melissa_cramer

<p><strong>Please. Stop. Giving. Away. Your. Photos. To. Publishers. For. Free. </strong> <br /> <br /> ARGH! So, I just got a very sweet e-mail from a fellow Flickr user. She wanted to know if I would share my one-time use, rights-managed licensing contract. No worries, happy to. <br /> <br /> Except . . . she's giving a book publisher 17 photos without <em>any</em> compensation. I calmly, diplomatically suggested that she needs to go back to the publication and ask their photo budget and whether they're paying other photographers on the project. Even $40 per photo would go a long way to acknowledging her investment/work and avoiding undercutting the rest of the stock industry. <br /> <br /> I politely explained that just a by-line is not enough. People don't see the photo, look for the credit, look you up, and give you assignments. It just doesn't happen -- as much as we'd all like to think it will. <br /> <br /> This is her reply: <br /> <br />

<blockquote>

<hr size="1" />

Thanx for getting back to me so quickly! I understand your <br /> point of being paid but <strong>I am very honored to even have my <br /> shots considered for a book. I am actually okay with them <br /> not paying me</strong> but I want to make sure they do not use the <br /> photos in any other way other than for the book. As long as <br /> I receive the credit and I also started a blog which I will <br /> ask them to list that as well, I am happy with that. I don't <br /> know how many in the future I will do this way but since <br /> this is the first, I think it's okay.

<hr size="1" />

</blockquote>

<br>

<br /> <br /> Can someone suggest what I should respond now? She's just inadvertently slapped me in the face and said that what I do for a living is worth nothing other than being "honored." How hard is it just to ask what the publisher's budget is? <br /> <br /> Publishers find me on Flickr, too. But thanks to the copyright watermark, they ask what my terms are. I tell them, and they choose to pay me or not use the photos. It's really as easy as that. <br /> <br /> We've all been in her shoes -- a beginner who is approached for photo use. Therefore, I had no problem with her first e-mail. I was more upset with her reply. After I took the time to explain -- politely -- why it's a problem for the industry (and that she's being ripped off), she just plain said, "I don't care." That's what's most infuriating. <br /> <br /> I wanted to ask, "What is your day job? How would you feel if you suddenly aren't paid for that task anymore? That's the position you're putting me in by giving away your work to publishers for free." <br>

<br /> <br>

<br /> </p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3627/3595654088_65a2d45299.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="310" /><br>

The Eiffel Tower from beneath. <br>

Pentax K20D - Manual Pentax 50mm 1.4 - f/4 at 1/10 - handheld, no tripod</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>We need to stop being bashful. </em><br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>My belated New Year's Resolution. Thank you, Joseph! Your pep talk worked on me.</p>

<p>Fantastic! The jets make the shot.</p>

<p>Selfishly, I'll ask whether you caught Script Ohio from above. (I'm a Buckeye!)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Advertising ==> suspension of disbelief.</p>

<p>Well, that, and the fact that 99.9% of consumers won't notice the idiosyncrasy.</p>

<p>And, yes, the Ashton shots are a hoot. Don't we all fly through the air snapping perfectly exposed pics at an indoor party?</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing, Christine. </p>

<p>Hmmm. As Paul said, some are fantastic, but many are bland. I'm also wondering:</p>

<p>1) Why isn't ANYONE happy? All 60 portraits are of what seem to be completely depressed people. Even the Olympic hopeful. It's often said that in order for a beautiful woman to win Best Actress, she must make herself look uncharacteristically different / grotesque. Apparently in order to win the NPG contest, one must shoot solely suicidal subjects. I'm exaggerating of course, and provocative shots often elicit sadness. But, all 60? Not a single gleeful smile?</p>

