A Dirty Word: Wrap Up

Please feel free to check out Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this series.

After starting this experiment with micro-stock, here are some of my 'wrap up' thoughts.

Cons:

I don't think there is anyone that would say that the fees that photographers earn are adequate. Nonetheless, the micro-stock industry is surely not going away. Even the 'big boys' like Corbis and Alamy have figured this out, with Corbis recently starting their own micro-stock portal called Snap Village and Alamy now offering royalty free images on their site as well. Gone are the days when micro-stock sites offered dull, technically poor images taken with a point and shoot camera (if there ever were such days). The images accepted at this point in time are technically excellent (if not art...but then again, they are usually not meant to be art) and often contributed by 'professional' photographers. No longer can one really feel that they are contributing to the 'downfall' of photography by joining, as the mass effect, at this point, with so many images and photographers involved is really self sustaining.....it will go on no matter how many more people choose not to participate. In essence, the industry is an outgrowth of the 'digital revolution'. As I have seen in my own profession, once a 'critical mass' is reached, trying to control a phenomena by not participating becomes an exercise in futility.....so the issue is assessing how one might glean benefits (and determine if there are enough benefits) if they were to participate.

Time. It does take time to prepare images and then to keyword and upload them.

You don't find out exactly if and how your images are used.....there is a loss of control.

It isn't necessarily art. The buyer isn't purchasing your images as 'art'.


PROs (as they apply to me):

You force yourself to process images that have just been laying around for a while. These are mainly images that I was interested in taking, but was not planning to make fine art prints from....and therefore they just lay on the hard drive in RAW format. Now there is a reason to 'develop' them. There are actually one or two that I have decided to print since processing and seeing them in the finished state. Some of the shots will end up on my website.

I hate to admit it, but it is 'fun' when your image is downloaded.

There is some revenue being generated from images that otherwise would have just sat on the hard drive. Exactly how much revenue remains to be seen from this ongoing experiment. Time will tell wether it is 'worth it' or not.

If you aren't a big winter fan, it does make photographing objects around the house and indoors a bit more interesting.

The experiment is unfinished. I am curious as to the thoughts of others who may have given micro-stock consideration. If you tried it, what do you think.......if not, why not?

A Dirty Word, Part 5

Please feel free to have a look at Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this series.

So I am sure people are interested in knowing exactly how much are we talking about in terms of sales. Clearly, the amount one can make is dependent upon how much time and effort they are willing to put into it. Let's just say there are not many people who make a living doing micro-stock, but there are many people who use it as an adjunct to their earnings, particularly if they are a professional photographer who has many images from photo shoots that they are not going to otherwise use.

But, of course, that isn't really the question at hand. The question is how much can someone like me (or you) make? Let's assume that you have a regular day job, that you enjoy photography and try to go out to photograph at least once every other week, and that you have a number of images already that you never thought about trying to sell via micro-stock. Further, lets assume that you particularly enjoy nature photography, that your primary interest is in making fine art photographs, but that during the winter months you might toy with taking shots of some interesting objects when it really is freezing cold outside. That is me in a nutshell (is it you?).......so how much?

Well, part of it depends on how many images you have available at any given agency and how long they have been out there for. In some instances and at some agencies it depends on how frequently you upload, in terms of gaining exposure. So, after all that, I will give you my numbers, with the following caveats. The first is that I have only tried this as an experiment for two months. The second is that start up is slow, as you must get accepted, upload, and have your images approved. The approval process can take anywhere from less than 24 hours to 1-2 weeks depending on the agency. By the end of the first month, I only had about 15 images live and online. At the end of the second month I had about 50 live.

My earnings for the first month was $37.00 and for the second month it was $78.93, for a two month total of $115.93.

It took some work to get the images up, for sure. Besides spotting them, quick processing, and converting to jpg there was also the process of adding keywords and uploading.

It is a little uncertain to me at this point, after only two months, and with the caveats above as to what the likely potential is given time constraints etc. Will this month's revenue double again, as it did from the first to the second month? I don't know. But I have no problem letting you know once the results are in!

