No respect for studio?

JimW · February 24, 2008

<o:p></o:p><<< there is nothing wrong with that but then the shots become more "studio">>> <o:p> </o:p>
<<< I normally don't like doing "studio" photos either, because I don't want them to look forced or fake.>>>
<o:p> </o:p><<< … (e.g. we know that heavy PS or studio lighting is sniffed upon) …>>>
<o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Lately I’ve noticed studio photography has been dissed (slightly, no big deal) by Saurora, Urbanaries & Nik (three photographers whose opinions I respect, if I didn’t I wouldn’t be asking). The implication appears to be that studio photography is less … respected than non-studio.
<o:p> </o:p>
Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not arguing or upset or anything like that. Just curious. I enjoy all types of photography, including portraits in & out of studio, landscapes, cityscapes, close-up, street, travel, etc. It’s my opinion that studio is one of the most challenging and fascinating types of photography. It is also one of the most difficult to do well. I’m not talking about a large commercial studio with six assistants and tons of state-of-the-art equipment. I’m talking about someone like us, alone in our small converted living room or garage.
<o:p> </o:p>
I asked three photog friends why they think studio gets dissed, and received three different answers.
- One answer was that people consider studio to be less real, and with the popularity of reality tv etc, real is in vogue now.
- Another answer was that studio is considered easier, perhaps because there’s no backpacking involved.
- Someone else said studio is dissed because it doesn’t use natural light.
<o:p> </o:p>
Since I’m asking the question, it’s only fair that I answer first.
I don’t consider studio any less real than non-studio, nor any easier, nor does it lose points with me because it’s not natural light. <o:p></o:p>I do think it is understandable that people equate degree-of-difficulty with respect. That’s what they do with olympic diving. That’s what we do in life all the time. However, the studio photography that I have done has been more difficult for me than most other types.
If we’re going by degree-of-difficulty, I would list weddings as the most difficult and studio portraits second. This is why I don’t understand why studio gets dissed, and why I’m asking the question.
<o:p> </o:p>
So I’m simply curious as to what do you guys think? Be honest. Be frank. All comments welcome from anyone.

Thanks,
Jim

saurora · February 24, 2008

Hi Jim, good points! I'm out the door this morning so I'll be very brief and open up discussion. My statement was not meant to "diss" studio. I admire great studio work and I am trying to learn lighting as we speak on Strobist. I think your friend was very close in commenting about the 'reality' shows. To me, even though these are portraits, we have been invited into their 'space' (home). Because of the location, these portraits are more photo-journalistic to me as opposed to studio. I think Lynne captured the mood so well in these and my thoughts as I viewed the shots were that I liked how un-intrusive the lighting is as it existed with the set-up she used.

dmmattix · February 24, 2008

Interesting you mentioned Nik ...

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=85414

Art Scott · February 24, 2008

Over 20 yrs ago I was telling everyone I hated studio photos because they all looked so fake...those painted canvas backdrops of scenery and such all looked fake so I was determined to shoot only in homes or outdoors..preferably all natural lighting and without any help (no assistants what so ever).......I found my approach to be quite an eye opener......the people that wanted natural outdoorsy shoots would have to be rescheduled many times, the weather does change at the drop of a pin here in Ks.....one second nice and sunny the next raining or just all of a sudden nearly gale speed straight winds, have no idea how the Indians kept a tee pee standing in these winds......

anyway I see a studio now as a needed evil in my part of the world....I have shot in living rooms that were barely 8x10' but made great environmental family portraits......
If studio is approached correctly it can be fun and very challenging....... if someone want a studio session in and out in 10 - 30 mins...well I recommend they head to the nearest wally world or sears for the $4.95 package cause I want at least a couple hours(min) of your life to create a set of portraits for you.....I no longer want to see how many people I can run in front of my camera in one day........fewer people greater results (now if I can just get my PP'ing to come close to what I can see in mind and camera)..................

What I am turning into a new studio used to be a mom/pop grocery but has no windows for lighting so all will have to be strobe or incandescent if I want the warm glow of the incandescent......or use gold umbrellas (if I can find solid gold umbrellas any more)......of course I am located near a few parks for all the outdoors shoots I want and need..............

