Usually when I'm blogging about good food, it's to report something new we've tried to make. This weekend we had a lot of good food, but did no cooking!

Earlier last week our friends, Scott and Sharon, called to ask us if we could come to their very casual, very impromptu wedding. Well of course we could, and of course we photographed it cuz, well, that's what we do. :) They assured us we weren't invited just to shoot the event (which we knew) but when it comes to friends, well, that's just how it goes.

I met Scott and Sharon about 8 or so years ago, when I rented the other half of the duplex they were living in and Casey (the black dog in the back) and Lucaya, my great dane, were best of pals. The best part of the wedding, to me, was how many dogs there were. Scott and Sharon have four, and people who attended the ceremony also brought their dogs. The dogs just milled around the backyard while the wedding was in progress. For example .. here was the prayer ...

As you can see, Sasha (the golden retriever) was getting some petting pretty much all through the ceremony. I really love dog people. :)

After the ceremony there was an incredible barbecue with some incredibly marinated beef, potato salad, barbecued beans and of course cake and champagne. Mmm.

That evening we went to a party at Andi & Bill's ranch. Some of you will remember Andi - she's Roy's "mom". Roy is the draft mix horse many of you have seen photos of before.

Yep, lots of rancher types .. LOTS of cowboy hats and big belt buckles. haha.

But everyone we met there was incredibly nice ... just like Andi and Bill. The food was incredible. Crab puffs and shrimp and chips & dips and all kinds of other appetizer type foods.

While everyone mingled and snacked, the meat for the night was grilling. This was just a little bit of the main course. There was also about an equal amount of salmon and then salads and boiled baby potatoes and fresh steamed green beans.

Man, we ate well this weekend! :)

Andi, whenever you get around to reading this ... the party was incredible! Thank you SO much for inviting us to such an awesome event.

This was Andi (in the beautiful skirt) showing some people the horses. Their property is just so beautiful and serene. It has a gorgeous open view of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, sunset, and much of the valley. There was a nice steady wind, enough to keep away the flies but not enough to blow stuff around .. a miracle in Nevada. :)

This morning Jeremy got up at 4:30 a.m. to drive to Colorado for work. He made it to Moab tonight, and is going to get up early to go shooting around sunrise tomorrow, continuing on to Colorado in the morning. I spent the day painting the library (same color as the kitchen/dining room), in preparation for getting our shelving set up in there. Jeremy's folks are coming to visit in October and I really really want to get that room set up before they get here. Here's hoping we can swing it.

Hope you've all had a great weekend. :)

Oh, P.S. - If you notice my page header and right-hand ad and other graphics missing, hopefully it's just temporary. My current web hoster is having issue with their servers, and my web site (and email, for those trying to reach me that way this weekend) is down right now. Once they're back up, everything should magically return.

fotoLibra has a new photo call and this one allows enough time not only for you to get registered on their site, but to try to shoot something for it! Many of their photo calls are for things UK-specific, so this one is PERFECT for so many of you, because you can shoot it from ANYWHERE in the world! Get your creative juices flowing and give it a shot. What's the worst that can happen, you don't sell it? So what? There's a chance you could make some money, and at the very least you'll hopefully have fun trying! TRY! Stop saying "I should try that sometime" .. this opportunity is perfect! It's fun, bright, cheery.

As my elementary school gym teacher used to say, "How do you spell can't?"

Our proper response was to shout back, "T-R-Y!" And believe me, she had a hook for her left hand, so you definitely shouted what you were supposed to shout or fear the wrath of "the hook." Not that anyone ever really GOT the wrath .. but we always feared it.

So, here's the info about the photo call:

2008-07-25 PICTURE CALL Color Fun Colour

Hi Members

Here is a terrific opportunity to exercise your wit, talent, creativity, humor, sense of fun, imagination — all your creative juices need to be flowing for this great Picture Call for a new series of cheerful greetings cards.

YOU choose the subject, any subject. It just needs to be colourful, eyecatching and amusing.

Looking at the first published selection (shown here) you'll see that the images needed are bright and fun, some with a touch of humour, others more serious and pretty. The card publishers want to add 6-8 more to this range for January, so if you have any great ideas please upload them.

They want to add different subject areas, as well as the more obvious cakes/sweets, so all concepts are welcome, even if they seem a bit off the wall.

Two extra tidbits to bear in mind — 1) you've got all the summer hols to do this in as the pix aren't needed till the end of August, and 2) greetings card publishers pay well. But the images, and the creative thinking behind them, need to be really, really exceptional. A very small amount of work with the Saturation slider in Photoshop may be acceptable in this instance.

Minimum pixel dimensions: 2500 x 2500
Square, landscape or portrait; colour (they'll be printed as square)
Deadline: Monday August 28th 2008; 09:00 GMT

To submit images to Picture Calls in fotoLibra, simply click on the Picture Call megaphone icon below a thumbnail in your Collections, and select the COLOR FUN COLOUR Call from the drop-down menu which appears. If you have suitable images already in your Collections, follow the same procedure.

Kind regards

Jacqui Norman

Some of you may remember this picture from last winter. It was one of the images I submitted to Nevada Magazine this year for their 2008 Great Nevada Picture Hunt contest. Last year I won their Wide Open category (first time being published in a magazine I don't produce .. haha). I just got this email regarding this year's contest:

Kippy, Pete, Janice, & Gary:

At least one of your photos was chosen for our new Readers' Choice 
competition in this year's Great Nevada Picture Hunt. Readers will 
vote for their favorite on our Web site, and the winner will be 
published in the Nov./Dec. issue. Please check the following, which 
is the text that will accompany your photo in the Sept./Oct. issue:

It then goes on to list 5 photos with accompanying credit and title. If you do the math you'll see 4 people addressed in the email and yet 5 photos were listed. Why's that? Cuz, wahoo, apparently I am the only one with TWO photos in the contest this year!

