So, the final of my own personal stock sites installment is for Dreamstime. If you've just popped onto this blog and are confused, head back to 3a or 3b.

I don't have a whole lot to add here – just a few points to make. As with the other Part 3's, I attached the Dreamstime image, in case you want to see it larger (see end of blog).

First of all, Dreamstime is the toughest of all 3 of the sites I've listed in Part 3, as regards accepting my submissions. Therefore it's my smallest portfolio. But it's interesting to me to see what images top the list here as opposed to elsewhere.

Dreamstime's account management page offers thumbnail, title, date of upload, when it was last downloaded along with the keyword search that was used (REALLY helpful .. I wish all sites would do this!), # of comments on a photo (if any), # of downloads, # of views and $ amount the image has made so far.

7 & 20: You're probably gonna laugh when you hear how I got these images. A few years ago I read a forum about people tossing cameras. It's pretty much exactly what you think. They leave their shutters open for a few seconds, chuck the camera up in the air, and hope they catch it when it lands! Well, no way was I gonna try that with my XT, but I played around with the S50 and had a ball! Number 7 was thrown/spun so that part of my living room and tv would end up passing in front of the lens, and number 20 was shot tossed so that my living room chandelier was the primary source for the lens. I was just playing around. Who knew those shots would make me money?

I feel like, of all my stock selling sites, Dreamstime sells the most food imagery. Although, now that I shot the spice series, that may not be true anymore.

I've just now, since my first upload in April of '06 with DT, made my first $100. Woo-hoo! haha. Once I get into the new house, since we'll be traveling less and hanging around the house more, I plan to give the stock stuff a real push. It's sill not to, at this point. Once the images are out there, they just continue to make me money, allowing me to focus on other things. Why not, right?

I hope some of this will be interesting to some folks, but even more, I hope it is helpful to someone at some point! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any question that I didn't address, or if you think of something in the future.

Here are my top 20 images sold on iStock at this point. Just like I did in the 3a installment of this Stock Photo blog series, I just wanted to go through a few of them for any of you who are interested in knowing more about Stock Photography or selling your images via these sites. I also attached the image here, in case you want to open it larger to see what the heck I'm talking about.

iStock gives a little more information on this page than Shutterstock gives on theirs. From left to right you get:

Thumbnail
Image ID
Ratings people have given the image (if any)
Date of the last comment someone left on the image (if any)
# of comments left on the image (if any)
Date the image was uploaded
Average # of downloads/month for the image
How much $ the image has made so far (blurred)
Disambiguation (this is something relatively new on their site .. don't ask me what it means, I have no clue!)
When the image was last purchased

1-2: My top two images are exercise silhouette composites. They don't allow composites anymore, I don't think, but these are yoga (#1) and pilates reformer images.

3: Here again you see my #1 image from Shutterstock: Dante's bath time.

4 & 6: These images are amongst the first images I ever uploaded here, but these are PRIME examples of how stock images do not have to be stellar artsy shots. One day I was dishing up some ice cream and put some of that gooey caramel stuff on top. I thought hm, that's kind of interesting looking. So I got a piece of paper and squirted some on it. Stuck it on my table, on top of a stack of books, using the natural light from a couple windows, and shot it with my little S50 P&S pocket camera. And people are BUYING this! Come on. How much easier can this possibly get? These images sell an average of just under 2x EVERY month since August 2004. It's amazing to me. If I wanted an image like this, today, I'd likely shoot it myself. It's so simple! But that just goes to show you ... sometimes it's the simplest things that end up being some of the most popular. Don't discount it just because it might seem "silly" to you. Shoot it anyway! you just never know. Seriously. If the site has too many of what you're shooting, they'll let you know. If you have serious concerns, you can research the subject on the stock sites prior to shooting it, just to get an idea what's out there already.

4: I shot this one while up at Lake Tahoe one day. It's hardly stellar .. I was just sitting on the shoreline and photographed the sand patterns. How many shots have you taken like this while on vacation? Imagine .. you're on vacation .. images you take that seem commonplace may end up making you money. And you might be making money while ON vacation, due to images you already have on stock sites. Seriously, isn't that a sweet deal? :)

18: Mustard and ketchup on a piece of white paper. Just like the caramel above.

Regarding equipment ...

14 of these 20 images were shot using the Canon Powershot S50 5.0 megapixel point-and-shoot I used to carry in my front jeans pocket.

4 of the images were shot with my Rebel XT, using the 18-55 kit lens, and only 2 of the images were shot using different lenses on the XT.

Again, I just really want to say, you don't have to spend thousands of dollars, and have top of the line equipment, to take good photos and potentially make some money. As I've said before, I'm small potatoes when it comes to selling stock photos. Just enough for me to bring in a hundred bucks every other month or so, usually. It definitely has only amounted to a few thousand dollars in the last 3-4 years. But above and beyond the money, it has helped me become an exponentially better photographer! Going through the sites' rigorous approval processes really makes you pay better attention to what you're doing and the results you get. If nothing else, submitting to the stock sites is worth contemplating if you're trying to improve your photography. It's hard, sometimes unfair, and often frustrating.

But it's also insanely rewarding to log on daily to find out which of your images has been sold, for how much, and how often. :) It's a rush, and fun to get a payout now and then, too. I always try to do something fun with the payouts, rather than using them to pay bills or something. This month I'll be getting my first Dreamstime (next blog) payout ever! Ha. It's taken me about 3 years to finally hit $100 there (their sales have REALLY picked up for me in the last 6-7 months!) so I decided I'm going to take that money and buy my favorite Sage & Citrus Yankee Candles that are on sale at Bed, Bath and Beyond this month.

Selling photos as stock is not a career for me. It's just a fun little perk. :)

P.S. - Steve, if you end up reading this, I wanted to point out at the top of the page, in the blue section, there's one stat that says "Credits: 36" ... I purchased $50 worth of credits a few months ago when I needed some images for an ad campaign design. I also use it to buy images that I want to use in my blogs. ;) They cost me $1 each, usually. And I add the photographer's credit to the image or to the blog just as a courtesy to the artist.

In part 3 of my Stock Photography series, I wanted to show you some real-life examples from my own portfolios. I've blurred out all the specific dollar amounts within my accounts. Didn't figure that needed to be public knowledge, anyway. :)

I uploaded this fairly large (hosted it on my own site), but you can't click on it to enlarge it. Therefore, I also included the graphic as an attachment to this post. So if you want to see the image larger, you should be able to scroll to the bottom of this post and click on the attachment to download it, so you can better see what I'm going to talk about.