I still prefer the personalness (going to copyright and trade mark this non word) of doing in home environmental or outdoor portraits and I personally would never use a rectangle or square soft box for portraiture.....I still prefer either an octo shape or round shape from the light source....the eyes are more round than not so I feel that a catch light needs to compliment them and a rectangle or sq doesnot do this imho..........

Feel as if I am rambling I hope this is co-herent as I am on 4 different drugs for a really bad chest and sinus infection and no fever (96.5DF, just a touch low)..................

Sam · February 24, 2008

I am not sure there is a right or wrong in this. I think it may have something to do with how a basic studio lighting set up with a muslin backdrop produces a lot of simple portraits with pretty flat lighting.

A basic portrait lighting set up in a studio can be easily set up, and good solid (if non creative ) portraits can be cranked out at high volume.

Many here are pushing to get a more creative portrait that tells a story. While this is a challenge anywhere, I believe it very well can be more difficult on location, than in a more controlled studio environment.

I also think that some of the lack of respect, or perceived lack of respect is directed at the bargain photo chain studios, where up selling the client is as important, if not more important than the portrait it's self. Here they really don't have the time, and don't usually have the expertise to do anything more than have mom, and the kids sit in front of the prepositioned lights where a person with minimal training pressing a button on a camera that has been preset. It's a assembly line approach. They can't do it any differently, and hope to stay in business.

Sam

Richard · February 24, 2008

Jim,

Interesting topic. I have a hard time understanding why people think that one particular set of techiques is the "true" one and all the others aren't "real photography," or at least less worthy of respect. If anything, it seems to have more to do with religion than art. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with business. You bring up studio shooting, but you could easily substitute Photoshopping, HDR, composites and if you want to go back far enough, digital vs. film. The same arguments recur.

I think it's fine that people find their own niche as photographers and being passionate about it is fine. But if they lose respect for the other approaches, they just look small-minded to me. In the end, truly great images are rare regardless of technique. Anyone who tells you that some particular approach is the "easy" one probably has never tried it personally.

Regards,

ShepsMom · February 24, 2008

Studio vs. natural outdoor light is a different type of photography, that needs to be mastered, and i'm trying to get into the studio direction. I admire studio photography when it's well and testfully done.
To say that studio photography provides fake images is plain ignorant. I totally disagree.

saurora · February 25, 2008

Jim, I don't have a studio, but last Saturday I had a session with my niece and I wanted a more 'studio' look this time. We usually shoot outdoors. Since I only have one flash, I shot with a combination of ambient window light,a single flash and reflector. Not the best results. I have a lot to learn in the lighting department (and a few other departments as well!) and I have a lot of respect for those who know how to use lighting properly. So I broke down last night and ordered another strobe. I'll be spending a lot of time at the Strobist for a while. I'm determined to get a better grip on this! I'm like you...I truly love all types of photography and wish I knew more about each and every type.

JimW · February 25, 2008

Art – thanks for that honest answer. You’ve hit on a good point here.
<<< Over 20 yrs ago I was telling everyone I hated studio photos because they all looked so fake...those painted canvas backdrops of scenery and such all looked fake ... >>>

Yes, I think people sometimes call that studio lighting, but I think that’s a misnomer. It’s just bad taste, which can show up in any kind of photography.

JimW · February 25, 2008

Sam said:
<<< Many here are pushing to get a more creative portrait that tells a story. While this is a challenge anywhere, I believe it very well can be more difficult on location, than in a more controlled studio environment.>>>

Sam, I think you are saying that the lighting is more difficult on location, which it can be. But I can’t agree that a storytelling portrait is more difficult on location. The location itself informs the viewer with details about the subject, whereas the studio does not. So I would say a storytelling portrait is easier to do on location, and in the studio I’m not attempting to tell a story. Or perhaps I’ve misunderstood you?

In a studio portrait, usually I’m just trying to get a good picture, and if there’s more than one person in it, then perhaps show a connection between them.

<<< I also think that some of the lack of respect, or perceived lack of respect is directed at the bargain photo chain studios ...>>>

Yes, good point. Thanks for commenting Sam.

