Clients reacting to Camera VS Smartphone for pro photo session (NOT the usual discussion)

[samstevens]

Some people don't care, some do care, but as a service provider we not always have the chance to choose the client, the client select us instead and we just arrive there. I did experience some of this years ago where people at least in my region had some sort of expectation based on (at least in my area) Nikon vs Canon and Sony left behind at the end of the spectrum (that's the simplified list).

There's a good ol' Latin saying, "caveat emptor," let the buyer beware. There's nothing wrong, and perhaps something even right, with a photographer mentioning the camera he'll be using when engaging a client by phone or other means. On the other hand, the client, if he is going to care enough about the equipment when he shows up to make an issue of it, should ask in advance. If I cared, I certainly would.

 

I mean, who in his right mind would have bothered to go hear Hendrix play if he wasn't going to bring along his Fender, right?!!! :rolleyes:

 

Anyway, just as a lark, I recommend the more exclusive camera aficionados among us check out Andy Warhol's, Maripol's, and Lucas Samaras's polaroid portraits. Of course, Samaras did a lot of self portraits so the only client he had to "please" was himself and he may or may not have been trying to please himself at that.

 

I think one trick to using a smartphone camera for interesting and unique portraits might be not to think in terms of imitating what "professional" cameras can do. Then, you actually might come up with something impressive, though you'd be appealing to a perhaps niche market, people who haven't been solely influenced by the millions of portrait studios and photographers who pretty much do the same thing no matter who they photograph and what they photograph with.

[hectorroldan]

There's a good ol' Latin saying, "caveat emptor," let the buyer beware. There's nothing wrong, and perhaps something even right, with a photographer mentioning the camera he'll be using when engaging a client by phone or other means. On the other hand, the client, if he is going to care enough about the equipment when he shows up to make an issue of it, should ask in advance. If I cared, I certainly would.

 

I mean, who in his right mind would have bothered to go hear Hendrix play if he wasn't going to bring along his Fender, right?!!! :rolleyes:

 

Anyway, just as a lark, I recommend the more exclusive camera aficionados among us check out Andy Warhol's, Maripol's, and Lucas Samaras's polaroid portraits. Of course, Samaras did a lot of self portraits so the only client he had to "please" was himself and he may or may not have been trying to please himself at that.

 

I think one trick to using a smartphone camera for interesting and unique portraits might be not to think in terms of imitating what "professional" cameras can do. Then, you actually might come up with something impressive, though you'd be appealing to a perhaps niche market, people who haven't been solely influenced by the millions of portrait studios and photographers who pretty much do the same thing no matter who they photograph and what they photograph with.

Well said, and the first part really makes things clearer.

[mikemorrell]

I'm not in the business and I have little experience. I guess it depends on things like:

- client requirements

- scope of services offered, depending on: cameras, lenses, lighting equipment, synch, and PP abilities

- portfolio: if clients are impressed by the portfolio/references, then they're less likely to worry about the tech

- skills/creativity: everything non-tech that impresses the client

- conviction: if you're able to explain why you don't need sophisticated camera/lens and lighting systems for the shoot

 

I think if I was starting out, I might choose to invest in lighting first and use my cell.

 

Mike

[denny_rane]

Like with all these scenarios, it is most often a placebo.

 

I wish i still had the video.

Guitar players obsess over a few things to the point of it being asinine.

One of those things is the Color/Style/Physical compound of capacitors. LOTS of players swear they can hear a difference between a Polyester or a oil capacitor. They can't.

A guy built a phony decade box that used 5-6 different caps......so the players thought. You could see the different caps, but the rotary switch was wired to the SAME cap on all settings.

Players swore they preferred one position over another.

 

The point is.......if somebody put an I-Phone camera in the body of a Sony Mirrorless and compared it to a visible I-Phone camera...... People would SWEAR they preferred the photos from the "Sony" instead of those from the (same) visible I-Phone.

[samstevens]

Like with all these scenarios, it is most often a placebo.

 

I wish i still had the video.

Guitar players obsess over a few things to the point of it being asinine.

One of those things is the Color/Style/Physical compound of capacitors. LOTS of players swear they can hear a difference between a Polyester or a oil capacitor. They can't.

