LED continuous or Studio Flash/strobe lights ?

[Garry Edwards]

However they will need to overcome some serious shortcomings including:-
Much increased Power.
Full spectrum coverage (at least equal to Adobe RGB)
A full range of modifiers.
Large Fresnel focusing spots.
Replaceable LED sources.(bulbs)
Competitive pricing. /

Except for the final one in your list - competitive pricing - all of these serious shortcomings have already been overcome. I've seen and tested them in a factory in Shenzen (the southern China technology city) but their customer base is the movie industry which, as you know, is where the very best lighting experts work and where quality matters much more than money.

I have no idea how long it will take for this level of both technology and quality to filter down to still photographers and still photography budgets. The problem as I see it is that the vast majority of Chinese manufacturers are obsessed by market share, volume and making things down to a price. They don't think that there are serious business benefits in making better products, and they will need to change this attitude and stop using the cheap LED technology that works so well for car headlights, TV monitors, advertising displays and security lights for photographic lighting before there can be any real improvement.

I agree with everything else in your post.

As you say horses for courses, and our customers are happy, as is our bank balance the equipment debate will roll on forever. and a cri of 93+ As stated by the manafacturer is still more than acceptable for a cheap unit.

I accept what you say, you're clearly running a business in which lights (and lighting) that I consider to be hopelessly inadequate work for you, and I'm not going to try to persuade you otherwise. Good luck to you, there's clearly a good market for high throughput low cost product images, it isn't a market that I would ever want to serve but it's your market and not mine.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

@Garry Edwards

I expect the "at any expense" virtually hand built solutions that you have seen, to be replicated soon enough, with mass production.
Once a problem is solved, others soon find less expensive ways to achieve the same function,
Even if the absolute quality, longevity and the more esoteric functions suffer somewhat.

A balance suitable for stills photography at a professional level will be found and marketed.
Fortunately it is the cash rich amateur that largely pays for these developments, rather than the Professional.
In the photography field it is very much the tail wagging the dog.

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

It’s interesting to see people state you cannot be professional or serious because of the equipment your using (despite actually making hundreds of thousands of pounds a year doing just that) I actually take a massive positive from it, as it shows the skills of the photographer who is using such allegedly poor equipment and yet is still producing the goods. It’s never about the equipment or godox and the like would simply not exist, Bowen’s would still be a round and so on. Interesting opinions though

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It’s interesting to see people state you cannot be professional or serious because of the equipment your using (despite actually making hundreds of thousands of pounds a year doing just that) I actually take a massive positive from it, as it shows the skills of the photographer who is using such allegedly poor equipment and yet is still producing the goods. It’s never about the equipment or godox and the like would simply not exist, Bowen’s would still be a round and so on. Interesting opinions though

I have looked at the Studio 488 web site and now have a better Idea where you are coming from.
It seems to be a specialist low end high volume, rapid turnaround studio, set up and well placed to serve the particular demands of Online sales and catalogue work.
The Equipment used, as mentioned by yourself, is perfectly aligned to the quality of work demanded by your high volume web display and low end catalogue needs.
Though I am Dyslexic and not the best user of English grammar myself. I was surprised to find a number of spelling and grammatical errors, as well as malapropisms, with in the text of the Studio 488 web site. It would be perhaps worth the expense of using the talents of an experienced copy writer and proof reader, to refine what is essentially the primary customer facing and marketing resource for the studio.

As a point of interest, in the late 50's I worked, as the senior photographer for a similar but somewhat larger and higher end Studio set up in Madrid. We were owned by the Gallerias Preciados, a major departmental store group, that produced a full product seasonal catalogue three times a year, for distribution throughout Spain. As well as producing a full range of industrial and commercial photography for advertising agency and direct clients.
In those far off days. we had no choice but to use continuous tungsten lighting and large format cameras for virtually all our work. Even earrings were shot on a 5x7 monorail camera, with full studio lighting. When you consider that each catalogue contained many thousands of items. That was an incredible amount of film, all of which had to be printed to a specified image size for reproduction.
It was a very major undertaking.
Had they been available we would most certainly have used LED panels amongst the mix of our lighting set ups.

 

[simonbarker]

It’s interesting to see people state you cannot be professional or serious because of the equipment your using

That's not what's being said and getting paid for doing something is not a very high bar to cross.

Probably the most ubiquitous examples you'll find are the cheap sets off Amazon and a light tent, that the lights are terrible and the tent often the wrong approach doesn't stop plenty of people from getting results they can make money off of and certainly no one (that I can think of) comes here asking how to achieve that result which is why you'll rarely see them recommended.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It’s interesting to see people state you cannot be professional or serious because of the equipment your using (despite actually making hundreds of thousands of pounds a year doing just that) I actually take a massive positive from it, as it shows the skills of the photographer who is using such allegedly poor equipment and yet is still producing the goods. It’s never about the equipment or godox and the like would simply not exist, Bowen’s would still be a round and so on. Interesting opinions though

Bowens is not still around, because they could not keep up with the pace of technical development or produce what the market required. They were still producing yesteryear's technology, at a premium price.

