My Interesting Observation

I was away with my son for the last week, at the national fencing competition which, this year, was held in San Jose, California. Since he was competing, we didn't get to see much of San Jose, but we did get to go out on the night of July 4th.

We went to a large park near our hotel, where they had a music festival followed by fireworks. It was during the fireworks that I noticed something interesting. Needless to say, I was spending my time looking upwards. But when I averted my gaze to the crowd I saw something I hadn't expected. I saw a sea of cell phone LED panels pointed upwards. I don't mean one or two. I mean thousands upon thousands of people using their cellphones to take pictures of the fireworks. It was really quite odd to see.

I am not sure what it means in regards to photography in this day and age, but I thought it quite interesting that the people watching the fireworks were somehow not satisfied until they had documented the event with their cellphone cameras.

Out Of The Micros II

Though I certainly wasn’t planning to do more than a single post about my decision to slowly leave microstock sites, I thought I might write just one more to address some comments and e-mails I have received. Once again, I would stress that these are simply my personal opinions and I don’t necessarily mean them to be appropriate for others who may have different needs and/or goals.

1) I do not believe that the microstock industry is going to go bust nor do I believe that the failure of Lucky Oliver (a microstock site) is the harbinger of a larger industry-wide demise. On the contrary, I suspect that just the opposite is true. From what I have read, revenues at the major microstock sites continue to climb while they are on the decline at the macros. Surely, other micros will go under, but this just reflects the difficulty in new players competing with the established giants in the industry......the same holds true for every industry. I suspect that the Shutterstocks and iStocks of the world will continue to grow.

2) Moreover, as I mentioned in my prior post, I believe the ‘horse is out of the barn’. I suspect a critical mass of photographers and images are available on the micros such that it would be difficult for any group of people to stop the trend by deciding not to participate. That is one of the main reasons that persuaded me to give it a try. In the end, participating in it just didn’t ‘feel right’ to me.

I fully recognize that slowly pulling my 100 images isn’t going to make one bit of difference to the agencies that have them. In fact, even if the largest individual microstock contributors pulled their many thousands of images, I suspect it wouldn’t have much effect. If the majority of the major contributors pulled their images it might make the sites have a brief second thought, but then they would likely quell the revolt by reimbursing a few more cents per image (along the lines of the recent mini-uprising on Fotolia).

I suspect it is quite true that I stand to make much less on the ‘macros’ than the micros; in fact, I recognize that there is a very good chance that I might never make a sale there. But, for me, I would rather feel good about making nothing than feel bad offering my best work for a pittance, while making a few hundred bucks a year.

I do find myself wondering how this pricing model ever started. Who decided that an image should be sold for 5 or 10 dollars. Well, perhaps 5 or 10 might, in some instances, be reasonable, but for the photographer to get $1 or less from the sale? I am not familiar with the history of microstock, but why did people flock to the subscription model where they get 25 cents an image…..was it the promise of selling it 1000 times over?

3) I find that I don’t believe, as some have said, that the micros can be a place to develop a name or reputation that will allow one to move to the macros. In fact, I suspect just the opposite is true. My guess is that you probably do more harm than good to a photographic career if you get known as someone that sells their images for peanuts. Again, I have no proof of this, but my guess is that one would ultimately get further by working hard to make great images and offering them at appropriate price points (even if they get less sales and income) than by selling them at micro sites.

I personally do not find particularly believable the claim made by Corbis at their SnapVillage micro-site that ultimately their most successful micro shooters might be culled to become regular Corbis photographers.

By the way, why do the majority of micro shooters submit under a pseudonym? I don’t know, but I have always felt that if I am not proud enough of something to attach my name to it than I probably shouldn’t be doing it.

Someone commented to me that one reason for using a pseudonym is to sell the same royalty free images on micro and macro sites since that would make it harder for a macro buyer to find that the image he just paid top dollar for was available for a few bucks by searching for the photographers name on micro sites.

Whether the same royalty free image should be able to be sold on the macros and micros (after all, royalty free is royalty free) is another whole question (and I have decided not to do so). But, if you think it is right you shouldn’t have to hide the fact that you are doing so. That fails my ‘if it’s right you shouldn’t be ashamed of it’ test.

