Getting started - strategy, equiptment... Read me

[melody1]

A few questions for you all.

 

How did you finance your first camera bodies and lenses? What is

the importance of a degree in photography (ie, how many

photographers actually have degrees and/or technical training, and

does is lend to a higher booking percentage or profit margin)?

 

Really, I'm interested in assisting, following, whatever. I need to

start practicing and building a portfolio, but I am having a

difficult time without digital equiptment or a pro camera. Is it a

better idea to tag along with my manual focus film camera and 50mm

lens, or rent a body and lens?

 

The one second shooter opportunity I did have, I used the other

photographer's equiptment (D2x and F100).

 

Do you compromise on quality and work your way up the quality teir

as you can afford? I have so many questions, I'd love your feedback.

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

Melody,

 

Your last sentence contained in your bio says it all.

 

You are asking important questions.

 

Some are successful with a degree in photography while some do very well without a degree.

 

It's in your hands. I consider myself an average photographer but I've done quite well, in a short time, with this business. There's much more to it than equipment and other technicals but I don't intend to diminish their importance.

 

Other ingredients such as your organization skills, how to prioritize things to run your own business, what should you do and what should you delegate to others, how good are your people skills? These are very important ingredients.

 

I know several photographers who take wonderful pictures, win photo contests but can't monetarily succeed with their work. Why do you think this happens?

 

Find someone who is successful who will be a mentor for you. You will receive so many wide range opinions on your work and what to do that it can leave your disillusioned and unhappy. You need someone who will help you along the way. A shining light to help you.

 

I always purchase my equipment when I have the funds available. Ask yourself is all this stuff necessary to succeed? Or is there something else besdies equipment that you need to succeed? Some of the simplest equipment in the hands of certain folk can produce amazing results.

 

Best to Your Success!

[darice michelle]

Some may say I wasn't smart, but I used the good old credit card to purchase my camera

and lenses. You've got to get the equipment in order to book. And once you start

booking, you will have money that you can use to start paying back. You don't need to get

top notch lenses in the beginning, although you def., want to get a pro camera body. I

used my Canon f/5.6 75-300mm for 3 years and got great results! I also used a generic

Canon 18mm wide angel and did very well with it. The camera body is everything though.

And getting a good flash is just as important.

 

As far as degrees, most of my brides don't ask what my degree is. They care more about

the quality of my work. My work speaks for itself. I'm not saying learning the technical

stuff in a school environment is of no value, that's just not true, but you can learn without

it. I study photography on my own but honestly I learn more on the field. I practiced a lot

on my children and offered free sessions to "practice" with. They were usually friends who

were eager to let me use them as guinea pigs.

 

You need to decide if you'll be shooting digital or film. If you are going to go in the

direction of digital, then I suggest getting a digital camera and learning to master it.

 

Assisting is a fantastic way to go when you're learning. I worked for free just so I can

watch and learn. It was so valuable. I used another photographers equipment too, it still

helped me in learning.

 

My quality of work was not top notch in the beginning but that's why I only charged $35

for my first sessions, then $75. When I got a better lens I increased the price. It's not just

the lens that's important, it's you too. You're marketing yourself not your camera

equipment. You have to look at what "you're work" is worth. They are not just buying

photographs, they are buying you too... your personality, your customer service and etc.

 

When the quality of your work becomes more professional, then you can up your rates

with confidence.

 

Hope this helps a little,

[david_schilling___chicago_]

You might want to start by reading all the threads for newcomers and first weddings...

[fotografz]

I've said this before, but don't mind repeating it. Get a couple of Nikon FM2s, a few good

lenses (28mm, 50mm, 105mm or a couple of Nikkor zooms, a couple of flashes, and buy

them used if money is tight. Film cameras are a real bargain these days. So are Nikon SB28

flashes.

 

If you have the samples to get a wedding, then the client's deposit will pay for the film and

processing. Big wedding? Bigger deposit. Buy more film.

 

Digital is mondo expensive. You need a lot of CF cards to equal 20-30 rolls of film. To buy

a digital camera that can equal the images from a FM2 will cost more than 2 FM2s and the

flashes combined. You can offer a CD of all the images also, but charge the client for them

if they opt for that addition.

