Vintage clothing website photographer

[patrick_mason3]

<p>Hi guys i am applying for a job as a website photographer for a vintage clothing website, and i just have few questions that hopefully some of you could help me out with and give me a leg up to get the job. It's fairly basic stuff pretty much just shooting clothes and accessories against a white background, evenly lit etc. i was just wondering how you would best set up lighting equipment, as in using soft boxes or umbrellas? also i'm thinking the most important things will be colour correction to make sure the clothes appear on the website as they actually are, how would i best go about doing this for a large number of products. Also as i will be shooting for web i wondering what quality should i shoot the clothes i don't think raw would be necessary?<br>

sorry for the long boring question, but any help would be greatly appreciated. Cheers.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Are you talking about clothes on models, or laying directly on a background surface?<br /><br />What light sources and light modifiers do you have? Or, are people who will be hiring you providing the equipment?<br /><br />Speaking of which, are you talking about a full-time, work-for-hire situation, or a contract where you occasionally show up to shoot? Or, will they bring the goods to your studio setting?<br /><br />Will your rig be set up and taken down regularly?<br /><br />About color accuracy: remember that the vast majority of people visiting their web site will NOT be using color-calibrated displays, and will usually be seeing the site on a display that is set much too bright, and with very high contrast. There is nothing you can do about that. But you CAN make sure that you're using a calibrated display for your own editing (what calibration tool do you have, or will your employer provide one?). <br /><br />If you are able to consistently shoot under the same light, and have the exposure and white balance set perfectly, then sure... I suppose you could shoot right to JPGs. But if you have to dodge/burn a bit to deal with awkward shadows, or work with the skin on your models, etc., then RAW makes more sense.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>1_softbox andpolarizer to minimize reflection on objects</p>

<p>2_use a gray card to start when your ligth is setup so you have a perfect gray reference for the rest of the shoot</p>

<p>3_shoot raw anyway so you have better ontrol in post.</p>

<p>4_save all your final images at a desire size for the web like 1024x768 for example, srgb, jpeg compression 8-10 and add a bit of sharpen.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Not to be harsh but...<br>

if you don't know how to light whay do you think you are qualified for this job?</p>

<p>if you don't know how to color manage , why do you think you are qualified for this job.</p>

<p>We can give you all sorts of answers that you can rattle off at your interview , but don't you think thye might want to see some samples of your work?</p>

<p>Don't you worry that they might actually wantto see you set up and work?</p>

<p>If you don't know how to do any of the requirement basic aspects of the job, why are you wasting your time and theirs?</p>

[lyle_brocato]

<p>Ellis, <br>

You are being harsh and a bit of a snob. Nice people are just looking for a few suggestions and answers. You have provided neither. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>But Ellis is right, Lyle. The OP's not very clear on the subject ... but he does make it clear he's applying for a job as a photographer. The employer is going to have to choose an employee based on some combination of skills, pay level, professionalism, etc. The OP's not really sounding like he has any familiarity with the very thing that he's saying he wants to be hired to do. Now, there could be a lot more to this - like, pay that's so low that learning on the job is a totally reasonable expectation. But there isn't enough information in that original post to make it clear what the whole story really is, and without more to go on, is it really unreasonable to ask the OP to do a sanity check, and figure out why he thinks he should be the one hired to provide a professional service that he's unsure of how to provide?</p>

[john tonai]

<p>Lyle,</p>

<p>If the OP just wanted to know how to light something, that would be different. But, based on his post, he is completely unequipped to sell himself as a professional. It sound like you think that being a professional photographer is easy, all you need is a digital camera and instant help from a forum. Sorry, that isn't what the profession is about. You can get by like this if you want to take photographs for yourself, but when you involve clients there is a lot more that you seem to know nothing about.</p>

<p>If you think that Ellis isn't being helpful, how about this:<br>

Patrick,</p>

<p>You need to learn about studio photography before you try to get jobs requiring that skill. You mentioned that</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's fairly basic stuff pretty much just shooting clothes and accessories against a white background, evenly lit etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But then you ask how to do it. How do you know it is basic unless you know how to do it? If you want to market yourself as a professional, (although you aren't doing this full time, soliciting freelance work is professional work) <strong>be professional</strong> and have a skill set appropriate for the job-<em>before</em> you take the job.</p>

[patrick_mason3]

<p>Sorry if i have caused some confusion, i actually do know a bit about photography and have shot a few catalogues for friends, i just didn't want to bore you with the ins and outs of the job. i was more hoping to possibly get some tips on these subjects from someone more experienced so i could do a better job and not waste mine or the employers time. i have only read a job description and haven't applied yet and was wanting some pointers to see if i thought i was qualified enough to apply.<br>