4) I do believe that the quality of the images that are currently being accepted on the micros are excellent. In fact, based on what I have experienced, I suspect the technical quality of the images are at least as good as on the macro sites. Which is why the buyers keep coming back. I just can’t understand (yes, I know, I was doing it myself) why the contributors are willing to accept the extremely low fee per image that they get. If I were a buyer for anything other than a large corporation the micros are probably the first place I would look as well.

5) I should mention that there are some images that, to me, do seem appropriate to sell on micro sites, but that is because I believe their value may well be what the micro reimbursement is. Colored backgrounds, quick shots of a location I might be walking by, images I am not interested in developing or working on etc., but not your best work.

I think there is ‘lots of stuff’ to think about here and certainly the answers I have come up with are purely personal ones. Maybe, as someone who is not a photographer by profession, I shouldn’t be offering my opinion, but, then again, this is a personal blog........

Out Of The Micros

I have, in general, always found myself trying new things instead of taking the word of others. Maybe that is unwise (if you jump off a building, do you really need to experience the impact to know that it is going to hurt?), but, on the other hand, I have always been one to want to prove things to myself and not simply take another's word and surely there is some wisdom to that. And so it was when I decided to see if my images (as opposed to my prints) might sell in the open market.

This question launched my experiment with the microstock agencies that I wrote about a few months ago. And the results of this experiment?

Well, my images do sell. And there is a certain 'kick' that one gets when a download is registered (which, by the way, is, I believe, the drive for many, if not most, micro contributors.....like a hit of a drug, you want more). But is it worthwhile? Is it reasonable? Is it respectful to your work? Having, to some degree, immersed myself in it for 4 or 5 months, I have my own personal answers to those questions. Like my original posting, my answers are certainly not the answers for everyone, they are just my opininon.

First off, the sales. I have been earning about $75-85 per month. Some might think this is a lot and others might think it is very little. Certainly, it is not enough to represent a meaningful amount of income to most people. The gain or loss of this much will not effect my (our most peoples) life style at all. But it has taken a reasonable amount of work to prepare images, spot them, keyword them, upload them etc. In and of itself, that is not necessarily a negative as artists can work for a long time on images to hang in a gallery or show and not necessarily make a sale. They have, however, for their efforts, had people enjoy their work and attribute it to them. They have shared their artwork with those wanting to see art. But for my efforts, does anyone know me better as an artist (yes, I know that microstock is not art, but people don't know me any better as a photographer either)? Have I had any bylines or copyright notices next to my images? Do people know the images are mine? One word answer. NO. In fact, the venture has, if anything, detracted me from my more artistic endeavors.

Who has been making the most money? Without question it is the microstock companies. I believe they are laughing all the way to the bank. For the photographer to get $0.25 to $3.00 for an image (with 99% of my sales being $0.25-$1.00), despite the fact that the image can be sold many times over is, I have come to believe, an insult. At least it seems an insult if the photographer is submitting their 'good' work to the agency. And it seems a bit absurd to try to sell your bad work.

Should I have realized this before giving the micros a try? Perhaps. There is certainly enough information out there to have let me come to these conclusions without giving it a try. I guess I had to prove to myself that the micros were not going to give me what I was looking for. As I mentioned above, I do think a big part of their appeal is the 'hit' one gets from getting a download that keeps people coming back for more. But I do think that when one steps back they find that the laugh is on them.

For whom do I personally think the micros are a reasonable option. I think for those that are trying to make a substantial portion of their income from micro shooting and who are shooting topics specifically for micro (ie business people shaking hands, smiling families) and who are spending their work hours, not their private time hours, doing it the micros might be reasonable. But I don't personally want to spend my private time making these types of images. I would rather work on my more serious artistic images. And I don't mind selling them, but I would like the price to reflect the passion, time, and effort that I put into making them.

So what are my plans from here. I have decided to slowly leave the micros. I have either deleted or requested account closure from most of them (some require 90 days notice). I have left my Shutterstock, iStock, and Dreamstime accounts open for the moment and have just started to submit many of these images to Alamy after having been accepted there. As images hopefully slowly start to get accepted at Alamy and other macro-stock agencies I will delete them from these remaining accounts. Of course, the images that were sold in the micros will need to be sold in the macro stock agencies as royalty free and new images can be submitted as rights managed. Theoretically, one can, by the letter of the law, continue to sell Alamy royalty free images on micro sites as well (though PhotoShelter, which I also plan to apply to, forbids this). However, I plan to just remove them from the micros nonetheless, for all the reasons I noted above.

