"You're not a pro without a studio"

[Claire]

Was reading some posts on a Sw wedding discussion forum. Many brides go there, it's similar to The Knot.

In the photographer forum a photographer has begun a couple of threads where he lets brides ask questions related to wedding photography. Naturally he keeps trying to educate the b2b's why a pro is a better choice than an amateur.

The last post made me react though. He said photographers who don't have a studio are ''fishy" and that many who don't have a studio will tell you he has a portable studio. This the poster commented with the words "Anyone can have a couple of home made lights under his bed & call it a portable studio. If the photographer doesn't have a studio he's not a serious pro & all the things needed for studio shots can't be carried around."

So, do you guys agree with him? Are photographers without studios not "serious photographers"?

[etaf]

of course not - if your a professional landscape photography or a wild life photographer why would you have a studio ???

or how about an underwater macro photographer

[Claire]

He He
I think he was thinking of portrait & wedding photography. He did say that one shouldn't ask a landscape photographer shoot the portraits/wedding...

[nation]

For practical intents and purposes I don't think he's right. The equipment doesn't make the photographer. I think the majority of the people on here would agree with that.

However, seeing it's a wedding forum and he's trying to do a service for brides his comments are more likely for the purposes of educating them on what to look out for when chosing a photographer. Although we on these boards know such arbitrary methods can't be used for assessing the quality of a photographer it provides a good starting point for those who otherwise wouldn't know what to look for when choosing a photographer. In this regard I'd think his comments are pretty much in the same vein as what's been discussed around here i.e. people getting a DSLR, claiming to be a professional and charging accordingly when in actual fact they really have no clue.

[condyk]

Anyone serious about portrait photography as a profession would have a studio, unless they were still at the stage were they are building up the basics of their business. Personally, any simplistic definition will always generate exceptions, so rendering the definition meaningless in anything other than the most glib sense. Of course, there are many photographers with portable gear too. Portability is relative. if you have a couple of helpers and a van then you can carry what you like. Again, meaningless without some context. Of course, A portrait shooter who loves a photojournalistic style using available light wouldn't necesarily need a studio or lighting ;-)

[cdifoto]

I haven't seen studio-based wedding photos in years. They're generally pretty stale and out of line with today's PJ style...formals are shot in the church and/or outdoors anymore. Portraits are a bit different but again it depends what you're going for. Seniors in high school around here are hating studio shots and would rather pose with their car, their sports equipment, or just in scenic locations. If you're doing high fashion in a controlled setting then yeah you probably want/need a studio...but I don't see how that would apply to a wedding. There are also plenty of highly regarded professionals using just a camera. Pretty decent link (http://www.onemodelplace.com/newsletter_glamour_article9.cfm).



So yeah he's wrong unless all his photos are stale and he feels he needs to protect/maintain his style/business. Which could very well be true.

[chtgrubbs]

There are no rules about it. I have known very successful corporate/annual report photographers who have no studio because all their work is shot on location. The same could be true for wedding photographers, and to a lesser extent, portrait photographers. But having an established studio does imply that you are financially committed full-time professional with enough business to maintain an ongoing operation as opposed to a weekend warrior. Some doctors still make housecalls, but would you use one who had no office, but worked out of his car?

[cdifoto]

There are no rules about it. I have known very successful corporate/annual report photographers who have no studio because all their work is shot on location. The same could be true for wedding photographers, and to a lesser extent, portrait photographers. But having an established studio does imply that you are financially committed full-time professional with enough business to maintain an ongoing operation as opposed to a weekend warrior. Some doctors still make housecalls, but would you use one who had no office, but worked out of his car?

Either way the this "pro" on the forum is wrong. To summarily dismiss all photographers sans-studio as being unprofessional is wrong.

[cosworth]

A crappy photgrapher with a studio is still a crappy photographer.

[DocFrankenstein]

He said photographers who don't have a studio are ''fishy"
I'd agree with this statement.

If I were to marry now and hire a wedding photographer, I'd get someone with a Hassy system who's bringing his Elinchrom with an umbrella.

If you tell me that you're shooting with a rebel, I'll think you're a dude with a camera who's decided to make a quick buck. But you approach and expertese is not serious enough to put the money into a decent body because you don't know if you'll get sued after or will actually make it.

many who don't have a studio will tell you he has a portable studio
I know this is an extreme example, but this counts as portable, doesn't it? :lol:
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=176466&page=3
A few undiffused hot lights.

