|
kevanrobitaille
Sep 10, 2006, 7:49 PM
Post #1 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 113
|
When I first started shooting I shot in JPGfine. Now I shoot in JPGbasic + RAW. Going through my stock today I realized that the large majority of my 'sellable' shots are jpg. Is it even worth keeping them in stock? In researching buyers markets I've noticed that pretty much everyone wants a jpg sample, then the raw/high quality image. Are there exceptions?
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 10, 2006, 9:11 PM
Post #2 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
When the buyers say say, they mean file with no manupulation, not RAW files. No photographer I know gives the buyer a RAW file, that would be like selling your negative.
Em
|
|
|
|
|
jeff_m
Sep 10, 2006, 10:25 PM
Post #3 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: When the buyers say say, they mean file with no manupulation, not RAW files. No photographer I know gives the buyer a RAW file, that would be like selling your negative. Em
I've been a photo buyer for a number of publications and ad agencies over the last 15 years and this isn't true (at least with reputable publishers and stock houses). Depending on how the photo is being used (small inset on 5B paper to full-bleed cover on grade 2) the requirements from the buyer will vary widely.
First, as the photographer, you really have no idea of what the reproduction specs are going to be for your shot unless you request them, and even then the odds of you having a press-calibrated system at home (dialed in for SWOP+ profiles and proofing) are slim---not to mention 99% of buyers/photo editors/prepress people (who know what they're doing) will specifically make it clear that you SHOULD NOT color or density correct.
For many shots, uncorrected RGB max quality, full resolution JPEGs are fine for submissions (though uncompressed TIFFs are usually the norm), however be prepared to supply RAW files if requested. (Usually, this means that the photo will be used in a color critical section, either full-bleed single, double-truck or, if you're lucky, cover.) This in no way jeopardizes your authorship or copy rights, as you will undoubtedly have your images previously copywritten and have a written agreement with the publisher or stock house, not to mention the files will be spec'd to your camera ID and sequence number.
In the real world now, supplying RAW files is really a non-issue that's become equated with "old school" photographers whose majority source of income was the reproduction of shots from negatives (think wedding photographers).
I know of what I speak as I have a number of Brooks Institute instructors (who can be the most particular in terms of copyright law) shoot for me on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, I just received two CDs of RAW images for a national bank ad campaign from one of them.
I hope this helps (and you don't bulk dump your back catalog).
|
|
|
|
|
kevanrobitaille
Sep 10, 2006, 10:41 PM
Post #4 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 113
|
Its great to get such quick responses from people with real experience.
When you say 'uncorrected', do you mean no colour adjusting in post-production? I usually sharpen, adjust brightness and colour in 90% of my shots. What do you mean exactly?
btw, I'm brand new at this, so feel free to answer in full detail.
|
|
|
|
|
jeff_m
Sep 10, 2006, 11:18 PM
Post #5 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 155
|
You're lucky I'm at work (though spending a bit too much time on rc.com).
I'm guessing you're correcting (adjusting color, sharpening, etc.) on copies of your original shots, right? If not, you should be. I've received a number of hopeful shots that were corrected right out of their gamut--or worse---converted to CMYK. (I forgot to mention that you SHOULD NEVER convert your photos to CMYK; I won't explain why, suffice to say, it's a bad thing.)
I understand that a lot of what "makes" a shot can be the liberal processing (tonal adjustments, lighting effects, filter casts, etc.). Sometimes that's just the way it is and the buyer has to deal with what they get. A good rule of thumb is to always keep an eye on your histogram curves, your white point and your black point. (I'm just going to assume you're using Photoshop, right?) The more density/gamut range you can supply to the buyer/publisher the better, because they WILL be making adjustments, from minor to major (so don't be surprised when you see what gets printed).
Case in point, here are two versions of the same shot. The first is what came from the photographer and the second is what we did to it for the cover a recent pub.
http://www.citycg.com/bike1.jpg http://www.citycg.com/bike2.jpg
As you can see a lot changed: the photo was flipped, a new sky was added, background elements (like the signs) were taken out, the road was cleaned up and the color was enhanced and maximized for the paper/dot gain. (Thankfully, there was plenty of gamut in the RAW file to do all this.)
This is an extreme example, but regardless of all the post-processing, keep in mind that it still comes down to the shot.---you have to have a good eye. And you'll only increase your chances of publication (and pay) if you have the ability to supply the best resolution, gamut and format.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
kevanrobitaille
Sep 11, 2006, 12:27 AM
Post #6 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 113
|
What im doing is adjusting the original jpg, but not altering the original RAW file. I actually don't use photo shop. I see now that I can not 'save as' using my software, so I after alterations I have to save over the original instead of creating a double.
Looking at your example leaves me slightly confused. The original photo is, to say the least, of poor quality. Its hard to believe a photo like that would be purchased and put on a cover! Its good to know that more images than I had originally thought have selling potential.
Here is an example of two images. One is altered, one is unaltered. Would a buyer not want to purchase the altered one???
http://photos.nsmb.com/.../4/samplealtered.jpg
http://photos.nsmb.com/.../sampleunaltered.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 11, 2006, 11:14 AM
Post #7 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
I have had my photos published in a couple dozen magazinnes now, and I supply photos to some stock agentcies too. (Not just the micros)
I have never been asked for one of my NEF files by any editor. Not event for a cover shot.
My workflow is simple, shoot RAW, save RAW file on two external hard drive, make TIFF and Jpgs of files( SAVE to external,) and send files to Alamy or editors I think may be interested.
When I send files to editors, I send them both the JPG and the TIff, when I send to Alamy I send them only the TIFF (*bit, which is there standart.)
When I upload to the micros, I upload JPG's.
So far, not one editor as asked me to send my original nef file.
