|
glort Offline [X]
|
BSPhotog wrote:
Would you really want to work for someone who was more concerned about your gear than your photos or interpersonal skills?
With all the Pre-occupation with gear as evidenced here Daily, I think the concern may justifiably more with getting work in the first place!
I have thought about shooting for other studios a bit lately so I can just go out, shoot and get paid and leave all the rest of the hassles to someone else.
I have seen a number of ads for studios wanting people and demanding people have Multiple FF latest model high end cams, certain over the top lenses and even specific brandsof gear.
Then I look at their websites and although I don't think my work is anything but adequate, if it were as out of date, unimaginative and gave me similar facepalms, I'd be bloody worried! The fact they are virtually giving the work away is another thing that makes me shake my head.
What you shoot and what you shoot it on are 2 very different things and bear no relationship to each other.
I could be shooting MF Digital and it's not going to fix any of the unimaginative crap I have seen
and turn it into creditable work. As I have always said, Just because you grab the car that won the last race doesn't mean you are going to win the next one when you have never raced before. You are still going to have your arse handed to you on a platter because you only THINK you know how to drive it.
I have ALWAYS thought the mark of a good and true photographer was their ability to pick up whatever camera was lying around and be able to work within what ever limitations it had and make good pictures that had wow factor and showed their skills.
When I started off, that was pretty much a thing. You didn't brag about the pic you took on a new Blad, you bragged about the pic you took on your grandfathers old camera you inherited.
Now days, people think that the only cameras that are capable of taking a decent pic is the very latest model because once that comes out, all the models before suddenly loose their ability to take anything decent even though 2 years ago they were the best thing ever invented!
As far as the 2nd shooter having to do my style, that's not something that I personally would worry about at all. In fact, I'd much prefer someone with a different outlook.
My thoughts are the coverage should be complete and stand on it's own without a 2nd shooter at all. To me they are there just to add some extras to the coverage, not that the coverage should depend on it.
Just my views and I'd guarantee others are different but anyway.
If the 2nd shooter had a different style to me ( and I would guarantee most would!) I'd welcome that. And I'd market and promote the hell out of it and use the fact to get more money for my coverage's!
To me it would be why double up when you can get the best of 2 worlds?
Every client I shot always had a range of tastes. Catering for that latitude has been a big part of the trick of getting the job. If I can offer 2 different but complimentary perspectives, I am going to take that and run with it for all it's worth and use it to my advantage to bump my profits and get the edge on my competitors.
|
Jul 25, 2016 at 08:40 PM |
| |
|
|