Ideally I'd prefer a pro who has a degree in photography and who's been working shooting people for 10+ years. By then, they WILL have a studio.

[cdifoto]

Doc you're going way off the beaten path. We're talking about all things being equal, this guy's saying without the studio then he/she isn't a serious professional. You're going so far as to say anyone without a Hasselblad system isn't and a specific brand of studio lighting kit isn't a serious professional.

Wow.

[DocFrankenstein]

You didn't get my point exactly.

We probably have different definitions of "serious professionals". My definition is that he shoots people on a constant basis and charges for it.

Please explain how you can "shoot people on a constant basis and charge for it" when you don't have the light you want available to you all the time.

[cdifoto]

If you're an "available light" or "keep it simple flash" shooter, then you have the light you want available to you all the time. It's about shooting styles. Whether the bride wants that particular style is up to her. Calling the photographer unprofessional for having that style is a false assumption/accusation.

[DocFrankenstein]

If you're an "available light" or "keep it simple flash" shooter, then you have the light you want available to you all the time. It's about shooting styles.
I am starting to wonder why people have studios at all.

[JaertX]

I don't know if a photographer who doesn't have a studio is a serious photographer or not. But if someone asks me how to find a good pro, I will tell them to check out their portfolio first. I agree with Doc...someone that is established and probably has used medium-format equipment to shoot weddings, has experience with location and studio type work. (people still shoot bridals and engagement shots!!!)

Anyway, that's if they can afford it. Hopefully you only get married once, and it's my recommendation to spend as much as you can afford on your photography. If you can't afford it, and can't get someone with a permanent studio (um...yet~!) hire someone like me! heh heh.

[Steve Parr]

I would say that someone who doesn't have a studio, but specializes in, say, product photography, probably isn't a pro.

I shoot concerts. Other people shoot Indy racing. Still others specialize in "urban" or "street" photography. It would be difficult, and probably meaningless, for us to have a "studio"...

[therosefairy]

Well personally I don't feel wedding photographers need a studio. One woman who recently hired me asked where my studio was, and she was surprised to hear I didn't have one. My basic reply to her was that I'm a wedding & event photographer, I shoot events on location, why would I need a studio? I could see it if I specialized in portraits, but I don't. Sometimes I think its a matter of educating people, a lot of couples are going through this for the first time, they don't know what to ask or expect really.

In this situation we're talking about a photographer making these comments, and personally, I think he's wrong, and is probably trying to secure his position on that particular website as well as secure more of a clientele for himself. Just my opinion.

[Claire]

I like reading everyone's posts on this, that's why I started the thread. :)

He does also say that naturally there are people who have no, or limited, experience who owns a studio etc. He told the b2b's to look at the photographer's portfolio & see if they like the style. (Duh! Doesn't that go for all photographers?)

This guy has lots of sound points that he tries to get into the b2b's heads. He's trying to educate them about why pro's charge the prices they do, copyright etc. Lots of good stuff.

I don't agree with his statement that just 'cos you don't have a studio, you're not serious. I do think that if you're a pro you should have access to a studio if needed, but who says you have to own one?

[Atomic79]

Thanks Claire, made me look up besserwisser. You'll learn all kinds of things here. ;)

[OdiN1701]

Well...I am shooting weddings. I don't have a studio. I have some portable flash units with umbrella's and such, reflectors. I have a background stand and some muslins.

I'm no Ansel Adams or anything, but I believe I do quite a good job on photos for my wedding clients. I do not charge $2500-4500 like some do.

Where I really disagree with Doc is that a photographer would need a degree in photography. The degree I do have is computer related, but I'm far more interested in photography these days.

I will probably never have a degree in photography. Everything that I have learned has been self taught by going and reading as much as I can, evaluating shots that other people have taken and figure out why they work and learning about the lighting used in them, things like that. I don't think that a degree in photography would suddenly make me better. I actually see it as a waste of a good $75,000+, and if I am going to take out a loan of an amount like that, then it will be when I decide to open a studio and need to buy a bunch more equipment.

Ultimately, those without studios have their place. I can charge less because I don't have any overhead. I am also not as experienced as some of those who do have studios. Some people can't afford the studios.