Here's the second that's in the running:

So, the two images will be published in the Sept/Oct issue of the magazine, and hey, I have greater odds than any of the rest of the contenders, right? Which really just means that if I DON'T win I'll feel even worse. *laugh* Nah, teasing. Hey, I just like getting my work in print. The more people see my name, the more they'll remember me.

I am jazzed!! :)

The final concert for the BDAA conference was last night. It was impressive, FILLED with incredible talent. But a little disappointing for me, because it was very "orchestral" in feel, and less "gypsy" as some of the past concerts have been. I took some video, and I'll try to string some together for you later this week, but know that it's not the typical Balalaika concert I'm used to and have been explaining these last couple years. Next time I go to one of THOSE I will videotape it so you can see what I'm talking about. :)

So, since I was disappointed by my photo ops and results from last night, I found myself another victim today. We were watching tv when all of a sudden Dante walked over to the corner of the coffee table looking VERY interested! When I saw what he was looking at I immediately told him to "leave it!" I was afraid he'd hurt it, inadvertently, and I didn't want it hurt. I wanted to shoot it, and then let it go outside. Thus the title for this blog. ;) C'mon, you wouldn't REALLY think I meant anything other than something along these lines, would you?

How aaaaawesome is this mantis? I love these bugs, I must admit. I love their curiosity! My biggest problem in shooting this? Trying to get close enough to shoot him, but keeping far enough away that he wouldn't keep climbing onto my lens! After shooting him, I took him out on a piece of tupperware and left him to regain his senses (after all that flashing) in the weeds beside the house.

Hope you all have a great upcoming week. :)

I did it! I got up to 5 steps on the ladder before I felt like my heart was going to explode, but 5 steps was just high enough. Jeremy said, as he was holding the ladder that didn't really NEED to be held, "Do you want to go up one more step?"

"Not if I want to live through this."

:)

The setting wasn't the most beautiful .. tonight's photos will be much better. But I did it. *whew*

Thought I'd share one of my "oops"es, too. After the big group photo I told everyone if they wanted smaller group/individual shots, I'd be happy to take them for them. Some of you know I gave Steve a bit of a hard time in some recent wedding photos, where the groom was dipping the bride and in the background was a fencepost, so it looked like he was about to impale his new bride's head on a post. haha. I told him that's one of the biggest challenges of wedding photography - watching the background while still getting "the moment."

Well, there are two musicians at this event who are supposed to be THE top in the world of balalaika/domra musicians. There simply are none better .. they are world-renowned. So there were TONS of people wanting photos taken with them.

Here's one of them.

The shot will be cropped and edited, but do you see my mistake?

We went out to lunch after shooting and as I was sitting there chimping (ask Jeremy, if you don't know the term), I came to this shot and just groaned. *sigh* I showed Jeremy, and he instantly saw it, too. Had I been paying attention to the background, I'd have moved them. Unfortunately, they didn't speak much English and I DEFINITELY don't speak Russian, so I was definitely not focused on the right thing.

Ah well. I'm sure I'll do better tonight! Hope you're all having a fabulous weekend. :)

Tonight I photographed the opening concert for the Balalaika Festival. Well, I don't think that's the technical term for it. Basically, for the next 7 days, there will be music and poetry and dancing and LOTS of drinking, and over 150 balalaika/domra musicians from around the world, celebrating their art in Reno. Jeremy works with one of the guys who is in the Sierra Nevada Balalaika Orchestra. Once, a couple years ago, he asked around work to see if anyone would like to come see a concert. Apparently it's not such a hot topic, because only Jeremy and I and one other woman went. She left halfway through. I, on the other hand, was enthralled! I'd never heard anything like it. It was an outdoor concert under the stars and there was an energy I'd never experienced before. I took pictures. A lot of pictures. Afterwards, I made a little web page with some of the pics and sent the link to Jeremy. He forwarded it to his co-worker, who forwarded it to the other musicians.

Fast forward in time, and Jeremy and I photographed the leader of the SNBO, Zeny's daughter, Jaime's wedding last year. I've photographed a few concerts for them. And, when Zeny found out that they would be having the 30th annual conference in Reno this year, he asked if I would be interested in photographing some of it. Would I?! :)

So, this was the first concert, in Wingfield Park, which is actually an island in the middle of the Truckee River. Next, I'll be photographing their Vodka tasting Tuesday night, and then their group photo (150+ musicians, with instruments) next Saturday morning and then their final concert Saturday evening. I love the music. It makes me smile. :) It was fun watching the little girl in the bellydancing garb enjoying her dance, too.

Driving home hurt. After standing for an hour and a half, my leg was lodging its complaints. Thank goodness for cruise control, because switching from the gas pedal to the brake pedal and back was a bitch.

So, then I came home and terrorized a moth. :)

Hope your weekend and evening was as exciting as mine. ;)

The smoke seems to have cleared out of our valley a little today. I could actually see the mountains while I drove to work today .. woo-hoo! Hopefully that will alleviate some of the funk this area has been in. I guess it's inevitable that the overall mood is a bit down when you're "grayed" in for days on end, with a constant smell of wildfire. I just keep trying to remind people ... we're the LUCKY ones! We're not in the way of the fires!

Of course it's a mixed blessing because now those 100º temps they were predicting are actually making their way through. With the smoke, the sun has been blocked enough that we've only been in the 80s this week But today is already warmer. Ah well, good with bad, right?

