Not So Much WHAT as HOW

“Should I focus on photographing people or stills?”

The best answer I can give is to pick your passion and stick with it.  Some people shoot food, some shoot conceptual stills, some landscapes or cityscapes, while others focus on people.  My personal preference is photographing people, since I simply enjoy the interaction and experience with various personalities (it keeps things interesting for me).  There are challenges with every type of photography, especially if you are trying to capture images that appeal to the world of advertising.  No matter what (or who) I am photographing, I always ask myself, “How might this be used?”  If I can’t imagine the shot in a printed ad or on a web site, I’ll re-think and re-arrange the shot until it looks useful.. or I’ll simply scrap the idea and move on.  As I mentioned earlier, the best way to develop an eye for what a useful shot looks like, just browse the magazine rack at your local book store or supermarket and pay close attention to subject matter, text placement, color schemes, etc.  Also, pay very close attention to the cleanliness of the shots!

Details, Details.

Pay attention to the details.  Here are some of the things I obsess over when shooting a model:

Type of clothing for the theme
Color coordination
Accessories – watches, ties, scarves, rings, hair bands, etc
Grooming & Neatness – hair, makeup, fingernails, clean/wrinkle-free/lint-free clothing
Concealment of tattoos (unless they are the focus of the shot)
Background – either white (isolated) or complementary to the shot as a whole
* Lighting

Amateur shots are easy to spot, because they are usually taken hastily without having paid attention to the details.  Buyers are usually looking for professional-looking photos.  Professional ad designers can spot the difference between professional and amateur photos a mile away.  Competition is fierce, so I can’t stress enough how important it is to pay attention to the details!

One often forgotten detail is the background.  Many photographers are so focused on what is going on in the foreground that they forget to pay attention to what is going on in the background.  This is a personal pet peeve of mine.  A crummy background can easily ruin what might have been the “perfect shot”.  For example, taking a photo of an attractive person in front of a clear blue sky… add a few power lines in the background to completely ruin the shot.  Or how about a shot of a person hiking in a remote, pristine wilderness… with a partial view of a portable lavatory and overflowing trash can in the background.  Or a beautiful young lady dancing on a hill of green grass with clear blue skies… and a little league baseball diamond in the distance.  At the very least, these annoyances should be removed in post processing.  Even better – pay attention to what you are photographing in the first place.  The background helps tie the whole scene together and ultimately helps build the story and mood of what is going on in the foreground.  Think of foreground and background together as Yin and Yang.

* Lighting is a subject all its own, which cannot easily be summed up in a couple of paragraphs.  So I’m saving that for next time!

The Right Stuff

“I’m on a budget, so what are the most important pieces to get me started?”

Some might argue the camera is the most important piece of the equation. Granted, having the right tool for the job is always a good idea. In my opinion, the most important piece of hardware in my arsenal is my computer screen. It tells me definitively what my end product looks like before I release it into the world. Every computer system I have evaluated over the past several years has been completely biased by the screen. Without a proper screen, even images captured with an $8,000 camera have a high likelihood of looking like garbage when the final edit is done. I currently work with two computer systems – a desktop PC running Windows XP and an Apple MacBook Pro running Leopard 10.5. Both systems have one thing in common – the screen. My desktop is connected to an Apple 30″ cinematic display, and the MacBook is connected to an Apple 23″ cinematic display. In terms of computer hardware in general, I’m not a cheerleader for either Mac or PC. I only care about getting the job done… I would sooner argue about what toaster makes the best toast. But I have become completely spoiled by Apple displays. So if you’re in the mood for blowing some cash, be sure to spend it where it counts. Even a so-so PC will operate an Apple display, as long as you have the proper adapter. GET A GOOD DISPLAY!

“What camera do you recommend?”

There are certain things to keep in mind, especially if you are serious about shooting stock. In the land of Stock Photography, resolution is King. In my last several camera purchases, the two deciding factors have been 1) resolution and 2) price. Like computers, I don’t have any particular loyalty to a given brand. I happen to shoot with Canon, mainly because at the time I purchased my first real pro DSLR body Canon offered the highest resolution for the money (just shy of $8k). Why is resolution so important? The larger the image sold, the higher the royalty earned. Simple economics. My latest purchase was the Canon 5D Mark II. Again, resolution + price (plus the fact that I had already invested in a host of Canon lenses). At this point, the benefit of sticking with Canon revolves around my investment in Canon lenses. Other brands I have had experience with (and like) are Nikon and Olympus. Even though iStock’s minimum resolution is about 2 megapixels, I would recommend shooting with a camera that provides NO LESS than 10 megapixels.

