wasn't a lot of money in
> the art field. Soon after I was in Engineering school and a few years
> later I became a software engineer. My camera sat in the closet for a
> long time. Lots of regrets, but no sense in looking back.
>
> The Present: Well, I grew up to be a software design manager. I made good
> money for a lot of years, but then I got laid off. I have a Canon G2 that
> I brought to Italy earlier this year, and I took some great photographs.
> But the more I use the camera, the more I miss the control that I had
> with my Minolta SRT 102. I love digital photography. I don't miss sitting
> in the darkroom swishing chemicals around.
>
> Looking forward: I still mostly enjoy artistic photography, but I would
> like to make some money. I have some ideas I want to explore in
> commercial photography. The problem that I have is that I don't a
> "professional looking" camera. I wanted to buy a Canon 10D, but I've been
> told they are all on back order around here. The 300D is cheaper, and
> would probably be OK feature-wise, but I don't think it looks
> professional enough.
>
> Am I being too much of a fashion snob, or is there any truth to the
> "Dress for Success" doctrine?
>
> Is anyone using the 300D working with customers?
>
> Thanks for your advice!
>

Get a Holga, hell, it's big and black, and now you're stylin' with medium
format, to boot.


LOL


Patrick

In article <>,
Michael Quack <> wrote:

> In article <Xns944DA7BB8A39Dmichaelmflyahoocom@24.25.9.43>,
> Michael says...
>
> > > shooter, on a number of factors. Number one, by a wide margin, is your
> > > portfolio. They're not even going to SEE your camera until they hire
> > > you. If you do a good job for them, they won't care what you use.
>
> Right. I had a client who demanded that I give him
> 4x5" slides. For several reasons 35 mm was the
> much more reasonable platform. So I shot on Kodak
> Ektar 25 (sadly so discontinued) and printed on
> Vericolor print film - 4x5".
>
> When he received the slides he held them up, showed
> them to almost everybody in the company and claimed
> that there was no way to do it that good on 35mm.
>
> Weeks later I told him the truth over a glass of wine.
>
> He was shocked, thought for a while, and then told me
> to raise my fee 20% for the future jobs with him,
> and promised never ever again to tell me what my
> tool should be.

When he sobered up he sued you for fraud and breach of contract, right?

-Sloopy

Michael wrote:

>
> Looking forward: I still mostly enjoy artistic photography, but I would
> like to make some money. I have some ideas I want to explore in
> commercial photography. The problem that I have is that I don't a
> "professional looking" camera. I wanted to buy a Canon 10D, but I've been
> told they are all on back order around here. The 300D is cheaper, and
> would probably be OK feature-wise, but I don't think it looks
> professional enough.
>
> Am I being too much of a fashion snob, or is there any truth to the
> "Dress for Success" doctrine?
>
> Is anyone using the 300D working with customers?
>


Most of those people haven't a clue as to what the difference is between a
300D and a 10D or the difference between any of the other dSLR's. How you
come across and what your work looks like is what's important. If they are
worried about gear, they are probably going to to looking for a 'blad
anyway!

--

Stacey

"Michael" <> wrote in message
news:Xns944D568789276michaelmflyahoocom@24.25.9.42 ...

> Am I being too much of a fashion snob, or is there any truth to the
> "Dress for Success" doctrine?

Does it matter to a master cabinet maker what color his hammer is"
Joe Arnold

BTW - I've had my dReb for 6 weeks, and have earned over $800 with it on a
part-time basis, freelancing.

"stacey" <> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> >
> > Is anyone using the 300D working with customers?
>
> Most of those people haven't a clue as to what the difference is between a
> 300D and a 10D or the difference between any of the other dSLR's. How you
> come across and what your work looks like is what's important. If they are
> worried about gear, they are probably going to to looking for a 'blad
> anyway!

Used Hasselblad kits are pretty cheap nowadays. The lenses other than the
80/2.8 are still off the wall expensive making the Hassy seriously
impractical as a system. But as a fixed-lens SLR, a Hassy 500CM with a T*
lens in good shape can be had used for US$1,050. That's pretty much the same
price as the 300D.

There's a new under US$500 scanner coming out from Epson (probably called
the 4870) that will have over 2000 dpi of real resolution, so US$1500 gets
you a 4400 x 4400 pixel (19MP) imaging system. Cropped to 8x10, that's still
15MP, and even cropped to the 35mm aspect ratio (2:3) it's 12.5MP,
competitive with the 1Ds.

But you'll never be able to afford another lens.

Still, you'd have the Hassy to impress the customers (you'd have to shoot a
roll or two<g>) and the 300D for the rest of the shots.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article <>,
Sloopy says...

(...)

> When he sobered up

Unlike you, a single glass of wine doesn't make
my clients drunk. And I would never go for heavy
drinking with a client.