What you're looking at here are my top 20 sales on Shutter- stock.com.

This tells you (from left to right) the image ID #, gives you a thumbnail, tells you how many times the image was purchased, how much $ the image has made you so far (blurred) and when the image was uploaded.

I wanted to just talk about some of the images. Not all of them, but there are just a few things I wanted to point out to some of you who might be thinking about trying your hand at selling images as stock.




1. My top image is Dante at bath time. I photographed this, with Jeremy's help, in our studio, based upon a photo request made on Shutterpoint. When it was all said and done, I didn't feel my image portrayed what the buyer was looking for, so I thought I'd try it on some of the other sites. Thank goodness I did!

2. My fruit juice series. It's my understanding that SS no longer accepts "series" shots like this (and IS doesn't either). I also sell the fruit juice shots separately here, but as you can see, the composite (which has all 9 images, but much smaller than those purchased individually) sells much better!

For those unfamiliar with the juice series I shot, it was an idea I got a couple years ago to represent "natural" fruit/veggie juices by showing juice flowing straight from a fruit/veggie into a container. Each fruit/veggie has a different container and each shot is comprised of at least 3 photos, combined using Photoshop. I'm dyin' to see any of these images in use anywhere, so if you ever see any, please let me know!

3. Skewers on the grill. This one's probably my favorite success story. You'll see this is also my top seller on another site. I took this photo to tease a friend of mine in Ireland, who was jealous over Jeremy's and my new grill. Haha. This was the first thing we cooked on it and I thought "oh, I'm going to take a shot that will make him MORE jealous!" It was WAY better received than I expected, so just for the hell of it, I thought, eh, wonder if the stock sites would take this? So if you think that you don't have anything around you that's exciting enough to shoot and sell, think again! Sometimes it CAN be a snapshot that is one of your best sellers. :)

11. Cinnamon. Those of you who've been viewing my blogs here for a while are probably fairly well familiar with this image. iStock didn't accept it. The thing I wanted to point out here is that I consider, at this point, Cinnamon to be one of my best sellers on Shutterstock, based upon the "number of sales - to - time on the site"ratio. It has 28 sales in just under 2 months, whereas if you look at the dates for some of the images up above it in the list, many of them are at least 1 year old, if not 2.

(I should also note here that most images on SS make me 25¢ each. Some, however, have sold for the extended license price of $20 each. Once I make $500 in sales, my standard per-photo rate raises to 30¢. At this point I'm about $8 short of that goal. Woo-hoo! haha. I know it sounds like very little, but it all adds up, y'know?)

17. This is a shot of Georgetown, taken from Jeremy's best friend's charter boat. It was taken while we were moving, on the water, so it wasn't ever intended as a "stock" photo. But .. I'm thinking not many stock sites have a view of Georgetown from out on the water, so ... :) Don't think that you have to have a 100% perfect image, taken with a tripod and top-of-the-line camera. Sometimes it's the unique angle/location/view that does it. (#8 was taken on the same weekend, again from Clay's boat - by no means is this the best view of the monuments I've ever seen, but again .. unique angle/location. Well, that plus I went in, using Photoshop, to remove all the dozens and dozens of people hanging out on the steps, walking by, etc. I left one bicyclist on the monument steps to give a sense of scale).

And, as regards equipment, I'm going from memory, but ...

9 of these images were created using a Canon Powershot S50 5-megapixel point-and-shoot camera that I used to carry in the front pocket of my jeans. In the time that I used that camera, it probably made me about 4-5x what it cost me. Nowadays, I'm not sure a 5 megapixel camera would get you very far with the stock sites, but all I'm trying to say is, don't let what you perceive to be lack of "good" equipment hinder you from trying to sell you images as stock, if you really want to.

7 of these images were created using my digital Rebel XT, with its 18-55 mm kit lens. When you read a lot of forums regarding lenses and such, you'll see a lot of criticisms of this lens. It does have its limitations, but if photography is not something you can afford to sink a ton of money into, and if you learn the limitations of your equipment and how to make it work for you, then there's no reason that lens can't make you money.

Hopefully this gives you a little better insight into my own personal experiences with Shutterstock. Next up: iStock.

P.S - I also wanted to add, I am SUPER small potatoes on these sites. For people who are willing to put in the time to shoot several times a week, submit dozens of shots a week (as opposed to my dozens/year), there are much greater rewards. People often ask me ... is there really any money in microstock? Well, I know of people on that site who are bringing in over $1k/month. From images selling for primarily 25-30¢ each! Incredible, huh? I'll get into iStock revenue in the next blog, but I'll just add a teaser to let you know one of the first people I noticed/messaged on iStock back when I first joined makes about $40k/year, last figure I heard, simply from her sales on iStock. Those are not typical results, obviously ... but is there money to be made on stock sites? You bet!

Ok, well, really only "thieves" in this installment. Stock Photography, Part II.

Stealing of images is a hot topic for photographers selling their images online. It's funny, I very often hear "I don't care who uses my images! I'd be flattered that someone even wanted it." Hell, I even said that myself in the old days. :) But think about it very carefully for a second. Say you took this photo of, oh, your child. Or your dog (which, in my instance, would be like a picture of my "child") or other beloved pet. Say it's a pretty decent photo and you submit it to a stock site and it gets accepted. Woo-hoo! You make some sales from it, which is awesome. So, in addition to having a great portrait of someone you love, you're making a few bucks from it.

Then let's say you're cruising around eBay one day and you see someone selling posters, or magnets ... with YOUR image ... of YOUR dog! Or a poster with a picture of YOUR kid on it, large-as-life. What if it was a life-size cutout of your kid that a person could purchase? Think you might still think, "Oh, I'm just flattered they liked my image enough to use it!" Ummm .. likely not.

Here's the thing – when you're selling stock, you don't get to control how your image is used, in general. In the old days, people could buy your image and seriously do "whatever" they wanted with it. One particular case that I remember was a portrait of a man and a woman. Very nice portrait, the photographer had a model release, everything was fine. Everything was fine, that was, until they went to church one Sunday and, on the back of the flyer was an advertisement for safe sex and venereal diseases ... featuring ... yep, this lovely couple. They were mortified! Since those days, terms and conditions have been put in place to assure that images are not used in a means that could somehow embarrass or malign the people/animals/property being photographed/sold.