JimW · February 25, 2008

Richard said:
<<< Anyone who tells you that some particular approach is the "easy" one probably has never tried it personally.>>>

Good point Richard. I think it rings true for me. I have been surprised by studio work. Before I started doing it, I would have assumed it is easier. After all, it’s controlled light. You can put the light wherever you want it, right? Wrong. Once I started doing it, I realized the difficulties involved. My studio space is roughly 15’ x 16’, and that includes storage. If I want to get something out, I have to move seven others things just to get it. Then there’s the equipment that breaks at the worst time. Or a light stand isn’t quite tall enough, or doesn’t go down low enough. After having done both, I could give a hundred reasons why outdoor portraits are easier. I enjoy both and really don’t have a preference. But there is no way I would say studio is easier, not in a million years.

JimW · February 25, 2008

Thank you <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Marina</st1:place></st1:city> for your comments.
<o:p> </o:p>
Susan, thanks for your comments. I understand what you were saying above. But, could you expand on what you mean when you say, in your second post, that this time you’d like more of a “studio” look? I’d be interested to hear.
<o:p> </o:p>
By the way, are you familiar with Dean Collins videos? Among other things, he demonstrates portrait lighting done with only one light, and they are amazing, best videos I ever saw. (which was 15 years ago) He’s discussed on strobist.
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/08/review-best-of-dean-collins-on.html
<o:p> </o:p>
<<< Not the best results.>>>
Looks like you’re doing a lot right. You don’t like it? Can you describe what you’d like to see different? If you can, you’re halfway there!
<o:p> </o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>

</o:p>
Here’s my idea of a nice studio portrait. It appears simple. I like that. (It took me two years of practice to figure out how to make it look simple). It’s checkerboard lighting, in that the main light is coming from one side and the background light is coming from the opposite side. It’s posed and it looks that way, which is ok by me.

Jim

saurora · February 26, 2008

JimW wrote:

Susan, thanks for your comments. I understand what you were saying above. But, could you expand on what you mean when you say, in your second post, that this time you’d like more of a “studio” look? I’d be interested to hear.

Most portraits I have previously attempted include surrounding environment whether indoors or outdoors. I have been scouring websites and really studying & pouring over portraits a lot the past month. This time I wanted to isolate my subject from the environment and focus more on her personality. When I am busy worrying about the surrounding scenery, I sometimes totally forget, or can't focus on, what I would like to see in the face of my subject. Shooting like this gave me the opportunity to really study and play with hand position, eye contact, etc. I also have been avoiding advancing in using lighting. I have no doubt that one reason people diss studio lighting is the fear of the unknown. In answer to your question, when I think of 'studio', I'm thinking the use of strategically placed lighting equipment that illuminates and defines the subject in a complimentary way while also resulting in good separation from the BG and little to no emphasis on background. I know this is not always the case, but it is what comes to mind. I think of both portraiture and fashion photography. It's difficult to compare studio to that which isn't studio. The words aren't very complimentary towards studio....as in natural vs. unnatural, or fake, or unreal, not realistic, artificial....I wonder if sometimes when people use these descriptions if perhaps they are not really thinking of studio in negative terms. When I was growing up there was a luxury department store that displayed these huge, life-size family portraits with dark backgrounds and well-dressed subjects. They were very expensive especially for those times. They fascinated me to no end and this was before I became involved with my first camera. I should remember the name of the photographer, but I can't. I don't think I ever got over them they impressed a young girl so much!

By the way, are you familiar with Dean Collins videos? Among other things, he demonstrates portrait lighting done with only one light, and they are amazing, best videos I ever saw. (which was 15 years ago) He’s discussed on strobist.
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/08/review-best-of-dean-collins-on.html

No I am not familiar with him. Thank you Jim for the info - I will definitely check him out!

<<< Not the best results.>>>
Looks like you’re doing a lot right. You don’t like it? Can you describe what you’d like to see different? If you can, you’re halfway there!

I like it, but wish there had been more separation and more hair light. I only had one strobe, a medium-sized reflector and a large glass door. So I mixed the outdoor light with the indoor, I guess you could say it was a hybrid shot!!! I placed the strobe on the floor (didn't have a light stand with me) to her right and somewhat behind her pointed to the ceiling (I had no clue what I was doing and uncertain about lighting up all that black cloth!) and I used the reflector to open up the shadows a bit on her front right. So I need more hair light and separation, at least for this shot. I used a couple of black sheets for the floor and wall behind her (actually there was a window, too. It was a quick DIY setup and I ended up PSing the BG too black to hide wrinkles, etc. She is sitting on a very ultra-slim stool and along with the black, it gives the effect of her floating in space! [/QUOTE]

<o:p>

</o:p>

Here’s my idea of a nice studio portrait. It appears simple. I like that. (It took me two years of practice to figure out how to make it look simple). It’s checkerboard lighting, in that the main light is coming from one side and the background light is coming from the opposite side. It’s posed and it looks that way, which is ok by me.