My friend Tint sent me an email with a powerpoint file showcasing the photography/artwork of a British artist named Carl Warner. He specializes in ... get this ... foodscapes! Yes! He makes landscapes out of food! Don't believe it could look good? Take a gander!

Well, this weekend _I_ am gonna give it a try! Obviously I won't be near as good as him right out of the gate, but I love food and I love photography ... what's the harm in trying, right? Hopefully I'll have something fun to show for it. :)

Speaking of food, my friend Diane has a unique challenge and she posted a plea on my guest book that I told her I'd repeat here in my blog: "kippy, i was just wondering if any of your amazing friends on-line have any food allergies? i'm in need of recipes. katie was food allergy tested tuesday and of course came up positive for milk, soy and corn. i'm milk and yeast and hubby is tomato. i'm hoping there is someone out there that has some great recipes. thanks for letting my hi-jack your comment space for a lil' bit!" Man .. I don't know what I'd do if I was allergic to that much! Can anyone offer her any help?

And lastly, speaking of photography, we were clued in to an area of Lake Tahoe that has an inordinate amount of bear activity this year. My friend Kathy called to tell me about the amazing pictures some friends of hers got while camping there this week ... of mama and baby, etc. So you know where Jeremy and I will be. :) Saturday we have stuff to do, but Sunday morning we are headed up there with the big lenses and bear spray and by golly we are going to photograph us some bears if we have to troll a big ham slathered in bacon grease behind us! ;)

Hope everyone else has a great weekend!

FREELANCING
One of my freelance jobs right now is to photograph some ATV luggage for one of my clients. I didn't realize what the inserts were when I put the luggage together, thus the saggy corners, so don't judge that. At the end of one day's shoot, Jeremy said I should put together a joke shot for their rifle bag. Usually the rifle goes inside a waterproof bag and is folded into the top of the bag. We threw the WASR-10 on top and I sent them an e-mail suggesting they consider diversification of their product, given the current Middle Eastern social climate. I'm trying not to take it too personally that they haven't gotten back to me yet. Ha. (I'm just kidding .. they're my top client .. we have a good working relationship) I know some of you don't like guns, especially guns that look like this, but try to take it for the joke that was intended. :)

HELP! NEED A PHOTOGRAPHER!
A friend of mine sent me an email the other day with a plea:

"my nephew in Post Falls, ID (which is spittin' distance from Coeur d'Alene and Spokane, WA) is getting married August 23. He really really wants photos and is not sure how to go about finding one. He thought about you and wondered if you knew anyone through your photography networks in that area or knew how to find someone to talk to. Would you have any ideas for him???"

I told her I'd ask here ... anyone out there in this area that would be willing to shoot a wedding? My guess is, they don't want to spend thousands of dollars, so they're not looking for someone who's a long-time established pro (ie - it's ok if you're not a professional wedding photographer .. just that you know your camera well enough to get them some decent shots). I would definitely expect this to be a PAID gig .. just not for thousands of dollars. Get what I mean? I'd really appreciate any help .. if you're interested or know anyone who'd be interested, please let me know! Spread the word, folks. :)

Please help ... her last email said: "Jason is desperate and almost ready to offer you a plane ticket!" - I do NOT want to shoot weddings anymore, but would be unable to say no. I think she's kidding ... but I'm afraid she's not! :) So please .. if you know anyone at all, please let me know.

PANAMA, ANYONE?

Today, our good friend Scott sent me an email. Scott's one of the more talented photographers I know. His work has sold countless times and he's been exhibited all over Colorado (primarily the Denver area) and has even had his photo chosen as photo-of-the-day ... TWICE .. by the Smithsonian.com web site! He's also one of the nicest, most down-to-earth people I know. We met him on a trip out there last year when Robin took us to photograph the baby mountain goats on Mt. Evans.

At any rate, Scott has invited Jeremy and I to join him on a trip to Panama in January of 2009 to go shooting with a good friend of his, Jay Mills (copyrighted photo seen there on the right). The route we'd follow would have us taking a 7-hour bus ride through Costa Rica to get there - it's been a while since I've been this excited about the possibility of an adventure! We're still gathering details, but we are seriously considering taking him up on the offer, so long as it works with my deadlines and we can budget it properly.

It also just so happens I have a very good friend I used to know in the Darkroom, who lives in Costa Rica and has been trying to get Jeremy and I to come down to visit for years.

I think we may just do it! Of course I'll keep you posted, but I'm very excited by the idea!

To see more about the whole trip, see some info here in Scott's blog.

I would also encourage you to check out Scott's photography .. especially if you like somewhat dark and/or out of the ordinary GORGEOUS landscapes and nature.

Ok, I have a second "feel good" news post. But this isn't from a news source. I hope the people I'm blogging about will forgive me for boasting on their behalf. ;)

First is Becky. EckyBay. You may not be aware, but she recently (like within the last couple weeks) decided to try her hand at selling some of her work via microstock.

Not only was she quickly accepted by a couple, but she sold her first photo a couple days ago on Dreamstime! This amazing image of morels .. I love it. :)

I'm so happy for her and love to hear when my friends have photographic success! Despite some misconceptions, microstock is not easy, and to make a sale within the first week of being accepted? Well that's just awesome, Becky. Congrats!

My friend Christi is also now selling via iStock!

She's been selling there for a while, but this image you see to the right is her hot seller right now. And as she describes it, she just happened to look over and see her friend's daughter wearing these cute tights and shoes and took the shot. No real forethought, no planning, no studio setup, nothing. And it's sold 8 times in about a month!

If you're interested, you can view her entire portfolio here.

