Images for photo agency

[Abitconfused]

It occurs to me that most photo agencies prefer minimal post-production. I assume that this is because they sell many images to magazines which print at 150 lines per inch ?? which may magnify any grain added by post-production adjustments to contrast, sharpening, and, perhaps, saturation. So, best practice in this regard may well be to get the best shot in camera using a lower ISO even if a tripod is needed. Has anyone some insight into this?

[xpatUSA]

It occurs to me that most photo agencies prefer minimal post-production. I assume that this is because they sell many images to magazines which print [half-tone] at 150 lines per inch ?? which may magnify any grain added by post-production adjustments to contrast, sharpening, and, perhaps, saturation. So, best practice in this regard may well be to get the best shot in camera using a lower ISO even if a tripod is needed. Has anyone some insight into this?

Ed, How does post-production "add grain"? I thought that grain only occurs in film photography, not digital. In digital, we get noise of various kinds - but it is not usually called "grain". In digital, any grain added is via special filters which attempt to emulate film grain.

https://www.slrlounge.com/glossary/g...n-photography/

Anyhoo, I do all my shooting at the camera's base ISO (not extended). That way, the sensor is exposed well enough and is less likely to be noisy.

[Tronhard]

Back in the day I shot images for what is now called stock photography. In those days it was all transparencies (slides, if you will), so post-production was not in the equation. That made it imperative that images worked as shot. Given the limitations of film, grain was more tolerated in some applications. That said, I shot with the slowest film I dared for the application or situation I was in. Given that a lot of my shooting was wildlife, travel or scenic, where I was not in control of the lighting, I shot mostly Ektachrome or Kodachrome in 100, 200 or 400 range. My go-to range was 200 and the results worked out OK.

These days, yes we shoot digitally and that opens up a whole vista of post-production opportunities for correction and manipulation. There seems to be much less tolerance for noise (yep Ted, I agree it's the digital equivalent of film grain ), so it pays to be able to start with the least possible. Still, sensors have long surpassed the performance of film in the noise/grain field, and of course we can now switch those settings between shots when before we were constrained to a whole canister of film at the one ASA/ISO value.

As a general rule, however, the same principle applies, I believe. Shoot with the lowest ISO value practical and try to get both the exposure and composition right in-camera. That way one is less likely to spend hours in post-production and we apply the least manipulation possible. I shoot RAW and JPG and I try to keep away from doing more than apply lens correction and some basic Dynamic range and colour shifts. It is tempting to over-process to seek the holy grail of sharpness (which seems to be a thing these days), but that can lead to damaging artefacts that do images no favours at all.

Knowing what the output is going to be can be significant. For example, is the work going to be for printing on hardcopy or for digital use? Obviously, before the digital age this was not an issue, but this can impact on the type of colour system used and also image format - using Adobe RGB gives more more scope to work with and is likely better for printing.

One of the best pieces of advice I can offer is not to over-tighten the field of view in the original image. While we all want the best composition, what that constitutes is different for someone who wants to add text onto the image. If the image is too tight that isn't going to work. If in doubt take several images with different space around the main subject on various sides. Given the massive size of images that cameras are able to generate these days, over-cropping in camera should not be something we need to do.

[DanK]

I try to keep away from doing more than apply lens correction and some basic Dynamic range and colour shifts.

I know nada about providing photos for agencies, and I'm not commenting about what makes sense for your photography, but I think this isn't a good path for many types of photography. The situation doesn't always provide you with what you need to have the image you want. I have some types of images that typically require very little editing (e.g., field shots of bugs with controlled lighting), but some others require a great deal of postprocessing. I sometimes have spent hours on local adjustments of various sorts. I think the more general advice is 'figure out what you need to do to create the image you need, and do that but no more.'

