lindsay_dobson

<p>We see HDR images every day without realising it, each time we open a glossy magazine - we see a beautiful, smooth, almost three dimensional picture which is immensely pleasing to the eye. I often use HDR in my car photography, but it's generally impractical or unsuitable for most wedding work. The problem is that most people equate HDR with the sort of images William described - that of course is how <em>not</em> to do HDR. </p>

<p>BP, if your images were acquired at a 'public event' where there were no restrictions placed upon those engaged in photography, then generally (and I say that because laws may vary between jurisdictions) your images can be published and sold under the realms of editorial or 'artistic expression' (providing that no sensitive personal data is included in the images). As has already been said, where the usage involves passing those images to any party which might then use them to advertise or endorse a business or product, then you do need a Release. Similarly, a Release would be required by a reputable stock agency. In other words, you would generally not need a Release to sell prints from your website, or to sell a calendar, or for those images to be published in a book. But if a new auto body-shop were opening in your area and wanted the images to grace their brochure, then that would require the car-owner's permission.</p>

<p>Perhaps it depends a bit on which country you're in, but in the UK wedding photography is one of the few occupations where age is an advantage. The most successful (and most creative) wedding photographers I know of range from their mid forties to early sixties, and the 'up and coming' younger generation are in their forties. I can't personally think of many established respected social photographers under forty. This is largely due to the skillset required for the job, both on the technical side and more importantly the breadth of business knowledge needed to operate in this field. Actually, the photographers I've mentioned are modern and innovative - 'hip' as you say. And yes, it's your work and your personal style that speaks - your 'brand' will say everything about you as a photographer. This needs to be reflected in your products, your website, your marketing materials, and in the appearance you make when you're before clients. In other words, forget your age 'on paper'.</p>

<p>I agree with Bob, it's about having fun. The point of this is not to 'get some good shots on the cheap' (not that the OP has suggested that) but to give your guests some additional entertainment. When I got married I was fortunate enough to have one of the best wedding photographers in the world, but I still put cameras on each table. The results were absolutely hysterical.</p>

<p>Jerilee, I won't add to David's excellent advice, other than to say that the autofocus of the lens you mentioned (70-300) performs very poorly in even slightly dim light (at least that has been my experience) so I will reinforce David's suggestion that you get your hands on something more reliable.</p>

<p>RT Jones: <strong>At the very least try to cull images in camera. I do this during dinner and am amazed at all the duds, duplicates and just plain stupid shots I still get.</strong><br>

No - never. It's a fast road to a potential disaster. What if you hit the wrong button and deleted the whole lot? It does happen. Or at the very least you could end up removing shots which have some meaning to the clients (even if they're duds to your eyes). It can be impossible to judge an image on the back of the camera. I would only ever recommend culling images when you're back at your desk, looking at a decent monitor. </p>

 

<p>Hi Owen, Great to see another UK member - there aren't many of us here! I can appreciate how overwhelming it must be when sifting through so many options, but it's my view that we learn quickest in practical hands-on classes. I think you're very sensible in wanting to build your skills from the ground up (so few new photographers do that and consequently don't move forward in the way they'd hoped). If you're a Canon user then Google: Experience Seminars. Canon run really useful beginner courses if SLR photography is new to you. Other well established trainers also offer a range of courses at different levels. It can be expensive, but very worthwhile if you're serious about your photography. The SWPP Convention starts next week in London, it's a highly inspirational week of top class seminars and workshops - you don't have to be a member to attend, and places are still available on the various materclasses and some superclasses. Just Google SWPP. The site itelf has information about who offers training. 'Recognized qualifications' don't always hold much value in our field and most pros are largely self-taught, but have of course assisted other more seasoned professionals at times, and we do budget each year for professional training in our specialized fields. At this stage in your development, you may not have identified which genre of photography you lean towards, but in terms of earning an income this is most commonly in the field of wedding or portraiture.</p>

<p>Good luck, and all the best for 2010.</p>

<p>Yep, and even if Copyright was made available for purchase, the cost would be prohibitive in the majority of cases. It's not a good solution for either party.</p>

<p>Merry Christmas: (-: (-:</p>

<p>In the UK it's all but impossible to bring an action against the police. The complaints procedure is a joke and as far as I know they're incapable of apology. That's why it can be hard to keep your head.</p>

<p>Steve Smith - I completely agree. S44 has become a license for them to (at times) behave in a manner which is reprehensible. I'm all for national security, but I've become a little weary of them throwing their weight around just for the hell of it, at our expense. </p>

<p>I entirely agree with William. My User License is also embedded on the disc, with a 'plain English' summary on an accompanying covering letter. In recent months we've also drafted a 'Client Guide to Usage and Copyright' which is a general FAQ for customers who would like, or who need, some further information. But as has been said, most people still believe they 'own' the pictures.</p>

