Let me help you sort your images out.

I have a really exciting announcement to make. Well at least I'm excited about it, and so are the clients that I've worked with so far. An expansion of my business into a slightly different, but totally related area.

For those of you who don't know, I've been a photographer for close to 15 years now. Which means that I have a lot of pictures. I mean a truly astounding amount of images on both film and digital format. Now for most assignment photographers work involves shooting a job, sending the images to the client and then forgetting about it. The images get stored on some hard drive, backed up to another hard drive, and then are never seen again.

But for me a major part of my business has always involved stock photography, which involves shooting images and then having them available for clients at some point in the future if and when they might like to license them. Which means that I can shoot a picture and it might not sell for quite a long period of time after the shutter has been pressed - sometimes years!

But when that call (or more frequently these days - email) comes I need to get my hands on a specific picture very quickly. I can't spend half a day searching for a particular image of Paris which might be on one of a number of internal or external hard drives or DVDs. I need to get it out to the client as fast as possible.

All of which means I had to become an expert in cataloguing and sorting my pictures. The screenshot above is of one of my photo catalogues and if you have a look down the bottom right hand corner you can see that there are nearly 50,000 images in there. And I can pretty much find any one of those images in a very short period of time.

How many organisations can say the same thing? In my experience basically none. And this is costing companies a lot of time and money when employees try and go looking for pictures that they know are somewhere, but have no idea where. Or even those pictures that they have on file but everybody has completely forgotten about. What a waste of valuable digital assets.

And this is where I come in. Last year at the request of James Cook University I was hired as a consultant to help them sort out their image library. 45,000 digital files with very little information to tell people what the pictures were of, who took them and any other relevant information. Marketing and Communications were getting bombarded with requests for pictures that they would then have to spend time searching for and delivering to other departments. All of which was a burden in both time and money.

So the first thing we did was do an inventory of their pictures to find out what they were dealing with. All the pictures were on a central server but nobody knew how to find stuff on there. So we created a system whereby all the images were not only catalogued, but staff from the different departments could see all those images, search for those images and then download those images directly from the server. Bang. The whole university suddenly had access to over 45,000 pictures that before they had no idea existed. But Marketing and Communications were still able to control which images were able to be used and which weren't. They were also able to keep track of what licenses applied to which pictures to stop inadvertent copyright infringement - always a big risk for major corporations.

Is your image library in a total state of disrepair? Does it take you hours to find pictures for a specific project? Do you have multiple version of a single image filling up servers? Then I can help you.

As I said, I'm very excited about this expansion of the business because it's something I love doing. I love the look on people's faces when they suddenly realise how easy it is for them to find images, to classify images, to use images in specific projects and to share those images with other staff members.

I rarely post ads on the blog but I'm hoping this one will appeal. If you are interested, or know anybody who you think could use such a service get them to email me at info@dymond.com.au for a no-obligation appraisal and quote. And let's get our digital assets back in order!

What does a professional photographer do?

I was having a conversation with a friend the other day and he made an interesting comment. We were talking about the business of photography (he's not a photographer or involved in the industry at all) and he made the remark that it must be hard to sell services as a professional when cameras are so good these days that anybody can take a fantastic photo. Ouch.

But you know what? Cameras are really good these days. Fast autofocus, brilliant exposure metering and even the ability to change things up in post-processing afterwards if you want. So what is it exactly that a professional does differently if the taking of the photograph is so easy?

Firstly there's the illusion that it is easy. In the right light, if you're in the right position and there's a nice moment in front of you then everyone's chances of getting a nice picture are pretty even. No questions about it. If we're both standing in front of Uluru (Ayers Rock) during a beautiful sunset we're going to come away with something pretty special.

But what happens for the 99% of the time when the conditions aren't co-operating? What happens when you have to shoot a portrait of somebody outside in the middle of the day? The professional will know to put up a scrim to soften the light. They'll know to break out the lighting to fill in the shadows, and the optimum position to put that light for the nicest effect. They'll also know what to do to the background exposure to create a spectacular effect. And they'll know how to do it every time no matter what the weather is doing. Oh and they'll also know to get on fabulously no matter how much of a bad mood the portrait subject is in and to get legally binding model releases signed so you don't find yourself getting sued down the track!