Earlier I mentioned that a good point-and-shoot camera is enough to get you started. This is true, but if you stick with it long enough and are eventually able to upgrade to a good DSLR, you will reap many benefits. Before going hog wild on a camera, the main thing you need to determine is if you possess the necessary “stick-to-it-iveness” to weather the inspection/rejection/approval process. Once you get into a rhythim of shooting, photoshopping, submitting and re-submitting.. and ENJOY the process, then you can start thinking more about investing in better camera gear to raise the bar on image quality.

As a bit of inspiration, I have assembled a small collection of images I have captured over the years with small point-and-shoot cameras. Some of these images have sold well, others not so well. The main point being that you CAN be creative without investing an arm and a leg in camera gear.

More

Getting Started

“What kind of camera do I need?”

The minimum file size for iStockphoto is 1600 x 1200 pixels, which is about 2 Megapixels. Current point-and-shoot cameras (or pocket cameras) easily exceed this resolution, so you don’t need much to get started. There are benefits to owning a nice DSLR (or Digital SLR), but I will get into that later. Read here for more info.

“Ok, I get it. I have a fast computer loaded with Photoshop CS[x] and a decent camera. How do I start?”

Assuming you want to apply to be an iStock contributor, go here and read CAREFULLY.

“What types of photos should I submit?”

It is easier to say what NOT to take photos of. The good folks at iStockphoto have compiled a list of image types they NEED and which images they would rather NOT see (it would be in your best interest to carefully read and absorb the entire training manual). In my opinion, the list of DON’Ts is too short. There are plenty of useless photos to be taken. The basic idea is to keep in mind WHO WILL BE BUYING THE PHOTOS. Since this is a commercial royalty-free business, the people buying photos from iStockphoto are advertising people, web designers, publications, etc. and they are buying images to help illustrate a concept or sell a product. So they are usually looking for photos that convey a message, metaphor or theme relating to occupation/trade, emotion, lifestyle, etc. They are NOT usually looking for snapshots you took while walking around with your new camera – photos of tree branches, power lines, flowers, leaves, dogs, cats, etc. If you are confused about what types of photos advertisers like to use, then just visit any magazine rack and flip through the pages of something popular like “Oprah Magazine”. Most (if not all) of the photos used to advertise in such magazines are royalty-free stock images.. and they are generally well-executed, bright, colorful and clean.

Here are a couple of before/after samples to illustrate how I normally process my photos. My personal goal is to enhance the photo without making the final product look like an altered photo… or to simply make the photo look the best it can without appearing “fake”. The best compliments I receive are when people tell me they love my photographs. If they tell me I do great Photoshop work, then I feel as if I have failed.

…the basic idea is to provide designers with the best possible quality photographs to be used as building blocks that aid in the creation of THEIR VISION. Photographs must provide more FUNCTION than simple beauty. It is possible (and quite common) for beautiful photographs and portraits to fail at becoming successful stock photos. Just because a photo might look good hanging on a wall does not necessarily mean it will be useful to a designer who creates ad campaigns for a living. Some of my personal favorite photographs have failed miserably in the world of stock imagery. But if I let this get met down, then I would have quit the industry a long, long time ago.

The word for today is TENACITY. As you will learn through the application process and future photo submission efforts, some of your dearest photos will be rejected. It’s not a matter of IF they get rejected, but a matter of WHEN. The process of having photos inspected and occasionally rejected is not a matter to be taken personally. It is a simple matter that stock photo agencies like iStockphoto only want images in their collection that possess the potential to make money – for them AND you. My advice is to treat the process as a learning experience. Deal with rejections, either by fixing the error and resubmitting, or by simply ditching the photo and moving on to the next one… ultimately learning from the experience. In my personal experience, it was this inspection/rejection/acceptance process that led to my advancement as a professional photographer.

more

So, you want to be a stock photographer..

