Niche Marketing as Leica photographer

[Denton]

Anyone specifically marketing as a Leica photographer? Or, offering this in addition to regular DSLR services.

My gut feeling is most clients don't care and are more concerned about your prices, availability and lastly, your images (OK, a little sarcasm there-based on experience).

However, successfully money-making means each session gives you maximum sales. Are there clients out there who would be attracted to a less obtrusive way of shooting, which would include rangefinders and perhaps Leica RF gear?

I'm changing my shooting style a bit and have recently started doing available light portraits with M9 + CV 75mm Heliar Classic and ZM 50mm planar. It's been mixed with Canon5D with short zoom and 85mm lens though. I will probably shoot a full session only with the M9 today, however.

Thoughts?

Denton Hoyer

 

[easyrider]

I do not think that clients care what camera you use. They are interested in the results and in your demeanor during the shoot. There is a strong personality component to being a photog.

You can market yourself as a "journalistic style" photographer and stress that you are a fly on the wall. However, if groups as involved, such as at weddings, you will have to do some directing.

Some people like the photog to be unobtrusive, others like to be directed, especially at portrait sessions. It's best to make a shoot fun and relate to the subject.

My 2c worth

 

[johannielscom]

Ask Riccis here, he's profiling as a traditional RF photographer and as such fares quite well.


I'm profiling as a traditional, film based photographer but yet have to make decent money off it. But, since I have a steady job that's okay.

Approach in communications with me is 'image quality that distinguishes itself' and my underlying message is that people hire a 'real photographer' and not 'just any digital clicker'.

It is slowly catching on, but it might be that the Netherlands (who were an early adopter in digital) are more susceptible to this approach.

EDIT: I'm not profiling as a Leica photographer though, merely as a film based photographer.

 

[willie_901]

You don't mention anything about your market, who your clients are or who you'd like for new clients.

However I would be very surprised if clients would choose you because you use a particular brand of equipment. Clients expect quality, and dependability. Any of a hundred or so different cameras and many hundreds of different lenses deliver technical quality. Back up cameras and lenses deliver technical dependability. Clients expect these to be a given. Leica equipment is excellent. However it is not uniquely excellent. What if all Leica photographs have a 5 to 10% technically superior to photographs from all other equipment. How many clients would ever notice the difference?

What differentiates you is how you use whatever equipment you won and your dependability as a professional. These two things comprise your brand. If you want a niche market, then you need to create a niche look. Do you require Leica equipment to create a unique brand (style)? Perhaps you do. But do expect the client to understand and value the importance of Leica equipment to you?

I have read reports of wedding photographers who create a niche based on using film. Their clients like the exclusivity and unique look of film images. Very few wedding photographers are prepared to do a wedding with film. Obviously the wedding photographers who market themselves as film photographers have a portfolio of outstanding photographs and excellent reputations. However I doubt the wedding clientele who will happily pay extra for a film wedding would care whether or not the photographer used Leica equipment. If they knew anything about photography equipment, my guess is they would be more impressed with someone who medium format equipment.

 

[Vilk]

i'd be wary of clients who knew what a leica is 😉

 

[Jamie123]

Marketing yourself as a "Leica photographer" might be good marketing for Leica but I don't think it'll do you much good. And what's a "Leica photographer" anyways? Someone using an S2? An R9? A D-Lux? Are they also "Leica photographers"?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

There will be a miniscule segment who actually will seek out photographers who use a certain equipment. I was once approached because he wanted photos of his children taken in a manner that "people who use Leicas" tended to do (as he saw it). It's been the only time in my life I've ever heard or experienced that.

There is some posh wedding photographer who apparently shoots only Leica gear. There's a market for everything. Yet, you need the same deep pockets to market yourself in the deep pocket market.

In the end, the general public is as conscious of gear as any of us are about the chef's name when you go out to a restaurant.

Now...countdown 'till the "who cares!" illuminati and the "expensive/luxury" wry comment.

 

[Damaso]

I don't think clients care or are knowledgeable enough to care...

 

[Denton]

Thanks for all the replies and opinions. However, while "we" photographers all know that the equipment doesn't matter that much, the problem is getting a client to select YOU out of many other qualified clients. Let's take for granted that the images are fantastic, but so are lots of other photographers. Winning that first inquiry is the biggest hurdle, and anything that distinguishes you from the dozen other competent artists is where I was coming from. It isn't all about logic, but something more.

I realize this approach may not make technical sense, but it's competitive out there!

I just finished a great portrait session using only the M9 and CV 75mm Classic, shooting mostly between f2.8-4 and I'm happy with the shots. I used reflector and scrim only. I should be posting these if I can figure out how to link them to my website. Perhaps I should just get them up on Flicker. Any advice? (yes, I'm fairly new to this forum).

Cheers,
Denton

 

[Jamie123]

Let's take for granted that the images are fantastic, but so are lots of other photographers.

That's funny. No, let's not take that for granted. Very few photographers consistently produce fantastic images. There are, however, lots of photographers who do decent work. If you think that your photography is only as good as that of lots of other photographers then maybe you should work on that?

