Fashion photography with a point and shoot digital camera ?

[halcyonlll]

Okay ... i have a question for anyone who knows anything about this topic. My

goal in life is to do photography, mainly fashion, glamour or commercial

photography. Currently i own a Sony DSC P-41 point and shoot camera and nothing

else. My question is "would anyone hire someone with that type of camera to do

some photos ?" ... seems like i'm trapped in a circle. i wanna buy a

better-professional camera and stuff, but i dont have the money, therefore i

wanna work and make some money. then again, some say i cant do outstanding

photos with a Sony DSC P-41 camera and nobody would hire me.

do you have any suggestions ?

[KenPapai]

Buy a used DSLR system with a "fashion" lens and go for it. No one ever hires anyone who uses a P&S for commercial work. Please invest some money else you are not serious at all. Everyone else finds a way, you should be able to too. Otherwise you are pulling our legs.

[don_e]

I'm not a fashion photographer, but many decades ago in the Jurrasic when I was young, I had a little experience. Here it is distilled:

 

Get to know other photographers in your situation with an interest in fashion photography or similar. Rent studio space together, share backdrops, lights etc. Buy used. And keep records of who owns what because the partnership likely will fall apart at some point.

 

Get a job in the field. Find a pro mentor. Become a gofer, an assistant to him or her. Learn.

 

Our base cameras were a Nikon F, handheld, and a Bronica on a tripod.

 

You should upgrade the P-41. If you cannot afford a dslr, at least get a more capable p&s. They can be had for between 200-400$.

 

 

Good Luck,

 

 

Don E

[derek_ridgers]

A lot of the fashion photography taken over the last 20 years has had a real point and shoot

quality to it, so I don't think your camera would be a major problem in that arena. As long as

the clients could be kept away from the shoot.

 

And recently, in London, a fashion photographer that I know of started in exactly this way.

She was clearly extremely talented and so she rapidly got the work and the money to buy

whatever gear she wanted.

[lb-]

"No one ever hires anyone who uses a P&S for commercial work."

 

says the expert on the inner workings of the fashion world, hahahahahaha

 

google Terry Richardson. King of point and shoots.

 

Don't listen to the peanut gallery.

 

you've got some interesting images in your folder. more than can be said for any ten

dozen wankers with high end dslrs on this site.

[KenPapai]

Whatever you say Lucas, you might be talking about the 1 in a 1000 who made it, someone with real talent or genius (ala Andy Warhol); but who wants to put up with a P&S crappy flash, shutter lag, slow lens, poor lens quality, small & noisy sensor... how do you get by those obstacles and not get laughed out the door for paid commercial work?

 

Cheap, well cared for, DSLRs are begging to be bought on the used market and is the best way for someone new to start.

[beepy]

I looked at your portfolio, assuming you did those pics with the P-41, you're doing some

interesting work. That said, I concur with the above poster who suggested finding someone

to learn from - the industry, expectations, etc.

<p>

Regarding comments in your bio about money - I just read a survey that startled me that put

Fashion Photographers at the lowest end of the pay scale (in US?) of all the categories

considered (photojournalism, advertising, wedding, stock, etc.) I'll assume the fashion

industry is very competitive, lots of people want to do it, many bottom feeders, few at top?

[elliot_n]

'I just read a survey that put Fashion Photographers at the lowest end of the pay scale'

 

They get paid?

 

The ones I know usually do it for free... even pick up the bill for expenses... and this is for

big magazines... crazy, I know... but it's a free market... they're all chasing some fantasy

advertising job... but most ad agencies aren't even interested in fashion photography...

[mr._smith]

Chris,

 

If you think that buying a dslr will get you into fashion photography, then you have just as much chance getting into major league baseball by buying a baseball glove.

 

If you know what you're doing and have confidence in your skills, you'll get the job whatever the equipment you happen to have.

[beepy]

<blockquote>

They get paid?