OK so maybe a deep knowledge of lighting is something that can help separate a pro, but what about those who only use natural light. Let's take a travel assignment. The professional will, before they even leave, have ascertained what direction things are facing. Why? Because if you need to use natural light, and we know that sunrise and sunset are the best times of the day, then you want to know what you need to photograph at what time of the day. East facing buildings are a morning shot, west facing buildings are an evening shot. But the professional will also be on Google Earth checking out if there are any impediments to the sun meaning you need to be there later or earlier than usual. For example here in Cairns the sun goes down behind the mountains at about 5pm. No point finding out that the sun sets at 6.30pm only to find out that everything has been in shadow for the past hour and a half. Research is a huge part of what a professional photographer does.

The professional also knows why they're photographing what they are - the significance of an event, action or object. Take a couple of photographers at the Sumo. One has never been before and just snaps away willy nilly, getting some great action shots. The professional who has done his research is concentrating on the details everybody else misses. The ceremony of purification as the wrestlers throw salt into the ring. The wince of pain as the grand champion bends down on the knee he hurt in training the previous week. Background knowledge is as much, if not more, important as the images themselves. If you know the significance of certain things the photos themselves have more meaning.

The same goes for portraits. I did a series of portraits for James Cook University where we photographed people in various fields of study including Conflict Resolution, Terrorism, Turtle Rehabilitation and Pub Management! Try illustrating some of those in a single image.

Take the Terrorism shoot for instance. I had an idea for a dark, brooding portrait. I had to make sure that the image didn't allude to any particular nationality or religious inclination and I didn't want it to be bright and airy. So we chose to photograph her in her office - at least that was how she described where she worked. Turns out it was a 50cm by 50cm boring grey cubicle in the corner of a tiny room filled with other boring grey cubicles! A visual nightmare. This is when the professional's experience comes into play. When knowledge of your equipment is good enough to be able to cope with any difficulty thrown at you. People with less experience might just throw their hands up in frustration.

And the other differentiating factors come after the shoot is finished. Can the amateur be trusted to have triple copies and back ups of everything they shoot in case of hard drive failure? Can they provide low res jpegs for selection purposes on a password-protected website (so your competitors can't accidentally see them)? Will they invoice on time and in the format that Accounts Payable needs to process it promptyly, or will it require a telephone call or two to sort things out?

So yes, whilst I agree that the advancement of technology has made taking good pictures a lot easier - particularly in the perfect situation - I think when using a professional photographer is absolutely vital is the other 99% of the time. In other words when the shit is hitting the fan and you need someone with the experience to get through with a smile, a laugh and great images no matter what the world throws at you. That's what a professional photographer does.

Oh, the image above was taken on the Japanese island of Okinawa. A tropical paradise famous for its world class beaches, beautiful aqua skies and water sports. Only the week I was there it rained the whole time and the sun never came out once! No point telling your editor the weather is terrible. You need to change tack and find a different angle to your coverage. Anything less would be totally unprofessional.

Big Megapixel jealousy?

So the word is out. We Canon shooters may soon be able to stop feeling inferior to our Nikon brethren with their 36 Megapixel D810. Rumour has it that Canon is about to release a whopping big 50MP beast, which brings up some interesting questions.

Firstly who needs 50MP? I can see how all those glorious pixels would come in handy if you shoot and print huge prints. I'm afraid I can't remember the last time I printed a picture (although my clients use them in print regularly). So I guess that crosses me off that list.

I could also see it coming in handy if you're shooting wildlife and your longest lens just doesn't get you close enough. Just crop a bit out of the middle and, assuming your lenses are up the task, I'm sure you could get a very good, large image. Unfortunately I don't really shoot wildlife either so I guess I'm off that list too.

Hmmm..I'm not doing myself any favours if I really have designs on a new camera here. In fact, truth be known, I can't think of a single use (in my business) for all those pixels. In fact, until the reviews come out, I would be worried that it would be a downgrade from what I'm shooting now. How could that be you ask?

Well at the moment my camera shoots a little over 20MP, about standard for a Canon full-frame camera. But, more importantly for me, it's low light shooting abilities are phenomenal. I regularly shoot it at 1600 and 3200 ISO without the need for any noise reduction work. Hell, as I've mentioned in a previous post, I shot plenty of images in Paris at 12,800 that were perfectly usable for up to A4. The ability to shoot in low light is a godsend for me.