Godox produce very effective high tech equipment, built at a price the market relishes. it is in the realms of "Disposable" when compared to the price and quality of high end products, which are probably neither as "usable" nor as cost effective.

A large studio has no need to amortise Godox equipment over a number of years, it can write off the cost up front.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Keiran, there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding here . . .

The OP has two dogs and a husband and she wants to photograph them - the dogs are gorgeous, don’t know about the husband – and she asked advice on the equipment that she should get for this specific purpose.

She also mentioned that some people at her camera club, plus a friend, think that LED lighting is the answer to her prayers. It isn’t, we told her why this is so and she took our advice.

She then posted her first effort, which personally I think is pretty good for someone with zero experience, she will only get better as her knowledge, skills and experience expands.

Then you came along and argued that your cheap LED lights are perfect for your own needs. I don’t agree with you and I doubt whether any other experienced photographers will agree either, but how you run your business is entirely your affair, and as long as your customers are satisfied and as long as your business is doing well, then that’s all that matters to you, it doesn’t matter to the rest of us.

You seem to be taking differing views as a personal attack on you, or as an attack on your business model. It isn’t.

What you seem to be offering to your customers is a high volume service at low prices that operates on an efficient production line basis. That’s fine, it’s a form of product photography that has obvious appeal to a section of internet sellers. But it isn’t really product photography, just as your clothing shots with products laid flat or on an invisible mannequin isn’t really fashion photography. What it is is a sub-set of these genres. There are product photographers out there (including fashion) who do very different types of photography, your business model is no more and no less valid than theirs.

There is a massive difference between high volume illustrative shots that show what a product looks like and the type of carefully lit product photography designed to show products at their best and persuade people to buy them. Illustrative shots are perfect for products that people need to buy but don’t want to buy, e.g. distress purchases such as a new car battery, a left handed widget and many others – and selling photos are ideal for selling goods that people want to buy but that they don’t actually need, e.g. the latest gadget or luxury item.

Talk Photography is an eclectic mix of very experienced professionals, highly skilled and knowledgeable amateurs and beginners, we all work together, sharing knowledge and experience and it works very well. Nobody is saying that you are wrong, all that some of us have said is that we would not use LED lights for this purpose. LED lights are good enough for video, not for still photography.

You say that “ It’s never about the equipment or godox and the like would simply not exist, Bowen’s would still be a round and so on.” But this is a surprising statement. Bowens is no longer around for a variety of reasons, mainly business related, but in terms of quality they were not leading the field. Godox isn’t a poor relation here, in fact they produce a lot of very different products, sold in vast quantities and they have nearly completed their takeover of the world of lighting equipment. You may not know it but they were the actual manufacturer of some of the Bowens flashes.

Some of the Godox products are very good, others not. There is no brand snobbery here, it’s all about horses for courses and my personal opinion is that for still product photography their LED lights are 3-legged donkeys

Your opinion is different, that’s fine. Some of us think that you’re wrong and we have told you why, but please feel free to ignore our views. My only concern here is that I think it would be harmful to beginners asking for advice if they were to be confused by diametrically opposed conflicting statements, some of it evidence based and some not.

 

[juggler]

My only concern here is that I think it would be harmful to beginners asking for advice if they were to be confused by diametrically opposed conflicting statements, some of it evidence based and some not.

.. which is why I previously asked @Kieranstandishphoto for some examples of his own personal work.

Advice given on forums needs to be viewed through the filter of the skill, knowledge and experience of who ever is giving that advice.

 

[Phil V]

It’s interesting to see people state you cannot be professional or serious because of the equipment your using

Kieran; you appear to have got a bit wrapped up in your own world and you’re not seeing what’s right before your eyes.

The led lights you’re using are doing a job*.
But even you admit they’re not suitable for other jobs your studio has.

* back to that job though.
If you’d bought a burgundy jumper from ASOS for £30 and when it arrived it wasn’t exactly the colour you’d expected, you’d probably be fine with it.
If you paid £60 for a burgundy tie to perfectly match your wife’s ball gown, and when it arrived it wasn’t a close match, you’d rightly be p***ed off.

I’m sorry, but no amount of ‘skill’ or even ‘business sense’ is going to get you past that. It’s simple physics, and bizarrely the complex fix for getting that colour 100% perfect every time is to swap the LEDs for flash.

