AW: [STOCKPHOTO] Stock Submissions & EXIF Data

[Dietmar Scholtz]

Hi all,

never had problems with that so far. In my workflow i develop the RAW DATA
into 16bit tif and make if neccessary some changes in Photoshop. After all
is done in the complete series of pictures, i use photoshop to run all the
images into .jpg.
Doing this deletes all the exif-information and the keywording is done
seperately after this.

Also i must say that i have some pictures running with several agencies that
are made with a compact digital camera and there where no complains about
those pictures :o)

Greetings
Dietmar


_____

Von: ***@yahoogroups.com [mailto:***@yahoogroups.com] Im
Auftrag von David Riecks
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Januar 2007 16:01
An: ***@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Stock Submissions & EXIF Data

When submitting images for stock from a digital camera, is it

acceptable or not to eliminate

the EXIF Data (by copying the image to new document). I'm not

particularly excited about

anyone knowing how I took a photo...

Rich:

Obviously if no EXIF is present (as in a scan from film) there is
nothing worth saving. However, it's interesting you should ask this
right now. There was something I just read that was a plea from a
large standards body (one that has three letters for their
abbreviation) asking all involved with metadata to preserve not only
IPTC but EXIF and other forms of meta information as well. They were
particularly interested in preserving color profile information, so
that might give you a hint.

I do understand the need for photographers not wishing to
share "proprietary" information, like focal length, shutter and
aperture settings, as well as how the flash may have been employed,
etc. However, many photographers have exploited this system by
removing the EXIF information regarding their camera make/model to
hide the fact that they may be using a digital camera that's deemed
inadequate by their distributor (what we used to call agencies).

IMHO, this is a fault of both distributor and photographer.
Distributors need to actually look at and evaluate the image, rather
than sorting and evaluating images solely based on metadata. It's
deceptively easy to give a quality control inspector instructions to
only allow images shot with Canon 1DS mark II's and Nikon D2X's and
reject all the rest.

However that simply means that some photographers will react by hiding
that information from the distributor forcing them to evaluate the
image on it's own merits.

Personally, at this point in time, I leave that information in all my
archive master files. However, it's your decision on what to do with
images that you send on to your distributor.

Hope that helps.

David
--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
http://www.riecks. <http://www.riecks.com> com , Chicago Midwest ASMP member
http://zillionbucks <http://zillionbucks.com> .com "The Webhost for your
Creative Business"
Chair, SAA Imaging Technology Standards committee
Version 2 of the Controlled Vocabulary Keyword Catalog is out
http://controlledvo
<http://controlledvocabulary.com/imagedatabases/cvkc_order.html>
cabulary.com/imagedatabases/cvkc_order.html





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Singh, Shangara]

Post by Dietmar Scholtz
Personally, at this point in time, I leave that information in all my
archive master files. However, it's your decision on what to do with
images that you send on to your distributor.

Camera EXIF info isn't that difficult to remove. You can use a script
by Brian Price from the Adobe site and use it to batch files. It
basically creates a duplicate file that doesn't have any EXIF info
and then dumps the contents of the original file into it.

I was probably one of the first few to discover the above route,
which isn't that difficult to sus if you know Photoshop, and then
Brian Price came along and wrote the script after a discussion on
another list.

Interestingly, the info that we all want to preserve, such as
copyright and contact info, can be removed without any problem by
anyone with "newbie" knowledge of Photoshop but the info that most
photographers would rather not reveal cannot be removed as easily. Go
figure.

If replying to this email, please do NOT quote my address.

Shangara Singh.

Author & Photographer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Hacking Photoshop CS2 http://www.shangarasingh.co.uk
Stock Photography http://www.mpxstockimages.co.uk
Examaids for Adobe-Macromedia http://www.examaids.com

[l***@aol.com]

From: ***@riecks.com:

" It's deceptively easy to give a quality control inspector instructions to
only allow images shot with Canon 1DS mark II's and Nikon D2X's and
reject all the rest. However that simply means that some photographers will react by hiding
that information from the distributor forcing them to evaluate the
image on it's own merits."

Are there really agents (distributors) that arrogant and close minded that they wouldn't review submissions based on the type of camera used ???

I know the answer is, unfortunately and amazingly, yes. However, anyone with common sense knows it's not the tools used to make the image, but the marketability of the image that is paramount. Obviously, any camera, no matter how expensive, and how many megapixels, is useless if its output is not marketable.

Would agents (distributors) really want to forgo marketable imagery based solely on the tools used to create it? A scary, illogical, short sighted policy indeed !

regards

Len Holsborg
***@aol.com

http://cgibackgrounds.com

direct to end users


________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jonathan Clymer]

Post by l***@aol.com
Are there really agents (distributors) that arrogant and close minded that
they wouldn't review submissions based on the type of camera used ???
Would agents (distributors) really want to forgo marketable imagery based
solely on the tools used to create it? A scary, illogical, short sighted
policy indeed !

