How would you spend this money to improve your portraits?

Imagine that you already have a large studio space which is on a decent-sized lot of land that you can further build on. You also already have the basic equipment: cameras, lights, lenses, and your marketing costs are covered.

Now you can spend up to $150,000 and it can only go toward improving your at-that-location portraiture in some way, but the things that you purchase must require either no maintenance or only low maintenance. In other words, don't add something that requires precious time every day in order to keep it functional. And yes, you can invest your labor into set-up, but after that, again: whatever you built (if your idea involves building at all) must be low maintenance.

My question is intentionally broad; I'm hoping for creative/unique ideas.

I would use it to buy plane tickets to more favorable locations for creating portraits.

PentaxShooter wrote in post #18984935
I would use it to buy plane tickets to more favorable locations for creating portraits.

I pre-empted this by saying on-location portraiture, meaning: on the land that the studio is built on.

icor1031 wrote in post #18984926
How would you spend this money to improve your portraits?

Now you have $150,000 and it can only go toward improving your on-location portraiture in some way, but the things that you purchase must require either no maintenance or only low maintenance.

.
Honestly, I think that the way you can use this money to most improve your on-location portraiture would have nothing to do with building anything. . Physical objects like sets and backgrounds and whatnot really aren't very important in the grand scheme of portraiture.

The most effective way of spending this money would be to invest it into yourself - your skills.

I believe you will get the very most for your money if you spend the money on educational opportunities. . Workshops. . Tuition. . Learning-based travel opportunities. . Perhaps offer to pay a world-class photographer to spend several days teaching you one-on-one. . Learn how to best use lighting in some really advanced ways. . Learn how to work with models - how to pose them. . Then learn more about how to work with models and more about how to pose them.

And then there is the need to hire excellent models who have a good deal of professional experience. . And of course the hair and makeup people who are at the top of their game. . Given where you live, you will probably have to pay to fly these professionals in to you, which could eat up the lion's share of that $150,000 in a hurry. . It seems that it would make a lot more sense for you to travel to them, but you said that this money must go toward photography that you do at your location, so that means that you have to spend thousands upon thousands of extra dollars to bring the best models and HMU people to you.

These are the things that will actually have a big effect on the quality of the on-site portraiture that you produce. . Things like sets and backgrounds - the physical elements that appear in your photos - will have very little impact on the quality of your work. . It's definitely not worth spending much more than a few thousand on any of that insignificant stuff.


.

In that case, I don't understand the question. Money doesn't buy results. I've never spent $150k on photography, but my guess is that by the law of diminishing returns, at this level you are well into the no return at all on your investment. I hugely improved my portraiture with a $39 lighting kit from Cowboy Studios, and a pair of used 550EX flash guns.

I'll give an example: I could build something like a large greenhouse and either find plants that are pretty self-sufficient, or I could install an automated watering system, or I could use fake plants. In any of those cases, I could create a very beautiful little place with a lot of variety for outdoor-looking portraits.

icor1031 wrote in post #18984965
I'll give an example: I could build something like a large greenhouse and either find plants that are pretty self-sufficient, or I could install an automated watering system, or I could use fake plants. Either way, I could create a very beautiful little place with a lot of variety for outdoor-looking portraits.

.
Creating a physical space isn't going to help you improve your portraiture very much at all.

Using the money to improve your skills and hire top-notch talent to work with you is going to improve your on-site portraiture immensely.

I think you need to get out of the mindset that focuses on the physical space and what could be built.


.

icor1031 wrote in post #18984965
I'll give an example: I could build something like a large greenhouse and either find plants that are pretty self-sufficient, or I could install an automated watering system, or I could use fake plants. Either way, I could create a very beautiful little place with a lot of variety for outdoor-looking portraits.

Fair enough. I just don't get the point of fixing up South Dakota to look like Maui, Victoria Falls, or Ecuador when the real places are available and well within the stated budget. BTW, I looked at your galleries. You do nice work in your environmental photos with South Dakota looking like South Dakota.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18984957
.
Honestly, I think that the way you can use this money to most improve your on-location portraiture would have nothing to do with building anything. . Physical objects like sets and backgrounds and whatnot really aren't very important in the grand scheme of portraiture.

The most effective way of spending this money would be to invest it into yourself - your skills.

I believe you will get the very most for your money if you spend the money on educational opportunities. . Workshops. . Tuition. . Learning-based travel opportunities. . Perhaps offer to pay a world-class photographer to spend several days teaching you one-on-one. . Learn how to best use lighting in some really advanced ways. . Learn how to work with models - how to pose them. . Then learn more about how to work with models and more about how to pose them.

.

I like this. It transfers to my work at my site.

