stupidity

On your marks

No Comments

Earlier today, I received an e-mail that read:

Good morning!

I am looking for a photographer that has the equipment to remove watermarks from a school proof photo. I have a letter from lifetouch giving me permission to do so.
Is this something that your studio is able to do?
If not, are you able to refer me elsewhere?

With sincere appreciation,

(name redacted)

A school portrait business like Lifetouch or for that matter, any other type of photography business would not give permission to remove a watermark. It doesn’t make any sense.

This is like asking, “Can you shoplift a jacket for me? I have a letter from the store giving me permission to do so.”

As all professional photographers should know, it’s illegal (and here) to remove, alter, or hide, a watermark or copyright notice from a picture of which you don’t own the copyright.

As every consumer should know, the easiest way to remove a watermark from a photo is to pay for it.

 

Professional Value

No Comments

Two days ago, the Victoria News, in British Columbia, published this:

The page was taken down the next day, just minutes after news radio station CKNW asked the newspaper for comment.

It’s bad enough to lay off news photographers, which many newspapers are doing these days. In fact, the Victoria News laid off its very experienced staff photographer last year. But it’s sheer stupidity when a large, international, for-profit company asks people to work for free.
Continue reading →

Cheap stock pictures fail yet again

No Comments

Was the federal “Department of Canadian Heritage” named ironically?

The National Post this week pointed out that the cheap stock pictures used by Canadian Heritage are from a foreign-owned picture agency and were shot by foreign photographers.

Why does this federal agency use foreign photos to promote Canadian culture? It suggested that Canadian photographers are too expensive.

Unfortunately, the National Post article is many years behind the times. The federal government’s practice of using cheap stock pictures from foreign photographers has been going on for a long time. That’s correct: the Canadian government avoids Canadian photographers and buys cheaper work from abroad.
Continue reading →

Avoid this Toronto photo contest

1 Comment

The city of Toronto, the same city that bans parents from taking pictures of their kids taking part in any activity at a recreational centre or arena, has launched another of its photo rights grabs. By simply entering this contest, you’re giving the city all rights to your pictures for all eternity.

Rule 14 includes:

Entering the contest constitutes an agreement by the contestant to give a royalty-free, world-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive license to the City, and anyone it authorizes, to display, distribute, modify, crop reproduce, and create derivative works of the entries, in whole or in part, in any media now existing or subsequently developed including the Internet, for any City purpose including, but not limited to, advertising and promotion.

Continue reading →

Recycling The Trash

No Comments

Here in Ontario, we’re in the early days of a provincial election and the three political parties are on the campaign trail.

This post could’ve been about the fact that the Conservatives don’t even have a business portrait of its leader and that several of its candidates also don’t have headshots. No portrait = invisible.

Or this post could’ve been about the NDP which had to cut-and-paste its candidate headshots onto a matching background since the party couldn’t figure out how to organize consistent portraits in the first place. [Edit May 13: It appears that the NDP’s first attempt at cut-and-paste onto a high-school blue background was so bad that they did the cut-and-paste all over again.]

Or this post could’ve been about the media handout pictures from the three parties. Those photos have no captions, no IDs, no information whatsoever. They are useless as media handouts.
Continue reading →

Close Enough

No Comments

If you made products for digital cameras, what kind of camera would you show on your web site to help market your products?

If you’re Eye-Fi, which makes WiFi-enabled memory cards, you would use an old film camera from last century. [Sorry, the link has gone dead. Screengrab below]. And to make it worse, you would state “The power of WiFi for the camera you love.”


Continue reading →

More or less

No Comments

Two corporate photographers were talking shop. The first photographer said that he recently charged $6,500 to produce 14 studio portraits for a company’s annual report. The second photographer replied, “They should’ve called me. I would’ve done it for $2,000.”

And there’s the problem.

The second photographer said he would’ve been happy to do the same work for less money. If this photographer was smart, he should’ve asked, “What did you do to earn that fee?”

Of course, the ideal situation is to figure out how to do the same work and be paid more. What would a photographer have to add in order to earn more?

Some photographers forget that it’s not supposed to be a race to the bottom. Photographers compete mostly with themselves. It’s not about charging less than another photographer but rather it’s about figuring out how to deliver more to the customer.

When the choice is between (a) doing the same work and getting paid more, or (b) doing the same work and getting paid less, it’s surprising how many photographers will choose less.

 

css.php