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

As an art director, i would certainly NOT hire someone who marketed himself based on attaching his trade to a brand name, especially when that brand name is meant to convey some manner of elitist status. "Journalistic" style is one thing. But, even then, you had better be able to prove some real difference between those pictures and the ones some other dude shoots with a larger camera. And, i don't think anyone really does that. Even saying "rangefinder photographer" is silly. An M is no smaller or less obtrusive than a Nikon F, for example.

And, yes, ADs DO care about what gear a photographer uses. To a point. There is snobbery and insecurity everywhere. But, it smacks of desperation and arrogance to suggest that using that brand makes the photographer more capable of delivering results.

 

[dave lackey]

Meh...

The better approach is to be a photographer offering professional services. A lot of clients always want to look at the Leicas when I have them out on location. Most don't know the difference however, I get a much friendlier response from those I interview and photograph because I am using a the M3 and R4, both compact unobtrusive cameras. No way would they be so obliging with the D-body Nikon and a huge lens.

So, yeah, clients do notice and others are just happy that you don't have a huge, vulgar thing pointed at them.🙂

But, marketing can be subtle as in a short description of who you are and what you do. Beyond that, don't bother. Besides, what's wrong with having another brand of camera on location or in studio?:angel:

 

[Denton]

With respect to what I think of my images.....that is not the point of the thread. That is more about my ego.

Anyway, I think family portraiture is quite different than an ad campaign. My "style", aside from aspiring to photographic excellence, is to provide an experience that the client will thoroughly enjoy. As some others have hinted at, pointing a 70-200 zoom in a kid's face can be a real learning experience for the photographer. One need not use the largest lens possible, but I exaggerate to make the point. DSLR's and their lenses are just honking big.

Without a personal connection to the subject, the image will not have the expression that the mom will find adorable. Then there is the "post-marketing" affect. Repeat business and word-of-mouth count more than most other considerations, in my experience. So the tools do matter if they change the experience of the client, even if they have trouble defining "what was wrong".

That is portraiture, but with respect to event photography too, I think there can be a selling feature with small and unobtrusive. Being less visible as a photographer is definitely important to my getting the expressions I want.

Denton

 

[easyrider]

A long time ago I read (and I don't remember where) an anecdote about Alfred Eisenstaedt. He was sent by LIFE to photograph George Bernard Shaw. Shaw sent word though his manservant that he did not wish to be photographed.

Eisie took out his Leica, likely one of the III series, and gave it to the manservant, who put it on a silver tray and took it to Shaw.

Shortly after Shaw came out smiling and agreed to have his portrait taken. He was an amateur photog and used a Leica.

So maybe the OP has a point!

For younger members here, this is a Wikipedia link to Eisenstaedt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Eisenstaedt

 

[PKR]

Years ago I was doing some journalistic work. I was on a film set with Mr. Hitchcock. Philippe Halsman was the still photographer for the film. Halsman was banging around the set with a Hasselblad.
I was about 25 years old and unknown to the crew. I was using a Leica and was extremely respectful of the Set rules and didn’t photograph – or move, for that matter during the takes. Mr. Hitchcock could have asked me to leave at any time. I think he let me continue to work, as the M4 was quiet, and that I was well mannered.

 

[ckuang]

Not I

Not I

While I use my Leica's extensively to shoot wedding professionally, from a business standpoint, I would never use my equipment as a marketing tool because it is something that is far too easily replicated. All it takes is for your competitor to trot down to the camera store and they are now everything you are. Also, while Leica's are wonderful cameras, they can't shoot everything well, ie, macro and anything beyond 135mm, so it doesn't make sense to handicap myself professionally.

 

[kbg32]

Gear does not matter. All that matters is the image you produce.

 

[x-ray]

In 43 years as a commercial photographer I've never had a client care what I shot with. It's all about you and the images you produce not your equipment.

 

[KM-25]

Bottom line is that, like listing what gear you use on your website, marketing your self based on gear has always been and is now more than ever, a highly amateur move, even in the amateur laden and mainstream genre of portraits.

If you can't compete, then you just can't, end of story. Your work has to be good and your marketing relentless but not over the top in terms of puffery and ego.

With respect to what I think of my images.....that is not the point of the thread. That is more about my ego.

Anyway, I think family portraiture is quite different than an ad campaign. My "style", aside from aspiring to photographic excellence, is to provide an experience that the client will thoroughly enjoy. As some others have hinted at, pointing a 70-200 zoom in a kid's face can be a real learning experience for the photographer. One need not use the largest lens possible, but I exaggerate to make the point. DSLR's and their lenses are just honking big.

Without a personal connection to the subject, the image will not have the expression that the mom will find adorable. Then there is the "post-marketing" affect. Repeat business and word-of-mouth count more than most other considerations, in my experience. So the tools do matter if they change the experience of the client, even if they have trouble defining "what was wrong".

That is portraiture, but with respect to event photography too, I think there can be a selling feature with small and unobtrusive. Being less visible as a photographer is definitely important to my getting the expressions I want.

Denton

 

[tlitody]

A Hasselblad shooter trumps a Leica shooter any day of the week.