Liquid Light Photography

Beware: Stock Images Can Harm a Business

2011-02-11T19:36:00.043Z

Have you ever visited a website, a good looking quality site, and quickly dismissed it as not suitable for what you’re looking for? It could well be down to the images on the site. We’ve all seen them. Handsome brief case carrying businessmen shaking hands, beautiful call centre staff with whiter than white teeth, shinny skyscrapers, glossy tech. But the one thing in common with all these is that they are stock images that do not depict the real people, product or location of the company they are advertising.

Over the past few years the price of stock images has fallen, sometimes by as much as ten fold. Consequently their use, on line and in print, has increased to a point where they have overwhelmingly become the standard route by which web and graphic designers offer cheap, fast and accessible designs to new ventures and "quick fixes". However, there is usually insufficient consideration made to the message that the use of such images now conveys. Because they have become so wide spread, the public are becoming accustomed to the stock image style, and they now know it does not reflect reality, especially those lifestyle images like the handshake and the over friendly receptionist. So rather than seeing the content, understanding the message, or feeling the emotion, they see a library photo that they know doesn’t reflect the reality of the company, service or product it is supposed to convey. Essentially they know they are being misled. Of course once the viewer feels that way, then there is an immediate and natural scepticism for any written content that follows. Content which indeed will probably be a much more accurate and detailed reflection of the message that the advertiser is trying to portray.

This disconnection between perceived reality and apparent portrayal, is something that has long been suspected by photographers, as well as some in the design and marketing sectors. But, until relatively recently, it has been generally assumed that the public audience were not sufficiently aware of the stock image lie, and that the benefits of using it, outweighed the cost of creating custom imagery. The speculation that this is not the case, has now been backed up by a recent study. The research used eye tracking techniques to monitor viewers attention patterns when visiting websites. The technique involves monitoring how long and how frequently a viewer will look at the items on a webpage. It showed that viewers generally ignored not only bad images but also large irrelevant images, preferring to concentrate on images of real people and good product images in contextual settings.

We are also seeing an increasing number of design and marketing companies advising against the use of stock imagery, and there are definitely clichéd stock images that have to be avoided. The handshake, the telephone headset, the skyscraper, the group shot of models etc. Use of these images, when they are self generated and relevant, are a true depiction of what is being portrayed. Stock images aren’t, and are now being interpreted as a cut price solution by an increasingly discerning audience.

You may of course be forgiven in thinking that stock image faux pas are restricted to smaller companies and those on tight budgets. Not so. The mighty Apple corporation fell foul of a stock image trap. The trap of non-excluivity and multiple usage, when it used a picture of a Lion as the flagship image for its new operating system "Lion". In all likelyhood, what they failed to do was sufficiently investigate any prior usage, or secure exclusive reproduction rights for it. The same image had in fact already been used in a campaign by a far rightwing extremist group in Germany. The error was duly out-ed in blogs and the press. At the time it was discovered, the image was still available to purchase from various stock libraries. A possible indication that either Apple had also failed to secure exclusive rights, or that the libraries had failed Apple by not removing the images or told them of the prior use. Unless of course Apple knew of that previous use. A highly unlikely sceanario. Shortly after the news broke of the blunder, the image disappeared from all library websites, raising further speculation that Apple had now bought the exclusive rights. However, because the image had already been used, exclusivity will only have been guaranteed to them for future use.

The Democratic Unioinist Party also got into hot water during the 2010 elections in Northern Ireland. Not only did they fail to obtain exclusivity on all similar images, or check that they could use the stock image for a political campaign, but the poster was also parodied by the Ulster Conservatives and Unionists using an image of the same model from the same shoot.

These however are not extreme or isolated cases. There are many examples of non exclusive stock images being used by numerous different companies, as well as startups using the same library image as their established rivals.

