Latest P&J photos

I love doing photos for the Press & Journal. I like doing the sort of photos that I see in the paper, and the photo editors seem to like the photos that I do, so I know we're on the same wavelength.

You won't hear one word of complaint from me about the photos I'm asked to do for the local papers. Some photographers hate doing pics of kids, award winners, cheque presentations, etc, and I'll admit that I don't find those pics particularly interesting to do, but work is work and I always appreciate every job I'm given. Without the support and encouragement of various people at the Ross-shire Journal, the North Star, the John O'Groat Journal and the Northern Times, this wannabe news photog wouldn't have a career. Simple as that.

But it's just a fact that P&J jobs are more challenging, they give me more scope for creativity, and they're more fun because of the time pressure: Phone call in the morning, job in the afternoon, early evening deadline, then the pic's in the paper the next day and that's the end of it.

The last couple of jobs I've done have been right up my street. The first one required a photo of three people in front of a large housing development in a picturesque town square. There is a great deal of local opposition to the development and the three people were representative of the community council and local business.

If you've seen photos like this but never tried doing them then you won't appreciate how difficult they are, and if you're one of those über-photogs who can do them intuitively then I'm jealous of you! I find them very challenging. But I thought this one turned out well, thanks largely to the co-operation of the three guys who let me experiment for around 20 minutes. This was one of the very last frames:

a6cd2877-420.jpg

Of course there were lots of lousy shots before that one, but a few that were okay. For anyone who is interested I've uploaded the entire shoot to Flickr with all of the raw photos, unedited and unprocessed, so you can see how the shoot developed. Here's the rest of the selection that I gave the paper:

dornochprotesters.jpg

This other job started with a bizarre coincidence…

A couple of weeks ago I was heading in to town on the bus for a driving lesson. A woman got off the bus at the same time as me and we got chatting for a while, mostly about how horrible it is to have to travel everywhere by bus. The next week I met her again and we got chatting again.

Tuesday of this week, I get a phone call asking me to go and do a photo of a woman who rang the paper to complain about having to wait in the cold because the buses often don't run, or run late. I called the woman to arrange a time for the photo, and I recognised her voice. Same woman!

Small world eh?

Here's the photo that was in the paper, complete with the shadow of my radio trigger. I spotted the shadow at the time and avoided it in other shots, but none of them had the same impact as this one so this is the one that ran. I don't think many people would recognise it, apart from camera geeks.
a6cd2981-420.jpg

Again the whole shoot can be viewed on Flickr, unedited and unprocessed, and here are the other shots that the paper had to choose from. All of these were lit with flash, positioned around 45-degrees off-axis, but hopefully it isn't obvious, apart from the woman's shadow in the last one.

rosemarymackay.jpg

Note that for both shoots I gave the paper a selection of horizontal and vertical frames. Always a good idea. Options, options, options. 

Round-up of photos for local papers

Here are some of the photos I've done for the local papers recently.

This cheque presentation was for the Ross-shire Journal, showing a group of golfers who had raised money for the Highland Hospice. I tried to put a bit of interest into the picture with a multi-layer arrangement and I can tell myself that it sort of worked, but I know it didn't. Not a terrible photo, but it's obvious that I didn't know how to do what I was trying to do. (First attempt though so cut me some slack!)

a6cd1458-420.jpg
This pic for the North Star shows a group of scouts and Co-op volunteers who were doing a beach clean in Tain. Oh what lovely lighting. NOT. I'd planned to do the photo on the beach but it was constantly raining so we played safe and did it in the scout hut before the clean-up started. I couldn't even bounce the flash off the ceiling so I'm afraid this is good old direct on-camera flash, complete with specular highlight on the back wall. Class!

a6cd1216-420.jpg

Kids with reading certificates at Tain library, photo for the Ross-shire Journal. Not a bad little group set-up although it would have been better with a couple of kids standing at the front on either side to fill in those gaps. I did quickly try that at the end and indeed it was a much better composition but we ended up with one kid obscured so this is the shot that was used.

a6cd1836-420.jpg
This pic of the Craighill Gaelic choir, taken at the end of the Gizzen Briggs primary schools concert, was my attempt at doing the sort of set-up that Derek does so well. Not bad but not really in the same league, is it? Pic was for the Ross-shire Journal. I did it without flash, relying on stage lighting, a slow shutter speed and my inhumanly steady hand. And look at those kids — every one of them looking at the camera! Very impressive.

