Last night I was in a social gathering of around 200 people. The host was my friend so I carried my old DSLR. He also hired a pro photographer, who shot with 2 cameras. One pro-level MILC (smaller than my DSLR) and another palm sized - not pro-level but good camera.
...
On my way home, I thought how the perception of common public (I meant non-photographer enthusiasts) differ. I searched about it on the internet and discovered that it is the case indeed and some pros do use larger cameras just to impress the public. This probably creates a cyclic loop where more pros are compelled to buy larger gear for no other reason.
...
Yes. Impressive looking gear generally increases sales and customer satisfaction.
When it comes to many types of commercial photography, especially event photography, the client really isn't a good judge of photo quality.
Really? Who is the best judge of photo quality in this case?
Photo quality doesn't really matter, so it doesn't matter who the judge is.
What are you basing this on? What do you mean by "photo quality"?
I mean the criteria that the typical reader of this forum would use.
To my mind, the quality of a commercially produced photograph is largely a function of whether it is suitable for its intended purpose. This is judged by whoever has purchased the service. If the client is happy, that is the measure of quality.
I think you mixed two things here:
- whether it is suitable for its intended purpose
- wheter the client is happy
These are separate issues, and can be independent. I've seen happy clients use inappropriate photos. By inappropriate, I mean the photos are not performing the intended service.
However, if the client is happy, then it doesn't matter whether the photos serve the intended purpose.
The client will base their satisfaction with factors other than the quality of the images. Perhaps the most important factor will be how easy and friendly the photographer was. If the client likes the photographer, he
Do women not engage photographers?
I was using the term "he" in the traditional sense of "a person whose sex is not know". One of the problems with English is that we have the term "she" for females, the term "he" for males or unknown, but no term that means "male" but not female.
I've seen it suggested that we need to split the two meanings of "he" onto separate words, but I have yet to see a consensus on what the new word would be.
Some have suggested "they", but there are issues with not having separate singular and plural versions. Consider the word "you" which is both singular and plural. People really don't like that, and try to create separate words for singular and plural. Hence the term "you all".
The Great Courses has a wonderful course on Language. It covers these sorts of issues, and how languages change and evolve over time. If you are interested in these sorts of language issues you may to take a look.
will forgive any problem. If the client doesn't like the photographer he will complain about multiple problems, many of which are imagined.
What are you basing this on? Is this something you've experienced in your professional work? This sounds like something you've just made up, or at best generalised from isolated examples, and are presenting here as fact.
It is based on decades of experience running my own business and watching others run theirs.
The biggest factor in customer satisfaction is usually how well the vendor gets along with the customer. I've seen vendors do great work, but lose customers left and right due to an abrasive personality.
Many clients are still under the impression that they are hiring a photographer for the gear.
What are you basing this statement on?
Personal observation, confirmed by discussions with other photographers.
People do think that photography is simple, you point the camera and shoot. They think that all one needs to be a good photographer is a high end camera. Therefore the client really wants to see their paid photographer with something that looks expensive and high end. Large size goes a long way towards that goal.
It's also an advantage if the client recognizes and respects the name of the company that made the cameras. "Nikon" is a far more impressive label than "Yongnuo"
Not necessarily. People may also be impressed by a name they have never heard of, as they may assume it is something expensive and exclusive
Quite true. That is a possibility. However, I don't think that's the way I would bet.
Stop a stranger on the street. Ask them who makes a better camera "Nikon" or "Yongnuo". I suspect you will find that far more people will say "Nikon" than "Yongnuo".
There's a Nikon camera in Paul Simon's song Kodachrome. That goes a long way to brand recognition.
Of course, there are many physically small cameras that are extremely capable. There are also physically larger cameras that are junk.
Like what?
There are some very good mirrorless camera that perform much better than the large first generation DSLRs.
However, actually image quality is usually not the most important component in overall image quality.
So image quality is not the most important part of image quality? Really? Or is it that image quality is not necessarily the most important consideration in the overall quality of the image (which means something quite different from what you said)?
You've got me here. that statement makes no sense. I meant to say that actually image quality is usually not the most important component in overall
customer satisfaction.
Remember, when you are running a photography business, the quality of your marketing will have a bigger affect on your profits than the work you produce. How your camera looks, is a big part of that marketing.
Do professional photographers usually include photos and details of their gear on their websites and any flyers or other marketing material they produce?
It sounds like you are envisaging some situation where, for example, a couple are planning their wedding and have a conversation like:
"We should get the photographer that did Julie and Carl's wedding". "But their photos weren't really very good.". "I know, but their photographer had a really big camera". "Yes, he did. We should hire him".
Or maybe:
"Do you think we should get the photographer from John and Kim's wedding, or the one that did Rachel and Stuart's? Both did a really good job, the photos were lovely". "True, but the one who did John and Kim's had that big, impressive looking camera. She will do a better job".
No. Not at all. There are many factors that go into the selection of a photographer and the client's ultimate satisfaction.
Assume the couple has already hired the photographer. If he shows up with impressive looking gear, the couple is more likely to think they are getting their money's worth. If he shows up with something that looks cheap, the client is more likely to think they overpaid.
The couple that thinks they overpaid, will be more critical, less happy, and less likely to recommend that photographer to others. The couple that finds the gear impressive is more likely to be happy with the results and more likely to recommend the photographer.
Obviously, this is not the only factor, and is not definitive in every case. However it is one factor of many. The more factors you have in your favor, the more likely your business will be a success.
By the way, the client will take you even more seriously if you walk around holding a fancy light meter and take readings every once in a while.
What are you basing this on? Your professional experience?
I learned this trick from another photographer. At first I didn't think it would work, but after watching him a few times I was amazed at how it helps.
It sends the message to the client that you know something about photography that they don't. This helps them justify hiring you to take the photos.
I always enjoy seeing a party from you come up, with its happy little avatar. You seem to have a real knack for making wise-sounding pronouncements that are a mixture of things that everyone already knows and things you have just made up, all presented as your great insights from on high.
I'm sorry you see it that way. While bad ideas can sound wrong, so can good ideas. When Newton suggested that heavier objects don't really fall faster than lighter objects people thought he was nuts. Yet drop a 40 pound and a 10 pound rock at the same time, and they will both hit the ground together.
My suggestions may initially sound wrong to you, but you might find that if you considered them, they might make sense.
For instance, take your response to me. If you read my post with the preconceived notion that I spout nonsense, you are going to read the post with the intent of picking it apart. You might go so far as to point out a possibly inappropriate use of the word "he".
If the same post came from someone you respected, you would read it with the idea of how you can apply it your situation. You might even let an inappropriate use of the word "he" slide.
How you view a post is strongly influenced by your opinion of the author. Perhaps more so than by the content of the post. In the same way, a client's opinion of photographs is strongly influenced by their opinion of the photographer.
I've been in meetings where we were pitching advertising campaigns to a client. I was presenting with my business partner. I'm a man, and she's a woman. About half the pitches were her ideas, and about half were mine. I was pitching a mix of my ideas and hers. She was pitching a mix of her ideas and mine.
The client had no respect for women. If the idea came out of the woman's mouth, he didn't like it. If it came out of a man's mouth, he did. Although he didn't realize it, he was judging the ideas based on his opinion of the person who said them, not on the merits of the actual ideas.
We ended up firing that client. He was not someone who we wanted to work with.
