Last week we posted Question – should I market gear and technique? in response to a reader’s question about how relevant our gear is to our photography business. Check out that post and then check out this comment from Kitty:
In our market are many photographers who are using subpar equipment and they do love the fact that customers often pick them based on 600px big images on the website. I am not scared to admit that I am gear head to my couples, it is in fact part of my brand. That I am photographer from morning to night and putting velvia next to bread for kid’s breakfast in the mall’s shopping cart. Normal people think I am crazy fascinated and attached to what I do resulting in a booking and those who have photography as hobby book us because they trust we won’t show up with D90 and kit lens, because they know, that what counts are not those 50 pics on the website, but how all will look.
If you’ve been around for a while you know I don’t tend to talk photography or gear very often here. I like to keep the conversation specifically focused because it seems like everyone else is reviewing gear and talking about how to take photos so I tend to think there is a need to fill a different void. Having said that, strap in because I’m going to talk cameras and images for a minute.
I’m not going to judge anyone’s gear-headedness. Believe it or not I think about cameras and photography all the time. I’ve been guilty of thinking too much about gear from time to time. So I totally understand the impulse to talk shit about the photographer with the D90 and the kit lens.
Just think about every amazing photo that’s ever been taken. Think about all the iconic stuff – all the meaningful photographs. The vast majority of them were taken with cameras and lenses that were worse than the D90 and kit lens we’re talking shit about. The reality is that D90 is amazing. So is the kit lens. Sure, there is (WAY) better stuff available on the market by comparison, but compared to what most meaningful photographs were made with that D90 kit might as well be a magical artifact.
We aren’t as valuable as our gear. We’re as valuable as our beliefs and vision. The gear is plenty good, even the worst of it. That’s why I don’t like talking gear – sure it is fun amongst us nerds but it doesn’t amount to a damn thing in the world of value.
I don’t like spending money on gear because it keeps the camera companies in business instead of me in profitability. I could easily do my job with a D90. I don’t, but probably not for functional reasons as much as for how I would feel about myself. My client wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. Not because they are stupid, but because how and why I take a photograph matters so much more than what I took it with.
Your camera isn’t your value. Your value is the same whether you have a D4 or Phase One or D90 in your hand. It better be anyway.
Disclaimer – don’t freak out, I’m not saying you should have sub-par gear or spray-and-pray or anything like that. I’m just saying anything that you can throw money at isn’t real, client-focused value.
- trr
Want to learn how to build real value? Want to learn how to get hired by the right clients, for the right amount, to do the right work? Check out the SEXY BUSINESS Workshop.
Thank You for taking your time to answer Todd.
You are of course right (as ever), we also took many photos with glass plates cameras and did a good job. But the reality is that many of those cameras, might make better photos technically, but not in reality.
In good old days were cameras so hard (and expensive) to work with, that usually only enthusiast and pros were using them. There was no auto mode on early film cameras. That resulted that average quality of photographer was better in old days, than is now, when you can set that magic green mode, and pray that auto mode won’t pick sky behind the people.
With modern equipment, if you take a beautiful bride in sunny day to photoshoot, even complete ignorant will pull few “okish” wedding pics. Sometimes even few genial photos if everything is playing good for him. It is hard to judge the photographer by them. Then when sun wont shine, or fuses in church go away. Or by the moments or face studies which makes or breaks the photo.
And then it comes out. That D90 with kit lens is WORSE camera then F3 with manual focus 50/1.8 is. Because camera’s sensor is worse, lens is worse but mainly because the one who work with it, the one comforted with green modes, is worse then was random enthusiastic father who had to go through 30 bad rolls of film to learn what it is this “photography”.
So yes, gear won’t matter, light and moment is what does. Sometimes bad gear is the first warning sign that something is not right.
“I’m just saying anything that you can throw money at isn’t real, client-focused value.”
I disagree with this. When I reinvested into my company to upgrade to the nikon d3s from the d700 (two of them actually), the ONLY thing I thought about is how it added value to what I offer my clients. Apart from the technical aspects of the camera that enabled me to capture scenes in low light (client value), I shoot to backup, so my clients’ images – whether they are aware of it or not – are duplicated instantly so that in the event there is a card failure, their images are safe. Some of my clients ARE photographers, and they are most definitely aware of what kind value this adds to the service I provide. This is just one of many examples I can think of where it IS client-focused value – and not just satisfying some innate gear acquisition syndrome.
The same thing can be said about upgrading computer hardware / software. It cost me $$$ to do this. If I’m able to more quickly deliver images to my clients, and as a side benefit my productivity increases so that I can take on more jobs – I would say that’s something that not only added value to my clients, but ultimately adds to my bottom line — especially when it comes to referrals. If you have two photographers with similar vision, processing style, etc – comparisons are made amongst friends about how long it took to get their images.
Could I do my job with a d90? No doubt. Did Bresson or any number of film photojournalists capture classic images and countless weddings with lesser gear? Absolutely. I would say most people aren’t setting out to be the next Bresson. I agree clients will pick you based on vision (and past work that they have seen) – but you owe it to yourself AND your clients to have the best gear you can afford.
How is that d800?
Hey Paul,
I’m not talking specifically on back-end value (the value to you the photographer) I’m specifically talking about marketable value. I don’t really think dual-card slots is client-marketable value – it is like saying that you’re protected against data loss which ought to be a given, not a benefit. As far as improving productivity that’s another issue. Most of the improvements I’ve seen were more administrative/policy based than gear related, but I’m hardly an expert on workflow, so I’ll default and give you the one-up there.