So what is the solution? Certainly avoid using clichéd lifestyle "feel good" stock images that do not reflect you, your business or your products. No one likes to be misled. Good commissioned contextual images of your staff, premises and products will achieve far better results and exclusivity can be guaranteed. If you have to use stock images, keep them to a minimum, and use only what is relevant and accurate. Check and purchase the exclusive rights, you never know who else might have used the image and in what context. Finally keep in mind that when you use an image on a page, it will be the image that will set the story. The words you use are then the detail of that story. What you show must illustrate what you say, and what you say must illustrate what you show, and of course, it must be true.

Ben Collins is The Stig

2010-09-02T13:26:00.011+01:00

Well who'd have thought The Stig would have come from Bristol, and live just up the road? But it's true. Ben Collins was named yesterday as the Stig when the High Court failed to uphold the BBC's injunction preventing him publishing his autobiography.

Ben is an experienced driver of Formula 3, British GT and Le Mans series. He approached me last year to do a shoot prior to his new racing season in Australia 's V8 Supercars for the Jack Daniel's team. It's been a pretty open secret for some time that he was The Stig. Any quick trawl of the net brought his name up, but of course, out of respect to the man, no mention was ever made of any of that during the shoot. A calm quiet person face to face, like many racing drivers, he was great to work with and fantastic subject matter.

The shot I chose to do with him was black on black using the fabulous range of the Hasselblad H3D. Still, it's never an easy one, and invariably time consuming getting the lighting spot on. But all credit to Ben, the man was super patient and cooperative, and I think the results show that.

As an avid watcher of Top Gear, am I upset that he's been ummasked as The Stig? Not at all, and for several reasons. Clearly Top Gear use more than one driver as the The Stig, as well as having cameos. Remember Fat Stig, Schumacher Stig, African Stig? Clearly different drivers, but you can also see from show footage, the occasional different builds and heights of the drivers. Yet they not only play a make believe scenario that he is one man, but also use him as a huge branded marketing revenue stream. The driver is the talent not the brand, and I am glad Ben can now be recognised for that. Credit where it's due please, and I wish Ben well with the book, which of course is on my Christmas list.

Photographers "see red" over copyright

2010-02-18T18:28:00.006Z

Photographers across the UK are currently up in arms over a new Bill, which seeks to make fundamental changes to copyright law. The Digital Economy Bill, currently passing through the Lords, and championed by The Secretary of State, Lord Madelson, was originally aimed at addressing internet piracy, illegal downloads and file sharing, particularly of videos and music. However, a recent clause, that addresses a growing issue surrounding the use of archive materials held primarily by museums, has enraged many photographers. These are materials, usually visual, where the author of a piece of work cannot be traced, have become known as “Orphaned Works”. In circumstances where the appropriate length of time following the creators death has not passed (50 or 70 years), current copyright legislation prevents them from being published or used commercially.

However, following pressure from these institutions, and other commercial libraries, the Bill now has a clause which could allow such “Orphan Works” to be legitimately published. But, there could be unintended consequences of the new legislation, which could have a serious impact on photographers, artists and writers alike.

The proposal is to allow publishers (be they online or in print) to use “Orphan Works” commercially if they have conducted a due diligence search and pay a sum to the government. However, the definition of an Orphan Work currently does not exist in law, and the sum payable is currently undefined. The Bill is proposing that these can be defined or altered at some later date by the Secretary of State.

So how does this impact photographers? While the growth of the internet and digital photography has seen a huge increase in the number of images we see and use, it has also been more than matched by the growth of illegal use of copyrighted images. Current legislation, consistent throughout the world and agreed by international conventions (Berne and WTO TRIPS treaty) has been the cornerstone of creative industries, allowing an author to own their work, decide how it can be used, negotiate a licence fee, have a credit assigned on publication and pursue unauthorised usage.