Though I did it as well, I find myself wondering what had come over me and why anyone would sell their images for such low prices? Well, at least I was smart enough to figure it out and do something about it.

One thing I do have to say, though. And that is that the quality of the images at the leading micros are very high with every image being carefully inspected...which does make me wonder why many buyers would stick with macro agencies unless it is for images that are rights managed, so they know where the images have been. Though I no longer want to participate, with, literally millions of images available on the micros, the horse is, as they say, out of the barn. And it doesn't look like it is going back any time soon. I can see why it is a difficult time to be a professional stock photographer.


So, for me, the microstock experiment has come to an end.

When Is It Done?

I would like to take another brief interlude from the rock images to mention an issue that I have been thinking about lately.

I have noticed something in my own work and am wondering if others have had the same experience (yikes, could it really be just me?). When I am in Lightroom going through my RAW files to choose ones that I want to work on further, I will frequently make some quick changes to exposure and saturation etc and perhaps even open them in Photoshop to add a quick curves layer. I do this to try to quickly see the potential of an image since the RAW files are, by definition, fairly flat looking.

Using this process, I pick out images that I want to continue working on in order to ‘perfect’ them. I might work on a chosen image for quite some time. Some of the work is general to the image. By that I mean that it would be needed no matter how else the image was processed. I am referring to spotting the photo as well as cloning out errant objects as well as objects that I noticed ahead of time but could do nothing about, such as small signs and the like. Getting the crop right would also fall into this category.

But then I start working on the aspects of the image that are changeable and dependent on the ‘feel’ I want to give the photograph. This includes things like local contrast, saturation, fine tuning the exposure etc. The funny thing is that while sometimes the result looks far, far better than the starting point after the quick Lightroom adjustments, there are other times (and though they are not the majority, they are still not at all infrequent) when I look back at the quick starting point that I had generated only to find that, even after all the manipulations and effort, I like the starting version of the image better.

I wonder if there is something in those first quick adjustments that allows one’s intent or pre-visualization of the image to come out. Frequently, I wonder if I am doing too much to an image, or if the many minor adjustments that I might spend time making are even noticeable. I think knowing when to stop is a big hurdle to overcome, at least for me.

Anyone have thoughts about this?

More TinEye Invites

I am going to interrupt the brief series on rock abstract images that I have been posting to mention that, since giving away the prior twenty TinEye pre-approved invitations, they have given me twenty more. See here for more information about TinEye and its new image search engine.

So if anyone wanted a TinEye invite but couldn't get one from the last batch, I have more. Just make a comment to this post with a name and e-mail address and I will send one on to you!

Making Rock Images: Pt. 2

If you haven't had the chance to read Part 1 of this series, that post can be found here.

Hurdle #2: Focus

The images I have been making involve isolating small areas of stone that have interesting abstract patterns. This obviously calls for using a macro lens, and I have been using a Canon 180mm macro with a 1.4 teleconvertor. Because the magnification is so great, the depth of field is quite shallow, and, in my opinion, the toughest part of making images like this (aside from finding a great composition) is assuring edge to edge sharpness across the photo. In this post I thought I would share some of the aspects of achieving sharpness that I have worked out thus far.

There are two planes that should optimally be perfectly parallel to each other. These are the plane of the rock slab surface and the film or sensor plane. In addition, while the surface of the sensor is, for all intents and purposes, perfectly flat, the plane of the rock surface will not be. So where does one start?

My first step has been to make the back of the camera itself perfectly level to the ground while the lens is pointed downwards. This must be done in both the north/south and east/west planes. I check the 'levelness' with a short bubble level by placing the bottom of the level flat on the lcd sensor screen in both the north/south and east/west orientations.

I quickly found out that making such adjustments in two planes with a ballhead while the camera is pointed straight down is quite difficult. This is because when the ballhead is loosened the camera can move freely in both planes and thus it is very hard to adjust the camera's position in one direction only. My solution (without buying any fancy new equipment) is to separate the two plane adjustments. I do this by dropping the camera (mounted on a focusing rail which ultimately makes life much, much simpler) as far down as it will go into one of the ballhead slots. As long as the camera is as far down into the slot as it can go, the 'levelness' of the north to south plane will not change. That plane can now be made level by putting some cardboard underneath a tripod leg (or legs) to make the back of the camera parallel to the ground. Now the ballhead lock can be loosened and the camera rotated in the east/west direction until it is level in that plane as well. You can recheck the position in the north/south direction, but as long as you maintained some gentle downward force on the camera so that it is down in the bottom of the ballhead slot while rotating it east/west, the north/south leveling should remain intact.