But there are some unscrupulous people out there that will buy your images and use them in a manner not consistent with the T&C's, or even worse, some that will steal your image via a comp download or screen shot of your image, removing the watermark using a photo manipulating program.

I'm sharing this kind of information to make sure you realize what COULD happen, before you think "Oh, I'll just take pics of my kids/family/husband/nieces/nephews .. etc." Probably 9 times out of 10, everything would be fine. People are getting more and more savvy about this stuff, and the lawsuits against the unscrupulous are pretty vicious, so it's my opinion that people are more wary about trying to pull this kind of crap. But then again, it's a big world and the Internet is HUGE and there are a LOT of people who think they'll never get caught.

Want an example? Well, here we go. :)

I'd like to introduce (although the more appropriate term might be "expose") you to "frecklebub." Nope, not sure if it's a man or a woman (although they have many photos of Mario Lopez in their Photobucket portfolio .. so I'm guessing woman), but I AM guessing they are somehow associated with the company "Magnet America" who sells their products through eBay. Here's why I make this association:

My friend Rita has two miniature pinschers. Here's a pic of one of them that she sells online (in 3 locations, if I remember right).

One day, she did a search on eBay for miniature pinschers, and imagine her surprise when she came across a magnet, being sold by Magnet America, that looked amazingly like her Pasquale (at least I think this is Pasquale .. you'll have to let me know if I'm wrong and this is Garbonzo, Rita .. and then never tell them their Aunt Kippy got them confused. Or, tell them and then tell them I'll send more pizzle ;) )


I did a couple screen shots and then just blended this so you didn't have to scroll down forever to see the magnet in question. It seemed to me at first that Rita was tickled to see her little guy on a magnet, so she actually ordered a couple.

Forget the fact that the site falsely advertised the QUALITY of the magnet, once Rita thought about it, she realized that she hadn't sold this image with an extended license anywhere. That meant no one should be able to sell her image and make a profit. So she investigated. She contacted the 2 stock sites where she'd sold the image to inquire about whether or not this company made a purchase there, and if they purchased the proper license that she just didn't realize.

I'm pretty sure it was iStock who said that the purchase came from them, and they sent Magnet America a "cease and decist" order.

To the point of writing this blog, I believe they have not honored iStock's request and they continue to sell the magnets.

Then, just the other day, Rita found the Photobucket portfolio for "frecklebub." Lo and behold, there AGAIN was her Pasquale. Now, I don't know enough about Photobucket to know whether this frecklebub is trying to claim that they TOOK this photo, or if they just have it in their portfolio. I also don't know if they took it from Rita, or they took it from the Magnet America site – it's kinda a convoluted mess. But the bottom line is, Rita is on high alert regarding this image right now, so to see it in someone's Photobucket portfolio .. well, she is pissed!

And y'know? I don't blame her!

When you take images of people and animals (or anything, really) that are special to you, you have more than a sense of pride and you like everyone to know that you took this awesome image. Then you see it all over the place, in peoples' online portfolios, with no mention of your name, no photo credit, and then actually FOR SALE somewhere? It goes from "flattering" to "infuriating" pretty damned fast.

So, Rita contacted Photobucket, and they removed the image from "frecklebub"s portfolio. Rita told me that Photobucket's T&C say that if there is more than one offense, the account will be suspended. So Rita went searching, and here's what she found within about 10 minutes:













Original photo by phototerry.

And ...














Original photo by shaunl.

So, here's the thing. You may "borrow" images for one purpose or another. As I've said before, using them in blogs, eh, not so huge a deal for ME, but some photographers will get REALLY offended if they see it. Just know that when you post something in your blog, you're probably taking someone else's passion and displaying it without giving them any credit for it. At the very least, maybe it would be cool to list the photographer's name, or maybe a link back to their images .. something like that. Now, of course, doing that makes it searchable online, so a photographer may google their name (I do it sometimes, too ... because sometimes I find my work being used where someone gave me credit, and I snag a copy for my portfolio and send them a thanks both for using my work and for listing my name) and find your blog and your use of their photo – so you might be opening yourself up a can of worms by doing it. All I can say is that for ME, if someone used my image in their blogs, I don't mind. In fact on Featurepics, I offer that option free of charge, so people can get low-res web versions without watermarks. But it would go a long way towards making me feel better, if someone said, "I didn't take this photo, but here's who did ..." or something, y'know? Eh, anyway .. that's just my opinion. I can't say how other photographers would react.

So if you're thinking about selling your images online, please keep in mind that you may never know if someone steals the image and uses it without your knowledge. If you don't want your images stolen, you simply should not put them online. For me, it's worth the risk. I need to get my name out there, spread the word that I exist. Opportunities come from selling your work on stock/microstock sites. A couple years ago, someone saw a picture of Dante I was selling online. They were a small greeting card company, just launching a line of breed-specific cards, and wondered if they could hire me to shoot an image for them. Um, heck yeah! :) So .. there are benefits and there are risks, and you need to weigh and assess both to make sure you make an informed decision.

(All the information regarding stolen images within this blog is taken from what Rita told me via IM, so I'm going from memory here. I'm not trying to slander anyone or malign any person or organization. I'm sure she'll correct me if any of it is misrepresented, but it's the truth as I can best recollect.)

Before I go off on my own tangents, I think I’ll answer the questions asked in the “Churning” blog. But of course I have to preface all of this by saying that most of what I say in this blog is just going to be my opinion, based upon my own experiences selling photos as stock images. While I obviously welcome any and all opposing views and opinions, I’d hope that people with differing experiences will join in to try to help give people another view, and not to be argumentative. In fact, I know some of you out there sell your images as stock, and I hope you WILL chime in with some of your own answers/experiences! I think that will give better, more rounded answers to the questions posed here, which will be more valuable than everything from my viewpoint only.

Ok, here we go!

Carolenablue: I'm wondering what types of photos really sell. Also, if you submit a photo to a stock site, do you still retain copyright to sell that photo on your own? Also, can you submit the same photo to more than one site?

Carol, I'm not sure if you'll be able to view this page if you're not already a submitter to iStock, but this is their "Most Popular Images" page. They are AWESOME about sharing this info with their submitters. You can choose what TYPE of image (photo, illustration, video, etc.) and most popular within the last week, month or 3 months. Hopefully this'll help a bit?