I just think it's neat that photographers I know are using images they've taken that, in the old days, would likely just sit on their hard drive and do nothing, and selling them to make some extra money. Are any of us getting rich? Well, no, not really. But we all also have full-time jobs and are just doing this on the side. It's something that came from a love of photography, and hey, who would have a problem with someone wanting to send you $100 every once in a while?

And lastly, my friend Andi. Remember Andi? Roy's mom?

Andi's very new to the photography game. I think she just got her camera within the last 6-8 months. I've hung out with her a time or two, and tried to help show a few things (but truth told I'm not really a very good teacher).

Well, Andi won a local photo contest! With this picture of some goslings her neighbor had. The picture's going to be in this Friday's paper .. I am SO excited for her! And she said another friend of hers would like her to come over to photograph her horses! See? When the passion's there, the photos follow. :)

Congratulations all my photographically talented friends! I know there are more of you out there with your own success stories. Patrick won an award and made some sales recently, Sandy is selling images all the time, Carol is photographing weddings ... it's awesome, you guys! Really awesome! I hope the successes just keep on rolling in. :)

No, no, no. Not the Infrared Space Observatory (photo courtesy of NASA, via Wikipedia)! The International Organization for Standardization. Um, yes. An organization which "standardizes" everything .. except acronyms, obviously. Otherwise shouldn't it be IOS? Ok, well, whatever. I digress.

ISO is basically "film speed." Also sometimes referred to (in them thar olden days) as ASA.

Yesterday a friend of mine sent me an email asking my thoughts on defining how ISO applies to digital photography. So last night Jeremy and I were discussing it while driving up to Reno. Well, that and the physiological basis of fear response in human beings as it applies to post-traumatic-stress disorder and evolution of society as we know it. *whew* Yep, it was one of those nights. :)

So I decided to blog about "What ISO means to me."

I'll warn you right now this is not going to be technical. I'm not going to use the word "halide" in my entire post (well, except for just now). For those of you who are just joooonesing for something technical, here, again from Wiki:

Film speed is found from a plot of optical density vs. log of exposure for the film, known as the D–log H curve or Hurter–Driffield curve. There typically are five regions in the curve: the base + fog, the toe, the linear region, the shoulder, and the overexposed region. For black and white negative film, the “speed point” m is the point on the curve where density exceeds the base + fog density by 0.1 when the negative is developed so that a point n where the log of exposure is 1.3 units greater than the exposure at point m has a density 0.8 greater than the density at point m. The exposure Hm, in lux-s, is that for point m when the specified contrast condition is satisfied. The ISO arithmetic speed then is

    S = \frac {0.8} {H_\mathrm{m}} .

Determining speed for color negative film is similar in concept but more complex because it involves separate curves for blue, green, and red. The film is processed according to the film manufacturer’s recommendations rather than to a specified contrast. ISO speed for color reversal film is determined from the middle rather than the threshold of the curve; it again involves separate curves for blue, green, and red, and the film is processed according to the film manufacturer’s recommendations.

Riiiight. Jeremy started launching into a definition of film grain referring to silver um, "that word I'm not going to use" and emulsion and I flashed over to something I read from Susan and my brain checked out. As I told Jeremy, he and Susan are gonna have a blast talking about all that technical crap. But it's soooo not me.

I can tell you how I shoot. I can show you, it is something that has just become "intuitive" to me. But I can't tell you all the technical workings behind it. Jeremy could probably explain every little function within the camera, what it does, why it works the way it works. I ADMIRE it, I just can't force my brain to work that way. So Susan, when you come up, you and Jeremy can talk all the technical jargon to your little hearts' content. He'll probably love it, because I don't really have those conversations with him.

Anyway .. ISO. I think that the general opinion is:

Low ISO = clear, sharp images
High ISO = noisy, not-so-sharp images

We-ellll .. maybe. What I have found is that moreso than ISO (and this is all as regards shooting digitally .. I can't speak to film usage), amount of light greatly affects noise in images. As I understand it, images that are clipped (underexposed) actually contain LESS color data than images that are blown (overexposed), and the dark areas hold more of the noise than the light. So, when you open an underexposed image in Photoshop and try to lighten it, you're also lightening the noisiness and therefore making it more obvious.

My mentor (who has shot for Audi and Ferrarri and some diamond manufacturers, etc.) told me that he shoots EVERYTHING at ISO 200. Why? Because he claimed that it gives better tonal range. But doesn't it add more noise, I asked? Nope, not if you allow enough light in. Hm. Interesting. So I tried it. You know what? I think there "might" be a little more noise at 200, but the images are soooo much nicer! They just "feel" better. The contrasts are not so harsh, and the images are warm. And he was right! When you allow enough light, images at ISO 200 just feel better.

Do I still shoot at ISO 100? Yep, sadly I do. Why? Because most stock sites are noise nazis.  They are not interested in the "feel" of an image and rarely take into account how it will print. They just want no noise, period. When I'm shooting artsy stuff for myself, I often bump up to 200. When I'm shooting for stock I try very hard to keep at 100.

So what's all this about light, then? You're supposed to what, carry a big flashlight?