Now, the choice between ‘nearly right some of the time’ or always right all of the time shouldn’t be a matter of discussion. Who’d purposefully buy kit that they knew didn’t perform?

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

@Garry Edwards @Phil V

I did have long boring reply, but life's too short and we are too busy making inferior images for our clients, its amazing that the studio has got away with doing this so wrong from 13 years and the 1.6 million+ images published to date online and in print must have been missed by the people looking at them phew dodged that bullet....... The op will probably have sold their kit now and taken up a new hobby !

 

[Phil V]

@Garry Edwards @Phil V

I did have long boring reply, but life's too short and we are too busy making inferior images for our clients, its amazing that the studio has got away with doing this so wrong from 13 years and the 1.6 million+ images published to date online and in print must have been missed by the people looking at them phew dodged that bullet....... The op will probably have sold their kit now and taken up a new hobby !

It’s amazing how the attitude kicks in and ignores the facts...
No one called your images inferior. And the studio is clearly doing business. - but that’s a whole different issue to the points raised.

 

[HoppyUK]

There's a danger of too much generalisation. The question is about continuous LEDs vs flash, but they can't be so broadly categorised - there are plenty of both rubbish/unsuitable and good products on both sides, and there's certainly more to come from LED technology.

But at the risk of offending the old school, Keiran's succesful business is about much more than LED vs flash. An experienced professional photographer will deliver the goods pretty much regardless of the equipment to hand, but what Kieran seems to have is a business model that produces good quality, quickly, easily and affordably. It's driven by today's customer needs and maybe there's a lesson to be burned there, if you'll excuse the malopropism.

Edit: and BTW, welcome to TP Kieran

 

[Garry Edwards]

There's a danger of too much generalisation. The question is about continuous LEDs vs flash, but they can't be so broadly categorised - there are plenty of both rubbish/unsuitable and good products on both sides, and there's certainly more to come from LED technology.

But at the risk of offending the old school, Keiran's succesful business is about much more than LED vs flash. An experienced professional photographer will deliver the goods pretty much regardless of the equipment to hand, but what Kieran seems to have is a business model that produces good quality, quickly, easily and affordably. It's driven by today's customer needs and maybe there's a lesson to be burned there, if you'll excuse the malopropism.

Edit: and BTW, welcome to TP Kieran

With respect, his business model doesn't seem to be about good quality at all - judging from his website examples - but about high volume, fixed priced, consistent results that meet the expectations of his customers. There's nothing wrong with that as a business model and I sincerely hope that he does well.

Yes, there are good LED units out there, but very pricey and Keiran has gone in the opposite direction.
Yes, there are poor quality flash units out there too, but generally speaking, modern flash units are good and the old junk is now fading away.

Photography is a tiny business sector and there are no large companies involved in it, but basically it still follows the micro economic principles of all other businesses.
Businesses can be:
1. High volume low quality with low profit margins but high profits achieved via high volume and high market share, or they can go the other route with
2. Top quality products, first class customer service, very high profit margins but relatively low profits due to low volume.
3. Middle of the road, average quality, average prices, average volume.

No, forget 3, that used to work up to a point but it's now a recipe for disaster, very few people are now willing to pay more money for something that is only a little bit better.

No. 1 seems to the Keiran's route, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a good business model, driven by internet sales (and especially by Amazon) and it has several distinct advantages:
a. It's infinitely scaleable. If sales go through the roof just recruit some more people, give them a minimum of on the job training, give them a well-designed system to work to, grow the business, repeat as necessary.
b. Improved cash flow, which can be used for expansion finance as necessary.
c. Economy of scale
d. Very low capital investment - or at least very low relative to unit cost - for example a machine that works 24 hours a day doesn't cost any more to buy than one that only gets used for 2 hours a month.

No. 2 is the skilled artisan route, e.g. a skilled mechanic who can make and mend instead of just fitting new parts or advertising photographer who can create stunning images of whatever is needed. It usually results in a very good living for a very small number of people, the limitation being that it's very hard to recruit highly skilled people and it takes years to train them, there's little or no room for growth.

There's plenty of room for both types of business model and I personally welcome both. The only problem that I have is when people who operate business type one masquerade as business type 2 . . .

Coming back to the question about LED lights, we know what the capability will be in a few years time, we know that the future is already here - it just isn't available yet at affordable prices - but in my opinion although LED lights can and no doubt will get better, the trend at the moment is for them to get worse.

Until a few years ago there were a lot of flash manufacturers in China, all doing OK, with their products sold mainly within China. Godox has changed that and now dominates both the internal and external market. Some of these smaller manufacturers have disappeared, some have switched to manufacturing non-photographic goods and others have dropped flash and turned their attention to LED, focusing on making them down to a price rather than up to a quality standard. This will change when Godox has saturated the flash market and concentrates on the LED market but the situation right now is that there are very few affordable LED lights that are suitable for any kind of still photography. They're fine for video but video is a small market, so naturally the sellers are promoting their products to the much larger still photography market, but the false marketing and b******t doesn't alter the fact that LED lights are a very poor substitute for flash and, right now, should be disregarded.