Shutterstock has something similar, but again, not sure if you can get there? They give you the top 50 images this week and the top 50 of all time, and also give you the top 100 keywords, which is a HUGE deal! Keywording can make or break your images, and there are some sites that actually offer to have a professional member of the staff keyword your images for you, for a small per-image premium.

All the stock sites I sell on, and all that I’ve ever encountered, leave you with the copyright to the image.  Unless you choose to sell exclusively via one site (many sites offer incentives to do so), you can submit images to as many sites as you want … with some exceptions. ☺ There are always exceptions, aren’t there?

Licensing is one of the most confusing things out there, as regards the stock sites (in my opinion, anyway). The two primary terms you’ll hear are “royalty free” and “rights managed.” I’ll try to explain the basic difference (many stock sites allow you to choose one or the other, or both, by the way):

Royalty-Free: This is the type of image that you’ll often hear old-school, more established photographers say is “ruining the photography industry.” It means you’re selling this image to anyone who wants to pay what you’re charging for it. When people buy this image, they’re usually getting the image relatively cheaply (in the case of microstock, often VERY cheaply), but a company across the hall, down the street or across the country can buy the exact same image. I actually have read of a lot of people who buy stock images to frame and hang on their wall! And why not? If you don’t care who else has a copy, and you just like what it looks like, and like the colors, what’s it matter? If you’re looking for a specific image to match your décor, why not find it online for anywhere from $1 to $10? Cheaper than looking at an art show or something like that.

In general a company who buys an image Royalty-Free can use that image for up to a certain amount of copies. Oftentimes it’s something like 500,000 copies. If they want to have a larger print run than that, they’ll have to pay a “per copy” rate. That would be, say, for a magazine like Cosmo. Say they bought an image to run in one of their features. I’m sure their circulation is over 500,000, so they’d have to specify that when they purchased the image, and would be charged according to how many copies they plan to print.

Now, with very few exceptions, when you buy an image Royalty-Free, you can NOT re-sell it for profit. You can’t put it on T-shirts, can’t make magnets out of it, can’t print it out and try to sell it framed. A lot of companies/individuals have made that mistake and it is extremely costly for them if they get caught doing it.

Rights-Managed: This kind of licensing is usually more expensive (looking at $100-10,000 per image, from what I’ve seen), allows a lot larger print run, and “guarantees” the photographer will not sell the image for a specified amount of time following the sale. Sometimes it’s a year, sometimes it’s forever, depending on the agreement. There are a lot more stipulations involved with rights-managed, but I’ve never sold anything using that licensing, so I don’t know a whole lot about it.

Some Rights-Managed sites will not sell your images if you also sell Royalty-Free, for the aforementioned reason: They feel royalty-free sales are “killing/ruining” the photography industry. That’s their prerogative ... I do not agree, and I’ll go into my opinions later on. Hehe.

Tintalasia: How does one pluck up the courage to submit that first photo? =Þ

Ha! You were being a smartass with this question, but it’s a good one! Here’s the thing … just because a dozen friends and family tell you your photography is awesome does not mean you should try to sell your images on stock sites, for a few reasons:

•    Your friends and family are very likely not going to be 100% objective, and therefore not entirely honest, even if they have the best of intentions. They may build up a false sense of confidence that will cause huge confusion if/when the stock sites reject you.

•    You may not be shooting “stock” subjects. You might shoot awesome landscapes, beautiful portraits, etc. But you may not shoot “general” enough images that will be successful in the “stock photo” market.

•    You may not have a thick enough skin to handle rejection of some (or all) of your images, and this could potentially be very damaging not only to your self-esteem, but also to your future as a photographer.

All of that being said, here’s MY philosophy on all of that – one guarantee I can give you – you WILL NOT sell your images as stock photos if you don’t try.

What’s it gonna cost you except perhaps a little humble pie to give it a shot? Most stock sites do not charge you to post your images on their site, but they do require your images go through a review/approval process. It’s not easy and I don’t want to mislead you that it is. When you submit your first 10 (or however many the particular site requires) images, pull out all the stops and submit your very BEST images you have: little to no noise, tack sharp, not something you’ve seen a hundred times before – you need to really wow them. Especially now, when the market is getting so saturated.

Also, be careful when submitting for initial approval, as many sites only give you so many chances, and oftentime make you wait some time (weeks or months) until you can re-submit to them. So this isn’t something to attempt if you don’t think you have 10 good images that someone might want to buy. But your opinion of your work shouldn’t be so low that you’re scared to try (and if it is, I might question how you’re going to handle rejection … because believe me, there’s a LOT of it with the stock photo sites, and their forums are FILLED with people trying to argue why their images should be accepted).

Tintalasia: Ok, seriously. I think one thing that would be good to mention is sizing. Then there's lighting. I see many photos that have pronounced shadow and others with no shadow. How much photoshopping is acceptable? How much special effect is too much.

Sizing ... you should probably not submit to stock sites unless you are shooting with at least a 6 mp camera, at this point. If you’re shooting film, well, good luck. Unless you have a top of the line slide/film scanner, I don’t think you’re likely to get the sharpness and clarity these sites will be looking for. And for Heaven’s sake, do NOT upsize your images. Man, these sites go NUTS if you enlarge something!

Lighting ... y’know, this one’s a luck of the draw as regards reviewers. Some like shadows, some don’t. I’ve had some accepted and become great sellers on one site where another will tell me my lighting is “uneven.” In general (and this really IS general), stock sites like nice even lighting that allows for minimal deep shadows. While there are definitely some “artsy” shots in stock, I don’t see it as the predominant amount accepted, by any means.

Photoshopping … again, this is going to be a “luck of the draw” thing. For instance … this hot beverage macro has sold 16 times on Shutterstock between 1/18/08 and 3/7/08. Not gangbusters, but ok. iStock wouldn’t accept it due to excessive Photoshopping. I was amazed they could see it! What happened was, I had a very harsh reflection of the light I was using, and it showed in every large bubble. So, I went in and Photoshopped it out. iStock caught it. Do I think it would have stopped any buyer from buying it? Hell no. But .. that’s why I’m not a reviewer on iStock. ☺

That said, my fruit juice series, which is quite obviously Photoshopped, has been accepted fairly well everywhere. So I think I’d say, if you’re proficient enough in Photoshop that you can manipulate something and have people look at it and not know if it’s real or not .. in general you should be ok. However, in my opinion, that hot beverage macro above would be an exception to that statement.

Tintalasia: I remember you mentioned the texture of the paper in your (I think it was) cinnamon shot. Should one try to eliminate that? Oh and noise. Some photographers have their photos posted with titles such as, say... "flower with noise".

