Clients, good or bad, are not, typically, one off. Further, you don't want them to be, generally speaking. Sure, when a client wants to hire you because this is their first/only assignment in your locale, just as the shopper in town for business or on a vacation, you appreciate that business, but not as much as the repeat business over time.
The long term client is exponentially worth more to you when kept, and significantly detrimental to you when lost. Conversely, the long term low-paying client costs you when kept, and frees you up to do better paying work when lost.
Consider that you spend significant efforts to earn a client. Whether mailings, or meetings, phone calls, and so forth. You get your first assignment from them, of, say $1k. (If you're a big time advertising photographer, go with me on this, and just 10x the figures I am putting forth.) If you do well, you'll earn not just the $1k, but the next assignment as well. That accounts for another $1k next time. Then again, another, and another, and another. Over time, a $1k client, properly managed and serviced, can generate $20k-$50k, or more.
If I said to you, after you botched a job, or just were laxadasical about your service/followup component of an assignment, that you would loose well over $10k, would you handle things differently?
(Continued after the Jump)
I have quantified, for a vendor of mine, that they have lost in excess of $15k in business from me, over time, (with more losses accruing over time) because they didn't handle my business as they should have. It happens, and I am concerned about the possibility of it happening to me with my own clients.
There is a general rule about customers and who they will tell about their experiences. In a Shaw Resources article - Are Your "Satisfied" Customers Leaving You for Higher Value Elsewhere? - they repeat the commonly understood business reality that "...a happy customer will tell 2 - 3 friends about a positive experience - but an unhappy customer who has deserted your company will tell 10 - 13...". They then go on to report that "...Six out of seven customers who should complain, do not complain. They silently take their business elsewhere and you may never know it. The one in seven customers who do complain are saying, if only you could correct the situation, they would like to continue doing business with you."
Other research shows that an unhappy client will share their negative experiences with you for, on average, 18 months, which is plenty of time to talk to those 10-13 people who are dissatisfied with your efforts. If you are fortunate enough for them to return, it will take a dozen good experiences to make up for the one bad one.
Making outreach to clients, and determining what you can do better next time, increases the likelihood that they will. Further, it helps you know where you might have dropped the ball, so you can fix it for the next client. This effort will help those clients tell their 2-3 friends about how well you did, and word-of-mouth promotion is second to none. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
I'll admit it - I spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about where I fall in Google's rankings for my search terms of choice. Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is a key part of what I think about. When I was convinced, a few years back that my site needed a facelift, my concern wasn't how it would look, as much as it was how it's new look might affect my position on page 1 of Google, et al. I have been vociferous in my research for my first website (which was on Compuserve, back in 1995), since the early days of Yahoo (early 1996 for those of you counting), when inclusion was free (but you had to work for it), to Altavista, where, a properly coded (read - white hat) site could win you the entire first page. So was the case, for example, with the search term "concert photographer", I was literally the first 9 of 10 listings there in the early days. As of right now, DC concert photographer places me 1st and 3rd on both Altavista, and on Yahoo. Fortunately, where it matters most - Google, I am first and second. On MSN, I'm #2.
Why should you care?
(Continued after the Jump)
Because what you spend on SEO, and a easy to navigate, attractive website, will be earned back ten-fold in assignments you would have never gotten a call for. I cannot stress this enough, and it bears repeating - you have to have an easy to navigate, attractive, and professional looking website. As to why Google - 18 months ago, an analyst for RBC Capital Markets - Jordan Rohan, said "We see little to stop Google from reaching 70% market share..."
According to the comScore chart up there, Google has achieved a 58% share of the market, chipping away at Yahoo and MSN. It's insane that Yahoo is only a 22% marketshare competitor, and a distant second at that. What happened?
In short - Google delivered a better product. Their results are cleaner, easier to access, and if it weren't for Internet Explorer built in as the default browser on all new PC's sold, with a default search home page of MSN on many of them, I suspect that their percentage would be even lower.
Further you should care because when I, (playing the role of a a photo buyer/photo editor), want a photographer in Los Angeles, Google's first returned result is Ed Carreon. Now, any photo editor worth their salt has a rolodex of LA photographers, but what if there were (another) oil spill in Alaska? Near Anchorage? Google returns these results, and you can bet that those who appear on the first page - and in the first few listings - will be earning dough. In fact, according to research conducted by Enquiro,
"Well over 60% of the clicks happened in the first 4 or 5 listings ... People generally spent just a few seconds on the [first] page (around 10 to 12 seems to be the average) in which they scan (not read) 4 to 5 listings. There was almost no deliberation. People click quickly, and if they don’t like what they see, they click back."
Google IS the World - because they deliver it to us all - and, as the headline says, you're just a small part of it. Hopping to the front of the line isn't easy, but it's worth every ounce of effort, trust me.
Credit Suisse analyst Heath Terry suggests “We believe that search is a natural monopoly business and expect that over time Google will continue to gain share until they have effectively reached 100%,” Terry wrote in a research note to clients. Is Ed the best photographer in LA? Probably not (sorry Ed). Is Marie-Louise the best in Anchorage? Ditto. (Sorry Marie-Louise). But, both are earning a significant amount of money from being first, or among the first few listings.
So, what do you do? First, what you do not do is call someone who makes promises to you about getting you to the top. No one can promise that. You find someone who understands SEO, and put them to work for you. Awhile back, I wrote about how laughable it was for a PR firm to brag in their case study about getting their client - Fotolia (Magically Ridiculous, Oct 8, 2007), where I reported:
"...they tout getting Fotolia placed at #1 for the term "photographer commission", yet, a review of Google's own marketing research about searches actually performed, there would be ZERO clicks per day for this search term."
I also show a nice little graphic there illustrating that point. These are the kinds of promises (and purported results) that many use, but which will likely yield little results.
Instead, when you're at trade shows, like PhotoPlus, The NPPA's NSC, WPPI, and ASMP's Strictly Business 2 series, you attend the presentations on the subject. Forget about learning masking techniques in Photoshop - go learn about one of the surest ways to get business from the internet!
Here are some upcoming opportunities for you that I HIGHLY recommend because they are taught by people I respect (and am friends with) and who know SEO from a photographer's perspective:
Blake Discher - At PPA's Imaging USA (Commercial Photography Track, schedule here) in Tampa Florida, Saturday, January 5th, 2008 from 9am - 11am, the program's called "Web Marketing."
William Foster - At PPA's Imaging USA (SEPCON Track, schedule here), in Tampa Florida, Monday January 7th, 2008 from 9am - 10:30 am, the program's titled "Marketing Your Photography Business On The Web".
Blake Discher - At ASMP's Strictly Business 2, January 25-27 in Los Angeles, Workshop D on Sunday, register here, and Friday, the day before each seminar series, Discher is doing private consultations for 30 minutes.
