James Kings
|
Roger Thompson
|
Lisa Jensen |
Barb Wood |
IS THERE A FUTURE IN BLACK AND WHITE?
By Harry Cutting
hcutting@mindspring.com
Long ago, a genius friend told me, "Be unique, do what you
want."
Of course, I ignored his trite-sounding advice and
boldly trained my efforts on shooting chromes for a NYC stock
agency. It seemed like the thing to do to be a pro. At the same
time I continued my more personally rewarding black and white
work and made sales on the side to denominational and educational
publishers. One day my friend's words of old hit me like a truck.
I stashed my Kodachrome in the freezer and switched full time to
my true love, the black and white image.
Not that it's been clear sailing. And not that I ignore color markets, CD-ROM technology,
APS, etc. I still occasionally add to my color files and always
stay abreast of what's new in publishing. But mostly I'm a black
and white photographer who has freely chosen, in addition to
other tasks, to work 6-8 grueling days a month in a smelly
darkroom. The hard physical labor and dishpan hands are my
ongoing reminders to continually assess and refine my efforts. As
stock photographers we're all faced with such assessment; am I
working smart? Am I still on-track with my markets? Is what I do
and how I do it effective? Profitable? Rewarding?
For me, these important fundamental questions are implicit in my very existence
as a stock photographer. But more than that, these questions and
how I answer them actually define my entrepreneurship - and
create the dynamic business plan I need to go forward. My
assessment process is simple and effective. I study any and all
photo requests. I devour magazine racks, publications in doctor's
offices, schools. I camp out in libraries. I write and call for
samples, guidelines, tips. I'm on the phone with editors and
designers. I ask a lot of questions. I keep meticulous, accurate
records. I write everything down.
Like all stock photographers, one of my major concerns is getting the right "content"
picture to the right market. But as a black and white
photographer I'm equally interested in matching my specialty
format (B&W) to the appropriate market; I need my customers,
first and foremost, to need black and white pictures.
Historically these black and white markets have largely been the
denominational, educational and small press publishers. As I
routinely check the pulse of these markets I sometimes get a
healthy bout of doubt. Usually it goes away. About a year ago it
didn't.
In the spring of '95, color seemed to be everywhere. Hype was
rampant; the internet, CD-ROM, digitized images, et al. Worse, my
personal markets seemed to be shifting toward mostly color. Was
the sky really falling, I wondered; was black and white on its
way out? It sure appeared that way.
Designers and art directors
who, a year prior, seemed almost embarrassed to admit dabbling in
digitized images, were now fairly bubbling with praise for drum
scanning and CD-ROM technology. Also, here and there, a key
magazine would be converted to four color. Additionally, some
publishers seemed intent on not only bypassing black and white
suppliers like me, but in going past independent and stock house
color sources, as well, in favor of packaged digital pictures at
a dollar a shot.
Holy moly. I was getting a headache. So that spring, believing my panic would lead to temporary confusion and
ultimately to wisdom, I plowed ahead with my tentative premise:
black and white stock photography was doomed. And now after a
year of investigating, I realize how right - and wrong - I was.
In Part II of this article I'll expalin this paradox.
I posed the question,
"Is the black and white stock photo dead?"
The upshot of my research is, no. It's not even running a fever. If
you know where to go and how to market it once you get there.
Here's what has led me to this point of view. Admittedly, the
markets have changed. A lot. The pace of change over the past
five years is staggering. Where once a photo promised automatic
integrity and authenticity, we now commonly see hybrid images
that have been computer-manipulated into fifth cousins of the
original. Low cost digital disk pictures of increasingly higher
quality now compete with traditional and higher priced stock
photo suppliers. And why not? Editors and designers are just
illustrating their projects as best they can, as they've always
done.
Nearly all publishing houses now have computerized graphic
departments. This changeover happened in a big way four to five
years ago. Designers are exploiting their new universe by using
CD-ROM photos, manipulating images, and making more in-house
picture preparations. But what kinds of pictures?
Color ones, according to Steve Beverly, Managing Editor of the
magazine and curriculum group at Warner Press, "Our
stock use is 100% color; CD-ROM mostly. We computerized four
years ago and our design staff is very comfortable with the
technology. We're happy with the change."
Did he use black and white photos prior to this? Yes.
I asked him why he was traveling down this high-tech, color-only
highway. His answer was similar to many other photobuyers. I call
it the Mt. Everest effect - "Because it's there."
Mr Beverly's situation is not unique. Many publishers have
converted to full color operations. No ifs, ands, or buts;
they're not buying black and white pictures. Tim Vinger, Managing
Editor of Educational Resources for Augsburg Fortress,
reports that his current picture needs are strictly four color. A
year ago he was using a mix of color/black and white.