Stone Trees
Copyright Howard Grill

The next step is to level the rock slab. Find a heavy flat object that will serve as the surface on which the rock slab to be photographed will sit. This surface now needs to be leveled in the north/south and east/west directions using the same level as for the camera and adjusted as needed by putting some paper or cardboard under the ends that need to be raised or lowered (when you live in a very old house the floors tend to not be truly flat!)

Now comes the part that ruins the perfection. I find that the rock slabs themselves, even if cut nicely, rarely are perfectly flat. In addition, the edges of the rock slab frequently have a ridge or ledge that lifts it off the surface on which it rests in an uneven fashion. This can sometimes be remedied by using a level and slipping a few pieces of paper underneath an edge of the slab where needed. Also, if the ridge on one edge is particularly prominent, I may let that edge extend off the surface it is resting on. Ultimately this can be a bit of an exercise in futility because I end up moving the rock around to get different compositions. I simply do the best I can with a reasonable effort. Even with these uncontrollable imperfections in the rock slab, the better you have leveled your camera and the surface on which the rock slab to be photographed sits, the better off you will be.

If anyone has any further recommendations as to how to ensure that the plane of the rock and the plane of the sensor or film are parallel to each other, please chime in!

Making Rock Images: Pt. 1

As I mentioned in my last post, I have started to make some abstract rock images after seeing some of Mark Graf's abstract gallery. I have also bought Bill Atkinson's book Within the Stone, which is absolutely gorgeous. After several sessions of trying, I have learned several tricks that have worked for me without buying any new equipment and thought it might be of interest to share them in a few blog posts....if I have time to process some images more fully I will display some of them as well.

Hurdle #1: Finding Rock

This one is pretty easy. Log onto e-Bay and search for Jasper Rock, Agate, Flint or any other type of rock you would like to photograph and start bidding. Bid on pieces that have been cut so that the surface to be photographed is flat (so that the entire surface can be in focus at once). It doesn't matter if the surface has been polished or not. As a matter of fact it is probably better that it is not. The reason is that the polished pieces have typically been cut for jewelry....that means that they often are not flat and, in addition, the pieces are smaller. You want a flat surface and the largest piece possible in order to search around for and isolate different compositions.

Oh, and now that I shared that with you, do me a favor and don't bid against me on anything!

In the next post I will talk about focusing without buying a copy stand.

First Try

Ever since seeing Mark Graf's gorgeous rock and petrified wood macro abstracts, I have been wanting to give this type of work a try. After reading up on cross-polarization (along with some e-mail assistance from Mark) and buying a few specimens, I gave it a go. This is the first photo that I have fully processed and I plan to try more of these types of images, as I particularly enjoy finding abstracts and patterns in nature.

Stone Rainbow
Copyright Howard Grill

Out Of Focus

Last Spring, after experimenting with photographing some wildflowers, I had written a post about purposefully throwing an image totally out of focus and making the photograph an abstract of form and color with no clearly defined shape. These are the images I had taken at the time.

Columbine
Copyright Howard Grill

Buttercups
Copyright Howard Grill

Recently, I was again experimenting with this idea, but was trying to work with it a bit differently. Rather than throwing the image totally out of focus, I threw it out enough to make it clear that the image was not simply poorly focused, but yet not far enough to totally loose the sense of underlying shape. I found the results to be compelling and very dreamlike in appearance, akin to the 'shoot through' technique where one places petals or other colored objects very close to the front of the lens while focusing on something a bit further out.

Floral Dream
Copyright Howard Grill

I am not quite sure if I am totally there yet, but find that I do like experimenting with this sort of image making and think it holds potential for conveying what I want to express while going 'beyond' the idea of selective focus and shallow depth of field. Does anyone else see anything interesting emerging from this, or am I just kidding myself here?

Quick Quotes: Margaret Bourke-White

"If you want to photograph a man spinning, give some thought to why he spins. Understanding for a photographer is as important as the equipment he uses."

Margaret Bourke-White

This concept has been verbalized by many, many photographers. I am just not sure I have 'heard' anyone say it better than Margaret Bourke-White.

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"!

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