</blockquote>

Humorous. Without a lot of study I was thinking it had to do with a lot of people wanting to

get into it vs. the number of positions that might pay etc.

[rjacksonphoto]

I like the work in your portfolio. Using a DSLR would give you more flexibility and maybe more credibility in the eyes of some. However, I suspect they'll scrutinize your portfolio more than your equipment. You might also have to work at another job to afford any additional equipment you need.

 

Personally, I think the DSC P-41 is a great little 4mp camera-- very underrated.

[jeffery_pool]

"google Terry Richardson. King of point and shoots."

 

 

terry still nails 23 year old fashion models everynight. dont know how he does it, Maybe its the coke?

[jcuknz]

Chris, If you find clients who only look at the results, and what you give them is what they want you are well away with your P&S but sadly there are folk, as illustrated above, who think it is the camera which takes photographs. Carefully handled the 4Mp camera doesn't have many fewer pixels/resolution than many of the second hand DSLRs refered to. If you can cope with the slowness of a P&S in the way you work then good luck to you. You don't know any better so of course you cope :-) The rest of us are spoilt by our riches. Something to look forward to when you 'make it' :-)

[halcyonlll]

thank you all for your responses. it was helpful.

[sean de merchant httpw]

<satirical summary>

Make sure to stuff a few socks in your pants or at least a close in wide angle lens to photograph you package.

</satiracal summary>

 

That said, your average successful photographer is mediocre at best. Look at shots that are out there (yearbook, porn, weedings, ...). But if you can pull off the sales and make people feel good about what they get, then skill and tools do not matter. If you lack skills, then better tools can impress them.

 

In short, the issue here is sales skills and not photos. Give people what they want so long as it works acceptably well while making them feel good about the result and you have SPECTACULAR product.

 

Suck at sales and shooting, you are screwed. ;o)

 

Truth be told, a competant photographers could take insanely incredible (if a touch soft) photos with a disposable camera with onboard flash and $1000 US in lighting gear. To get by on less takes sales skill or very top notch work that sells itself (i.e., word of mouth).

 

In the end, it is always about people. Fabulous photos sitting on your hard drive or in a shoe box mean nothing.

 

What follows is a technical critique. My feelings are definitely part of it, but I am overtrained to ignore technique except when emotion truly dominates. Please take the following list as constructive criticism:

 

* Balanced composition with excellent emotion:

 

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/30689260/ (the signature balances this one)

 

* As a photo, it lacks too much. With a graphic designer adding text it could be phenomenal:

 

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/33879363/ (way too much rule of thirds idiocy, as a photo body language matters, as advertising it works as text can balance it. More negative space (blank wall) would give graphic designer more room to work and crop to meet their clients needs).

 

* Boring

 

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/35224150/ (Why? An alien penis subtitute? The costume is unflattering and fails to craft a dark or otherwise artistic feel. And I like dark imagery. And and I enjoy fetish imagery. But this does nothing for me. I think a graphic designer could do something with it. But why would they?

 

* Too Relaxed

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4449259 (And why should I lick your bellybutton?) The facial expressions fail to deliver the point of the gun.

 

* Interesting

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4602540 (Sadly, it is looks over Photoshoped and seeing more depths (i.e., here arm and wrist) would add depth to the shot. As it stands, the overall composition is interesting to me, but lacks coherency).

 

* Why

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4542946 (Why are you pointing the camera at me? She is either unconfortable in the shoot or badly methed up (no misspelling)). But that is one persons viewpoint.

 

* Can I put this darned thing down, my arms are tired...

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4542941 (just lacks anything but a tired feel. No vibrant psychotic energy).

 

Anyway, this is not to say right or wrong, but to give you one shooters impressions. Am I right or wrong? Depends on the viewer. And photographers are some of the worst reviewers of profitable shots as they are not your primary client anyway.

 

some hopefully constructive criticism with respect,

 

Sean (who needs sleep)