A few months back, I was listening to a podcast on my way home from work. There’s nothing unusual about that – but this one was episode 125 of This Week in Photography, featuring an interview with Michael Corsentino, who is a California-based lifestyle photographer.

Listening to the interview, it was clear to me that Michael has made some hard business decisions about the way he packages his art (which is the way he refers to his photographic works) and the options he gives (or doesn’t give) his clients in order to ensure that he is able to cover the time and effort he puts into them. That’s fair enough when someone does do the best they can to turn images into art but now I’d like to put forward an alternative view.

Photography is one of my great passions and I like to think that I’m someone who appreciates great photographic images but is not prepared to be taken for a ride. When my wife and I got married, our photographers did not charge us an extortionate fee for a “wedding package”. Instead we paid for the (fantastic) images, both formal and journalistic, on a time and materials basis. Our lead photographer, the late Brett Williams, brought in one of his associates to assist on the day and I have all of the prints and most of the negatives for safe keeping.

On the other end of the scale are two examples that I experienced through my eldest son’s school.

The first was a school portrait, captured by H Tempest. As proud parents, of course we paid for some prints but I also looked into the quality of the images that I could have bought digitally. I don’t know what cameras were used to capture the image, but when I called Tempest to see what quality the image they were selling for unlimited printing was, the answer I got suggested it was a a fairly low resolution (2304x1536px) JPEG image. As that image is unlikely to be suitable for quality reproduction at any larger than 8″x10″, it’s not what I call unlimited, so I decided not to spend the (I seem to recall quite large) sum of money that they were looking for, opting for a few small prints instead (I have my own “first day at school” images anyway).

Then there was the case of Richard Kerber Photography. Richard came into the school to create family portraits and we attended, as did many other families, one weekend last November. The images he created in our short session were great – and we did buy several prints; however I was still disappointed by the lack of flexibility and attention to detail. In common with many photographers, the packages offered were intended to encourage us to buy sets of photos but, in these days of digital SLR capture, I see no technical reasons (only some commercial ones) to restrict the ability to mix colour and monochrome images. There was also a hefty fee if we wanted to pay for the images on CD (with printing rights, but copyright retained by the photographer); and, apparently, no post-production effort at all.

No post-production? Well, I know nothing of Mr Kerber’s workflow – I’m sure there was some post-production – but, in one of the images, part of my foot is missing from the smaller prints, despite being visible in a larger version (albeit a little too close to the edge of the frame – given the amount of white space, some basic editing may have been in order to balance up the shot).

It seems to me that what we have here is a photographer who clearly has the talent to create lovely images of my family (no mean feat with two “active” boys and two tired parents!) but who, for the lack of a little care and attention in his workflow, is not delivering the standard of work that warrants the pricing. Furthermore, whilst I can see that photographers need to set digital image pricing so as not to cannibalise their print sales, the prices charged for a CD with a license are extreme. £295 is a lot of money for a few minutes in a school hall (remember, there are still print costs to consider)… oh yes, and he used a portrait of at least one family on his website without permission (as far as I can tell, no model release was signed, and whilst the copyright is his so there is no. Legal reason not to use the images, one might consider that he was morally and ethically bound to ask permission first).

So, what’s the point of my rant? Well, I guess what I’m saying is that there’s money to be made by those who charge a fair price, without devaluing the overall effort involved (after all, it still has to be profitable – not everyone with an SLR is automatically capable of producing quality work). If you are a fine art photographer, then by all means charge a fee that reflects the value of the artwork but, if your approach is one of a production line, then your pricing should reflect that too – looking to make a fast buck from parents or newly-weds is just not on. If you want to charge me for something really special, then you need to put in the associated effort.

[Incidentally, I originally wrote this post back in February but wasn’t sure whether to publish or not… after sitting on it for several months, I still think it makes some important points, so I’ve edited the original post and committed it to the web!]

As couple of weeks back, I started a digital photography course (evening classes) at my local college. I’m been taking pictures for about 25 years and I’ve attended courses before (when I lived in Australia I signed up for a black and white darkroom techniques course – it is truly amazing to see images come to life in a darkroom – as well as a photography course with pro photographer Naomi Burley which looked at everything from the basics of aperture and shutter speed to form, composition and generally taking good pictures) but I’m hoping to fill in the gaps between my traditional photography experience and my IT skills. Then I’ll finally pull my long-overdue portfolio together!

I’m not sure if there is something about IT that attracts people to photography – or if it works in reverse but, over the last couple of years, I’ve learned that many of the people I know in the world of IT are also keen on photography. Take for example, James O’Neill, IT Pro evangelist at Microsoft in the UK – I haven’t seen any of his photos but I know (from his blog) that it’s something he’s really into. Then I got a Flickr invitation from Atila the Hun… at first it seemed suspect, until I realised that it was Windows Server guru Austin Osuide‘s handle.

For the last week or so, I’ve been working with an experienced IT Architect by the name of Sean Mantey and it turns out that Sean is also a very talented photographer (check out his Flickr photostream, coverage on the BBC website, and his own website). And then he showed me his camera.

