[STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

[Bob Croxford]

The simple answer to the camera question is this. What agency or
client in their right mind would pay a photographer to use second
best of anything? What photographer wants to use second best?

I don't see it as an agency stipulation but a personal decision with
only one obvious choice.

In the days before digital professionals used a small number of
cameras for a very special reason. Professional reputations depends
on results. Would I go on a £20,000 shoot with a Haselblad or a
Lubitel? Would I risk my client's money by not using equipment which
was less than other professionals, and myself, had decided was the
best? The difference with digital is that improvements have come so
thick and fast that the life of a body is not what it was. This is
causing some very distorted thinking. When I sold by Haselblad after
over twenty years of use I got back more than I had paid for it. My
1ds mk1 is unlikely to fetch much but that does not alter the fact
that the 1ds mk 1 and mk2 that I bought are a negligible part of my
business costs.

Anyone suggesting that cost of equipment is a big factor in the
business of professional photography is in the wrong business.

Serious stock photographers bought the Canon 1ds for the very simple
reason that it was the first fully portable digital camera with
professional level specs.

I'm with Jonathan on this.


Bob Croxford

www.atmosphere.co.uk

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 !

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

[l***@aol.com]

Bob, I offer the following responses/opinions to the points you raise in your post:

(caps, where used, are for emphasis, not shouting ;-} )

<Bob: "What photographer wants to use second best?"

And just what constitutes best? If I can achieve images that meet the same technical requirements for reproduction that your 'best' does, does that mean that '2nd best' , or 3rd or 4th or 5th..........is unacceptable ?? I challenge you to show me that at sizes up to full page in a magazine, pictures from 'the best' look any noticeable amount better from one 10 megapixel SLR camera to another - perhaps at a miscroscopic level, but not at a level necessary for 99.9% of repro houses.
Does a race car team with a rich client sponsor always use 'the best' equipment ? No, they get the maximum performance out of the equipment they have, which in most cases is comparable to other race equipment, and 9 times out of 10, the team with the less expensive equipment wins ! It's the skill of the team (driver/mechanic,etc.) that wins the race, not the equipment (just one of many analogies that back up my opinion, I could list hundreds of others).


<Bob: "Professional reputations depends
on results. Would I go on a £20,000 shoot with a Haselblad or a
Lubitel? Would I risk my client's money by not using equipment "

Success in stock photography depends on producing MARKETABLE images that meet minimum established standards of 'professionalism' - i.e. they are in focus, are properly exposed, and (if digital) have a minimum resolution level or film size if working directly from film. REPUTATIONS are made on CONTENT, not on equipment. If it were at all possible, it would be interesting to see in $$$ what percentage of total worldwide stock sales are made with 'the best' vs 2nd, 3rd, 4th..........best' - my guess - 2nd, 3rd, 4th ....best would outnumber 'the best' 10 to 1.

<Bob: "Anyone suggesting that cost of equipment is a big factor in the
business of professional photography is in the wrong business."

So, any successful photographer making a nice income shooting with '2nd, 3rd, 4th..........best' is in the wrong business ?? Some of us choose to use equipment that can produce images that in many cases probably far outsells images shot with 'the best' - why ? because the added cost of 'the best' is not justified if '2nd, 3rd, 4th....best camera images meet appropriate technical standards, and their CONTENT is more marketable. Again, the best equipment in the world is useless if it produces unmarketable imagery.

Bob: "Serious stock photographers bought the Canon 1ds for the very simple

reason that it was the first fully portable digital camera with
professional level specs."

'Serious' and 'best' are very subjective terms - Professional level specs, or professional level name ?? I am 'serious' about my photography in that I strive to shoot images that are interesting, compelling, emotional, and MARKETABLE - either to an agent, an end user, a gallery visitor or an art show customer. I've managed to do pretty good over the years with 'non-best' equipment, by using my 'best' instincts when it comes to what makes a good image. Would I be doing better if I used the 'best' equipment available - I hardly think so.

But, of course, we're all entitled to our opinions - one man's 'best' is another man's folly - regardless of what other 'professional and serious' photographers think. Is a picture any less effective because the equipment used to create it wasn't 'the best' ? are the only truly great images the ones shot with 'the best' equipment ?? Does shooting with 'the best' give you an edge ???

My answer to these questions is a resounding no !

respectfully,

Len Holsborg
***@aol.com


-----Original Message-----
From: ***@tesco.net
To: ***@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:47 PM
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)
[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]

[David Barr]

Post by l***@aol.com
<Bob: "Anyone suggesting that cost of equipment is a big factor in the
business of professional photography is in the wrong business."
Len : So, any successful photographer making a nice income shooting
with '2nd, 3rd, 4th..........best' is in the wrong business ?? Some
of us choose to use equipment that can produce images that in many
cases probably far outsells images shot with 'the best' - why ?
because the added cost of 'the best' is not justified if '2nd, 3rd,
4th....best camera images meet appropriate technical standards, and
their CONTENT is more marketable. Again, the best equipment in the
world is useless if it produces unmarketable imagery.