Blake Discher - At ASMP's Strictly Business 2, February 22-24 in Atlanta, Workshop D on Sunday, register here, (also with Friday consults)
Blake Discher - At ASMP's Strictly Business 2, March 7-9 in Philadelphia, Workshop D on Sunday, register here, (also with Friday consults)
William Foster 2008 NPPA Northern Short Course, March 13-15, 2008 at the Hyatt Regency in Rochester, NY. (Last year's program details - "The Business of Getting Business-Web Marketing" (2007 information cached here, and will be new and updated in 2008.)
Blake Discher - At ASMP's Strictly Business 2, April 11-13 in Chicago, Workshop D on Sunday, register here, (also with Friday consults)
At each of the SB2 progams, you will "spend 30 minutes with Blake discussing your plans for your site. You’ll gain insight into what you (or your web designer) can do to improve your website’s visibility on the internet and in search engine results pages (SERPs). Whether an existing site or a new site, Blake will help you to determine what search terms are appropriate to your specialty and your market." However, both for Workshop D as well as the consults, space is extremely limited, so go sign up now!
Discher also has, in addition to his ongoing business as a photographer, a SEO business - Go-SEO, which has a great deal of information available to you to consider working with him directly.
Foster's programs do not include a consulting component to them, but, if you contacted him in advance, he may well carve out some time to do one-on-one's with a few people.
Note - both presenters will give you a ton of information that you can use, but SEO is an ongoing process, it shifts like the tides, so think of your time on this, whether with Blake or William, as the start of an ongoing relationship. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Boy, just when I was looking to get excited again about Nikon and the impending arrival of my D3, this crosses my plate - Steve Vaccariello: On Spec, with silly little gems like:
"The business has changed for Steve Vaccariello. Fashion, commercial and lifestyle assignments still come in, but he's not sitting around waiting for the phone to ring. These days he creates and produces the jobs, then sends then out to see if they'll sell."
Ah ha, now Nikon's promoting guys who will underwrite an entire shoot's expenses? With a mentality like this, how's he going to afford to be able to upgrade from his D2x to a D3?
"...Everyone works with Steve on the shoots for the sake of the final images and their portfolios... Steve picks up the expenses, but no fees are paid, no money exchanged. If a story is picked up for editorial use, Steve will typically divide up the payment."
Oh, wow, really? Divide up the payment from an editorial use? Who's counting the ones? Who's wearing the belt-strapped change machine to divvy up the take?
(More BRILLIANT thoughts, after the Jump)
"... if a magazine picks it up and runs it—well, that's the best, of course, because they're saying, 'You put together a great shoot.'"
No, if a magazine really wants it, what's the best is that they commission the work, not realize they were over budget with other shoots where fees and expenses were commensurate with the work, and fill in the gaps with your spec work to keep within budget.
"...; the first one that wants it, gets it. "The magazines publish the names of the photographer, the stylists, the models, and they give credit for clothing, so everyone gets the publicity benefit," Steve says.
Have you tried to take that credit line and pay your rent? With the few dollars left from the "editorial use...divided up", your chump change and a photo credit won't buy you the subway tokens you'll need to get around. As for the "publicity benefit", Harlan Ellison's retort is worth re-watching when the 'benefit of publicity' is proffered by the person who called him (A Must Watch - Do You See Yourself?)
"And if the layouts don't get picked up? "I still have amazing shots for my portfolio and new killer content for my website.
So, you're doing the layouts too? Good way to upset the designers! Are you inline for next season's "The Shot?"
"...And it sure beats sitting around waiting for the phone to ring."
No, what beats sitting around waiting for the phone to ring is spending time lining up new clients with marketing materials and direct client outreach. Offering them spec work so undervalues what photographers bring to the table that it's laughable.
It's crazy too, as Nikon goes back to its' stable of regulars - they profiled Steve as a "Legend Behind the Lens" back in February of 2005. Legend? Come on! Putting his name alongside actual accomplished photographers like Peter B. Kaplan and Ami Vitale is like putting a prosumer's art against work in the Louvre!
Here, Dexigner puts forth that "He has photographed some of the most recognizable images in national advertising campaigns for Sprint PCS, Ritz Carlton Hotels, Sure deodorant, Finlandia vodka, MasterCard, Nikon, and many others." Well, what happened? It goes on to say he is "one of the most sought- after and recognized commercial photographers in the world." Really? And then just how does he have the free time to shoot this spec work?
Nikon writes (about itself) "NikonNet's 'Legends Behind the Lens' series aims to educate users and, in turn, breathe excitement into photography."
What the....? Educate them about what? How "great" spec work is? How exciting it is to work on a fashion shoot and *maybe* get paid?
This article is the "cover story" for NikonPro "magazine", where the tag line is "an in-depth feature that covers all the angles". Well, you've got the "how low can you go" angle covered. I guess we can expect a piece on iStock next?
Come on, Nikon, give us a break! Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
"We all have PDA's, we all have cellphones with screens, we all have experienced the screen in the back of the taxicab, the screen inside the elevator, and we are one of the best companies in the world at feeding those screens."
~Ben Silverman Chairman, NBC Entertainment
Writers:
"Screens will be fed. Writers, no so much."
All THREE are definitely worth a watch. THESE Are the corporate conglomerates (and their brethren) who cried poverty when their media outlets were going online- their brands becoming digital. They didn't want to pay we photographers a dime. This video couldn't be a clearer illustration of just how much your creative works are worth, and why you should always retain control over it, and why far too many media conglomerates are demanding control (or ownership) of alternative/new media uses of your creativity!
(Two more videos, and comments, if any, after the Jump)
With thanks to A Photo Editor for the heads-up on these! Oh, and one more!
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
It's nice to see that the venerable old BBC can write an article about how Shutterstock/et al are changing the landscape, and revealing the damage it's doing to photographers like Shannon Fagan, which is reporting that "his livelihood is under attack thanks to a proliferation of websites dedicated to amateur and semi-pro stock photography called "microstock".
Their ilk (the microstock sites) defend their model, suggesting "...'We're targeting a different market,' says Stephen Kapsinow from Stockxpert, another stock photography website." IF that were the case - the notion that the images would be used just for school reports, or even a mom-and-pop startup who's never even thought of licensing images, it might be more palatable. However, that's not altogether the case. Designers are procuring images for commercial and corporate clients with a budget and billing those budgeted fees of hundreds of dollars, and instead, paying pennies on the dollar.
And what do the iStalkers have to say?
(Continued after the Jump)
Over in their forums, here, some are suggesting the article "...it's well-balanced and informative...", but that's a minority opinion. Instead, they take offense at snippets of the article which report that " quality is no longer a priority", and "amateur snappers do not have to be very skilled." It stands to reason that the "Infinite monkey theorem" here might just well apply. When an organization of 80,000+ photographers worldwide are snapping thousands of photos a year, this comes strikingly close to the theorem's parameters.