One benefit that I can see is that I have many images that I probably would still be thinking about processing that are now actually 'developed', at least to the point of being able to show on the computer even if not optimized for printing.

I will do a brief wrap up of some thoughts regarding my micro-stock experience for the next post and then move on to something totally different.

A Dirty Word, Part 4

Please feel free to check out Part 1, 2, and 3 of this series.

So, having decided to give micro-stock a try, the next issue was to find out more about who the ‘big players’ were and how their systems worked. I will talk about them below, with links to the sites, but first want to mention one other aspect of generating revenue with micro-stock. In addition to getting paid for photograph downloads, one also generates revenue through referrals.

How does this work? If one signs up for a micro-stock site using a referral link, then the person that refers them gets a few cents every time that person sells an image. The best part (and the part that makes it work) is that there is no penalty whatsoever from any micro site to the person signing up......they make the same amount per image sale by signing up through a referral link as they do by simply going over to the site and signing up themselves. No more and no less. So, if you are thinking of giving it a try, I would certainly appreciate your signing up through my referral links below, and then hopefully others do the same for you.

On to ‘The Players’:

Shutterstock:

This is the biggest micro-stock agency, and one that should probably be the highest priority to join. They work almost purely on a subscription plan (people can by individual photos without being a subscriber, but this is an exceedingly small part of Shutterstock sales). Because most buyers have a subscription they are, as you might imagine, mainly serious designers who tend to buy in volume. Subscribers can download 25 images a day and contributors earn $0.25 per download, with this payment due to increase in May (the amount of the increase has not yet been announced). If an extended license is purchased (which increases the number of copies that can be made) the contributor earns $20.00

Here is the amazing part. They currently have 3.3 MILLION images on file. I took one look at this number and thought that it would be impossible for anyone to ever find, notice, or look at an image that I might upload, let alone purchase it. How wrong I was. Within an hour of my first batch of 7 images going ‘live’ I received three sales. They simply have so many buyers, many of which search for what they are looking for using the ‘show newest first’ filter, that you do get sales. In fact, there are only three or four of the current fifty images I now have available on the site that have not sold at least once. If your images are accepted they absolutely WILL sell.

Notice I said “if” your images are accepted. Like all micro-stock agencies, images must undergo a quality control approval process. The images are evaluated from legal, technical, and commercial standpoints. Any identifiable people or private property must be accompanied by the appropriate model or property releases. The images must meet strict technical criteria, the most common of which seems to be the absence of digital noise or sharpening/compression artifacts. Some agencies are exceedingly strict in this regard, though Shutterstock seems middle of the road on it. It is therefore generally preferable to use minimal or no sharpening, depending on the image. Finally, the images must have commercial viability, but most agencies define this rather loosely.

Many agencies have an initial 'screen' to determine if you will be allowed to submit images at all, and Shutterstock is one of these. You must submit an initial batch of 10 images and, to be accepted, seven of the ten must past muster. Once you pass, you can upload in batches as large or small as you like, but each individual image is still evaluated and can be accepted or rejected based on the criteria mentioned above. If you do not pass the initial screening application, you must wait one month before reapplying.

To apply to Shutterstock, with my referral, click here.


iStockphoto

iStockphoto has no referal system for contributors, so the above link is to the main page. iStock is also quite large with 2.9 million images on file. Similar to Shutterstock, there is an application process before being able to upload. Buyers can purchase images via a subscription plan and can also buy individual images. There are different prices based on the size of the file (contributors only upload one file and the various sizes are always generated by the micro-stock agencies). Thus a single download, even without an extended type license, could earn the photographer anywhere from $0.25 to several dollars.


Dreamstime

Dreamstime is another of the biggest 4 agencies, with 2.6 million images. As I recall, there is no application process....you just start uploading, but the individual images are as carefully scrutinized as at the others. The site is really very easy to use, and the amount earned per image is dependent on the size of the file downloaded. I have to say, it is nice to see the dollar sign change instead of the cents portion of your earnings when you get a download for a larger file size.

To access Dreamstime, with my referral, click here.