Bob: "Serious stock photographers bought the Canon 1ds for the very simple

reason that it was the first fully portable digital camera with
professional level specs."
Len : 'Serious' and 'best' are very subjective terms - Professional
level specs, or professional level name ?? I am 'serious' about my
photography in that I strive to shoot images that are interesting,
compelling, emotional, and MARKETABLE -
My answer to these questions is a resounding no !
respectfully,
Len Holsborg

Len I would agree that it is all about the image but I have read
many posts on this and other groups about which camera files are
acceptable to agencies. I have also read postings about resizing of
files to make them large enough and removing IPTC data so the client
won't know which camera was used?

I would agree with Bob regarding the importance of being properly
equipped to do the job. A better camera will not make you a better
photographer but have the right tools is essential and this
will mean using a camera that will give a file that is acceptable to
your clients. Now if your shooting on assignment and all that is
required is 300 dpi at 4 inches then any number of cameras will
suffice but if you are shooting stock and don't know the intended use
of your pictures then the cameras that Bob suggested or other higher
end cameras should be used. If you are providing files that are
smaller for a brochure or advert, no matter how good a photo it
might be, what do you do when a client comes back and asks for a
larger file of the same picture so they can run the advert on a
trade show display?

David Barr

[John Fowler]

--- In ***@yahoogroups.com, David Barr <***@...> wrote:
A better camera will not make you a better

Post by David Barr
photographer but have the right tools is essential and this
will mean using a camera that will give a file that is acceptable to
your clients.

Smile of the day ol' buddy - that must be what it means when the
bride's mother likes the pix so much she says "you must have a very
good camera!" :-)

[Jacques Jangoux]

John,

What about "what a good picture - itŽso sharp!" :-)

Jacques Jangoux

Post by John Fowler
Smile of the day ol' buddy - that must be what it means when the
bride's mother likes the pix so much she says "you must have a very
good camera!" :-)

[David Barr]

Post by Jacques Jangoux
John,
What about "what a good picture - itŽso sharp!" :-)
Jacques Jangoux

Post by John Fowler
Smile of the day ol' buddy - that must be what it means when the
bride's mother likes the pix so much she says "you must have a very
good camera!" :-)

My favourite is "what a great picture! my brother
has a good camera and takes pictures just like
that"

David

[Jonathan Clymer]

I¹m perplexed as to why there have been several messages that are so adamant
about using cameras that some agencies don¹t approve. Forgive me for this
observation, but the tone of these messages suggests defensiveness and
confrontation. Not a problem here, we are speaking freely on this forum. But
if you feel this strongly about this, how do you express this to the
agencies?

I need to pick my battles with agency editors. I need to cajole them to turn
images around faster. I talk them into accepting images that they may have
not seen value in. I need cooperation when royalty reports are ambiguous or
seem to be incomplete. I need their suggestions and creative input for the
shoots we will schedule. These are important matters and I don¹t want to
dilute my influence with editors by taking up their precious time trying to
convince them I prefer to shoot using a different camera (believe me,
corporate managers are putting editors under tremendous pressure and they
are under crushing time constraints these days). I need to be on the BEST
possible terms with them. The issue of which cameras they want me to use is
trivial. As part of the total cost of producing stock images, the cost of
the cameras is trivial (as Bob Croxford has pointed out). The cost/benefit
ratio on this issue is, at least to me, a loser.

Jonathan Clymer


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

[daveinkelso]

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

The issue of which cameras they want me to use is

Post by Jonathan Clymer
trivial. As part of the total cost of producing stock images, the cost of
the cameras is trivial (as Bob Croxford has pointed out). The

cost/benefit

Post by Jonathan Clymer
ratio on this issue is, at least to me, a loser.

This issue is not 'which cameras they want me to use' - the issue is
that they want to control your possible choices of camera. An agency
which says a Nikon D200 image is acceptable and a Nikon D80, Sony A100
Samsung GX10 or Pentax K10D image is not acceptable could, I think, be
taken to court for defamation (implying that something is unsuitable
for its purpose). A test report writer - like me - can say that the
Sony A100 is hopeless at high ISOs or the Pentax K10D has a very soft
in-camera JPEG process, or the Nikon D80 tends to be too generous when
auto matrix exposing in high contrast situations. I have to prove it,
and I have to qualify my opinion by making it clear my findings relate
only to one sample and the conditions under which I tested the equipment

The cameras mentioned all use the same physical 10.2 megapixel CCD
with difference in low-pass filtration, channel feed, gain amplifiers
and A to D processing. Correctly processed raw image files from any
one of these cameras are all excellent and of professionally
acceptable quality. The later introductions slightly improve on the
overall IQ of the first to appear - the D200 - yet guess which is the
only one generally approved by agencies/libraries?