Nope, there are a few different ways to get "more light" into the picture (so to speak). You can increase your shutter speed (shutter open for a longer time, allows more light in) or widen your aperture (set a lower f-stop number). Widening your aperture basically means when the camera opens up to take the picture, it's going to increase the opening through which light is admitted a little more. The reason a smaller number means a larger aperture is because you're dealing with a ratio. For instance, when you see something like:

f/8. What that means is f (focal length) divided by 8. If you set your camera to f/2.8 then you get focal length divided by 2.8. Now, it's not that you need to know all the math behind it, I'm just explaining why a lower number means more light, because this was something that confused me to the point of near tears when I was trying to wrap my mind around it. Say your focal length is 10 meters (in reality it doesn't matter WHAT it is .. I'm just illustrating there).

f/8 = 10 divided by 8 = 1.25 (for argument let's just call this "units of light" being allowed into the camera)

f/2.8 = 10 divided by 2.8 = 3.57 "units of light"

So, see why a lower number = more light being let into the camera? It's a ratio, so you get more units of light the lower you set your f-stop. This also affects your depth of field, but I won't go into it now except to say that a lower (wider) f-stop will give you a more shallow depth-of-field. That means less of the image will be in focus. So if you're trying to shoot an object and make it stand out from the background using focal plane (ie - you want the background really fuzzy), use a lower (wider) f-stop. If you want a lot of the image, front to back, in focus, you need to increase (tighten) your aperture, so use a higher (smaller) f-stop.

*sigh* once more this is getting away from me and ending up longer than I wanted it to be. Not too much longer now, I promise! I'll curtail my tangents.

So, the thing is .. when people bump up their ISO (to like 800, 1600, even 3200 on some digital cameras) they are usually doing so because they are shooting in low-light situations. A restaurant, a concert, whatever. They increase the ISO (effective "light sensitivity") because they want to be able to shoot a faster shutter speed. Say you're trying to get pics of your kid's birthday party and the restaurant is kind of dark, if you have a low ISO and your camera operates on "auto", it may well be taking images at something like 1/10 of a second .. or even longer! Maybe a full second - it's trying to get enough light let into the shot to make it something recognizable. Think how quickly your kids move! You need a way faster shutter speed to catch something that is not a complete blur. So you bump up the ISO, to make the camera "more sensitive" to the light that is available. Awesome .. so now the camera is shooting a faster shutter speed, but the pictures are going to be noisy. The reasons for that are, when the camera is "more sensitive" to light, it is more sensitive to ALL ambient factors, including dust in the air, fluctuating light patterns based on reflections and refractions, etc. It is picking up all kinds of particles that our naked eye isn't even seeing. Think a camera can't pick up on something invisible to the naked eye? Ask Andi about shooting with my macro lens last week. :)

So, you're shooting in a dark restaurant, with a camera set for "increased sensitivity" and you are likely still shooting underexposed images, to boot, because the shadows are darker and more vast than the camera will likely be able to judge. That's a triple threat. If you were shooting ISO 1600 in a studio, with plenty of lighting and ample shutter speed, you'd still have noise, but it wouldn't be NEAR as much.

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is, yes. A good "general rule of thumb" is that lower ISO will give you less noise and clearer images and higher ISO will give you more noise in your images. But there are a LOT of exceptions to that generality, and the more you learn about the relationship between ISO, shutter speed, aperture and available light, the better off you'll be.

If you actually made it through this entire post, you deserve a cookie. Go treat yourself! :)

Thanks to this one pushy broad on my friends list, I've signed myself up for another stock photo site, "fotoLIBRA". I don't have anything posted there yet .. I've just barely begun to acquaint myself with it. But while reading through their submission guidelines, I came upon this list of suggestions/information that I found really interesting. Some I knew, some I didn't. Figured I'd share it here.

GWYN HEADLEY’S SHOTS OF REDEMPTION
from fotolibra Submission Guidelines for Photographer Members
©fotoLIBRA, January 2008

•• The following tips from fotolibra’s founder apply to the majority of photographic situations, but were written mainly with outdoor photography in mind. He makes no claim to be a photographer himself, but he does know what sells.

•• Portrait (vertical) images outsell landscape (horizontal) images by about 60:40.

•• Most books and magazines are portrait in orientation, and buyers and designers often like to see large blank areas (sky, sea, fields) where headlines and copy can be dropped in.

•• Jigsaws demand quite the opposite; lots of colour, lots of detail, all in sharp focus. (I never thought of anyone using an image of mine as a jigsaw puzzle. Funny he mentions it .. I wonder if the market is big for that? It really makes me think .. now I want to try shooting some images that might make good, challenging jigsaw puzzles!)

•• If you see a wonderful photo opportunity, take it in both landscape and portrait formats.

•• Good skies are important.

•• If you can get back to the location, take it in spring, summer, autumn and winter, snow and sun, dawn and dusk, mist and fog, rain and shine, storm and stress.

•• Be careful not to overdo contrast.

•• Use a tripod wherever possible. (got that, Sandy? haha)

•• When using digital, always shoot in RAW and convert to tiff later.

•• Make sure your horizons are level and your sea doesn’t slope.

•• For those who are trained in perspective control or are experienced with rising front cameras, converging verticals can be corrected in a photo manipulation program such as Photoshop.

•• If you have a large collection (over 500 images) covering a particular subject make sure you tell fotolibra about it.

•• Make use of reflections in water, even in wet roads and pavements.

•• Look carefully around and beyond the subject of your photograph, especially at the edges of the frame, and check what’s intruding into your shot. (something I've been trying really really hard to be aware of this year.)

•• Take photographs in the early morning and late evening.

•• When the light is flat with few shadows, photograph details which need low contrast, such as inscriptions, carvings, etc.

•• Please do not upload photographs of sunsets. They do not sell. Scenes shot during sunsets are fine, but not when the sunset is the subject of the image.

•• Exceptions prove the rule.

•• Every picture must tell a story.

•• Take your time.

This was an absolutely AWESOME list. I'm so glad they included it in their guidelines.

I realized that recently my blogs seemed to have a purpose and weren't so much "life updates." Maybe that was good. hehe. But here's a 60-second update. Ready? Go!

