Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 61

Thread: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

  1. #41
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    Well, personally I don't find myself wanting(its not even necessary) to compete with these people(though I specialise in something else, not weddings). These people have their own market to serve. They are responding to a demand really.

    Car analogy again...... don't expect to see a Kancil in the GT2 class.
    yes, these people do have their own market share, but many new photographers try to enter the wedding photography market by charge their rate, invest on expensive gears, shooting high end wedding photographers' style, spend a few day post processing one wedding....

    well, you know how's it goes.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  2. #42

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by dche5390 View Post
    Give a pro any camera and any lens combination (even a P&S), and they will produce results because they understand the concepts of lighting, framing, composition and PP. The tools are only as good as the person using them. Have rubbish skills, you get rubbish photos. It is simple as that. No amount of expensive gear will cover for a lack of knowledge, understanding and experience.
    Seriously, i think you are placing too much emphasize on the skills of the photographer. For a man to get the job done, he needs his tools. Send a soldier into war without arms, he will most prob die.

    Dont expect too much from PnS eh...

    Regards
    D3s / D3x / 18-55 f3.5 - 5.6 / 55-200 f3.5-5.6 / 50 f1.8

  3. #43
    Senior Member Anson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    ansonchew.com
    Posts
    8,209

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    yes, these people do have their own market share, but many new photographers try to enter the wedding photography market by charge their rate, invest on expensive gears, shooting high end wedding photographers' style, spend a few day post processing one wedding....

    well, you know how's it goes.
    Personally if the photographer willing to invest on gears, make an effort to offer an unique style and spend alot of time PP their works while keeping their rates low.

    As a customer I am more than happy to hire him/her as the wedding photographer. Wedding photography as in any business is a "Supply & Demand" model. If someone is willing to offer excellent services at an economical price, he would definitively get more business than others.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    yes, these people do have their own market share, but many new photographers try to enter the wedding photography market by charge their rate, invest on expensive gears, shooting high end wedding photographers' style, spend a few day post processing one wedding....

    well, you know how's it goes.
    It won't take a genius to figure out that what you are describing is not sustainable and it won't take long for them to discover that and wise up, especially if they are doing it full time but then there will be the next guy in line who didn't know better.

    Perhaps I don't know the wedding market that well but from where I'm coming from, a project can take up to weeks to complete so quality is tied closely to pricing (at least from the instances I can see). Given the amount of time we have to spend on location, this realisation of under cutting is not the way to go will surface faster. Clients are getting smarter (I hope) and with that, they know better.

    Case in point..... I was told by a client of mine that I had quoted 20 times higher than the next guy (he showed me the e-mail)..... 20 times!! I happily told him that there was no way I can compete with that and he should give the job to him if that price was right..... and he did. 2 weeks later, I got a call from the client........ I can only hope that every client that comes my way is like him.

    All the best to you.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Anson View Post
    As a customer I am more than happy to hire him/her as the wedding photographer. Wedding photography as in any business is a "Supply & Demand" model. If someone is willing to offer excellent services at an economical price, he would definitively get more business than others.
    He will initially but if his model is not sustainable, it will break him eventually.

  6. #46

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by lsisaxon View Post
    ....and here people without that kind of spending power like us just have to drool at their equipment and think we can shoot better than them.


    to be honest, i don't know.. there is after all, not much replacement in the "pro" class for a sigma 10-20.

    even a 5d mark II with 17-40.. well, i've seen many of landscape shots from that lens, the barrel distortion is just a bit of tilt upwards and hey presto, you get a very shapely horizon.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Anson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    ansonchew.com
    Posts
    8,209

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    He will initially but if his model is not sustainable, it will break him eventually.
    Maybe but as a customer if the pg can deliver what was promised at a lower price, why would I say NO?

    Going digital (instead of film) had no doubt make it easier for newcomer to pick up the skill. Even if only a few may turn Pros, that is also a substantial number of PGs. If they are willing to ask for lesser than the season PGs and offer similar services than I would say it is good for the customer.
    Last edited by Anson; 19th October 2009 at 09:49 PM.