Rich Briggs, a photo editor/acquisitionist for Standard
Publishing, tells the same tale, "Many of our products
are full color now; computer art is way up." Briggs also
estimates that overall stock purchases are down 25% from four
years ago.
Also fueling this color/digital conversion is, no doubt, the
deeply entrenched perception that the viewing public has a
"color is better" attitude. Barbara Poe, an art
director with the Baptist Sunday School Board, echoed this
sentiment. "We realized three or four years ago that our
products looked out-dated. Computerizing our graphics helped us
upgrade our look in a hurry." Poe reported that she formerly
used black and white images almost exclusively.
WHOSE JOB IS IT?
I find this reasoning, that color is better, particularly
lamentable. But I also agree with Lynn Molony, Product
Development Manager of Brown/ROA, who told me, "I
like black and white. But a lot of our customers don't appreciate
it. It's not my job to educate the public." She's right.
It's not her job. It's probably not a black and white stock
photographer's job to educate the public either.
But here's what is a black and white stock photographer's
job: to educate the photobuyer.
It occurred to me half way into this study that what irked me
most about Ms. Poe's and others' comments of needing to
"upgrade" their look, was the near empty universe of alternatives
to digital/color that they could choose from. Namely, why weren't
I and fellow black and white photographers helping them to
upgrade with fresh, unique black and white photos? They needed
solutions to problems. Was I stuck in my complacency?
This is exactly where I became a believer in the power and
practicality of the black and white photo again.
Also at about this point old lessons, painfully learned but
forgotten, began surfacing. One in particular helped reaffirm my
belief in the black and white stock photo. In the late 1970's I
was presenting some photos to a large buyer I hoped to win over.
The photos, though good and appropriate, were a timid lot and
were apparently just like everything else he had seen lately. He
challenged me to defend my submission. I was flabbergasted. After
all, he'd just told me they were good and that he liked
them. Exasperated at my silence, he nearly shouted, "A
photographer's job is to dictate taste and you're falling down on
the job."
My lack of confidence and enthusiasm did constitute failure. I
made a note to myself then that, no matter what I did in the
photo business, I would do it with the unmistakable
self-confidence of someone who believed passionately in his work.
But I've become aware that I've let myself slip a little over the
years. Maybe you have, too.
During the past year, flush with my re-commitment to my black and
white specialty, I've charged into the market place with more
energy than ever. I'm picking the cherries and leaving the pits.
If a publisher is stuck on exclusively four-color images ( for
me, a pit) then he drops to the very bottom of my list. There are
quite a few of these. Some are old customers and I swallow hard
as I demote them. But many publishers are "full-color"
houses that are open to other ideas. These are cherries and I
push them hard. It works. They're still buying black and white
pictures and probably will for a long time.
Other publishers have a sophisticated taste for photos - but they
often don't know what they want until they see it. There are many
more of this type of buyer than you might think. For the black
and white photographer these are the ripest cherries of all.
These buyers desperately need new ideas and fresh
approaches as alternatives to the cliched images that come across
their desk.
For these last two types of buyers color isn't "better"
than black and white, or vice versa; the best picture is the one
that does the job best. In these markets, stock house cliches and
digitized color photos will lay in the shadow of your half page
black and white if it does the job.
How do you find black and white markets? Libraries are a gold
mine. Depending on your specialty area (medicine, wildlife,
education, etc.) check out those sections of a major library.
These departments will subscribe to scores of periodicals, which
will serve as blueprints for you.
Let me be clear about this: some markets in your specialty areas
will be totally closed to the black and white photographer. Write
them off. Forget them. Move on. There will always be closed
markets. But the ones that are open need to be aggressively
marketed. A black and white photographer can be a unique and
valued commodity in a sea of ho-hum color conformity -- if the
buyer knows you're there.
If "dictating" taste and educating photobuyers sound
like arrogant pursuits then think of this way: you're just trying
to help. And do the best job possible. Because you really believe
in what you do. Facts and figures aside, there's untold power in
true belief. This is not wasted on our directors and editors.
They can smell it. And when belief is fueled by enthusiasm,
expertise, and the good sense to knock on the right doors, those
doors will open. And there will be paychecks inside.
Harry Cutting is a stock photographer based in southwest Florida.
Harry Cutting Photography, 3850 Central Ave. #307, Ft. Myers, FL
33901. Phone: 1 941 275-9830. Fax: 941-275-2038.
IF MAN HAD BEEN MEANT TO FLY
HE WOULD HAVE BEEN FILLED WITH HELIUM
What if you could produce aerial images that were sharper and
clearer than images captured from fixed wing aircraft or
helicopter, and it cost you next to nothing to get your camera
airborne? The answer: a remote-controlled helium-filled
mini-blimp. For the past three years we've been producing high
quality aerial photography, on demand, by using a mini-blimp.