<p>Doesn't surprise me. In the UK, almost anyone using a camera is fair game for police abuse, it's beyond ridiculous. Section 44 means they can dish out any treatment they wish, seemingly for the sake of it. Good luck to Ms Hurd in bringing her complaint. I know from personal experience that complaints are dealt with 'internally' (the IPCC filters and refers the matter to the division in question) and the prospect of any satisfactory resolution is probably nill. As for the 'slight changes' - I doubt this makes any practical difference.</p>

<p>Hi Bill, I believe that good service is about keeping your promises and exceeding your client's expectations. For me it is not, and never will be, about speed. My Contracts state the expected timescales for delivery of proofs and products, since my service is entirely bespoke. I think many labs have a fast turnaround for promotional and marketing materials, which is good business, but my customers would never blame me for 'bad service' if their goods are not churned out in a week.</p>

<p>David - remember to pack lots of thermals - brrrrr!!</p>

<p>Best wishes to you both for a healthy and prosperous 2010.</p>

<p>Client education is important and I suspect that the majority don't read the Contract before they sign. As E Hughes has said, I run through things and I ensure they understand that a photographer has the right to use and display his/her work. That said, if any client were to object to their images appearing on my site or blog, I think the only way forward is to remove them out of personal courtesy. Certainly if a client were shown in a state of undress I would understand they may not want certain parties to see them. </p>

<p>I agree it's a shame if we're asked to remove good shots, but it's very rare and has only happened to me once. I undertook a family shoot last year for a friend, I decided not to charge and I passed over a set of files on DVD with printing rights. A few weeks later I received an e-mail demanding that I remove the shots from my site/blog. I was surprised and could certainly have maintained my right to display my work, but instead I responded to my friend politely reminding her of the agreement, but nevertheless honouring her request on the basis that I would not wish to cause discomfort to any person (although I could see no reason at all for her actions). It's all the more disappointing when the images then appear on that person's Facebook site, but as Alec has alluded, standing your ground isn't worth it from a hassle/aggravation point of view. In the OP's case, offering the purchase of full rights is an option, but not something I'd consider if the images add value to your print or album portfolio.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Neil, you have provided a fascinating insight to your work, and have rightly identified the misconceptions which surround true reportage photography. Captivatingly written (as always) and beautifully illustrated with stunning photography. I shall revisit this page many times and, if I can gather my wits and my confidence, I will try what I've learned. Gulp (!) </p>

<p>William, thank you for bravely taking on the assignment, I enjoyed the photographs and the story they told, really lovely work. Your contribution together with Neil's commentary will also help readers to visualize the flow and thought-process behind the collection, and hopefully encourage others to undertake a valuable and thought-provoking exercise.</p>

<p><strong>"Is it possible that part of the gradual dying off of PAID photography is likely due to this insane control."</strong></p>

<p>Thomas, if you made your living by photography (and in order to do so, you will have trained for many years, and you will bear overheads that you probably can't imagine) then I am certain your stance would be very different. I do agree that most people believe that once they have purchased an image (or music track) then it is 'theirs' but if that were the case the music industry and the photographic industry would not exist. I know what would happen to me if I copied 'my' favourite music CD to play on 'my' website. As you realise, I would have to purchase a license in order to lease it from the artist.</p>

<p>Sometimes I shoot events and very often the attendees will see themselves or their property in the photographs on my site, and will e-mail me, most politely, and ask for me to send them a (free) copy of 'their' shot. It does not occur to them that I am a professional who incurs considerable overheads in producing high quality work that customers can <em>buy</em> if they choose to and enjoy so that (shock horror) I might clothe and feed myself. There are many misunderstandings about what we do, and it's now my studio policy to include a Copyright and Usage Information Sheet (alongside the Contract) when I pass on any work. It's hard to be lenient when this represents loss of revenue, which is quite often the case - when the receipient of even a low resolution file then uses it to sell and advertise their product on their website, or passes it to somebody else who then does the same (I think you realise how the music industry views this kind of thing, and the possible consequences). This has happened to me, and to many of the photographers I know, and it hurts. I realise this is not something you agree with either Thomas, but it does help to explain why we feel so strongly about our contractual terms being ignored.</p>

<p>Louise, all our Blog images are prominently watermarked, and it is a fact of life that people will download them, but to an extent this circumvents the photo-credit issue. And as I said, we actually get people e-mailing us and asking for full resolution copies of our work, because they like the picture or recognise something in it, and want to make lots of their own prints. That hurts, too.</p>

 

<p>Sorry to hear about this situation Louis. One thing I have learned is that the vast majority of people have no real notion of copyright. That is largely understandable, but 'Ninja' is in a band and that should make him something of an exception, but clearly not. His note to you was insulting and defamatory. I sometimes shoot events and receive e-mails from attendees stating that I did not gain their permission to display a photograph of their item, and still others requesting that I send them copies of 'their' photos (in return for my being allowed to display it on my site/blog). It's so common that I'm actually in the process of drafting a client fact sheet explaining copyright, which I can simply send out in response to such enquiries. As was said, if you took or pirated one of Ninja's songs and used it to help promote your cause, you'd soon be in trouble. For now all you can do is provide a summary of the law (and say that if he is still in doubt, to take a few moments to do some research or otherwise contact his lawyer for clarification) and then take it from there, obviously retaining and printing his e-mails. His reply that a fan had sent it is no defence. If he is insisting that the photo is not yours, and is the property of the sender, then this is an added complication and may mean that your lawyer might have to draft a letter on your behalf.</p>

