How we calculate the rating

A real site costs money: domain $10–30/year, hosting $50–200/year, 40–80 hours of work by the photographer or $500–3,000 to a developer. Plus ongoing upkeep. Photographers serious about the craft invest in it; people shooting as a hobby don't. A website is a filter for long-term intent.

1. 5 / 5
   Own domain (photographername.com or studioname.co), not a templated design, SSL active, mobile layout, updated in the last 6 months, indexes in Google on relevant searches like "Pattaya wedding photographer."
2. 4 / 5
   Own domain exists, the site works, but it's dated (last updated 6–18 months ago) or clearly templated in a layout you'd see on other photographers' sites. Functional, but without investment.
3. 3 / 5
   No own domain, but a strong unified presence across multiple platforms — for example, a clean Linktree plus Instagram, plus a business Facebook, plus a curated set on Pixieset or 500px. Works as a site equivalent.
4. 2 / 5
   Minimal presence on one platform (only Instagram or only Facebook), infrequent posts, no portfolio structure — a chronological feed without genre sections.
5. 1 / 5
   A search for "name + Pattaya photographer" doesn't surface a central point. Only scattered mentions in other people's feeds, no central home anywhere.

A public surface with portfolio, where a potential client can see the work before the first message. What we measure is reach (how many consumer platforms carry the work) and scale (followers / likes / subscribers). These are public counters any reader can verify.

1. 5 / 5
   ≥2 consumer platforms carrying content, with at least one of them at ≥10,000 followers/likes. Organized portfolio (curated grid or structured site), bio with photographer's name and a way to contact.
2. 4 / 5
   ≥2,000 followers on one platform with an organized portfolio plus at least one secondary channel; OR ≥2 platforms with public organized content, none reaching 10K.
3. 3 / 5
   ≥1 platform with public content and an organized portfolio (clear bio, genre/category structure), under 2K followers or counts not publicly shown.
4. 2 / 5
   One platform exists but it's thin: <50 publicly visible works, uncurated feed, OR the only declared platform is unreachable or dead.
5. 1 / 5
   No public consumer channels, OR all channels are locked/private/deleted.

A name is a reputation that can't be reset and renamed. Photographers willing to put their real name on the work signal long-term commitment. Anonymous brands disappear more easily when a reputation gets damaged. A client hires a person, not a logo — especially for weddings, family work, and maternity shoots.

1. 5 / 5
   Full real name visible across sources and consistent between site, social channels, and business registration where available. Photographer's portrait publicly visible. Social confirmation present — press mentions, links from industry peers, professional networks.
2. 4 / 5
   Real name is documented and confirmed across several sources. Identity is clear even without high-profile press features.
3. 3 / 5
   Studio brand is primary, but at least one specific photographer is identifiable behind it — on a team page, in an Instagram bio, or through social tags.
4. 2 / 5
   Brand only, no photographer is personally identified. A generic "Studio X" with no human names attached.
5. 1 / 5
   Anonymity with contradictions (different names on different platforms), OR an explicit refusal to disclose identity, OR signs of a fake (stock photos as "the team," incompatible biographical details).

Professional gear is expensive: a Sony A7IV body is $2,500–4,500, a 24-70 f/2.8 is $2,000–2,500, an 85 f/1.4 portrait lens is $1,500–1,800, a Profoto or Godox flash with light shapers is $1,500–4,000. A working kit runs $10,000–30,000. People who've invested at that level tend to mention it. People who don't mention it usually shoot on a phone or a consumer kit.

1. 5 / 5
   Specific list with models — e.g. "Sony A7IV + 24-70mm GM + 85mm 1.4 GM + Profoto B10 + V-flat." BTS shots confirm the gear in use.
2. 4 / 5
   At least one specific body model and one specific lens or light source named. BTS shots show the gear in use.
3. 3 / 5
   Generic mention of "professional gear," no models. Or BTS shots show a camera is present but specific models aren't named.
4. 2 / 5
   Gear isn't described, photos lack any gear context, no BTS material.
5. 1 / 5
   Obvious phone shooting, OR a consumer kit visible in BTS — kit lens, on-camera flash, no separate lights.

Experience compounds: understanding light before the shoot rather than after failed test shots; handling tired clients and difficult situations; recovering from technical errors. A long track record is positive selection — weak photographers stop getting hired. Experienced authors usually mention their tenure; it functions as credentials.

1. 5 / 5
   7+ years of documented work. Confirmed by the oldest Instagram posts, business registration, or archive.org snapshots of the site.
2. 4 / 5
   4–6 years of documented work. Steady presence, verifiable older posts.
3. 3 / 5
   2–3 years of documented work. A growing practice, enough volume to assess consistency.
4. 2 / 5
   Under 2 years OR a claimed tenure that doesn't check out against public traces.
5. 1 / 5
   Under one year, OR the claimed tenure can't be verified, OR there are inconsistencies in stated tenure across sources.

