The Decisive Moment

Back to the subject of Wedding Photography, again (I suspect we’ll be covering this one a lot!).

I was talking to my friend Mark, who I have mentioned before is right now going through the transition from keen amateur to professional. Mark was telling me about the half a dozen or so weddings he has covered for free, or dirt cheap, in order to have the opportunity to get a few weddings under his belt and into his portfolio. Oh, and for the experience of course, which never comes cheap in this game!

The trouble is, he is now in danger of being labelled as a “cheap wedding photographer” for the foreseeable future. Although having covered friends’ and relatives’ weddings at a special rate has lead to a number of referrals, the referred clients have an expectation of an inexpensive photographer covering the event from dusk till dawn.

It strikes me that when trying to make the jump to pro status, the photographer needs to have a plan, almost a prepared statement to read to the lucky couple getting the special deal. My suggestion (much too late for Mark, obviously!) would be to quote friends and relatives the full price you intend to charge once you have made the jump. Then, give them a whopping discount, clearly showing that this is a one-off because you are my cousin/nephew/sister/best buddy or whatever. This way, the photographer has shown his normal price and the friend/relative can clearly see the saving they get from being in the right place in the gene pool at the right time.

Will it actually work? I don’t know. I need someone to try it out and let me know! Any takers?

One of the stands I purposefully made my way to at Focus on Imaging in Birmingham last week, was the Lastolite stand. I have several of their products and their original collapsible reflectors have to be one of the best accessories ever invented.

I was particularly interested to see the HiLite Background system, which bears a passing resemblance to a huge softbox, but used as a background (the clue is in the name) instead of as a primary light source. There were several reasons why I wanted to see it:

• I’m in the market for a new background “system” and high-key is a real challenge for me as I only have two lights
• My TDM buddy, Charlie, said I should take a look and he’s often been right about the kind of gear that works for me
• I didn’t see how it could possibly be any good (sorry Lastolite - pre-judging like this is unfair) and this was my opportunity to check it out

Well, I liked what I saw. Clearly, it does work (although I have not yet got my hands on one to test it fully). However, one possible stumbling block preventing me from investing is that I don’t always want a white background; I regularly shoot low-key against a dark grey background.

Anyway, today I learned that Lastolite has brought out a set of new “Bottletop” covers to provide a little more versatility. These include black and grey versions (I’m assuming you switch the back light off, at least for the black version!) and Chromakey versions in both blue and green. Simply slip the elasticated bottletop cover over the HiLite background to produce an instant change of colour. They also come complete with a train (although I’m struggling to find out exactly how long the train actually is). Now I’m excited!

Here’s the new range:
HiLite Bottletop Cover with Train 5’ x 7’
Black – LAS 8702 SRP £54.99 Inc vat
Grey - LAS 8770 SRP £54.99 Inc vat
Chromakey Blue – LAS 8788 SRP £54.99 Inc vat
Chromakey Green – LAS 8781 SRP £54.99 Inc vat

HiLite Bottletop Cover with Train 6’ x 7’
Black – LAS 8802 SRP £64.99 Inc vat
Grey - LAS 8870 SRP £64.99 Inc vat
Chromakey Blue – LAS 8888 SRP £64.99 Inc vat
Chromakey Green – LAS 8881 SRP £64.99 Inc vat

You can find out more about Lastolite products by visiting www.lastolite.com or by phoning 01782 753304.

I need to get hold of one of these for a proper test - I’m not sure whether I will still need to get a third light to illuminate the HiLite, or whether using one of my lights for the HiLite and one for the primary light source would be enough. Still, I was anticipating an additional two lights for the background so this could still be a good solution.

Last week I stumbled upon a website where photographer Vitaly Druchinin demonstrates his (considerable, in my opinion) talent for retouching and manipulating images of models. I was really impressed.

My initial reaction was that the resulting picture was a lie, in as much as it gave a false impression of… well, everything! Once I gave it a little more thought I realized that I was being rather naive (okay, stupid). Of course these pictures give a false impression - why would you want to see the reality anyway? These images are art, not documentary. They exist to create a fantasy. And as art they really work. Without the before and after images I would have been none the wiser and I think this is the key ingredient here; the “artist” has created something which you do not question when the finished image is all the information you have to go on.

However, a couple of days ago, many of the local bus stops were adorned with a poster advertising the opening of a new shop in the town centre. The poster shows the lovely Louise Redknapp in her Triumph underwear, looking fantastic. For a few seconds (I admit it would have been longer, but there was nobody waiting for the bus at this stop) I stared at the poster and admired the lighting, the set and, okay, Mrs Redknapp. Then it hit me! I know I’m looking at at a picture which has almost certainly been completely retouched. I don’t have the before and after pictures to compare, but that’s not clever lighting, it’s Photoshop. Is Mrs Redknapp really that shapely, or has she been digitally enhanced? I’m labouring the point - I know you get it.

What makes this advertising image different is that I’m expected to believe in it, although it’s still about fantasy to some extent, obviously. It’s not supposed to be art. The model is someone recognisible; someone I feel I know, in a way. This makes it feel dishonest.

Of course this has been going on for ever. Even the portraits from the old masters aren’t accurate. Famously, creating a painted portrait was more about showing the sitter in a flattering light than depicting an accurate portrayal. Isn’t this just the same thing but with modern technology?

Where do you draw the line? Is there really any difference between airbrushing away a single wrinkle and completely changing the lighting of a photograph? Is this just part of producing aesthetically great imagery or is it the corruption of something that should be more pure?