 

Plus, besides being expensive to get into, the learning curve on digital is very steep. While

digital cameras give you a nice array of choices on the fly (like altering color temp and

ISOs), a million weddings have been successfully shot on film without those features. Film

has a very forgiving exposure latitude that digital does not. Look at this forum's

moderator, Mary Ball's work. She shoots film, as does a number of folks here.

 

Once you get more established, you can start climbing the mountain of a learning curve

that digital presents, but you will have a good base of knowledge to work from.

[melody1]

I actually lurk around here, in the shadows so to speak, daily. I read almost every thread that comes through this forum. I am glad that I can say it's time not wasted, and I consider the education I've been receiving from this forum just as valuable as the education I recieved in the technical photo classes I have taken up to this point.

 

I searched the newcomers threads for a similiar post, and couldn't find one that was on point. Perhaps the search function is not the most ideal - there is an inability to search within specific forums, and reading through all 371 threads is a tad time-consuming. I digress.

 

If this same question has been rehashed a million times, I apologize. I haven't read one that pertains to the topic of renting equiptment vs. buying and or methods of purchasing starting equiptment.

 

I'm not asking whether I should assist - I know I need to and am actively looking. My question pertains to the purchase of equipment required to assist. I find people interested in the prospect of my following, assisting, and shooting, until they discover I don't have equipment. My 'equipment' consists of a Nikon N2000 (with a broken piece inside that has the ability to block a small piece of the negative, hance the need to be constantly checked while shooting), and a 50mm/f1.8.

 

I have looked into (drooled over, really) Nikon DSLRs, since I prefer Nikons and that is the route that seems the most profittable, sensible, and managable. Sure, I know that I could get running with some D2x's, D200, and D70's, prime lenses or zoom lenses. I know what specs, what lenses, what quality, and where I would like to purchase said equipment. I lack the means. SO, I have looked into renting equipment, and know the costs.

 

Now, after much time, and loads of research under my belt, I ask for your opinions. How did you start out. What means did you use to purchase your equipment. What did you start with. Did you start shooting professionally with and amateur camera and work your way up, or did you keep saving until you were able to purchase a solid starting piece. Did you borrow equipment to assist, or did you shoot with your own?

 

My other question -degree vs no degree- is really something that has been on my mind for months. I fight with myself daily about my decision to stay in school. Everyday, I argue the pros and cons of continued learning in the shelter or school, vs. learning through real world experience.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

[fotografz]

I guess a question or two would be helpful in answering your questions Melody.

 

Why are you having a difficult time with gear? Because your current camera is broken?

Do you feel a need for auto-focus, and if so, why?

 

Drooling over better gear is an expensive disease. Desire to shoot great images has less to

do with photographic equipment than does a deep desire to touch people with your

photographs.

 

When I started, it was with an all manual camera and film. Many of those images are still

on my web site. Getting all automatic, digital cameras didn't make for better photos ...

becoming more and more tuned into people and their feelings did.

 

Yes, you need reliable and decent gear. And having the latest, greatest is fun. But that fun

is a separate personal issue and has little to do with becoming a great photographer. It's

just a side bonus so to speak.

 

What you need more of is experience getting in-touch with your inner talent ... and

awareness of the outer world of other people's feelings, and their expressions of those

feelings. Basically, if you get that working for you, it won't make much difference what

camera you have in your hand ... as long as it works and has reasonably decent optics.

 

School depends on wether you need an environment with like minded students to

exchange thoughts and ideas with to help accomplish those tasks. Some people can go it

alone or assist a few other photographers and do it.

 

As far as a degree is concerned, I've yet to hear a client ask if I had one. All they care

about are the pictures and if we are a good fit in terms of personal chemistry.

[melody1]

Thank you for the indepth answer. It's exactly what I'm looking for. I don't feel a need for auto focus, but I do feel a need for a sharper lens, a good prime telephoto lens, and perhaps someday a wide angle lens.

 

My concerns with a good DSLR are high resolution, the advantages of shooting RAW over jpeg, and doing color/density corrections myself. My current curriculum has a load of design/digital management courses. Do you not get more control over the image from start to finish with digital?

 

The pros I feel the school has -

The wealth of knowledge, specialized classes and assignments, and the chance to try first-hand fields I would probably not otherwise try (ie scuulpture, book-making, and print-making).

The con is the time that could be spent shooting weddings instead of fine art photos in unrealted fields (nudes, landscapes, ect). I enjoy both, but experience is more practical.