[Tronhard]

I have been answering in the context of the OP title "IMAGES FOR PHOTO AGENCY": I found that if the basics of an image are good, then the client organization will do the necessary work to adapt them to their specific needs. Too much PP can actually undermine that. When providing images for a client (agency or otherwise) then the needs of that client are the driving force behind the creative process. When we shoot for ourselves, that is another matter - well, actually WE are the client, so the principle holds good for us too!

In a general sense, also I agree with you Dan. I do as little PP as possible for the kinds of images I personally prefer for my own use, but I recognize that as photography is an art, people will deal with images across a wide gambit of expressions, some of which need various (and sometimes extreme) levels of manipulation. Each to their own in that context.

I know nada about providing photos for agencies, and I'm not commenting about what makes sense for your photography, but I think this isn't a good path for many types of photography. The situation doesn't always provide you with what you need to have the image you want. I have some types of images that typically require very little editing (e.g., field shots of bugs with controlled lighting), but some others require a great deal of postprocessing. I sometimes have spent hours on local adjustments of various sorts. I think the more general advice is 'figure out what you need to do to create the image you need, and do that but no more.'

[DanK]

It's not just a matter of artistic intent; it's also a matter of whether the situation provides the raw materials for a good image without a lot of editing. I could give a lot of examples, but this one I've used before. Here's the original, with no processing other than Adobe's default rendering of a Lumix raw file:



I shot this through a chain link fence with a camera that has a fixed 24-70mm equivalent lens, so I didn't have access to a longer lens. Dusk was approaching, so I had little time. I didn't have a tripod, so I couldn't bracket--a problem because much of the dynamic range was the difference between the sky and the rest.

After a lot of editing, I ended up with this:



This required a lot of local edits as well as an unusually large number of global edits. For example, one layer was solely to bring out the reflection in the window on the left.

If I were going to submit this to a stock gallery, they'd have no idea what editing was done; they'd just have the final image.

[Tronhard]

Actually, a lot of stock agencies and clients can tell if and how the image was manipulated. National Geography, for example is very hard on any type of post-processing before they can evaluate it.

That said, when I look at the image, I just see corrections of limitations of the gear and conditions under which the image was taken. That is a lot different from removing or adding elements, for example - which would be clearly unacceptable for many stock agencies (but not all as far as I understand). Each stock photography site has its own rules, so it's not a one-size-fits-all situation.

[DanK]

Trev,

Of course, agencies differ, and some have what amount to photojournalism rules. Others don't. And the OP wasn't inquiring about removing objects. James specifically referenced:

post-production adjustments to contrast, sharpening, and, perhaps, saturation

All of those were done in the photo I showed, and far more.

James, while I don't think there is a good reason in most cases to avoid editing, it can be very important not to overdue whatever adjustments you do. One reason is the one you mentioned: if the image is going to be printed large, any flaws introduced by editing--for example, halos from overdoing sharpening--will become more apparent. This is one reason I do blow up edited images on screen, despite the fact that people disparage pixel peeping: it becomes a lot easier to spot problems that are hidden at a low resolution.

I'm never constrained by photojournalism rules, so I feel free to remove problematic elements, just as most painters would feel free not to include them. In the photo below. there was a woman in a pink sweater walking away between the two people on the left. This left a distracting, ugly pink rectangle. I removed her, with some difficulty, as the vegetion surrounding her varied quite a bit, and I had to to it in a bunch of little areas. And back to the topic: I edited this image extensively and in fact created a number of different edits before I was satisfied. A lof of the work was local edits: making changes in selected areas of the image.





Dan

[xpatUSA]

James, while I don't think there is a good reason in most cases to avoid editing, it can be very important not to overdue whatever adjustments you do. One reason is the one you mentioned: if the image is going to be printed large, any flaws introduced by editing--for example, halos from overdoing sharpening--will become more apparent. This is one reason I do blow up edited images on screen, despite the fact that people disparage pixel peeping: it becomes a lot easier to spot problems that are hidden at a low resolution.

Yes, fully agreed!