A guy built a phony decade box that used 5-6 different caps......so the players thought. You could see the different caps, but the rotary switch was wired to the SAME cap on all settings.

Players swore they preferred one position over another.

 

The point is.......if somebody put an I-Phone camera in the body of a Sony Mirrorless and compared it to a visible I-Phone camera...... People would SWEAR they preferred the photos from the "Sony" instead of those from the (same) visible I-Phone.

iPhone use can thrive and have its place without minimizing perceptible differences among cameras despite the occasional placebo effect.

 

Someone with cancer wants the real drugs, not the placebo, for a reason. A high quality baby grand and an old upright that’s been sitting in Granny’s house for decades are different, which doesn’t mean the upright is useless. Played well and appropriately, it can have plenty of heart and soul. A cell phone camera used well can also have plenty of heart and soul and produce a good portrait. This doesn’t make it the same as a better camera.

 

Acceptance and embracing cell phone cameras can be accompanied by discernment.

 

Use your tools well and expressively, and know how to get the product you’re looking for and can afford, and you’ll be ahead of the curve ...

[conrad_hoffman]

Thinking about something I'm shooting right now, the camera is the least of my worries. The big part is the multiple lights, stands, extension cords, reflectors, gobos and background. I even had to paint a wall so the product would come out looking right. Probably be silly to show up with a cell phone camera, but if the lighting is right the results might be pretty good with a modern top-of-the line one.

[samstevens]

Making it about image quality misses the point. A phone camera could take the most technically incredible pictures imaginable. I still would not care one bit to use it over an actual camera because there's no character and soul in the operation of it, no drive. I'd instead care to smash that phone as hard as I could against a beautiful brick wall used for test shots.

Call me up when you do that. I want to take a picture of it. With my iPhone ... :rolleyes:

[BeBu Lamar]

I don't know about people (as clients) in general. Personally I think I would never hire a photographer for any reason. But when I do I don't care what kind of equipment he/she uses as long as the result is good.

[andylynn]

Making it about image quality misses the point. A phone camera could take the most technically incredible pictures imaginable. I still would not care one bit to use it over an actual camera because there's no character and soul in the operation of it, no drive. I'd instead care to smash that phone as hard as I could against a beautiful brick wall used for test shots.

No character or soul? I don’t even know where to start. What gear do you need, if you want to imbue the operation of gear with character and soul? A large format view camera?

[hectorroldan]

In short terms, my curiosity goes for the new challenges of competitors using small equipment and the clients getting used to this, accepting it's a possibility and it doesn't mean the photographer is "cheap" or just a hobby player. Things are changing, but I'm not sure we are "there yet" in order to use (ME) an expensive portable device for work at a clients location.

 

There was an annual event where you could see photographers moving from cameras to smartphones. They all looked funny (ridiculous if you ask me) but then I joined. My friend used a big camera, I used a smartphone. The result was interesting because she couldn't use those images right away while I could upload them to social media immediately (but the images were not as large as using a formal camera), interesting experience.

 

Anyway people still look at you surprised and kind of what the hell... when you use smartphones. I can see some people not thinking you are actually a professional. So I came up with a clever solution. During a trip to X place found an interesting iPhone case for my iPhone 4s (yes, I know) and while bulky, that was the positive side of things. Having some old camera lens around, I glued it to the case, the result is quite interesting:

 

 

It's an iPhone 4s, not a professional camera but it looks interesting, it doesn't look like some smartphone anymore. The central lens is only for decoration purposes, the real one is the wide angle located at the corner. It does an amazing job and people look at it with the same effect of having some expensive gear, it solves the issue and allows me to use social media right away for the pictures. There are some more elaborated devices and rigs out there.

[glen_h]

Phone cameras now have high megapixel sensors, but at some point will be limited

by diffraction from the small lens.

 

Much of the need for larger sensors comes from high sensitivity for low-light

situations. Studio photography with large flash units does not need the high

sensitivity.

 

The smaller lens at full aperture isn't so affected by diffraction, so maybe

not so bad.

 

The switch from larger formats to 35mm came when higher quality lenses were

available to get quality images into the smaller frame.

