Hiring Contract Photographers

[brittany_r._dunks]

<p>I am a Canon shooter and I am going to contract out some work to Nikon shooters in the future. I know Nikon is great (not starting a Nikon/Canon war here) but given that I use Canon and specific lenses and speedlites, I am used to a certain look which I have built my business on. <br>

Do I:<br>

a) force them to shoot Canon while working for me, and provide them with the equipment <br>

b)force them to buy Canon and lenses in order to work for me<br>

c) allow them to shoot with their own equipment but purchase comparable body/lenses.<br>

I hate to make someone spend a ton of money, or give up what they know but since I have seen the images taken with their current Nikon equipment, and it just has a different look to it, so something would have to change.<br>

How would you handle this?</p>

 

[tonybynum]

find a a person that uses cannon . . . there are millions of choices . . .

[brittany_r._dunks]

<p>Well, yes, of course I have thought of that option but I already have two shooters who I love and have the personality that fits, they just all happen to use Nikon!<br>

for example: I know that Lifetouch Sports Photography allows people to use whatever camera/lenses they want, as long as it's up to their standards but if you are a full-time employee, they provide you with the equipment.<br>

I can see myself providing equipment but I am sure there will be days that I am also working and would need those lenses etc. </p>

 

[mariosforsos]

<p>Let's start by getting real here: you cannot "force" anyone to buy something "you" want - unless that is, you provide the money which, if it were me, would include a premium for "forcing" me to go somewhere I may not want to.</p>

<p>Second, while you could, in theory, "force" them to shoot Canon, that would be the equivalent of shooting yourself on both legs with a rocket launcher. Assuming you hired those photographers because of their skills, taking away the equipment they know how to use really well and moving them over to something new almost guarantees enormously steep learning curves and huge potential for errors - can you afford that? And how will you "counter" the photographers' arguments that they were not familiar with the equipment (at least initially)?</p>

<p>Now, the third option might be more viable - again, assuming you provide the funding. For example, I would not hire an assistant for, say, a wedding, if he only had a D80 or D200 and an 18-55 lens. If I could lend him a camera I would - otherwise I'd have to look for someone with sufficiently good equipment.</p>

<p>Of course, the question "different look" does bear ALOT of discussion. The "look" has to do with how the photographer sees things, NOT how the camera works - personally I challenge you to find which of my images are shot with a Nikon, which with a Leica and which with a Canon... or which were shot with Speedlights and which with studio strobes... seriously! If you can, I'll buy you a 1yr membership with Pnet! So, if your "look" is so distinctive, maybe you should start by looking for photographers who share your vision and THEN look into equipment.</p>

<p>Anyway, my 2c...</p>

[tonybynum]

change over then if you like them so much, share your gear if they know how to use it, rent the equipment

if they will use it . . .. it's a tool as you know but asking me to shoot a canon or a nikon if i shoot the other

brand is like asking a painter to choose a new brush and add paint that they have never used before . . .

To me with so many great photographers i'm sure you can fine a cannon guy or decided that part of the

reason you like them so much - or at least their images - is those images look - if they shoot nikon,

maybe you should consider changing over for this particular project . . . I'm not really sure what youre up

to, but it sounds like you can make the rules - as you know, I'd just consider what's most important, the

eye or the camera . . .

[Matt Laur]

<p>Just spend a little time looking at the RAW conversion workflow. A couple hours getting that tuned up so that you see the results you like is going to be a lot cheaper (and faster, and less annoying) than any of your other approaches, since you like and want the people involved.<br /><br />Anything about the look of their results that involves more than a few mouseclicks to unify with <em>your</em> look is about how they shoot, not which gear they're using. Here, I presume they're not using seven year old entry-level bodies with slow lenses in low light, etc - which would be a problem no matter which brand they're using.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>If they have the same vision and can create the same / similar raw files to what you're used to - then I don't see a problem with them shooting Nikon and you shooting Canon - Unless of course you wanted to share equipment / use each other's as backups.</p>