I peep in FastStone Viewer with smoothing turned off and only with integer zoom ratios (not integer percent) so that original pixels appear on my screen as 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 5x5, etc., i.e. original pixels are re-sampled in Nearest Neighbor but bigger with no interpolation. I often go up to 800% to be absolutely sure of any oddities e.g. hot pixels.

On my monitor at 1x1 (100pct zoom), there is actually slight blurring that is not present in the actual image.

I remember both your example images, very good illustrations of the benefits of post-processing!

[Tronhard]

I think the important theme is that one must find out the rules of engagement for each potential client - be it a stock agency, or direct to an end client. I have seen instructions over 10 pages long and others that are a couple of paragraphs. So, a one-size fits all approach is, IMHO over-simplistic.

[xpatUSA]

I wonder where infrared or full-spectrum photography fits into this thread. Perhaps not at all, because such images straight out of the camera are not at all pretty and they require a lot of global post-processing in order to get "the look".

SOOC, almost no greens in the image, even with incandescent WB:



Post-processed a lot and still not quite right:



I wonder too if the average "photo agency" accepts such work or even composites ... ?

[Manfred M]

Sorry I haven't check into the site over the past 10 days; super busy for me right now and I think I have a day or two to catch up on things before it gets busy again.

I will make one disclaimer - I have never done any work for stock agencies and suspect I never will. There is no money in it any more. I know one photographer who made a very good living at it before the 2008 recession, but that business went away and has not returned. The market was / is primarily corporate with companies looking for material for internal and external publications. Amateurs have been flooding the market with a wide variety of variable quality images and the market is over-saturated. Another photographer I know did make close to $1000 a year for a number of years with stock work, but got out of the stock agency market in 2018 when he made somewhere just under $50 over the whole year.

In terms of what other clients want, my experience is that no one in the publication industry pays for images if you approach them with editorial work and often won't want to pay even if they approach you. They do have their own resources that they will turn to for that type of work. Some larger publications will review and will hire external writer / photographers for niche or specialty projects. The people that make good money in that market are the ones that work for the advertisers.

In the 6 or 7 projects that I have done for publishers and the like, over the past 5 years all expected 100% press-ready final art delivered to them. They will spec how they want it done (size, colour space, bit depth) and will let you know if it is not up to their requirements. If you are not good at Photoshop, don't even think about it. The files I had to deliver were either Photoshop psd, pdf or TIFF.

Don't forget that agencies will want model and property releases, as applicable and if someone comes after them for some legal issue, chances are they will send them straight to you.

[Tronhard]

I agree with Manfred as regards the viability of stock photography in the modern context. I did it for some time, but in the film era. In those days one provided transparencies, so what you shot was what you got, so you had to take more time over your images to get them as good as possible. Since the development of digital technology, the market has been saturated with images and photo manipulation has become rampant.

It is perfectly logical if one was a marketing manager looking for material to look at sites that offer images free of royalty fees from people hoping to get a gig. Some of those sites do their best to bypass the need for model releases, and of course there are a lot of images that of animals and scenery or architecture that require no such documentation.

Because of the open environment of the web, there are many places that peddle images without documentation and pass them on for companies to use. In NZ, a young woman had taken a shot of herself on Instagram, during a trip overseas, and found the images on a site by a phone company. She took legal action to have the images suppressed and get compensation, but found the process drawn out and costly.

With all of these 'grey market' images and the requirement for authentic agencies: these days, I think it's a bit of a mug's game now, to be honest...

[Doralbarel]

How often have you encountered devaluing of your work? I was struck by Manfred's line about how nobody pays for images in the publishing industry. I can say that it applies not only to the publishing industry. I'm just starting my way in photography. For now, I'm working on a photo shoot to order, but I want to go further. It angers me that ordinary people are almost always dissatisfied with an adequate price for creative work, and say that it can't be so expensive. It applies to everything: paintings, photographs, and music. People are not ready to pay for something that seems easy to them. I think, 80% of customers would rather buy a print of a dog selfie from than a cool photo set with editing.