<p>Anything that goes on my Blog is watermarked, it does deter people to an extent.</p>

<p>A well written, well constructed, organized and informative Blog can be a good business asset. I set mine up just a month ago and I've been surprised by the increase in traffic, and it has generated enquiries already. However, if a Blog is in any way sloppy people won't bother looking at it.</p>

<p>I've been reading the Forum as regards pricing and there seems to be so much to get one's head around. As a wedding and portrait photographer I've never had any problems setting my fees. However I am now being asked to take more diverse assignments, which I would love to do, but I am struggling terribly to come up with a commercial price list. I'm aware that there are several areas to consider; creative fee, time, and licensing. Firstly, I am in the UK and my research has shown that the more established photographers charge from about £400 to £700 for a half day in respect to 'time'. As a full-time pro of 18 (though successful) months in business, my time rates will be somewhat less than that. However it is the area of the Licensing sum which is leaving me in a state of confusion, and I would add that the clients don't seem to know exactly what the usage will be and are expecting to be guided. However I am reluctant to quote 'inperpetuity' figures. If I can outline three current scenarios I would be incredibly grateful for any suggestions you can offer in terms of how I might begin to calculate and present the usage fees for any of these jobs. I realise the information is sketchy, but it's all I've been able to obtain from the individuals concerned.</p>

<p>Scenario 1: Company Director would like several portraits of just herself for use on her business website, brochure and would like usage rights for trade media (can not tell me likely numbers, print runs, or sizes) which will be medical press/journals. (I estimate two hours on location and around 1 hour post-production).</p>

<p>Scenario 2: Local bespoke kitchen firm would like shots of all staff and one building for company website, there are 14 personnel and 3 Directors. Some shots of factory and workers at their benches also. They need to be able to use Directors' photos in trade press (no idea how often) and may develop glossy tri-fold company brochure within next 2 years and will want usage included for that (could not tell me print run). I feel this will necessitate two days on site with assistant and around 4 hours post production (includes full retouching).</p>

<p>Scenario 3: Classic car owner has found a photograph I recently took at a classic car show and wants full rez copy of one image on DVD for use on his website, printing for framing, inclusion in owner's magazines, and use for advertising when the car is sold onward.</p>

<p>Thank you very much in advance for any consideration you can give on this subject, any help will be appreciated. I want to be as fair as possible to my clients, but the last thing I want to do is unwittingly undersell my services.</p>

<p>I agree, the 24-105 is exceptional and very useful on a full frame body. It's become my most used outdoor lens. This weekend I had to shoot in dark conditions (literally too dim to see the camera) and could not use a tripod (I've never been so grateful for the IS). I chose it over a faster lens for this shoot because the IS is so priceless in low light (providing the subject is still). The vast majority of my Blog images have been taken with it, you can see a wide variety of shots here: <a href="http://lindsaydobsonphotography.blogspot.com/">http://lindsaydobsonphotography.blogspot.com/</a></p>

<p>Ultimately your lens choices entirely depend on what you are planning to photograph.</p>

<p>I think it can be difficult to know when to stop. Sometimes limiting yourself to a set time (say, 1 minute) per image can be a useful exercise.</p>

 

<p>I see. I do like the topmost ('normal') black and white image. The normal versions are very nice indeed and are, in my opinion, what most clients would desire. The thing is that your website only represents the extreme of what you do, which I think is a shame. </p>

<p>You'll find that the vast majority of photographers are self-taught. It's a long haul, but the really important thing is that at the end of the day you're running a business, and you'll have to make some decisions which are very much about what your target market wants and expects. Having your own style is usually a good thing, but I would be cautious about pushing the heavily edited material too much. As David Schilling said the extreme contrast can be off-putting, which is counter to all your efforts.</p>

<p><strong>"Many aren't really blown out or maybe just a hair. Yes specular and the sun, but using editing tools I watch my white point. Some I completely blow out. And I do push the line, my style I guess. different screens do make a difference too. In print they hold tone. Again not all."</strong></p>

<p>Ryan, are you aware of how contradictory your statement is? I presume you are also aware that your work, although creative, is very much directed to a niche market, and only you will know if that will bring in enough business to survive on. Risky. IMHO.</p>

<p>Your lens choices depend not only on your subject matter but also on your style of shooting. I take 90% of my portraits with a long lens - the Canon 70-200 f2.8IS which gives me very close to prime quality and zoom flexibility. In tighter conditions, or for full body or some group shots I use the Tamron 28-75, which is an excellent lens. I wouldn't take too much notice of the (very few) negative reviews - it has quite a following for all the right reasons.</p>

<p>We all have bad days:</p><div></div>