Up to a Professional Standard?

Up to a Professional Standard?
Are these photos of a standard that is good enough to charge for?

These are two different questions.

Up to a professional standard? No.
Are these photos of a standard that is good enough to charge for? Sure... at $25 per.

The need for product photography spans quite a large range. These are not catalog quality work, but not every one needs that level of work or has a budget for it.

-Pete
 
Crop, No crop, whatever whatever. Me - personally - Im a cropper. Your picture says - "Its a guitar", what it needs to say is "I want a guitar" or "I want that amplifier". The text boys then add some must have features then its "I need that Amplifier" then hopefully out comes the credit card, Job done!
Sometimes you need to crop to show the USP (Unique selling point). In the case of the speakers it could be a special diaphram or cone suspension. Get in on that. We all know they are rectangular and have 4 corners so the viewers brain will add that in anyway. If however you're shooting for an instruction manual then rethink your game. Head on shots showing key operating points might be eeded. There is work for enthusiast level photogs for lower budget clients but you womt get the top end stuff. My daughter works as a refinisher on £800 a shot and thier Camera cost more than my house so the competition is tough!
 
They are good enough for a hobbyist, but sorry, not up to pro standards. Pro work requires lots of "negative space" so that logos and other information can be added afterwards without having to resort to Photoshop. Also, the contrast is weak on the first three images. Below is an ad I did for a jewelry shop who sold Rolex watches. I have a Stainless Steel Submariner so I photographed it with my Hasselblad in a light tent. The photo I submitted had a lot of free space around it. The marketing company who did their ad work added the Jewler's information in post processing. It was eventually made into a billboard ad. The image should be sharp and contrasty and have a nice "snap" to it. You really want it to jump off the page.

The original 5000 ppi scan of the Ektar 100 negative was upwards of 60MB and was sharp as a razor. This image is much reduced in size and therefore suffers from some compression and sharpening but it should give you some idea of what you need.

rolex.jpg


The photo below I did for a guitar shop selling Epiphone guitars. They lent me a guitar to do the shoot because my Gibson SG looks a little different from the Epi. The original image showed a lot more of the guitar and was again photographed with the Hasselblad and TMAX-100 film in a light tent. The shop wanted it in black and white rather than color because it had more graphical impact. Their ad company (the same as the jewelers, by the way) added the Epi logo and cropped it to their needs. Again, this image is a pretty severe reduction in size from the original so it suffers from some compression. In the original image you can see the individual windings on all of the strings, including the "G" string, which is the closest and thinnest. This one was made into a 9 foot long Hi-res banner that they had hanging on the wall in the shop.​


epi.jpg
 
Last edited:
...These are two different questions.
Sorry Pete, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. "Professional" simply means that someone is paid for their work whether it's as a photographer or a historian. The real question, I think is: "Are these images of a standard that a client would pay for the rights to them for commercial use?" I think the answer is "No, not yet", but they are getting close. Some more practice, and you'll be there.
 
Only thing I can comment on is the composition of these shots. I think you are there as far just the composition of the shots. I personally like all of them, but my eye is young. Good work and best of luck to you.
 
...These are two different questions.
Sorry Pete, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.

Wow, John. Thanks you! I'm not used to that. Folks usually just tell me I'm wrong. And I'm married, so....

"Professional" simply means that someone is paid for their work whether it's as a photographer or a historian.

I know it CAN mean that. It can mean other things too, such as: showing a high degree of skill or competence.

I think the connotation here (used to modify the word "standard") is clearly in regards to competence.

-Pete
 
LOL Pete, every time I read one of your posts I just smile. I don't see you post very often, but when you do, you are always right on target.
 
for me it's not the cropping (although it could be a bit better). the biggest thing that separates great photography from good photography is lighting. the photo of the amp seems to be the closest when it comes to professional lighting. when i was learning lighting what helped me the most was to look at really well lit photos and analyze their lighting and see if you can recreate it. photoshop is a crutch and doesn't create good lighting. no real photographer spends that much time in post-processing. anyone that really knows what they are doing spends most of their time setting up lights and getting them balanced. this doesn't mean that it has to be tons of expensive lights. i started with umbrellas, pocket wizards and 90 dollar vivitar flash heads. if you can master that, you can shoot almost any lighting setup after that.
 
tirediron said:
Sorry Pete, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. "Professional" simply means that someone is paid for their work whether it's as a photographer or a historian. The real question, I think is: "Are these images of a standard that a client would pay for the rights to them for commercial use?" I think the answer is "No, not yet", but they are getting close. Some more practice, and you'll be there.
Technically professional means you earn over 51% of your total income from photography. But to be a true professional you should be able to produce high quality photographs and deliver them in a professional manner. You should be responsible, fully insured, have the equipment and the KNOWLEDGE and SKILL to get the job done. I know many photographers who claim to be pros because they got paid for a job then they bite off more than they can chew and go ruining the reputation of pros in general! I have been dealing with this in my community. A lady who calls herself a pro has been destroying the local market with her ignorance and stupidity! After dealing with her the local clients would rather buy a camera and try to do it themselves than deal with what she puts them through!
That said, don't let it discourage you from trying, just DON'T CLAIM TO BE SOMETHING YOU ARE NOT! Do your best, be honest with the clients and charge for your work. Experience will get you to the "pro" level :)
 
Last edited:
Also there is little or no room/dead for the ad agency to place the text or room for options to frame them in?
 
Go look at product brochures for this type of product and see for yourself. For now the answer is no, closer to snapshots than professional level work.
 
Oh man - there's so much you can do with instruments! (please ignore chromatic aberration over the pickup) I used to work for the biggest music store in the nation and one afternoon got to play around with a few PRS guitars that a long-distance customer was interested in and wanted photos of. I used my camera and dug out the old studio stuff that the co. used before they got rid of their photography dept. I've never worked with studio equipment, but it didn't take any time to set up the lights and position myself to get the catchlights I wanted.

Honestly - I would not say you're in a position to be paid - but who knows, you may actually find people willing to pay you. Get a dark backdrop, pay attention to the details, and google other product photographers to see what techniques they're using.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top