Here is the workflow of one of the major agencies we deal with. First, job
is shot and and our submission is sent to the agency in the form of small
files. Agency selects are sent back to us and we do prep work, either
in-house or farmed out. This stage may include some labor-intensive
compositing. Then, the final hi-res files are re-submitted and go through a
QC process that checks for sharpness, color, pixelization, etc.

A lot of time and energy has been spent on these images before anyone at the
agency gets to see a hi-res file. Although it seems logical that any
photographer should be responsible for the quality of the images being
submitted, many photographers, quite frankly, do not have the skills to
properly evaluate images that will go through a rigorous QC procedure done
by a third party, and this lack of skill will inevitably be magnified in a
high-production workflow. The requirement by agencies to take submissions
from an approved group of cameras is simply a way of eliminating a category
of images that may cause headaches late in the workflow. It doesn¹t mean
that images from approved cameras will be good or that unapproved cameras
will surely have poor quality. It¹s just a way of attempting to control an
unneeded variable.

At this studio we use Canon cameras, including 1ds¹s and 1ds MkII¹s, both of
which are approved by most if not all stock agencies. Although both are good
cameras, the the MkII¹s are superior and their images need significantly
less corrective work to get through a QC process. My assumption is that
cameras not on the approved list would require more work than the 1ds¹s to
make the images acceptable.

Jonathan Clymer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[daveinkelso]

--- In ***@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Clymer <***@...> wrote:
At this studio we use Canon cameras, including 1ds¹s and 1ds MkII¹s,
both of

Post by Jonathan Clymer
which are approved by most if not all stock agencies. Although both are good
cameras, the the MkII¹s are superior and their images need significantly
less corrective work to get through a QC process. My assumption is that
cameras not on the approved list would require more work than the 1ds¹s to
make the images acceptable.

Corrective work? Something is wrong there. I don't shoot with Canon,
though we use Canon file all the time, and wouldn't want to have
anything as large as a 1D bodied camera on me. The Sony A100 files
don't need any 'corrective work' at all to create a well detailed,
artefact-free, non-sharpened 50mb stock image as long as I stick to
ISO 100 - studio work or my usual conditions for outdoor stock (I
don't often shoot in the rain). They may get routine adjustments
during raw conversion, but these are rarely 'corrective', just a
matter of personal taste and judgment. I am sure the same would apply
to the Pentax K10D, Canon 400D, Canon 5D, Nikon D80, D200 and the
entire crop of 10-12 megapixel new generation cameras with relatively
weak AA filters. At this level, a top grade lens on one of these
bodies will produce more visible detail than a poor lens on a 1Ds
MkII. If an agency is going to stipulate a certain exact type of
camera, they should also be providing a list of permitted lenses!

There's big colour rendering difference between the 1Ds and the 1Ds
MkII, along with quite a big improvement in resolved fine detail and
freedom from highlight flare. Even C1 Pro's colour profiles do not
give a match between things as common as grass/foliage colour and sky
hues from the 1Ds and the 1Ds MkII - they are as different as two
entirely different brands of camera (or film). Do you custom profile
the cameras to overcome this, or just avoid mixing them on a shoot?

David

[Jonathan Clymer]

Post by daveinkelso
Corrective work? Something is wrong there. I don't shoot with Canon,
though we use Canon file all the time, and wouldn't want to have
anything as large as a 1D bodied camera on me.

Different cameras will produce files that look different, not just in color
but in quality. This can be objectively seen, and can be shown to exist when
variables such a lens, or profile, or color rendering are accounted for.

You may not agree that these differences are significant (sometimes I don¹t
think these differences are significant), but they exist, and have lead some
agencies to believe that certain flaws are more prevalent in some cameras
than others.

What is your strategy to deal with this?

Jonathan Clymer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[daveinkelso]

Post by Jonathan Clymer

Post by daveinkelso
Corrective work? Something is wrong there. I don't shoot with Canon,
though we use Canon file all the time, and wouldn't want to have
anything as large as a 1D bodied camera on me.

Different cameras will produce files that look different, not just in color
but in quality. This can be objectively seen, and can be shown to exist when
variables such a lens, or profile, or color rendering are accounted for.
You may not agree that these differences are significant (sometimes I don¹t
think these differences are significant), but they exist, and have lead some
agencies to believe that certain flaws are more prevalent in some cameras
than others.
What is your strategy to deal with this?

I test digital SLRs professionally and have tested cameras for 35
years. There are differences, and they certainly don't all favour the
Canon 1D series or the Nikon D2X. I don't need a strategy and would
not consider working for any library or agency which told me what I
could or could not use - for one thing, I may use a dozen difference
DSLRs each year at the minimum, and each trip may be taken on a
different kit. I certainly don't want any to be told I must duplicate
every shot on a 1Ds MkII.