It's equipped with a self-leveling closed circuit video and still
camera system that operates from 0-200`. The blimp system hovers
silently and allows the photographer to stay on the ground to
take the time to compose images. When required, you can
coordinate activity on the ground while shooting from the air.
HOW WE WORK
We have an active service photography business and have begun
creating a stock file of unusual aerials that are available for
advertising, merchandising, and editorial uses. For example, we
recently granted rights for a 1997 international calendar product
line. The pictures chosen for the calendar are a series of stock
images we created of historical sites here in the southeast.
Marketing this system for service photography is not an easy
task. Many people resist believing that this is a viable
alternative to conventional aerial photography -- until they see
our portfolio. One of the more challenging assignments we
recently completed was an aerial view of several hundred 11-13
year old kids all arranged on an open field in the shape of a
happy face. Try to get just one 13-year-old to do what you tell
them, let alone hundreds! The most satisfying part of our blimp
business is the knowledge that we are pioneers producing images
from a new and different perspective. In photography there have
been technological advances through the years that have permitted
photographers to make a leap with their camera to new places. The
invention of the rollback & 35mm cartridge gave us
portability, the underwater camera brought back images of an
unseen world, the Tyler mount helped stabilize shots from the
helicopter, and now the mini-blimp brings us a bird's-eye view
without excessive cost.
Denis Duckett is a Florida freelancer. SKY-SHOTS Aerial
Photography, 770 Briarcrest Drive, Orange City, FL 32763. Phone:
1 904 774-6251. Pager: 1 904 691-3756.
Ed Note: And the aerial views don't have to be 100 to 200 feet in
the air. Some can be 10 to 20 feet. For some more insight into
'blimp photography' see our article "In My Flying
Machine-UP, UP, & AWAY" in PhotoStockNotes, Feb '95, pg.
6. Send $1 to cover the photocopy. (Pine Lake Farm, Osceola WI
54020)
TOURIST BUREAUS: Ask Them To Buy "All Rights"
"That's my picture!" you say." I sold that to our
state Department of Economic Development two years ago and now
it's appearing in an airline magazine and I haven't been paid a
dime for that usage!" When you contact your local tourist
bureau, you find out that it's "generally accepted
policy" that once your picture gets into the files of a
state or federal tourist bureau, it becomes, in effect, public
domain -anyone can use it for any purpose, without permission or
payment. In the stock photography industry, we exist by
"renting" our photos for what's called "one-time
use." Many of our photos sell twenty, thirty, forty times.
So, it is unwise for us to sell a photo for what's called
"all rights." Simple arithmetic says that if we rent
the photo five times at $75 we are in a better position than if
we sell "all rights" to the photo for $350. This
presents a problem in relation to state and federal offices,
which often acquire photos to illustrate the amenities of their
area. Being a state or federal agency, the photos they use, in
effect, become "public domain;" anyone else can use
them without permission or payment. If a freelancer
"rents" a photo to a state or federal agency for a fee
in the "one-time use" range, in a perfect world that
agency shouldn't be allowed to re-sell the photo or give it away
to a third party. But if they do, you have no legal recourse,
since you cannot take a state or federal agency to court in this
case. State and federal agencies should be required to buy
"all rights" to a photo, paying the higher fee that
"all rights" commands, rather than paying lower
one-time "renting" charges. A model exists for this
dilemma. And it is supported by the Copyright Law (Section 101
(1)(2) "Work For Hire"). Public relations organizations
will acquire photos for the same purpose as state and federal
agencies, to promote and publicize their client. On a
"work-for-hire" basis, they hire a photographer to make
pictures for their files. They pay a healthy fee to the
photographer. The pictures belong to the public relations
organization. They then distribute the photos to newspapers,
magazines, book publishers, etc., free of charge.
RECOMMENDATION:
State and federal agencies should acquire their pictures on this
same "work-for-hire" basis. They would then be
operating within the Copyright Law. Also, when they do buy stock
pictures rather than getting photos from assignments, state and
federal agencies should make clear that they are buying "all
rights" to a photo. This way the freelancer could know up
front the basis for the transaction, judge whether they want to
sell all rights to the photo or not, and if so, to state an
appropriate fee. While these agencies won't make these moves on
their own, we as photographers can negotiate on this basis with
them.
WANTED: "Old-Fashioned Ethical Business Practices"
Welcome to the electronic age! Web pages, CD Roms, digital
transmission. Welcome also to computer thieves who love this new
opportunity to commandeer your images.