They then try to align themselves with Ghandi, citing him - "First they ignore you. Then they make fun of you. Then they fight you, Then you win." The problem is, as another iStocker suggested, "Oceans of mediocrity wouldn't matter at all if the search results were sorted in such a way that the cream rose to the top..." and this may well be the problem - photo buyers will want a controlled, filtered, and sorted solution, like PhotoShelter's Collection, or through Digital Railroad's Marketplace.
The article reports "Shutterstock.com was set up after founder Jon Oringer became frustrated with his lack of opportunities as a semi-pro photographer....'I went looking for a place to sell them. The top agencies didn't return my phone calls.'" So, I guess, if you can't be them, screw them? If he'd have set up an agency with market pricing, no one would have blinked. Sound familiar?
The founder of iStockphoto, during an interview with DesignSessions, is noted that he "...started his design career in 1994, as a clerk in the mail room of Image Club Graphics, a Calgary company credited with being the first to put RF images on CD-ROMs. After a piece of software essentially eliminated his job..." he then moved to and fro, and then "...During these years, Bruce sharpened his skills as a photographer...He calls iStockphoto a "true example of success born from failure." After deciding he was not going to make it in the traditional stock photography business, Bruce created a free Web site to share his images...and iStockphoto was born."
Could it be that these "frustrated" and "born from failure" photographers are living out their retribution? Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
The company Lucent (Euronext Paris: ALU, NYSE:ALU) has hundreds of patented, trademarked, and copyrighted innovations and creations that they leverage to the maximum extent possible, employing thousands. We have Lucent, indirectly, to thank for underwriting what is essentially a rights giveaway. One of their IT Managers - you know, the guy who makes all this patented and trademarked equipment work, Sander van de Wijngaert to "thank" for diminishing the value of copyrighted works.
It seems that Sanders is proud of his 100th sale of an image, for a gross income of $26.35. (Above right is a peek behind the veil of Shutterstock's photographer management screens) Yet he's found a bit of criticism flowing his way. His response?
(Continued after the Jump)
Over at DPreview, Sanders defended himself against criticism, saying "I don't do it for the money....it's more the fun checking every day to see how many images I've sold." Genius. And they let this guy manage even a few square inches of internet access?
Over at SportsShooter, one person made a tongue-in-cheek suggestion - "That's not so bad. I would only need to license 6900 pictures to pay for my new D300. Sign me up!"
Here is what his mantra should be:
"First they came for the musician's copyright, and I did not complain. Then they came for the movie maker's copyright and I did not complain. Then they came for the photographer's copyright, I not only didn't complain, I participated in it's devaluation. Then they came for the IP copyright, and I did not complain, then my company laid me off because they had no more IP rights to leverage so that I had a job, and now I don't. I should have better respected the value of IP and copyright in the first place."
Guess what then? By that time, he won't be able to sustain himself on $26.35 total sales for his best images before taxes, (and NL taxes are much higher than in the US) and he'll wonder what hit him. According to his website, he offers wedding photography, model portfolios, and retouching, as well.
The saying "there's a sucker born every minute" applies here. The problem is, he was born so many minutes ago that he's aged not into a fine wine but a scourge on the profession he says he does because "photography is for me a the ideal form of relaxation." (that's a Google translation of his site). UPDATE: Sanders notes on DPreview that he "left Lucent months ago". Since the photographs were uploaded over a year ago, the relationship between he and Lucent was in place at the time that he created the images and posted them online. He says "... and they knew I was into (paid) photography." Really? Well, you've not updated your professional affiliation as it is listed on the web. Sanders goes on: "...I agree there is not much money to earn...unless you do this fulltime which I don't." Actually, with contributors like yourself around, even those that do it full-time aren't earning much money, certainly not as much as they should. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
The economy is cyclical, so say many economists. So, where in the cycle is the Washington Post? Coming out of bankruptcy at auction in 1933, after years of un-profitability, it took several decades to become profitable and of consequence, arriving as such in the early 70's with the golden boys of reporting - Woodward & Bernstein.
Yet, now, over half of The Washington Post Company (NYSE: WPO) income comes from something other than the news.
(Continued after the Jump)
Why, The Wasington Post (affectionately referred to with the colloquial acronym 'TWP') is getting a majority of it's income from Kaplan - you know, the folks who skooled you in how to ace the SAT's? They do other testing, of course, but so many people have them to thank for doing better than they otherwise would have on the SAT's. (Photo illustration, at left.)
In my mailbox today arrived my December 2007 issue of Washingtonian, and on page 26, (online here, "Practice Tests, Not News, Bring in the Big Bucks for the Post") I learned this neat little fact - As of their latest financial statement, Kaplan's 50.3% of their revenues, and the newspaper is only 21%. The remaining 28.7% comes from Newsweek and Cable TV and television stations. The piece also revealed that Newsweek's got problems too, with a 16% drop in advertising.
Revenue for the third quarter...up 8%...The increase is due mostly to significant revenue growth at the education and cable television divisions. Revenues were down at the Company's newspaper publishing, magazine publishing and television broadcasting divisions.
Several months ago, Washingtonian queried their own readership (online here, "Saving the Washington Post—the Latest from Washingtonian Readers") about how the Post could save itself:
"... Literate readers 'love the content,' but they don’t love it enough to buy the newspaper...the notion of making the Post a charity case—as if it were a nonprofit media outlet—is a hoot, but it won’t pay the bills."
What about the illiterate readers? Do they at-least love the pictures?
Yet, the Post acts as if it's a charity case, paying freelancers under $200 a day, with an all-rights to TWP-branded uses transfer. Why's that? Oh, because if they want to re-use your photograph without paying you, or quite possibly to also be able to sell it as stock and keep 100% that income (if they start a TWP stock source, quite possibly). Or, perhaps, they're looking for free content for Newsweek and their testing material, and, perhaps, their website.
So, if you're freelancing for the Post, expect fewer assignments. If you're staff at the Post, that buyout they were offering some may well have been a good idea, if you could have taken it. The same financial report reveals a bit more:
"The increase in operating income for the first nine months of 2007 is due primarily to $47.1 million in pre-tax charges associated with early retirement plan buyouts at The Washington Post during 2006. Excluding this charge, operating income was down for the first nine months of 2007 due to a decline in division revenues..."
Thus, those of you who took the buyout (aka "early retirement package") made them look better because of the tax benefits that enured from your doing so. I hope you didn't think it was because they cared, but I am guessing you already knew that from working there, and made the smart choice for yourself.
Believe it when many suggest that the layoffs are coming next, both on the text-side and the photo/illustration-side, and they'll replace "expensive staffers" with the freelancers who've been working with the same rights transfers as the staffers, for over 50% less than it costs to maintain one staffer.
So, it looks like that cyclical "un-profitability-cycle" is coming back around.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
I know I'm not seeing double. I am seeing stupidity and cheapskates in action.
An interesting set of ads arrived here at Photo Business News & Forum headquarters.