Well, this is probably long overdue. But I’m not much of a blogger.. or a Twitterer, or a FaceBooker or a MySpacer, etc. You get the idea. I’m a photographer, and much of my time in front of the computer is spent sorting, processing and uploading photos. More specifically, I’m a commercial stock photographer, exclusive to iStockphoto (and Getty Images). The purpose of this blog is to present pearls of wisdom I have accumulated over the years, hopefully providing simple answers to the myriad of questions I receive about my line of work. Granted, many of these pearls may have been posted in various forms by other photographers making the same living I do. But I haven’t taken time to follow their blogs (or anyone else’s blog for that matter). I’m not the sort who likes to blather on a lot about nothing, so entries will generally be concise and *hopefully* easily understood.

Skip this paragraph if you already understand the concept of royalty free stock photography. Royalty-free does not mean the photo is free. It means the purchaser may use the photo multiple times without having to pay a royalty fee each time it is used, according to the End User License Agreement. Royalty-free photos save the buyer A LOT of money if they plan to use them often. Royalty-free photos are also usually priced according to the file size. One example of a royalty-free stock photo would be a photo of a casual teenager used to advertise for a local university or community college. The same photo might also be used by a dentist to advertise his services (assuming the person in the photo has a bright white smile). In microstock (the niche that companies like iStockphoto fill) the idea is to sell one photo over and over again worldwide. Each sale of the same photo might earn the photographer $1 or less, but if sold thousands of times… well, the math isn’t all that difficult.

“Can anyone be a commercial stock photographer?”

That’s a loaded question. Technically, yes. Realistically, no. If you LOVE spending hours with Photoshop, then YES. If you would rather not spend time in front of the computer and have no idea how Photoshop works, then most likely NO. I make doing what I do for a living look easy. But trust me, there is nothing easy about it. I love what I do, so I don’t spend much time grumbling about how much work it takes to produce eye-catching photos that SELL. Successful stock photographers are skilled, patient, determined and thick-skinned. Without these qualities, hopefuls are destined for failure.

“What do I need to be a commercial stock photographer?”

Another loaded question. Besides the obvious – a decent camera and computer workstation loaded with a current version of Photoshop – see the previous paragraph. Without the proper disposition and innate desire to create images, regardless of what money you hope to earn from your efforts, the most expensive camera gear in the world is a complete waste. Assuming you are already a Photoshop JUNKIE, you already have what you NEED. The rest is just a collection of toys designed to help feed your addiction.

Here’s basically how I started… back in the early 90’s I had a 486 computer and a piece of photo editing software that came with a flatbed scanner I purchased for way too much money. I thought it was fun to scan in pictures of friends and distort their facial features and/or cut their faces out and paste them onto someone else’s body, ultimately making them look completely ridiculous. This activity led me to buying cheap digital cameras to capture more scrap for my photo manipulation hobby. I was completely hooked. Eventually, digital cameras got better and photo editing software got more advanced (eventually switched to Adobe Photoshop in the mid/late 90’s), and my obsession with digital image trickery grew with every advancement of digital technology. Eventually my cameras evolved to the DSLR type and I invested in a pro lighting kit to start a small side business taking peoples’ portraits for a small fee. The secret of my business’s success was my ability to make people look great through my post processing skills in Photoshop. You see, it was Photoshop that got me into photography, not the other way around. When I stumbled upon iStockphoto it was the perfect storm. Here was an avenue where I could sell my Photoshop creations for .50 cents a pop (and in turn earn .10 cents royalty per sale). It was a dream come true, and never in my wildest dreams would I ever have guessed it would evolve into a full-time “job”.

I will confess right now that I am not a purist. There’s a popular quote that is supposedly from Ansel Adams: “You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” Regardless of whether or not it came from Ansel, I agree wholeheartedly. There isn’t much room for purists in my line of work… the term “purist” meaning to imply a person who believes photos should not be altered in any way and should look good right from the camera. By this definition, a purist would also believe in truth in advertising. There is no such thing, especially where commercial photography is concerned. Every photo you see in advertising these days is a complete fabrication. Once you understand this and are willing to bastardize every single photo you take, then you’re off to a good start.

more