As I've covered before, it's a tricky business judging what makes a good photograph. There are so many intangible and subjective elements, like memories and emotions, at play when humans look at what was a fleeting moment fixed in time, before the photographic considerations of exposure and framing. These days, with digital photography continually becoming more affordable for the average person, and the amateur market models of cameras boasting levels of control over the image that were once only available to professionals, it's easy for almost everyone to take impressive shots. So in these technologically democratic times, why should anyone pay a professional? Can't everyone do what we do?
Well... no. I'm fond of borrowing a former colleague's answer and saying "Well I've got a spanner but I'm not a mechanic." We're paid to make our subjects look as good as possible, whether we're shooting a handful of dried fruit in a product job or capturing a wedding, and this means we must invest in and be in control of the equipment we use, and get the most out of it. Look at any great photo, from adverts to classic journalistic images, and you'll find crisp focus on the most important visual element, lighting which accentuates the textures with shadow and contrast to show off the "point" of the shot, and (if the subject has eyes) expression to communicate emotion and elicit sympathy.
One of our most important skills is knowing what to show and what not to. It's always a revelation to be allowed a glance into a fellow respected pro's files and see how many shots are taken and considered not worthy before the stunning final image makes it through the editing process. In any given shoot involving living subjects, there's always plenty that don't make it past the upload stage when post processing starts. Out go the blinks, the dribbles, the ones where the subject's moved at the last second and where another shot does the job better. If the lighting, the focus or the expression isn't right, then the shot is out. I've been asked by clients for a disk of the out-takes from shoots I've done, despite the fact that I've not considered the shots of sufficient quality to go into the selection I've shown, and I've refused, on the basis that that's not what I was paid for, and that our reputation is built on the quality of shot that we release. I'm immediately suspicious when I see alleged professionals advertising huge numbers of images from shoots that don't last very long. What sort of quality can you expect from someone who promises to give you 75 shots from a 30 minute shoot? That's more than 2 genuinely communicative, emotional, valuable and sellable images each minute! Do they shoot indiscriminately, recording what's in front of the lens regardless of whether it's relevant or descriptive, or do they look for the developing drama, focussing on the action and the story? Do they just turn the whole shoot over, including the "nothing shots"? What sort of value is that to the customer?
Unfortunately there seems to be confusion among some photographers (and I've seen the oldest established studios turn out some terrible stuff - poor lighting, badly positioned subjects, poor framing, unflattering expressions - and defend it as "style") and the general public as to what should be considered as quality work. The values of exposure, framing and expression can be selectively applied for effect where appropriate, but there's really only so far you can go before you're missing the detail of the action and the impact of the message. I suppose it's the ubiquitous availability of photography now that leads people to think that if they're going to pay someone to take photos, having lots of images to show for the money you pay constitutes quality and value.
I would suggest that in a market vastly over-saturated with enthusiastic part-timers and alleged pro's charging not very much for lots, that a wise customer should consider a few things ahead of price and quantity of images before choosing their photographer.
1) The quality triangle - Cheap/ Good/ Quick. You can only have 2 corners at any given time. Cheap and good will take time. Quick and cheap is rarely good. Quick and good is not cheap, and so on. Are they charging a fair price for the quality of their work? The price should be an indication of quality, experience and reliability. If you only want to pay a little, you'll be very, very lucky to find fantastic quality.
2) Are you confident that this person will do the job they say they will? Look at their past work. Does it show that they can produce the quality you want and expect? They may talk a good game, but it's results you need.
3) Reputation is priceless, and experience shows. Has anyone recommended them? How long have they been working professionally? How many times have they done this before?
I don't believe that it's essential for a photographer to come through dedicated college and uni courses the way I did to be any good. I equally distrust the crests of trade bodies which are supposed to guarantee the customer a recognised quality, but in practice can be purchased fairly cheaply by anyone setting themselves up as a photographer and can be displayed by anyone who's paid the price. Curiosity, passion and perfection are not things you can purchase or learn, and experience is everything.
So, a long rant this one, and of course as someone whose livelihood depends on people paying for photography, I'm bound to defend our prices. However, the recession and a rash of redundancies has sent a wave of passionate amateurs onto the market, and we believe we have a little more to offer customers who are looking for quality work.
Hilton Sanders Photography Ltd celebrates it's 2nd birthday round about now, and Jo and I are spiffingly proud of the work we've done. We've been shooting some families since before the company was founded, and most of our new business, and any new services we add come through recommendation and request. That says a lot. And if you want to read what people think about us, it's all here......
C