Syms, a place for discounted suits and so forth, and Guideposts, a Christian publication, both used this same image at the same time in their outreach. One to sell clothes, the other to sell salvation.
This isn't the first time one person has been used for different organizations at the same time. Both Dell and Gateway were using a young college-aged girl to sell back-to-school computers, as ASMP showed here.
(Continued, with Sym's and Guidepost use samples, after the Jump)
Syms, who's tagline is "where an educated consumer is our best customer", must be in need of some education about the risks of Royalty Free imagery. Specifically, from places like Jupiter Images, and inmagine.com. Both are selling this photo (at right), either as an individual RF sale, or, as one image on a CD of 104 images with a "Christmas" theme, for just under $500. The image, originally available through Comstock, is sold through Jupiter Images here, and Inmagine here.
What is laughable, of course, is that Inmagine's tagline for their site is "Imagine the Difference". Guess not only is there no difference between them and Jupiter, but also, no difference between the key image for both these marketing pieces.
Guidepost, who used the same image on their cover, sports the tagline "True Stories of Hope & Inspiration". For whom? Clearly not the creator of this image, who's only hoping you paid for this as a one-off license (not likely). This issue's headline is "Let Guideposts Lighten Your Load This Holiday Season!", or, perhaps try "Let Guideposts lighten this photographer's wallet with this issue!".
A few clicks of the mouse found this image on both sites, with no problem, yet, neither use lists the requested photo credit. Oh well. However, Comstock (or the photographer) probably owns the copyright to this image, and thus, denoting as above would be a mis-statement.
No doubt the creator of these pieces had the Christmas RF disk sitting around, and they probably laid the design out, and billed the client for a stock photo, pocketing the profit, and nothing goes to the photographer. Once again, photographers get a lump of coal, and the ad agency or publication pockets the dough. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Here's your ten minute break from the family and turkey-day guests. If they're hollering at you at your computer, just tell them you're getting some tips on how to make images of your soon-to-hit-the-table plate of food for your new portfolio, or picking up tips about taking better photos of them!
Rob Schneider, Supermodel Photographer and Walter Iooss Jr
Andrew Norton: Fashion Photographer | The Edge 102.1
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Far to often I hear photographers pay lip service to ethics, or standards, yet, they fold under pressure, from themselves usually, and cave.
We see all too often, ethical breaches, the latest from Getty, where an image they represent editorially, of a football player was manipulated. (PDNOnline reports on this here.)
Values are not what you say, they are what you do, and how you act, and comport yourself. Here's a great link about "the power of personal values."
(Continued after the Jump)
Getty can suggest all they want that they're editorial department is in fact, editorial, but try a search for "NBA brawl" and you get only 16 images, of the press conference afterwards, and a few nice player images once they've returned after their suspensions. No images of the actual fight. A search on Google yields thousands of results. No doubt, many of them duplicates, but they're there. Where's the editorial independence? Oh, it's absent when you're selling images and the league doesn't want you to make them look bad.
Character, it's said, is who you are when no one's looking. So too are your values, which form your character, as do ethics.
P.F. Bentley, for example, has a lot of character. As I wrote here - At least the Hypocrite Knows Right from Wrong, P.F. did the right thing, and no one would have even thought about it if he'd just given in.
If your success is at the expense of your good values or ethics, then, what success is there, really?
As I've said before, the best approach to what we do is - "do well by doing good." Amen. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Ever ask yourself why the genius technicians didn't make the PC jack functional in all modes on your Canon 580 EX II, or did you want to, while holding your camera to your face, also be able to trigger a Pocket Wizard-controlled camera without much more than a flinch of your fingers on the lens barrel?
These mods, and more, can be yours, thanks to the genius of Michael Bass, and I want to thank him for choosing to advertise here on Photo Business News & Forum. The last time I felt I had access to this level of access to the inner-workings of my camera's flashes was when I would visit Jorge Mora, former National Geographic equipment guru, at his small repair shop on Wisconsin Ave, here in DC. Jorge was able to give my Nikon 8008 a PC jack, among many other wonderful tweaks, to make my work better. So too, can Michael crack open a piece of gear, or create a mod that will make your work easier.
Don't see some functionality or mod on his site? Just ask - he does CUSTOM work too.
So, show him some love, and check out what he's got over on his site!
(Comments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
2+ months ago, I made this post - "They've Been Ordered" - referring to my order being placed for my Nikon D3 and my Canon 1Ds Mark III camera through Adorama. Now, I have the pleasure of inviting you to click on over to them as well to do your own (holiday) shopping. Hit that link above, and get an extra battery for friends and colleagues. Buy that young, up and coming photographer a wonderful D3 or 1Ds Mark III. All this, because they've opted to run an ad on the blog.
Please take a moment to click over and peruse what they've got to offer.
Why, you might ask, have I begun using them? It's not because they're an advertiser (but that'll sure help in the future), it's something else.
As I said in a previous post, Jeff is their Pro Sales guru, and he's my longtime friend and fellow professional photographer , who used to be at Penn Camera (when he wasn't out covering assignments), but now he's moved up to the big leagues, yet still based in DC.
The other day, despite having no car available, he made his way to an informal lunch amongst several DC photographers, because he had a pair of D3's to show off. He wasn't selling them, nor taking orders on the spot, he was showing them off like a proud parent would to people who count him as a friend first, and a supplier second. I appreciated that he made the special trip, and hung out with us for awhile, but then again, that's just Jeff.
To e-mail Jeff and get to know him better, click this link: jsnyder@adorama.com Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Last week, I read on the Digital Railroad Member's blog that Charles Mauzy, currently the President, now get's promoted to Chief Executive Officer. Nisselson? He gets promoted to Chairman of the Board. Atleast that's how I saw it. All I thought was "Good for Evan, and Good for Charles. Next..."
How's it getting reported elsewhere? EPUK reports "Digital Railroad (DRR) founder Evan Nisselson has stepped down as the company’s CEO. The post will be taken over by current DRR president Charles Mauzy, with Nisselson continuing as company chairman."
I see Even all over the place. That picture on the right is one I made with my iPhone while at a White House News Photographer's Association conference, where Evan was on a panel about the future of still/video. He's out championing DRR, and what they're trying to do for photographers. The role of the CEO is to manage the day-to-day operations, the role of the Chairman is to be much more strategic about the company. With Evan on the road, it actually makes much more sense that he step up into a role that's better suited to him, and leave the day-to-day operations to Charles. My guess is that, as founder of DRR, it's taken some time for Evan to get comfortable with anyone other than himself sheparding his "baby" along from day to day, just like a first-time parent who is unsure about leaving their child with someone else. It takes time and trust to build before you're comfortable with that. It seems Evan is now comfortable enough with Charles to do just that.
So, I called Evan, to get his take on all this. Evan said "I got several calls, among them from Reza (a NGS photographer, ) and others, all of them are supportive of the evolution, and look forward to this helping the Digital Railroad community." That seems pretty much in line with what I thought.