Absolutely try to eliminate paper/surface texture unless it somehow aids/adds to your image. Like, if you’re trying to show the texture in a textile … a tablecloth or something, and it helps your composition somehow. Say you’re trying to exaggerate the smoothness of something by showing it atop a rough texture. Otherwise, those people don’t like textured surfaces!

Noise is one of the things that is a hot button for me as regards stock sites. Here’s the thing - I’ve worked in Publishing/Printing since 1995. I think I have a fairly good grasp on how an image is going to print, using a web offset press (which is how most 4-color publications you see are printed). These “noise Nazis” as I call them, are out of control. Sure, you don’t want to buy an image that has a ton of gloppy digital or color noise. But some of the things they kick out as being “noisy” .. drives me INSANE! There are many instances where the “noise” or “grain” (not really the same, but for all intents and purposes they are interchangeable here) enhances the feel and mood of an image. Well guess what? They don’t give a rat’s patootie! And again, you’re going to fall into a “luck of the draw” thing here, too. One rater says it’s noisy, another may say they’re out of their minds. These reviewers are from all over the world, using all kinds of different equipment, monitors, ambient lighting – they are human, not infallible. But it is frustrating as all hell to get a really hot image rejected for noise when you know damned well it’s not something that would adversely affect the printing. So you have a choice … fight it (not recommended … there’s a TON of ego involved on these sites from all areas), resubmit it (presuming it’s a site that will allow you to do that. Some will penalize you and even kick you off the site for doing that), submit it elsewhere (my personal fave and option of choice) or try to sell it yourself through some other means.

However, sometimes the image just plain isn’t good enough! Take this first attempt at shooting saffron. iStock rejected it, so I tried my old standby, Shutterstock (who accepts probably 80% or more of what I submit to them). When even THEY rejected it, I knew I had a crap image on my hands, so I went back and re-shot it.

I resubmitted it to Shutterstock, who accepted it (this was the only one of my macro spice shots they didn’t accept) and just haven’t gotten around to resubmitting to iStock yet.

iStock rejected the cinnamon shot you mentioned with the following reasoning:


“This file contains artifacting when viewed at full size. This technical issue is commonly created by the quality settings in-camera, in post-processing or in RAWsettings. Artifacting may be the result of other factors such as excessive level adjustments.”

I sent Tint a full-size snip of the image ... I can’t see the artifacting that they’re talking about, and I think what they’re looking at is what I mentioned above ... the texture of the paper! Shutterstock accepted it and it’s sold 26 times between 1/18/08 and 3/6/08. So, am I going to bother reshooting it for iStock? Only if I ever get really, really bored. Is that the best attitude to have? Not if I want to make a lot of money shooting stock photography. ;)

victoriafire: How about, your personal experience and which sites do you prefer or have had problems with. Ummmmm ahhh yeah as far as money, do most sites charge a fee to sell on their sites or do they take a percentage?

Vikky, actually as regards the sites I like or don’t like, there’s an older blog (I’m thinking you probably haven’t seen it … I don’t think you were around much when I first posted it) that addresses that pretty well: Old Blog

And, I jumped ahead and addressed the fee thing up above. ☺

Ok, I think that addresses all the questions that've been asked so far ... but if I left something out, or if there are further questions, please let me know. If you've read this far, you deserve a drink, so go fix yourself one! haha. I hope this is helpful to someone at some point and please, please remember ... this is all just my opinion.

(yep, it's another long one, sorry!)

Every industry witnesses its own births and deaths. It’s a fact of life - with technological advances come the death of some and the birth of others. Case in point, who remembers 8-track tapes? My mom’s car actually had a built-in 8-track tape player. With each advancement, there are inevitably gripes from those who are feeling the financial strain associated with the death of their own particular facet of their beloved industry.

Photography is no different.

Now that decent “prosumer” cameras are becoming more and more affordable, professional photographers are starting to feel the squeeze, from product photographers to portrait photographers to stock photographers. The basic fact is, as more people have access to good equipment that takes a decent shot when set on “auto”, we photographers will find ourselves with reduced market share and opportunities. That’s a general statement, of course. There are ways around getting “squeezed out”, including finding a very niche market, offering things others can’t do, etc. But what I really want to talk about here is something I feel very strongly about – photographers as educators.

“Education is learning what you didn't even know you didn't know.” – Daniel Boorstin (1914 - 2004) U.S. historian

I believe it is our responsibility, as photographers, to educate people as to what good photography is really all about, and why they need us. It’s not as easy as just sitting back and waiting for clients to come to us because we’re good photographers. We can no longer let people know we can take a decent portrait and wait for them to call us when they need some family pictures taken. Now, Aunt Betty’s new Rebel XTi with the 18-55 kit lens, set on “auto” can take a decent enough pic that people are, in general, happy enough with, that they don’t “need” us. They sure as hell don’t need to spend money with us when they can get what they consider “satisfactory” results elsewhere. So what do we do? We could be like so many others – sit in a corner and lick our wounds and lash out at people, ranting about how Nikon and Canon are ruining our lives with their affordable decent-quality digital equipment. We can rail against the microstock photographer, who can very easily now be (and more and more often, is) the stay-at-home mom who is learning how to shoot while her kids are at school.

But why not be proactive? Educate! Show people the difference that good photography can make. I’m going to start this out with portrait photography examples, but I also want to continue later on with product photography, because I feel that’s where we have a better opportunity to educate and also a better chance at hitting customers right at their bottom line, showing them the value of our work.

Those of you who’ve been reading my blogs for a while are familiar with Amanda. She’s one of my standard models, a friend of mine. She’s very cute and has a really versatile look. She can look like a pin-up model from the 40s or she can look suave and sophisticated or cute like the girl next door. I have a lot of fun working with her .. she photographs extremely well.

Last year, before I started working with her, she had some portraits taken by a professional photographer in Reno. She told me about the shoot, and I told her I was also a photographer, and asked her if she’d be willing to let me take some shots sometime, too. She was definitely open to it and  told me she’d show me the other photographer’s work once she got the CD.