But not only when shooting available light, as in this shot from the Louvre above. I often use the high ISO capabilities when using flash. Why would you do that you say? Because many of my compositions involve blending flash with ambient light to create as natural a look as possible. Sure if my entire frame was lit by flash I could shoot at ISO 100, but I like to retain the natual light of an environment as much as possible. Bumping up my ISO means I can do that easily.

So is this new fandangled camera up to those same levels? Only time will tell but with more than twice as many pixels on a sensor the same size I'm thinking something has to give?

Also there's the issue of increased file sizes leading to the need for faster computers, bigger hard drives, more storage cards, more portable hard drives on the road. I've only just rebuilt my computer and don't really feel like doing it again for a very long time!

Yep, it almost sounds like this is my wife writing this post. Explaining exactly why I don't need 50 Megapixels.

But here's the underlying question that needs to be asked. Will a new camera fundamentally affect the way you are able to create images? Will it enable you to do things you'd never thought of? And will having more megapixels than the photographer next to you mean that you'll create more insightful, thought-provoking images? Of course you know the answer to that one, or at least I do.

Advances in equipment are wonderful when they free your imagination and allow you to create pictures that you could only imagine before. When I was shooting film (yeah I know, I'm old) we were limited to 50 or 100 ISO. Can you imagine shooting documentary travel work on 50ISO? If only I had a dollar for all the pictures I couldn't physically take!

For me the most recent game changers have been (in no particular order) - high ISO capabilities, Wi-fi enabled, GPS tracking. Those things might not appeal to you at all but for me they were all huge game changers for various reasons. 50MP? Meh, not so much.

Don't sweat the small stuff - at least not at first.

I haven't really made a big deal out of this,but since hitting 40 I've taken some big steps to get healthy and into shape. Inspired by my constantly fit wife I decided it was time to lose the extra fat gained through the previous 40 years of not really giving a damn.

And when I started doing my research into the type of exercise that I would enjoy, and that I could enjoy over the long haul I found a lot of similarities between the world of exercise and the world of photography.

You wouldn't think it, but early practitioners of both have a very big point in common. They get hung up on the small stuff before they need to. For example, in the world of fitness you can really concentrate on the tiniest little details of diet. Eat more protein, eat less protein, carbs are good for energy, carbs are the devil, fasting is great for your hormones, fasting will crash your hormones.

Unlike the photography world, however, the fitness world is full of scientific studies that can pretty much back up any new idea you come up with. But, just like the photography world, they're often splitting hairs.

I came to see that if I wanted to lose weight I needed to burn more calories than I was taking in. It didn't really matter what form the 'calories in' part took at the start, nor how I chose to create this deficit. I could eat less, or I could move more. As long as I was in a deficit I would lose weight. Couldn't be simpler. Hell I even found a guy in America who lost 18kg eating Twinkies for three months - just to prove a point!

In terms of exercise there were a million choices, all with supposed benefits (if you listened to the authors of the programme) and downsides (if you listened to the authors of competing programmes). But upon looking into it further it became pretty clear that the one I could keep up with and continue with was the one that would give me the most benefit. And there were a million different options, with no one thing being significantly better than another.

In other words as long as I took care of the basics first - move more, eat less - I would lose weight and get fitter. All the other stuff was merely fine-tuning and best left for a long way down the track, if at all.

And that's how I see a lot of beginners in photography. A common question I get asked is "I like this photo but do you think it would have been better if I'd taken it at f8? I've heard my lens is sharpest at f8." Check the metadata of the picture - they took it at f11. In all honesty? It doesn't matter two bob.

There are far more important things to consider in the creating of great photography before you get to worrying about the tiniest details. First and foremost, is the subject compelling? Is what's within the frame enough to capture the viewer's interest? If not then it makes no difference what aperture you're using. A boring photo at f2.8 with nice bokeh is the same as a boring photo at f16 with a big depth-of-field and lens diffraction!

Alright so you've got a nice subject. Well done. Step one is complete. Second step. Is the light nice? Or at least complementary to the subject? Beautiful light can turn the mundane into the sublime, but it can just as easily turn the spectacular into the ho-hum. Choose the right light for your subject. Understand light. Learn to see light even when you don't have your camera with you.