Jim

It is a very nice portrait and I think posed portraits have their place. Two years? <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/eek7.gif" border="0" alt="" > I'm not a very fast learner, Jim....not sure I have that much time!

cabbey · February 26, 2008

Jim, I think a lot of this is regional/generational. I look at my High School yearbook (and cringe) and see all of the senior shots were studio, with one of two backdrops (blue/green or tan/brown multi). When I was in school, that was the only choice. A few years later, they opened up to allow seniors to bring in their own outside shots (and reserved the right to reject it and use the school photo). The first year they did that I understand there were dozens of kids that brought in studio shots from elsewhere... and 2 or 3 that brought in obviously non-studio portaits. The year after it was 50/50 with far more non-school portraits brought in, and the year after that, every single non-school shot was a non-studio shot. Awash in a sea of cookie cutter studio shots, those few early pioneers stood out. That set the mark for "cool" in those kids... a mental disposition they carried forward. When they got to photo 101 in college they were really unhappy to have to shoot "this boring old studio crap". Explanations about learning how to model light onto a subject's face in the studio didn't seem to get through the brick wall they had built in their heads.

That even applies in locations that don't allow custom yearbook images, but do have other rich photo traditions around school... here in Rochester it would seem that the "in" thing to do for graduation is to have an open house, the invites for which are basically 4x9 cards with a nice 4x6 senior picture on them and 3" of invite... or something similar, point is it's a picture card, and again they want to stand out... so there's practically no basic school mugshot grade studio shots, they're all out in the woods, or the mall, or on the field, or in their car.... I understand some of the local photographers make a nice bit of change keeping up with that market... btu they have to deal with highschoolers, and worse, parents. Ugh, no thanks.

I think there are areas/generations that didn't have that type of influence in their 'formative' years and don't carry that same mentality. Others have just picked it up from their customer base. One photographer locally I know has mentioned she hates these field shoots, and would be quite a bit happier back home in her studio... but the kids don't want them, so she doesn't shoot them, and has even bemoaned setting up the studio now, because it doesn't pay anymore.

saurora wrote:

That's a stunning shot (though the color on the left hand is distractingly off to my eye).
:jawdrop
(and the model is not too bad looking either.

)

JimW · February 26, 2008

<<<... I wanted to isolate my subject from the environment and focus more on her personality.>>>

Gotcha. Well put.

<<< when I think of 'studio', I'm thinking the use of strategically placed lighting equipment that illuminates and defines the subject in a complimentary way while also resulting in good separation from the BG and little to no emphasis on background.>>>

That’s it. Good description. Nothin artificial or fake about it. I understand what you want to do. Sometimes we might want a lit background (like my example for instance) and other times we might just want the hair light to strike the hair and shoulders and separate the subject from a black background.

<<< I like it, but wish there had been more separation and more hair light. >>>

If you want more separation, I think you’ll need to get the strobe up off the floor. So, if I understand, her face was exposed with window light? Okay, that is a tough hybrid. For one thing, if the strobe was on the floor pointed to the ceiling, and you want the strobe to provide enough light to separate her dark, thick, dense hair from the background, that’s difficult I think. A lightstand would allow you to point the strobe straight at her hair. In my experience, especially when the subject has dense hair as she seems to, you’ll need a lot of light to make it work, maybe +1 stop over main. But I guess you found that out. Did you use an incident meter? If so, what did it read for her hair, compared to the main (face)?

<<< I'm not a very fast learner, Jim....not sure I have that much time>>

, I shouldn’t have said two years. Pretend I said two weeks.

:D (Obviously, I’m not fast learner either, or it wouldn’t have taken me so long.) You did well, I think, considering. It’s really hard to do good studio lighting without the space and equipment. Do you have a space where you can hang a background (cloth or seamless or canvas or something) and leave it there?

Susan, I didn’t mean to turn this thread into a studio lighting thread, I just couldn’t help it. If you’d like, we can continue, as I love talking lighting. If not, no problem.

