Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Professional Equipment Overkill for Some Corporate Photos

Reply
Thread Tools

Professional Equipment Overkill for Some Corporate Photos

 
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2013

I just did some work for a company that just needed
a nice head shot of someone who was given a promotion.

It was easy, only 45 minutes, using the available
ambient fluorescents (still brought one lamp just in case),
against a white backdrop they had, and it turned out fine.

When I got home and compared it to a real professional
job they had done previously, I was amazed at the detail
of the pro job: it looked like it could have been a
medium format camera with a digital back! You could see
the details of the pores on the subject's skin! You can
see the pores on my photos, but not to that degree!

But the lighting was too gloomy looking, and it was
clearly over-kill, which is why they called a cheaper
amateur like me. They would only be used for smaller
corporate statements, and maybe on a website here and
there. I asked beforehand how large the pics would be
blown up, and the manager said not very large, not even
8.5x11.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2013
On 21/02/2013 11:50, Paul wrote:
>
> I just did some work for a company that just needed
> a nice head shot of someone who was given a promotion.
>
> It was easy, only 45 minutes, using the available
> ambient fluorescents (still brought one lamp just in case),
> against a white backdrop they had, and it turned out fine.
>
> When I got home and compared it to a real professional
> job they had done previously, I was amazed at the detail
> of the pro job: it looked like it could have been a
> medium format camera with a digital back! You could see
> the details of the pores on the subject's skin! You can
> see the pores on my photos, but not to that degree!
>
> But the lighting was too gloomy looking, and it was
> clearly over-kill, which is why they called a cheaper
> amateur like me. They would only be used for smaller
> corporate statements, and maybe on a website here and
> there. I asked beforehand how large the pics would be
> blown up, and the manager said not very large, not even
> 8.5x11.
>
>



I was using a MF film camera for corporate shots and publications. As
the work progressed that was cut to 35mm as none of the images being
used were over 8x10. Then low and behold next they bought a digital
Nikon PS camera 2002 I think 1.2 Mp as the costs were reduced so much,
just used them for small images.

Over a period of less than 3 years we went from 6x7 tranny to a 1.2Mp PS
digital. Then started in 2003 at 6Mp DSLR.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2013
On Feb 20, 7:50*pm, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> * * I just did some work for a company that just needed
> a nice head shot of someone who was given a promotion.
>
> * * It was easy, only 45 minutes, using the available
> ambient fluorescents (still brought one lamp just in case),
> against a white backdrop they had, and it turned out fine.
>
> * * When I got home and compared it to a real professional
> job they had done previously, I was amazed at the detail
> of the pro job: *it looked like it could have been a
> medium format camera with a digital back! *You could see
> the details of the pores on the subject's skin! *You can
> see the pores on my photos, but not to that degree!
>
> * * But the lighting was too gloomy looking, and it was
> clearly over-kill, which is why they called a cheaper
> amateur like me. *They would only be used for smaller
> corporate statements, and maybe on a website here and
> there. *I asked beforehand how large the pics would be
> blown up, and the manager said not very large, not even
> 8.5x11.


Pretty soon, if photogs take the threadbare, cheap route, people with
camera phones will be doing the jobs on their lunch hour from their
job with the person they are shooting. Bring in $5000 in equipment,
your future will likely stay more secure.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2013
On 2/20/2013 6:56 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:50 pm, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I just did some work for a company that just needed
>> a nice head shot of someone who was given a promotion.
>>
>> It was easy, only 45 minutes, using the available
>> ambient fluorescents (still brought one lamp just in case),
>> against a white backdrop they had, and it turned out fine.
>>
>> When I got home and compared it to a real professional
>> job they had done previously, I was amazed at the detail
>> of the pro job: it looked like it could have been a
>> medium format camera with a digital back! You could see
>> the details of the pores on the subject's skin! You can
>> see the pores on my photos, but not to that degree!
>>
>> But the lighting was too gloomy looking, and it was
>> clearly over-kill, which is why they called a cheaper
>> amateur like me. They would only be used for smaller
>> corporate statements, and maybe on a website here and
>> there. I asked beforehand how large the pics would be
>> blown up, and the manager said not very large, not even
>> 8.5x11.