• I just got the following email:
"Congratulations! You have reached $500 or more in all time Shutterstock earnings and your Standard License payout rate has been increased 20% to $0.30 per download." - Whee! For those who think a raise from 25¢ to 30¢ is no big deal, just think, instead of being at $500, I could be at $600 for the same amount of work and sales. :)

(p.s. added after-the-fact ... this was my first 30¢ sale on Shutterstock. Ain't he a handsome boy?? :) hm. Had to link to the image on iStock cuz the one from Shutterstock wouldn't remain in the post for whatever bizarro reason)

• We were supposed to close on the house this Thursday, so I set up all the utilities to be switched over then, and for the cable company to come on Friday to hook up our cable and internet, etc. However, last Thursday our loan officer told us she was still waiting for the papers back for the grant. She said we should have them Friday. Friday she told us we should have them Monday. Yesterday she told us we should have them today. She says we should "still be on track for signing papers Wednesday, but may not 'close' until Thursday or Friday." I don't know what all this stuff means, but our agent so far has not gotten back to me since my email to him on SATURDAY, so I have no clue when we're supposed to do a walk-through or anything. No one seems to want to give us any straight answers, but I'll tell you one thing. I am NOT signing (or having Jeremy sign, as the case may be) any paperwork that says we owe any company hundreds of thousands of dollars until we walk through that house and make sure everything is good and unless we get the keys right then and there.

• I'm hoping we get in there quickly, just for the dogs' sakes. They are so nervous and antsy lately. Understandably so ... they've lost their pool, and much of the household belongings. I would say probably 60% of our house is packed up on a trailer right now. I keep sitting them down to try to reassure and explain it to them. They're such good dogs .. they look at me, ears cocked and eyes locked on mine. I think they're trying to get what I'm saying, but all it really comes out to is "blah blah blah treats blah blah blah pool blah blah blah play!"

• If we could at all afford to have someone else pack for us whenever we next move, I think we just might.

Those of you who are creative types ... or really, anyone who's ever "created" something (any art or craft, perhaps a culinary creation, painted a wall ...) – you know that feeling you get when you step away from that thing for a while and then come back to it and with a sense of mixed pride and awe you think, "Hey. _I_ made/did/created/painted/whatever that!"?

Today I got this box in the mail here at work. I left the picture as I took it, amongst my water bottle and lunch bowl and everything, because it's rather unimpressive, sitting here on my desk. Big deal. It's a box.

But see, it's a box whose label I designed. :) Tamarack is one of my largest freelance clients, and I've shot most of their product images for the last few years, designed a lot of their packaging, catalogs, etc. They made a design change to their foot pegs, so I'm re-shooting the studio image of them, thus the reason I received the box today. But it was just sitting on my desk and I glanced over and had that thought. Hey. _I_ designed that! _I_ took those photos (except the inset one .. I didn't know how foot pegs worked on ATVs and put them in the wrong place when I did the on-location shot. Oops!) The background photo, which you can't see very well, is Red Lake, CA, right up here off Hwy 88.

Last year, Jeremy and I were walking through Sportsman's Warehouse, and Tamarack manufactures some products private-label for them. I got all excited when we saw the ATV boxes on display and we looked all around for the actual labeling, but apparently that was back in some warehouse. I was really pleased with that set of labels because I used one of my photos of the harriers we shot locally for the background of it. Ah well.

So, I think this might well  be the first time I see one of my designs "in action" as the case may be. It's just kinda neat. :)

Nope, not the movie. The place.

You ever have one of those places where, every time you think of it you just get overwhelmed by a feeling ... almost like a big magnet? Like something there is pulling at something within you, and you just don't feel like there's anywhere else in the world where everything could feel so "right."

My "place" is the U.P. (Upper Peninsula of Michigan). More specifically, the Keweenaw Peninsula. Even more specifically, Lake Superior. This morning found me listening to Asia, which had me reminiscing about the early '80s, which brought me to the area where I grew up. For those unfamiliar with the area, here's a bit of an overview ...

Michigan is basically made up of 2 peninsulas, joined by a bridge. Not that I should downplay the bridge ... It's the longest suspension bridge  between anchorages in the western hemisphere  - longer than the Golden Gate Bridge - about 5 miles long. The state is surrounded by 3 of the 5 Great Lakes in the United States.

On this map (from Wikipedia) I've circled 2 spots in red. The one at the top left is Ontonagon, where I grew up as a kid. I circled the other, toward the bottom, just because it was there and labeled. Kalamazoo (they sell t-shirts there that say "Yes, there really is a Kalamazoo!") is where I went to college. It was, to my recollection, about an 11-12 hour drive from home to school (to give you an idea of scale). Michigan's the largest state east of the Mississippi.

The U.P. (the upper part of Michigan, which does not resemble a mitten) is 1/3 of Michigan's land mass (about the size of Denmark, for those of you across the pond), but holds only 3% of the population .. so that right there should give you an idea of what it's like up there. In a word, "remote."

There's been a movement ever since I can remember for the U.P. to become its own state, named "Superior." I'm thinkin' there's no way it'll ever happen, but it's something to talk about. The "Porkies" (Porcupine Mountains) in the U.P. are said to be the oldest in North America. I grew up about 10 miles to the east of them, and, like a typical kid, I took everything around me for granted. This is Lake Of The Clouds, in the Porkies, taken on our trip out there last fall. Guess you can tell by my new header and this pic ... I'm attracted to dramatic skies.

Growing up in such a remote area made for a very small town upbringing. Our nearest shopping mall, fast food, movie theater or university were 60 miles, either east or west. We were pretty much in the middle. As many of you already know, my parents were big "live off the land" types – hunters. I grew up on a lot of wild game, I knew the woods around the Potato River like the back of my hand, and I knew which mushrooms I could or could not eat, and knew the perfect time to pick the unfurled ferns for a wild salad.

