Tag: discussion

Photography Location

Jason1 Comment

A lot of the time people ask me what suggestions or recommendations I can give them when they look for a photographer.  It’s usually because the person is not in an area I can get to, or it’s a family member or a friend that wants to pick my brain (even though it hurts sometimes! 🙂  )  When I get this question, I tell most people that choosing a photographer is much like choosing a house or real estate:  It’s all about location!

What do I mean by this?  Simply put: a photographer can shoot on-location.  I see many photographers speak to their ability to shoot on-location, and this is an important aspect of many genres ranging from wedding photography, to band photography, and even architectural work.  Heck, last week I did a maternity shoot that was “on location.”  So, why is this such an important thing to be able to stake claim to?  Three key things come to mind for me:

1.  Adaptability – Being able to shoot on location means you can adapt.  If the surroundings are beautiful, you can adjust your composition to include elements of the scene to give a sense of time and space to an image.  If the surroundings aren’t so beautiful, then it equally means you are able to diffuse things so that you can’t tell where a shot was taken – only that it’s a beautiful shot!

2.  Controlling – Yes, being able to shoot on location means you are adaptable, but it also means you can control for a number of factors, and of utmost importance here is the ability to control the light.  You can bring flash to fill shadows, or scrims to bring shadows to harsh light.  If a photographer can control for the light in a scene – the shot will improve by a factor of ten in most instances.

Castle Rock Firehouse

3.  Fundamentals – Given the above two factors are in place, this also usually means that the photographer brings a certain set of fundamental skills to the table.  He or she knows an aperture versus a shutter setting, and can likely tell you whether ISO 100 is better or worse than ISO 32000 (depending on the look of course!).  Although many like to wax esoteric about photography in abstract terms (myself included), there are certain fundamentals that every photographer worth their salt would and should know.  If you can shoot on location, you likely have these fundamentals.

These are just three of the factors that I think about when I see a photographer say they are an “on-location” photographer.  Of course the proof is in the pudding, and while I certainly would not pick a photographer solely on whether or not that term is included in their online presence, the ability to back up statements with a solid portfolio (and yes, an interview if you have the time to talk to a potential photographer!)

While we all like to think we have these traits, and in enough of a capacity to “bring it” for any client – let’s face it…some photographers are better than others.  Either they’ve got a natural knack for it where others have to work harder at it, or they’ve just simply been shooting a lot longer.  Seriously…time means practice, and the more you practice, the better you are at anything!  There are photographers who have been shooting for decades and some of us can’t hold a candle to them.  Meanwhile, others have been shooting for days, and I often stand in awe of their work.  So, consider the above three things when you decide to hang out your own shingle – because people will likely be looking for these traits.  Do you have them?  Do you have more?  Less? Something different? Something new?

What traits do you bring to the table?  Or better yet, what traits do you think are important for potential clients to consider when hiring a photographer?  The above is just my opinion – but that doesn’t mean it’s the ultimate answer!  Am I right or am I way off base?  Sound off with your own thoughts as the conversation is always the best part about this blog!  Can’t wait to hear what you have to say!  Until next time, keep the comments coming – oh yeah, and keep on shooting!

Is 12 enough?

Jason7 Comments

An interesting news story came my way today over on CNet where Akira Watanabe, manager of Olympus Imaging’s SLR planning department said that most needs of most people can be met with a 12MP camera.  The full story is here, but does bring what has been an ongoing discussion into a more defined state.  As we’ve seen megapixel counts increase from counts lower than 3 MP less than a decade ago to counts that now are at 12 MP or higher, discussions have arisen throughout the industry on “How much is enough?”

From my perspective, I would agree that 12 is probably close.  Yes, processing capabilities are increasing and hard drive storage space costs continue to decrease at almost ridiculous rates (you can get a 1TB hard drive for around $100 these days!), but these are mitigated by need.  When you look at the true and honest need for most folks (myself included), we do not regularly print much larger than 8×10, or 12×16.  I would venture to guess that even artist gallery prints and portfolios do not exceed 16×20″ dimensions that often.

Yes, more megapixels means you can crop smaller and retain print quality, but at what price?  More grain or noise?  Yep.  Reduced dynamic range?  Yep.  More processing demands?  Yep.  More storage needed?  Yep.  While all of these can be addressed by buying software to handle noise, bracketing exposures to increase dynamic range, and buying more storage to meet the increased demand, there does come a point of diminishing returns on the investment, and Olympus seems to have set that mark at 12 MP.

But, will the market agree?  I think so.  It’s no secret that the economy is not doing so well.  People are likely going to be more frugal in their purchases, and getting that full-sized wall print may not be as high a priority as, perhaps, bread on the table is anymore.  Do we need to re-assess our priorities?  Some say yes, that it’s not all about the megapixels.  Some say we should be asking for things like low light responsiveness, better auto-focusing, faster auto-focusing, better in camera noise handling.  I don’t think any of us would complain either if we saw a decrease in the costs of fast glass.

But who knows – maybe the masses will continue to push for more megapixels.  Now that Olympus has drawn a proverbial line in the sane, will other vendors see the logic and start to taper things off?  Or will the megapixels wars continue indefinitely?  Sure, we can’t predict the future, but guessing and talking about it can be a good source of discussion too because it can get us thinking about what is important in our pictures.  So, what do you think?  Where will things go from here?  Sound off in the comments, and watch for the podcast coming up on Monday where you’ll get an extended version of my thoughts on where things may go from here.

In the meantime, have a great weekend, and go out and getcha some (pictures)!  We’ll see you back here on Monday!