So we have nice light and a great subject. To tell you the truth we're probably about 90% of the way there. A third thing I would add to my list is lens choice and perspective. Does your choice of lens improve the picture. If a wide-angle lens shows too much surrounding stuff and it's not interesting you might need to change to a longer focal length. If that distant background is really attractive then you might need a really big telephoto to compress the perspective. But be careful because your equipment can get in the way.

Or more precisely your love of equipment and a desire to use as much of it as possible just for the sake of using it can. Do you really need 7 speedlights for that portrait? Is it adding to the impact of your subject or is it simply a way of screaming from the top of your lungs "I have 7 speedlights and I can fire them all at once in High Speed Sync!"

Do you have to use that new fisheye lens simply because you just bought it and it cost a lot of money, or does it actually enhance the image? Let the subject decide.

Just like the move more, eat less mantra this could be your new photography mantra - great subject, nice light, right lens. If you've got those three right and you still have time to stop and think about these things then you can concentrate on the fine details. But believe me, they are the last 5% of a great picture. Without the other stuff you've got nothing, no matter what aperture you shot it at.

The travel photography/holiday balance.

I've just come back from a whirlwind trip up to Japan. My wife had a few days off in a row so we decided to quickly pop up there to say hello to her Dad and give the kids a bit of a holiday. This is my youngest son Keyra playing with fireworks in the local park behind his Grandad's house.

Family holidays are difficult times for travel photographers, well for any serious photographer whether professional or amateur I guess. That desire to photograph all the amazing things that you see often clashes with your family's desire for you to spend more time with them.

Photography is by its nature a solo pursuit. I find it very difficult to get any good photographs in a group situation - say a camera club trip - or any situation where I don't have total freedom as to where I go and what I photograph. I find it just makes it very frustrating.

And I used to take that frustration out on my family. I would want to wander off and photograph something, or  hang around in one spot for longer waiting for the perfect opportunity, whilst they wanted to keep going.

It was a constant source of tension until I just decided to let it go. When I'm working I resign myself to the fact that I can never photograph all the amazing things I see and do. It's just not possible. So I took that same attitude over to my family holidays.

I know some photographers who schedule days and times that they can go out by themselves and satisfy their photographic muse, but to be honest with you after a day of running around with the family I'm too buggered to go out and photograph for myself.

I sometimes schedule time off for myself if we're in one place for a long time, like trips back to Sapporo. But otherwise I become more of an opportunist photographer. I get grab shots here and there and spend the majority of the time photographing my kids, something I never do at home. I know, terrible photographer father.

So if your better half is giving you grief about all the time you spend looking through the viewfinder whilst on holiday maybe it's time to put the camera down for a bit. Or point it at the ones you love. Our kids grow up so quick that I'm sure I will be kicking myself twenty years down the track if I don't try and capture their youth. Plus it saves me getting yelled at too much!

Why you need to be interested in more than just photography.

There seems to be a bit of confusion in the photographic world about what you need to know to be a better photographer. The overall search for knowledge seems to be around technique and equipment. What aperture do I use to take this photo? How many flashes do I need to take this photo? How many bracketed exposures do I need to take this HDR photo? But in all this searching people are missing the most fundamental questions? What do I want to say with this photo and why should people care?

After you've learned how to take an HDR multi-image stitched panorama with 32 off-camera speedlights what then? What have you achieved? Nothing that anybody else with an internet connection and the right gear could replicate with a bit of practice, trial and error. So you need to find out more about what it is you're photographing and that information can't be found in the metal and plastic of your camera.

Now before I go any further, let me say that I'm not denying that gear and the knowledge of how to use it is important. It is extremely important because it's half of the puzzle. Without the knowledge of how to create the image you see in your head you will have to rely on dumb luck and serendipity to get consistent results. In fact I would go so far as to say that learning how to use off-camera lighting completely saved my photographic business (but that's a story for another day). What I am saying is that knowledge of technique is still only half of the equation.

An interest in photography is not enough to create anything more than images that make people say "Wow I wonder how they did that?" and move on to the next image of the day using the technique du jour. If that's what you're after then all power to you but I want to create images that have longevity because of their content. Images that cause people to stop and think about something. To think about what is in the image, as opposed to how it was taken.