And

 

Yes, my current camera is slightly broken. There is a plastic piece below the mirror that is no longer fixed in place. On vertical shots, it obstructs part of the image and has to be snapped back into place frequently.

 

For school purposes, I could purchase another all manual camera for cheap and be suitable, but not for professional work.

[michaelmowery]

I financed my first camera with money in hand. I have no degree. I learned on my own.

After i learned the basics and saw i had potential i sold the camera and with that money

and a credit card i invested in a new professional body and 2 pro lenses. I just didn't want

to buy anything. i wanted to buy the best and what i could grow with. 13 years later and i

still have those bodies and lenses and of course through the years i have added and today

i have everything it seems. I knew early that this was a career choice so i invested in

myself. In the begining I went the route of apprenticeship for a number of wedding

studios. I can afford digital now because i am already a sucessfull photographer

If i was just starting out it would be 3 times harder as it is 3

times more expensive than starting out as a film photographer. But i would have still

invested in at least one pro zoom lense and a pro body with a credit card. The key words

are invest and grow.

 

Michael

[robbie_caswell]

My question is why struggle? There is technology that makes life easier for the photographer. It's called the F5.

 

The meter, autofocus, build, and viewfinder and performance are similar to the D2X you shot. It's an affordable short term or long term solution depending on how you look at it. You could shoot it a year and resell it and lose $100. A cheap price to drive in class.

 

JMHO from a non wedding shooter who has enjoyed all F class film cameras...

[fotografz]

The advantage of art school ( I both attended and taught at the Center for Creative Studies

in Detroit), is that you WILL be exposed to other ways of thinking that will aid you in

developing a style of wedding photography ... hopefully one that separates you from the

pack of shooters only exposed to wedding photography in practice.

 

Studies in Art, design, Art History are invaluable later in life, even if it hard to see the

practical application right now ... not to mention that they will enrichen your life to no end.

 

Frankly, the study of great art photographers and painters had more impact on me than all

the wedding work I've seen to date.

[fotografz]

BTW, isn't wedding photography a perfect fit for school? Don't you have the summer off

when the wedding season is at it's hight? Assist or second shoot then to gain the practical

knowledge of organizing a wedding shoot, handling people, and business aspects ...

through astute observation and questions.

 

The F5 advice is pretty good, but even a F-100 would do just fine (still think a pair of FM2s

would be enough). Good, sharp used Nikon lenses are all over e-bay.

 

Control with digital is certainly a reality. But part of that is because you have to have more

control just to equal negative film's ability on it's own.

[conraderb]

Melody - I�m a semi pro, which for me means that I don�t make all of my income from

photography (this year, probably 50% of it or so). So take my words with a grain fo salt if

you want.

 

-How did you finance your first camera bodies and lenses?

 

Mostly out of pocket and reinvesting from previous weddings.

 

-Do you compromise on quality and work your way up the quality teir as you can afford?

 

No - and there is no need to. There are cheap camera systems that offer fantastic quality

at a good price - as long as you know what you are doing with manual focus primes and

can do without autofocus zooms. See below.

 

-I have looked into (drooled over, really) Nikon DSLRs, since I prefer Nikons and that is the

route that seems the most profittable, sensible, and managable.

 

Profitable? Sensible? Manageable? No. The Nikon salespeople want you to think that Nikon

DSLR�s are the way to go, but that�s because they can sell you a lot of fancy lenses for your

fancy autofocus, do-everythign modern DSLR.

 

I think you probably are just most comfortable with Nikon.I don�t think that anyone can

make a strong argument that either Canon or Nikon is more profitable/manageable/

sensible for weddings if you are starting out. If you are a very �niche� wedding shooter -

say, you work with wide angle primes, some would say that Nikon is better on that end, or

if you work with image stabilized telephotos, that would be Canon. Overall, though, I don�t

think that there is any reason for you to have a strong preference for either unless you

have invested a good amount of money into one or the other.

 

As far as digital versus film - there are lots of reasons why digital is great, but for

someone who is very cost conscious, digital is risky. Why go digital until you have the

business to justify it? Millions of weddings have been shot on film. If quality is an issue

and so is cost, a good manual film body and manual focus primes will beat digital ANY day

for starting out a wedding business. It costs a LOT of money to go digital and get the

same quality as a $200 film outfit - between 3x to 6x, IMHO. Remember that most

consumer zoom lenses can�t stand up at all to the manual focus primes of yesteryear. You

are shooting film now, so why risk thousands and thousands of dollars going to digital? I

say �risk� because unless you have a good # of weddings booked, it�s not really an

�investment�. What if you don�t have the business to pay it off? Also, digital bodies

depreciate very quickly - if you decide that you aren�t happy with your D200 ($1500?), you

are going to lose a lot of money.