Fotolia

Fotolia actually has the most images on file of any of the agencies, though I don't believe their sales are as high. They have 3.4 million images. Earnings are dependent on the size of the image file downloaded on this site as well.

To access Fotolia click here.

There are other micro-stock agencies, but these are the largest, and, if one is interested in giving micro-stock a try, I believe these are the places to start.

Some of the other smaller agencies include 123 Royalty Free, Lucky Oliver, BigStockPhoto, Crestock, and Featurepics.

I will end this series with two more posts and will try to answer a few more of the remaining questions from Part 1.

A Dirty Word, Part 3

If you haven’t had the chance, feel free to check out Part 1 and Part 2 of this series.

One of my foremost concerns when considering the whole issue of participation in micro-stock was whether it somehow ‘degraded’ one as an artist and if it in any way compromised the ability to sell one’s work.

The first question was the most difficult one in my mind. Does selling the same image in (hopefully) large numbers for a relatively low price change the way one perceives themselves, the way others perceive them, or the way their work is perceived?

Several things became clear to me as I did some research about micro-stock and took time to peruse various micro-stock sites to see what images tend to sell. For one thing, what sells best is not what one would call traditional fine art photographs. Buyers are looking for images that convey a single simple concept or idea. At times they are looking for backgrounds. Photographs with people in them are the biggest sellers (of course, you need a model release for every identifiable person in any image). What I believe this translates into is that the mindset for making salable images for micro-stock (or any stock) is very different from fine art photography. I might also add that, unlike the ‘old days’ (or so I am told) when the micro-stocks were looking to expand their inventories and digital imaging was very new, the photographs now available as micro-stock are generally of extremely high quality, from both technical and creative standpoints.

Having discovered these facts, I wondered how they might apply to my situation. The one thing I knew for sure was that I wanted to keep shooting things that I enjoyed photographing and not change anything about that to try and participate in the micro-stock ‘phenomenon’. Was there a way, and would it be worthwhile, to participate if my goal was to continue with primarily nature photography while continuing to approach making photographs from a ‘fine art’ standpoint?

When I go out photographing, I make many images that I know will never ‘see the light of day’. By that I mean that they are not necessarily interesting enough to spend the time on that perfecting a print would necessitate. In fact, many of these types of images were made for my own personal enjoyment, just to see what they would look like and, while I found the experimenting worthwhile, they are not necessarily the types of images that one would hang on the walls for display.

What types of images am I talking about? I have many images of abstract flowing water, sand patterns, rock patterns, leaves, and grasses. I have many landscape images that were used in the process of working up to that ‘strongest image’ possible that I will never print by virtue of the fact that they are not the strongest compositions from a particular location. These are the images that I felt I could potentially sell.

I guess the ‘cat is out of the bag’ at this point, and it is apparent that I decided to give micro-stock a try. Overall, I concluded that for me it was not ‘degrading’ as an artist because:

1) The images I initially decided to sell are ones that I enjoyed making but had no plans to make prints from or to sell as fine art photos.

2) It seemed silly to let these images sit on my hard drive and have them ‘never see the light of day’.

3) Many of these images were in purgatory! By this I mean that I took them because they were either experimental or I was interested in them from an artistic standpoint, but, given limited time, I was not processing them for the reasons I previously mentioned.

4) I was really curious to see if they would sell.

There was one other issue that concerned me. What if, at some point, I wanted to do a series of these abstracts and either sell prints, sell them in a self-published book, or submit them to a magazine for publication? Well, after thinking about this, it didn’t seem like any of these things couldn’t be done simply because the image had been sold through a micro-stock agency.

To go out further on a limb, what if I wanted to make a ‘limited edition’ print series of one of these images in the future? This is where I think there might be differences of opinion. I do think that there is a very significant difference in a limited edition print optimized for and printed on fine art watercolor paper that is signed and numbered by the artist and the same image used in an ad or pamphlet. Moreover, I think that any buyer would recognize that difference.

I am hoping these musings are of interest, though the fact that there have been very few comments makes me wonder if I really should have started this series after all!

Next installment……where are these micro-stock companies and how much can you make?

A Dirty Word, Part 2

Check out Part 1 of A Dirty Word here.

Just so everyone is on the same page, I would like to define my perception of the difference between Rights Managed and Royalty Free stock photography. I am not a lawyer, so my definitions reflect my understanding and their ‘everyday’ usage.

In Rights Managed stock photography, the agency that handles one's images arranges a specific usage contract when an image is sold. That contract or agreement is very specific and generally states what the image will be used for, how many copies will be made, how many times it will be used, and for how long the buyer has exclusive rights to it. Generally speaking, major changes to the image are not made unless negotiated. Of course, the specifics, as well as how many of these types of issues are covered, depends on the intended usage.

In Royalty Free stock photography, an image that is purchased can be used for most anything, with only some restrictions, BUT there is no exclusivity. Thus, while a rights manages sale will typically impose a moratorium on any other sales of the image for a specified time period (typically 6 or 12 months), a royalty free image can be resold and resold multiple times with no such restrictions.

There are, however, restrictions on image use in order to protect the photographer and the stock firm. As one might expect, photographs are not allowed to be used in any way that would defame someone portrayed in the image and may not be used for pornographic purposes. The image may not be resold. Portions of the image may be used and the image may be manipulated or changed. The number of copies of the image that may be made is dependent on the individual agreement with each royalty free firm, but, generally, once a certain number of copies are made one must purchase an ‘extended license’. While the image may be used as personal artwork, many firms do not allow the image to be sold as framed artwork (some do) and not with the implication that it is the work of someone other than the photographer.

So what are most of the downloaded images used for? Well, for the most part, images are downloaded by graphic designers, not your neighbor next door who wants to find an image for their dining room wall. Photographs are often used for such things as websites, advertising, pamphlets, and promotional material. In fact, downloaded photos might never be used in print, perhaps only being used for a mock up of sorts or as a choice of several images the designer offers a client.

How much does the photographer make each time a photograph is downloaded. Again, it depends not only on the individual micro-stock site, but also on the type of plan that a buyer has with the site. Some buyers only purchase individual images, while others have a so-called subscription plan, whereby they can download a preset number of images monthly, weekly, or daily for a prepaid fee. The fee is the same independent of how many of the allowed image downloads they use, so this obviously encourages customers to download. The downside of subscription plans is that the payout to the photographer tends to be low.

So how much are we talking here? Downloads from subscription plans tend to put only 25 to 50 cents per download into the photographer’s pocket, while non-subscription downloads tend to earn the photographer in the $1.00 to 6.00 range (though there are some sites that let the photographer choose their own price for non-subscription downloads).

So, with that background information, in the next installment of this discussion I can start to post some of my musings related to the questions listed in Part 1.

A Dirty Word, Part 1

Micro-stock. That’s the dirty word. At least it has seemed like a dirty word to me for quite some time. It has certainly been something I would never, in a million years, have considered.

But lately I have been re-examining this whole issue. I have been giving it a considerable amount of thought and self assessment. Of course, this consideration and my thoughts can’t possibly be fully applicable to everyone. In fact, it is quite possible that they may only be applicable to very few people who might read this. However, since this is, after all, a blog…..I thought that over the next several posts it might be of interest to explore the issues, and, of course, to hear comments and thoughts that anyone might want to make. Just remember that I didn’t invent micro-stock nor did I have anything to do with getting it to where it is today.

With that said, I would like to list some of the questions that I have been thinking about over the last few weeks, in no particular order.

Are nature images likely to sell on micro-stock sites?

Does participation in micro-stock degrade one as an artist?

How much work is involved if one chooses to get involved with the industry?

Is the micro-stock industry itself changing for the better?

Can one participate in both royalty free (micro-stock) and rights managed stock photography?

Are some images more appropriate than others for micro-stock?

How are images sold at a micro-stock site likely to be used?

Which of the many micro-stock sites are the biggest players?

How might offering images on micro-stock (or rights managed stock) sites affect one’s ability to sell prints?

I had lots of questions and thought it might be worthwhile to post some of my musings and to hear what others think. But, please, this topic can strike a very emotional chord in many people and, while I am very interested in people’s thoughts on this, I want to keep it quite civil.

Bob Egan's "In Search Of Color"

On Saturday night, I had the good fortune to attend friend and fellow photographer Bob Egan's exhibit of photographs entitled "In Search Of Color" at Phipps Conservatory in Pittsburgh, PA. It was a superbly executed show of 21 of Bob's images with a timely theme that fits the seasonal change from Winter to Spring.

I have written many times before about how difficult I find it to go out photographing in the Winter. Apparently, Bob has the same problem since the opening sentence in his artist's statement for the show is "I detest taking pictures in the winter!" Now, that clearly got my attention. After noting that he used to think that his main dislike was the cold weather itself, on further introspection he realized that "the actual challenge was the absence of color in the subject matter during this season " and that the greater issue was "How could I solve the problem of taking winter photographs without limiting my palette?". The concept and underlying theme for this exhibit was borne from the solution to his dilemma.

During the show, the viewer is taken progressively from several nearly monochromatic snowstorm images (see Frosted Featherwings, below) to those with bright and vibrant colors as Bob entertains various ways of expanding the color palette during the bland winter months. Bob's solutions include seeking color generated by dramatic light just before and after snowstorms, traveling to where there is little change in the color palette as the year progresses, photographing colorful subjects indoors, making abstracts of focal areas of color, and, finally, photographing in the Phipps Conservatory itself, where color always abounds (and where Bob teaches a series of courses on flower photography).

"Frosted Featherwings"
Copyright Bob Egan

The images were a delight to look at. I found myself spending time contemplating and enjoying each one.

One thing that I found very interesting, had never considered myself (but surely will in the future), and had the opportunity to discuss with Bob was the matting and framing. I have always double matted my color images with white and used gold or silver frames. Bob took an extremely effective alternative approach. The photographs were double matted with a rim of white mat showing around the image and a black overmat on top with simple black frames. The end result was that the black overmat and frame imparted a striking richness to the colors, much like looking at images against a black background on the internet. A very striking and extremely effective technique for a show that was about color.

"Painted Ladies On The Lake"
Copyright Bob Egan

So, if you live in the Pittsburgh area, I highly recommend a trip over to Phipps to check out "In Search Of Color"!

The History Of Nature Photography

I have previously wriiten about Jeff Curto's two superb podcasts, The History Of Photography Podcast and Camera Position. I have been a bit behind in my listening, but in the car today had the chance to listen to the Febrauary 24th episode of Camera Position entitled The Camera In The Cathedral: Camera Position Goes Historical.

The reason I thought that this particular episode should be mentioned is that it is specifically about the history of nature photography. It contains a lot of insights that were quite new to me about the interaction between the technological developments in photography and how they influenced the way in which nature was depicted photographically. For example, it never dawned upon me that since the Daguerreotype was essentially a one exposure, one image technique (meaning that one was not able to make more than one image from each exposure; there was no ability to make copies of the images) nature images were not frequently made in the early years of photography. This is because nature photographs would typically need to be mass produced for others to see, while portraiture was generally considered to be an image to be given to a single person.

Whet your interest? This episode is really fascinating and contains many interesting insights. Check it out here.

Photopreneur

I recently ran across an interesting photography blog with a different twist than most I have mentioned here. As opposed to being primarily art related, Photopreneur is a blog dedicated to discussing various ways that one's images can be used to produce income. Whether or not this is of primary interest, I find the blog well thought out and the articles interesting and full of good ideas. I thought it was worth sharing. I think having a peek at Photopreneur is worthwhile, and, who knows, it might give you some interesting ideas!

Just Around The Corner

Spring is just around the corner. OK, so maybe it still is just the begining of March and, while it is true that here in Western Pennsylvania you can get light snow even in the begining of April, the anticipation of Spring is in the air. Spring is my favorite season and I absolutely take delight in photographing it.

So, Mark, if you are out there, lets get ready to shoot more trillium!

"Peeking Out"

Copyright Howard Grill

"Wild Geranium"

Copyright Howard Grill

Quick Quotes: Eliot Porter

In my last "Quick Quote", I wrote about Gary Winogrand's saying:

"I don't have anything to say in any picture. My only interest in photography is to see what something looks like as a photograph. I have no preconceptions."

Just recently, I ran across a quote by Eliot Porter that I thought was an interesting follow-up to the Winogrand quote. Mr. Porter said:

"The more you photograph, the more you realize what can be photographed and what can't be photographed "

Somehow, I think there is an association between the two quotes. In mulling over it, there are times when I think he agrees with Winogrand and times when I think otherwise. This is first "Quick Quote" that I also have mixed feelings about, much as I love and respect Eliot Porter's work (I have not one, but two copies of Porter's 'In Wildness.....' and his book 'Antarctica'). Should one accept that something can not be photographed, or should they seek out new ways to portray it in an image, even if the image can not seemingly convey the full essence of the subject?

Definitely some things to think about here!

Fencing at "The Arnold"

I am going to be bringing my son to the Arnold (as in Schwarzenegger) athletic games in Columbus, Ohio on Saturday to compete in fencing. The games are sponsored by Governor Schwarzenegger, and have been for years. The convention center in Columbus becomes filled with just about every indoor sport competition imaginable, such as fencing, gymnastics, weightlifting, martial arts etc. Each year Mr. Schwarzenegger himself shows up and stops into the finals of every sport. It was actually quite funny last year because, as a governor, he has bodyguards for protection. So, naturally, all competitors in fencing were told that the governor's visit to the fencing match would be pre-announced by about 10 minutes and that all matches would stop and that all foils, epees etc had to be placed on the ground and not remain in anyone's hand.

I have previously mentioned that my son is quite a good competitive fencer in foil. As a matter of fact, he won the gold medal at "The Arnold" last year....but as you age the competition gets stiffer and more difficult.

Sports photography is not something that I really "do", but I did give it a whirl at the fencing tournament last year. So here we have two action shots from the finals (my son is the one on the left in both shots). And, yeah, I will also throw in a shot of Arnold.

Fencing I
Copyright Howard Grill

Fencing II
Copyright Howard Grill

The Governor Visits A Fencing Bout
Copyright Howard Grill

More Patterns

I recently wrote a post noting that I have taken many photographs of patterns in nature. I thought I would take the opportunity to share a few more that I had seen while going through some older images.

Beetle Tracks In Sand

Copyright Howard Grill

Rushing Water
Copyright Howard Grill

Ocean
Copyright Howard Grill

Remembering

Many people remember their family vacations by looking over the snapshots they take. Oddly enough, I am not one of them. I think it has something to do with being a perfectionist when it comes to photography. It makes it difficult to just knock off snapshots. Oh sure, I do have a tiny point 'n shoot and certainly take some quick shots of the kids on the beach and that sort of thing. But I don't particularly enjoy doing that because I constantly find myself trying to figure out how to make the shot better instead of enjoying the moment. Or, if I see something really nice, I will find myself wishing I had my dSLR along. I know this isn't a good habit to have, but it just is.....so instead of taking a ton of snaps I live and experience the vacation with joy but without trying to fully record it. My wife ends up taking snaps that we can enjoy years down the line.

What looking through images does for me is to remind me of the workshops and photography trips I have been on. I have many images from these trips and they are associated with memories of working hard with a group of like-minded people to try and make good photographs.

I was recently going through some shots and ran across this one, which reminded me of a terrific evening on a workshop with Alain Briot at Monument Valley.

Mitten With Moon
Copyright Howard Grill

Patterns

Sometimes, when reviewing your images, you can detect a subtle, or not so subtle, underlying interest. By this I mean detecting a way of looking at things that you might not even have been conscious of at the time you took the photograph. These underlying currents need not be manifest in the serious 'fine art' type of images that you put in your portfolio, they may just be apparent in the 'stuff' that you shoot for fun. I am referring to what comes out when you are shooting playfully to see if you can make images that you find interesting yourself, without necessarily having plans to show them to others.

So what did I find for myself when I was glancing through my images, which is obviously what motivated me to write this post?

It was apparent that I like discovering and portraying the graphic patterns in nature:

Tree Reflections
Copyright Howard Grill

Sand Pattern
Copyright Howard Grill

Mushroom Macro
Copyright Howard Grill

Take a look at a series of your own shots. Do any subjects or themes come to mind when you aren't shooting seriously?

A Negative Review

No matter where I look, I always read glowing reviews about the Visible Dust products used to clean digital camera sensors. Since one of the nice aspects of having a blog is to have a platform to voice one's own opinions, I think I will take the opportunity to do so by making some statements that, perhaps, many will disagree with. I know that most people have had excellent results with their Visible Dust Arctic Butterfly sensor brush, but some folks might like to hear a differing opinion before making a relatively expensive purchase.

Let me state that I absolutely hate sensor cleaning and therefore only do so when the need is more than a trivial one. I have always used the 'wet method'........the so-called Copper Hill method. It isn't any fun, and, personally, I find that it takes many attempts sequentially to get the sensor relatively clean. I also believe, as the Copper Hill website espouses, that it really is easy to do and difficult to harm the sensor. I have done it many times and removed even stubborn spots, cleaning relatively vigorously without any problems (of course, I can't guarantee you will have the same success).

But the Arctic Butterfly seemed to hold so much promise, seemed so.....well, easy and clean, and received so many glowing reviews that I thought my days of sensor aggravation were over. I was wrong.

At first, I got excellent results. But then, after one uneventful sensor cleaning, I found a nasty, gunky looking smear over a portion of the sensor that was worse than any piece of dust could be. After several vigorous wet cleanings it was successfully removed. Needless to say, I was quite concerned and assumed that somewhere along the line the brush had gotten contaminated. I cleaned it using the suggested method, but the brush actually broke (the original versions were made of quite thin and breakable plastic...this has been replaced in the newer versions with a much sturdier build).

Working under the assumption that I had contaminated the brush, and assuming that I could clean my camera's sensor quickly and safely with the product, I went and bought another. This time I got the current version which is much more substantial in build. The first clean was perfect, but the second swipe (which I did right after the first to get off some leftover particles) left me aghast. Again, I found the same nasty looking smear across the sensor that required quite a bit of wet cleaning to remove.

I took a deep breath once I got the smear off. I stepped back and checked out the Visible Dust website. It does clearly say that some cameras have manufacturing oils in the 'box' that encompasses the sensor and that they suggest first cleaning the box with a swab they sell in order to avoid just what had happened twice to me.....smearing oil over the surface of the sensor.
The only problem is that, to the best of my knowledge, I had never touched the brush to the inside of the box, as I had attempted cleaning extremely carefully. The only part of the 'box' that the brush had touched was the ridge of metal right at the very edge of the sensor on either side. And since the most amount of dust tends to collect at the edges of the sensor, touching this little ridge of metal with the brush can not be avoided. It also is a spot that I would not cavalierly clean with a large 'Chamber Clean' swab as it would be impossible to do so without also swabbing the sensor, a purpose for which this product was not made. Use in this area would also risk transferring oil to the sensor.

So, yes, the Arctic Butterfly can be used to quickly and painlessly clean the sensor BUT, on certain cameras, it can also, though far less frequently, make a mess of the sensor. The main reason I bought the brush was to take it on trips where I can't do a leisurely wet clean. These days that means any trip that requires airplane travel. So what would I rather have in those isolated circumstances, a 95% chance of a clean sensor with a 5% chance of a huge oil smear that I don't have the ability to clean, or a dusty sensor requiring a cloning job in Photoshop? I choose the cloning work any day.

In short, I think there is a real risk to the brush and I have totally given up using it. Let me make clear that, to me, this seems a potential problem with any dry brush cleaning method, not just the Visible Dust product. Let me also say that I recognize that the Visible Dust website does clearly state that this can be a problem and does also offer a potential solution. Nonetheless, and going against everything else that I have read on the internet, I give this product which, in my opinion, is quite overpriced, a big thumbs down. I know that this oil smearing problem has occurred to others as well.