 

Some phones might use high quality, especially for the small size,

lenses to get good images onto the small sensor.

 

But also, there are external, usually wire connected, lenses for some phones, so that it

isn't limited by the phone lens and sensor.

[Jochen_S]

n short terms, my curiosity goes for the new challenges of competitors using small equipment and the clients getting used to this, accepting it's a possibility and it doesn't mean the photographer is "cheap" or just a hobby player. Things are changing, but I'm not sure we are "there yet" in order to use (ME) an expensive portable device for work at a clients location.

I am the known to be a his old cameras loving shutterbug at my dayjob. Lots of needed shots get delegated to (unlike me) high end smart phone carrying co-workers. -Why? They are faster, good enough and don't need to fire up a PC that is running RAW converters. So yes, some clients give jobs to phone shooters on purpose.

"it doesn't mean the photographer is "cheap""? It partially does! - Yes, it is all about getting the job done. But when you enter a market, that arranged pricing, to allow somebody who spends time at home to (post)process files a living wage, with modern technology not requiring that, your client would most likely like to pay less.

I'd try not to misslead clients about what I am using, (as long as they aren't benefitting from what I am actually using, for which vanity or convenience reason ever and on my own expense).

[hectorroldan]

It seems like a recipe for needlessly fiddling around and ironically unnecessarily turning it back to making it all about the equipment. Because look how great a photographer I must to be by doing professional work with my phone! (product placement baby). Imagine getting a call during an important shoot with clients because you forgot to mute your “camera,” lol and at which point you might as well use a tool that’s made specifically for taking photographs. It’s like a fancy iPhone commercial that says “shot with an iPhone” and then fails to mention the ten-twenty thousand dollars worth of professional cine equipment attached to it.

HA Ha so true.

 

I am the known to be a his old cameras loving shutterbug at my dayjob. Lots of needed shots get delegated to (unlike me) high end smart phone carrying co-workers. -Why? They are faster, good enough and don't need to fire up a PC that is running RAW converters. So yes, some clients give jobs to phone shooters on purpose.

"it doesn't mean the photographer is "cheap""? It partially does! - Yes, it is all about getting the job done. But when you enter a market, that arranged pricing, to allow somebody who spends time at home to (post)process files a living wage, with modern technology not requiring that, your client would most likely like to pay less.

I'd try not to misslead clients about what I am using, (as long as they aren't benefitting from what I am actually using, for which vanity or convenience reason ever and on my own expense).

Yes, that's also part of what I'm seeing in the big picture.

 

Thanks everyone for the comments.

[ruslan]

I'm seeing huge impact on clients when you set up your gear and somehow you add a monitor/screen to check the pictures in detail, "it looks pro" it sells... specially if your pictures are good.

 

Some setup like this one:

This is a DSLR in your link, some of them are controlled through a smartphone especially for videowork as well as MILC are controlled that way too.

In the region/country where I live I do not know any client who order a photographer with a smartphone as a tool.

The link shows photographers in my neck of the woods. Many of them have EXIF of their works. No smartphones there. All (no, 90% of them) are using full frame DSLR cameras.

Time after time I visit dpreview website to see how good the latest smartphones are. Shocking thing to you, they are much, much worse than today's entry-level DSLR or MILC cameras. They are on par... say, best Lumix point and shooters made in 2006, still Lumixes with Leica f 2.0 zooms were still better than today's Iphones. Sad truth? Yes.

You can check it out for yourself (there is a lot of data of older cameras available online). SP are hyped.

[ruslan]

Yes the pictures are amazing

Not that amazing. There are lots of artifacts with those faux bokeh, watercolor paint colors, bad ugly details, noise, etc.

I am actively using viewbug website (I am a curator there and several times a finalist of contests) as well as 500px website. Guess what? I see NO smarphones on the wall of fame section, in editor's choice section, etc.

EXIFs are open, they can be checked! NO smartphones. I have never seen one. Top-end pros are selling themselves are using 30000-dollar digital Hasselblads (rare), many are using Nikon D850, D810, a lot of Sonys. Emin Kuliev (a top NY wedding photographer) uses a Sony. Lindberg used Nikon D810.

Client is looking at your works and your reputation. Word-of-mouth matters too.