<p>2) Do convicted murderers really sleep in bunk style rooms in Russia? No cells? And, two to a "bed." That one left me with the most "need to know" impact. (Sorry, I'd link to it, but there seems to be no direct URL to that specific image. Just look for the one of the young man draped across the cot.)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Photography is probably the medium I'm most passionate about, but I also do a bit of hand lettering using dip pens, burn off steam with watercolors, bake far too many pastries, and write a mean jingle. To definitively say "I'm a photographer" seems somewhat limiting.</p>

<p>When cornered on the street -- most often when someone sees a 70-300mm lens fully extended from my K20D -- I'll say, "I just like it a lot." Otherwise, they want to know what I'm shooting, what lens I'm using, and what brand I like best. And, my favorite: "Who do you shoot for?" I'm always tempted to say, <em>"Sports Illustrated</em> <em>"</em> just to see their reaction.</p>

<p>It completely depends on the sale.</p>

<p>On prints -- never. On files licensed for publication or advertising, certainly not. However, I do watermark reduced-size electronic files intended for just 'showing off' on Facebook. Better yet, I make my own photo album on my page and then tag the subject (with their permission). It shows up in their "photos of me" area, but I have the control if I want to delete it later, change the caption, etc.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, yes, and yes. But, it's not just "to watermark" or "not to watermark." There's also a question of <em>how</em> .<br>

<br /> When I first started adding WM's, I made them far too large and annoying, centered in the middle of the photo. I look back at those and cringe. Now, whenever posting on the web, I simply put © and my name in the bottom left or right corner depending on the image (see below). Like Mauro, I also limit the size of the images posted online so that they can't be printed at any significant size.<br>

<br /> I'm not so concerned with random people who might print out a 4x6 to stick on their bulletin board at work. I'm more concerned with corporate entities who would use my work for advertising purposes without permission. The copyright mark is at least one barrier even if it isn't foolproof.<br>

<br /> I don't put contact info, because my name is rather rare. If you Google me, my website pops up first and all the pages having anything to do with photography include my full contact info.</p>

<p><img src="http://andreanay.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p565546348-2.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="286" /></p>

<p>Kevin and Mikael, thank you SO much for your suggestions.<br>

<br /> I do have an updated copy of Photographer's Market and planned to use that for at least some of the PE research. I'm also familiar with the idea of reading multiple issues of a publication to determine whether my style befits their editorial focus.<br>

<br /> This is the statement which most intrigues me:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What they look like really makes no difference as long as they work as far as search and caption info in relation to displayed photos go.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I actually have a Zenfolio site with thousands of images. It's fully automated, organized by subject, and will soon be searchable with keywords. However, I didn't think the layout was streamlined enough for my tastes. I felt like I was presenting too much info for buyers. Wouldn't it be lovely if I could keep my current site and then create a stock page with the Zenfolio interface incorporated in the frame? Perchance to dream. Maybe someday Zenfolio will make that a reality.<br>

<br /> Until then, perhaps I could create a Stock List page on my primary website with a listing of subjects. Each subject name would be a hotlink to that particular gallery on Zenfolio. That way, only the people who really <em>want</em> to see stock shots of baking implements need to see them.<br>

<br /> Anyway . . . thanks again for the suggestions. I'll work on re-tooling the galleries so that they're a) searchable and b) offer the breadth of my library instead of just the highlights.<br>

<br /> Many thanks again -- your suggestions and the time and care you took with your responses are very much appreciated!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you, Tony, Scott, and Kevin -<br>

Scott -- Yes, I do plan to update the blog frequently, especially when I add new work.<br>

Kevin and Tony -- this is where I'm wavering. I am sort of a generalist. I like landscapes by virtue of living in and having traveled to some gorgeous spots. Street is a unique challenge. And, I really like what I've termed editorial portraits -- not kids and babies, but more like character studies of performers, athletes, etc.<br>

In order to differentiate myself, do I create three separate websites? </p>

<ul>

<li>One for stock landscapes, searchable by city and subject? </li>

<li>One for galleries, featuring 15-20 street shots? </li>

<li>And, one for "editorial portraits", again showing 15-20 of the best?</li>

</ul>

<p>If so, do I have separate URL's for all, giving out the specific URL to the specific prospective buyer?<br>