Today, a Web site is a dangerous place to show your outstanding
photos. Your images are out there in an international
"never-never" land.*
Let me backtrack. I've been in the stock photography business
since 1975 as director of ThePhotoFile in San Francisco. The
progression has been from submissions pulled from filing
cabinets, to catalogs, resource books (The Stock Workbook), CD
Rom catalogs, and now Web sites and digital transmission. We are,
by the way, in the Stock Workbook's CD and have published our own
CD.
Yesteryear's art directors respected the rights of assignment and
stock photographers. In those days, I experienced few instances
of thievery. Now these art directors are graying and looking
forward to retirement. There are very few left to carry on the
"old fashioned" ethical business practices.
Today, these art directors are being replaced by young art
directors who grew up with computers and a different set of
standards. As kids, they saw computer games, clip art, shareware,
screen savers, commercial software, and even professional images,
were fair game to swap back and forth.
Growing up, and going through design schools, these same people
are now in decision-making positions as art buyers, graphic
designers, art directors, and photo editors. Many haven't made
the transition from "kids sharing" to the real work of
ethical business practices.
They haven't lost their traits of "borrowing." They
have been known to scan images from a photographer's own
promotional tear sheets, from resource books, from protective
plastic sleeves, and even from stock photo catalogs.
An image at a Web site at 72dpi, via "sharpening tool" in Photo Shop, is fair game to them.
And since the majority of stock usage is 1/4 page or a spot in a
5000-press run brochure, this sharpened image is very usable. And
don't think about taking them to court. Attorney's fees would
cost you twice what you would get in return. If you won.
We even had some art directors wanting to use our images straight
off the Stock Workbook CD, scanned at 72dpi. When asked if they
wanted the transparency or digital, they said, "No thanks,
we can take it off the CD."
How can stock photographers protect their work? First, copyright
your images. It's very simple. You can copyright one image or
thousands for only $20. We recently copyrighted 750 images for
$20. And the copyright is in effect as of the postmark when you
send in the paperwork.
On your images on the Web or a CD, make sure there is a
"watermark symbol" and a copyright symbol. This
discourages stealing since it would be too expensive to remove
the marks.
The hardest case to prosecute is when an art director takes parts
of many images to make one new image. An eye from one image, sky
from another, a tree...get the idea! There are many court cases
where the photographer lost because it was too difficult to prove
the ownership of a "borrowed" or manipulated digital
image.
Be very sure of your paperwork. Never, never send out submissions
until you have contacted the client and they have made the
request. Today's scanning technology makes it very easy to
"borrow" images. Check with APA and ASMP for their
guidelines. Be professional with your paperwork.
State exactly the usage terms on your invoices. We also state
"Invoice due upon receipt, - no reproduction unless
paid." And state, "Electronic rights NOT sold but
licensing available." Many publications, once they purchase
the right to use your photograph, believe that right also extends
to their electronic publications. Your transmittal forms should
remind them that electronic rights are additional.
Keep up on what's happening in the industry. Attend APA and ASMP
meetings and get involved. Subscribe to PhotoStockNotes
and Photo District News.
In closing, there are many good ethical art directors,
and I say "thank God" for them.
*Ed Note: Microsoft Internet Explorer,
Netscape Gold, and Adobe's Pagemill,
both offer "click & save" features that allow
Web-page-makers the opportunity to grab items (including photos)
from any home page that appeals to them, for immediate use in
their own home pages. A watermark can offer a copyright reminder.
Solution: Don't put anything on your home page you don't want to
give away.
Gerald L French, The Photo File, 48 Century Lane, Petaluma
CA 94952. Fax: 1 707 766 8811
YES I CAN!
"It can't be done!" say people who want to resist change.
Luckily for our industry, change doesn't come overnight. We in
the photography community usually get to gradually accustom
ourselves to slowly evolving progress, always easier to take than
abrupt change. But new innovations and improvements will continue
to entice us, even though it may be 20 years before digital or
APS (film) systems are widely adopted. In our industry, the
resistance to changes currently on the horizon will come from
both photographers and photobuyers who say, "Why invest in
new equipment when the methods we are using now work just
fine?"
These classic utterances come from no less than veterans and
experts in the field. For your entertainment, here are some
illuminating utterances from the past.
"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"
Harry M. Warner, Founder, Warner Bros. Studio (1927)
"Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are
impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, English Scientist (1824-1907)
"Space travel is utter bilge."
Sir Richard Van Der Riet Wooley, The Astronomer Royal (1956)
"While theoretically and technically television may be
feasible, commercially and financially I consider it an
impossibility..."
Lee DeForest, American Inventor (1873-1961)
"Rail travel at high speeds is not possible because
passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."
Dionysius Lardner, English Scientist (1793-1859)
http://www.photosource.com
info@photosource.com
