Photography QA with Reid Scott

Original Q & A

The following is an email QA between Nate Steiner and Reid Scott in preparation for the article Nate wrote for the first issue of Design In Flight magazine.

1. For commercial photography work, who is mostly contacting you and requesting specific projects? Project managers, designers, direct clients, or other types?

The photography work I do has evolved over time (as has the economy, and therefore the industry), and it now mostly comes from individual designers, and direct clients. I don't think that's indicative of the industry as a whole, because each photographer gets business in different ways (some go mostly for ad agency business, and their larger budgets). But I like dealing directly with one designer, or the client themselves, as you remove a lot of layers and ... tangential input ... than can cause confusion and problems.

2. Are there standard things you need or expect before you start a project? Are there things that are ideal to have figured out before calling a photographer?

Most designers are well aware of this from their own experiences, but it helps to remember that using words to describe visual ideas can be a mine field of misunderstanding. Add to that the fact that when you first contact a photographer, your project may be a bit short on specifics, and soon one side or the other will end up unpleasantly surprised.

First off, you're dealing with a visual person, so get them whatever comps or layouts you have, even if it's a simple pencil sketch. If nothing else, this will prompt the photographer to start asking you questions, like, "what's that squiggly thing in the corner?"

Secondly, be as specific about your needs as you can, as this is going to determine the estimated cost the photographer kicks back at you. That's a bad place for surprises, on either side.

Bad: "Yeah, we've got a new product, and I don't have layouts, but we need to get some shots of it, maybe ten or so. What's your day rate?"

Good: "Yeah, we've got a new product, and I don't have layouts, but I think we're going to need a cover shot and maybe two "beauty" shots, plus about a half dozen shots of the product from different angles, on white so I can knock it out and manipulate it later. As of now, it would be for usage in a POP brochure, and on their web site. Can you give me an estimate from that?"

The first question will really get you no pricing information worth the phone call or e-mail, and maybe an explanation of why I don't use "day rate" to estimate any job. Job costs are determined by the number of shots, the number of "setups" required to do those shots, their relative complexity (cover versus knockout), and their end usage.

The second question will get you a probing question or two, and a fair estimate of the cost range. And I'll also tell you what I need to nail down the price even further, when more details become available.

Your target audience is a visual businessman. Give him whatever pictures and details you have, and he'll be happy.

3. If a print designer and a web designer are each requesting a photograph for a project, do they get the same deliverables? Do you normally deliver your end result in digital form only? What do you recommend delivering for different types of projects?

It varies by the client. If it is a designer, whether they are doing print or web, they get a minimally processed full size RGB file, and maybe another where I've processed it further to my own taste. But with designers, I try to give them full flexibility to take a near raw file (or film) and do whatever they need with it.

With a direct client (and this is usually web only for me), I deliver files resized for the web, specific to the usage. They are usually looking for something far more customized. But I'm always flexible to client needs when it comes to the end result.

As for the question of digital versus film deliverables, that's dependent on the client specs. I'll happily deliver either. But over the past year, 90% of the jobs have been digital. When the output is larger than full page, film often becomes the more cost effective way to go. But digital offers a speed and ease factor that clients have come to enjoy.

4. For designers wishing to do more of their own photography, what would you recommend as a good base set of equipment?

My advice is to start with a simple tungsten lighting setup. Obviously, if you're planning on shooting people, you need strobe. And strobe can be used on still life and product shots as well. But I suggest starting with tungsten because [1] strobe is expensive, and [2] tungsten is WYSIWYG. If you put your eye in front of the camera exactly where the lens is, you will see the lighting relationships (highlight to shadow, as well as reflections) as they will be recorded by the camera. With strobe, it's a flash, and check the monitor to see what it did. You will learn more, and work faster with tungsten lights.

While you can go out and get a low end Smith Victor [http://www.smithvictor.com/] tungsten lighting kit for less than $200, I suggest you head to Home Depot. Buy some simple clamp lights (just a socket, a reflector a cord, and a clamp), or something similar. Then in the light bulb section, look for PAR lights. They'll have codes like PAR-20, PAR-30, etc., and they'll range from 50 watts to 250 watts (some of them may require you to remove the reflector from the clamp light). Alternately, go to a camera store and ask for "ECT Bulbs," and see if the clerk's head starts smoking. These are largish 500 watt bulbs that will fit in any standard light socket (like your clamp light).

Improvise some stands to clamp your lights on, and start mixing and matching. If you need to soften the light, most photo stores (and even Sam Flax) sell rolls or sheets of something called Rolux, or other forms of tungsten diffusion materials. You need to use a material designed for the heat of tungsten, not a sheet or fabric that might catch fire. Photographers will often build a 4x4 foot frame, mount Rolux on it, and put a 500 watt ECT light behind it. Instant softbox!