  8. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jalan Poonpipi
    Posts
    758

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Rich Hobbyist - IMO, he is the one who doesn't care about what others think or say - he just gets what he needs and what he wants. Only those who are inferior would want to try to show off and try to impress others. Those who are rich and those who have "arrived" dun need to show anything. They know they are there already.

    In a model shoot, I have encountered one chap with a D3 and a 24-70 lens, but was not even able to get proper focus. Well, he just thought that by buying an expensive cam and expensive lens is enough to give him great pictures. The reality is that the D3 is simply too complex for this chap.
    Do not be afraid [of ghost and bullies] Shoot them......

  9. #49

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by gazkw View Post
    by the term professionals, it means some one who makes his living via photography. i've seen good pros and bad pros. more than often enough, we see bad pros who like to state i've been doing this for 30 years and blah blah blah.

    i have also seen hobbyist that do excellent quality images, some who just picked up a camera for a few months.

    the terms pro or hobbyist doesn't mean squat, most people only care about the final result.

    your question here is too generalized, you can't pull out much meaningful statistics.
    Totally agree, this thread is just too generalised to give any meaningful stats and will just go nowhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legoz View Post
    Seriously, i think you are placing too much emphasize on the skills of the photographer. For a man to get the job done, he needs his tools. Send a soldier into war without arms, he will most prob die.

    Dont expect too much from PnS eh...

    Regards
    Agree....most of the time. But once in awhile - we have fashion photographers like Terry Richardson who would shoot top flight fashion for many years with just a point and shoot - Yashica T4. And he is paid top bucks 2.

  10. #50
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    I just brought up what I know about how lowend wedding photographers able to sustain in their business model. No saying I'm adopt such business model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    It won't take a genius to figure out that what you are describing is not sustainable and it won't take long for them to discover that and wise up, especially if they are doing it full time but then there will be the next guy in line who didn't know better.

    Perhaps I don't know the wedding market that well but from where I'm coming from, a project can take up to weeks to complete so quality is tied closely to pricing (at least from the instances I can see). Given the amount of time we have to spend on location, this realisation of under cutting is not the way to go will surface faster. Clients are getting smarter (I hope) and with that, they know better.

    Case in point..... I was told by a client of mine that I had quoted 20 times higher than the next guy (he showed me the e-mail)..... 20 times!! I happily told him that there was no way I can compete with that and he should give the job to him if that price was right..... and he did. 2 weeks later, I got a call from the client........ I can only hope that every client that comes my way is like him.

    All the best to you.
    anyway, don't have to looks so far to find someone willing to do this... check this out,

    Quote Originally Posted by Anson View Post
    Personally if the photographer willing to invest on gears, make an effort to offer an unique style and spend alot of time PP their works while keeping their rates low.

    As a customer I am more than happy to hire him/her as the wedding photographer. Wedding photography as in any business is a "Supply & Demand" model. If someone is willing to offer excellent services at an economical price, he would definitively get more business than others.


    since so many photographers say can shooting wedding with passion, I'm sure you will see many of them.....
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  11. #51
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Anson View Post
    Maybe but as a customer if the pg can deliver what was promised at a lower price, why would I say NO?

    Going digital (instead of film) had no doubt make it easier for newcomer to pick up the skill. Even if only a few may turn Pros, that is also a substantial number of PGs. If they are willing to ask for lesser than the season PGs and offer similar services than I would say it is good for the customer.
    FIY, shooting with film is even easier, don't have to post process, just send to lab, collect prints back, slot in album, deliver and end of story.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  12. #52

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    FIY, shooting with film is even easier, don't have to post process, just send to lab, collect prints back, slot in album, deliver and end of story.
    Sounds like my wedding photos.