Back 30 years ago, I wouldn't work with Pictor because Alberto Sciama
said I'd have to reshoot my 35mm work on 5 x 4 and must never use
anything but Ektachrome, which I hated. Tony Stone said yes to the
35mm and if the image was right, accepted our Agfa RS and even the
GAF500 and strange stuff like Anscochrome 64, multiduplicated
Orwochrom and Recording Film 2480. In 1978 I switched to using a bulk
film branded as Barfen. It was a Fuji product related to Fujichrome
100; we tested it and we knew for sure it could wipe the floor with
Ektachrome. Since it had no identification on the film rebates,
countless agencies and publications accepted. Fuji set up shop in the
UK in 1981 and we switched to the real thing and it is amazing how
much resistance was met, but my studio took large accounts off
competitors who stuck with the dull, cold industry standard.

Even as late as 1985, I remember one quite funny meeting with Mark
Kaplan and Hans Wiesenhofer at Time-Life in London. I'd been to
another publisher and had some specimen sheets on me. Hans shot
entirely Kodak and Time-Life specified Ektachrome or Kodachrome. But
you should have seen Mark's face when my sheet of Fujichromes went on
the lightbox. I was not pitching for work (certainly not in the
company of a friend who was there for work!) and I listened to both of
them justify never using Fujichrome, because all these colours were
too bright, they could never be reproduced and really they did not
have the character of Ektachrome and Kodachrome.

There has not been a single DSLR made since the Nikon D100 and Canon
D60 (except maybe the Fuji S1) which can't deliver a file good enough
for A3 DPS at top quality - or for a billboard. The giant Nike shoe
which covered a building 100 ft long and five storeys high in Glasgow
was shot on a Nikon D100 when it was the first affordable 6-megapixel.

I think the reason that some agencies force certain camera types to be
used has less to do with quality than trying to avoid photographers
who don't follow the herd. If you work with naturally compliant,
controllable people you can do pretty much what you want with them.
Personally, if I was an agency, I would rather work with photographers
who are desperate to try every single different
medium/brand/format/lens or whatever is out there.

Alamy's approach of judging what passes QC is better. If the
photographer makes choices which don't pass QC, they remain free to
adjust their gear or methods. They might well end up using the same
gear as found on the permitted lists of others. Or not.

David

[Len Holsborg]

--- In ***@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Clymer <***@...>
wrote:
<clipped for brevity>

" many photographers, quite frankly, do not have the skills to

properly evaluate images that will go through a rigorous QC procedure
done by a third party, and this lack of skill will inevitably be
magnified in a high-production workflow. The requirement by agencies
to
take submissions from an approved group of cameras is simply a way of
eliminating a category of images that may cause headaches late in the
workflow.It¹s just a way of attempting to control an unneeded
variable.

My assumption is that cameras not on the approved list would require

more work than the 1ds¹s to make the images acceptable.>"

Hi Jonathan,

Although you make some valid points, I still respectfully, but
vigorously, disagree with the basic
premise that certain makes and models of camera and lenses, whether
film or digital, is that critical a factor when it comes to the
creation of marketable images.

Being an engineer in a previous life, and one who does copious
research
on technical issues, I've yet to see any data that says images shot
with a particular brand of camera or lens 'cause more headaches' in
any
workflows, or, on a microscopic level, are orders of magnitude better
than any other camera or lens. Of course, I am referring to cameras
and
lenses in the same overall classes, i.e. 35mm vs medium/large format
for film, OEM or established after market lenses,and digital cameras
of
the same or close pixel levels.

Speaking from my own experience, I've had many 35mm slide images sold
by agents, and direct, where I was never questioned about
what 'tools'
I used to create the image. If the image is technically proficient
(focus, exposure, etc), and the image is marketable, it will sell in
most cases, the decison to market the image should never be made on
equipment used, alone.

For those photographers who, by choice, choose to not scan and/or
photoshop there own images, there are a wide variety of labs that
these
tasks can be farmed out to (of course, the lab must be on certain
agencie's "approved lists" of suppliers ;-}

I just find it presumptuos that certain agencies 'force' their
photographers to use certain equipment. It's an attitude that, I
believe, will hurt sales more than help. To try to put my position in
quantitative terms, I would say that the marketablity of an image is
95% content, 5% miscellaneous factors such as camera/lens/film used.

Factors such as proper focus, exposure, composition, etc. are (or
should be) givens, and can be attained with just about any brand of
established equipment, be it Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus,
Sony/Konica
Minolta, Tamron or Sigma. The governing factor for success is whether
or not that technically proficient image is 'stock proficient', i.e.
illustrates many different concepts for many different
clients/industries.

regards,

Len

[Zave Smith]

Len

While I agree with you that content is king. I have heard from Art
Directors about problems caused when they downloaded an image for a comp,
sold the idea to their client, went to purchase said image and discovered
that the technical quality of the image was not up to snuff and/or fell
apart when used an desired size. We photographers sometimes forget how hard
it can be for an art director to get an image approved and the last thing
that they want to do is start over.