So, to be doubly sure I was thinking things through, I next talked to Charles. Charles said "Evan will continue to, and in fact, expand his role as spokesperson for Digital Railroad and will continue to provide inspiration and vision as the Chairman of the Board, something he's done from the company's inception."
Yup, that pretty much is what I thought, and why I didn't write about this in the first place. It's essentially a non-news event, suitable, as they did, for a mention on their blog. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Recently, I was giving a presentation, and we were discussing contracts, and someone in the audience mentioned Conde Nast's (heinous) one. They didn't suggest it was heinous, I did.
I did, because I've read it. When you demand "All rights throughout the universe..." in your contract, the author who penned that is a pompous ass, period. Add onto it the pay of $350 for the day, and now you're just a huge pompous ass.
Then, someone else in the audience piped up, validating something I've known for many many years.
What's that you say?
(Continued after the Jump)
They said "I've done a fair amount of work for them, and I can tell you, my contract pays me much more than $350 an assignment."
Bingo! I knew it!
I've personally experienced the one off horrible contract proffer from more than one editorial (and corporate) client, only to raise my thoughtful objections to the terms, and get the more reasonable ones with better pay, and fewer rights demands. This was a few years ago, and at this point, 90+% of the time, I'm working with clients based upon my contract, negotiating to meet their needs. However, I've yet to see the elusive "other" Conde Nast contracts. You know, the ones who pay fair, only want "world", or "US", or "one time" rights? It's a given that Annie's contract's not the same as the new guy's. But, where are those in-between Annie and the Newbie?
This holds true too for places like Time, Men's Journal(wink), Wired, Sports Illustrated, and so forth. So, this is my call for contracts.
Here's what I'll do. Send me your contracts. I will not reveal my sources. You can send it in anonymously from your gmail accounts set up just for that purpose, or you can send it with your contact information, so we can discuss it (privately).
What I want to do is highlight the differences between the newbie-photographer, the work-horse photographer, the showcase-photographer, and so forth. Some of the language is standard, but the assignments rates and rights packages are no doubt different. That's the meat on the bone.
If you have a sweet deal (higher percentages, etc) with Getty/Corbis/Alamy/Jupiter/et al, send it in, and others, please send in the standard/first-offer contracts, so I have a baseline of the latest contract.
If no one sends them in, then I'm off to other valuable postings. However, if I get the various ones in, I'll post the differences, which will help everyone out. Send them to me by clicking the "E-mail a topic Request" link over on the right, and let's see what you've got.Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Far be it for me to celebrate another's (ongoing) downward slide....ahh shucks, in this case, why not?
Back in July I wrote (OnRequest - Realizing the Obvious, 7/12/07) about how David Norris, founder of OnRequest, had finally admitted what everyone (except he, and his deluded investors) knew, that it was a bad business model, convincing up to five photographers to all shoot a job on spec, with one of them - if any - with the chance of being paid. It was like the traveling elixir hawkers of old, promising the world to those in need of a cure (or an assignment) with the promise of potential "riches".
Norris, who is touted recently in Seattle Business Monthly's The Top 25 Innovators and Entrepreneurs, was thankful that his payroll would be lighter in the coming weeks, laying off eight staff, as reported here by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
So, who's reporting what?
(Continued after the Jump)
Just as the towns-folk would come upon these potion-peddling charlatans on the wagon trails between communities, alone in a ditch with a broken spoke, and pass by, without nary a helping hand, so too are we to proverbially pass by and (thankfully) watch as Norris' empty promises and creditor demands of continued profitability levels engulf him, forcing him to cut expenses - a.k.a. people - as he staves off the wolves of failure. It's as if what goes around comes around, and it's a commin' around.
On one hand, he's celebrated (in the Seattle BM piece):
"...OnRequest has developed unique tools for helping companies brand their products and track their images. It can analyze a company’s artwork and find out if a firm’s unoriginal images are also being used by other businesses, an embarrassing problem that happens more often than companies realize."
Right, that's called the risk of Royalty-free imagery.
"....OnRequest grow by about 400 percent in 2006 and the same rate of growth is expected this year. The company’s success has caught the eye of the venture community, as well, with a number of local firms investing millions in the startup."
Hmmm, maybe not so much. When it's reported in the Seattle PI piece:
The cuts, which occurred Thursday, were not tied to problems in the overall stock photography business, said Norris....He said the company has experienced record revenue over the past several quarters, a trend he expects to continue this quarter.
Then again, maybe not, unless you cut more staff, which is a common tactic for organizations looking to appear more profitable than they are.
Yikes! This is his fourth startup. Perhaps those with the VC purse-strings will recognize that Norris' risk to success ratio is a bit askew towards the risk side, so there's no fifth startup? Perhaps someone will see him in a ditch, with a broken spoke and just let well enough alone. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Here's a look back over the past 11 months at the top 10 posts, to date. Thanks!
#1 ~ Photo Booth Rig - The 'in detail' demonstration of a really cool photo booth where people can make images of themselves, and get a print, in under a minute!
#2 ~ Nikon D3 Spotted in the Wild - The photos of a D3 being used on assignment. This was post skyrocketed to this position because of several link-ins from other sites.
#3 ~ The Conundrum of Doing Nothing - This post, in such a short period of time saw a grassroots spike in readers. The bottom line - doing nothing can be very profitable!
#4 ~ A Must Watch - Do You See Yourself? - I'd like to thank YouTube for this post's success. It's clearly resonated with people when you see a writer talk about the importance of getting paid.
#5 ~ Don't Really Make Photos - This is only a test - Apparently the rest of you also thought it absolutely hilarious that a newspaper would require all it's freelancers to bring in every piece of equipment they own, and to be tested on their abilities!
#6 ~ US Presswire - Introduction - Many of you apparently 'saw the light' and spread the word about this in-depth piece on how bad shooting spec, especially of sports, is for you. It wasn't without it's detractors, of course..
#8 From The 'Are You Kidding Me' Department - It's remarkable that two posts about the downside of spec sports shooting makes it into the top 10 list. I presume it's a combination of SportsShooter referrals as well as the large number of people shooting sports.
#9 The Marketplace is now open - A piece on Digital Railroad's (then) new Marketplace service for stock licensing made headlines, and the top ten.
#10 The Art of the Retoucher - This was a very early post, about how amazing retouchers work, and links to some of their samples.
Now go! Check 'em out! Up next? My top ten favorite posts...Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
(Comments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
I get these calls all the time - "We're a non-profit..." which is usually proceeded by a request for a lower rate. I'm guessing you do too.
I'm not saying that you should never do pro bono work, or give back. However, don't let it be based upon who rings-you-up, but rather, after a period of reflection to decide for whom you would like to offer your services.
Understand, being a "non-profit", a.k.a. "Not-for-Profit" organization is a tax designation (IRS FAQs about Operating as an Exempt Organization), and, as such, allowing a tax structure designation to dictate the acceptability of a discount would mean that an LLC or a S-Corp, or a Sole Proprietor would all potentially enjoy different pricing.