Jim

JimW · February 26, 2008

Chris,

I think those are great points you make. I guess I was trying to say that studio photography doesn’t have to be fake or tasteless, and that doing it right sure isn’t easier than outdoor portraits. But you’re right, it depends as much on the customer as the photographer, I suppose.

<<< btu they have to deal with highschoolers, and worse, parents. Ugh, no thanks.>>>

I hear that, loud and clear.

Jim

ChatKat · February 26, 2008

There is studio and there is STUDIO
There are multple kinds of studio in my estimation.

There is the Walmart/Sears/Target Studio - go in pose in the pre-set setting of the week with the preset camera. One seating/Several poses for $19.95 with the coupon and heavy upsell.

There is the Olan Mills or Portait Franchise in the Mall - a step up with more expensive options to the above.

There is the Boutique Studio; The photographer designs and creates assortments of images, uses creativity and varied technique and equipment to suit the subject. Sometimes the subjects are limited more to pets, children, etc.

In a local mall there is a "cart" type of studio in the middle of the mall with a curtain and a few kids clothes with somekind of box set camera geared to a downscale market with 5x7's at $14.99 and a charge if you dress your kids in their costumes.

Then there is the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus Studio.

I think that in some of our thoughts we do dis all but the boutique studio.
They take away from those who do lifestyle portrait work by their reputations of hard selling an inferior product. The photographers really know nothing more than to push a button.

For me, I have just invested a fair amount of money to open a real boutique studio. I am purchasing furniture for things like boudior photography, back grounds, and additional lighting to create a home style environment where I can be creative and do pets, people and product. I bought all kinds of parphenalia that are geared towards selling the upscale family wall portraits, including setting up a frame shop for my images, and have gallery space for some of my travel/art photography.

Editing to add that the outside of my studio has brick walkways, multiple kinds of outdoor backgrounds, benches, trees and unusual architecture for the area.

I estimate it will take me about 12 - 24 months to turn a profit. It's not just shoot and see if I like it. Hours get spent on making this something to be proud of. The self education and seminars and workshops that I have been doing with great intensity for the last six years have resulted in me realising a dream that I never would have thought possible. I was also given a great gift of help from someone in my business life I had helped selflessly a while back that made this possible.

So do I dis the tradtional studio? No. There is a place for all of it. Not everyone will be able to afford what I will create. Just like eating at a McDonalds, an Applebees. or a Ruth's Chris' Steakhouse - there are places to dine for each of us.

Nikolai · February 26, 2008

JimW wrote:

...<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p><<< … (e.g. we know that heavy PS or studio lighting is sniffed upon) …>>>...
...
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Lately I’ve noticed studio photography has been dissed (slightly, no big deal) by Saurora, Urbanaries & Nik (three photographers whose opinions I respect, if I didn’t I wouldn’t be asking). ....

Jim, since you were kind enough to bring my name along side those other very talented photographers, it seems only prudent if I bring some clarification on the subject.

First and foremost: while I don't deny I said these words in one of my posts, they were only said:
a) as a hypothetical rule which we should have been made aware of if it, in fact, did exist, and
b) as a reflection of my observations and analysis of the ongoing judging tendency in the most recent LPS rounds.
It was not my opinion, I just want to make sure this is absolutely clear.

Now, since my observations and your lead post primary idea happen to coincide :-), I'd like to use this opportunity to actually express that opinion of mine re: studio shooting.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not finger-pointing. If you think you see a reference to a particular image in the rest of my post - it's *your* reference, not mine <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/mwink.gif" border="0" alt="" >

I do like studio lighting. I also do enjoy good PS work.
One thing though: when they are done right.
Just the mere fact that somebody used a $50K studio setup, MF camera and a professional model does not necessarily produce a great image, not for me. Light can be bland, model can be tired and the whole image may have no soul, feel contrived, etc. Same goes towards post-processing. If done just for the sake of it ("look ma, I know how to use the high pass filter, the HiRaLoAm sharpening and the outer glow effect - all at once!") such an image may, in fact, score less points in my internal scoring system compared to some maybe less technically advanced, but more thoughtful image.
Yes, both studio lighting and solid PS skills can help one to achieve a greater final image quality, just like good body and fast sharp glass do. But neither is a replacement for the original artistry that should come from the photographer him/her-self. Moreover, those technicalities often (too often, unfortunately) take too much of the photographer's time and attention to set them up properly, resulting in less attention spent on the image subject itself. That's why a person with a disposable $7 box may actually take an astounding image, while his/her neighbor with D3/1DmkIII and $8K glass would only take a mediocre one, simply due tot he fact that the first one knows that nothing exists except him/her and the image that gonna improve it later, while the second person may feel overconfident of his/her gear and, as such, pay just a little bit less attention to some other, photographically important detail.