<p>As others have said - the equipment is the tool to do the job - doing the job requires the knowledge and shared sense of style / art / creativity.</p>

<p>The only way I would require a shooter to use the same camera brand as me is if I planned on giving them equipment to use or planned on using theirs as backup or vice versa.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[frank_skomial]

<p>You missed few possibilities.</p>

<p>d) allow them to shot with equipment they have, but make sure the results are to your quality standards. Perhaps you should define what you exactly expect from them, then it will become abvious if your insisting on Canon is reasonable.</p>

<p>e) You could purchase Nikon equipment, if you want to hire Nikon's shooters, and it bothers you that they are different. Without specifying your requirements, a number of brand cameras are capable to do the same what Canon does.</p>

[brittany_r._dunks]

<p>I think the reason I see it as a problem is the level of quality of the lenses/bodies compared to what I am shooting as well as the ease of sharing equipment/backups etc. I shoot Canon 5D Mark II and 5D and L lenses, so I would not want, say a D90 with a kit lens, or a Tamron 3.5/4.5 zoom etc. Equipment is not everything, but I can tell a difference between the Rebel/40D/50D/5D/Mark II's and I can also tell the difference between the Nikon shooters who have worked with me before. <br>

So maybe I didn't word it correctly, and it not such an issue between Canon and Nikon's abilities, but more b/c it just sucks b/c if they were to be shooting Canon they could easily borrow one of my flashes, lenses, pocket wizards etc. but because of the difference in brand they would have to have their own of everything and then backups on top of it!.... which requires a pretty decent investment. <br>

I cannot force someone to shoot Canon, that is correct, but if they want the job, "forcing" them to buy the right equipment would be necessary... you gotta pay to play... I did it. </p>

[tonybynum]

sounds like you need to hire a professional. . .

[craig_shearman1]

<p>If your concern is about them using low end equipment vs high end equipment then you would have the same issue with somebody using an old 6mp Canon Rebel. There are certainly conveniences to everyone using the same system, but don't forget that if they can borrow equipment from you then they will, and that puts the burden of owning enough equipment on you rather than them. If you really believe there is a different "look" for photos from Canon equipment than can't be matched by Nikon equipment, well then put 100 photos in front of a panel of photographers and see how many can tell which photos were shot with which camera.</p>

[brittany_r._dunks]

<p>I guess you didn't read the above response. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Ok, so it comes down to your notion that they have to pay to play (meaning, own enough decent equipment to a good job), but you're not looking at <em>really</em> requiring them (or you) to pay to play enough to be completely self sufficient in their primary and backup gear - something you want to mitigate by being able to loan equipment around between parties, rather than each shooter being an island, as it were. <br /><br />I agree that entry-level equipment (especially lenses, or bodies if truly low light shooting is an issue) will show up as a visible difference. But to the extent that you don't really have a self-sufficient second shooter hired as a contractor if they don't have their own fully fleshed out rig up to your quality standards, then you're really <em>not</em> asking them to pay to play - you're looking to pool resources.<br /><br />I suspect that the photographers in question could - even with fairly modest camera bodies - quiickly approach your standards if they just sprung for some good fast lenses.</p>

[brittany_r._dunks]

<p>Mostly lenses, yes which can add up quickly in cost and at least some backup. And I really think that part of my experience or product is the reassurance that if (and when) something goes wrong, the job will be done... <br>

So, since I have backups, they need some form of backups. Since I shoot good glass, they need at least SOME of the similar lenses. So yes, it does come down to getting them up-to-par with what I have. I have worked my way up in equipment over time, and am still buying/selling some older/2nd party stuff. I have seen the results/difference between my previous Sigma 70-200 2.8 and my Canon 70-200 2.8L IS so I will be able to tell the same from them, regardless of what brand they are shooting.<br>