I do not wish to see the choice in the overall photographic market
reduced to just two well-known names. I value the innovation and
diversity as well as the favourable pricing which has come from
healthy competition at all levels, including professional. Set lists
of equipment you are allowed to use, often stipulated in ignorance,
annoy me in the same way that pointless EU regulations do.

David

[daveinkelso]

--- In ***@yahoogroups.com, David Barr <***@...> wrote:
If you are providing files that are

Post by David Barr
smaller for a brochure or advert, no matter how good a photo it
might be, what do you do when a client comes back and asks for a
larger file of the same picture so they can run the advert on a
trade show display?

Most photographers have never seen a decent 6 megapixel image. I bet
Bob has not had his 1Ds MkII set up by Fixation. He probably lives
with the inaccuracy of setup, programmed by Canon to compensate for
errors, but only effective under specific conditions. All the
newspapers and major agencies won't use a Canon - 1D series or any
other - out of the box without getting it fixed.

Get a 6 megapixel DSLR correctly adjusted and reprogrammed for zero AF
offsets, and you will beat a box-delivered 16 megapixel. Speak to
Fixation in London if you want to know more, don't question me on
this. I know how AF systems are programmed and how DSLRs are set up.
I've got slightly drunk with the owner of Fixation, and I know what
their business is!

Formula One cars are a good comparison. DSLRs can be blueprinted, like
racing cars. Do this with a good 6, 8, 10 or 12 megapixel and it will
equal an off the shelf model with double the pixel resolution.

Most digital images are just not sharp, at all, before you even start
processing them. Agency demands based on camera are made in ignorance
and propagate prejudice. They should, instead, insist that all cameras
used be individually checked and set up for zero software correction
offsets. If you don't know what those are, obtain a service manual for
your DSLR.

David

[Jacques Jangoux]

--- In ***@yahoogroups.com, "daveinkelso" <***@...> wrote:
Hello,

Does anyone know the equivalent of Fixation in the US? In the good old
days (20 years ago or more) you had your camera fixed or adjusted by
Marty ForscherŽs (Professional Camera Repair) on 47th Street in New
York. Marty even modified a Hasselblad for NASA (was it for the moon
trip?). Have they gone digital? Or has another repair shop replaced them?

Jacques Jangoux

Post by daveinkelso
Most photographers have never seen a decent 6 megapixel image. I bet
Bob has not had his 1Ds MkII set up by Fixation. He probably lives
with the inaccuracy of setup, programmed by Canon to compensate for
errors, but only effective under specific conditions. All the
newspapers and major agencies won't use a Canon - 1D series or any
other - out of the box without getting it fixed.
Get a 6 megapixel DSLR correctly adjusted and reprogrammed for zero AF
offsets, and you will beat a box-delivered 16 megapixel. Speak to
Fixation in London if you want to know more, don't question me on
this. I know how AF systems are programmed and how DSLRs are set up.
I've got slightly drunk with the owner of Fixation, and I know what
their business is!
David

[l***@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/12/2007 12:58:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
***@PHOTOBAR.COM writes:

If you are providing files that are
smaller for a brochure or advert, no matter how good a photo it
might be, what do you do when a client comes back and asks for a
larger file of the same picture so they can run the advert on a
trade show display?

David Barr



Hi David,

When I make my initial low res jpg submissions to an agent for review, or
when I get a direct request for a certain 'concept' or subject, I make it
clear up front in the submission cover letter which images, by file #, are film
originals, which are hi res scans from film, and which are digital originals,
so there is no confusion as to what my maximum resolutions available are.

I could count on 1 hand those situations where my maximum resolutions, or
film originals, did not satisfy a client's needs, but I will admit that I have
never licensed an image for 'trade show display' usage. However, I will say
that I personally have had hi res files commercially printed for my gallery and
art show displays up to 30 inches by 40 inches with fantastic clarity and
sharpness. I would venture to guess I could go higher if need be, but I find
that my best selling work is 16 x 20 and 11 x 14 inch framed and matted prints,
which I do myself on my Epson 2400.

I will reiterate, that if the image content meets the client's needs, a film
original, or an un-interpolated 60 mb, 16 bit Tiff, or 30mb 8 bit Tiff, (or
a 10mb RAW) will meet 99.9 % of most clients needs, whether it's a small
brochure, a magazine cover, or a trade show advert.

If and when a discussion about file size is raised, I politely, and
professionally, try to explain why this should not be an issue, and in 99.9 % of
cases it isn't. Yes, I have had a few potential clients turn down submissions
because of file size, but that is the 0.01 %. I stand by my assessment that the
if the content is right, the image will sell in the formats and resolutions
that I have.