Ours was a dirt road that turned to pure mud in the springtime. I remember many years of not being able to park in our driveway, instead having to park at the end of the road and walk up. I also remember many winters being snowed into our house during a huge "lake effect" snowstorm (note the dogs and cats that have climbed up the snow pile and onto the roof, where it was warmer thanks to the sun).

We had 3 ponds on the property, and my friends would come over to my house to go skating in the winter. I don't think I owned a key to our house, because it was never locked, that I can remember. But then, no one ever locked their cars, either. I used to joke that you could leave a wad of cash sitting on the front seat of your car, windows down, engine running, parked in the middle of town and never worry about it. When I'd stay in town at my friend Heather's house, we'd put up a lemonade stand in the summer and one year the pastor from her church came by and gave us five DOLLARS! I remember that afternoon spent with candy from the five-and-dime and comic books on the steps of the library. And yes, like small towns back then, we walked everywhere without parental supervision. Interestingly, nothing bad ever happened. In a small town, everyone looks out for everyone else. Well, that's the nice way of saying "everyone noses into everyone else's business."

Kids respected elders there, I remember that for sure. I don't ever remember there being graffiti or destruction of peoples' property, though surely there must have been. I remember riding ATVs, catching frogs, sledding parties, going Christmas caroling (something I really, really miss) door-to-door and trick-or-treating (also door-to-door). I guess life was just a lot simpler and more innocent up there, for the most part. It was a good place to grow up.

Maybe that's why I feel such a strong draw there now, later in life.

So much of the Keweenaw Peninsula still seems that way. It's remote, and I'd say nature most definitely outweighs people up there. Especially on the eastern shoreline, where half the roads that go from town to town are still dirt. Jeremy and I went there last fall – I'd never even been to some of those locations. It is awesome! I think there is a Starbucks now in the U.P. ... in Marquette. There are some bigger box stores up in the Houghton area, but other than that, you're not going to find many amenities up in the Keweenaw. What you will find is wildlife, lots and lots of trees, and the Lake. That incredible, huge lake (one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world - some will say THE largest, but depends whether you're talking perimeter, depth, or surface area), from which you can actually navigate your way, by boat, to the Atlantic Ocean. The tallest wave ever recorded on Superior was 31 feet (it sometimes resembles an ocean) and to date there are about 350 commercial ships recorded to've wrecked in its legendary storms and other times, the last major of which was the Edmund Fitzgerald (you might know the song).

There's a lot of "wild and free" feeling, being up there. A good place to go get lost in nature, definitely. If you want a few quick glimpses into what kind of scenery calls me there, here's a link to Steve Brimm's photography (phenomenal examples of the beauty of the U.P. and Lake Superior) - make sure to look at some of the other pages (I don't think page 1 is his most impressive) for some waterfalls and fall colors and wildlife.

There was no real purpose for this blog today. Just found myself daydreaming of faraway times and faraway places and thought I'd share, for anyone who wanted to visit along with me. :)

Last year someone in one of the forums I frequented posted a copy of a document called Photographer's Rights, written by Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at Law. I've included it as a pdf attachment to this blog (scroll to the bottom of the post), in case anyone wants to download it and share it with others, or keep a copy on-hand.

By no means is this to be a definitive "guide" for you to know what you can and can not photograph, but it's a good general indicator by which you can gauge your actions and the actions of others and respond accordingly. Also, this applies only to the U.S. I know that a version exists for the U.K. as well, but I don't have a copy, sorry.

I've re-typed it here in this blog so that those not wanting to download the pdf do not have to do so.



About this Guide
Confrontations that impair the constitutional right to make images are becoming more common. To fight the abuse of your right to free expression, you need to know your rights to take photographs and the remedies available if your rights are infringed.

The General Rule
The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.

Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right ot prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonaby assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.

(note from Kippy: This does NOT mean that it is ok to SELL images of a person's private property without a signed release. It simply is speaking to your ability to take the photo)

Some Exceptions to the Rule
There are some exceptions to the general rule. A significant one is that commanders of military installations can prohibit photographs of specific areas when they deem it necessary to protect national security. The U.S. Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated nuclear facilities although the publicly visible areas of nuclear facilities are usually not designated as such.

Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.

Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:

accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers

Who is Likely to Violate Your Rights
Most confrontations are started by security guards and employees of organizations who fear photography. The most common reason given is security but often such persons have no articulated reason. Security is rarely a legitimate reason for restricting photography. Taking a photograph is not a terrorits act nor can a business legitimately assert that taking a photograph of a subject in public view infringes on its trade secrets.

On occasion, law enforcement officers may object to photography but most understand that people have the right to take photographs and do not interfere with photographers. They do have the right to keep you away from areas where you may impede their activities or endanger safety. However, they do not have the legal right to prohibit you from taking photographs from other locations.

They Have Limited Rights to Bother, Question, or Detain You
Although anyone has the right to approach a person in a public place and ask questions, persistent and unwanted conduct done without a legitimate purpose is a crime in many states if it causes serious annoyance. You are under no obligation to explain the purpose of your photography nor do you have to disclose your identity except in states that require it upon request by a law enforcement officer.

If the conduct goes beyond mere questioning, all states have laws that make coercion and harassment criminal offenses. The specific elements vary among the states but in general it is unlawful for anyone to instill a fear that they may injure you, damage or take your property, or falsely accuse you of a crime just because you are taking photographs.