I don't see the landlord cutting them a break, or the electric company, or the cost for a computer, or the cost of a case of copier paper, or.....you get the point. Why are we to discount our services?
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code...it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates....Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170....The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests...Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct.
This delineation would certainly reduce the number of valid claimants who suggest they are charitable/non-profit.
Further, when the organization has nice downtown office space, and their staff are paid competative wages with a 401k, and their event is in a nice hotel or downtown venue and they have quality floral arrangements, or, their executive you're doing a portrait of has a beautiful view of the city and dresses in high quality suits, why should you bear the brunt of cost-savings requests?
You shouldn't.
Don't think though, that you can deduct your services.
The IRS's Publication 526, which is a a publication discussing how to claim a deduction for charitable contributions, lists on Page 2:
Not Deductible As Charitable ContributionsValue of your time or services
back on February 10th (An Original Picasso for $50? That's what they say) I suggested "don't bother with the get paid then donate route...", but upon further review, if you want to be seen as a donor, and treated as such, it's not a bad idea.
When you're working for a charity, send them an estimate and then invoice for the full amount of your services, get paid, and agree that you will provide that amount back (less expenses, if that's your deal) by check, through their donation mechanism. This sets them up to recognize the true value of the work you do do. Further, you are then listed as a "donor" in their literature, and are extended an invitation to attend other events where a photographer may not be present, as a guest. While your donation may be in-kind, it places you on par with others who may have donated the same amount in cash.
So, while this won't help your tax status, since your donation and your income cancel each other out, it could be a good way to actually make a donation. and certainly affords you the ability to cover your expenses when the deal is a pro bono one. (With thanks to a helpful SF ASMP member who posited this nugget of information, well worth expanding upon!) Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
I'd like to think that the reason we have the good fortune of 50,000+ views in the last 30 days, and have exceeded 300,000 since we started, is because there's something of value you, dear reader, get from these postings. What though, are you doing with that knowledge?
I'd like to think that you are using these insights, whichever apply to you directly, or in a modified form specific to your needs, to make your business a better run, more efficient, effective, and, yes - profitable operation.
What are the additional benefits to you, or that you can obtain? What, if anything, are you obligated to do, in return?
(Continued after the Jump)
Something. Last week, The Conundrum of Doing Nothing rose to become one of my more popular posts, topping 5,000 people reading it. One of the points was that by doing nothing, you set yourself up to do something. Each time I give a presentation, I end with the "ask" of the audience to take whatever they've learned from the evening, and pay it forward. It's the last slide of my presentation, and the last sentence of my book. I firmly believe that if we, collectively, pay forward whatever we learn about how to operate our businesses right, we will all benefit.
You might think to yourself that you, yourself, can't make a difference. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is an old parable, of the starfish. There are many variations, here's one:
A father and son walked along the seashore as the sun was rising, amidst thousands of starfish left by the retreating tide. The father was picking up the starfish and tossing them back into the sea. His son queried his father "Why do you do that? There are thousands of starfish here, many will die. What difference does it make?"
The father, paused, starfish in hand, said "Son, it makes a difference to this one", and returned it to the sea.
Such is the power of one.
So too, might you feel as if whatever effort you make to do things right, or help others, won't make a difference. One refrain I hear from time to time from photographers is "if I say no to the bad deal, what does it matter? They will find someone else to take it." While I refer you back to Arlo's thinking on this one, so too, might you consider the The Butterfly Effect:
The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.
Your efforts, even in small ways, can - and do, make a difference. While you may never see the difference made, it's those types of efforts, the ones you make for which the yield is unknown to you, is among the most altruistic.
So, I encourage you to recognize your own power, as just one individual, and that your efforts are akin to the butterfly effect, and actually are making a difference. As to the additional benefits to you? The benefit of knowing you're doing well, by doing good.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
I didn't think much of this, really, since I have sent to them work to be done domestically in Ohio as well as in their overseas offices, my 120mm analog files as well as select 35mm files for both keywording as well as scanning. I did the math, and a scan and keyworded file ready to move from my useless lateral file cabinet to my online solutions (Digital Railroad and PhotoShelter) was more effectively done by them, rather than doing it myself, with the resulting delays because I am busy shooting.
Shortly after I got that e-mail, I got an inquiry from a colleague, questioning this course of action by APA, somehow suggesting that it's detrimental to photographers. I hadn't, nor do I, see it that way. If that were the case, we could argue that the film labs took away from our craftsmanship in the darkroom when done ourselves, or from Duggal/et al in NYC taking away from us our retouching as well.
(Continued - including a video - after the Jump)
What APA has done, as I see it, is negotiate, on behalf of it's members, discounts on the service beyond what you can get on your own. I consider that a benefit, and, had I know about it before I sent out 1,500 images for keywording, I probably would have saved a few dollars. However, with another 3,000 images that I opted to scan myself (35mm in-house is viable if you're committed, 120mm is insane to do in-house) and apply my caption data to, I know that the APA discount will save me more than my membership fees alone in the coming months/years, just through these cost savings alone, and my experience with the quality of the work is top notch.
Moreover, as JaincoTech is both a US and Asian company, you, as the consumer can choose to have the work done domestically or overseas - you're call, your choice on price.
I did a segment with Gautam of JaincoTech at PhotoPlus -- here's just that segment: Feel free to opt for their domestic service, or their international, your choice. When you do the math on the cost of shipping a 5lb drive via FedEx overseas, and back again, the cost savings of using overseas solutions - especially for keywording only, can diminish, making the use of their US operations potentially more appealing anyway.
The most important thing to do is - get your analog image scanned, and out making you money. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
I'm heading to my old stomping grounds (I am a bay area native) to give a presentation to the ASMP NorCal chapter.
Here's their information they've sent out to their membership, so, if you can make it, please do!
(Full Post after the Jump)
Profit is not a Four Letter Word Made possible through the generous sponsorship of ASMP NorCal's event by liveBooks and Nayaco.
John Harrington, photographer, ASMP Strictly Business 2 presenter and author of the book, “Best Business Practices for Photographers,” will present tips and tricks for photographic profitability. Simply put, the business of photography is just plain time-consuming and often times daunting. Not only do photographers need to make great photographs, but they need to stay in business, too. John’s program will be packed with information on how do you operate a successful freelance photography business as well as negotiating techniques. Rate determination, no-change contracts, late paying clients, negotiation strategy and rate increase debates will also be discussed. For nearly two decades, Washington DC-based John Harrington has covered the world of politics, traveled internationally and negotiated contracts along the way. The Alameda native’s commercial clients include Coca-Cola, XM Satellite Radio and Lockheed Martin and his work has appeared in Time, Newsweek and Rolling Stone. Harrington has produced three commissioned books for the Smithsonian and lectured to numerous trade groups on the importance of solid business practices as a cornerstone of long-term success as a photographer. His best-selling book, Best Business Practices for Photographers, published in October of 2006, is currently in it’s third printing. and he author’s the blog Photo Business Forum.