I think that it comes down to your portfolio. If you have excellent images to show the client, then that will help. I actually shot an engagement session for a couple. I am also doing their wedding. They said they felt much better about me after seeing me work with them for the engagement shoot. They hired me off of a recommendation from another local photographer who was totally booked.

So what can help is to get people to commit to an engagement shoot and then they can see your work before the wedding and will know what to expect and hopefully see that you can consistently produce quality images.

So yeah you don't need to have a studio, but it can inspire confidence. Though some people who have studios aren't that good of a photographer.

[Bu Yao]

Here in China, big guys have studeios and make pictures look like commercials. In my small town of 5 million we have eight or more big studio that stay busy all the time. They make most money.

But lots of photographers who work newspapers dont have studio dont need them and they also photograph events like wedding. In additionally, they do good job and have different look. I dont call them not serious.

I read some things on internet, and same comment about who serious and who not only help guys who have studio. Also, guy who have time to spend on internet all the time not very busy photographer. If he have work he won't be in internet.

I take picture for newspaper sometime. My work seen by millions and millions. I dont studio. I'm not good/ I'm not serious?

[subtle_spectre]

Hmmm...I could hear this can of worms opening pretty far away. However, having just returned from shooting my 5th paid wedding in 4 weekends, I will say this: I don't have a studio or a medium format camera. I have two 1-series bodies and a 20D, though, and can make enough light for a small town, with backgrounds to boot. I am pretty serious about it all, as well.

[Longwatcher]

First if you don't own the studio, but work with several studios (although rarely if ever shooting in one) I think that is a very professional approach. It was my Dad's for the about 10 years he was a wedding photographer.

In my area owning a studio means overhead of about $15,000 per year (not counting any equipment, just the building and utilities). I can buy most of a good photography system for that price.

Zoning laws prevent me from having a home studio which would significantly decrease the cost of having a studio, so what I have is a "portable" studio. It takes over my living room turning it into a studio, but because it is not permanent I am not violating the zoning laws.

Now I mostly do model portfolios and avoid weddings like a plague, but I have the equipment to do a good wedding if I was so inclined (skills are another matter) and I do have a Hasselblad (which I rarely use. I don't have the elinchrom lights, but if having one got me the gig, for what I would charge, I would have no problem upgrading and getting at least two, but most people couldn't tell a black painted home depot work light from an Elinchrom so I doubt that situation is likely to come up. (okay the heat might give it away :)

In short, I disagree that you have to have a studio to be a professional and yes I would use a doctor if he worked out of his car if he was good and the situation was appropriate.

Just my opinion,

[tim]

Ideally I'd prefer a pro who has a degree in photography and who's been working shooting people for 10+ years. By then, they WILL have a studio.

I've seen the work of some people who have photography degrees and I was suprised how bad they were. I've hired two people with photography degrees as assistants and have been consistently unimpressed. I don't count a photography degree as an advantage.

Regarding studios, i'm a professional wedding photographer without a studio, and so far i've not wanted or needed one. It might be handy to have one for fashion or modelling, but for weddings i'd just never use it. If I had one it could be used as a fallback location in case of rain.

Having said that I will probably buy a house and build a studio in the next few years, beacuse I do like fashion type work.

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm not attacking anybody personally. Sure - if you do wedding PJ and the clients are happy, then all the power to you. There's a number of people who do great work and don't have a studio.

But on average I think he's right. Shooting in a studio does change your style or at least your understanding of light.

[benca1]

Funny thing with business, it really is 'managing your perception.'

Because the truth is, and we all know it, but your pedigree, monied equipment, and formal education has virtually no impact at all on the talents of whomever. Bill Gates wouldn't be hired to run a McDonalds if DocFrank had his way! Why? Because in business it's all about credibility and credibility is all about image when there's no history. Bill Gates doesn't even have a college degree.. Doc wouldn't give two poops about the background of <insert name of famous photographer> when the photographer is already proven.

You need to look proven before you are proven, and I don't see a way around that. What business person hasn't had to lie to get business in the beginning? It's 'marketing.'

That's what this entire discussion is. That's what the cheezy photographer said on that wedding forum - he just bested a lot of compeition.

If there's one thing that worries all top notch pros, including people like Bill Gates, it's the young talented upstart who does almost as well for a lot less money.

Anything these people can do to tarnish the credibility of others who have no history will be done. It's dog eat dog, don't take my grocery money.