48be1959-420.jpg

Consider that this next photo took 95 minutes and 30 seconds. The 90 minutes was the time I had to hang around to make sure I was there as soon as the kids were ready for the photo. The 5 minutes was the time it took to set-up the lighting and round-up the kids. And the 30 seconds was the time I was allowed to actually do the photo. Throw another 30 seconds in there and I'd have been able to re-position the boy at the back and we'd have had a much better composition, but as usual with schools it was rush rush rush. Shame, this could have been a great photo. As it is, I'd say it's only saved by the great smiles and the nice colours.

Made the front page of the Ross-shire Journal though :-)

a6cd2653-420.jpg

And last but not least, mums and toddlers at a playgroup that faces closure due to funding cuts. The brief was to avoid smiles, not usually a problem with pics of toddlers, but to keep them interested we had to keep the spirits up so check out the mothers: Smiles all round! Oh well, sometimes you simply can't get the pic that you were asked to get. Done for the North Star.

a6cd2769-420.jpg
 

Monkey business

I stopped watching broadcast television over a year ago. Definitely one of my better decisions. I see that adverts are still the best things on…

 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnzFRV1LwIo[/youtube]
 

Great ad but it still doesn't beat this classic. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Ray Gardner! Can you believe that this was first shown only 11 years ago? I thought it must be at least 20 years old but I checked and multiple sites have its debut listed as 1996. Coincidentally this advert had a purple theme too.

Update: Video replaced with a better version. 

 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEnuDHC-qh8[/youtube]

 

Blowing up a building with camera flashes. Sort of.

Here's a nugget of camera-related trivia about Die Hard, my favourite movie for many, many years. (Only pushed into second place by Fight Club.)

From the Internet Movie Database's trivia page:

When the bomb in the elevator shaft blows out the side of the building, the effect was accomplished by (a) collecting virtually every camera flashbulb of a particularly powerful type in the Los Angeles area and wiring them on the outside of the actual building to simulate the flash, and (b) by superimposing a shot of an actual explosive blowing a hole in the wall of an all-black miniature of the building at the appropriate location. 

Must… not… HATE… microstock…

Thanks to Don Giannatti for pointing me to an article by an anonymous writer who describes himself as the photo editor for a national magazine, based in New York. It's a brief piece bemoaning the poor quality of microstock photography, with this heart-warming conclusion:

I’ve bought $1 stock before but the only reason I did it is I couldn’t find a similar photo at the other stock sources and I was told we absolutely had to have a photo to illustrate this very important part of the story.

If a better photo exists, I’ll buy it.

This was an eye-opener to me because as much as I dislike microstock companies for their attitude to photographers, I've been impressed by the quality of work that people produce for them. But here's someone who actually buys the images, telling us that he doesn't think they're very good and he'll pay more to get the quality he wants. So the proper stock industry isn't dead after all, big surprise.
Now, I've previously mentioned my flirtations and disappointment with microstock (here and here) so I wanted to post a quick update. I've actually sold an image! Whoopie doo! For unconnected reasons I was over at the Dreamstime web site yesterday and out of morbid curiosity I logged in to check my stats and saw that one photo had sold. This one earned me 50 cents…

hospitalseats-420.jpg
To put that sale into perspective, a single usage of this next hospital image paid around $90 and I didn't have to jump through all the crazy, time-consuming microstock hoops with keywords and categorising.

nextappointment.jpg

You may recall that the second image was rejected by Dreamstime. So let's have a quick refresher of how this worked out:

  • Accepted microstock image: $0.50
  • Image rejected as microstock: $90 

I'd say those figures demonstrate quite nicely that traditional image sales are still preferable to microstock sales. And it's good to know that someone rated your image highly enough to pay a proper fee for using it, rather than (perhaps) using it simply because it was the cheapest they could find.