  13. #53

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    i think even rich hobbist know where to spend their money. meaning even if they have the $$ they might not want to get a gold ring lens.
    and some pros. shoot with only primes.

    and many pros in the (esp in the sports area) uses lens no one will buy - 600mm 500mm...etc etc. they themselves also dun buy....most of the time sponsored by company.
    Flickr
    There's no present. There's only the immediate future and the recent past.

  14. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by happyfrog View Post
    I assume that the pros will make more rational decisions as compared to the rich-hobbyist.
    Hahaha! Very good advice I really should adopt! I guess the problem is I'm really a hobbyist at heart. Of course because I'm a pro as well I'm not exactly rich, but then I find some way to "justify" it :P

  15. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    there are many photographers who shoot weddings for living don't believe in using pro lenses or pro gears, usually are those who charge very cheap, and shooting 10 to 15 or even more weddings in a month.

    their motto: cheap is good.
    Heya catchlights

    Don't disagree, but my understanding of the Singapore market is there are also plenty of people with expensive gear that they've bought anyway, who are happy to charge very little :P

  16. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    There's always the used market. Most of them are as good as new anyway.....
    LOL :P

    Anyone want my 70-200 VR btw?

    Almost as good as new.

    Unless you count cosmetically ^.^

  17. #57
    Senior Member Anson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    ansonchew.com
    Posts
    8,209

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    since so many photographers say can shooting wedding with passion, I'm sure you will see many of them.....
    Haha... whether do they shoot with "passion" does not really matter as long as they can deliver the result that was seen/agreed in their portfolio.


    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    FIY, shooting with film is even easier, don't have to post process, just send to lab, collect prints back, slot in album, deliver and end of story.
    Actually during the days of using film, you also go thru the PP if you are "wash" your own photo, and use a fine brush to "dian"/brush the pimples/eye bags out of each negative using a magnifying glass. Switching to digital just make it easier for most to do it.
    Last edited by Anson; 20th October 2009 at 09:00 PM.

  18. #58
    Senior Member Anson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    ansonchew.com
    Posts
    8,209

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by KY1977 View Post
    Sounds like my wedding photos.
    Its doesn't really matter if the wedding photos are shot in film or digital (be it Pro or Kit lens). As long as the PG is skillful enough to know what he is shooting and can deliver the promised outcome.

  19. #59

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Anson View Post
    Its doesn't really matter if the wedding photos are shot in film or digital (be it Pro or Kit lens). As long as the PG is skillful enough to know what he is shooting and can deliver the promised outcome.
    Well said...

    Given that a professional or experienced amateur wedding photographer with minimal gear (even if it might be a kit lens) knows how to;

    1. Talk it off.

    2. Produce otherwise believed...

    I think it's not an issue at all. Certainly better than high-price for high-gear attitude. I ever once encountered a middle-aged photographer who loudly said "Photographer with 1DsIII of course must have 1DsIII type pricing." at Orient Photo.

    This isn't driving taxi.
    Last edited by surrephoto; 21st October 2009 at 12:19 AM.

  20. #60
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Pro Lens vs Rich-Hobbyist Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Anson View Post
    Haha... whether do they shoot with "passion" does not really matter as long as they can deliver the result that was seen/agreed in their portfolio.




    Actually during the days of using film, you also go thru the PP if you are "wash" your own photo, and use a fine brush to "dian"/brush the pimples/eye bags out of each negative using a magnifying glass. Switching to digital just make it easier for most to do it.
    We are talking about AD wedding, during the heyday of film, they are many photographer moonlighting on AD wedding beside full time photographers, but all prints no touch up.

    for pre wedding portrait, customer demand touch up on each prints, usually touch up work are farm out, as touch up prints is already a full time job, the market price for touching up on a 8x10 print is $18.00, on neg is $50 and above, nobody touch up on 35mm neg btw, only 120 neg.

    this is how nobody will ask for touch up on AD wedding photos back than.

    as in today, since everybody has digital cameras, since everybody has photoshops, since everybody love to shoot weddings, so everybody touch up for wedding customers for free happily.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •