TinEye Invitations

The folks at TinEye apparently saw that I had put up a blog post about them. As a result, they gave me twenty pre-approved invitations to give out to join their beta website. I will send them to the first twenty people that respond to this post by making a comment that they want one. In the comment you can leave your e-mail address and name, or, if you would rather not do that, you can e-mail me with your name and e-mail address. I do, however, request that you put a comment in the blog first so that people will see when the twenty invites have been given away (twenty comments) and not continue to fill my in-box with requests long after the invitations are gone. Then again, perhaps I am overestimating what the popularity of the site will be.

Well, no matter. If twenty people are interested, just post a comment and let me know your e-mail address. If there are already twenty comments....well, that's it!

Photoshop Disasters

Deep down, we all love Photoshop. But, sometimes, things can go a bit awry. With photography that generally means that we have ended up in the trap of oversaturation or poor contrast. In the field of graphic design things can get worse......much worse!

How much worse and how often? Turns out quite frequently. And not only work by amateurs....as you will see many of these bloopers are in ads put out by very large corporations. The errors, sometimes small, sometimes big, and very frequently funny have a place where they go for all to see and that place is a blog called Photoshop Disasters.

Check it out here and know that others have erred far worse than you!

Find Your Images On-Line

Ever wonder if any of your images are online, be it pilfered from you or being used with permission. I ran across a very cool search engine which aspires to be the Google for images. You simply give it the URL of the image or, even easier, right click on any internet image after installing a Firefox plug-in and the site searches for the image, or even a portion of the image, in cyberspace.

Here is the link.

A few downsides:

1) At this point in time only a small fraction of the images 'out there' are cataloged and searched.....about 500 million of them.

2) It is still in beta.

3) To try to use it you need to apply for an invitation. The good news is that I got mine via e-mail in about 10 minutes.

4) It didn't find my images on various critique sites where I know they reside.

But within limits it does work. If you go to a microstock site, where images are meant to be purchased for use, and search on a popular image it will return hits where the image has been used, even when the image has been cropped down etc.

Try it for some of your own on-line images. You might be surprised what you find, for better or worse!

Around The House

A week or so ago I had a bit if time, but couldn’t leave the house because I had to be home for one of my children. So I decided to see what I might ‘play with’ photographically while waiting. Sometimes, when I have nothing to do, I gravitate towards the fridge (does that happen to anyone else?). This time, while I was there, I decided that instead of eating I would photograph something….and perhaps reward myself by eating it afterwards. So I felt obligated to pull out something healthy.

I gravitated to some rather colorful bell peppers that were in the veggie bin. They seemed to have everything needed: color and shape. It was with great hesitation that I pulled one out, as all I could think of was that after Edward Weston nobody could or should ever photograph a pepper. Ah well, I did it anyway, or else I would have ended up eating something far less healthful.

Wet Orange Bell Pepper
Copyright Howard Grill

It was sort of fun to play around and decide that I had to shoot something that I could find quickly in the house. I suspect it is a pretty good exercise in training one’s self to see.

The Wall

I recently walked by a wall that had a mural painted on it. I had my camera with me and decided to take a few pictures. A funny thing happened while I was photographing. I realized that I was not taking pictures of the mural itself, at least not in the sense of taking a picture that would show someone what the mural looked like. Rather, I found myself making abstract photographs of little sections of the mural....smears of paint, lines, twirls of color.

When I got home and started looking at the images, I really liked what I saw. I was intrigued that there could be so many beautiful pictures within another piece of art that were never purposefully put there to stand alone.

As in the image below, there was a bit of glare in the photos because of the time of day I happened to be passing by the wall.

Copyright Howard Grill

I plan to go back at a different time of day and take some more photos in better conditions and to also try to do some of this type of photographing when I pass other murals or graffiti. I actually think this would make a nice little project of its own!

Another Use For The Flashlight

In my last post, I wrote about how having a small flashlight helped me to make a photograph better. I have been playing around with one ever since I read Les Saucier's flashlight article.

I recently found another benefit to having a small LED light. The other day I was making some macro photographs using a 180mm macro lens with a 1.4 TC and focusing manually. I was also using the flashlight to throw some supplementary light on the subject of the image. I had focused and was playing with the direction of lighting when it occurred to me that the light might also help with focusing.

So, I tried a little experiment. I focused manually, then added extra light on the subject and tried to see if the focus was still optimal. I was flabbergasted to find that the vast majority of times, even though I had been sure that my focus was right on, it, in fact, was able to be improved by re-focusing with the added light on the subject. Perhaps being off by a tad is not a big deal for many images, but for macro work it certainly is.....it can make or break the picture.

I don't know if it is my age, my eyes, or what....but I do know that now I will be using the flashlight to help me get that focus just the way I want it when shooting macro images.

The more I use this little light, the mire I like it and the more uses I find for it.

Flashlight Saves Image

I love photographing during Springtime. Last weekend I made my first of what is hopefully to be several trips to local wildflower areas. There was some early goldenrod blooming in isolated patches, and I spent some time with my macro lens making images of individual buds. While I was looking around (and getting the aches out of my knees and hips from crouching for so long), I happened to see a ‘bug’ nestled deep within the swirling leaves of an emerging plant. Though I recently wrote a few posts about the types of photographs I don’t frequently take, and one of them was insects, I couldn’t resist trying my hand at capturing an image of the little guy. I liked the pattern and color of the leaves and thought the best approach would be to take an ‘environmental portrait’ rather than trying to fill the frame with the insect’s head.

I needed some added illumination beyond natural light to properly photograph the insect in the recesses of the leaves and so I broke out my macro flash. However, after taking a few shots, I noticed a problem. The flash was generating distracting specular highlights in the water droplets on the leaves around the bug. Since one’s eye tends to be immediately drawn to bright highlights I felt the flash, while providing adequate illumination to make the photo, was, at the same time, detracting from it by drawing the eye away from the main subject.

I could try to change the position of the flash or to partially shade a portion of it, but I realized that besides the uneven lighting that might ensue, it would also be an exercise in futility as the results could only be seen after the shot was taken……and I only have two hands. Therefore, after evaluating the results on the camera’s small LCD, it would be impossible to exactly reproduce the lighting conditions that were present during the exposure, let alone change them in any type of controlled fashion.

But then I remembered the small flashlight that I had purchased after reading Les Saucier’s article that I previously wrote about. By holding the flashlight in one hand and the cable release in the other, I was able to make the exposure while looking through the viewfinder and seeing the effect of the lighting in real time, enabling me to minimize the specular highlights and produce an image that I found pleasing.

Copyright Howard Grill

Not only that, the flashlight enhanced my creative efforts. Though I ultimately ended up liking the most straightforward lighting the best, I couldn’t help but experiment with different ways of illuminating the bug. I tried using the flashlight to light the little guy from all different angles including backlighting him from behind the leaf. That might have worked if I had a second flashlight to throw a bit more light on the bug from the front as well. Nonetheless, I felt a bit better about not having a second light when I realized that I would then have to set off the cable release with my mouth!

The flashlight is definitely handy to have around. Why not give it a try!

Photographer's Rights: One More Time

I have written previously about issues involving the rights of photographers. Those posts can be seen here and here.

Well, it can always get worse. Check out this poster:




I am at least pleased to say that this was not the work of the USA.....though it certainly could well have been. Nope, this one is from England.

Want the full story?

Check it out on Carol Wright's Photo Attorney blog......the story is here.

The most absurd part of it is that, as Attorney Wright points out, ".......in days where most everyone has a cell phone camera, it's ironic that the larger your camera, the more likely that you'll be hassled. Terrorists are prone to be more discreet."

I am all for stopping terrorists, but this has to be about the most ineffective method around and simply encourages others others to, once again, violate the rights that one has to simply make photographs!

Stone Abstracts By Mark Graf

For the last month or two, fellow blogger and photographer Mark Graf has intermittently written in his blog about photographing rock samples, particularly Pietersite, as part of his 'Inspired By Stone' project. Ever since seeing the images he has posted as part of this project I have simply been mesmerized by them as well. I am equally amazed by the concept of how many beautiful compositions can be found within just a few square inches. Mark talks a bit about how he made the photographs here. I think I might have to give this a try myself.

Pietersite Macro
Copywrite Mark Graf
From His Blog "Notes From The Woods"

Have a look at his rock, shell, and wood abstract gallery here. The images are truly beautiful and open up a world that few take a close enough look at.

Insects

About a week ago, I wrote a post about bird photography and mentioned that it is not the type of photography I usually do, but offered up a picture or two anyway. Along the same theme of photographic sub-specialties that I don't frequently undertake is insect photography. In a way, it is similar to bird photography in that those that devote a good portion of their time to photographing insects can come up with the most amazing images.......when you view them it can feel like you are entering a new and surreal universe. Though this image is far from generating that type of feel, it is one that I have liked ever since I took it on a workshop with John and Barbara Gerlach several years ago.

Crab Spider
Copyright Howard Grill

One of the reasons that I like the image is that it demonstrates some of the concepts of composition that I would typically apply to much larger subjects. I like the way the markings on the body of the spider echo the color of the flower as well as the way the two portions of the flower on the left and right droop downwards, echoing the angle of the markings on the spider's body. On a larger scale, I liked the gentle diagonal made by the whole flower across the frame, instead of its being straight up and down.

I find it interesting that the qualities that contribute to making successful images can generally be applied to most subjects.

Focus Magazine Collectors Edition

One of the photography magazines that I have been reading regularly is Focus Magazine. It is, in my opinion, an excellent and very worthwhile publication. I am writing about it now, however, because I wanted to call attention to a very special issue that I just finished reading and is currently available at news stands. Well, actually, I have never seen one at a news stand per se, and while I have a subscription, I do know that it can be found at Barnes and Noble.

What is so special about this issue? This month, the editors have grouped together a large number of past interviews with various photographers from older issues and reprinted them together in one location. There are interviews here with some of my favorites including Michael Kenna, Paul Caponigro, George Tice, and an interview with Arnold Newman that took place just prior to his recent death.

Definitely a worthwhile read!

Bird Photography

I am constantly amazed at the level of devotion as well as the exquisite results that dedicated bird photographers like Arthur Morris are able to attain. Such photography is truly a sub-specialty and, like most areas of expertise, the casual dabbler simply can't expect similar results. Some might argue that this is because of the specialized and expensive equipment that is needed. However, it goes well beyond equipment. It requires the interest, the study, and ultimately the love of the subject and the genre to achieve the type of level of excellence that Mr. Morris has attained.

With that said, during my trip to Sanibel Island in December, I couldn't help but try to take a few shots of the herons that would land outside our condo in the evenings. I knew these hand held shots wouldn't be perfect......but they were fun to take!

Little Blue Heron Silhouette
Copyright Howard Grill

Little Blue Heron Portrait
Copyright Howard Grill

Overlooking Special Opportunities

A recent experience made me realize how easy it is to overlook special photographic opportunities that may exist right in ones own backyard.

For 17 years I have been living a mere 10-15 minute walk from Phipps Conservatory, which a wonderful botanical garden. Needless to say, I have often photographed the outdoor gardens, but never the indoor ones because of the much lower light levels. Little did I know that if you are a member (which I am) you can bring a tripod inside from 9:30 - 11:00AM on Sundays. Thanks to Bob Egan, whose wonderful show "In Search Of Color" is still on display at Phipps, for letting me know about this member benefit.

Two Tulip Abstract - Indoors At Phipps
Copyright Howard Grill

I was able to bring my tripod in two weeks ago and am signed up for this Sunday once again.

I guess the lesson is that if there is someplace nearby your home that would be interesting to photograph, but there seems to be a limitation to doing do......just ask and maybe you will get lucky. Had I asked about photographing Phipps years ago there would have been many cold winter mornings spent photographing flowers and plants! It does make the idea of next winter more palatable though.

Canna Lily - From Past Phipps Excursions
Copyright Howard Grill

Unfurling Spring Growth - From Past Phipps Excursions
Copyright Howard Grill

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"!