So, come on out! Below is one of the photos I made during my early days... Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
In mining parlance, "Naked Light" means "Open flame, such as a match or a burning cigarette, that is a fire risk in mines." For photographers, it appears to be an alternative to Photoshop - if you're a Mac *and* a Leopard user.
So, what does it have to offer? Why go up against what is seemingly a perfect program like Photoshop? For me, I know that I couldn't run my business for a single day without using Photoshop, and certainly the innovations in CS3 are monumental in how it (specifically Camera Raw) handles raw files, so, why this new idea?
(Continued after the Jump)
One sentence - "instruction-based editing."
Photoshop only implemented layers after it's first few versions, and all the early hard-core users already came to terms with "destructive" editing - that is, actually changing the pixels of the image itself, rather than using layers and masks, and adjustment layers, and so forth. I for one have to really work hard to do layered editing, for example. I am much more content committing my changes to the actual image data, and that's a habit I have to break.
What layers are - whether curves or levels, masked or not, are instruction-based editing. Further, when you work on a file in Camera Raw, or Lightroom, or Aperture, and instruct the application to remove dust spots, or alter the color balance, sharpness, clarity, luminance, and so forth, you are not actually affecting the underlying data that is in the raw file, you are preparing a set of instructions for whatever application does open the files, to perform. This is how/why you can go back and make changes to those instructions whenever you want. Andrew Rodney touches on this vis-a-vis Lightroom here when he says "You could assign a different set of processing instructions and output the images many different ways without ever having to worry about degrading the original (RAW) data... One advantage of instruction based editing is speed. You are not working on a full resolution pixel based file but rather a preview of the RAW data. Only when you ask the converter to render the file does the big processing task take place. Suppose you have a dozen similar images that all need the same tone and color correction. You can work with a single low-resolution thumbnail and apply corrections to your liking."
Instruction-based editing is at the core of applications like Final Cut Pro, where you create Edit-Decision-Lists (EDL's) and then instruct the application to collect the raw material. Further, when you apply cross-dissolves, or other transitions or titles, you're not actually affecting the original video file - even when splicing pieces together - only the instructions with how to handle the file.
In Naked Light's tour, a few of the really interesting highlights include:
Pixel later. Naked light is pixel-free. Layout images and define tools and filters in real-life units like inches, millimeters, and picas.
Mix and match images with different resolutions, color spaces, and pixel aspect ratios—all in the same composition. Naked light handles everything with aplomb, without requiring you to perform tedious—and lossy—conversions first.
You can dodge and burn using stops, paint in millimeters, and blur by inches.
Naked light introduces all-new, avant-garde tools like the Noise Brush, which dusts subtle details where ever you want, and Gradient Selection, which makes quick work of vignetting and other effects.
Rather than replacing an image with the results of the filter like traditional graphics apps, Naked light just stores a recipe to recreate your composition.
In Photoshop, you can only apply Adjustments as Adjustment Layers, and Filters as Smart Filters. In Naked light, there's no difference between adjustments, filters, and layer effects—and you can apply all filters in both manners.
In Photoshop, you can only have one mask per layer. To create more, you need to stick a layer inside of a folder. In Naked light, you can create an infinite number of Mask nodes, and quickly drag or duplicate them between rows of nodes as needed.
This application will challenge you to think differently - in a really big way. More so, I think, than the mental shift necessary to go from mouse to tablet.
However, I think that once you get your head around it, you'll find interesting new ways to interact with your images. Check out their blog The Emperor Has New Clothes for a bunch of back and forth between the developers and the Beta Zero hearty adventurers trying out the product. As the developers note in the blog - "As a head's up, you're not going to be able to get any real work done in this release—this one's for the bleeding-edger's that want a taste of the future. If you wait another two weeks until the next, more stable beta edition (Beta One), you won't miss too much. Hopefully this isn't too much of a disappointment—again, I had no idea people would be this eager!" Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
US News & World Report wrote this article - What the Boss can teach CEO's - about Springsteen's ability to remain relevant, and popular, unlike so many other acts of his era. This piece is a good jumping off point to be translated into how it applies to photographers.
The first point was to always keep your clients at the height of expectation - continue to produce exceptional images and push yourself to deliver. The example that is used is of Apple, and their continued production of new products and product updates.
Other points included the value of innovating, which could be applied to photographers as the importance of reinventing yourself and your images and style, as you evolve, and, most importantly, love what you do. We as photographers are as blessed with this priviledge as we can be - don't under-estimate how much better this makes your images, and serves your clients.
(Coments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
My friend and colleague Chris Usher won an important victory against Corbis, when, on November 7th, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Corbis was liable for the lost of 12,640 of Usher's best images from the 2000 Presidential Campaign, during which time Usher covered both George W. Bush and Al Gore.
Usher, who had built a successful business representing himself was wooed by Corbis, who valued his access and consistent play in the major newsweekly magazines. Usher, hoping to focus more on the making of images than on the business aspect, thought Corbis a viable alternative to running the store himself. After less than two years with lackluster results and lingering questions about how Corbis' operations were being run, Usher ended his relationship with Corbis in November 2001, and sought the return of his images, starting up his own Apix agency, to fill the void. However, the time commitment to properly attend to the Corbis case took it' toll, and Usher and his co-founder Adrienne DeArmas opted out of that effort, which was dedicated to working with young photographers. Now, she and Usher operate Chris Usher Photography & Associates.
(Continued after the Jump)
During the course of the case, Corbis was found significantly deficient in it's tracking and archving of images, and failed to excercise reasonable care with the valuable images. In December, the court will determine valuation. The judge is expected to refer to the previous case of Arthur Grace v. Corbis, which in many ways is identical to Usher's situation. Grace recieved $472,000 for the 40,000 images that Corbis lost. In that case, the final valuation was a paltry $11.80 per image, which, for Arther Grace's images, is a joke - his work was worth much more. Applying this math, Usher might reasonably expect $149,152 from this case.
What the courts should do, is refer to Corbis' own paperwork - delivery memos, and their own bills to clients for lost images, where the valution was closer to $1,500 to $2,000 per image, which was, for many years where analog images were the norm, a standard that the agencies placed upon the lifetime loss from the image no longer being available. Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Harlan Ellison's on fire in this 3:24 piece excerpted from the upcoming feature documentary on him "DREAMS WITH SHARP TEETH" "about his experiences dealing with the packaging company for MGM on Babalon 5, includng their possible inclusion of one of his on -camera interviews about the series in their DVD for the series, which they don't want to pay him a dime for, they want it donated.