I've given LED lights a very thorough test, and at one point I did feel that they were good enough for serious use - but that was with a light that was pretty good compared to what is currently all over Amazon. However, as I did more and more testing I realised that even with a very high, genuine CRI rating, they still weren't good enough.

 

[HoppyUK]

With respect, his business model doesn't seem to be about good quality at all <snip>

Define good quality. If there are paying customers coming back for more, and apparently there are, I would say that's mission accomplished from a professional/commercial point of view. It's becoming increasingly rare these days and that alone should command respect regardless of what we might think of the technical issues.

And if anyone was unaware of the real benefits and business advantages of flash some work, they're not now

 

[Garry Edwards]

And if anyone was unaware of the real benefits and business advantages of flash some work, they're not now

Showing my age now, but to quote Harold MacMillan . .

could I have that translated please?

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

There's a danger of too much generalisation. The question is about continuous LEDs vs flash, but they can't be so broadly categorised - there are plenty of both rubbish/unsuitable and good products on both sides, and there's certainly more to come from LED technology.

But at the risk of offending the old school, Keiran's succesful business is about much more than LED vs flash. An experienced professional photographer will deliver the goods pretty much regardless of the equipment to hand, but what Kieran seems to have is a business model that produces good quality, quickly, easily and affordably. It's driven by today's customer needs and maybe there's a lesson to be burned there, if you'll excuse the malopropism.

Edit: and BTW, welcome to TP Kieran

Ta, It’s my dads business, but fingers crossed he retires soon

 

[sk66]

Quality is certainly subjective... and it is also relative. I.e. some of the aspects that make for a high quality advertising lifestyle image may very well be negative qualities for a catalog image.
But this is a photography, and specifically lighting and studio forum. So I think the tendency is to define quality in terms of more advanced lighting requirements/results/capabilities... at least it is for me...

 

[HoppyUK]

Ta, It’s my dads business, but fingers crossed he retires soon

That's interesting Kieran. How did it all come about? Did it evolve from a previous photo business of some sort? Thanks.

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

@HoppyUK

It started out of necessity, an ecommerce and retail solutions business needing photographic services for a client, disolusioned with the silly prices being quoted at the time he decided to do it on his own, with no prior knowledge of photography, photoshop and the like, he saw a massive gap in the market and the rest is history.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

@HoppyUK

It started out of necessity, an ecommerce and retail solutions business needing photographic services for a client, disolusioned with the silly prices being quoted at the time he decided to do it on his own, with no prior knowledge of photography, photoshop and the like, he saw a massive gap in the market and the rest is history.

I have always said that good businessmen do better than good photographers when it comes to running a photography business. You can always hire good photographers. Good business men are even rarer.

 

[Ellie Jones]

@Kieranstandishphoto

Nope I'm still here

Been following with great interest...

I think, a lot of the quandary, I wanted my own little studio set up, so I can practice, learn lightening in the manner and pace I want to learn, something which I can't do within the club setting, too many giving advise, wanting me to jump in with several lights, and not learning the basic what does a single light do! But considering so far, I've been very disappointed with my results. It was looking at studio lighting types and an explanation that the Nero Aearo ability to Flash, isn't quite truthful, which got me pondering, was the light source behind some of my issues. So I found a couple of photograph's I took last year, one model two different studio set ups, one traditional Flash head, and the other using the infamous Nero.... And funny enough, you could see the difference in quality between the Flash and Nero

I did some more research, then asked here... didn't anticipate a riot would break out

But with the play I've had so far, with the new lights I think I have made a good choice, did make a compromise though purely because I bulked at the cost. But will say, when it comes to lighting I've kinda of learnt a lot by following what's being said on the thread

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

@Garry Edwards

Garry in your opinion what is an acceptable CRI and TLCI my findings are the sl60 we use has a CRi of 96.4 and a TLCI of 98, which from what I can see is very good for £90.....the anova pro at £1200 is listed at cri>96 (whatever that means) and a TLCI of 91. I think things have moved on considerably in the last couple of years.

 

[HoppyUK]

@HoppyUK

It started out of necessity, an ecommerce and retail solutions business needing photographic services for a client, disolusioned with the silly prices being quoted at the time he decided to do it on his own, with no prior knowledge of photography, photoshop and the like, he saw a massive gap in the market and the rest is history.

That's probably the best way of going about it - new business, built on new customer needs, with a new business model unhindered by old assumptions.