This is why the better agencies insist on certain cameras that they know can
produce images that will meet the technical requirements for reproduction.


Zave Smith

Lifestyle Photography for Advertising
http://www.zavesmith.com

blogspot: https://zavesmith.wordpress.com/

Zave Smith New York
Photo Group
88 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10016
212-580-2380

Zave Smith Philadelphia
1041 Buttonwood Street
Philadelphia, PA 19123
215-236-8998

Member: APA & SAA





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[l***@aol.com]

Hi Zave,

The important / critical decision the photographer has to make when it comes to technical proficiency in the digital world (scanning and photoshop) is whether or not they have the time, aptitude, patience and skill to deal with producing images that meet the standards of the industry (even though these standards fluctuate on a daily basis).

Personally, I enjoy the challenge of scanning and photoshopping, and think the time spent learning the basic and advanced techniques is time well spent; the control is in your hands, not an outsider's. Of course, I enjoy the process of capturing emotional, compelling images, much more, but I like to expand both sides of my brain, the emotional and the technical.

Others among us do not have the time or patience to deal with the technical side, and that is, of course, an individual decision. My point with all this ' Canon, Nikon ' hype is that most established brands of cameras, lenses, scanners, etc that I have researched are more than capable of producing images of a technical quality that should be acceptable for 99.9% of the intended stock usages.

For those individuals who chose not to do it themselves, there are 'approved suppliers' that can handle these tasks. For those, like me, who chose to 'do it ourselves' and maintain control, we should make sure that we get all the facts about minimum quality standards, and submit only those images that meet those requirements, or else risk losing your credibility.

regards,

Len Holsborg (proud user of non-Canon, Nikon equipment ;-}
***@aol.com

agents:
http://gettyimages.com/photonica
http://cgibackgrounds.com

direct to end users


-----Original Message-----
From: ***@zavesmith.com
To: ***@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)


Len

While I agree with you that content is king. I have heard from Art
Directors about problems caused when they downloaded an image for a comp,
sold the idea to their client, went to purchase said image and discovered
that the technical quality of the image was not up to snuff and/or fell
apart when used an desired size. We photographers sometimes forget how hard
it can be for an art director to get an image approved and the last thing
that they want to do is start over.

This is why the better agencies insist on certain cameras that they know can
produce images that will meet the technical requirements for reproduction.

Zave Smith

Lifestyle Photography for Advertising
http://www.zavesmith.com

blogspot: https://zavesmith.wordpress.com/

Zave Smith New York
Photo Group
88 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10016
212-580-2380

Zave Smith Philadelphia
1041 Buttonwood Street
Philadelphia, PA 19123
215-236-8998

Member: APA & SAA

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jonathan Clymer]

Post by Len Holsborg
I just find it presumptuos that certain agencies 'force' their
photographers to use certain equipment. It's an attitude that, I believe, will
hurt sales more than help.

OK, but what are you going to do about it? You disagree with me, which is no
big deal, but you also disagree with some very important agencies, which is
a very big deal. What is your strategy?

Jonathan Clymer


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[l***@aol.com]

Hi Jonathan,

I deal with this issue the only way I know how (short of going bankrupt and purchasing top end Canon/Nikon gear) :

I concentrate on dealing directly with most clients, and letting the image stand on it's own merits, without any mention of the tools used to create it. Same goes for my current or future agents - if the image is technically acceptable, but more importantly, MARKETABLE, it will be accepted by most clients and agencies, with open arms. Tools used to create it are a non-issue.

Should I be forced into manipulating EXIF data, or purchasing overkill equipment? Not in my opinion, and reality. I'll put my chances of success on my vision, not my equipment.

Will I succeed, or starve to death ? Time will tell, but I'm still alive (and 10 lbs overweight ) :-}.

"Important agencies" is a very subjective term, there are a plethora of agencies and options available to photographers that may not have the status of 'King or Queen', but they know a marketable image when they see one.

regards,

Len Holsborg
***@aol.com

agents:
http://gettyimages.com/photonica
http://cgibackgrounds.com

direct to end users


-----Original Message-----
From: ***@pelaezproductions.com
To: ***@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

Post by Len Holsborg
I just find it presumptuos that certain agencies 'force' their
photographers to use certain equipment. It's an attitude that, I believe, will
hurt sales more than help.

OK, but what are you going to do about it? You disagree with me, which is no
big deal, but you also disagree with some very important agencies, which is
a very big deal. What is your strategy?

Jonathan Clymer

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]