Start small and cheap, and play around with it. You will learn, and have a better idea of what kind of lighting you really need if you decide to invest more money.

5a. Are there certain photography types, subjects, or contexts which should throw a "red flag" that would indicate a more tricky type of project that mandates a professional?

Architecture, interiors especially. Resolving mixed light sources is a hell you don't want to enter.

Shiny Things. Got a prototype with a curved chrome top? Fugetaboutit. Hire a pro.

Food photography (and beverages, too). You've seen bad menus, where it looks like the account exec decided he'd take the pictures. Food photography is difficult, expensive, and worth every dollar you pay for it.

People. It's the most tempting one ... let's save some money on the company web site by going out into the courtyard and taking everybody's pictures. And, heck, maybe it's all you need. But if you're putting those faces in the public eye, don't you want them to look the best they can? Shooting (and lighting) people is a skill that's often well worth hiring.

Weddings. Avoid at all costs, especially if your relatives are involved. And don't call me, I don't do weddings.

5b. Are there some projects which are pretty safe to start with as a beginning professional photographer?

Of course, as a freelance professional photographer, the only proper way for me to answer is to reframe the question: "Are there some projects where you can afford the time and effort to redo the photography if you botch it?"

If you have a small non-reflective product that you just need to light from the left and knock out of the background, sure, give it a go. Use your peers; "hey, would you find this image ... usable?" Get it critiqued by people you respect. Maybe you can even get a head start by doing some practice shots, and have them critiqued. Start with a simple box of some kind, as simple as a cereal box, or a software box, and shoot it from an angle that shows three sides. Light it so that all three sides are distinct from each other, and their surroundings. Work out some of your problems before you find yourself suddenly under the gun.

6. Let's say our designer has saved up a chunk of change for a camera - under which situations would it be better to go digital vs film based?

Today, I simply can't advise buying a film camera, unless it is for nostalgic effect. For example, many people just love the tactile nature of black and white. If so, go for it. But otherwise, choose digital.

And I'll go a strident step further. For less than $1000, you can get a digital SLR, and if you're in the market for a digital camera, I strongly recommend looking at that option. The larger sensor size of the Canon 300D and the Nikon D70 creates an image that is far smoother and cleaner than even the new round of 8 megapixel cameras now available (which have a much smaller sensor size, even though they have more megapixels). The quality difference is far greater than the price difference.

7. Are there some do-it-yourself tips that penny pinching designers can employ to get more out of their photo gear/setup?

White Formica is your friend. A 4x4 sheet can be clamped to the edge of a table, and if you prop up the back end, you have a seamless (and cleanable) white background for your smaller subjects (and you can use a 4x8 sheet for larger ones)

Many shots can be done with one well diffused light source (and maybe one light on the background), with the aid of simple white and silver cards. Use white cards, propped up on a can of Spray Mount or something, to fill in shadows. If that's not enough, use a silver card.

And the best couple bucks you can spend is to buy some of that goopish adhesive for hanging posters or small prints. When your product wants to roll off the set, or your prop won't lay in quite the right place, a small ball of this goopish adhesive will temporarily defy gravity, so you can get your shot. It's like a malleable form of duct tape.

8. The client wants to save dollars, what are some other selling points in favor of using a professional photographer over stock photo houses?

Customization. Why show some generic LA models who are supposedly meeting in your offices, when you can show *your* people? When someone walks into your business, they'll think, "yeah, that's the guy I saw on the web site."

Rather than being limited by what you can find from a stock house, you can concept, and have the photography more directly sell that concept, rather than have to be shoehorned in.

Finally, what is your totally budget for the project, and what percentage is the photography? Are you talking about saving single digits or fractions of percentage, on something that could greatly impact the entire visual look of the campaign? Is that a wise corner to cut?

9. Websites you'd recommend for those looking to do more of their own photo work?

I follow a lot of the sites that I know Nate's already going to mention in this article. But there are two I find most valuable. I use PhotographyBlog to keep up with releases and reviews, and I've learned quite a bit from the contributors at Luminous Landscape.

Back in the days of film, photographers started out by understanding the process, usually in black and white. How to develop and print the film, while controlling contrast, and how to maximize the available information in the negative.

Today, I try to learn as much as I can about that process from a digital angle, and Luminous Landscape is good at that. This article is a bit technically dense, but highly recommended: http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

I also highly recommend the "PhotoShop Artistry" series of books from Wendy Crumpler and Barry Haynes, as it takes you through Photoshop strictly from a photographic point of view:

link to amazon page for "PhotoShop Artistry"

10. Other thoughts, tips, advice for our designer and budding photographer?

Another reason for the advice to go digital: shoot a lot. Take a camera with you everywhere. Take chances. Make mistakes. Learn. Henri Cartier-Bresson said, "Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst," with the implication that you should get busy getting them out of your system.

DIY Photography on the cheap

Related links of note

Original Q & A