Photography Poll

[Dietz]

Hello Everyone,
I am working on some market research and would like to post a question for poll to get a better Idea of target markets.

Option #1
Exact same end results as a Traditional photographer, but all images are taken from a Drone at any angle.
R2500

Option #2
Traditional photography services. Everything that goes with this in a normal photo shoot.
R2500 for shoot

So which option do you choose, But please say why?

 

[vicTor]

depends what needs to be photographed right ?

 

[Dietz]

depends what needs to be photographed right ?

Lets say a family shoot or Wedding

 

[Faiyaz Cheulkar]

I will prefer a traditional photographer to take most of the pics. Reason- close up pics and family pics are better when done using a camera on a tripod. Hence I vote for traditional photographer.
But a few shots taken with a drone along with the normal photos would be awesome.

 

[ARYANTO]

wedding , birthday etc - traditional, prefer the ''human touch''
building in progress , new house exterior - drone

 

[Bulldog]

Agree with what has been said above. I cast my vote (Aerial) only because that is what I would prefer for myself. They definitely both have their place either separately or combined on same shoot.

 

[Adephi]

I say traditional just because I hate those loud mosquito noise making things coming over my house while I'm having a chill braai on a Saturday.

 

[Marius Combrink]

Traditional. personal touch and the photos are better if done with a proper cam

 

[Raindance]

Traditional photographer. The mere thought of attaching R75K worth of photographic equipment to a drone makes my stomach turn. A proper photo shoot involves proper lighting, composition, various lenses and cameras as well as a person that knows how to use his equipment on other settings than "auto".

There is in fact no comparison between the two. The drone shoot would be equal to me doing a shoot with my "mik en druk" fuji instamatic.

Regards

Edit, a R2.5K shoot would in fact be a mik en druk session. There is no way a professional photographer could afford doing a shoot at that price point.

 

[Dietz]

Well this dint go the way I expected

 

[Dietz]

lets try this again...

- Both photographers have a team consisting of two people (The drone would obviously have a guy on the ground to point and shoot as well as a guy doing the aerial pics - with the majority shots being done from the drone)
- Both have the same Camera capability and lighting.
- the price is irrelevant, only that they both charge the same rate.
- Photographer will still do what they do and tell you what to do, Only the pics are taken by a different means

My goal here is to prove that the high tech approach at the same rates as a traditional photographer would be a more popular.
The study is to suggest a more sustainable approach that improves on traditional photography.

 

[Raindance]

lets try this again...

- Both photographers have a team consisting of two people (The drone would obviously have a guy on the ground to point and shoot as well as a guy doing the aerial pics - with the majority shots being done from the drone)
- Both have the same Camera capability and lighting.
- the price is irrelevant, only that they both charge the same rate.
- Photographer will still do what they do and tell you what to do, Only the pics are taken by a different means

My goal here is to prove that the high tech approach at the same rates as a traditional photographer would be a more popular.
The study is to suggest a more sustainable approach that improves on traditional photography.

Sorry @Dietz, even if both approaches are equally effective, the drone approach seems way less efficient based on the observation that use of the advanced technology does not provide any additional advantages. The use of technology for the sake of technology does not make sense.

Regards

 

[Dietz]

Sorry @Dietz, even if both approaches are equally effective, the drone approach seems way less efficient based on the observation that use of the advanced technology does not provide any additional advantages. The use of technology for the sake of technology does not make sense.

Regards

Well there is alot of capability that I left out of the initial post so that the option seems unbiased. but all these comebacks made me realize that my poll is flawed or not detailed enough.

The drone basically enables you to not only do weddings in a unique way by getting angles normally not reachable on ground, but also gives you the capability to do Extreme sports photography, family shoots or even real estate photography with out the traditional need for vehicles, equipment or trained professionals at the same cost as traditional photography - making it (in my opinion) a more (future) sustainable photography business

all responses where very helpful, Thank you! it made me think in some more detail!

 

[Bulldog]

@Dietz you should have told us this in the beginning because the way you put it there I agree with you, Drone all the way.

 

[Resistance]

@Dietz...more traditional with some aerial pics and and a few spontaneous with drone.for weddings
If photoshoot then traditonal.
If for stationary objects with no life in it.drone
For Action sports both traditional and drone.
For security purpose drone.
Either way both would be sustainable in future if the cost is the same.
And if you can get the drone to say smile then that could also work either way.
Hope this helps

 

[Raindance]

Need to retract my previous statements. Got my ass handed to me by a pro photographer yesterday. So @Dietz, the drone thing, great idea!

Regards