There's a fair amount of the latter around here, not least from me, but also a lot of very relevant experience and skill that's always worth knowing - and this is the lighting forum after all, and not the business section. But I for one have had my eyes opened a little wider

 

[HoppyUK]

@Garry Edwards

Garry in your opinion what is an acceptable CRI and TLCI my findings are the sl60 we use has a CRi of 96.4 and a TLCI of 98, which from what I can see is very good for £90.....the anova pro at £1200 is listed at cri>96 (whatever that means) and a TLCI of 91. I think things have moved on considerably in the last couple of years.

If you're interested in really accurate colour, and it must be important for some clients, then TBH the simple answer is flash. Colour quality is a virtual carbon copy of daylight. CRI ratings for continuous lights are only an approximate guide and TLCI isn't perfect either.

But even if you do go down the flash route, that's only part of the story. Light modifiers like softboxes sometimes have a slight colour bias and any lighting system will pick up on colours reflected off the near environment. You might need to calibrate your cameras too. The whole system has to be right, but none of this is difficult and once it's done it stays right. Maybe have a look at a couple of Godox AD400-Pro battery studio heads with bright LED modelling lamps for WYSIWYG, plenty of power, wide range of power with accurate colour throughout, fast flash durations, fast recycling, easy remote control etc - and of course a vast range of modifiers available at sensible prices. This is the kind of gear that's rapidly moving in to studios now, and it's sweeping all the old brands aside.

 

[Garry Edwards]

@Garry Edwards

Garry in your opinion what is an acceptable CRI and TLCI my findings are the sl60 we use has a CRi of 96.4 and a TLCI of 98, which from what I can see is very good for £90.....the anova pro at £1200 is listed at cri>96 (whatever that means) and a TLCI of 91. I think things have moved on considerably in the last couple of years.

Good, simple question but unfortunately the answer isn’t quite so simple . . .

CRI (color rendition index) is just a scale that expresses variance from perfection. Perfection is 100, which is produced by daylight, flash and filament bulbs.
But, it’s just an average of all colour rendition, scrambled together, and takes no account of oddities. Most colours in the blue / green / neutral range will reproduce pretty accurately and therefore we can expect a CRI of 100 at this end of the scale. But, at the red end of the scale the situation is very different and this is what reduces the overall figure to (say) 95.

The problem is, some LED (or fluorescent) lights can have an anomaly somewhere else in the spectrum, for example we know that at the red end they are often pretty bad, with the reds not showing as anywhere near a true red - but what happens if there is an anomaly at the blue end too, which may make the blue more or less blue than it should be? This will affect the CRI figure and may make it higher or lower than the visual effects indicate that it should be.

TLCI (Television Lighting Consistency Index) is basically the same thing as CRI but CRI is measured as perceived by the human eye and TLCI is measured as perceived by a video camera, and what is acceptable to a video camera isn’t always acceptable to the human eye so this index may be a useful one.
Personally I take little notice of claimed CRI. Obviously some sellers are honest but equally obviously, some others may not be. We get (very) false statements that are made about things like guide numbers, colour temperature and flash energy consistency too. Most readers of marketing material don’t even understand the various figures, let alone have the means to carry out objective tests.

I’ve tested a lot of CRI lights, claims for CRI are generally in the range of 90 – 96 but my Illuminance Spectrophotometer has found some “photographic lights” to actually read as low as 67 . . . But, it’s a bit easier now because the Konika CL-70F CRI Illuminance Meter is a simple handheld device that makes the job very easy.
Even so, very few people are likely to buy one and call out dishonest sellers. You may be surprised to learn that I’ve visited factories where I’ve asked questions about CRI for LED and fluorescent lamps and about colour temperature for flash units and have been given impressive figures that collapsed as soon as I carried out my own tests in front of them. In fact, factory owners and engineers often didn’t even know what my equipment was or did, which begs the question – where did you get your own figures from, without having any testing equipment?

Anyway, enough of my waffle, let’s get to the point, test the lights that you have and see how they stack up in the real world. . .
Take a standard Macbeth checker, which I assume that you have. Photograph it using a known perfect CRI light source, i.e. a flash head.

Now photograph it again with each of your different LED lights (assuming that you have different makes and models) and simply compare how accurately the colours are portrayed. This simple test will mean far more than scientific measurement can show.

If you haven’t got a Macbeth, use a colour photo of, say, someone wearing a red dress against a green or blue background – a simple outdoor scene will do fine.

