Professional Equipment Overkill for Some Corporate Photos

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul, Feb 21, 2013.

  1. Paul

    Paul Guest

    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.
    Paul, Feb 21, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul

    Rob Guest

    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.
    Rob, Feb 21, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 20, 7:50 pm, 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.


    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.
    RichA, Feb 21, 2013
    #3
  4. Paul

    Paul Guest

    On 2/20/2013 6:56 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On Feb 20, 7:50 pm, 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.

    >
    > 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).
    Paul, Feb 21, 2013
    #4
  5. Paul

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:56:38 AM UTC, RichA wrote:
    > On Feb 20, 7:50 pm, 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.

    >
    >
    >
    > 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.
    Whisky-dave, Feb 21, 2013
    #5
  6. Paul

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 21, 7:26 am, Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    > On Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:56:38 AM UTC, RichA wrote:
    > > On Feb 20, 7:50 pm, 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.

    >
    > > 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.
    RichA, Feb 21, 2013
    #6
  7. Paul

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:27:54 PM UTC, RichA wrote:
    > On Feb 21, 7:26 am, Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:56:38 AM UTC, RichA wrote:

    >
    > > > On Feb 20, 7:50 pm, 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.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > > 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 :)
    Whisky-dave, Feb 22, 2013
    #7
  8. Paul <> 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 1, 2013
    #8
  9. Paul

    Paul Guest

    On 3/1/2013 2:44 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > Paul <> 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.
    Paul, Mar 3, 2013
    #9
  10. Paul <> wrote:
    > On 3/1/2013 2:44 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> Paul <> 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 5, 2013
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bren

    Overkill

    Bren, Apr 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    970
    winged
    Apr 16, 2005
  2. Louise

    Security overkill?

    Louise, Jul 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,050
    The Ghost of General Lee
    Jul 16, 2005
  3. Photshop Element, overkill?

    , Oct 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    281
    Betty J. Miller
    Oct 8, 2005
  4. Squiggle
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    1,166
    Squiggle
    Sep 10, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    832
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page