But now I have a confession to make…

Maybe I'm just shallow and pathetic and money-hungry but seeing that $0.50 appear on my Dreamstime stats rekindled my interest in microstock. After all, I'd already written it off as a lost cause, but then  50 cents had materialised without me doing any extra work. It's not a terrible deal, is it?

So I decided to upload that violinist silhouette that I did the other day. Looks to me like exactly the sort of image that could sell well as stock. I did a quick edit to clean-up the background and make it one consistent colour, and here's the result:

a6cd1873-stock-420.jpg

You can guess where this is going already, can't you?

Rejected!

This one didn't even get as far as a human reviewer. It's the nature of the beast that a silhouette will have very little detail, so the file size is quite small. I uploaded it to Dreamstime and immediately an error message popped up saying that the file was too small — upload a bigger version or get lost, kiddo! I went back into Photoshop and re-created the JPEG at the highest possible quality setting, then tried re-uploading it to Dreamstime.

Rejected!

Oh how I love that little red 'X' in the corner of my browser window. It can save you so much frustration. I waved goodbye to Dreamstime and I dare say that will be the last I see of their finickety little upload screen.

The growing problem of school photo permissions

I'd love to suggest the miracle solution to this problem, but I can't. Ultimately I do agree that parents should have the final decision on whether or not their children can have their photo in the newspaper or in the Internet, and whether or not their names can be used, etc. It's their choice.

The problem is: The kids are the ones who are losing out.

As recently as six months ago, if I was doing a picture at a school then all I'd have to check was which kids could have their photo taken. Usually the answer would be that all of them could. And that would be the end of it.

But the situation has rapidly got more complicated.

Firstly schools began splitting permission slips into different sections. Parents could choose if their child could have their photo taken, or be recorded on video, or both. Some parents who had previously said yes on the generic permission slips were now agreeing to photos but saying no to video. The choice was further expanded to cover images taken for the school, images taken for newspapers, and images intended for Internet use. Most parents agreed to school and newspaper use, but a significant number said no to Internet use.

The reason why this is a problem is that you end up having to exclude kids from certain photos. As much as I accept that this is my job and I'm basically just there to push a button, I do resent having to tell a child that they can't be in a photo for a reason that they might not understand.

And it can vary from job to job. I could be doing a photo for one paper one day and all the kids can be in it. Then the next day I'm doing a photo of the same kids for a different paper, and I have to exclude two kids because that paper has a web site.

Now the permission slips have grown to include even more options. Parents are asked if their kids can be named in the newspaper. And if they can, is it both names or just first names? And yes there is a split with some parents agreeing to full names and some agreeing to first names only.

Let me give you a real example of why this is bad for children…

I was doing a photo at a school the other day and someone mentioned that it was the 5th birthday of the youngest girl in the school, so I suggested also getting a photo of her in case the paper wanted to use it. That was fine and we set aside a couple of minutes at the end.

kelly5thbirthday.jpg

Sweet photos, yes?

What's wrong with them is that they aren't the photos that the little girl wanted to do. There were two boys who had taken her under their collective wing that day, and she wanted them to be in the photo. When I told her where I wanted her to sit for the photo, the two boys got into position on either side.

Immediately I had one thought in my mind: Permission slips!

What if one or both of the boys didn't have photo permission? And if they did, what if their names couldn't be used? Or what if only their first names could be used?
Can you imagine the caption?

Inver Primary School pupil Kelly Mitchell, who celebrated her 5th birthday on the day of the region's inter-schools fun run, proudly displays her medal which she won for taking part in the race. She is pictured with her friend Robert (surname withheld) and another boy who cannot be named.

Okay, okay, so we'd figure out a way to write the caption a bit better than that, but you can see my point. It's getting ridiculous.

And if it turns out that one of the boys can't have his photo in the paper then do we scrap the photo or just crop him out of it? Put a black box over his face?

I had to play safe and ask the boys to step aside.

(Doing some photos with them and some without wasn't an option. Often I have literally 10 seconds to set-up and take these photos.)

Let me tell you what I don't like about this situation, because it's nothing to do with my job getting any more difficult, or me making less money because I can't do as many photos, or anything cynical along those lines.

It is another part of childhood being lost.