Not that CRI is the ONLY issue with continuous lights. Another biggie is light pollution, which occurs when there are workstations fairly close to each other and light from somewhere else adds to and reduces the quality of the lighting on your own subject. This of course assumes that you are lighting with care, using the absolute minimum of lighting. If the subject is simply flooded with light, which will give regular users of this forum a heart attack, then of course it won’t matter.
And another problem can be caused by camera shake, because both lack of power and flicker force slow shutter speeds. Not always a problem with a concrete floor but it can be a real problem whenever someone walks across a wooden floor or slams a door.

But, all of these problems are totally prevented by using flash. You're fully entitled to your own views, but don't you wonder why nearly everyone else does it differently?

 

[HoppyUK]

Some tests along the lines Garry suggests are the only way really for LEDs and fluorescents etc with a discontinuous spectrum. The problem with CRI is it's an old standard, doesn't include some important colours, and is calculated as an average. For example, clear daylight has a CRI of 100 and flash should be virtually the same, while tungsten light bulbs also score 100 but produce yellow/orange light compared to daylight (very different colour temperature).

TLCI is better than CRI and includes all important colours, but that too is presented as an average score meaning that if you have two lights that are equally deficient in say red with one and green in the other, they will have the same TLCI rating but produce different overall colours so you can't use them together without some potentially serious issues.

It's a case of rubbish in, rubbish out, so much better to get it correct from the start.

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

Independent testsI have read and watched on these lights have very high numbers that match the manufacturer, our work flow and client feed back produces no issues whatsoever so all must be well with them, we do things very differently here and it works, like not having calibrated monitors, now that debate is a whole new storm, for a new thread . Well only three more days to go of a fifteen day model shoot with six models, two different mua, team of three from the client and our bunch, then a mind numbing selection process through around sixteeen thousand images, and who said this job wasn’t glamorous if we ever get a min I may do the test Garry suggested ,)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Independent testsI have read and watched on these lights have very high numbers that match the manufacturer, our work flow and client feed back produces no issues whatsoever so all must be well with them, we do things very differently here and it works, like not having calibrated monitors, now that debate is a whole new storm, for a new thread . Well only three more days to go of a fifteen day model shoot with six models, two different mua, team of three from the client and our bunch, then a mind numbing selection process through around sixteeen thousand images, and who said this job wasn’t glamorous if we ever get a min I may do the test Garry suggested ,)

Now that is taking sloppiness too far. Low standards is one thing, NO Standards, is quite another. and is not something to be proud of.

However it makes some sort of sense when you have no Idea if any of your colours match anyway.
But it costs so little, and takes so little time to calibrate a monitor that it is hard to imagine why you are not doing it.
A calibrated monitor at least assures you what your output will look like on any other calibrated monitor, and that all images from every session can match each other, both now and in the future.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Independent testsI have read and watched on these lights have very high numbers that match the manufacturer, our work flow and client feed back produces no issues whatsoever so all must be well with them, we do things very differently here and it works, like not having calibrated monitors, now that debate is a whole new storm, for a new thread . Well only three more days to go of a fifteen day model shoot with six models, two different mua, team of three from the client and our bunch, then a mind numbing selection process through around sixteeen thousand images, and who said this job wasn’t glamorous if we ever get a min I may do the test Garry suggested ,)

Well, what can I say?
All credit to you for doing things your own way, it's your business and not mine.
But your latest post is revealing, because it's now clear that you are using continuous lighting for photographing people as well as inanimate objects, which I find even more strange, especially as you earlier said that flash is the only way to go with live models.

We have used led for our product photography for years with no issues, we use the godox 60w at the moment, no snake oil here

Not for live people though, which is what the OP is shooting.
Context is everything

Agreed, that’s why I never class people as products missed the bit about just shooting live models, which clearly flash is the only way to go and the selected ad200 are quite good.

Like @Terrywoodenpic (and all photographers of earlier generations) I spent years photographing fashion with continuous lighting, but stopped as soon as something better (flash) became available.

This thread has gone off-topic in an annoying way but it has been educational too; I'm glad that you've shared your views and explained your business model to us.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Offtopic maybe but almost as educational as your book Garry. Its like a case study

 

[Garry Edwards]

Offtopic maybe but almost as educational as your book Garry. Its like a case study

I'm currently working on a new book - actually two books. One is about the marketing and photography of products other than fashion and the other is about the marketing and photography of fashion products.

Both books work through the various outsourcing photography options available, including using the type of service offered by production line product photographers and this thread has provided me with very valuable information.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Offtopic maybe but almost as educational as your book Garry. Its like a case study

It has indeed been a very interesting "Off Topic"
I have been aware for some time that there have been studios specialising in general photography catering to the needs of on-line retailers. This is the first that has indicated its business model, technical assets and methodology.
It clearly works and may be scalable, but with a few important tweeks.

For something to be scalable it must be standardised, which in the example given is not apparent.