Anyone want to buy a minimally used Arctic Butterfly? Mine is up for sale. Really.

Quick Quotes: Garry Winogrand

"I don't have anything to say in any picture. My only interest in photography is to see what something looks like as a photograph. I have no preconceptions."

Garry Winogrand (1928-1984)

For me, this quote by Garry Winogrand really encompasses a good deal of both the excitement and the frustration of photographing. It perfectly expresses to me, in words, the fact that the camera sees things differently than our eyes do.

At times, it can be very frustrating when I am excited about a scene at the time the shutter clicked, thinking that I had captured something special, only to find that the final image leaves me uninspired. Alternatively, how delightful it can be when I first see an image I took and it just hits the right way emotionally, perhaps in a way that I hadn't expected.

I know that there are many interpretations of the meaning behind this quote, but for me the idea that most hits home is the uncertainty of predicting how something will look in a photo. I think Mr. Winogrand expressed this just perfectly. Many times the mundane will look beautiful, and, after all, isn't the ability to make that happen the mark of a great photographer?

The Simplicity Of Snow

I was intrigued by fellow blogger Mark Graf's recent post about how snow tends to simplify scenes that would otherwise be quite disorganized and distracting; morphing a scene that would be difficult to photograph into something that looks much more appealing in a two dimensional image. Have a look at that interesting post if you haven't had a chance to read it.

After reading Mark's post, I found myself wondering if I could use snow to simplify an image even further....right down to bare graphic shapes. I would obviously have to look for very specific, uncluttered, and focal scenes (by which I mean picking out a small area of landscape that had very basic graphical qualities).

As I have mentioned many times before, I am not very much of a cold weather person, but I thought this would motivate me to get out into the cold with a specific idea in mind.

I have to say, it was quite enjoyable to walk around looking for these bits of ground that could be simply represented as abstract shapes. Thanks, Mark, for getting me out into the cold!

Copyright Howard Grill

Copyright Howord Grill

Copyright Howard Grill

Louie Palu: Cage Call Revisited

Back on November 20th, I wrote about Louie Palu's project entitled "Cage Call". At that time, I lamented the fact that I could not find a copy of Cage Call, which had been published by The Blue Sky Gallery in Portland, to purchase, despite searching all the usual spots. Imagine my surprise when I just recently found out that Mr. Palu was one of three photographers that had been awarded a monograph at Photolucida, as part of their 'Critical Mass' competition. Not only had it been awarded, but it was already published and available from Amazon in softcover for about $16.

I just received my copy and it was worth the wait. Rather than repeat my prior post, why not just check that post out. As expected, the images are superb and the accompanying text and interviews by Charlie Angus really round out the monograph. I was not disappointed!

Here is a link to Mr. Palu's website, and here is an Amazon link to the book.

Enjoy!

A Bit Of Confusion?

I am quite pleased that I had two prints juried into a multi-artist show commemorating Pittsburgh's 250th birthday. The show is entitled "Pittsburgh Through AAP Eyes", with AAP being the Associated Artists Of Pittsburgh. The show runs from Feb 8th to March 9th at The Pittsburgh Center For the Arts and includes both two and three dimensional art. The two prints of mine that are going to be on display are:

"Escape"
Copyright Howard Grill

"Old And New"
Copyright Howard Grill

So where does the issue of confusion come in, as the title of this post would suggest? Twice in the past I have written about the rights of photographers in Pittsburgh. Those posts can be seen here and here. In addition, fellow blogger Billie Mercer recently wrote about two even more concerning episodes involving photographer's rights. Those posts can be read here and here.

Again, what is the source of confusion? The issue is that, on the one hand, there are apparently areas in the city where security guards feel that they can stop people from photographing, despite the fact that it is perfectly legal to do so and, on the other hand, a show can be put together to honor the city that contains images that, on another day, might have been unable to be obtained because of over-zealous security guards and building owners. The image entitled "Escape", for example, was actually taken while standing on PPG property, though not of the PPG Building. So, they stop you from photographing there, but, if you manage to get some shots, the images can be in a show commemorating the city! Figure that one out.