Or, do I pick one genre and stick with it, building it and learning more about it?<br>

The answer is yes, I do have *many* more images where these came from. I've just read so many sources saying to pare it down and show a selection because editors won't want to click through dozens of galleries. My thought was always that I'd send the targeted mailing piece to publications/galleries who seem open to new work, show them I'm serious with the website, and then fill needs when they say, "I like your style. What else do you have of the Bahamas?"<br>

Thank you again for your suggestions. Keep 'em coming, as every little bit helps.</p>

<p>Hello!</p>

<p>As a new member, I wasn't sure whether to pop this in another forum, however I think the stock-related business forum is the best place to find peers with similar goals.<br /> <br /> Although I have galleries with sales at Zenfolio, Carbonmade, Facebook, Etsy, Flickr, ImageKind, etc., I needed a more professional, streamlined presence for pitching the better galleries and publications.<br /> <br /> I created a stand-alone website designed to show off only the best work with minimal editorial gibberish. There is an in-frame blog designed to draw traffic, and I've linked that to my Twitter account for added exposure. I'll send carefully crafted mailings to a small, targted group of PE's in January, and this is where they'll be directed.</p>

<p>Where do you come in? Obviously, we are blind to our own faults when we've tinkered with something to the point that we no longer have any objectivity. Any constructive criticism would be fantastic. Happy thoughts are welcome, too. I'm happy to return the favor if you post your links as well.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.andreanayphoto.com"><strong>My Web Portfolio</strong> <br /> </a></p>

<p>Cheers to an outstanding 2010,</p>

<p>Andrea</p>

<p>I rarely ask when I'm going for candids. I call them "bus shots" because it works fabulously well when you're riding in the city, the bus stops, and you snap a few of whatever's outside the glass using a p&s.<br>

<br /> <img src="http://andreanay.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p977656010-3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://andreanay.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p831767773-3.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<br /> <em>Both without a sound.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>What a great motivator!<br /> <br /> My photography related resolutions follow:<br>

- to chat more with peers (hence joining this forum)<br /> - to shoot more (i.e. every day no matter what)<br /> - yet to keep less (i.e. pare down all public galleries to only the best of the best).<br>

Cheers to a lovely 2010 for us all.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello, all! <br /> <br /> This is my first post of, hopefully, many! I'm promising to spend more time in 2010 stepping away from the camera and dishing with others to gain a broader perspective. Tunnel vision and I get along really well (ha). So, without further adieu, I'm building on an October post re: paparazzi.<br /> <br>

I think it's the Tiger Woods scandal that's setting me off this time, but I'm feeling more and more like the more ruthless paps denigrate what we, as 'art' photographers, do. <br>

As someone who relishes opportunities to photograph an iconic person/moment, I'm frustrated by the image the tactless paparazzi give us. I don't get paid by People or TMZ, but I really enjoy photographing pro athletes on court for the aesthetic value. No, I don't like shooting upskirt angles of starlets. Eeew. But when I pull out a 300mm lens, I can't help but feel everyone in the audience is identifying me as one of <em>them</em> . <br /> <a href="http://andreanayphotography.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/27/the-vulnerability-factor.html" target="_blank"></a> <br>

<a href="http://andreanayphotography.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/27/the-vulnerability-factor.html" target="_blank">Check my blog</a> for a few thoughts I pulled together expressing why candid shots are so important to me and an explanation of how I approach them. Then, please let me know what you think! Do you feel like specators at events, passers-by on the street, guests at parties, etc. see you in same camp as the paparazzi just because you're there with a lens? And if so, what steps can we take to differentiate ourselves so that we're looked upon with respect and not as intruders on a scene?<br>

Cheers,<br /> Andrea</p>

<p><br /> </p>