I may be totally wrong, but by reading between the lines, and from the logistics always involved in mass catalogue/on line photography. it would seem that they rely for the bulk of their work from one main local customer. This is inevitably a potentially dangerous position to be in, especially for financial security and cash flow.

I am sure customer demands have not change so much since I retired, that a expectation of a guaranteed consistent and repeatable quality standard is not fundamental to a long term relationship between a photographer and his client.

For it to be scalable this quality standard must be sufficiently high to satisfy and to extend to all potential clients in that particular market place.

To achieve this the more variables that can be removed from the system the better. Every stage of the process needs to conform to and support this standard... ( for much the same reason all Mc Donald's are virtually identical)

Standardisation is the best way to control and minimise costs and maximise profits, when dealing with any commodity. And this business model is most certainly about commodifying photography.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I think you've read it wrong Terry, I believe that they have loads of customers, and whatever some of us may think about their approach, it seems to work for them and I wish them every success.

You remember the days of in-house photographers? Long gone but they have now come back in spades, for in house product photography. Apart from the obvious cost and speed benefits, doing photography in house allows the people who really understand the benefits of the product - the seller - to photograph it from the correct angles, and to light it correctly. My research shows that a very large number of sellers go to production line product photographers as an easy solution and as a proof of concept, and then bring their photography in house, although of course some people are happy just to contract out everything that they can.

When I was working I did a lot of training for in-house product photographers, we supplied them with the right equipment too and it was a win-win situation because we never had anyone who couldn't turn out decent product photos of their own specialist products after a day of training.

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

It has indeed been a very interesting "Off Topic"
I have been aware for some time that there have been studios specialising in general photography catering to the needs of on-line retailers. This is the first that has indicated its business model, technical assets and methodology.
It clearly works and may be scalable, but with a few important tweeks.

For something to be scalable it must be standardised, which in the example given is not apparent.

I may be totally wrong, but by reading between the lines, and from the logistics always involved in mass catalogue/on line photography. it would seem that they rely for the bulk of their work from one main local customer. This is inevitably a potentially dangerous position to be in, especially for financial security and cash flow.

Totally wrong in our case, we have over 100+ live clients at any one time, the largest accounting for around 20% of the business, if they went tomorrow it would not effect the business, apart from the profit, the people etc would be safe, the rest are split lower at a few less than 5% and then less below that.

I am sure customer demands have not change so much since I retired, that a expectation of a guaranteed consistent and repeatable quality standard is not fundamental to a long term relationship between a photographer and his client.

Client demands are clearly met otherwise why would we have them ? most if not all of our clients are long term clients, the longest has been with us 11 years and we shoot around 400 garment a year for them, the use other photographers for their campaigns and external shoots, so it is not like they don't have a choice,

For it to be scalable this quality standard must be sufficiently high to satisfy and to extend to all potential clients in that particular market place.

They are we take on board around 2 new clients a month, and turn away way more

To achieve this the more variables that can be removed from the system the better. Every stage of the process needs to conform to and support this standard... ( for much the same reason all Mc Donald's are virtually identical)


Standardisation is the best way to control and minimise costs and maximise profits, when dealing with any commodity. And this business model is most certainly about commodifying photography.

Most if not all of what we shoot is standard or certainly gets to standard eventually, but then so is everything, a wedding photography will produce the same shots eventually, a bit more scope for variance granted.

 

[HoppyUK]

Uncalibrated monitors does sound like an unnecessary risk given how easy is, but that alone is no guarantee of really accurate colour and may even give a false sense of security. If you put six calibrated monitors side by side, I'd put money on them not all looking the same. By far the best method of achieving good colour in post-processing (as opposed to at the shooting stage) is to include a white balance card in a reference image, and that works regardless of monitor calibration.

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

I think you've read it wrong Terry, I believe that they have loads of customers, and whatever some of us may think about their approach, it seems to work for them and I wish them every success.

You remember the days of in-house photographers? Long gone but they have now come back in spades, for in house product photography. Apart from the obvious cost and speed benefits, doing photography in house allows the people who really understand the benefits of the product

Actually I disagree, external agencies work quicker and have to get things right, or they lose the contract, we have taken a huge amount of in house work from businesses as we can demonstrate, that it can be cheaper, faster and better/equal.. Businesses with small ranges cannot afford full time staff, large ranges need multiple staff, to shoot 250 garments a week for example you would need at least 3 maybe 4 members of staff, that costs a lot, holidays, paye, sick, Ni, etc.


- the seller - to photograph it from the correct angles, and to light it correctly. My research shows that a very large number of sellers go to production line product photographers as an easy solution and as a proof of concept, and then bring their photography in house, although of course some people are happy just to contract out everything that they can.