>
> Pretty soon, if photogs take the threadbare, cheap route, people with
> camera phones will be doing the jobs on their lunch hour from their
> job with the person they are shooting. Bring in $5000 in equipment,
> your future will likely stay more secure.
>


Well, the manager had a perfectly good digital camera.
Perhaps not quite as nice as my Canon 40D, but it could
certainly have done the job. So she could have done it
herself, but it does take a photographer's sense (amateur
or pro), to see that in the first room they had the backdrop
in, the color temp of the fluorescents was way too cold,
and too dim. So we moved into the hallway, where the
lights were MUCH warmer, and more flattering for skin tones.

In retrospect, I should have shot at higher than ISO 640,
perhaps at least 1000, just to get rid of some of the blurrier
shots, as I've used "H" (the next step above 1600), and
the grain was acceptable. The grain is much more acceptable
than a blurry pic, that's for sure (my aperture is usually
pretty wide open).


 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2013
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:56:38 AM UTC, RichA wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:50*pm, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > * * I just did some work for a company that just needed

>
> > a nice head shot of someone who was given a promotion.

>
> >

>
> > * * It was easy, only 45 minutes, using the available

>
> > ambient fluorescents (still brought one lamp just in case),

>
> > against a white backdrop they had, and it turned out fine.

>
> >

>
> > * * When I got home and compared it to a real professional

>
> > job they had done previously, I was amazed at the detail

>
> > of the pro job: *it looked like it could have been a

>
> > medium format camera with a digital back! *You could see

>
> > the details of the pores on the subject's skin! *You can

>
> > see the pores on my photos, but not to that degree!

>
> >

>
> > * * But the lighting was too gloomy looking, and it was

>
> > clearly over-kill, which is why they called a cheaper

>
> > amateur like me. *They would only be used for smaller

>
> > corporate statements, and maybe on a website here and

>
> > there. *I asked beforehand how large the pics would be

>
> > blown up, and the manager said not very large, not even

>
> > 8.5x11.

>
>
>
> Pretty soon, if photogs take the threadbare, cheap route, people with
>
> camera phones will be doing the jobs on their lunch hour from their
>
> job with the person they are shooting.


Sometimes it depends on who your shooting. I;'m betting that some high end executive wouldn;t be happy with someone using their phone to take a 'coperate' photo and would only be happy with someone that had 'good' equipment and charged a lot of money.



> Bring in $5000 in equipment,
>
> your future will likely stay more secure.


Only if you can convince the perosn with the purse strings that you are worth it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2013
On Feb 21, 7:26*am, Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:56:38 AM UTC, RichA wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 7:50*pm, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > > * * I just did some work for a company that just needed

>
> > > a nice head shot of someone who was given a promotion.

>
> > > * * It was easy, only 45 minutes, using the available

>
> > > ambient fluorescents (still brought one lamp just in case),

>
> > > against a white backdrop they had, and it turned out fine.

>
> > > * * When I got home and compared it to a real professional

>
> > > job they had done previously, I was amazed at the detail

>
> > > of the pro job: *it looked like it could have been a

>
> > > medium format camera with a digital back! *You could see

>
> > > the details of the pores on the subject's skin! *You can

>
> > > see the pores on my photos, but not to that degree!

>
> > > * * But the lighting was too gloomy looking, and it was

>
> > > clearly over-kill, which is why they called a cheaper

>
> > > amateur like me. *They would only be used for smaller

>
> > > corporate statements, and maybe on a website here and

>
> > > there. *I asked beforehand how large the pics would be

>
> > > blown up, and the manager said not very large, not even

>
> > > 8.5x11.

>
> > Pretty soon, if photogs take the threadbare, cheap route, people with

>
> > camera phones will be doing the jobs on their lunch hour from their

>
> > job with the person they are shooting.

>
> Sometimes it depends on who your shooting. I;'m betting that some high end executive wouldn;t be happy with someone using their phone to take a 'coperate' photo and would only be happy with someone that had 'good' equipmentand charged a lot of money.
>
> > *Bring in $5000 in equipment,

>
> > your future will likely stay more secure.

>
> Only if you can convince the perosn with the purse strings that you are worth it.


If you can't, might as well quit now.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2013
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:27:54 PM UTC, RichA wrote:
> On Feb 21, 7:26*am, Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:56:38 AM UTC, RichA wrote:

>
> > > On Feb 20, 7:50*pm, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >

>
> > > > * * I just did some work for a company that just needed

>
> >

>
> > > > a nice head shot of someone who was given a promotion.