 

Also, film means you a more careful shooter - which is, at this point in your career, good

b/c you won�t be saying �I�ll photoshop it later�. You correct your mistakes BEFORE you

shoot, not after. (later on, digital is great b/c you can be spontaneous and experiment a

bit).

 

Some recommendations for film gear: going Marc�s Nikon route is smart b/c its is a major

system and prices are good right now. But if you need something even cheaper than

Olympus, AND don�t mind a manual focus, all manual camera so I would suggest that you

look at the Olympus OM system. Why? The system is modular - you can buy pieces slowly,

one at a time. Everythign is very small, the viewfinder is very BRIGHT meaning that you can

focus very easily compared to basically any other camera out there, and everything is well

built, inexpensive and the quality of the lenses is legendary. If you can live without

autofocus and wind your film with your thumb you are going to save money compared

with basically any other system, and come out with professional quality from the start.

 

If you want an aperture priority camera, you can go with the OM-2 - it was the first OTF

metering (OTF - off the film, I think) camera and does a great job.

 

As for me: I shot my first 10 weddings on Olympus OM-1 and OM-2 bodies with the

50mm 1.8, 28mm 2.8 and 135 2.8 lenses. I was NEVER wanting for better quality stuff - I

just wanted something that would be autofocus and zoom. If I were to do it all over again,

I would take the same route.

 

Costs for the OM system: A good OM-1 body will run you around $150, the 50mm 1.8

lens is $15 - yes, $15 -the best $15 on eBay! - the 28mm 2.8 or 35mm 2.8 is around $50

or $60, and the 135mm 2.8 is around $80. Best equipment around for the price AFAIAC.

 

Last year, I went to Canon DSLR�s - I have 2 20D bodies and a bunch of L glass. Why did I

make this transition? Mostly for convenience and the ability to not worry about counting

frames. I wanted autofocus and zoom bodies without compromising on quality, so I

committed myself to purchase $5000 on L series lenses. For the most part, my Olympus

lenses were better than any Canon consumer lenses, so I had to go to the top. But it was

crazy expensive - my one 24-70 L 2.8 cost me the same as my entire set of FILM gear!

The reason I made the switch when I did was because I had enough bookings to say that it

would be - in the long term - better for the overall product that I deliver to my client, and

that�s mostly b/c I can shoot as many frames as I want. Back in the film days, I would

shoot 400 images (around 11 rolls) for a wedding, and perhaps 75 to 115 would be

�grandmother good� - good enough to show grandmother in total confidence. But the

client saw basically everything. Now, I shoot 900 or so frames and show the client 300

frames, and every frame is great. Overall quality is better simply because I can take more

stuff. I can shoot without counting frames - I can do crazy creative lighting when only 1

out of 20 frames will come out. Look at my recently uploaded portfolio in �steve and

kristin� and you will see some dancing shots that I would have never taken with film b/c

they would not have worked out.

 

I now use Canon L series zoom lenses - which is Canon�s top line of glass, and the ONLY

reason that I think they are better is because they are autofocus and are zoom lenses. Are

they better in quality? As far as I am concerned, they are only marginally better - but the

majority of the difference between my 24-70 L 2.8 - $1200 and the 50mm 1.8 is that the

L lens is a bit better wide open, and it is an autofocus zoom. After you stop the 50mm 1.8

lens down a bit, you get the same quality of output IMHO.

 

I could go on, but I won�t. Just know that IMHO, Olympus offers tough, small and

inexpensive equipment that produces fantastic results. Perfect system for a learner

photographer who does NOT have a lot of money. If you want to do DSLR, be prepared to

shell out big money for the body, and big money for the glass to get the same results as

you could on manual focus prime lenses with a $150 film body.

 

By the way - I don�t really consider the savings on film to be all that significant. It probably

saves me aroudn $150 per wedding, which soudns like a lot, but on a $16,000 investment

(think about 10 gigs of memory cards, a computer, etc, etc, etc., it�s not. For the $400 that

I used to spent on film + processing (my costs were around $6/roll for the film and $28/

roll for processing), I sit at my computer for 8 hours or so. Time is worth something too!

