That's So (Un)Professional!

Yesterday I was called by a long time client of mine, looking for a portrait. "The one we took with our office digital camera just doesn't look good. Our client saw it in print, and didn't like the way she looked." I said, "You took a picture of a client with an office point and shoot and submitted it to a publication?" Somewhat sheepishly, she said "Yes." Now, this person, who has moved from firm to firm, is someone I like, and respect. Yet, someone convinced someone that doing this was acceptable. And the end result? An unhappy client that could only be satisfied once a professional was brought in.

Enter me. To the right you'll see the standard setup (with my assistant Lauren standing in). Main light, kicker light, reflector, and backdrop illumination. This is such a workhorse setup, and one we do consistently around town that this kit is dedicated to doing so. These lights you'll see in detail and in use on my Flickr pool here, and to get to them directly, visit Rololight. It took about 30 minutes to set lights (leisurely), and in came our subject. Session 1 included her in one jacket/blouse combination, Session 2 with a different one.

The finished lighting setup (again, with my assistant standing in) is to the right. Total time with camera active, about 15 minutes. Another 20 minutes on the laptop making selections, and the client's client, when I asked "Are you happy with these?" Responded -- "Yeah, that's so...professional! I don't look like I am bug-eyed, like in that other one you {pointing to my longtime client/friend} took that ended up in that newspaper!" I responded "I'm glad we could make these work for you. Thanks!"

Often, there is significant value in allowing clients (and clients' clients) to recognize the value we professionals bring to the table. It's not necessary to sell ourselves, rather, it's best to let the quality of the finished product stand on it's own.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Storage, Storage, Storage

How much does 1 Terabyte of drive space cost? Do you care? You should! Let's do some math here:

A D2x NEF is about 10MB, a 1Ds Mark II CR2 is about 19MB. 1TB will store about 10,000 NEF files, and just over 5,000 CR2's. For the D200's and 30D's, it returns to about 10,000 files. Now, go look at your camera. They all increment their filenames, rolling over at 9999 to 0000 again. Meaning, you should go and look to see how many images you've made to date. For me, I've rolled past 9999 multiple times. Oh, you're not shooting raw? Don't be silly. Read this from The Luminous Landscape, or this on the Adobe site. Shooting RAW is what professionals do. Professionals who absolutely positively must have JPEG's immediately after the shutter closes should be shooting RAW+JPEG, and just accessing the JPEG's, and archiving it all after the fact. Keeping the RAW files gives you the fullest and most complete access to the image your camera captured.

Now, how much do you spend on portable hard drives? Let's use one of the cheaper examples out there. The Costco Maxtor 1TB is $600, and how about the new Costco Western Digital 1TB that is $400. Not bad, eh? Well, actually, there are a few concerns. One -- these drives aren't just a single drive, inside those boxes, are multiple drives, and there's been many problems that have rendered these multi-drive-in-one-box systems useless. Single drive enclosures for about 350GB usable space run about $200. Another problem? You're keeping them all in one place. Either your home, or your sister's place down the road. No big deal? Check this MSNBC article about how Katrina killed data storage, or perhaps it's lightning, as in this CNN piece, or perhaps this Business Week article about black outs and other Summertime risks to data will convince you.

There are two types of people in this world. Those that have had a hard drive fail, and those that will. If you're smart, you'll take action when you are the latter, or else you will get religion when you become the former. I promise. Back in May of 2006, the SBA issued this press release which cites "A University of Texas study reports that 43 percent of companies experiencing a catastrophic data loss never recover, and half of them go out of business within two years." Do you want to be in business after a data loss? Would you gamble 50/50 odds that you would be out of business if you had a drive fail?

Where am I going with all this? Well, realize that to be protected, you must be redundant, meaning DOUBLE whatever capacity you need, and double the cost.

Now, let's talk about all the "free online storage" services that are out there. Global Drive wants $6,800 for 100GB of space for a year. X Drive wants $120/year for 50GB. And, Amazon.com's storage solution S3 for other web providers who need space charges $0.15 per GB per month. That becomes $1,800 per year for 1TB, without any of the ease-of-use front end. And, ok, many of you might suggest the spaces that talk "free unlimited", but they have bandwidth caps, so it's near impossible to really put all that you want. How's that? Even if you have 750KB/sec as an upspeed, they purposefully limit their downspeed to under 200kb/sec, so you'll be forever uploading. FOREVER! ExtremeTech did a great job of reviewing six online storage services last week. Their conclusion? "If your files are very confidential, you should probably stay away...also...something to avoid if you're a serious digital photographer who has a large collection of multi-megabyte RAW files or if you store and want quick access...".