Bottom line: both studio lighting and PS are mere tools. Very expensive and very complicated, but tools nonetheless. They both can be definitely used to improve the image, but they can also do damage. Due to the aforementioned complexity factor the chances to screw things up are naturally higher - hence the negative public attitude towards such "complicating" factors. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif" border="0" alt="" >

So, *is* the studio lighting bad? Not by itself.
*Can* it be bad? Absolutely, and often so.
*Can* it be good? Yes, if done properly, which is not always easy to achieve. It also tends to highlight (pun intended) photographer's other mistakes, so the rest of the image - idea, subject, b/g, exposure, etc. - should be absolutely immaculate for it to actually help.

HTH

JimW · February 26, 2008

Kathy,

Thanks for commenting. I admit that I’m completely ignorant of the Sears/WalMart/Target/OlanMills/Boutique/Easter Bunny & Santa Studios. I have never been in one and know nothing about them. Can’t remember the last time I was in a mall. The only studios I’m aware of are the big commercial NYC studios with many assistants and my little personal studio in my converted living room. So now I understand a little better why people dis studios, if in fact they did, which they probably didn't.

Thank you for posting your personal story and I wish you the very best of luck with your endeavor. It sounds like you’ve done your homework and that you inderstand the business quite well, much better than me. I could certainly use more business sense, that’s for sure. Again, best of luck to you.

Jim

JimW · February 26, 2008

Nikolai,

Look, I admit I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed. I’ve read your post 3 times very carefully and I really honestly only understand a little bit of it, I think. But that’s ok. I blame myself. I see now that my original intent for this thread was ... misguided or something. It was destined to fail.

I’m sensing that you’re not happy with my clipping your comment. If that’s true, I sincerely apologize. I meant no harm.

I hope we can just move on. I’m gonna go shoot some pictures.

Jim

Nikolai · February 26, 2008

JimW wrote:

Nikolai,
<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>
Look, I admit I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed. I’ve read your post 3 times very carefully and I really honestly only understand a little bit of it, I think. But that’s ok. I blame myself. I see now that my original intent for this thread was ... misguided or something. It was destined to fail.
<o:p></o:p>
I’m sensing that you’re not happy with my clipping your comment. If that’s true, I sincerely apologize. I meant no harm.
<o:p></o:p>
I hope we can just move on. I’m gonna go shoot some pictures.
<o:p></o:p>
Jim

Jim,
you have actually risen some interesting points, well worth discussion imho.

I was also honored to see my name a) mentioned, b) along with Saurora and Urbanaries, whom I too respect deeply.

I just found it funny that my very own words were used out of their original context to express an idea of "dissing the studio lighing" - which I never did and which I have never been proponent of:-)

Having said that - it's all cool and I'm interested to hear other's opinions on the matter!
Thank you once again for bringing it up!<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif" border="0" alt="" >

urbanaries · February 26, 2008

Semantics, my word!

urbanaries wrote:

I normally don't like doing "studio" photos either, because I don't want them to look forced or fake.

I acknowledge and sense a great deal of tension among professional photographers today. These are hard times for pros, even before you factor in the economy nosedive. The LAST thing I want to do is increase that tension or hostility.

When the quote above is taken in the manner it has, I must clarify I have a huge respect for fashion photography, product photography, food photography, and all other genres of photography that employ the use of controlled lighting in a controlled studio environment. They are skills I wish to gain and perfect, but have only personally scratched the surface at. On the photographer food chain, they are the lions and I am the antelope.

What I refer to when I use the word "studio" in this context (and note I use the " "s) is what Saurora and ChatKat alluded to, in the portraiture world...the "portrait studio". There are folks that don't know what aperture means, shooting against backgrounds they change out with a switch, churning out phony, contrived images that lack personality, originality and creativity.

When clients come to me, they usually state they are attracted to my work because it doesn't look like "the studios". They're not referring to commercial, or boutique studios...they're referring to the churn-em-outs that fit every client into a cookie-cutter formula.