If the Bill allows Orphan Works to circumvent this legislation, photographers believe that there will be a huge loss of their published images into orphaned works. In the digital era where scanning, image manipulation, cropping and deliberate data stripping is common place, it is not difficult to see how an image can easily be disassociated from the author, and that any due diligence search would fail. Many also suspect that the data stripping would be done deliberately either by individuals or on a larger scale by commercial libraries. This concern is not just limited to photographers, but any visual artist, and all are concerned that the legislation would have a serious financial impact on a section of the media industry that is already under serious threat.

There are several photographic bodies and associations like the Association of Photographers (AOP) and the British Photographic Council, as well as the British Journal of Photography, who are currently voicing their position and in the case of the AOP, briefing peers who are participating in the debate, on behalf of all photographers (like Lord Puttnam). The Lords Select Committee on the Constitution are also concerned enough about the fundamental basis of the legislation to describe Lord Mandelson’s proposal to define “Orphan Works” and determine the levy paid by the Secretary of State in legislation after the Bill has passed as “inappropriate”.

The Bill is currently moving through the House of Lords, before being passed to the House of Commons. With the election looming and pressure increasing to see this Bill pushed through before that date, photographers are concerned that the right changes might not be made, before the bill makes it onto the Statute Books. It is expected that there will be a considerable amount of lobbying, and a flurry of letters to MPs over the coming weeks, to bring the issue to the attention of MPs.

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=871302

http://copyrightaction.com/category/articles/news

http://hub.the-aop.org/Downloads/p2001_sectionid/17/p2001_fileid/110

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/40/4004.htm

So you want to be a Photographer?

2009-07-20T22:48:00.011+01:00

About three or four times a week I am called upon to either dispense advice to an amateur photographer on how they can become a professional, or called on by a graduate to give them a job assisting or shadowing, or by an ‘A’ level student wanting work experience. This then is generally what I tell them.

A career as a professional photographer frequently polls among the top three most desirable careers, ranking alongside pilots and footballers. However, this is mostly likely because the public's perception of photographers is as glamorous jet-setting, party going, rich individuals. But this rarely matches the reality, and it may come as a surprise that these days many photographers would not recommend it as a career.

The world of professional photography is becoming very crowded, especially with fresh new "dedicated" talent seeking to "make it big" as a pro. However, the work that there is, is frenetically paced, fraught with legal issues and is suffering from a general decline in the value of images. Over recent years, photographer's income streams have continued to decline, while at the same time, standards and client's expectations of image quality and delivery of service, have grown significantly. One can also add to that the fact that the costs of running a photographic business have risen. Due in part to the cost of equipment being much higher (when compared to equivalent film equipment), the time taken to produce an image much longer, and the marketing costs being much higher as well. This is frequently misunderstood by clients, who generally believe that since the introduction of digital technology, costs and delivery times should have fallen.

The past six years has probably seen the most significant changes in photography since its invention, not only technologically but in the way images are used. There has not only been significant progress in professional cameras but also in digital compact cameras and mobile phone cameras, where many who own one, believe they are only one step away from being a professional. Of course while we have seen digital cameras come of age, we have also seen the birth and spread of the internet and the digital images on it. Both of these factors have served to fundamentally changing the public's use and perception of the photographic image, and crucially of its value. It is hardly surpring then that it is a constant source of frustration to professional photographers that while the issues surrounding film and music theft feature heavily in the media, and it is becoming a moral issue, the same cannot be said of still images.

There is no doubt that since the introduction of digital, the standard of images taken by burgeoning, and experienced photographers alike, has risen enormously. But this has also meant that it has opened up the profession to those who would not have considered it previously, creating an over supply in the market place. This is especially true in the stock image market. Four or five years ago a commercial photographer may have expect to cover the running costs of a studio from the income generated by images sold through the likes of Getty and Alamy. The explosion of images produced by amateurs that is now submitted, held and sold by these libraries, means that this no longer true. Some established photographers have seen their income from stock images fall by more than 75% in six months. This decline was further helped by the growth in Royalty Free images and Flicker and price cutting by libraries across the board. I was once told by the Creative Director of reasonably sized design agency that they would first mine Flicker to see what they could steal, then go to iStock to see what they could buy for £5, then get RF, then go to Getty, and then they might consider commissioning a photographer. His justification for stealing from someone on Flicker was that individuals do not have the resources to search for stolen images, and if they did, and they were caught, it is unlikely that the photographer would be able to afford the legal muscle to gain more than the initial purchase costs of the image.