As an adult, can you imagine having a little group of three kids wanting you to take their photo, and you have to tell two of them to go away? It's a horrible thing to have to do. It wouldn't have surprised me at all if the little girl had started crying, but thankfully the two boys handled it really well and they stayed just out of frame to keep her smiling. But easily one of the boys could have got upset and that would have got the girl upset. In the space of a couple of seconds we'd have gone from the birthday girl getting her photo in the paper to us not getting the photo at all because she was in tears. All because of those little permission slips that were filled out goodness knows how many months ago.

As I said at the beginning of this, I wish I could suggest the miracle solution to this problem, but I can't. But I do think it's a real problem and a solution is needed.

Perhaps schools need to try a little education aimed at parents? For example:

  • Internet usage
    Suggest to parents that they should only deny Internet usage if they believe it presents a real, plausible danger to their child. Not just because they read some nonsense scare story in the Daily Mail five years ago. (Perverts read newspapers too, they aren't an Internet-only phenomenon.)
  • First and last names
    Again perhaps the use of names should only be restricted if there is a specific reason for doing so? Such as in the case of a custody dispute, or domestic abuse. There can be genuine reasons, but make sure those boxes are being ticked or crossed for a reason, not just on a whim.

This is a problem that transcends journalism. And to be fair it also transcends individual schools because it comes from councils, and above the councils it comes from government.

But whoever makes the rules, I believe they need to be re-evaluated.

Just imagine yourself being in that situation of taking a photo of a little girl on her birthday, and having to tell her two friends to go away because you can't risk having them in the photo. I think that one example alone makes it abundantly clear that the situation has already gone too far.

 

Interior / exterior flash diffuser comparison

Many thanks to Paul Morton for posting a comparison of flash diffusers showing the different lighting styles they produce, both on the subjects and the way they throw light around the room. Goes nicely with this comparison of modifiers.

One of the diffusers that Paul has done sample photos with is his own invention that he calls the CrossSphere. I think it will work better with the two reflectors straightened to produce equal throws of light in all directions but I'll say right now that I think the CrossSphere is going to be a minor revolution in photography as many people are going to make them as an alternative to Gary Fong's Lightsphere. The reason why is that when you look at all the other home-made alternatives to the Lightsphere they look cheap and amateurish, whereas the CrossSphere can be made to look like a professional piece of equipment.

Tip: Softbox or shoot-through umbrella = ringlight

I think we can all agree that there are more than enough self-portraits of me on this here Interweb thing. But here's another one!

This time it's to demonstrate how you can use a softbox or shoot-through umbrella to get roughly the same effect as an expensive ringlight. The stressed-out pose with my hand up was done to illustrate how soft the shadows are. Notice that my wrist is right in front of my eye but my eye is still well lit.

portraitwithumbrellaringlight.jpg

Click through to the lighting diagram for a summary of how to set everything up.

This technique is still used by even the most high-end magazine photographers. Look for the tell-tale catchlights in the subject's eyes which will appear as circles or squares with a line going from the middle downwards.

umbrellaringlightcatchlight.jpg
ps: This portrait appears on the front page of Strobist today. Eek! There's nothing like waking up on a Sunday afternoon and seeing your own ugly mug staring back at you from your favourite web site…

Jeffrey Sauger found guilty of criminal trespass

The 3-day trial of photojournalists Jeffrey Sauger and Jim West (previously mentioned here) has concluded with Sauger being found guilty of criminal trespass and West being found not-guilty of failure to disperse while covering a Nazi rally in Toledo, Ohio in December 2005.

The NPPA has a report on the verdicts and Jeffrey Sauger himself has posted his own account in this thread on the Sports Shooter message board. (You'll need to scroll down a fair bit, it's about the 40th comment.)

Black background and silhouette lighting tutorials

I've posted a couple of new illustrated lighting tutorials over on Flickr explaining the two basic techniques used for yesterday's photos of a violinist.

blackbackgroundandsilhouette.jpg

  • How to use any wall as a black background
    Get to grips with this technique and you'll have a good foundation for many other styles of lighting, especially ones involving ratios.
  • Silhouette lighting
    This one isn't as important as you'll only ever use this technique for creating silhouettes but if you need to do it then this is how.