[William W]

Welcome.

How often have you encountered devaluing of your work? I was struck by Manfred's line about how nobody pays for images in the publishing industry.

I too noted and agree with Manfred's sentiment.

However, to answer your question - very rarely have I encountered a devaluation of my work as I have always set the price point for sale of it (and the skill, knowledge expertise and labour to produce it).

When the market place changes, the producers and suppliers need to change - or dwindle on the vine.

There was a time when Wedding and Portrait Photography was a thriving industry; those with technical and artistic skills plus business acumen could make a living shooting only three to five weddings per week. In 2022 the same situation does not exist: there are a few (handful) Photographers around the world, who can feed, educate and provide a family home, solely on the income from shooting weddings.

There is money in working for advertising art director, and as Manfred noted, they will ‘direct’ – but again not many Photographers earn the equivalent of a full time salary doing that work.

Apropos ‘stock photography’ per se, – I agree with Trev. It is a mug’s game, and I think it always has been to some extent.

If you seek 'value' for your work expressed in monetary terms, then you must be in control of setting the price point for it and for it to sell at that price.

Primary predicates for such a situation to exist are, but not limited to: having a quality niche offering with an higher demand than supply in the market place - certainly 'stock photography' does not have either of those elements, nor I would argue, has it ever: in such case 'stock photography' is not really any reasonable gauge of the monetary value, of anyone's work.

WW

[DanK]

This thread has wandered far from the OP, and the newer topic leads me to chime in again.

When I was working on my first book, my editor told me, “There are two reasons to write a book: love and money. Your reason had better be love.” For most of us, that’s true of our photography too. I get a charge out of (very infrequently) selling a print, but the cold, hard fact is that my sales haven’t even covered the cost of my ink.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[William W]

. . . I can say that it applies not only to the publishing industry. I'm just starting my way in photography. For now, I'm working on a photo shoot to order, but I want to go further. It angers me that ordinary people are almost always dissatisfied with an adequate price for creative work, and say that it can't be so expensive. It applies to everything: paintings, photographs, and music. People are not ready to pay for something that seems easy to them. I think, 80% of customers would rather buy a print of a dog selfie from "The Frame Room" than a cool photo set with editing.

(embedded link deleted)

Hello again.

Two points -

Firstly for a point of continuity and more importantly archival context, please note the above test was added to the Post #14 after the response was posted to it. This is a note addressing the functionality permitted by this forum's website - (totally another topic and mentioned here only to address the continuity, or lack thereof, of this conversation).

Secondly, addressing your new remarks - when you write "I'm just starting my way in photography" it seems implicit that you mean - "I'm just starting my way in a photography business". . .

I agree that many people are not willing to pay an adequate price for creative work - especially for creative work which seems easy to them - however as a bit of advice for your photography business - realize that these people (especially the 80% that your cite) are definitively not your "customers" and secondly for a business to survive - getting angry at "ordinary people" is probably not a good thing, it will likely restrict one's ability to convert prospects into customers - educating your most likely prospects would be a far better choice than getting angry with them.

WW

[Manfred M]

How often have you encountered devaluing of your work? I was struck by Manfred's line about how nobody pays for images in the publishing industry. I can say that it applies not only to the publishing industry. I'm just starting my way in photography. For now, I'm working on a photo shoot to order, but I want to go further. It angers me that ordinary people are almost always dissatisfied with an adequate price for creative work, and say that it can't be so expensive. It applies to everything: paintings, photographs, and music. People are not ready to pay for something that seems easy to them. I think, 80% of customers would rather buy a print of a dog selfie from than a cool photo set with editing.

I would normally delete this article because the writer has broken forum policy of posting commercial links. We see this type of behaviour from time to time; post a link to get the member's attention and then later insert an advertising URL through a later edit to the post.

As some members have made some interesting comments here, I will not delete the posting as the context is need to understand recent postings by Bill and Dan. I have, however deleted the spam link in the posting.