Digital technology has also created a boom in DIY imaging for start up and some more established companies. It is true that with the growth of ecommerce, there has never been a greater requirement for images. However, most of that imagery will not have been commissioned from a professional, but preformed in house, on low budget equipment. What's more, many design agencies have now invested in their own mid market cameras. Some have even purchased studio lighting and set aside studio space to create their own imagery. These agencies will often now only commission a professional when they require imagery, either more creative than they can achieve, or when they require high resolution shots.

So are there any careers to be made in photography? Yes there are, but I would say beware, it is a tough market. Photography must be in your blood and second nature to you. You will need to be at a stage where you will never be left wondering how to achieve a shot with your camera. It is a tool that you will need to know everything about and how it will record an image. Consequently if you're a student, you shouldn't need to study photography at university. If you do, I would say that you'll most likely struggle as a pro. These days success as a professional photographer is as much about marketing as photographic skills. There are some well known photographers, with great marketing campaigns, earning small fortunes, while much more skilled photographers struggle. You can be the best photographer in the world, but no one's going to commission you if they don't know you exist. What's more, there is huge competition in the market place, so more than ever, marketing is the overriding key to a successful career.

As a student going on to university, I would say study Marketing, look for a career working in a design agency and study photography in your spare time. That way after a few years, you'll have gained experience commissioning shoots, you'll know what is expected and what and how to deliver. You'll also have the marketing skills to market yourself, and a list of contacts you already know to turn into clients. What's more, if the photography career doesn't work out, you always have a fall back position in Marketing.

Finally, there are two things to bear in mind. Firstly, there are very few salaried jobs in photography and secondly, you will most likely require significant funds to stand out from the crowd and succeed. Photographers in general, set up their own businesses, rather than work for another photographer. And, although you can start working as a professional on a fairly reasonable budget, there is significant competition at that level, and many charge nothing or well below the market rate. To progress to dizzier heights, the funding required is disproportionately large when compared to the financial rewards.

Touch If You Dare!

2009-06-05T01:43:00.030+01:00

Well I've finally made the cover of a magazine! OK so it's not Vanity Fair or Vogue, and I've already been on the cover of several national trade mags, but Area magazine normally only use images from campaigns by big brands like Dior, Gucci and Boss. It's quite a coup for an image from a local photographer featuring minor brand clothing to be chosen. The shot was taken in Cape Town, last September, as part of a portfolio series with local model Rouxmia. She subsequently used the image not only on her 'Zed' card, but as part of her “Girl of the Year” campaign for FHM in South Africa. Not surprisingly she's done very well, and made it into the top ten. I did another shoot with her in Jan this year, and Area have taken a couple from that series as well. So keep an eye out for more covers.

Interestingly, for this image, I had to touch up the swimwear to make it suitable for distribution. Of course I prefer the original, but I was pleased, not only by how well, technically, the rework turned out, but aesthetically how well the 'new' swimsuit looked.

Re-touching always seems to spark huge debate among photographers. Some view it with disdain and a cheat, some see it as a way of saving a bad shot. Personally I have always regarded it as integral part of the whole creative process. From shoot to final delivery, everything you contribute as a photographer is a creative step and PhotoShop has simply become an invaluable part of that process.