Take the photograph above. Yes we all know what it is and where it is. But, to be honest with you, that's all it says. It tells you nothing at all about what is special about the Mona Lisa. Sure you can see that lots of people go to see it because I walked to the other end of the hall and shot it with a telephoto lens, compressing the crowd and making it feel more crowded than it was. So that's what I wanted to say about the situation.

Because that's all I could say. Apart from the fact that I know it was painted by Leonard daVinci I have to admit that I know nothing about the technique or style used, or even much about the history of it. No shame in admitting you don't know stuff. (I'm not really sure I could make an HDR multi-image stitched panorama with 32 off-camera speedlights either!).

It's not a bad photo, as photos go, but there's no insight here. Nothing new is learned. No HDR, multi speedlight technique could have saved it as far as I'm concerned. Because the background knowledge and interest aren't there. Sorry Leonardo.

So how could I have created an image that resonates? By being interested in more than just photography. Make no mistakes about it, interested photography often takes more effort and leg work before the shoot than it does during the shoot. For example, if I had been on assignment I would have contacted The Louvre beforehand after coming up with some ideas for images. I would have thought of different angles to the story. Is there a tour guide that has a deep connection with the painting? Are there people whose job it is to take care of the painting in various ways? I don't know. Without researching it I'm clutching at straws here but you see what I mean.

I would then figure out who to get in touch with to try and get access to those kinds of photographs and situations. But that's The Louvre you say. They're not going to let any ol' Joe Blow come in and take behind-the-scenes photos. And you might be right, but you never know unless you try. And if they refuse then at least you have studied up on your subject and can think of other photographic possibilities and what you might want to say photographically. And, granted, this is an extreme example but you can extrapolate it back to your local area.

Sure a photo of a clock tower in your local town might be nice but easily obtainable by anybody else, tourist or local. Can you get permission to photograph the people who clean the clock? Or the engineers who calibrate the time? Or the Historical Society that works to preserve it? Think outside the square by showing a deeper interest in what you want to photograph.

In this world of billions of images on social media, to create something that goes beyond the ordinary you need to go deep. You need background knowledge and interest and you need to come up with an angle that represents what you want to say about something. And once you've figured that out? Then you can get out your 32 speedlights. :)

Why you need your copyright and your clients don't.

If you take a look in the bottom right hand corner of this image of the Champs Elysees in Paris you'll notice a big Copyright Symbol with my name and website details around the outside. Copyright. It's one of those things that we don't always pay as much attention to as we should. Now granted that the copyright laws may be different depending on where you live in the world but there are some generalities we can make before we move on to specifics.

When you take a photograph for your own personal pleasure the copyright is yours. That means that nobody else can take that photograph, use it without your permission or do anything with it at all without you saying it's OK. That's a pretty simple concept that I'm sure we all understand. We go on holiday, take a bunch of photos and they're all ours and nobody else's. But there are things you can do to your pictures voluntarily which could irrevocably change that, and if that happens it could be a very, very bad thing.

So let's say you buy a house. And it's a beautiful house with a fantastic garden which everybody compliments you on. So you enter some pictures of your house into a competition and there's a big, long contract there but you don't read it because those things always say the same thing blah, blah, blah.

And then one day somebody shows up on your doorstep and claims that you no longer own your house. In fact, by entering the contest, you have agreed to give your house away to the organisers of the competition. Not that you won and are going to get a nice prize or anything, you just sent in the entry form. Sounds ludicrous doesn't it? Who would think of such a stupid idea?

Well, whilst photo competitions won't cause you to lose your house, quite a few of them will take away your photos just by entering them. Seriously. They have little clauses in there that will take away your copyright. So what you say? That just means that the competition people want to use those pictures to promote next year's competition? Believe you me, if that's all they wanted to do that's all they would ask for.

So what exactly do you give them when you give them your copyright? Firstly the photo is theirs. No ifs or buts about it. The photo is no longer yours. That means that you can't show it on your website or anywhere in public. You can't sell it to another person, or even claim it as yours. Because it's not. It's theirs. And if they wanted to they could sue you for using 'their' photo. Because they now own it lock, stock and barrel.

