I am a professional photographer... ask me anything

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

I think this thread is becoming quite similar to the Photo thread and DSLR PR0N thread.

I like this thread. There's actually stuff I wanted to ask in the Photo thread but didn't want to clutter up a nice photo gallery with my newbie questions.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

I like this thread. There's actually stuff I wanted to ask in the Photo thread but didn't want to clutter up a nice photo gallery with my newbie questions.

Fair enough. This thread is good, hopefully Neeper doesn't mind others answering while he's AFK.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

While I somewhat agree with you it sounds great when you simplify the math, the unfortunate reality is that photographers have expenses.

Oh yeah, I didnt mean to imply that it's pure profit. There are a lot of up front costs associated with pro photography that other industries don't have. But as Hans said, you don't have to swap them out every few years. Good lenses and things like tripods etc can last for life if they are taken care of.

I do think wedding photographers have a better margin then other photographers. Most editorial photographers need all the things you mentioned, but they tend to get get anywhere from 400-2000 gig usually. I remember hiring guys who after all their expenses, barely made a couple hundred per shoot.

Obviously things can get ridiculous at the higher end of the industry, but on average, I think wedding photographers can do pretty well financially.

[boosterjuice]

I have a Nikon D90 with a few lenses (sigma 18-200, and sigma 30m 1.4f). I'm looking to improve my photography. Should I a) get more lenses for my D90 (I'm interested in a wide angle), or, b) should I make the jump to full frame?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Yes, it's easy to remove water marks. Though, if a thief has to choose between two images (one has & one doesn't), they'll take the road of less effort.

I'm not sure why amateurs crave this attention so much to ruin their photos. They always paste these giant ass signatures in that cheesy script font, and it takes away from the actual photography. Do they take photos because they want to create good images, or because they crave attention? Because watermarks negatively impact your photos.

The people who steal photos tend to be of no consequence and will have little to no impact on you as a photographer. Anyone of important who deals with photography knows its not right.....and if they still do it, that's when you get legal on their ass (and often collect a sweet little paycheck!).

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'm not sure why amateurs crave this attention so much to ruin their photos. They always paste these giant ass signatures in that cheesy script font, and it takes away from the actual photography. Do they take photos because they want to create good images, or because they crave attention? Because watermarks negatively impact your photos.

I've personally never put a Watermark on any of my photos.. but one of mine was posted on Reddit once and got quite a hit on Flickr because of that. It would have been nice if someone who liked that picture was able to search for my name and maybe found more of my photos.

I do cringe when I hear people who first go out with their new dslr's and the first thing you hear them ask is "How do I put a watermark on my pics".

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by boosterjuice

I have a Nikon D90 with a few lenses (sigma 18-200, and sigma 30m 1.4f). I'm looking to improve my photography. Should I a) get more lenses for my D90 (I'm interested in a wide angle), or, b) should I make the jump to full frame?

Full frame makes a huge difference imo...i went from a d80 to a d800 a few months ago, and its nights and day. BUT you need good quality lenses on these cameras, as they will only hilight junk glass even more so (kind of like how HD tvs make SD feeds look worse than they did on old tv's).

I would sell all your old stuff and buy a d600 (or 800 if budget allows) and one or two good lenses. Get fewer things, but make sure they are better. Forget Sigma....Nikon or Zeiss.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Oh yeah, I didnt mean to imply that it's pure profit. There are a lot of up front costs associated with pro photography that other industries don't have. But as Hans said, you don't have to swap them out every few years. Good lenses and things like tripods etc can last for life if they are taken care of.

I do think wedding photographers have a better margin then other photographers. Most editorial photographers need all the things you mentioned, but they tend to get get anywhere from 400-2000 gig usually. I remember hiring guys who after all their expenses, barely made a couple hundred per shoot.

Obviously things can get ridiculous at the higher end of the industry, but on average, I think wedding photographers can do pretty well financially.

Yea, don't get me wrong, portrait photography is worse still from a money perspective, but then the stresses are much lower. My wife has several friends who got out of weddings because they simply couldn't handle the stresses of it. There are brilliant photographers who are terrible wedding photographers, simply because they don't know how to manage the day.

I agree though, you can't really equate the highest end of the spectrum, as with any art product, the value is as high as it is percieved.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I do cringe when I hear people who first go out with their new dslr's and the first thing you hear them ask is "How do I put a watermark on my pics".

I think it can be done tastefully, so I'm not against them necessarily, but 9/10 times it takes away from the photo, so I've grown into a hater.

It's always nice to get recognition though, so I feel your pain. I just think it shouldn't overshadow the point of photography.

Btw, what photo was it?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

Yea, don't get me wrong, portrait photography is worse still from a money perspective, but then the stresses are much lower. My wife has several friends who got out of weddings because they simply couldn't handle the stresses of it. There are brilliant photographers who are terrible wedding photographers, simply because they don't know how to manage the day.

Yep, I think the biggest pitfall of wedding photography is that you can't screw up. Ever! Screw up a photograph for a story or portrait...sure thats bad. But if you screw up somebody's wedding, they are going to be reminded for the rest of their life (or at least marriage). The pressure is definitely high.