When I saw the images I didn’t even really know what to say. She asked me what I thought, and I felt I had to be honest with her. I should mention here that she was very happy with the results! She was excited and couldn’t wait to print up copies for her boyfriend. I was torn, not sure what I should or should not say. But I told her I’d be honest, and I was. I’d like to share some of my observations here, as well, to give an example of the kind of “educating” I’m talking about. But before I start, I want to say that I’m not going to list the photographer’s name here because I’m going to be fairly negative about the work. I’m not trying to disparage another photographer or trash them publicly. I just want to show people what kinds of things, in my opinion, they should be looking for when they get back proofs to a “professional” photo shoot. I’ll also show you my images from the shoot with her and her boyfriend, and point out my own flaws.

I would also like to mention that the images I have from her shoot with the other photographer are the raw images, right out of the camera. I don’t have my raw images readily available anymore so mine are already processed, but I will indeed give you some examples of raw vs. processed images from another shoot I did recently to give you an idea of how I work.

Ok, here we go.

First image: Image coloring shouldn’t be taken into account here because this is the raw image and color cast can easily be fixed in post-processing. Here are my problems with this image. First, the lighting is not sufficient. It is set low and to the left, with not enough light to the right to manage those really harsh shadows (like you see with the flower). The backdrop appears to be something shiny, like a shower curtain or something. There’s nothing wrong with using that as a backdrop, except that you get the reflections from the lights right behind her shoulders. Um, yes, and you should always make sure your backdrop goes all the way along behind the model. Apparently Amanda was told that this could be fixed in post-processing which, yeah, it can, but it’s not easy and it won’t look 100% natural. Why create that much work for yourself? I would also have had her step forward about 2’ or so, to separate her from the background a bit with dof (ie - to make the background a little blurry, to make her stand out a bit more), but that’s really a matter of taste.

Second image: Similar issues here, with the backdrop .. not sure what the material is. This almost looks like it might have been backlit, with the light leaving a hot spot in the upper left. Either way, it is distracting, in my opinion. While the backdrop not covering the entire image is less of an issue in this shot, it still gives a very shoddy impression. Bad pose all the way around, in my opinion. Now, I need to mention here that we all take shots like this! Well, you know, not like THIS exactly, but I mean to say there will be shots where you go “Oh boy, I shouldn’t have shot from that angle” – in instances like this, I would never have shown the client this shot. It would have gone into the “oops” pile and never seen the light of day again. :)

Third image: To me the problem here is, again, the lighting. When I look at this, the first things I see are the shadow her nose casts up into her eye and the shadow of her hand cast upon her chin. I’m not super-fond of the pose, but that’s just personal taste. The backdrop is also, again, a little distracting for me in that it still has a hot spot in the upper left.

Fourth image: Here’s an example, I think, where a variation in background color/tone is not a bad thing at all. With the exception of the actual fold in the lower left, I like the variation here. But again, we have that very harsh lighting from below, and it distorts her features in an unflattering manner, and causes some really distracting shadows.

One other thing that I made sure to point out to Amanda, was to look at the quality of the images when viewed at a larger size. Now, to be fair, most people (non-photographers) won’t know to look for this kind of stuff, but take a look at this example of teeth. I took a sample of Amanda’s mouth from one of this session’s shots, and compared it to a snapshot of Jeremy’s neice I’d taken just a week or so prior. The file/image sizes were comparable (both head shots), but look at the difference in detail in the mouth area. When you don’t have proper amounts of light, or don’t use the proper settings on the camera, to adjust for the light you DO have, you end up with very very mushy features. In the shot of Amanda, you can barely tell that you’re looking at separate teeth.  And again, to be 100% fair, if these images were printed out small (4x6 to 5x7) you probably wouldn’t really notice a huge difference anyway, unless you were really looking for it.

Ok, so it’s really easy to look at someone else’s work and point out all the flaws, right? :) Again, I really didn’t intend to just rip on another photographer (and I hope that, if you comment on this blog, you won't either - that wasn't my point in posting this info). This was just a very convenient example of a time when I got to try to “educate” someone as to the things they should be looking for. Amanda had an interest, at that point, of wanting to get into modeling. It was my opinion that if she sent out some of the samples above, people would not be overly impressed with her look, and, as her friend, I felt I had a responsibility to teach her some of the things she should look for when choosing (and keeping) a photographer. So, that said, here’s what my shoot with Amanda and Tony yielded.

Again, these are all color corrected and “fixed up” .. so it’s not exactly comparing apples to apples. The problems with these shots? I had a little harsh shadow action, too. Notice her chin on the main shot .. I have a shadow from her shoulder. Also, the light I had above was a bit too strong. You can see it specifically on his forehead in the main shot and her forehead in the screened shot at the top right.

I very rarely work with a patterned background (just a matter of personal taste), but the backgrounds that I do work with are non-reflective muslin, so that you don’t end up with any shine or reflections. Tony and Amanda are very into pirates, so when they told me they had costumes for Tony’s upcoming birthday party, I told them to bring them along for the shoot!



And again, in this first shot, I have the shadow issues. You can see a shadow on her  temple/forehead from the red bow, and on his forehead from her hat. If I were processing the shots now, I would probably get rid of them in Photoshop, but what a pain in  the neck! I think that for me, this is a matter of needing just a couple more lights in my studio. However, my studio is 1/2 of my bedroom and, given that our entire house is only 650 square feet, you can only imagine how tiny that makes my workin space. haha. So, more lights are just not an option for me right now. Not an excuse, just an explanation.

This last photo is, in my opinion, pretty close to spot on perfect. Well, for me, anyway. haha. I’m betting there are a ton of other people (photographers and not) who could tear it apart. But it’s pretty well exactly what I wanted out of the image.

I guess now’s as good a time as any to point out that I find portrait photography fun, but very, very challenging. I get all caught up in the moment and forget to look for things like crooked backdrops, annoying shadows, stray hairs, etc. I think that’s why it’s great to have an assistant working with you who can point these things out along the way. My goal for this last year (and will continue to be for the year to come) is to learn how to really see what I’m shooting. To notice details like these while I’m shooting. It’s really difficult. Especially when you’re doing something on-location and time is of the essence and there are non-cooperative children or animals involved. You sometimes find yourself just shooting whatever you can shoot and worrying about the details later. But I want to be better about seeing details sooner, rather than later!

Now, as promised, here are some “before and after” shots of a recent photo shoot. If you want to get an idea as to how I usually handle my photo shoots, here is a link to the page I set up for the client.