As far as agencies go, a certain 'unnamed' agency has my film originals from
a previous agent they bought out, and I no longer submit new images to them
for other reasons I won't go into here. My other agent gladly accepts my 35 mm
slide film originals for the jpegs they accept, and does the scans
themselves (small scan fee deducted at time of sale ), or accepts my 60 / 30 mb scans
I do myself on a ' non- best ' film scanner.

I will reiterate once again, IMHO and experience, sale / licensing of an
image is 99.9 % content and .01 % miscellaneous like camera / file size.

regards,

Len Holsborg
***@aol.com





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

[David Barr]

Post by l***@aol.com
If and when a discussion about file size is raised, I politely, and
professionally, try to explain why this should not be an issue, and in 99.9 % of
cases it isn't. Yes, I have had a few potential clients turn down submissions
because of file size, but that is the 0.01 %. I stand by my
assessment that the
if the content is right, the image will sell in the formats and resolutions
that I have.
I will reiterate once again, IMHO and experience, sale / licensing of an
image is 99.9 % content and .01 % miscellaneous like camera / file size.

Len you can't argue with success and if the pictures from smaller
file sizes are selling then is there really any point in going to the
expense of upgrading equipment? However even if it is seldom needed
I would prefer to have as large a file as possible.

I am using a 1Ds and justifying the purchase was easy. $8K to $12K
on film and processing every year and over a three year period it
easily covered the cost of the new Canon gear.

Now I look at the newer 1Ds MarkII and while that is my first
choice it is harder to justify the expense when my first camera is
still working fine. If my Canon packed it in tomorrow should I
replace it with the MarkII or go with the 5D?


David Barr

[l***@aol.com]

Hi David,

"Len you can't argue with success and if the pictures from smaller

file sizes are selling then is there really any point in going to the
expense of upgrading equipment? "

Well, I consider 'success' one of those 'subjective' terms ;-} I am
hoping to do better, of course, but I remain at a comfort level that I find
reasonable for my individual lifestyle and circumstances. I'm retired after full
time work in the Aerospace industry for over 25 years, and have developed other
sources of income in that time to keep me going when my photo income
'declines' periodically . I don't go through the expense that alot of people here do
for things like hiring models, shooting at exotic locations around the
globe, nor do I succumb to the whims of agencies and art directors with misguided
notions of file sizes and Canon / Nikon fixations :-}.

Having said that, and not knowing what mp the 1ds is, but seeing that the
1Ds Mk11 is 16. 7 mp vs 12.8 mp for the 5D, in my opinion the 5D is more than
enough power and resolution for my proverbial " 99.9 % " of stock uses.

I want to make it clear that my intent is not to be 'confrontational' or
'derisive' here - we each have our own standards and ways of thinking when it
comes to acceptable levels of quality and marketability - we each make our own
decisions based on our experiences and by listening to the experience and
opinions of our colleagues in places like stockphoto.net and others.

What works for me 'should' work for others in most cases, but as they say '
to each his own'.

Regardless of what cameras you are using, or what film you are scanning, or
what file sizes you obtain, good luck and success.............

regards,

Len Holsborg
***@aol.com




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

[Rubens Abboud]

Post by Bob Croxford
In the days before digital professionals used a small number of
cameras for a very special reason. Professional reputations

depends

Post by Bob Croxford
on results. Would I go on a £20,000 shoot with a Haselblad or a
Lubitel? Would I risk my client's money by not using equipment

which

Post by Bob Croxford
was less than other professionals, and myself, had decided was

the

Post by Bob Croxford
best? The difference with digital is that improvements have come so
thick and fast that the life of a body is not what it was. This is
causing some very distorted thinking. When I sold by Haselblad

after

Post by Bob Croxford
over twenty years of use I got back more than I had paid for it. My
1ds mk1 is unlikely to fetch much but that does not alter the

fact

Post by Bob Croxford
that the 1ds mk 1 and mk2 that I bought are a negligible part of my
business costs.
Anyone suggesting that cost of equipment is a big factor in the
business of professional photography is in the wrong business.

If one follows the logic you describe above, one would conclude you
were walking around with a 39MP Hasselblad, not a puny Mk II.

Any 39MP Hasselblad-carrying photographer who reads the above will
wonder if you are, yourself, in the wrong business, no?

Unless you are implying that 39MP Hasselblad owners are walking
around with equipment that is "less than... the best" and
are "risking their client's money" by not using the equipment you,
and all other "professionals" have decided is "the best": the Canon
1ds Mk II?

Hmmm, me thinks there is some distorted thinking going on...

Best regards,

Rubens.
http://www.TheImageNation.com
Travel stock photography