Again, we differ, we have NEVER been used for proof of concept EVER, we have lost one client to in house staff and that was a decision about egos not a business discussion, that client was "miss guided" the retailer

When I was working I did a lot of training for in-house product photographers, we supplied them with the right equipment too and it was a win-win situation because we never had anyone who couldn't turn out decent product photos of their own specialist products after a day of training.

When was this ? time have change a lot over the last few years. One of our current clients started with us by sending their in house photographers to us to see how we processed a workflow for footwear (they paid us for this) 3 months later both photographer are doing different jobs and we are doing what they did, that business is like many, many we see, if they make a business discussion, in house simply never stacks, he will pay us around 20-30 gran for our services ( and we will do more for him) than the two guys, and they cost him 45-50 grand, its simple instead of two people just doing a job, he has access to EIGHT people wanting his cash.

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

Uncalibrated monitors does sound like an unnecessary risk given how easy is, but that alone is no guarantee of really accurate colour and may even give a false sense of security. If you put six calibrated monitors side by side, I'd put money on them not all looking the same. By far the best method of achieving good colour in post-processing (as opposed to at the shooting stage) is to include a white balance card in a reference image, and that works regardless of monitor calibration.

This is were the old school gasp in horror and some new school (the studio employs two people with degrees in photography and video !) , we come at this from a business point of view and are not blinded by the technical aspect of photography, it cannot possibly have survived with ZERO issues, and I really do mean zero, the percentage of re shoots due to colour issues isn't even calculable. we do use colour passports and grey cards and cubes as a sanity check.

So the work flow, everything we shoot is looked at on at least 2 monitors, the one its shot with, we use tethered shooting, every image is sent to a NAS ans stored, this way the post production can begin immediately on the images as they are shot,they are actually copied first and any revisions are subsequently copied as well, we can always go back to an mage as it came out of the camera,despite 5 resizes, and a load of liquefies,

These are 27in imacs with the same default colour profile straight out of the box, WE are looking at what our clients are looking at, which is what their customers are looking at, OUT OF THE BOX MONITORS, in the dearly days we calibrated everything, we have a couple of high end benq displays, the x-rite i1 units etc, it made a mess of things, because the people out in the real world do not calibrate their stuff. (lets stick to online, prints different)

So if we get an issue and we think hang on this isn't right we use a coupe of ipads to have a look, we use one simple question, and that is, if I bought this item using this image, and this arrived (the item in question) if the answer is yes then we are good to go if not it gets adjusted.

Now this may fly in the face of everything out there, but so what, the evidence is there for everyone to see, my proof despite what everyone may say is the business, if it was fundamentally flawed as people suggest, how has it survived???

 

[Kieranstandishphoto]

@Garry Edwards
"
Well, what can I say?
All credit to you for doing things your own way, it's your business and not mine.
But your latest post is revealing, because it's now clear that you are using continuous lighting for photographing people as well as inanimate objects, which I find even more strange, especially as you earlier said that flash is the only way to go with live models. "

Sorry there must be some confusion, probably on my part, we use flash on live models, unless its babies/toddlers, continuous is used for product, 360 rotations, macro, video and the like.

 

[Garry Edwards]

When was this ? time have change a lot over the last few years. One of our current clients started with us by sending their in house photographers to us to see how we processed a workflow for footwear (they paid us for this) 3 months later both photographer are doing different jobs and we are doing what they did, that business is like many, many we see, if they make a business discussion, in house simply never stacks, he will pay us around 20-30 gran for our services ( and we will do more for him) than the two guys, and they cost him 45-50 grand, its simple instead of two people just doing a job, he has access to EIGHT people wanting his cash.

Interesting, and yes I may be a bit out of date, I retired 2 years and 5 days ago and things may have changed - but the demand is in fact increasing, it's just that I no longer want to work.

Obviously you have much more in depth knowledge of your speciality than I do, perhaps I have a wider general knowledge. Certainly though in house photography is the best and sometimes the only solution for many businesses and, in part, I blame the quality standards of photographers for this - and this is a general, rather than a specific comment because there are A LOT of photographers out there who seem to take on product photography work that they simply can't do adequately. This poor standard of allegedly professional photography has caused enormous damage to the industry, sometimes it's partly the clients fault because they've assumed that their local wedding photographer can do product photography and sometimes its the difficulty that really large, often global companies have in sourcing photographers who can produce the required quality standard to the required consistency - so much so that, increasingly, large companies are ditching product photography altogether and going for rendering instead.

Your own experience of your particular clients needs and expectations serves you well but there are plenty of firms out there who have tried contracting out their photography but, for various reasons have decided to bring it in house, and this trend is increasing.

 

[juggler]

What I have learned from this thread:

1. There's more than one way to do commercial photography
2. People who have spent a long time doing it one way aren't well qualified to advise on the other.