Part 2: When should I hire a professional?
Although this is an age old question, it has become more complicated with the advancements in digital technology. Cheap digital cameras, digital editing and retouching software, lots of YouTube “How-to- videos” have converged to make this a more perplexing question than ever.
As a business owner, I get it. If all you need is to cheaply document a product, widget, or thing to say here it is, buy it, then most professional photographers can’t compete with you doing it yourself. Having said that, “cheap” is not always cheaper in the long run.
Let me throw out a few more things to think about when it comes to “Cheap isn’t always cheaper.” Time is money. Anything that takes you away from what makes you or your company the most money is not cost effective. Then there are set-up/equipment costs. The cost per square foot of space you dedicate to a photo booth and equipment. The cost of purchasing, maintaining, insuring, upgrading all your photo, lighting, computer equipment, data storage, backgrounds, and props. If you hire an employee or use an existing employee then you have employee costs as well - payroll, training, workman’s comp. insurance, medical insurance, vacation, sick leave, maternity leave, etc, etc.
All of these cost are factored into a professional photographer’s fees. The good thing about hiring a professional photographer is you only have to pay these cost during a photo shoot and not 24/7 all year long. Any time you invest money into space, equipment, etc., if it’s not making you money, it’s costing you money. If you’re going to be photographing 5 days a week every week of the year, it could be cost effective for you to do it yourself, but that’s probably not the case.
And there’s another factor to think about even at this stage.
The current trend for advertising agencies and companies is to bring a lot of their photography and motion work in-house. They’re seeing these services as a profit center. In my almost 30 years in the industry, I’ve seen this happen before. This strategy, in the past, has worked for 2 to 3 years and then they have come to the realization that it isn’t a good solution after all. What happens is that their clients will start seeing that everything the in-house department does, looks the same. Hiring professional photographers and directors for their unique visual aesthetic is what emphasizes each brand’s unique visual voice. In the past what they’ve eventually figured out is that all the costs related to bringing production in-house really doesn’t pay off in the long run.
OK, I can here it now - “We’ll just use ‘stock photography’ and retouch it to make it fit our needs.” There’s nothing wrong with stock photography as long as you’re willing to see the same image being used to promote hundreds of other products. Maybe even your competitors product. Let me share an insight with you. If you’ve spent much time looking for outstanding stock images, you know how long it can take. Then you have to get it approved. Then you have to buy the license to use it. Most likely, after that you’ll need to do some retouching too. If you add all the time and money you spend using stock, you most likely could have hired a professional photographer to create a custom image for around the same cost.
From our experience it ultimately boils down to this: What do you value? Do you value your time to do what you do best? Do you value a still or motion image that stands out from everything else and effectively sells your product? Do you value images that look specific to your brand? Do you value someone with years of experience solving visual communication problems? If you do, then invest in hiring a professional photographer/director. The investment will pay huge dividends.