I guess the initial question has less to do w/Nikon and more to do with sharing equipment and also getting comparable equipment. But I now realize that I would like them to shoot what they have, but just get it up to speed w/my own equipment.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I use Canon and specific lenses and speedlites, I am used to a certain look which I have built my <a id="itxthook0" rel="nofollow" href="../business-photography-forum/00ZKnS?unified_p=1">business</a> on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How is a Canon shooter with the same focal length and f/stop lens going to be better at achieving "a certain look" than a Nikon shooter with the same features and general quality when its the technique and style of individuals no matter the equipment vary so greatly?</p>

<p>I'm imagining a the puzzled reaction when a client meetswith prospective wedding photographers asking if they are Canon shooters because Canon shooters work somehow magically have a different "look" to their work. As though their technique and style are inconsequential.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>part of my experience or product is the reassurance that if (and when) something goes wrong, the job will be done... ...So, since I have backups, they need some form of backups. Since I shoot good glass, they need at least SOME of the similar lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now that the standard is changed from same to similar, how is it that comparable nikon glass with the same specs is not similar. Do the laws of optical physics change and a 105mm @ f/2 on one system is a is like a 85 @f2.g on another despite the specs being the same? Do Nikon shooters not have back ups?</p>

<p>I'm having trouble following you logic of how manufacturer matters more than the shooter? You could just buy Canons and hand em out to any warm bodies you can recruit if that's the case.</p>

[brittany_r._dunks]

<p>" How is a Canon shooter with the same focal length and f/stop lens going to be better at achieving "a certain look" than a Nikon shooter with the same features and general quality when its the technique and style of individuals no matter the equipment vary so greatly?"<br>

I encourage anyone who is adding their two sense to read through the above responses before commenting, as they will see many things have already been discussed... </p>

[tonybynum]

the easiest way to solve your problem is to just make a list of equipment/lenses and add, "or

identical/comparable model." Or require all fixed f4, 2.8 or wider aperture lenses. . . done . . .

[daverhaas]

<p>I don't know Brittany - I've shot with both a sigma 70-200 f2.8 and a nikon 70-200 f2.8 and many pro photographers I know would be hard pressed to tell the difference between shots on the same body with the 2 lenses. Unless of course they were doing serious pixel peeping.</p>

<p>FYI - I've shot some "Kit" lenses and again even pixel peepers would be hard pressed to figure out which where shot with the kit lens and which were shot with the "Pro" glass. (unless of course, you're shooting in a dark / dimly lit area).</p>

<p>Bottom line - I'd suggest - what Tony said - but make it - "must have Canon .... " otherwise you're going to go bananas looking for defects...</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I've shot with both a sigma 70-200 f2.8 and a nikon 70-200 f2.8 and many pro photographers I know would be hard pressed to tell the difference</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yet we were told a Nikon lens image would, somehow, be identifiable because the difference between a Canon and Sigma was identifiable. Of course, the comparison, made merely by looking at images as done here, would need to a controlled experiment eliminating variables. I'm not sure that was the case here. In any event, Sigma lens comparisons are irrelevant to whether test of whether Nikon or Canon glass results are distinguishable from each other.</p>

<p>All this aside, the best route may be to seek portfolio samples that contain the most close examples of the "look" in question and start interviewing from there.</p>

[brittany_r._dunks]

<p>equipment is not everything, ultimately it's the eye, composition, lighting, angles, originality etc. that create a good image. So if someone has those things, then having good/great/wonderful equipment will enhance those things.</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>I'm going to go back to the "you have to pay to play" argument. So, okay, say I'm a Nikon shooter. I have 2 D3s, ALL the top range Nikkor lenses, strobes, PWs etc, etc... PLUS, I have been shooting at VERY high level for almost 20 years! Will you "make" me buy a D3x just because of the MP count (since you said you're shooting on a 5DII)? Following your logic, that would be what you'd "force" me to do so I can "come out and play"...<br>