PentaxShooter wrote in post #18984975
Fair enough. I just don't get the point of fixing up South Dakota to look like Maui, Victoria Falls, or Ecuador when the real places are available and well within the stated budget. BTW, I looked at your galleries. You do nice work in your environmental photos with South Dakota looking like South Dakota.

Thank you. My goal has two parts: 1) Create amazing portraits; I want to improve, for self-satisfaction. 2) Get paid to do it... I can't take a senior to Maui and expect to profit. So, I need my studio that's here to look amazing.

PentaxShooter wrote in post #18984975
.
You do nice work in your environmental photos with South Dakota looking like South Dakota.
.

.
I know this is off-topic, because the thread is only about shooting on a specified piece of real estate ...

But I can't help myself - the OP has some locations around him that would be incredible for portraiture:

Needles Highway.

The Badlands.

Devil's Tower ..... Devil's freakin' Tower!

Wind Cave Monument.

Sturgis in August.

Mount Rushmore (think North by Northwest!)

His particular part of South Dakota has so many venues for dramatic and unique environmental portraiture!


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18984989
.
I know this is off-topic, because the thread is only about shooting on a specified piece of real estate ...

But I can't help myself - the OP has some locations around him that would be incredible for portraiture:

Needles Highway.

The Badlands.

Devil's Tower ..... Devil's freakin' Tower!

Wind Cave Monument.

Sturgis in August.

Mount Rushmore (think North by Northwest!)

His particular part of South Dakota has so many venues for dramatic and unique environmental portraiture!

.

We have pretty good places for portraits, although I don't see what's appealing about Devil's tower.

Keep in mind though that there isn't much to shoot after all the greenery dies, like right now. There are only narrow windows after it snows during which I could capture a good portrait.

Another issue is that I can't use any of those public spaces when shooting nudes. And I want to shoot Eden-like scenes, such as (NSFW): https://imgur.com/a/Bk​Hlze2
(not looking to be paid for these)

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18984957
And then there is the need to hire excellent models who have a good deal of professional experience.

I planned to suggest this. Then I scrolled down and saw that Tom had done so. It might, however, be incompatible with the requirement you stated:

Anyway, it seems that you want clients who'll pay you, not models who'll charge for their time.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18984974
I think you need to get out of the mindset that focuses on the physical space and what could be built.

Please take seriously what Tom said. Most senior portraits on POTN show the kids in found settings or even in their homes.

icor1031 wrote in post #18984993
We have pretty good places for portraits, although I don't see what's appealing about Devil's tower.

Keep in mind though that there isn't much to shoot after all the greenery dies, like right now. There are only narrow windows after it snows during which I could capture a good portrait.

.
I wasn't thinking about greenery. . What I had in mind was photographing your models in rocky landscapes. . Stark rock with no vegetation. . That would be excellent for doing nudes like you've expressed interest in in past threads.

Imagine a model clinging to one of Needles Highway's rocky spires, looking down on the treetops in the distance behind her, half enshrouded in misty fog!

Or a nude model lying on the forest floor, then when you look between the tree trunks that are behind her you see Devils Tower thrusting prominently out of the horizon! . Or the same type of nude with Mount Rushmore in the background!

I'm just mentioning nudes because that is the kind of work you've said you'd like to do in previous threads ... but I think any of these scenarios would work equally well with clothed models.

How about someone scantily dressed in the open prairie at Custer State Park, feeding bright red apples to the wild burrows?!

Or a model standing up tall in a sidecar as a biker cruises the attached Harley down the middle of Sturgis during the rally, with dozens of other cycles perfectly arranged in the background to illustrate the festiveness of that event! . Yeah, I know it's unsafe and illegal to stand up in a sidecar of a moving motorcycle ..... nothing ventured, nothing gained (just do it for free so there's less chance of a liability suit).

How about the badlands, with its rocky, craggy ridge tops ..... could make for some wonderful silhouette portraiture!

Or images of a model speeding down the road on a motorcycle ... or a bicycle ... or a skateboard, shot real close-up, with some motion blur, with Devils Tower looming large right behind them in an imposing manner!

Or your model on the steep, nearly vertical face of Devils Tower, with you taking the photos from slightly above the model, to show the vast forest and meadow landscape in the sweeping distance below!

I have all these pictures in my mind's eye of what all of these possible images would look like, and they are world-class spectacular! . And they're all just an hour or two from you. . But I must admit that it is hard to put these ideas into words in a way that will communicate the concept accurately.

EDIT: This is the kind of image I had in mind ...

https://www.google.com …=692#imgrc=CU8h​4ZLrZ0HcBM:

... but imagine that right there between the tree trunks behind her you see Devils Tower, or Mount Rushmore.

.