After the shoot, I went home and processed my favorite shots, then weeded out all the crap. I like to start the page out with my favorite shot(s) so that right away when they log in they get a “wow” reaction. I want them to see what the final product can/will look like, so when they look at my raw images (in the “unprocessed” link) they will see what can come of a shot. So, what I usually put up is just the images I corrected and then all the rest. This time I had a 2nd tier .. shots that I thought might be pretty good, but didn’t go through the time to do a full correction on, because we were really pressed for time.

Here’s where Aunt Betty, using a dslr like a point-and-shoot on ‘auto’, can’t hold a candle to a photographer who knows how to post-process images, and here’s where I feel I personally have a good advantage over some others. I may not be the greatest photographer, but I’m pretty decent at processing, which can sometimes make up for some deficiencies.

These are a couple of the images that the Sneed family chose to get printed for Christmas for friends and family (I’ll show you the image raw, right out of the camera, and then my edit of it). On the first one, the highlights were way too harsh, so everything needed to be balanced out a little. The lighting was extreme, due to it being so early in the morning, and there wasn’t much I could do about that (Jeremy was holding a reflector on them, off to the right). But I could at least balance out the highlights and shadows a bit in Photoshop.

Then with the 2nd one, I thought it was such a touching scene, but so ruined by that blown-out background. I played with this one a bit before I decided to go b/w with it .. I think they really stand out from the background far more in the b/w image. The tighter crop really helps, too.

On this last one, I just wanted to show the example of post-processing a little better. You might need to open it large to see the things I’m talking about. Again we had that harsh lighting that needed to be toned down and balanced a little. I also smoothed out a bit of the skin patchiness and got rid of some of the puffy eye issues. Oh yeah, and I almost always whiten peoples’ teeth just a little. :)



Plus, just for fun, here’s another thing Aunt Betty isn’t likely to be able to do – notice how the girl’s smile is turned kind of downward in the original shot? Take a look at my edit ... definitely a better expression, right?

Anyway, so as you can see, my images, as they come right out of the camera, are not always great, either. But you’ll also see, if you go to my web site linked above, that I also don’t include my “oops” shots for the client to see. Images where people had really bad facial expressions, or the shot was overly soft or the background was screwed up or really blown out – in my opinion there is no need for a client to ever know that kind of stuff exists.

The only time I make an exception for that kind of stuff is with event photography or if it’s a group of people I don’t know very well. Because I wouldn’t understand and have a good grasp on all the relationships at a larger event, I’m more prone to putting every shot out there, just in case. For example, at a wedding, I might have what I think is a bad shot of some people, but what if this is a long-lost granddaughter and grandfather, who have this incredible newfound relationship, and even if I think it’s technically a bad shot, but they love it? In instances like that, I don’t mind sharing even my “oops” shots, so long as they are not too oops. :)

"The supreme end of education is expert discernment of all things – the power to tell the good from the bad, the genuine from the counterfeit, and to prefer the good and the genuine to the bad and the counterfeit." – Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784) English lexicographer, critic

Now, I’ve gone off on a bit of a tangent to try to illustrate my point (big surprise, right?) but I want to get back around to my original thought. We, as photographers, are taught (and learn) to look for the details and find what makes a successful shot and what doesn’t. At the very least, we learn this from looking at our own photography and its progression. Non-photographer types will, yes, definitely know what they like. But they don’t look at the same things we do. I’m not saying that is a bad thing, actually. They will look at their emotional connection to an image, and not worry, in general, about the technical sides of it. But that’s not to say that we can’t educate people as to what other things we think they should be looking for when choosing a photographer.

We’ve seen the same trends within the Graphic Design industry. As the graphics and layout programs became more readily available and user-friendly, people stopped hiring artists to create marketing materials and started doing it on their own, without formal training in color theory and balance and layout & design. It is very hard to convince someone to spend $1,000 on an ad design, when they can just have Bob, down in Marketing, spend that $1,000 for the programs used to do the creation and add that responsibility to his job. They may not get a great ad designed, but eh, it’ll be “passable”. I’ve seen it a hundred times over the years. The savvy businesses will realize the value of a professionally-created design materials, but very often (and even moreso these days), it’s the bottom line that does the talking, and with shrinking budgets come growing “creative” responsibilities within organizations.

You know, as the world of photography changes, one can either choose to sit on the sidelines and watch the business pass them by, leaving them behind, or they can do something proactive to try to change it. I plan to have an “education” section on my new web site, that actually shows clients things like this. I don’t care if they know my process. I don’t feel threatened by that. I want to show them why they should use me as their photographer, rather than using Aunt Betty or the new guy in the office who has a really nice camera. I have always believed in the benefit of explaining “why”. When I train people for a job, I always make sure they understand why they have to do something a certain way. I want them to see the difference and understand the repercussions. To me, someone who understands “why” will always do a better job, make better choices, even come up with better innovations regarding the process.

I think that this kind of education is even more important as regards product photography, and I’ll be able to give you better examples (with all of my own photography - both the crappy and the good) in the next installment regarding photographers as educators.

Never again!

That's what I said when I organized Photopalooza '05. It was a group of photographers (2 more were also involved, but are not pictured here) from the Yahoo chat room #TheDarkroom. A get-together had been attempted twice before: once in Chicago, once in Costa Rica. For various reasons, it just never worked out, and then I decided I wanted to try to get something going in northern NV/CA.

As expected, a bunch of people expressed interest. Many even said, immediately, "Sign me up!" Well, I double majored at WMU, and one of those majors was in Communication, with an emphasis in small group communication. I'd led enough project groups and organized enough events to know that the initial interest does not equal the final attendee list. In order to weed out the serious from the optimistic, we arranged for lodging at a chateau up in Lake Tahoe, and asked for deposits from those who were serious.

That cut the attendee list by about 75%.

The event lasted for 8 days. I learned a lot about what to do, what to expect, and what I should have explained beforehand. I learned that not all photographers shoot the same way Jeremy and I do when we visit a new location: From sun-up to sun-down, if not longer, with breaks in the mid of the day when the light is bad. I put together an itinerary that was, well, to me, a photographer's dream. Turns out, it wasn't everyone's.

Day 1: Virginia City and the camel/emu races + an outdoor model shoot.









Day 2: Dawn Patrol for the hot air balloon races in Reno (3:30 a.m. start) and Fort Churchill.

Day 3: Ghost town day. First to Bodie (more commercial) and then to Masonic and the Chemung Mine (pictured) for a more "rustic" experience.







Day 4: Hiking to Frog and Winnemucca Lakes, and an indoor model shoot in the evening.

Day 5: Day off. I had to work, and the brakes had to be replaced on the car. Got a quickie brake job.

