Microstock: why it’s good (and bad)

June 30, 2010 0 Comments read Blog, News

Many professional photographers complain about the growth of microstock in the past few years–inexpensive stock images (costing as little as one to five dollars) from companies like istockphoto, shutterstock and BigStockPhoto. These images on average cost pennies to dozens of dollars to use and have become standard for businesses and web designers who don’t want to commission original work for hundreds of dollars.

I don’t blame them.

Microstock has its place. Why spend a ton of money on something that you may want to change frequently, or that is part of a simple Powerpoint? Some of my business customers go through a process that starts with them doing their own photography, purchasing microstock and finally hiring a pro—that’s me— when they get busy or large enough that it makes sense to do so. I tell my clients that they should do what they can to save their money, and bring me in only when they have a big, tricky or big-splash campaign that needs to be done right. I’m part of the mix, and my client is being prudent. I like that.

Microstock is useful but it has its drawbacks too. That image of a bunch of business types interacting might be nice looking and may perfectly illustrate an ad for your conference room space rentals. But you have no control of who else uses that image. It might also perfectly illustrate the meeting space of your competitor, who decides they want to use it as well. Or it may illustrate the types of clientele an upscale escort service wants to attract and show up in some places you don’t want to associate with your brand.

My suggestion? When you decide to use a piece of stock for your primary web or marketing materials, do a search to see who else is using it. An exciting service is called www.tineye.com and if you upload an image it’ll scour the web to find where else that image is published.

The image above, sold on istockphoto for less than $10, is being used for 236 different sites around the world (see screenshots below). Interesting to note that a dozen or more companies use this same image on their “about us” pages. Wouldn’t it be better to actually show your people?

Another alternative is to hire a professional to do your work. It may cost a bit more, but the image will be totally unique—the highest value in a world of cheap copies—just like your brand. It’s yours. It’ll feature your work or your team.

Whichever way you go, it’s worth your time to go in with eyes wide open.

Make your photo files immortal

June 16, 2010 0 Comments read Blog, News, Shop Talk

What is a DNG file? Should I shoot RAW? I hear questions like these all the time from photographers and friends. It’s confusing out there, with each camera manufacturer using a different, proprietary type of RAW file. Sometimes the file type changes between cameras of the same manufacturer. How do you ensure that your files are readable years down the road, when that format may be obsolete (many have already come and gone)?

The best answer right now is the Adobe-sponsored format .DNG (Digital Negative). This is a standard supported by Lightroom, Aperture, Adobe Bridge, Photo Mechanic and many other image browsers, catalogs and PIEware. It’s not yet universally supported by the major digital camera manufacturers, but it’s probably just a matter of time before that happens.

It’s a good idea, if you shoot RAW–to either save the original RAW images and then convert your take to DNG, or to convert immediately to DNG and save those as originals (which they technically are). Most professional image browsing software will convert proprietary RAW files to .DNG during the image ingestion process–that is, as the software copies the images from your digital media card and deposits them on a hard drive. If you don’t have a browser software that does this for you, you can download a .DNG converter from Adobe.

For ultimate forward-backward compatibility, add .DNG file conversion to your workflow. Your future self will thank you.

Copyright registration: why it matters

June 14, 2010 0 Comments read Blog, News

Misconceptions abound when it comes to copyright of intellectual property, especially photography. Photographers typically think that they automatically own the copyright to their work and thus are protected when their images are used without permission. This sense of security–while based in fact–is somewhat misplaced.

A comprehensive discussion of copyright law is a topic for another time. Suffice to say that there are many reasons why professional photographers (those making a living at photography and want to continue to do so in the future) should copyright their work: One is that the most you can collect for a copyright infringement is the value of the image itself if the image has not been registered with the US Copyright Office. If a registered work is infringed upon, lawyers fees and statutory damages may be collected. Two, having registered work gives the copyright holder protection and leverage when negotiating disputes with publishers of their work. This can help with resolving slow- or non-paying customer issues.

It’s recommended that any photographer copyright their work prior to distribution or publication. Clients who purchase copyright from photographers (the so-called ‘buy-out’) should consider registering the work they own as well. To find out more about why copyright registration is important, check out the explanation posted on the American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP). It’s easy to register electronically at the US Copyright office. Lastly, there’s a great tutorial for photographers on the ASMP site on registering photography work online.