In the beginning, he says:
(Video, Full Post & Comments, after the Jump)
" a young woman calls me" about the a video interview he's done about his role on Babylon 5, and he recounts "she says 'we'd like to use it on the DVD, can that be arranged', I said, absolutely, all you've got to do is pay me, and she says 'what?', I said you gotta pay me, she said 'well, everyone else is just doing it for nothing', and I said 'everybody else may be an a*shole, but I'm not, I said, 'by what right would you call me and ask me to work for nothing, do you get a paycheck?" 'well yes' (she responded)....'how dare you call me and want me to work for nothing', 'well it would be good publicity' (she responded), 'lady, tell that to someone a little older than you who has just fallen off the turnip truck, there is no publicity value in my being on the DVD...the only value for me is to put money in my hand..."
This video is worth your time, to be sure. If you see yourself hearing the same thing from photo editors or art buyers looking for things for free (or for pennies on the dollar) and then actually considering doing so, that's not a good sign.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
This is why there is traffic on the freeways. Some idiot isn't paying attention and gets into an accident, or Officer Barney Fife decides to pull over someone for a tail-light out during rush hour, and now we're all rubber-necking at the sideshow.
Next up is the laugh that is VH1, with their own version of a train wreck, trying to make itself relevant again, this time, borrowing stealing liberally from America's Next Top Model. They now have "The Shot", hosted by Russell James. which includes - "Balbinka", playing the part of the euro-looking skinny girl, who somehow says with a straight face "when I think of passion I think of anger", and "I modeled for a while, but now I need a new outlet"; Bree playing the dumb-blonde look; Maria, the dark-haired enjenue who looks too much like one of the Sex and the City girls and who said "I got into photography after taking 5,000 pictures on my cell phone"; Ivan, playing the part of Erkel with a Camera; Dean - the balding biker-look guy; John - Balbinka's euro-boy counter part who said "I shoot a lot of weddings - I'm not exactly your typical wedding photographer, I come in a tux, and I look like I'm straight out of the pages of GQ magazine...I get to hang out with the bridesmaids, and if I'm lucky, take one home"; Airic - the "my mother can't spell Eric" semi-dreadlock guy who said "I'm a single man, and I love the ladies, and sometimes the ladies love me"; Jason - the cross between oh, I don't know, pick someone, he's too wannabe stylish; Piper - the girl who's mother's physcian must have too many aviation magazines in his waiting room; and Robin, the girl with a whole-lota self-expressive body art and jewelery.
(Continued after the Jump)
Note, I said repeatedly "...playing the part of..." because they are all chosen to fit certain stereotypes so the show has a nice "blend" in casting-agent speak. Further, nobody get uppity with me over my "snap judgements" of these aspiring photographer's appearances, when they've chosen fabio-esque Russell James to be the photographer they all want to be - after all, it's fashion! In fashion, that's just how they want their subjects to be judged - by how they look. Turnabout is fair play. Oh, and to appeal to their international audience -- they've got someone from Bosnia, Croatia, and Poland! natch on the Eastern-European audience, and Bree's from Australia.
Watching the preview, what I want to know is where the hell are the Pocket Wizards!?!?! Why are they hardwired!?!?!
From the site, a few excerpts:
10 amateur photographers the chance to live out their wildest fantasies in pursuit of their ultimate dream: to become the next great fashion photographer...while being guided by world-renowned fashion photographer Russell James....while traveling to exotic locations -- all to capture that one perfect shot.
Nice. I'm sure they'll travel by Lear Jet to get there too, because that is so reality.
...our cast will face daunting tasks and obstacles that will test their talent, desire and drive to be the next great fashion photographer.
Like, let's see, paying the bills? Carrying the production expenses when your fashion client welches on the bill and buys more fabric instead? Where are these tests? Absent.
"...a "teach challenge", where Russell presents the cast with a new technical or creative lesson...in a legitimate, fashion-oriented photo campaign."
I cannot believe I am seeing this in print? Is this April 1st? Let me check my calendar....
"...Each week Russell and his professional panel will review the cast's photos, eliminating the weakest shooter...After a month long journey the best photographer will emerge and be crowned the show's winner, thus launching his or her professional career."
Until such time as they haven't figured out how much to charge - how to pay the bills, procure a crew, and so on. Then they'll be back to waiting tables.
The only shot this has at succeeding is if we can blame the writer's strike for people being driven to this dreck because everything else is in reruns. Please let the strike end soon.
And, because you can't help but look over at the death and dismemberment that is on the side of the road and contribute to the traffic jams, here it is - the preview, which has our aspirants' resulting shooting pretty much porn-esque - heck, even Russell said that he didn't want to see anything more in the future that could be put up on a porn site!
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
2 ... 2 ...
Clients, good or bad, are not, typically, one off. Further, you don't want them to be, generally speaking. Sure, when a client wants to hire you because this is their first/only assignment in your locale, just as the shopper in town for business or on a vacation, you appreciate that business, but not as much as the repeat business over time.
I'll admit it - I spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about where I fall in Google's rankings for my search terms of choice. Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is a key part of what I think about. When I was convinced, a few years back that my site needed a facelift, my concern wasn't how it would look, as much as it was how it's new look might affect my position on page 1 of Google, et al. I have been vociferous in my research for my first website (which was on Compuserve, back in 1995), since the early days of Yahoo (early 1996 for those of you counting), when inclusion was free (but you had to work for it), to Altavista, where, a properly coded (read - white hat) site could win you the entire first page. So was the case, for example, with the search term "concert photographer", I was literally the first 9 of 10 listings there in the early days. As of right now, 
The company Lucent 
The economy is cyclical, so say many economists. So, where in the cycle is the Washington Post? Coming out of bankruptcy at auction in 1933, after years of un-profitability, it took several decades to become profitable and of consequence, arriving as such in the early 70's with the golden boys of reporting - Woodward & Bernstein.
Why, The Wasington Post (affectionately referred to with the colloquial acronym 'TWP') is getting a majority of it's income from Kaplan - you know, the folks who skooled you in how to ace the SAT's? They do other testing, of course, but so many people have them to thank for doing better than they otherwise would have on the SAT's. 
I know I'm not seeing double. I am seeing stupidity and cheapskates in action.
Last week, I read on the Digital Railroad Member's 
Far be it for me to celebrate another's (ongoing) downward slide....ahh shucks, in this case, why not?
Here's a look back over the past 11 months at the top 10 posts, to date. Thanks!
I'd like to think that the reason we have the good fortune of 50,000+ views in the last 30 days, and have exceeded 300,000 since we started, is because there's something of value you, dear reader, get from these postings. What though, are you doing with that knowledge? 
So, in anticipation of going to the APA's 
I'm heading to my old stomping grounds (I am a bay area native) to give a presentation to the ASMP NorCal chapter. 
In mining parlance, "Naked Light" 
This is why there is traffic on the freeways. Some idiot isn't paying attention and gets into an accident, or Officer Barney Fife decides to pull over someone for a tail-light out during rush hour, and now we're all rubber-necking at the sideshow.