I always lust after the latest toys from Nikon but having held the camera that Sean uses and taken a couple of test shots, all of a sudden I knew that my trusty D70 is due to be retired… in favour of a D700. The D700 is, quite simply, fantastic. It has a decent, weighty body, a huge screen (big enough for a preview, histogram, and technical data all at once) and, most importantly, a full-frame (FX) format sensor with 12.1MP and stunning light sensitivity – so I can use my lenses (which mostly date back to my F90X film days) to their full effect. In short, the D700 will undo all the compromises I made when I switched to digital and give me back even more.

Then there are the lenses – I already have an AF-S 80-200mm f2.8 IF-ED lens so, although a modern VR lens (i.e. the AF-S VR 70-200 f2.8G ED-IF) would be nice, its the AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED that I desire in order to capture some full frame landscape photography goodness when I’m on holiday in France this summer (instead of stitching frames together in Photoshop, as I do with my DX sensor and a AF-S 24-85mm f2.8-4D IF lens).

So, this is the deal: I need to save around £2800 for my new kit but that’s a lot of pocket money (more than the family holiday will cost!). This is where I get cheeky because there are a lot of people who read this blog and if I work out how much I earn from it, it’s quite depressing (let’s just say it’s well below minimum wage). If you subscribe to the RSS feed you don’t even have to look at the ads so, if you find what I write useful, how about sending me a PayPal donation? I don’t ask for much but if I’ve written something that’s saved you some time, effort, even some money, a contribution towards my camera fund would be really welcome. In return, I’ll keep on writing a mix of (hopefully useful) IT and photography-related articles whilst I try to take some good pictures and publish them on my Flickr feed.

In the current climate of political correctness and anti-terrorism legislation, there have been a few situations recently where photographers have found themselves falling foul of the law – for example the US photographer who was arrested whilst taking photos for an Amtrak competition at a railway station (of all places!) – and the UK Home Secretary caused controversy last summer when she suggested that legal restrictions may be placed upon photographers.

A petition was lodged at the Prime Minister’s web spinning site and this week a response was published.

There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places. However, the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else in a public place. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations, inflame an already tense situation, or raise security considerations. Additionally, the police may require a person to move on in order to prevent a breach of the peace, to avoid a public order situation, or for the person’s own safety or welfare, or for the safety and welfare of others.

Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the police officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a specific incident should raise the matter with the Chief Constable of the relevant force.”

[Number10.gov.uk response to photography law e-petition, 12 January 2008]

So, there you have it – Photography Is Not A Crime – although an overzealous law enforcement agent may think it is until you take it up with his or her Chief Constable…

For a while now, it’s become increasingly difficult to take photographs without suspicion and stories like the one of the father-of-three who was branded a pervert for photographing his own children in public park are extremely alarming. Admittedly this story was reported in the Daily Mail (a fine example of balanced reporting – not!) but nevertheless it is a perfect example of political correctness gone mad.

I’m a parent too and I have to admit that I am always very self-conscious when I photograph my children playing with their friends. Thankfully, their parents take no issue (indeed some find it strange that I even check with them first). I even have some great pictures of my kids that were taken by other people. But unfortunately it’s all too easy to accuse someone of wrong-doing – generally being a pervert or a terrorist – and the authorities will generally act first and reason later.

There are very few restrictions on taking photographs in public places but it won’t take long for that to change. Indeed, the current UK Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith has stated in a letter to the National Union of Journalists that:

“[…] there is no legal restriction on photography in public places […and…] there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.”

That’s sounds good until she continues by writing:

“Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved based on the individual circumstances of each situation.”

Basically, she’s said that it’s not illegal but that the authorities will act if they feel it is appropriate and that, even though Chief Constables will issue guidance, the decision is down to local officers.

I spent a large chunk of my formative years watching trains and, whilst I realise that the social stigma that is attached to such activities will make readers think I’m weird now, that’s practically outlawed these days (the police will soon move people on who are seen hanging around a major railway station). Then, when I flew to the States last year, I took some pictures of aeroplanes at Heathrow (my young son has only seen them high in the sky – he had no idea what the plane Daddy was going to fly on looked like) – thankfully no-one tried to stop me but it won’t be long before that is considered a security risk.

The UK Government’s petitions site is little more than a publicity exercise but nevertheless it is an opportunity to demonstrate the strength of public feeling on this. If you are a UK citizen and you would like to see a public statement on clarifying the law as it relates to photography then I urge you to sign the e-petition on Photography Law:

Through history, we have documented the world around us, whether through written word, art or photography.

Photography in particular has provided fantastic insights into the past and present, and is a hobby enjoyed by millions of people worldwide.

But today, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to take photos of our surroundings, particularly in cities like London.

In recent years, the price divide between professional and consumer equipment has blurred, and it’s quite common these days to see amateurs and hobbyists carrying around tripods, SLR cameras and a backpack full of equipment.

Yet, we are constantly harrassed [sic] by security guards and police officers in the name of preventing terrorism. They seem to be operating under a different interpretation of the law to the rest of us, believing that somehow the length of your lens, or size of your camera is relevant.

We would like clarification by the goverment [sic] on the law regarding photography of buildings and landmarks from public locations.

If you don’t, then you’ll only have yourself to blame when the current power-hungry administration forces through the next phase of nanny state laws that restrict an individual’s ability to capture a photograph in a public place.