I don't mind one bit myself, and relish the challenge to take on people with far better credentials then myself.

I've seen many many pictures taken with low level powershots that will and do put to shame many people with a lot more money in equipment.

Talent trumps all else. That's why you have to mange perceptions. Manipulate the perception that the kid with the 20D, who's extroidinary, is still crap since the stupid punk only wants 500 dollars - and doesn't even waste thousands a month maintaining a studio! he must suck! go with me, because 4000 dollars isn't too much when it comes to having a "proven" photographer capture your life long memories....

This is why, starting from a young age, I dutifully tell people with more money and a better pedigree then myself to suck it.

[JaertX]

This is why, starting from a young age, I dutifully tell people with more money and a better pedigree then myself to suck it.

are you 12?

[DocFrankenstein]

This is why, starting from a young age, I dutifully tell people with more money and a better pedigree then myself to suck it.
Before I go and dutifully suck it, let's see your portfolio.

Give me a link to your kickass images which top those of someone who ran a studio for 10 years.

I'd imagine there would be no problem since you feel so confident telling people to go suck it. Let's see your work.

[Woolburr]

A crappy photgrapher with a studio is still a crappy photographer.

Amen!

And a crappy photographer with a degree (or substitute fancy gear) is still crappy photographer.

Skill, talent and hard work is the ticket...and the one thing a professional will have...is a solid portfolio.

[benca1]

Before I go and dutifully suck it, let's see your portfolio.

whoa, I said people with a better pedigree and more money - are you sure that's applicable to us?

Also, my apologies, but I thought it was painfully obvious that I am kidding. Who seriously says "suck it?"


Give me a link to your kickass images which top those of someone who ran a studio for 10 years.

You missed my point entirely.

Are there, or not, people who are very talented without much?


I'd imagine there would be no problem since you feel so confident telling people to go suck it. Let's see your work.

It's not about me, it's about my point, which you are intentionally skipping...

Joking around never goes well around here..

[benca1]

are you 12?

14, and you?

[JaertX]

14, and you?

my wife says I'm a 12 year old when I say stuff like that...thought I'd ask.

[benca1]

my wife says I'm a 12 year old when I say stuff like that...thought I'd ask.

:lol:

I just am who I am, at home, or online. I think it's a funny phrase, and among supposed 'friends,' I didn't think it would cause offense. Sorry,I'm still getting used to the uniquely mature and international audience on this particular forum.. ugh.. Most hobbyist forums I've visited have a certain informal culture to them that I've grown accustomed to. Apologies for my rambunctiousness.

[DocFrankenstein]

Are there, or not, people who are very talented without much?
Hordes of people. They are talented to the extreme and can produce outstanding work.

They don't have much experience, but have a vision.

They don't have a studio, but can find the right light anywhere... with the right background to boot.

They never tried, but are ready to tackle a wedding in a cave with the kit lens.

No portfolio, but they have the talent. Classes and education are above their ego.

I know of many like this.

[benca1]

Hordes of people. They are talented to the extreme and can produce outstanding work.

They don't have much experience, but have a vision.

They don't have a studio, but can find the right light anywhere... with the right background to boot.

They never tried, but are ready to tackle a wedding in a cave with the kit lens.

No portfolio, but they have the talent. Classes and education are above their ego.

I know of many like this.

The issue, in my opinion with regards to this thread, pertains to the enormous challenges posed to people just starting out. I'm sure you could see how discouraging it is to hear how one can't do something because they are lacking something very expensive.

If the issue is complex, and the industry for wedding photography is huge, why let these things be discouraging?

My intention was to point out that there's nothing to buy that defines the talent of any photographer and that those starting out need to market themselves to overcome the competitive advantage of seasoned pros.

I'm sure I could have said it better, as my wife always like to point out how I can say something better, but that was the gist of my argument. Hence the confusion over your fairly acrid and defensive response.

[DocFrankenstein]

The pros don't owe you any encouragement. They are not going to damper your transition from amateur into a pro.

The guy is saying: I'm seasoned, I'm experienced, I've been doing this for X years - I'm better

What's wrong with that?

[neil_r]

QED ... http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=173112 ;)

[benca1]

The pros don't owe you any encouragement. They are not going to damper your transition from amateur into a pro.

