OT: Impressing the client

alltheseworlds wrote on 1/6/2009, 9:08 PM
Over the years I've taken a very relaxed attitude to the old "impressing the client" and "looking pro" routines. ( A couple of TV camera guys I met told me that nothing impresses clients more than a couple of lights on stands and a shiny umbrella ! )

Lately I've seen some excellent opportunities locally for some still image work.

The thing is that I know I could do the jobs with my old Canon Powershot point & shoot (it's all web-based work, not print). But I'm a bit concerned that I'll turn up to the jobs with a worse camera than the client uses to photograph their kids. Maybe this will lessen their confidence and perceived dollar value of my work ?

Do you think it's worth investing in a low-level DSLR & a few bits & pieces so I "look the part" ?

Comments

deusx wrote on 1/6/2009, 9:26 PM
you should at least get something like Nikon D80 or 90 ( $1000 or so ).

It's not only more impressive looking, it does take better pictures than those smaler powershots, and the client will not be impressed at all if you show up with one of those.
Coursedesign wrote on 1/6/2009, 10:04 PM
If you're famous, you can get away with any camera.

I shot a whole public exhibition with a Kodak Instamatic 100 (the #1 cheapest camera of its time) once, and nobody complained, because the pictures worked around the limitations of the camera very well.

A few years ago, I did a shoot with a rented Nikon N80 for a book and was very surprised to be criticized, "that is not a pro camera!"

Even after I submitted the very good photos, the complaining continued from the printing pro lady who did the layout, it seemed her period lasted a full month each time.

If you really needed to get an SLR, Canon's new XSi is the best deal, can be had for under $600 I think. Just cover the "Digital Rebel" button on it and you're good to go. Note that its new image-stabilized zoom lens is a world away from the old XTi 18-55 horrible lens.

As an alternative, just show up in a really cool hat!

I can point you to a great hat store in Venice, California where you can get something truly cool for perhaps a negotiated $170 (that's what I paid for one that gets oooohs! and aaaahs! from discriminating men and women all over L.A.).

Guy Noir doesn't have a cooler hat than that, and it cost a lot less than my SLR (which is an old pro Canon EOS with 17-40mm/4L and a 50/1.8, the long lenses I borrow or rent).

Spot|DSE wrote on 1/6/2009, 11:27 PM




Both shot with a BlackBerry Storm. If the images are for the web or for reference (I've used the Storm for about a month to send location examples) then the camera doesn't matter, IMO. If it's for print or something that does matter, I show up with a 40D or a 5D, depending on which one happens to be closest. The XSi is a very fine DSLR for little cost, and the G10 stuns me for size vs quality. I'm wearing one of those on my head now, it's small and light, and beats my 400D.
Content still rules tools, I believe.
ushere wrote on 1/6/2009, 11:35 PM
not that i care anymore, but i recently had to shoot an artist in his studio... i knew he'd just bought a d3x, so i went along with my d70s (which takes a good a pic as i'm ever going to need), and my medium format pentax 645.

he made some off hand remarks about the d70 being old technology, but shut up when i took out the pentax.

i really must put some film in it one day.....

leslie