PDA

View Full Version : Rant: Corporate headshots


CreedThoughts
20th of May 2009 (Wed), 15:11
Our company just did corporate headshots for everyone. The photographer they hired was not even specialized in corporate headshots.. he was more of a sports photographer.

The first set of people he did, he used a white background. Then because people hated it, he used a dark red background the next time. So half of the photos have a white background, and instead of reshooting those people, he did a hack photoshop job on the background to change the color.. it looks terrible.

The worst part, we paid him $6500 to shoot 30 employees.

Is that not overpriced?

Exposure101
20th of May 2009 (Wed), 22:18
A good price is what the company is willing for pay for the service. So while it might be overpriced to you/me/everyone here, it might not be overpriced for the company. They might even consider it cheap. Who knows...

CreedThoughts
20th of May 2009 (Wed), 23:05
I found out why the company hired him.. he was a friend of one of the employees. He used a 100mm 2.8 macro for all of the shots. I guess that's a good portrait lens but I would have thought something wider would have made the background blur more which would be better for portraits.

FlyingPhotog
20th of May 2009 (Wed), 23:07
I found out why the company hired him.. he was a friend of one of the employees. He used a 100mm 2.8 macro for all of the shots. I guess that's a good portrait lens but I would have thought something wider would have made the background blur more which would be better for portraits.

I was going to ask you why you didn't step up and offer to do the shots but .. nevermind.

andrepaul
20th of May 2009 (Wed), 23:10
I don't think that's overpriced. And if the background is a plain colour, blurring it won't do much for the photo, if anything at all.

CreedThoughts
21st of May 2009 (Thu), 02:04
maybe its that he had the people stand too close to the backdrop, but looking at the shots it looks like they were sitting in front of butcher paper.

egordon99
21st of May 2009 (Thu), 08:44
bw!

I was going to ask you why you didn't step up and offer to do the shots but .. nevermind.


Next time why don't YOU offer to do the shots for $5000 and save your company $1500 ;)

Trainboy
21st of May 2009 (Thu), 09:03
I was going to ask you why you didn't step up and offer to do the shots but .. nevermind.
Hahaha, ditto. Very much ditto.

egordon99
21st of May 2009 (Thu), 09:15
Shoot the headshots with a 10mm lens, you'll get a TON of background blur ;)

canonnoob
21st of May 2009 (Thu), 09:21
op.. I be quite honest... if you think he did a crap job. offer your supervisor an idea.. you shoot the photos for cheaper... dont complain when you didnt pay.. he may not have done a good job, but if you think its easy, try it out. For some reason I have a feeling like you will find out differently.

why not post a shot that he took... ?

CreedThoughts
21st of May 2009 (Thu), 11:44
not that i think i could do better, b/c frankly i don't have the experience nor the equipment, but there were several other local photographers that specialize in corporate headshots that could have done a much better job for less money.

When the photographer was taking my shot, I asked him does he normally shoot portraits and he said no, he does sports photography.

Here is one of the shots he took. I blurred out the face to protect the innocent. This is the final version after his editing.

CreedThoughts
21st of May 2009 (Thu), 11:46
I don't think that's overpriced. And if the background is a plain colour, blurring it won't do much for the photo, if anything at all.

Point taken, but I think placing the subjects further away from the background would help.

egordon99
21st of May 2009 (Thu), 11:55
That shot looks fine to me....Except for the not so good job with switching out the background, but that's what the client (ie your company) wanted.....

matonanjin
21st of May 2009 (Thu), 11:59
I was going to ask you why you didn't step up and offer to do the shots but .. nevermind.


Funny. And only a couple caught it;)

egordon99
21st of May 2009 (Thu), 12:01
I think the lighting is probably more important than the lens, and from the sample you posted, looks like he has the lighting figured out...

So again, what's your complaint?

I found out why the company hired him.. he was a friend of one of the employees. He used a 100mm 2.8 macro for all of the shots. I guess that's a good portrait lens but I would have thought something wider would have made the background blur more which would be better for portraits.

CreedThoughts
21st of May 2009 (Thu), 12:30
Okay you guys win. Apparently he's a good portrait photographer and its a fair price.

FlyingPhotog
21st of May 2009 (Thu), 12:34
Okay you guys win. Apparently he's a good portrait photographer and its a fair price.

Neither is absolutely true...

Apparently though, he knows how to market himself.