Matt the clothes would be hung on mannequins and accesories would be flat layed i would guess. i think the employer would provide studio and lighting but i would use my camera, i shoot with a nikon D100.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Still not really clear what sort of relationship you're talking about with the store, Patrick. Being able to shoot full-length mannequin shots on a nice, evenly lit seamless background, requires a fair amount of light, a proper backdrop rig, and good light modifiers both for the backdrop and for the subject/product. If you're talking about a full-time job, then it sounds like they'll have a <em>lot</em> of products to shoot, if it will keep a photographer busy 40 or so hours a week. Lights that will hold up to that sort of use, along with the supporting modifiers, stands, spares, etc., are going to cost at least a couple thousand dollars. Surely they can spring for a D300 and the right lens or two? The D100 is a slow, battery-hungry beastie that is not going to help much with a workload like that. <br /><br />And... who's providing the IT infrastructure for that volume of work? 40 hours a week implies a LOT of images, and the post-processing, and backups, etc. Again, a fair investment. Don't let a prospective employer talk you into using your <em>own</em> equipment in support of their business. That's something <em>they</em> can write off on their company's taxes, not you.</p>

[lyle_brocato]

<p>John, <br>

I appreciate your response. I am a professional photographer and know the extreme amount of work and detail that go into it, especially involving clients. I just thought Ellis's response was harsh, despite his opening of "not to be harsh but..." I thought it was quite presumptuous of Ellis to think the OP didn't know anything about photography. Yes, your answer would have been suffice. If Ellis feels that way, just don't post. No one is looking to receive attitude from asking questions.</p>

[frolickingbits]

<p>My guess is that the company is looking for someone who will work for them on the cheap, since they are probably convinced the photos don't need to be that great, since they are 'only for the web'. I could be off base on this, but my gut instinct is that this is one of those craigslist 'great for your portfolio!!' type postings where a company wants a photographer for $8 an hour, and expects them to bring their own camera and lenses.<br>

If this is a decent paying job with benefits, the company probably recognizes the value of a good photographer, and will also be providing all your equipment, including camera, lenses, lights, studio space and the computer and storage space for the images. As Matt said, there is a continuum of skill level/experience and pay-if the company is paying a good hourly wage ($18 an hour + benefits, or more, depending on the location), then they can expect, and most likely get, a photographer with experience shooting clothing. If they are only paying $8 an hour with no benefits, then someone with a little experience who will learn on the job is to be expected.<br>

On the lighting side, when shooting textiles, completely flat lighting is boring and doesn't show the texture of the objects. A simple setup would be one light with a 7 or 11 inch reflector at an oblique angle to the clothing, providing a raking light. An umbrella above and to the other side would provide fill. To get a white background, another two lights pointed at the backdrop and flagged from the camera will blow out the background. As the others have said, even if the shots are only for the web, shoot RAW with a color card, and archive the RAW files.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>One big strong umbrella at a 45angle at 4-6 feet from the subject, and a 4x8 white panel on the other side that act as a bounce could also yield to good result if the item i shoot over a white background like a paper background. The object as to be pretty close to the backdrop (that will also act as a bounce to bring up some ligth to the subject) around 6inch or closer for cloth hung on mannequin, use a table top for the object.</p>

<p>The white could be enhanced later in your raw software easily, or in PS using selective color white and removing black from it.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Oh, by the way many clothing companie i know just need a in house photographer that they pay like 10_12$/hour, 40hre a week just to shoot those small item for web or for the rep book..you know a kind of this sweater come in 12 color..here they are... They normally ask the photographer to bring is own gear (camera/lens/card), but will buy appropriate flash, backdrop, and computer to help get the result. Its a good job for student, and many amateur that want a per week garantee salary. The client will also demand that when you are not shoothing for them, that you prep the file for there web tech or print the catalogue yourself using the epson in house..its a common job offering, and i find it normal for them to get a young photographer for that.</p>

<p>They also normally hire a senior photographer for there main campaing, a guy they pay 1800$/per day for 3-4 days, plus a retoucher, a stylist, a make up artist...etc to get the best campaing they can afford. But they cant seriously ask the same photographer for all there little need..and this is where the OP can fit in.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>Ellis, <br /></blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>You are being harsh and a bit of a snob.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I am being a realist. You don't like it? Tough</p>

[nathan_stiles]

<p> Ellis, <em>"I am being a realist. You don't like it? Tough"</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Realist can be harsh and snobby too. You can tell someone they have cancer when it's true-- but there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. I love your jaded responses when I get to see that "Hero" icon by your name ;-)</p>

<p>I'd use softboxes, light for texture (see Hard/Soft Lighting in the "Themes" subsection of this forum), and shoot raw.</p>

[garry edwards]

<p>I think that we've had constructive answers on this thread, and I'm now locking it to prevent it from going too far downhill</p>