Yes, that happens...
The only time I have charged 2000 euros for a quick and easy session was for a group of food images... I had told the restaurant owner a price for several dishes on 4x5... I had to bring my lights there to shoot carefully and slowly as every dish was just prepared by the cook... I had sent the owner a hi res scan of a velvia 35mm image because the owner couldn't believe a "common roll" could be very sharp... Just before I came out from home with the lights he called me and told me: "I'll trust you... I saw that image on my screen and it's very detailed... Let's do it in 35mm (!) because if you give me the original slides I can project them too when I travel for business..." I said OK, went there, used the same lighting for the near 25 shots, it all took one hour, and used a single Velvia50 roll... He was amazed... After paying me on the next week the 2000 we had talked about, he told me he needed some shots of the special glasses he used and a few details inside his restaurant, and I offered him to do it without charging more for that... He was a very kind man and insisted and paid me 1000 more the next week after the new shots... In the end he told me the previous photographer was a bad guy, who always refused to give him any original (not even digital) and who always was in charge of the printing process too, so the owner was his slave in a way, and now the owner was feeling free at last...
Unfortunately, I haven't been that lucky since... 🙁
Cheers,
Juan
Dear Juan,
What a lovely story! It shows how well things can go when both parties are honest and have good intentions.
To return to the main premise of the thread, it's very seldom indeed that an image is harmed by
too much quality, so I just can't see the logic of using junk gear, outdated materials and second-rate chemicals unless it's to save money. That's fine - we've all done it - but then to be 'holier than thou' about it, as if there were some inherent merit in
not using the best equipment and materials you can, strikes me as very odd indeed.
Then again, many people get really pissy as soon as money as mentioned. Some refuse to admit there's anything they can't afford: "I could afford it if I wanted it." My own view is that if I'm serious about something, I want the best tools I can afford (and 'can afford' is important, as it means giving up other things in order to afford the good tools).
As I said in an earlier post, 'best tools' is 'what I'm happiest with'. I've tried fixed-lens rangefinders, and SLRs, and TLRs, and indeed most kinds of cameras there are, and I like Leicas best. Sure, I could use Bessas or ZIs instead, but I like the Leicas more, and I get a bit annoyed with people who try to tell me that I shouldn't, or that I'm a snob, or that I'm wrong. It's like telling me I should prefer McDo to a veal chop.
If someone doesn't care about something - as I don't care about new furniture, for example - that's one thing. If they can't afford something - as I can't afford Lobb boots, or a Bristol 402 - that's another. But trying to pretend that their choices, whether forced or not, are superior to mine, is not really very defensible. We all do what we can with what we've got, and set our own priorities.
Again as I said in an earlier post, of course there are pictures that rely on 'faults', but most of the time, you shouldn't notice image quality, and often the easiest way to ensure that is to make sure that image quality is as high as possible. Not perfect (if that means anything) but
as high as possible. A great picture transcends poor image quality, but a so-so picture generally needs good image quality to succeed.
Of course we can all fantasize about taking great pictures all the time, but that's all it is: a fantasy. There are, however, an awful lot of fantasists around, including some who seem to take no pictures at all, or next to none, never mind great pictures.
Cheers,
R.