And how will you compensate me financially for the 6,000 euro (12,000 since we're talking two bodies) outlay? Will my salary/payments be enough? 'Cause, let me tell you, if you're paying me 10,000 euro a month (net) or 3,000 euro per shoot (with 3-4 guaranteed per month), then sure, I'll get whatever you want tomorrow. Something tells me however that you wont... Hell, for 20,000 a month I'll get the top-of-the-range Hasselblad with all the cool lenses! And chances are within a couple of months or so (which means you'll be forking out 40-60k!) I could possibly produce amazing results with the new gear...So, I'll ask what I asked in the beginning: CAN YOU AFFORD THAT?</p>

<p>If you want true professionals (and let me tell you, just in case you haven't realised it, a professional is more than just the sum of his/her lenses and cameras!) you will be hard-pressed to get them to change their gear. But if the photographers you're talking about have a D90 with a kit lens, then my assumption would be that they are not really professionals you can rely on to bring back commercially-oriented images, not because that's what you or I think, but because physics and optics preclude an 18-55 lens from taking an Annie Liebowitz image, no matter how gifted the photographer is...</p>

<p>My impression is - and I'm being, as usual, brutally honest here - you're trying to offload some of the financial business risk to potential employees...not right, not fair and not something any professional (or even serious amateur) would accept. If you want YOUR kind of gear, rent or buy it yourself and then you can REASONABLY expect any employee to use that! Hell, you could even put that in the job ad!</p>

<p>And I'll even expand my challenge: find out more than 10 images from my site are taken with a kit lens...! Please, try...</p>

[michael_ryan6]

<p>Hi Brittany,</p>

<p>I actually read your posts, and I don't see a problem with asking them to make a slightly bigger investment in glass. I didn't get the impression that you were asking them to buy $12 k worth of bodies, and asking them to buy a couple of 2.8 zooms to go along with their D90's is reasonable. It sounds like these guys aren't pros who were counting on this income to begin with, so if they have to reinvest the pay that you're offering them into assets that will last a long time, is in no way unfair. And I don't think you have to offer them $20 k a month to tell them that, either :)</p>

<p>Mike</p>

[r._malecki]

<p>I agree with a lot of the responses pertaining to the excellent quality of other cameras. It's the photographer not the camera that gets the desired results. I am a contract photographer, I have used my own equipment(NIKON) and have used Canon that was the company's own equipment. I shot drag racing and they provided the cameras(Canon) because of the wear and tear on them at a track.(i.e. dirt, glue, etc.) I have also used my Nikons and got the same results. Depending on the lens and the shooter's experience and "vison" will be the results you are looking for. Good contract photographers need to have flexibility, dependability, experience, andf KNOW photography and light.<br>

Oh, and by the way, the crack comment about D200's, they shoot professional quality photos if you know what you're doing. The D200 may be an older model but the CCD sensor allows for great skin tone. I have 4 digital Nkons starting with the D200 and up. Each one has a special feature that suits particular situations. The lenses are the best quality. </p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>The problem Michael is not asking someone to make an investment in better glass...it's trying to shift the purchase investment to someone else. It's trying to get someone who, even in your argument, was NOT a professional to start off with and asking them to spend, say, 4-5,000 USD on lenses through which they have no guarantee will get their money back!</p>

<p>If someone's happy enough shooting for him/herself with his D90 and his kit lens and, more importantly, the OP WANTED to hire him/her because of their portfolio (I imagine), then turning around and telling them "oh, by the way, IF you want the job, then you better have 4-5,000 USD to spare, 'cause that's the only way you'll get it", is neither fair nor correct business practice.</p>

<p>You see, the problem is not getting someone better gear - it's the pretence under which you do that. You "promise" someone that IF they invest that amount of money, then you WILL compensate them enough. Otherwise, why would they do that? And what guarantees them that, in a couple of months time, the OP wont turn around and demand a D3x "because the MP count is not enough"? What choice do they have then? To leave? And whast happens to their investment then? To buy the D3x? With what amount of money?</p>

<p>I cannot think of a single professional who would want to willingly enter into such a professional relationship, whatever the potential future benefits may be... not without proper compensation anyway.</p>

<p>Oh, and I agree about the D200 - superb piece of equipment as long as you stayed under 640 ISO...;-)))</p>