I'm really into photography and now that I finally have my DSLR, I would love to start working on some portraits. I'm looking for backgrounds/props and came across some digital backgrounds/props. Basically the actual photograph is taken in front of a green screen, the image is then put onto the computer, and using photoshop and digital backdrops (On amazon there is a set of 4 dvds with over 1500 different backdrops and props) you can transfer the image onto any backdrop and add props to the image digitally. If done right, the images actually look amazing... Not cheap or choppy like some would think.
This option is MUCH cheaper than what it would cost to accumulate that many backdrops/props to use in "the studio" (Aka, the bedroom that my son doesn't use). Still, I am fine with the idea of just starting off with one or two backdrops and props that I make myself or find at garage sales. Plus, I think that some clients might be turned off by the idea of digital backdrops.
So... As a client... Would you rather take the photograph in front of a green screen and choose from a very large variety of backdrops/props... Or would you rather take the photograph in front of a real backdrop using real props but only have a small variety to choose from?
Personally, I prefer using real backdrops and real props... But the idea of having so many different backdrops/props to choose from is also appealing!
I like "real life" myself, but why not do a little of both? You'll have clients who prefer the real backgrounds. But with all the things you can do with digital photography, make that an option. Show clients what can be done digitally, and include some off-the-wall ideas, too.
Real. Although, I would prefer real settings. Professional photographers typically use a mix of backdrops and real settings. Almost always, real setting are preferred.
I would also prefer a photographer who knows how to use a camera, photography composition, angles, light, manipulation, exposure, aperture, lenses, and all the other things it takes. I would not want a mom who bought a standard DSLR with a standard lens, who is not educated about photography. It's more then pointing and shooting. I don't know what you've learned about photography. It may be a lot, or a little. If all you know how to do is shoot on the preset automatic settings, you shouldn't be charging for your work. If you only have one lens, and have no idea how to manually operate your camera...you should not be charging.
I come from a family of photographers. There is nothing more maddening then a mom who buys a camera, and thinks they are a photographer. The pictures don't lie.
I have a friend who does both. She has some drapey backgrounds in neutral shades (a muslin white, a sand color, blue and black) as well as some very basic props - boxes, stools, and chairs for positioning people and a few holiday themed props. She then has the green screen and will take a few pics with that too and then let you pick from backgrounds.
Personally, I don't go for the contrived backgrounds at all. I think the printed backgrounds of outdoor scenes are awful (really, just go outside and take a picture in front of a tree if you want to pose yourself in front of a tree, right?) and generally just choose something that complements whoever I'm having photographed, which is usually just my kids.
Bug is spot on! I am a pro photographer and I have been doing this for 6 years now. It's not just a point and shoot type of job. Being a photographer is ALOT of work. It's not just taking pictures. After taking the pics you have to spend time on edits (not too hard if you get everything right in the camera first, and you have to REALLY know how to use your camera to do that). Then there is the whole business side of photography. Taxes, book keeping, promoting your business. The list goes on and on. It's also a very expensive job. You have to buy props, your camera, all your lenses, gas to your shoot location. It never ends really, and that is why real photographers charge what they do. We need to actually make money after everything else that goes into it. I am a self taught photographer but it took me a long time to get where I am now. I didn't start charging people until I had a good 3 years under me of experience and some training and school (very little school).
As for your backdrop, I would use real ones. Most of the time I do on location shoots. The only time I do indoor sessions is when I have a newborn and for them, I use soft fabric over my newborn nest :)
If I were paying for pics from a real photographer I would want it to be real and done outdoors. I would also want a lof of black and white.
If I wanted fake I would go to picture people.
I also prefer "real" backdrops, but I agree with doing a little of both. I think "quality over quantity" would probably apply here.
Also, if you're doing lots of kid pictures, I think having props makes for cuter pictures than having varied backdrops. I could never really get my kids to "pose" for pictures, so having them interact with props made for the best pics.
Good luck!
I'm from the old school with simple, plain backdrops. Too much going on in a background of a picture screams fake to me. I detest school pictures and department store photo shops for that very reason. Never understood why they have to have a nature scene backdrop for your only choice. They're usually ugly to boot. Just give me a neutral backdrop and maybe a prop of a ladder or stool and I'm happy. I want the focus to be my kids or family, not what's going on in the background.
Now outdoor settings are whole other story if done right. :)
Good luck!
Real backdrops and props.
What about a mix of both? One of my problems with a real screen is that they never seem to stay flat with children and some studios need to touch up wrinkles anyway. The sks have had backgrounds added to school photos and that turned out fine. I would be less concerned with the background than the props. I would prefer real props if you do a green screen. You should, of course, show people printed copies for examples so they can see how the digital background would benefit them.
And even though there were a lot more backgrounds offered at the studio I took DD to, I had no problem with selecting from just a few real ones. You might consider a few real ones and using digital to simulate something for the holidays.
Real without question. We have had our portraits done in recent years with a grey sheet and a few props that are beautiful! We also love having them done outdoors.
Digital backdrop? Just my opinion, but I could go to Sears for their "backdrop rolls" if I wanted something simulated.
Me - I'd rather have plain and simple backdrops and a few props.
I am not one to want to hang a picture of my child on my wall - with Disney Land in the background, with a forest in the background, with a snowman in the background. It's just too fake.
I'd rather have a solid black background with some silk fall leaves, or a white/gray background with a giant glittery snowflake or two for the kid to hold in their lap. And here in texas, the thing to do in March and April is go out with your photographer and take pictures in the bluebonnets.
So all in all - REAL is better than FAKE in my opinion
Depends on who you are taking pictures of.
If it's kids and families then I think plain backdrops are much better than fake ones.
However, if you're going for teens or edgy sports, then a digital background might be cool.
They used to do it way back before digital cameras. I remember they had a clear film they would slide over the lens. When they took your picture, it looked like you were surrounded by cool lights. Very 1980s! It was the "in" thing for a while.
I think real over digital. I think as a customer, I would have a better experience dealing with a real background and props. However, I know my kids school pics are done with the digital and they look just as good. So you might start off with the digital if it is financialy better for you and add "real" backdrops and props over time.