>
> >

>
> > > > * * It was easy, only 45 minutes, using the available

>
> >

>
> > > > ambient fluorescents (still brought one lamp just in case),

>
> >

>
> > > > against a white backdrop they had, and it turned out fine.

>
> >

>
> > > > * * When I got home and compared it to a real professional

>
> >

>
> > > > job they had done previously, I was amazed at the detail

>
> >

>
> > > > of the pro job: *it looked like it could have been a

>
> >

>
> > > > medium format camera with a digital back! *You could see

>
> >

>
> > > > the details of the pores on the subject's skin! *You can

>
> >

>
> > > > see the pores on my photos, but not to that degree!

>
> >

>
> > > > * * But the lighting was too gloomy looking, and it was

>
> >

>
> > > > clearly over-kill, which is why they called a cheaper

>
> >

>
> > > > amateur like me. *They would only be used for smaller

>
> >

>
> > > > corporate statements, and maybe on a website here and

>
> >

>
> > > > there. *I asked beforehand how large the pics would be

>
> >

>
> > > > blown up, and the manager said not very large, not even

>
> >

>
> > > > 8.5x11.

>
> >

>
> > > Pretty soon, if photogs take the threadbare, cheap route, people with

>
> >

>
> > > camera phones will be doing the jobs on their lunch hour from their

>
> >

>
> > > job with the person they are shooting.

>
> >

>
> > Sometimes it depends on who your shooting. I;'m betting that some high end executive wouldn;t be happy with someone using their phone to take a 'coperate' photo and would only be happy with someone that had 'good' equipment and charged a lot of money.

>
> >

>
> > > *Bring in $5000 in equipment,

>
> >

>
> > > your future will likely stay more secure.

>
> >

>
> > Only if you can convince the perosn with the purse strings that you areworth it.

>
>
>
> If you can't, might as well quit now.


Well we had a pro come around my lab to take pictures for the department web site, I was then asked if I'd like a picture for the department web site of myself, so I suggested using one that the pro took, but they don;t thinkthey are suitable, but I can submit one of my own.
I just wish admin would explain why they paid for pro photos which aren;t suitable. I could have taken loads of unsuitable photos and only charged them half price for unusable photos, I'm on specail offer until the end of the year

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-01-2013
Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[Pro job]
> But the lighting was too gloomy looking, and it was
> clearly over-kill, which is why they called a cheaper
> amateur like me.


Naah, nothing to do with that. Management failed to convey
that they didn't want that much of a gloomy look. And then
they decided that they didn't have the money for another pro.

Even a pro is able to leave some equipment off and unused,
though that may be hard to believe.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2013
On 3/1/2013 2:44 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> [Pro job]
>> But the lighting was too gloomy looking, and it was
>> clearly over-kill, which is why they called a cheaper
>> amateur like me.

>
> Naah, nothing to do with that. Management failed to convey
> that they didn't want that much of a gloomy look. And then
> they decided that they didn't have the money for another pro.
>
> Even a pro is able to leave some equipment off and unused,
> though that may be hard to believe.
>


Well, they certainly didn't need photos with the
details of the pores of their skin in there.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-05-2013
Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 3/1/2013 2:44 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> [Pro job]
>>> But the lighting was too gloomy looking, and it was
>>> clearly over-kill, which is why they called a cheaper
>>> amateur like me.


>> Naah, nothing to do with that. Management failed to convey
>> that they didn't want that much of a gloomy look. And then
>> they decided that they didn't have the money for another pro.


>> Even a pro is able to leave some equipment off and unused,
>> though that may be hard to believe.


> Well, they certainly didn't need photos with the
> details of the pores of their skin in there.


Blurring is easy. Unblurring, now ...

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
“Any IT professional who is still allowing IE6 to be used in a corporate setting is guilty of malpractice” Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 1 01-22-2010 08:45 AM
Photshop Element, overkill? kyle.wylie@gmail.com Digital Photography 5 10-08-2005 05:26 PM
Security overkill? Louise Computer Security 24 07-16-2005 06:02 AM
Overkill Bren Computer Security 11 04-16-2005 04:22 AM
is JNI overkill SirThanxALot Java 4 01-25-2005 12:51 PM



Advertisments