Private parties have very limited rights to detain you against your will and may be subject to criminal and civil charges should they attempt to do so. ALthough the laws in most states authorize citizen's arrests, such authority is very narrow. In general, citizen's arrests can be made only for felonies or crimes committed in the person's presence. Failure to abide by these requirements usually means that the person is liable for a tort such as false imprisonment.

They Have No Right to Confiscate Your Film
Sometimes agents acting for entities such as owners of industrial plants and shoppin malls may ask you to hand over your film (note from Kippy: I would assume that anywhere you see "film" in this section, the same is be true for memory cards/sticks). Absent a court order, private parties have no right to confiscate your film. Taking your film directly or indirectly by threatening to use force or call a law enforcement agency can constitute criminal offenses such as theft and coercion. It can likewise constitute a civil tort such as conversion. Law enforcement officers may have the authority to seize film when making an arrest but otherwise must obtain a court order.

Your Legal Remedies If Harassed
If someone has threatened, intimidated, or detained you because you were taking photographs, they may be liable for crimes such as kidnapping, coercion, and theft. In such cases, you should report them to the police.

You may also have civil remedies against such persons and their employers. The torts for which you may be entitled to compensation include assault, conversion, false imprisonment, and violation of your constitutional rights.

Other Remedies If Harassed
If you are disinclined to take legal action, there are still things you can do that contribute to protecting the right to take photographs.

(1) Call the local newspaper and see if they are interested in running a story. Many newspapers feel that civil liberties are worthy of serious coverage.

(2) Write to or call the supervisor of the person involved, or the legal or public relations department of the entity, and complain about the event.

(3) Make the event publicly known on an Internet forum that deals with photography or civil rights issues.

How to Handle Confrontations
Most confrontations can be defused by being courteous and respectful. If the party becomes pushy, combative or unreasonably hostile, consider calling the police. Above all, use good judgment and don't allow an event to escalate into violence.

In the event you are threatened with detention or asked to surrender your film, asking the following questions can help ensure that you will have the evidence to enforce your legal rights:

1. What is the person's name?

2. Who is their employer?

3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do they intend to stop you if you decide to leave? What legal basis do they assert for the detention?

4. Likewise, if they demand your film, what legal basis do they assert for the confiscation?

Disclaimer
This is a general education guide about the right to take photographs and is necessarily limited in scope. For more information about the laws that affect photography, I refer you to the second edition of my book, Legal Handbook for Photographers (Amherst Media, 2006).

This guide is not intended to be legal advice nor does it create an attorney client relationship. Readers should seek the advice of a competent attorney when they need legal advice regarding a specific situation.

Published by:
Bert P. Krages II
Attorney at Law
6665 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97223
www.krages.com
© 2003 Bert P. Krages II

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!

Nope, it's not a dirty blog or anything. :) Just taking the time to show off some of my photographic deficiency.

Heather and Jammy, this blog's for you! (hm, sounds like a familiar commercial)

For those not following or unaware, I was trying to explain wide angle photography to Heather in this photo album, and failing. So, I thought I'd take a moment to show you some of my wide angle (or "wangle") oopses.

Ok, here's the thing. Even when the wide angle distorts, sometimes I really like it. This whole series of shots of my friend Caroline were distorted to some extent, but not THIS distorted. See how huge that front tire looks?

The thing I've found with the wide angle lens is that things that fall to the extremes (the edges and corners) are simply going to be distorted, period. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Here, it doesn't.

I made it worse by getting down really low to the ground to take the shot, which just made the tire seem that much larger.

The thing with wide angle shots is that it makes everything NOT in those extreme spots seem REALLY far away.

So, what it comes down to is, when you're shooting things very wide (like at 10mm - the smaller the number, the wider the angle), the things that fall on the edges and corners are going to appear closer than they really are, and everything else is going to dramatically fall way (super fast) and seem further away than usual. It's a very surreal effect.

In the shot of this building, it's really obvious, I think. I promise, this building really is kinda square-ish. But again, the top of the building is in the extreme edge, so it looks closer than everything else which is pushed way far away. In actuality I was probably only about 10 feet or so away from the edge of this building. Maybe 15 (I'm a bad judge of this stuff).

Take a look at that sidewalk! Doesn't it look like I'm about to slide off the edge of it and fall onto the street? Again, that's cuz it's at the extremes. If I had tilted the camera down about an inch, I probably could have gotten my feet in the shot, too.

And this is an example of a shot that is technically not good, but I love just for the sentimentality of it.

Parts of Clayton (the dad) falls into the extremes on the edges so he looks kind of gigantic in areas. And as you can see, the fridge and oven look like something kind of out of a Tim Burton movie. Another thing wide angle lenses are good at doing is making vertical things shoot out toward the edges. This is particularly bothersome when photographing things like forests and such. Y'know, where all the trees are supposed to be vertical? haha. And instead the trees to the left of center angle progressively more to the left and the opposite on the right.

It's a tough lens to learn how to use and half the time I fail miserably. I'm sure it was originally designed for landscapes (it works great for things like water scenes, where the distortion isn't noticeable), but I LOVE the effect in portraits. Unfortunately, most other people seem to NOT like their legs looking 3x as long as their torso, or their hands being 5x as big as their head, etc. haha. I'm convinced a wide angle CAN be a great lens for unique portraits, but it is tough, indeed.

For reference, mine is the 10-20mm Sigma. It's not quite fisheye, because with the sensor on the Canon Rebel XT, there is a 1.6x conversion when you attach a lens, but it's fairly close.

Heather, I hope this explained it just a little better than I could in the other spot. :)

P.S. - This stuff is primarily a "self-taught" deal for me. Any other photographers with any input, please feel free to chime in! Especially if it's to correct something about which I may've misinformed, or to clarify. :)

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. ;)