Gaz wrote a smashing article the other day about Online Photo Libraries and how they have clearly ruined the stock photography market and crushed the soles of small time professional photographers (actually that’s not really what he said I just wanted to spice things up a little. You should go ahead and read it by the way. It was very thought provoking.). For the most part I agree with what Gaz had to say, however I have been a member of a few of these libraries for a while and without putting any real effort into it I’ve managed to make a reasonable amount of money from them. I thought I’d do a quick guide to some of the online stock libraries and share with you some of my tips on how to become successful through them.

Before I get started I really aught to say that if you have an issue with earning very little for each sale you make don’t do this. Find another way to sell your photos. I promise you that if you can’t accept this one simple fact you will find selling images through these libraries entirely sole destroying.

Getting Started

The very first thing you need to do is go through your collection of photos and pick out the ones you think are best. Generally you need to be looking for images that are high quality, the equivalent of 3 megapixels or larger in size and that have something reasonably unique about them. By reasonably unique I mean things like a fresh viewpoint on a subject or a rare subject (e.g. an owl catching its prey). Reasonable uniqueness isn’t essential, but it will greatly improve your chances of making a sale. Most of the heavy users of these libraries are people like web developers, commercial blog writers, and people who need images for newsletters and press releases. With this in mind the images that sell the best are conceptual images - images that can convey a message.

When you have your images sorted it’s time to hit the libraries. I have tried about a million of these and the ones I have found to be most successful for me are the following:

• Dreamstime
• Big Stock Photo
• Shutterstock
• Stockxpert
• Istockphoto

I particularly like these libraries because the images I upload don’t have to be exclusive to each site and the payouts are some of the fairest out there. That’s not to say that the payouts are good. They really aren’t. For each sale I only get between 20c and $1.50. Depending on the volume of sales I make these royalties can go up, but they’re never going to be impressive.

You need to register with each library and you’ll have to pass a submission test before you can start selling. This involves uploading a few of your photos for them to assess. If you fail assessment you will be told why and then you can apply again. If you pass you can start uploading the images you want to sell. You’ll need to give each photo a title, a description, select a number of suitable categories for it to sit in and create a list of keywords that pertain to the image. This helps place the image appropriately when a buyer does a search.

Every image you upload will go through the approval process again and won’t be available for sale until it passes. Providing you follow the sites’ guidelines for submitting photos you should have no problems. Once a photo is approved it’s up and available to buy until you decide you want to stop selling it.

Another reason I particularly like the libraries in the list above is that they all offer buyers the ability to buy different licences for your images. Now unless you are pretty lucky, it’s not incredibly likely that you will sell any images for full exclusive rights, but it you do you could be looking at a few thousand for your trouble. It hasn’t happened to me yet, but I live in hope.

How to Really Succeed

The key to being successful in these libraries is to create large conceptual images and lots of them. The larger the image is the more media it can be used for. If you can produce thousands of images that cover as many categories as possible you will maximise your exposure and therefore your chance to make a sale. Obviously the higher the quality the better and the more you think about your keywords and image titles the better too.

Categories that will always sell well are:

• Images of people. These are the hardest to produce because firstly you need willing models and secondly you’ll need to upload a signed model release with each photo.
• Images that convey business messages.
• Business orientated conceptual images.
• Warm and fuzzy conceptual images.
• Money conceptual images.
• Seasonal images when they are in season. You won’t sell Christmas images during Easter.

Images that don’t sell very well are:

• Pet portraits.
• Landscapes (unless they’re exceptional).
• Pictures of fruit and other very accessible still life.

Make sure you keep tabs on which images are selling best from other photographers. Don’t just flat out copy what they have done though. Take pictures that are similar but with your own unique twist to them. If a buyer is presented with 30 pictures that are all basically the same they’ll just pick the first one. Or even worse they’ll decide that they wanted something more unique and go elsewhere.

If a genre is flooded with thousands of photos, don’t bother trying to compete. Find another genre where you could really make an impact.

Lastly, be patient. It may take a while before you see any real results. Keep plugging away, use your head and you’ll soon get there. Most of all have fun. You won’t make a living from these libraries any time soon, so if you’re not enjoying it why do it?

We were discussing online photo libraries and the impact they have had on photography and photographers. Back when I were a lad, stock photography meant supplying thousands of transparencies to a library who would produce and distribute expensive catalogues to design studios and the like, at enormous expense.

The commission for each picture sold was quite respectable though.

The online library makes it all much simpler, of course. Simpler to get accepted into a library, simpler to get your pictures seen, simpler to buy images and simpler to calculate your wedge. However, the online library has also lead to a dilution of the quality of images for sale. Worst of all, it has lead to paltry, pathetic commissions for the photographer and I think it is a great pity that we have allowed this to happen. Unfortunately the same system which has made it possible for anyone to sell their beautiful images to a global audience has also made it possible for anyone to sell their crap images and the standard is continuing to drop!

I realize it is unfair to blame the libraries entirely - they are (kind of) the victims here, too. They have been forced to drive the prices down to compete with other libraries who are forced to drive their prices down and so on. Selling your art for a few pence and relying on thousands of people wanting to use the same image seems a bit lacking in self-respect to me. And yet I too have signed up with a number of online libraries.

What we need is some innovation. Someone needs to think of a way to sell images online at a sensible price with a fair commission. Then they need to find the balls to actually go out there and do it!

Maybe we should do it? Then I can be the Madam of a high class establishment instead of a cheap whore.