Which means that they can do with it whatever they want. They can use it to promote next year's comeptiton of course, but they can also use it however they like. They can put it on billboards, in magazines, on TV. They can sell it or license it to whoever they want. So not only have they not paid you for it, but they can then make money off what was once your picture. If the competition is being run by a state or national tourist board it's often simply a way of getting great photos for free that they can then use to advertise their local area. Haven't got the budget to pay for photos? Run a photo competition. Works every time!

Think that's not gonna happen? There's a major magazine publisher in the US which is now selling original photographs that they commissioned and took the copyright for. The photographers don't get a red cent and the mega-corporation makes yet more money. Tourism Boards all over the world have the same clauses in their photo competition contracts.

OK so this all sounds like conspiracy theory stuff and you're saying "huh that'll never happen'. OK, call me cynical, but if they don't think it will ever happen why do they insist on taking the copyright?
My advice would be to run, don't walk, in the opposite direction of these so-called contests. There are plenty of legitimate competitions out there that won't ask you to hand over your first-born child just to enter. Read the fine print.

But what about when somebody hires you for a job and tries the same thing?

Government departments are notorious for demanding the copyright in images that are shot on assignment, and I have always either negotiated out of it or walked away from the job. But it is never done in anything but a friendly, non-confrontational manner. I'm not at war with these people. We're trying to work together to get beautiful pictures that they can use for their marketing and promotional purposes. We're on the same team but sometimes the corporate lawyers don't see it that way.

So how do I explain it? Firstly it all comes back to how the pictures are going to be used. For example, if a magazine sends you on assignment all they really need (as opposed to want!) are the rights to print the pictures once in their magazine and also maybe on their website and iPad App edition. That's it. That's all they need.

And yet they will still send you their boilerplate contract with a Copyright Transfer (also known as a Work Made For Hire) in there. Believe me when I tell you that there are always different versions of the 'standard' contract, and no contract is above negotiation.

Government departments often have more extensive usage requirements. They might need to use it in slideshow presentations, websites, brochures etc. A whole range of usage that they're not really sure about. Which is often their excuse for requesting copyright. "Oh but we don't know where we're going to use it so we just need everything."

This is how I explain things. I firstly explain what copyright transfer means. It means that the pictures become theirs and I can never show the image on my website, in my portfolio or even claim it as my own. I explain that I wouldn't get much work as a photographer if I couldn't show my work to people and my website would look pretty boring if it was all blank spaces! That they in fact could sue me if I did any of that. Standard response? "Ooh we would never do that!" My reply? "Maybe not, but you could if you wanted to and I don't want to expose myself to that kind of risk."

I then explain that they would also then have the right to put those images into a stock library and make money off them, or sell them to third parties without either my permission, or paying me extra money. Standard response? "Ooh we would never do that!" My reply? "Maybe not, but you could if you wanted to and I don't want to expose myself to that kind of risk."

And that's usually all I ever have to write. We work together, as a team, on terms of service that give them the usage of the pictures that they need and I retain the copyright. The people who contact you aren't the bad guys in any of this. Ever. The legal departments aren't necessarily evil either, they're just trying to cover their own butts and save time, money and hassle.

If they take copyright they never have to worry about you charging them extra money for using the photos in ways that weren't charged for in the original contract. They save time by not having to contact you to ask permission to use the photos in new ways. And they save hassle by not having to keep track of which images have been licensed for what use. In other words they're most likely being more lazy than they are greedy. Or maybe that's the naive, optimistic side of my personality coming out?

But here's the thing. Unless all you do is photograph for local, very small businesses, then usage will be a big part of how you charge. A big corporation that intends to use your pictures in a multi-million dollar campaign will pay a lot more for your pictures than a small magazine that wants to use it once. But guess what? If that small magazine is owned by that multi-million dollar corporation and they get your copyright? They can use that picture in ways that would have netted you a lot more money. So, in essence, they've saved themselves a lot of money and you've lost a lot of money.Can you afford to subsidise another person's business? I know I can't.

So this is my hard and fast line that I draw in the sand and never cross. I never sign away the copyright in my work for anybody. Never, ever. I will negotiate very extensive usage (with an equivalent charge) to cover those clients who want to use the images every which way (but loose!) but the images never become theirs. They are always mine and will continue to be mine. They are my property, and my legacy to the world. Not all of them are fine art and perhaps many will never see the light of day again, but they are mine and I am proud of every single one of them. And that's non-negotiable. I suggest you adopt the same policy.