Day 6: Genoa Cemetery, Carson City waterfall, and then pack up and head to Lee Vining/Mono Lake, which is right outside the Tioga Pass entrance to Yosemite.







Day 7: Yosemite. Not led by me, but by Rob, who has a much better knowledge of the park than I do/did. Day started at about 4:30 a.m. and ended at about 11 p.m.

Day 8: Pretty light. Monitor Pass (pictured) which is also called the California Alps, Topaz Lake, and farewell party at Camp Richardson, up at Lake Tahoe.

Now, if you click on the days, it'll open up a very basic little photo "journal" of each day. Not all the links to other peoples' photos work, as they've been moved, removed, etc. But it'll give you an idea of some of the stuff we saw and some of the stuff we did.

But why the heck am I bringing it up now? Well, because I'm contemplating trying to put together another one for our close-knit group of photographers that I mentioned in my blog from a few days ago about stock photography.

At the very least, we all know each other much better than the folks who got together for that first inaugural event, and I think I can safely say we won't have some of the personality conflicts we had during that very, very long 8 days.

I'm thinking of planning for fewer days, and breaking them up a little better, so people can drop in and out of certain opportunities a little easier than the first one. When planning the original, it was unfathomable to me that people might not want to attend every little bit, want to soak up every single aspect and opportunity this area has to offer - again, because that's the way Jeremy and I are, and how we like to shoot. We beat the hell out of ourselves when we take vacations, because they often are very photography-intensive.

So ... my primary reason for posting this is to ask you all what you think. Some of you are photographers of varying skill levels and interest, and some of you are not. For those of you who enjoy your relationship with your camera, what do you think? How many days do you think you'd like to spend on a photography junket? How many hours a day do you think you'd like to be busy shooting? Would you prefer to drive a rental car or have someone who knows the area drive you around? Would you prefer someone take you to a location and "guide" you to different places, or simply take you and "let you loose" for a few hours at a time to explore and meet up at a certain time?

Obviously, I'll ask these questions of our SP group, as well, since they're the ones I'm putting the event together for, but I was curious about those who are also maybe not as rabid about photography as myself and some of those who'll be attending. :)

Thanks in advance for any thoughts and opinions! I promise to listen to them all and not be offended by any. ;)

This morning we gave it one more 'go' at finding bears to photograph. Once again, we found the tracks, but that was it. I think I'm done looking for the year. I hear they're still foraging, but I think most up in the mountains will be hibernating soon.

This heron was the most active wildlife up at Taylor Creek (near Lake Tahoe) this morning. The sky was a gorgeous pink, and he was noisy as heck! Between him and the mergansers, I don't blame the bears for staying away.
























So off we went to a place up in Kit Carson Pass called Woods Lake. The sun was already up but the lake was bathed in that gorgeous 'alpenglow' that we get at sunrise and sunset up here at these elevations (this was probably around 8,000 feet).

We spent about two hours or so shooting this lake. I probably could have stayed all day, but we're going back tomorrow, to capture some things better. I took the photo on the right here while actually laying on the ground, in the weeds at the edge of the water. I love the "frogs-eye view" :)


And can you believe these ice patterns? Holy cow! Now that I've seen the results I achieved, however, I know how I'm going to re-shoot it tomorrow.

But you should try to look at the image larger to see some of the amazing patterns. I was just in awe!





And then yep, there's me. I took a shot while standing on a log, looking into the water. And now, on to my absolute favorite subject ... Jeremy! I got some fantastic shots of him today. To me these all scream "nature photographer"!

As the title says, we're as prepared as we're gonna be for tomorrow's shoot. A couple cameras, couple tripods, couple flash units, couple remote shutter releases, a bunch of lenses, batteries, memory cards, a laptop, some reflectors, a card reader, some business cards and, well, various and sundry other little goodies and we're off to the biker rally! Tomorrow we'll be circulating amongst the motorcycle enthusiasts and asking to take their pictures wearing my client's eyewear. The images will be used in the client's '08 catalog and promotional materials and, in return, the "models" will receive a free pair of sunglasses, up to $50 in value. Not too shabby a deal, I think. I envision some really cool wide angle shots with the lights of the Reno strip in the background, and also some close-up facial shots. We'll see what the client's looking for as he shows me some examples tomorrow before we hit the streets of the Biggest Little City In The World. Wish us luck!

This, for those of you not "in the know", is my 2nd installment to the Picture Perfect challenge held every week (this week's theme being "prepared"). Ronnie, thanks for pointing out the link icon in the menu bar! I thought I had to actually know the html code ... what a moron I am! Thanks. :)

I had to wait until it was official before I told too many people about this, but since the subscription copies of Nevada Magazine are hitting peoples' mailboxes right now and I've gotten to see a copy, it's safe to share with you my first experience at being published (and paid for it) in a magazine that I'm not the Art Director for, PLUS my first time winning a magazine's photo contest!

You can find larger versions plus a bit of description at: http://www.geminaigraphics.com/nvmagsept07

I am definitely VERY excited!

(sorry, for those of you who already got this news via my Friends list e-mail blast) :)

The vast difference in temperature and climate between the valley in which we live and the mountains in which we explore can sometimes be remarkable. Especially in the spring! Jeremy and I started out this afternoon in the valley at around 60º and ended up playing in the mtns, where it was decidedly chillier. Well, the air temperature wasn't so much colder, but the ground temperature sure was! Especially for stupid photographers who didn't plan well enough to bring closed shoes for exploration. To be fair, we didn't expect to end up where we did. But to be more fair ... we know better! So here you see me, running through the snow in sandals, camera firmly attached, and Jeremy trying to wash off his muddy feet in freezing cold mountain spring water. I really thought these photos represented us and what we do on our weekends.

Last week when we were playing around in our ghillie suits, we were hanging around Little Washoe Lake and right before sunset we noticed the fish were jumping up out of the water to catch bugs. It was really impressive to see! I was lucky to catch a couple shots of them. This was probably my favorite.

We went for a drive to Mammoth Lakes, California yesterday, and stopped a lot on the way back for some photos. This is a unique winter .. not much snow, LOTS of freezing temps, so things look different than they often do in late January. We had a great time shooting, and Jeremy had, apparently, a great time shooting ME shooting. He said he thought it was neat to show some of the places I get into to get my shot, so above you can see me (very tiny, by design) in some beautiful settings (all shots taken by Jeremy, of course).