The guy is saying: I'm seasoned, I'm experienced, I've been doing this for X years - I'm better

What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all. Actually I don't think you even read my first post, outside of course, of your personal offense to my stupid quip about rich, pedigreed people.

What you are skipping over is that this pro said that other pro-photographers without a studio are "fishy." Are you aware of the connotations of "fishiness?" It's a stupid statement, with 'fishy' intentions.

This is about marketing, this is not some serious, intelligent statement about photography in general. that's my point.

[zacker]

yes jaertx, your right... Portfolio, portfolio, portfolio.... if his shots are great, who cares what he's shooting with? A great photog will even make great pics with a box camera.... i dont buy into the whole "He's a pro because he has awesome equipment" Idea.. Expensive equipment is only as good as the person using it.. like an expensive guitar or drum set... only if you can play it, is it any good! God, Imagine the problems in choosing a band? lol
-zacker-

[PhotosGuy]

When I free-lanced, I used to rent a studio when I needed one. Pro car studio. (http://www.harperphoto.com/auto04.htm)

Sometimes I carried one in my cam bag. Simple "every-day-emergency" location lighting (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66358)

Other times I just look around & find one. VERY simple "outdoor studio" (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=122297)

A spare bedroom or basement works for one person & small product shots. Simple 2 Light Portrait Set-up (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=128857)
Browning .22 - 1 light, no "walls" set-up (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66846)
Browning .22 - 3 light set-up (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66705)

Then, of course, there's the "PS Studio". Blown '37 Willys - A Beauty with a Beast! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=82861)

The concept of only being a pro if you have a studio reminds me of the guy who said that he wanted an exposure meter so he could "look more profeshional". ;) (Yeah, he spelled it wrong!)
Use what works for you for the way that you're confortable working. I tend to agree that this guy is doing a bit of protecting his own turf.

[JaertX]

Ugh...Benca. It is hard to convey sarcasm. I was ribbing you about the post, but no intention to come down on you about it...anyway.

Yeah, I agree...this statement is more about marketing than actual skill. But I don't see a problem with that. If someone wants quality results and has the money, I'd say go with the most experienced that you can get....more than likely...not always...they are going to have studio.

[benca1]

Ugh...Benca. It is hard to convey sarcasm. I was ribbing you about the post, but no intention to come down on you about it...anyway.

Yeah, I agree...this statement is more about marketing than actual skill. But I don't see a problem with that. If someone wants quality results and has the money, I'd say go with the most experienced that you can get....more than likely...not always...they are going to have studio.

:lol: Sarcasm is very hard to convey! And yet so easy face to face. Please excuse me anyway, because I am immature anyway. Also, Doc was rather harsh so I was already on a warpath :evil:

I see no problem with marketing either, which is why I wanted to clarify what I thought the real issue is. So long as it is understood when a statement is really a subtle commercial, we can keep the statement in perspective.

[delhi]

It's about public perception. No hard and fast rule. Whichever that nets you the client wins at the end of the day.

[Claire]

I probably should mention he's anonymous on the forum. Never gives out his real name, only a nick. Doesn't give email either. The forum deletes threads where they find the content is advertising. A bunch of other threads have been deleted for that reason. They do it as to protect those photographers who have paid to advertise on the site.

[bham]

Before I go and dutifully suck it, let's see your portfolio.

Give me a link to your kickass images which top those of someone who ran a studio for 10 years.

I'd imagine there would be no problem since you feel so confident telling people to go suck it. Let's see your work.

Well, I sure don't agree with everything said by either side, but those with studios who have been doing it for a number of years don't necessarily do great work.

Here is a link to a studio that has been around over 20 years. I know a number of photographers in this area that don't have studios and do a far greater job than he, and I am pretty positive I am one of those.

http://www.charlessidesphoto.com/index.html

Doc, I understand your argument and for many industries I think that would be the safe assumption, but in photography, with digital being the preferred medium for most photographers for less than 6 years, many photographers who have had studios over 10 years were all film guys, not all have successfully adjusted to digital and computers. This guy has said the same thing about other photographers without a studio, instead of trying to figure out why he business was dissappearing to the competition. His lack of continuing education, and paying attention to the market, and the desires of the customer, has lead to the downturn in his business. He failed to change, so he is now failing. Having the studio did nothing for him.