Enter a secure and safe Photo Shelter. Today, they announced you could access 1TB of redundant storage for an annual fee of $1k. It would cost you more than that to just buy the drives, let alone have always-on-anywhere access to the files, stored on two coasts in redundant storage facilities! Don't need that much? For $600 a year, you can have 1/2 TB of redundant space. Sweet! Could it get any better? Yup.

Their press release tells it all - "Photographers with slow connections to the Internet, or those wishing to avoid the online uploading process entirely, can take advantage of PhotoShelter’s drive upload service. Ship a hard drive filled with images to PhotoShelter and the images will be deposited directly into their archive." DAMN, AIN'T THAT SWEET! Check this link for more details.

---

Correction/Update: Commenter DJ notes my math is off by a factor of 10, and that's 100,000 files, not 10,000. Thanks DJ! On another comment about the use of web-hosting companies at $400/yr. That's a good idea, the challenge is in the upload to them, redundancies, and you'd be surprised at how fast you can burn through 2.5TB of data transfer. Search engine spiders load your entire site frequently looking for changes, and that all counts against your transfer cap, and they don't have the ease-of-use front end that PS (or Digital Railroad, for that matter) has. -- John

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Thanks for the New Model!

Wired News is reporting the good news regarding public figures for what it will cost internet sites to broadcast one song to one listener. This sets a standard that we should all review and embrace as a floor for our rates and apply it to photography.

Here are their figures to stream one song to one listener:

2006: $0.0008
2007: $.0011
2008: $.0014
2009: $.0018
2010: $.0019

Yes, this means the death of many internet-only "radio stations". What these places don't reveal is that they are generating revenue from ads on their site, and ads inserted between songs and are doing so without properly compensating the music owners for the use of the content that attracts the listener in the first place.

If you're an advertiser on the cost-per-click model on Yahoo or Google Adwords, you know that you pay per click. Banner ads, and other ads pay cost-per-view. It's extremely easy to track how many times people see the ads, because the servers that hold the photo track anytime a request comes in to deliver the image.

Stan Rowin, over at Pro Photo Business Blog has an interesting take on this as well, take a gander.

Typically, the fees are "cost per thousand" (a.k.a. CPM), and, for 2006, that equates to $0.80 (eighty cents) per thousand views. This year, it's $1.10 per thousand views. Considering this, commoditizes photography, some might say, but I say it sets a floor, and for the premium images, a greater CPM should apply. Further, just as there was a 1/4 page minimum fee for usage, even when it was a thumbnail photo, so too could we establish a minimum fee tied to a minimum CPM. So, say you wanted a minimum of $25 to make an image available to a website. That would equate to about 30,000 views.

Rock on!

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Primer & Refresher: Terms & Conditions: TERM 2

Term #2: "2. FEES, CHARGES AND ADVANCES: Client and Client’s representatives are jointly and severally responsible for full payment of all fees, charges and advances. The rights licensed, fees, charges and advances set forth in this Agreement apply only to the original specification of the Services. Additional fees and charges shall be paid by Client for any subsequent changes, additions or variations requested by Client. All advance payments are due prior to production."

"FEES" - Fees are typically your photographic fees, your pre- and post-production fees, travel fees, and so on.

"CHARGES" - Just another way of specifying what your client is paying for, but could include monies owed for services rendered in production of props, shopping, and so on.

"ADVANCES" - You want money up front, you say? Damn straight! There are countless times where a client you're working for must advance you monies, and you should do so. Large travel expenses, charges to secure expensive props or services, and so on. There are countless different types of expenses that the client should be paying for, up front. You ARE NOT their lender or bank, and should not be floating major expenses on their behalf.

"Client and Client’s representatives" - This means that if your client is an ad agency, PR firm, or is otherwise a representative or agent of their end client, that not only is the firm/agency responsible, but so too is their end client.

"jointly and severally responsible" - This is a legal phrase, which specifies that a multiple parties have the responsibility to share the liability and obligation together, and that no party may put off the obligations or responsibilities on any other.

" for full payment of all fees, charges and advances." - This means that after paying you just a portion, they have not absolved themselves of responsibility for the other amounts due. Further, that one party (where there are two) may not pay just 50% and say "I paid you my half, so I don't owe you anymore and I can use your photos..." or any other similar claim. The emphasis is on the word "full", and that it applies to "all" of the different monies owed.

"The rights licensed, fees, charges and advances set forth in this Agreement apply only to the original specification of the Services." - This means that when the client specifies that they want three setups instead of two, or a portion of the work done the next day, that these items thus fall outside of the "original specification" that is "set forth in this Agreement" (note the capitalization of "Agreement", that's important, as it refers to this document in total, and not some seperate or partial or other agreement that is unnamed or unspecified.