As far as owing to yourself and your clients to have the best gear you can afford I can’t agree with that. It is sort of like saying I owe it to Nikon to buy anything new they produce. I feel that the bleeding edge provides diminishing returns at best for a premium price. I owe it to my clients to deliver on my value proposition which is really not very dependent on gear.
Oh, and there’s a good chance that d800 is getting returned…:D
- trr
I think I directly addressed marketable value. The whole “Bresson made awesome images with lesser cameras” thing kind of misses the point anyway. A good majority of those people made a body of work over decades – and now I bet most people can name 4-5 shots MAYBE from some of those guys. People expect better image quality now, just like they expect better and faster cars than they had in 1940. The fact is that the value you bring to a client is, in part, determined by the camera you hold in your hands.
To quote someone I know: “I guess it’s like buying a lens. I don’t know what canon did to the elements in the 35L that make it magic, but there’s something in there, and it adds value to my images”. The same thing applies from a client’s perspective – they may have no idea of the underlying gear / technical aspects used to create their images, but they are very appreciative of what is given to them – and it’s a slightly better result than what can be achieved with a d90 + kit lens. This is what lends itself to prospective clients booking also.
What about the 5dmkiii? I know a ton of photographers who upgraded from the mkii because the AF is better – which surely results in better images / higher keeper % in most situations where autofocus is used (clutch for most wedding photographers shooting in dim situations). Were great images possible with the mkii? Certainly – but a superior af system (among other things) probably adds some client value and was worth throwing money at in the eyes of most professional photographers.
-wpr
I’m not going to argue with you on the 5d2 – that thing actively worked against you getting good images. But having a camera that works is not a benefit, it is a standard.
My point is that if the value you provide is wrapped up in whatever Canon does with the 35L then anyone else can buy the same lens and your argument is irrelevant. Photographers are focused on cameras, clients are focused on what the image means. I think predicating the value of what an image means to a client on the camera it was shot with is foolish, or ill-advised at best.
- trr
“Your camera isn’t your value. Your value is the same whether you have a D4 or Phase One or D90 in your hand. It better be anyway.”
No, your value is not the same. Try shooting a wedding ceremony in a dark church with a Phase One back, and oh, say a 80mm 1.9 lens. And you can’t use flash. Oh, wait. Most medium format backs don’t perform acceptably above ISO 400. So your shutter speed ends up somewhere around 1/10. So your shot of the first kiss is blurry. Oops.
“My point is that if the value you provide is wrapped up in whatever Canon does with the 35L then anyone else can buy the same lens and your argument is irrelevant.”
This is false as well. The 35L (and all the gear you use, for that matter) is PART of the value that you bring to clients. No one is saying that their value is determined entirely by their gear. Yes, another person could buy the same lens, and therefore achieve some of the same benefits – but they’re never going to use it exactly like I do. At the same time, possessing this lens clearly differentiates me from photographers that are shooting with the “awesome” kit lens.
To say that your value to the client is completely independent of the gear that you use is wrong. For the vast majority of images, will it make much of a difference? No. Will clients be able to tell most of the time? No. But a good photographer is expected to get images in all conditions, and it’s at the edges of what cameras are capable of that having good gear matters.
And let’s not forget reliability. Part of having good gear is knowing that it won’t fail – I know I can drop a 1 series from Canon five feet and have it still work flawlessly. That’s how those cameras are made. Drop a Rebel the same distance and it might work, or it might have shattered into a thousand pieces. If having reliable gear isn’t adding value to your clients, I don’t know what is.
Any camera I drop from 5 feet is getting retired until checked out, 1-series or no.
So is anyone going to march out into the world and put “reliable gear” as their primary selling benefit? I didn’t think so.
This is honesty, not snarkiness – I’d like to see the clear benefit, to a client, from an emotional-value-based perspective of the 35L shot as opposed to the kit lens shot. A photographer that understands their core value can deliver regardless. That’s my point. Sure there is better gear out there, I think it exists to make the photographer feel better about themselves primarily – which is fine as that is also value creation. But better gear is a weak-assed argument as to why someone should work with you.
As I said before, sufficient/appropriate gear is a baseline, not a feature. Value exists in what the image and the service and the feeling mean to the client, not in the technical mumbo-jumbo it took to get there.
- trr
This is the last time I’ll post – but again, I have to disagree. I think it is very irresponsible coming from a business blog that mostly correlates with photography to argue that gear and value to clients is independently related. Content and vision is king, but who gives a shit about either if the shot was missed because you had the wrong tool for the job or couldn’t focus.
-wpr
Sure, but marketing that you have sufficient tools is ridiculous. It is like marketing how adequate you are. If your value proposition is predicated on the tools you buy you are no different than anyone else with a credit card. Sufficient tools are a baseline, not an advantage.
- trr
Absolutely agree with what you said Todd.
I shot for over 6 years with Sony P2P camera and I’m happy with what I captured. And then I bought D5100 and a basic lens.
It took quite some time for me to understand that having high end camera bodies and pro lens will not improve my photography skills nor my photos get better.
Gear only matters when I become a master of photography concepts and skills.
A great lesson for all amateur photographers.
Thanks, Krish
This is really great to hear and so true! Sometimes I can get into that same thought process of judging by a photographer’s gear while in reality vision is so much more important. It’s odd that average or mediocre pictures will sometimes be less of an issue than non-pro cameras.
If I’m looking at a photograph that moves me, I’m NEVER thinking “What camera/lens made that?” Bottom line is, it doesn’t matter. Content matters.
many of the best photos ever made, are done with very simply cameras, but the idea behind them was high-end…that’s the point in photography.