Pattaya's light, weather, and conditions are specific. Tropical noon on white sand isn't the same as moderate noon. Golden hour is shorter near the equator. The monsoon season shapes the schedule. Locals know which beach empties out at which hour, which hotel allows shooting, which spots work in which wind. That knowledge isn't built in one season.

1. 5 / 5
   Lives in Thailand 5+ years (Pattaya, the eastern coast, or Bangkok with regular work in Pattaya). Local knowledge is obvious from spot choices and timing in the portfolio.
2. 4 / 5
   3–4 years in Thailand. Solid local presence.
3. 3 / 5
   1–2 years in Thailand, OR a steady pattern of regular trips (3+ months per year over several consecutive years).
4. 2 / 5
   Short residency (under a year), OR seasonal visits (1–2 months per year).
5. 1 / 5
   Not based in Thailand. Travels in only for commercial shoots, no continuous presence.

A typical tourist client often books a shoot across several conditions in one day: hotel interior, open beach in the daytime, sunset, an evening meal under warm artificial light. A photographer who only handles daytime open-air can't cover the full booking. Versatility across four pairs — interior/outdoor × day/evening — is a baseline technical competence.

1. 5 / 5
   All four combinations (interior day, interior evening, outdoor day, outdoor evening) are present with confidence, each with several successful examples at the level of a competent commercial photographer.
2. 4 / 5
   All four combinations are covered, but one is thinner than the rest — for example, strong outdoor day plus outdoor evening plus interior day, but only 2–3 evening interior examples.
3. 3 / 5
   Three of four combinations are covered well, one is missing or visibly weaker — for example, almost no evening interior work, or all outdoor work is daytime only.
4. 2 / 5
   Only two of four combinations are covered. The photographer is effectively a specialist for those conditions.
5. 1 / 5
   Only one combination. The portfolio is, for instance, only outdoor daytime work in natural light, with no examples of the other three.

This is a separate criterion from versatility because many photographers don't use flash at all. Almost everyone can handle natural light. Controlled lighting — directional flash, reflectors, mixed sources — only comes to those who specifically trained for it. Without that skill, a photographer fails on hotel interiors at night, banquets in dim halls, and formal posed portraits.

1. 5 / 5
   Both natural and artificial light are present with quality work. Flash is used with awareness of direction, modifier choice, balance with ambient light, color temperature. Multi-source setups visible in studio or controlled scenes.
2. 4 / 5
   Both natural and artificial light are present and used competently. Flash is more functional than artistic — one off-camera flash, basic softbox, or bounced light.
3. 3 / 5
   Strong natural light but limited flash work. A handful of artificial-light examples exist (usually formal portraits), but the photographer clearly prefers natural and uses flash only when forced to.
4. 2 / 5
   Natural light only with rare exceptions. No signs of confident flash work. Evening interiors come out high-ISO, motion-blurred, noisy.
5. 1 / 5
   Natural light only, no flash at all. Evening interior bookings either get declined or come out as mediocre high-noise frames.

Tourists in Pattaya book a mix: weddings, pre-wedding, family sessions, maternity, business portraits, hotel interiors, food, lifestyle. A photographer confident in several genres is more useful to a catalog with varied requests. A narrow specialist is good in their niche but has limited reach. This criterion measures breadth — quality within a genre is captured by criteria 7, 8, and 10.

1. 5 / 5
   Five or more genres at the level of competent quality: wedding, family, portrait, interior, commercial, or a similar set.
2. 4 / 5
   Four different genres present.
3. 3 / 5
   Three different genres present.
4. 2 / 5
   Two different genres present.
5. 1 / 5
   Only one genre. A narrow specialist (which doesn't prevent being excellent within the niche — that's captured by criterion 10, if the specialist has a recognizable style).

A photographer with style has made aesthetic choices: color palette, framing instinct, the relationship to the subject, post-processing. That distinguishes an author from a technically competent operator. A client with a style hires a vision and knows what they'll get. Without style, the photographer sells a service that any competent technician could provide.

1. 5 / 5
   The author's hand is recognizable in every series. A trained eye can pick this photographer's work out of a lineup of similar ones. Color, framing, distance to subject — consistent across years of work.
2. 4 / 5
   Strong consistency in work from the last two years. Older work may differ — evolution is normal and acceptable.
3. 3 / 5
   A signature is visible in the best frames; the rest of the series look templated — they could have been shot by anyone.
4. 2 / 5
   Inconsistent — the portfolio looks like a mix of work from several photographers. No discernible stylistic choices.
5. 1 / 5
   No style. The frames look like generic "professional photographer" work, indistinguishable from others. No through-line is visible.