[ruslan]

Before thinking about cash, it would be great if you built your amazing portfolio. It sells itlesf. Connections and reputation do sell the photographer too. Not his gear.

Not a modern, latest toy in a dimwit's hands!

[PapaTango]

So many trolls, so little time to be wasted on them. One more added to the ignore bin...

[glen_h]

I think I remember a studio photography session for our church directory, maybe in the D1 days,

and being surprised at the use of low resolution digital.

 

Besides the directory (which you always get free), they sell you larger prints, maybe

up to 11x14 to make up the cost. The D1 is about 2.6 megapixels, which sounds small by

now though should be enough to make a nice 8x10, and not so bad 11x14.

Still, at the time, believing that real photographers would use film.

 

Most of the cost of professional studio photographers is for the artistic ability, not the

photographic equipment and supplies. They don't need the current top of the line,

but shouldn't be so far down, either.

[tomspielman]

In the end, the intended consumers of these photos are likely not professional photographers. Just a guess, but I'd say 80% to 90% of the photographs we see on a regular basis come from smartphones and are of much lower quality than what the smartphone was capable of.

 

So the standard for what's considered a good or even excellent photo by the bulk of the photo consuming public does not require a dedicated camera. Further, a smartphone in the hands of a good photographer that knows how to work within its limitations and take advantage of its capabilities can produce fantastic results.

 

Look at this way. I spend a lot of time on a bike and used to do triathlons on a regular basis. But if you pitted me in my prime on the best triathlon bike available against a pro riding a $199 bike from Target, who do you think would win?

 

Not me.

 

If you have to look at the exif info to know whether a pic has been taken on a smart phone or a full framed DSLR, then maybe that's a clue that in many instances a smart phone is more than adequate.

Edited February 4, 2020 by tomspielman

[Sandy Vongries]

In the end, the intended consumers of these photos are likely not professional photographers. Just a guess, but I'd say 80% to 90% of the photographs we see on a regular basis come from smartphones and are of much lower quality than what the smartphone was capable of.

 

So the standard for what's considered a good or even excellent photo by the bulk of the photo consuming public does not require a dedicated camera. Further, a smartphone in the hands of a good photographer that knows how to work within its limitations and take advantage of its capabilities can produce fantastic results.

 

Look at this way. I spend a lot of time on a bike and used to do triathlons on a regular basis. But if you pitted me in my prime on the best triathlon bike available against a pro riding a $199 bike from Target, who do you think would win?

 

Not me.

 

If you have to look at the exif info to know whether a pic has been taken on a smart phone or a full framed DSLR, then maybe that's a clue that in many instances a smart phone is more than adequate.

 

Flip side of that - If I were standing alongside any of the major bike races with either of my road bikes, and a high level participant my size had his bike fail, he could continue on mine and not be handicapped. Imagine hiring an individual to do some work on your house and have him arrive equipped with just a multi tool on his belt. Best tools always the best choice - the skills are up to the user.

[samstevens]

Making photos is different from construction work on houses. I wouldn't want gritty work done on my home, but sometimes gritty is exactly what I want in a photo.

[samstevens]

What do you mean?

What I mean is that the OP was talking about a young demographic hiring a photographer. I'm thinking that might be for a portrait. And I'm thinking the photographer chosen and the client might both get off on approaching the portrait in a gritty, iPhone kind of way. In that case, the iPhone might just be the best camera for the job. As to my house, I might love a good, gritty picture of it done on an iPhone, but if I'm having work done on it, I want the highest technical quality I can afford.

[samstevens]

Frank is great. But I'm not into hero worship and, while I love photographers and ways of the past, I'm not stuck on them.

 

I think there are plenty of things a millennial would find impossible to explain to you, and it wouldn't be the millennial's fault.

[samstevens]

Listened to a holier than thou Tim Cook speech lately?

No. I'd never had heard of him except for argument threads on PN. Have never had an inkling to check him out. I'm speaking from my own experience of the iPhone and some of the ways I use it. Also from some of the photos I've seen. No experts or memes to offer as proof.

[samstevens]

But luckily, that's not yet any of my concern.

When you mature, you'll realize it's not a "concern."