Sure is easier then when I shot slides.
|
|
|
|
|
jeff_m
Sep 11, 2006, 3:35 PM
Post #8 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: Looking at your example leaves me slightly confused. The original photo is, to say the least, of poor quality. Its hard to believe a photo like that would be purchased and put on a cover! Its good to know that more images than I had originally thought have selling potential. Here is an example of two images. One is altered, one is unaltered. Would a buyer not want to purchase the altered one??
Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you. The example was more of what can happen to a photo from an "assignment" versus a stock purchase. Your two shots are a good example of processing to "make" the shot marketable. If I were purchasing that shot and the version you sent was too far out of gamut to reproduce faithfully, I would request the original and duplicate the processing within the broader gamut.
As to supplying RAW files, a 16-bit, uncorrected TIFF will work just as well in most cases. Again, for "assigned" photo shoots (where the photo editor wants to see everything) it's a lot easier for a photographer to dump all the shots on a DVD or two (or three or four) than spend the time converting them to TIFFs & JPEGs. For supplying stock, there's still a bit of this. A good friend shoots stock for Lonely Planet, and yes, they want to see everything, because it still boils down to the shot. They know how to tweak the photo to their own needs.
That being said, for your own website/portfolio, no, you don't want to show everything, just the money shots....
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Sep 11, 2006, 9:27 PM
Post #9 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: What im doing is adjusting the original jpg, but not altering the original RAW file. I actually don't use photo shop. I see now that I can not 'save as' using my software, so I after alterations I have to save over the original instead of creating a double.
create a copy of the original jpeg, and edit the copy, duh
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 11, 2006, 9:50 PM
Post #10 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Lonely Planet Stock has an excusive contract. Whether you give them the RAW file or not, you can't do anything with it on your own.
|
|
|
|
|
macblaze
Sep 11, 2006, 11:11 PM
Post #12 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2005
Posts: 807
|
I think one of the issues in conversations like this is the ongoing chasm between the creator and the publisher. Most photographers I work with think that they are in control of the "art" but most publishers/end users have their own concept of how an image should be used.
I guess what I mean is if you are shooting for yourself or a show at the gallery then the only thing that matters is the craft the photgrapher diosplays in taking, developing and printing the image (I tend to think of this the stuff you would should on print film). On the other hand if you are shooting for a client then you want to give him as much freedom as possible to use the image (the kind of thing I like to buy on trannie). The real test is can you give him what he wants so that he doesn't look elsewhere for the image. When I buy an image or hire a photographer I expect to have as much freedom to make it work for me as possible. I'm not particualry interested in the photographer's vision... I am interested if the image can sell which ever message is important to me.
Give me raw images, DON'T crop in camera and don't expect me to pay outrageous fees for a cover image on a book that won't make much anyway... :o
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 12, 2006, 10:52 AM
Post #14 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
In reply to: guangzhou wrote: Lonely Planet Stock has an excusive contract. Whether you give them the RAW file or not, you can't do anything with it on your own. Which means you either get to travel the world and get paid, or sit at home and look at your own pictures on your computer.
Actually, a lot of Lonely Planet Stock photographers don't make any money with their photos. They hope to, but if the file isn't selected by a buyer, no money. That's llike anynother stock agentcy.
By being exclusive, they are limiting their potiential sales. Less outlets, less potiential custumers. Less potiential custumers, less sales.
What they are banking on is bigger per sale return. Sometime, selling the usages of a photo more often for less results in more money.
One example, the photo I have of a falling climber has made me 1700.00 in the last 14 months on the micros. 0.25 a download adds up fast. The same photo on my traditional stock offered as royalty free too has made me none in the past 24 months.
|
|
|
|
|
macblaze
Sep 12, 2006, 2:36 PM
Post #15 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2005
Posts: 807
|
In reply to: One example, the photo I have of a falling climber has made me 1700.00 in the last 14 months on the micros. 0.25 a download adds up fast. The same photo on my traditional stock offered as royalty free too has made me none in the past 24 months.
We haven't looked into any of the "new" stock agencies much. Who are you selling your images through? and what's you opinion on the process...
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 12, 2006, 9:59 PM
Post #16 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
I sell my rights managed stuff through Alamy Stock. They are fairly big in the game and well respected. They accept all types of stock, so they do well for a non-specialist like me.
They are currently adding an upload feature, in the past I had to mail a CD. Because of this, I have decided to not mail CD's and I am waiting for the new feature to be active. (Mailing cost more then FTP)
I also have my Royalty free stuff with Absolute stock. They offer a nice upload feature and have some good marketing. They pay me directly to my paypal account. They pay a 60/40 on each sell.
All my generic, and some other, photos (not the stuff I sell rights Managed), I upload to the micros. Once your first batch is approved, the rest of the process is fairly simple. If my rights manage file don't sell after some time, I change them to Royalty free. (Time depends on the shot)
I make more per year with the micros than the traditional stock agencies. Took me a while to receive my first check, but now, they are steady. I have slowly learned the system.
Hope that helps
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Sep 13, 2006, 5:37 AM
Post #17 of 17
(2810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: What im doing is adjusting the original jpg, but not altering the original RAW file. I actually don't use photo shop. I see now that I can not 'save as' using my software, so I after alterations I have to save over the original instead of creating a double.
Maybe I'm a bit late but I hope I misread this.
You are editing your original JPEGs?
NEVER EVER EDIT IN JPEG!!!!!
You need to edit and then save as TIFF. So on my computer all my originals are JPEG or RAW all my edits are PSD (for layered saves) or TIFF.
If nothing else at least copy your JPEGs to an edit folder and leave the originals in another folder.
If your editing software cannot save as then spend a few bucks for something else. IrfanView should be able to convert all you JPEGS to TIFFs.
I hope I misread your statment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