"Additional fees and charges shall be paid by Client for any subsequent changes, additions or variations requested by Client." - This specifies that you'll have to pay more for "changes, additions or variations" which can be as major as "we're shooting in Cancun instead of the local beach", or as simple as "we're not photographing two people in a group, it's now a group of four." When these changes take place, you should have on hand a "change order" to accomidate the "variations requested by Client."

"All advance payments are due prior to production." - In other words, advance payments must be made before you're to start any work -- which of course seems obvious, but, it could be said that an advance is due before final delivery, before travel commences but after pre-production, and so on. If there's a way to parse a term in an Agreement to the client's favor, you can be assured that they will exercise that opportunity. As such, it's important to set forth as many things as possible.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

A responsible island in the wild-wild-west that is the world-wide-web

Today was an interesting day. I spent the morning with an electron microscope, the afternoon with an ambassador, and this evening with a Member of Congress. I am currently sitting in the lobby of a hotel that is far more expensive than I can afford, crafting this missive. What prompts me to write today? Oh, the world-wide-web. Yes, that wild-wild-west of the photographic landscape, where people with pictures are under the impression that the fact that they have a JPEG means they can put the photos on Flickr, MySpace, or their own company website. Oh, so wrong.

I experienced something interesting – and responsible – by a congressional staffer today. He was tasked with taking photos of the congressman for their website, and what was he doing? Collecting signatures on a “web release form” of every person that he photographed.

Wow.

For years, I’ve been espousing this issue. In fact, I’ve been doing it so long that the graphics on that web page are from my site two iterations ago. My explanation, which is a part of EVERY estimate I send to clients, can be seen here: www.JohnHarrington.com/about-the-web

Many of my clients just don’t understand this. They think that they can put whatever they want on the web. They do not understand that the web – especially a company’s website – is just like a printed brochure or corporate sales sheet, and everyone appearing in images there must have releases, or they are at risk of a claim.

When clients just insist, saying they are sure it’s ok, I, not wanting to stand between me and an assignment, but wishing to protect myself from legal risk, send out a form which they are required to sign as a part of the contract/estimate we send.

They are sent a one page document titled:

“Assumption of Risk and Liability Agreement”

"This is an agreement between {my name/address} and {company name/address} regarding the assumption of risk and liability for any claims arising out of the use or misuse of photography by client. Client understands that Photographer has advised them that the use of photographs on internet or intranet web-sites may require releases from recognizable individuals who appear in the photographs.

Client hereby accepts all liability and risk involved in using photographs created by Photographer on their web-site, for which no releases from individuals exist. In the event of a legal claim regarding the use of the images Photographer has created for
Client, Client hereby indemnifies and holds Photographer harmless against any and all liabilities, claims, and expenses, including reasonable attorney s fees, arising from its use or misuse of any of Photographer's work created for Client. Client assumes insurer's liability for all loss, damage, or misuse of any photographs.”

I sign at the bottom, and they sign below this sentence:

"I, Client, also hereby state that I have full authority to enter into this agreement, and be bound to these terms."

I have sent this out since 1999 a handful of times, less than 50 to be sure. Almost all of my clients, upon consultation with their legal department, acknowledge my points, and don’t sign, and don’t put the photos on the web. Many of them thank me for the insights they had not had before.The remaining few? They sign the document, and I feel safe(r) being protected.

I have one client that knows about the form, and has returned more than once asking for an estimate, AND the above form, which they sign.

It was, however, good to see that other responsible people are out there ensuring that they too are not subjecting themselves to potential legal claims down the line.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Readership Poll: What Status as a Photographer are you?

I'd Like to Poll The Readership!

What Status as a Photographer are you?
	Working Professional, over 3 years
	Starting Professional, 1-2 years
	Aspiring Professional, paying bills with another job
	Assisting Photographers, hopefully one day shooting
	Serious Hobbyist - Maybe I'll go pro one day
	Serious Hobbyist - No plans to turn pro
	General Hobbyist - Enjoy learning more, no pro plans
	Student - One Day I'll Be A Pro
pollcode.com free polls

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

REMINDER - I'm Presenting at the NPPA's NSC Next Thursday & Friday

On the road to that little state called Rhode Island. Next Thursday (March 8th & 9th) marks my sixth time presenting at the National Press Photographer's annual program with a regional name that has grown to reach a national audience, the Northern Short Course. This past fall, I participated in the Flying Short Course, and I continue to enjoy making these presentations.

This year the slate of presenters is exceptional, but the portfolio review that takes place during the three day gathering is one of the hidden gems of the whole event. Close to two dozen photo editors from around the country will sit down and review your portfolio (whether on a laptop, or printed) and give you advice on how to improve it. Think yours is all that it can be? If it actually is, and one of the PE's is looking for someone, this could be the first interview for that job that you didn't even know was happening.