> he sued you for fraud and breach of contract, right?

Not at all. He kept his promise never to tell
me again which tool to use, and he paid me 20%
extra because I showed him what the technology
could do.

--
Michael Quack <>

http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm

> The Past: My photography teacher in college 25 years ago had the nastiest
> looking, most basic Pentax 35mm SLR I ever saw. He was a really good
> photographer. He and I both shot artistic photographs. One day he asked
> me if money was important to me because there wasn't a lot of money in
> the art field. Soon after I was in Engineering school and a few years
> later I became a software engineer. My camera sat in the closet for a
> long time. Lots of regrets, but no sense in looking back.
>
> The Present: Well, I grew up to be a software design manager. I made good
> money for a lot of years, but then I got laid off. I have a Canon G2 that
> I brought to Italy earlier this year, and I took some great photographs.
> But the more I use the camera, the more I miss the control that I had
> with my Minolta SRT 102. I love digital photography. I don't miss sitting
> in the darkroom swishing chemicals around.
>
> Looking forward: I still mostly enjoy artistic photography, but I would
> like to make some money. I have some ideas I want to explore in
> commercial photography. The problem that I have is that I don't a
> "professional looking" camera. I wanted to buy a Canon 10D, but I've been
> told they are all on back order around here. The 300D is cheaper, and
> would probably be OK feature-wise, but I don't think it looks
> professional enough.
>
> Am I being too much of a fashion snob, or is there any truth to the
> "Dress for Success" doctrine?
>
> Is anyone using the 300D working with customers?
>


I've been using a G2 for over a year now, dithering about the same way as
you over what 'real' camera to get.

However, I believe that even a disposable plastic camera would look
professional if you dress it up right, by getting a bellows shade like a
lindahl, you need the filter adapter which gives you a 52mm filter, then a
step up ring to hold a series 8 filter holder, then attach a bellows. now
you have a big assed contraption that really impresses the heck out of
clients and people on the street, you will soon have security guards and
other tin badge hitlers stopping you on the street to tell you that you
can't take pictures here without a permit

Back in the 80's when video was just becoming the rage at weddings, a friend
was charging $300 and hour and just using a consumer vhs camera, competing
with 'network' guys who used those big missile launchers and the huge belt
packs for batteries. He just put a big assed hollywood panovision lens
shade, I think it cost as much as the camera. Even the network tv crews
would stop and look



this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoo.com

In article <>, "(Pete Cresswell)"
<> writes:

>Considering that many customers don't know much about photography, they're
>still
>human beings and they have an innate need to judge you. Not knowing much
>about
>your craft, how're they going to judge you? I'd say by how you look and act
>-
>and, by extrapolation, how your equipment looks if/when they get to see it.



Yes and no....

I have a friend who is a pro photographer who took some pictures of
my old girlfriend. (very stunning 6' tall lady

We went out into the local park, and he took a few with an FM 2.
He was carefull about the background, and how she posed, but
he made it all look sooo easy, and effortless.
She wanted to get into modeling, and then got a *pro* she met to
take some portfolio pictures. Had all kinds of gear, was really a slick talker.
Afterward, she used the pictures my friend took in the park ,and was
more successfull with those, than what the "flashy looking"
photographer took, and he shot a LOT of pic's

Bottom line, is what the portfolio looks like, and wether you like the
previous results he can SHOW you.

I painted houses for a LONG time, and had long, over the shoulder length
hair. I worked strictly by refferals, and it was my WORK that got me hired
automatically, rather than looks. Price was not a concern to most,
just the quality of work. And being able to go over thier friends house, and
see the quality work, got me hired all the time !!

The incredibly soft, silky long hair did work wonders on the single women
though !!!
Was worth several really nice relationships with beautifull ladies























"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."

I'm both an occasional event photographer and an occasional purchaser
of photographic services (I've worked in communications/PR for over 12
years). While it is true that I look at a portfolio to determine
whether or not to hire a freelancer and that "work speaks for itself,"
I also think that at least kind of looking the part is important, too.

My father, a life-long contractor, has often said that you can tell a
professional by his work and his tools. While there are certainly
plenty of poseurs out there with high $$ cameras and equipment, EVERY
professional freelancer that I have worked with and hired has had a
serious investment in equipment.

That being said, our in-house digital camera is a Canon G3 with the
wide-angle lens adaptor and an external Canon flash. Although it's
simply a prosumer camera, whenever I use it in-house for work it
always draws comments from staff. Throw a Lumiquest softbox on the
flash and you'll really wow 'em!

Michael <> wrote in message news:<Xns944D568789276michaelmflyahoocom@24.25.9.4 2>...
> Am I being too much of a fashion snob, or is there any truth to the
> "Dress for Success" doctrine?