[Bertuzzied]

Are you screwed now that the iphone 5 can take panorama pics??

[sun]

I also make a living as a photographer. Not weddings though - interiors and architecture. Kudos to Neeper because shooting a wedding has to be stressful as balls and his portfolio is amazing.

[Neeper]

Originally Posted by EYE_Overstand

1. Is there desktop editing tools that function as easy as instagram? Why I ask is because I'd like to start using my wife's canon to shoot BUT I don't have the time to learn photoshop.

2. I'm on instagram.i really think its a great way for people who take photography as a hobby to instantly capture/edit/upload photos etc etc.


@asim_overstands

The only desktop apps I ever use are Photoshop and Lightroom. You should check out lightroom. Its way easier to learn than photoshop and there are presets you could get for free or pay that will give you filters similar to instagram. I would actually be surprised if there wasn't someone out there selling instagram style presets.

I am a huge fan of instagram.

[Neeper]

Originally Posted by Allos

Does camera matter? I own an aging Nikon D50. If I upgrade to, say, the D800, if I press the shutter at the same location at the same moment, will the D800 picture look significantly better then the D50's?

That's comparing apples to oranges. D800 is a prosumer camera and the D50 is entry level. So, yes your photos will look different, but the lens you use is also a big deal. The D800 is a beast of a camera, I have one.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Neeper

The only desktop apps I ever use are Photoshop and Lightroom. You should check out lightroom. Its way easier to learn than photoshop and there are presets you could get for free or pay that will give you filters similar to instagram. I would actually be surprised if there wasn't someone out there selling instagram style presets.
.

+1 for light room.

Very easy learning curve, especially compared to photoshop. Even fiddling with the shadow slider in lightroom can make a world of difference to a photo.

[Neeper]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Ah, regulator is here, let the Canon bashing begin :P

Neeper shot my wedding and he was ####ing awesome.

Do you take your camera with you everywhere, or did you when you were starting out? I find my biggest struggle is taking enough pictures to be able to improve significantly.

At what ISO do you find you get too much noise in the image when shooting in low light situations, such as indoor or overcast/dusk? I understand this really does depend on the camera as well, but is there a number you stay the eff away from?

Your wedding was awesome! We need to go to a game together again if the season ever starts up!

No I don't take my camera everywhere I go. If you find you are struggling to take enough photos, then go on a photo walk. Instead of taking your camera everywhere, plan a trip with your camera. Don't bring any distractions and just go shoot whatever you feel like and practice.

ISO noise depends on the camera you have. Most high end cameras like the ones I shoot can handle high ISO like you wouldn't believe. For example, my D3s can shoot at ISO 6400 and the photo is still usable to me. Because I know the limits of my cameras, I try never to shoot above ISO 2000. But if I have to I will, because in the end, getting the image is much more important. I don't know which body you are shooting with but you can do your own test to see at which ISO it becomes unusable. Or else you could just google it too as there are many sites where people do these kinds of tests.

[Neeper]

Originally Posted by Bmuzyka

Hobbyist here, Canon shooter. I have found myself drifting back and forth between preferred styles. When I first started out, and even now still, I have always leaned towards Photo-journalistic, I think mostly due to my interest in Wildlife, and I have always found Wildlife photography and Photo-journalistic to be very similar. But I am slowly getting into Portrait (I even bought a continuous lighting setup last year), and Landscape and still life. I have discovered a passion for HDR.

Is there one style or method you prefer over the others?

I honestly LOVE shooting weddings. I know for some people they could never do what I do, and that's cool. But I just love the energy, atmosphere, joy and celebrations that come with weddings. I also love knowing what I do is so important to the families who hire me.

As for HDR.... whatever floats your boat. But I hate HDR. I never liked it and never will. I feel it is a fad who's ship already sailed.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I think the title of this thread should be "I am a f-ing fantastic professional photographer, ask me anything."


Because you are.

[Neeper]

Originally Posted by Table 5

A solid wedding photographer can make really good money. Consider that one wedding can go for 3-6k usually, and a photographer can do 2 in a weekend if he's up for it. Multiply that by 5-6 months a year, and that's pretty good living. Wedding photography is looked down upon by some in the industry, but it's a really good way to make a living.

The reality is not many would want to shoot a weddings back to back. It is a physical and mental grind. One August a few years ago I shot 7 weddings in 1 month and I was burnt the hell out. Ever since then, I never book back to back weddings anymore.

The reality is that most full time wedding photographers shoot anywhere between 12-25 weddings a year. I know some who shoot over 30, which I think is pure madness!!

[Neeper]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Ugh, personal pet peeve of mine too when people over do the watermarks. Half the time it's some ugly ass font that just completely ruins the photo.

I was an Art Director in the magazine industry for a few years so a good chunk of my circle of friends are professional photographers. I haven't seen one of them ever use a watermark.

I used to use a really subtle watermark logo on my photos, but now I stopped doing it over a year ago. It's come to the point where I am confident enough that people know my style and my image when they see it.