 

-How did you start out.

 

I inherited a Pentax K1000, a 50mm 1.7 something and an ambient light meter from my

grandfather, and I had no idea what I was doing. I didn�t know how to use the ambient

light meter, but I made up for that in enthusiasm - I wrote down the exposure of every

image that I made. I now live in Washington DC, but I took my first four rolls of film here.

Those didn�t turn out b/c I didn�t even wind on the camera - I just figured that - just like

my little P&S camera, the camera would wind itself. Now I know to put the film end in the

camera winder!

 

I inherited my father�s Olympus OM-1 body - built like a brick, with professional features.

I spent a lot of time doing photography in summers when I worked at a children�s� camp

(this is when I was in high school and college), and I was asked to photograph a friend�s

wedding. I did everything for $200 bucks, which included the purchase of a second film

(OM-1) body. Then I was asked for a few more. I didn�t charge more than $200 + cost for

each day for my time, and I reinvested the $$ into gear.

 

At one point, I was very snobby about weddings - it was �selling out� art to

commercialism. Maybe so, but I realized that I ENJOYED them - enjoyed the pressure and

the craziness and the emotions and having to handle all of that with grace. I never

approached it as a money making activity, but just for the fun of it.

 

Word got around among some friends, and I was asked to do more and more weddings.

One day, I took a look at the work of a local professional and realized that some of my

work was better than his. That made me realize that I knew more than I thought, and that

maybe I could be more aggressive in marketing. So I did, and things have gone well since.

I am now shooting for more $$ than I ever thought I was worth, and having a digital setup

makes it a lot more fun for me and less stressful when I know my exposures are on, etc.

 

Sorry for the overly long post. Hope it helps.

[houstonphotographics]

Mark and Conrad make very valuable points. The common denominator of both posts is that you do not necessarily need digital equipment to get started. Use what you have and invest the money you would have spent in digital eqpt in marketing. As for your current body, I would definitely get that broken piece fixed asap. You do not need to be worrying about things like that while shooting a wedding (or anything for that matter). Get some kind of second body as a backup. This should be done anyway whether you stay film, or go digital.

 

I tend to agree with the others on investing (for now) in a decent film system. Bottom line is that your clients just want to see results, and are not too concerned as to how you produced them. Actually, I have went BACK TO FILM for my work. Mainly because I was frustrated with all of the hours in front of the pc (Conrad), plus I got better results back when I started out using film anyway. If I feel the need to have a digital file to manipulate, I just get the film hi rez scanned at processing to a cd.

 

As for the school issue, that is a personal decision in my opinion, and not necessarily a requirement to be successful in this business.

 

Now for a challenge for you; get yourself a Rolleiflex or Mamiya c330 TLR (which I have), hand meter, decent manual flash, and 400 speed film. Go shoot with this rig. Then shoot a wedding. I did this for 2 years in a row back in 2001-2003 until I could afford different equipment. Sure it cost more to get this film developed and printed, and sure I got strange looks from onlookers ( I didn't care) but let me tell you, the things that you will be FORCED to learn will be;

 

1- composition. Shooting square format makes you slow down and think your shots through. Shooting action as it is coming at you with a waist level -reverse image viewfinder made this VERY EXCITING. Stressful? Sure! But I got quality tack sharp images

 

2- not wasting shots. Using 220 film yields 24 exposures a roll. You have to plan ahead. No chimping here baby.

 

3- mastering of light, which you should be learning anyway. No changing of iso on the fly, or previews of "if I got the shot or not"

 

The bottom line; clients loved the pictures they received, and I learned a lot along the way. Now I know my reply is old school, and perhaps antiquated, but get your photo 101 skills down pat regardless of your equipment. If I could do it again, I probably would go the Nikon f5/f100 route as previously mentioned.

[mattalofs]

What Marc said. I did my first couple of weddings and other paying gigs with a pair of FM2's, a 28, a 35, a 50 and a 105. I used Vivitar 285's for flashes. That's rock solid gear in terms of reliability, and it's really ease to use and understand. If you looked around, I supsect you could get that whole kit for about the cost of one d70 with lens and cf.

[melody1]

Thank you all so much. I'm indebted to you all for the advice you offer, not just in this thread, but everyday.

 

You've given me a lot to consider.

 

I appreciate it.