I started digital image processing in the late nineties and went exclusively digital as soon as I bought one of the first ever Canon 1Ds cameras sold in the UK in Feb 02. However, immediately I got it, I realised I could no longer just consider what I had in front of me to create the image i.e. model, make up, clothing, location, lighting and camera. I had to plan for and consider post production too. Now, I shoot knowing how I am going to be processing and retouching in post production. If I want to treat an image in a certain way in PhotoShop, then it had to be shot to allow that. Moreover, if I am looking at producing a series of images, then what I do during a shoot must be consistent to allow consistent post processing. Small variations in shooting conditions can cause unpredictable effects in post. While you can't always be in control of the light on your subject, when shooting multiple locations and outdoors, say, you have to know what effects these lighting changes are going to have, and be able to correct or work with them. Shooting blind aiming to correct everything in PhotoShop, has never, and will be an option for me.

PhotoShop for me is not there to rescue images, it is a significant part of the creative process, and sometimes, it is the stage with most artistic input. Some images have more input, some less, but I am always considering the post production, especially when I know I going to be doing a lot of it. As an example, this homage image of Giselle's waterdress was shot knowing exactly what needed to be done in PhotoShop. During the shoot I was considering the implications in post of the lighting, clothing (yes, Cass was clothed!), pose, shooting angle and depth of field. Nothing about this was accidental. The whole shoot was meticulously planned long in advance and because of that, it was shot in ten minutes or less! OK, post production took eight hours, but it wouldn't have worked at all, had I not meticulously planned how it needed to be shot in the first place.

Although attitudes are gradually changing, I do find it ironic that while photographers are often trying to class themselves as artists, and many traditional artists try to claim they are not, when a photographer produces an PhotoShopped image (which has a great deal more artistic input than the original photograph), they are accused by some of cheating. The image for them is somehow devalued or tainted by the post production. Thankfully, those attitudes are changing, and as a photographer who has never been able to divorce the process of image taking from the process of retouching, that is refreshing to see. What's more, I do enjoy pointing out that since the advent of digital photography, the whole industry has become much more artistic, not less.

Raw Talent and Dedication

2009-04-21T00:46:00.023+01:00

Welcome to my blog, and thank you for taking the time to read this.

Well well well. Just watched the first in series 5 of Britain's Next Top Model and somehow Nell Nabarro got voted off. Incredible! I've had the joy of working with this girl and she is spectacular, in looks, attitude, dedication and abilities to take direction. How she got voted off I will never know.

I did a shoot with her last November (above), in freezing damp weather, in a ruined mansion, with no heating. Poor girl was so ill that she should have been in bed. Instead she chose to freeze her toes off to get these shots. That is rare dedication in an industry where models will fail to turn up if they have so much as spot on their nose. Nell, is a rarity. A dedicated model who can produce stunning results even when she's ill.

Lack of dedication is not just restricted to modelling of course, it pervades through many walks of life and professions, photography included. I have seen many dedicated "wannabe" assistants realise after days of hard work that it's not the life for them. Being able to make a living in this profession is far more about knowing how to be a business than your abilities as a photographer. Being able to take great shots, is a given, and without that ability you might as well pack up and go home. But, the same is also true if you can't run a business, and by that I mean be a "one man" corporation. You have to be your own accounts department, marketing department, PR department, admin department, web designer, IT department, HR department, and so on and so forth.

I occasionally get asked to lecture to sixth form photography students. Some study it just to collect the grade. Others are there because they enjoy it. These have ability, but again really, they just want the grade. There are also those few who actually want to be photographers and aim to study it at University. What I always say to them is that "if you're so bad at photography that you need to study it full time, don't do it." Of course none of them are bad. They're doing it because they enjoy it and they believe studying it will lead to a career in photography. It rarely does. (No one ever asks a professional photographer if they have a photographic degree.) The point is this. To succeed in photography, photography and business must come naturally to you. If you are a gifted photographer but lack good business acumen, you will be far better equipped to be a professional if you study marketing or business at university, and photography in your spare time. That way, you will have a way of earning a living in marketing, while at the same time seeing the industry from the inside and be in a position to develop your photographic skills and a client base. Why learn what you're good at? Rather train yourself up in those areas that you will need to succeed in, but don't come naturally to you.

Andre Regini