Ken hates lies, or so he claimed. I think he just hates being lied to, and it’s not like he has never lied in his entire life.
I am however not so sure what his customers told him was too far off from the truth. I was told that cheap products shots were HK$150-HK$200 per 4×5 slide, in Hong Kong, and the customer gets full rights to the photo, i.e. no need to pay another cent, for use all over the world, till eternity.
I was accompaning a friend purchasing a very good digital SLR last Saturday. This guy walked up to us and said, “With one of these cameras, anybody can be a pro!” I would not too surprised if there are hundreds if not thousands of “pro” photographers in Zhuhai alone , and many of them would do jobs for cheap.
OTOH, our friend Wilson bought a digital back for a six digits figure sum of HK$, and recovered his investment in no time.
I suspect inter-personal skills have a lot to do with success.
4 responses so far ↓
1 James // Jul 7, 2005 at 4:37 pm
For sure.
I’d also got a kick out of that comment about buying the camera and became a pro. Yes, if only just one cent were earned with it, indeed. However, being a “pro” mean absolutely nothing about being any good at photography at all, as we do see in many cases of many pro photographers.
To earn good money in photography, good interpersonal skills is an asset but good photography skills with excellent resulting photos is a prerequisite.
2 tin_the_fatty // Jul 7, 2005 at 5:01 pm
I think being a pro means one’s sole income, or at least a substantial part of the income, is from a certain endeavour.
The old wisdom of “good, fast, cheap, pick any two” applies to pro photographers as well. I suppose a lot of pro photographers survive because they manage to deliver their goods inexpensively in a timely manner. If I were an art director in a commercial setting w/ a close deadline, the priority is probably fast/cheap then good.
As for skill, these days most product shots are taken with a blue backdrop for key-in later. A couple of overhead lightboxes w/ diffuser are probably adequate. Since one needs to have a deliverable product, the composition is likely to be conservative. With a good flash meter and a camera w/ accurate shutter speed and aperture marking (taken for granted for electronic cameras) it really isn’t difficult to take technically acceptable photos.
I am just puzzled as to why the Cocoon http://www.shutterbug.net/features/1003sb_tabletop/ is not a lot more popular.
3 James // Jul 7, 2005 at 8:35 pm
I am afraid, rather, the “mediocrity for a quick buck” applies much more appropriately.
When you see printed advertisements from wholesalers with printed product photos so low resolutions which obviously have been copied right out of screen sized webpages, “good” have never been on any considerations whatsoever. It has gone full circle – mediocre management, mediocre craftsmanship, mediocre products, mediocre advertisements, low customer expectations, products don’t last, unloyal customers, mediocre revenue, even poorer management, businesses gone under, even more mediocrity for quicker bucks…
Look into any consumer electronic shop and check out their line of ovens/microwave ovens and you’d see what I mean. They have fire hazards written all over them. I wouldn’t know what to buy should my trusty 10 year old microwave grill oven broke down.
4 Toby // Jul 7, 2005 at 9:58 pm
I just spoken to Ken this afternoon. As usual, he don’t have much business now.