To answer for real, I think that most (established) photographers should say yes to this. After all, I'd hope most people are shooting the way that they want to already. If not, then I would wonder why they're not shooting in the style that they like.
I shoot stuff for myself all the time why would I want to hire myself for something? If I'm paying with my money I want it to be someone who is producing different work than what I produce, even if they work in a similar manner or style. There's always someone better than you.
You don't have to love the thing you do best. Bono might want to play fiddle in jazz clubs for all we know, but that's not what people want from him and that may not be what he is best at. Michael Jordan wanted to play baseball. My point being that our greatest value may not be the thing that we ourselves like the best. Typically what we like best is what someone else does. But we ought to do what we do best, not what the other guy does that impresses us.
I would not hire myself for the simple reason that I'm not my favorite photographer. I like my work and I strive to do the best I can, but I think there will always be other photographers work that I like better than my own.
Are you guys reading this correctly, or am I nuts? I don't think the OP means are you worth paying your own money, but rather of ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHERS IN THE WORLD, would you pick YOURSELF over EVERYONE ELSE? Right?
I bet Picasso wasn't hanging up his own stuff on his wall. I bet HCB didn't frame and put his own stuff up that you see sold in galleries. Right?...
TTLKurtis wrote:
Are you guys reading this correctly, or am I nuts? I don't think the OP means are you worth paying your own money, but rather of ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHERS IN THE WORLD, would you pick YOURSELF over EVERYONE ELSE? Right?
I bet Picasso wasn't hanging up his own stuff on his wall. I bet HCB didn't frame and put his own stuff up that you see sold in galleries. Right?...
From the responses it seems that everyone is reading it correctly.
Going back to the original question... The part that states "if the roles were reversed", is an important factor. That would mean that I'm a bride, not a photographer. If I were a bride, shopping with a $4k budget in mind (which is what most of my clients are), and looking around in the area that I shoot in, yes I would hire me.
If you read the question without the role reversal... It's a totally different issue. Would I actually hire my clone to shoot my wedding... Probably not. There are lots of other styles out there that I appreciate and would totally love to embrace if it were my event. But that's looking at it from the perspective of a photographer, which is very different than the perspective of the vast majority of brides.