Another connotation I admit I use is the "traditional" approach to photography. This I believe is more of a matter of taste and trend rather than talent or expertise. Personally, I find muslin and painted backdrops to represent trends I am trying to differentiate myself against. Just like Apple is trying to differentiate against PC, there really isn't any "moral judgment", just a conscious choice in target demographics and style.

Jim, I feel like you're one of the most talented photographers on this forum, and I sure hope I haven't offended you or come off as "too big for my britches."

"end quote"

Lynne

ChatKat · February 27, 2008

Business is Business
Anytime you go into business - no matter how small - even a one man photo business - you are still a business and have to treat it as such otherwise treat it as a hobby. There is a vast difference. And you'd better undstand your responsibilities if you are a business acting as a hobby.

My first business is that of a business consultant. I am a good photographer but a better business person. It takes both to be profitable in the world of photography. You can't be either or....

JimW wrote:

Kathy,
<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>
Thanks for commenting. I admit that I’m completely ignorant of the Sears/WalMart/Target/OlanMills/Boutique/Easter Bunny & Santa Studios. I have never been in one and know nothing about them. Can’t remember the last time I was in a mall. The only studios I’m aware of are the big commercial NYC studios with many assistants and my little personal studio in my converted living room. So now I understand a little better why people dis studios, if in fact they did, which they probably didn't. Thank you for posting your personal story and I wish you the very best of luck with your endeavor. It sounds like you’ve done your homework and that you inderstand the business quite well, much better than me. I could certainly use more business sense, that’s for sure. Again, best of luck to you.
<o:p></o:p>
Jim

saurora · February 27, 2008

Jim, thanks for the lighting pointers. I didn't mean to run away with your thread. That is interesting about thick, dense hair needing a lot of light. No, I do not own an incident meter. I had one many years ago, but sold it. I have a small condo and really no room for a permanent studio, but need to figure out a temporary practice area. (I've contemplated giving up all of my living room furniture!) I'm glad you love talking lighting, because I think you will find there are lots of us out there who hunger for a better grasp of lighting technique. A big part of what I enjoyed about your now famous Jigsaw Puzzle Project thread is how you describe your decisions about lighting. I'll post some more shots as I (hopefully) progress!

JimW · February 27, 2008

Lynne,

<<< What I refer to when I use the word "studio" in this context (and note I use the " "s) is what Saurora and ChatKat alluded to, in the portraiture world...the "portrait studio". There are folks that don't know what aperture means, shooting against backgrounds they change out with a switch, churning out phony, contrived images that lack personality, originality and creativity.>>>
<o:p> </o:p>
I understand now. I didn’t realize there were so many of these schlock shops, and that this is what everyone was referring to. It was my misunderstanding, and you have explained it well, which I appreciate.

<<< ... I sure hope I haven't offended you or come off as "too big for my britches." >>>
<o:p> </o:p>
Absolutely not, no way. And thank you for the compliment Lynne.
<o:p> </o:p>
Jim
<what refer="" to="" when="" word="" this="" context="" (and="" note="" i="" use="" s)="" is="" saurora="" chatkat="" alluded="" to,="" in="" the="" portraiture="" world...the="" portrait="" studio="" .="" there="" are="" folks="" don="" t="" know="" what="" aperture="" means,="" shooting="" against="" backgrounds="" they="" change="" with="" a="" switch,="" churning="" out="" phony,="" contrived="" images="" that="" lack="" personality,="" originality="" and="" creativity.="">
</what>

JimW · February 27, 2008

Susan,
<<< No, I do not own an incident meter. ... I have a small condo and really no room for a permanent studio, but need to figure out a temporary practice area. (I've contemplated giving up all of my living room furniture!)>>>

I see. It does take a huge commitment to learn lighting, and is really hard without your own space. I know how lucky we are to have two apartments in the same building. If things don’t improve financially, we’ll have to give one up. If that happens, we wouldn’t hesitate to give up the couch and t.v. (there’s nothing on anyway!) And for what it’s worth, once you find a space to work, an incident meter should be the first purchase, I think.

<<< ...is how you describe your decisions about lighting.>>>

Okay, that’s good to know, and I’ll keep it in mind. Thanks.

<<< I'll post some more shots as I (hopefully) progress!>>>

Please do.

Jim

No respect for studio?

Comments