[michaelanthony]

I tend to agree that this guy is doing a bit of protecting his own turf.

x2

homey is just telling the brides that junk to steer business to HIS studio...

then again, im not a serious pro shooter...

im a pro shooter...

just not serious...

ever...

:lol:

[alt4852]

Well, I sure don't agree with everything said by either side, but those with studios who have been doing it for a number of years don't necessarily do great work.

Here is a link to a studio that has been around over 20 years. I know a number of photographers in this area that don't have studios and do a far greater job than he, and I am pretty positive I am one of those.

http://www.charlessidesphoto.com/index.html

Doc, I understand your argument and for many industries I think that would be the safe assumption, but in photography, with digital being the preferred medium for most photographers for less than 6 years, many photographers who have had studios over 10 years were all film guys, not all have successfully adjusted to digital and computers. This guy has said the same thing about other photographers without a studio, instead of trying to figure out why he business was dissappearing to the competition. His lack of continuing education, and paying attention to the market, and the desires of the customer, has lead to the downturn in his business. He failed to change, so he is now failing. Having the studio did nothing for him.

bham, you're aware that this thread is over two years old right? =P

[zacker]

The last post made me react though. He said photographers who don't have a studio are ''fishy" and that many who don't have a studio will tell you he has a portable studio. This the poster commented with the words "Anyone can have a couple of home made lights under his bed & call it a portable studio. If the photographer doesn't have a studio he's not a serious pro & all the things needed for studio shots can't be carried around."

So, do you guys agree with him? Are photographers without studios not "serious photographers"?

Personally, I think that ANYONE with the $$ and Room to do it, can have a studio, heck, you can have an awesome, dream studio but.... do you know how to use it?? Even more so, you can be the best studio photog out there... your studio can be the best in the country..hollywood actors and rockstars beg you to shoot them.. there is no ceiling to what you offer or do or even charge but...... can you shoot a wedding? using only minimal equipment? run back and fourth, knowing what to shoot and when? just because you "Understand" studio lighting and posing it does not mean you can shoot a Wedding successfully. Imagine a guy who shoot mainly macros of bugs taking on a wedding job because he has sold a few shots to some calendar printer.. Just cause someone has the moniker "Pro" does not mean they are good. let the portfolio do the talking.. if you were looking for a wedding photog and someone came over for their interview and had a portfolio of macros, sunsets and old doors... would you hire them?

[Zansho]

This guy's being a big bad wolf who's trying his damnest to breathe the weekend warrior's house down.

Honestly, the proof is in the pudding of the photographer. If he/she has the necessary skills to produce good on-location shots (which is what wedding photography is, anyway), what does it matter if he/she has a studio or not? I don't remember a SINGLE bride EVER asking me if they could shoot their bridals in my studio. They ALL requested having on-location bridal portraits, usually someplace that has meaning to them or at the venue where they're getting hitched.

I don't need/want a studio. It makes me more rigid, with no flexiblity, and creates more problems than I need. I don't want the overhead of running a studio location, too much of a pain in the posterior end.

[bham]

bham, you're aware that this thread is over two years old right? =P

Didn't see that. Not sure how in the world I came across this thread then. I could have sworn it was on the first couple of pages under the business section, I rarely go past that. Now I remember, it was linked in another thread. Now to find that thread.

Here it is
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=562237

[NathanJK]

I think he's obviously trying to help his business and I can't blame him too much for doing so. Rest assured, he DOES have a studio ;) However, I myself don't have a studio and I try to be as professional as possible! I do consider myself a professional now and I certainly hope my clients do to. There is something for everyone and if studio shots are what a client wants they need to go see a photographer that has a studio. If natural location shots are what they want, I can do those professionally I think!

Edit: I didn't read the whole thread and now I've helped to continue a very old thread...go me!

[M Powered]

Interesting topic. Its amazing how many people I run into who believes a professional photographer has to have a studio.

[JasonSTL739]

I love this. A studio has nothing to do with being a pro. A studio is a business decision, in my head it is primiarily to involve others with your business versus having them work with you in your house, or in certain photography verticals give you the tools necessary for your craft.

Just what exactly is a studio anyway? I have to say most of our client come to our loft - which is our house technically - and think it is our place of business exclusively.

[Tixeon]

Dennis Reggie - One of the biggest names (& best photographers) in the wedding business, anywhere - Doesn't have a studio.