Among the many presenters are Baltimore Sun photographer and Strobist blog operator David Hobby, who will be showing you amazing techniques to employ with compact light sources (i.e. speedlights and other small, easy to carry lights), and Bill Foster, who was recently appointed as the photographer to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Foster will take a break from that busy schedule to show you how he reached the top listings on Google for sacramento editorial photographer, as well as on MSN for the same sacramento editorial photographer, and, yes, on Yahoo also for sacramento editorial photographer. I will be presenting on, yes, Best Business Practices for Photographers. In the "the future is now" category, photographer Will Yurman will talk through how to use audio to integrate it with your still images.

You can visit the Northern Short Course website to download PDF's of the various program offerings, or visit Northern Short Course Registration to sign up. Southwest Airlines has flights right into Providence for $50 one way (from Baltimore, for example) and no car rental is needed to get to the hotel from the airport.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Watch What You Say and How You Act

Many a time I've been heading into a client's office for a meeting, and stepped on the elevator with one or two other folks. On the ride up, I was concious that, maybe one or two of the other folks I am in the elevator with may end up being in the meeting with me, so I'd better not say anything that would put me in a poor light. My tie better be adjusted, or I shouldn't be finishing a donut or soda while heading skyward.

Sometimes, I am rushing to get somewhere I am late for, and I am concious for this same reason about holding doors for others entering and leaving. Going up in an elevator, and having the assistant ask "so, what's this we're doing", and then a casual/short-hand remark like "oh, it's just another press conference" could be easily miscontrued as my not caring about it, and perhaps the person in the elevator is involved with the organization that hired me. I do care about the press conference, I wasn't saying "...just another..." to be critical, just matter-of-fact, but it's easily misconstrued.

On one occasion, early in my carreer, I was heading to photograph a wedding, rushing to get the the reception before the bride and groom's limo so I could capture their arrival. I was behind a slow-poke, and when they were not "off the line" after a red light, I tooted my horn to alert them to the green. Sadly, I remained behind them until we both got to the reception, where they turned out to be good friends of the happy couple. Now, I was able to explain that away, but I forever learned to not make a mistake like that again.

Following an event, my assistant often wants to talk about the assignment once we leave the shoot location, and often we're either in an elevator going down, or walking to the car. I always raise my finger to my lips (a la the photo) and we discuss it only once we're safely ensconced in our own cone of silence that is my Jeep. You never know who's in the elevator, or will walk past you while you may be making a casual remark that could be misconstrued and then conveyed to the client.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

UPDATED: Getty Infringement

Ok, so, just as I hate it that people are stealing Microsoft's Windows, and Adobe Photoshop, I too get upset when the Galactic Empire's IP gets (allegedly) stolen. Worse yet, it's by an organization I really admire -- The Consumerist.

To the right, you see this story about CompUSA closings, and the Getty Images watermark. Here, I am writing a commentary about the (alleged) theft of the image and the story, and, as such, it is fair use, however, The Consumerist is using the photo to illustrate the story, something Getty should be paid for. Getty's browse results return images with the watermark, and images for which a fee is paid and license granted have the image available without the watermark.

Now, perhaps, this is a diabolical scheme whereby Getty opts not to pursue the infringement, because it's a free ad on a really popular site whereby their name appears prominently, or, perhaps they are allowing for the free use because the watermark is so prominent....hmmmm...

---

UPDATE:

Ok, so, one of you intrepid readers took the bull by the horns and called our friends at Consumerist on this, and, according to what I can only presume is a true/complete transcript of the dialog with them, reveals that there may well be some diabolical relationship, or, perhaps, it's just an oversight on the part of the good people of Consumerist.

If that's the case though, then why is this now the article? It's the same article, but the photo has been removed entirely, not replaced with a non-watermarked one.

On the heals of that photograph however, comes a bit of history. A search of The Consumerist yields these results showing that, somewhere, the image is in a cue/database/archive, and is still in there, with the watermark, yet when you click on it, the above article appears, sans photo.

It gets potentially more diabolical looking....

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Pathetic Item of the Day

From our friends at the Coloradoan.com, comes this little insight:

Greeley Tribune has agreed to end a years-old practice of copying stories from competing newspapers and falsely labeling them as Associated Press stories, the newspaper’s publisher said today.

“That’s clearly a very bad journalism practice,” said Steve Weaver, the Tribune’s publisher...Weaver said the practice began several years ago when Chris Cobler was the newspaper’s editor. Cobler is currently overseeing the paper’s online operations and announced this week that he was leaving to take a job with the Poynter Institute, a St. Petersburg, Fla., organization that provides training programs for professional journalists.
Read Entire Article

So, he's now going to train the next generation and teach existing professionals that, well, now it's okay to infringe and miscredit articles - especially from your cross-town competition. I'd just love to see this happen between the New York Times and New York Post, or, the Washington Post and Washington Times. Nice. Lawyers, start your engines!

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]