Author: Leslie Burns

The next time you have someone say that your work is “too weird” or “too different” or “not what is being done” or the like, someone who is trying to rein you in and make your work “safer” and less, well, you, look at this guy’s work and think about just how fantastic it is. He doesn’t hold back–he follows his creative dream and we get to enjoy the results.

(hat tip to my husband for the original link)

Just in time for summer, there’s a new Creative Lube podcast available. This one steps away from the money (directly) for a moment to take a look at what being a creative and running a creative business means. Of course, there are some more practical hints in it too. Check it out (available on itunes too) and tell your colleagues.

*****

In a related summer-y note, I’ll be unavailable during the first week of July. I’m taking a little R&R break, so don’t expect any postings for me here or on the many forums I frequent. The Mac will be off, the cell, too, because it’s not a vacation if one brings/uses work tools!

When did you last take a break? If it’s been more than 6 months, now is a good time to schedule some time off. It will help your business (and your personal life). You’ll be more productive and happier when you get back to it.

Ah, summer…

Paul McEvoy shared this horrible craigslist posting for a photo gig in Maine. I’m surprised they don’t ask the photographer to genuflect before approaching the production crew as well. Sheesh.

I flagged it and think others should too. It’s an insult to photographers.

UPDATE: The post has been flagged for removal so let me just share the gist: shoot stills for Food Network (not for broadcast), all day (at least), get images edited and corrected on disc to producer within 7 days, sign over copyright, and get paid a whopping $150US for it.

There’s a new survey out about how teenagers are a fragmented and “schizophrenic” market. Basically, the report says that teens won’t buy/use a product/service because they are told to or told it’s cool, they themselves have to make that determination. In other words, it is the buyer who selects, for his/her own reasons, not blindly thinking what s/he is told to think or choosing for any other reason than it is right for her/his needs/wants.

I think this is very true for all market segments today and it applies to marketing your creative service to your buyers. There’s a lot more choice out there and clients (just like consumers) are selecting what is best for their needs and desires. And, they are willing to pay appropriately (that is, well) for the right creative work.

As I have been “preaching” for some time, selecting your targets is the most important thing you can do in your marketing. Select targets that are the most likely to be interested in your services and your ROI on all your tools will go up–as will your sales.

Marketing these days is more about presenting an offering to a buyer rather than convincing/selling the buyer on the product/service. You are not going to convince any intelligent client to buy your creative services by sending a postcard or buying a sourcebook ad or having a great website. It’s not like they are going to say to themselves, “I didn’t know I needed this service/product, but this great brochure has convinced me otherwise!” If they don’t need your kind of work, then no amount of marketing is going to change that.

But by telling your story consistently and across media, targeting potential clients who have used work like yours in the past or who somehow demonstrate that they may have a legitimate need/desire for your kind of work, you will give that intelligent buyer a chance to choose you for his/her own reasons. S/he will be aware that your company is out there and will understand what it is that you offer. So, if that client needs and wants work like yours, you will get the project. Clients like this will say “Hey, I need this kind of work for the Widget campaign and John Photographer makes images exactly like that; I’ll call him.”

Having come of age in the 80s, anything UK-related has a touch of coolness that still resonates in my formerly punk(ish) soul (okay…maybe not so “formerly”…). So, when EPUK approached me about contributing an article, I was very happy to oblige. EPUK is a group inspired by the Editorial Photographers (EP) group here in the states and they have taken that proverbial ball and run with it. Take some time to check out their site. They have loads of information helpful to photographers everywhere. I’m particularly inspired by their call to action on behalf of “citizen journalists.”

Anyway, when I reviewed the Manual they wanted to use, Websites: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, I noticed it needed a bit of updating. If you want to read the newest version, check it out on EPUK or download the pdf from the Manuals page of the BAP site.

For those of you who aren’t signed up for the Free Manual in Your Email service, there is a new Manual posted on the BAP website (the subscribers received it a month ago, and you could too, if you just signed up).

There are a few other new bits of news and info on the site as well. Click here to check it out.

Finally! There is now a group defending copyright holders and their rights in the USA. The Copyright Alliance is a new organization whose members include ASMP and PPA as well as filmmakers (MPAA), the Directors Guild of America, and even (rather surprisingly) Major League Baseball.

The APA is not listed as members on the CA website, but that doesn’t mean they are not members…or that they are. I’ll need to see what I can find out about that.

Anyway, go, sign up for their newsletter at least, share stories, and help them help us. We may finally have a strong(er) voice in DC and we should all help to promote this group.

The New York Times had several pages devoted to travel photography in their Sunday edition. That information, and more, is available on their website. [note: that link will be less useful after this week as it leads to the main Travel page–there are multiple articles there…for now]

Note also that I am not judging the information or the Times for their reporting or their contract.  Instead, I’m just being a consumer of interesting info and passing it on to you.

If you want to read something recent from the Times that is worth getting frustrated and huffy about, read this article about Microstock. The ending is particularly frustrating as it essentially says “photographers need to do MS because that’s where the future is headed.” Instead, it should say that IF photographers do MS, that’s where the future is headed.

There is an old saying that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will ring true. That is, people will believe it. We have a big, often repeated lie to overcome: digital is cheap.

Pretty much nothing in professional photography is cheap. We use Macs (overwhelmingly) which are higher priced (and much higher value, in my opinion), camera systems cost many thousands, the software licenses for things like Photoshop aren’t $29.95, and don’t even get me started on lights, stands, etc. Setting up a photo business is a large investment and maintaining it is not something you can do for a buck and a quarter. A good chunk of that cost is now directly related to maintaining the digital technology.

And yet, over and over, I hear photographers say “digital is cheap.” Look, it’s bad enough clients already have that in their minds–don’t contribute to that lie. Digital, even if you were given all the equipment, software, etc., is still not cheap. You have to process the images and that, dear friends, costs your time and your time is (as the other old saying goes) your money.

Let’s say you shoot 100 digital frames for your client. You need to convert them to something viewable for your client. You don’t just post (or hand over, heaven forbid!) the RAW images–you make jpegs and edit out the obvious clunkers (model with closed eyes, assistant in shot, whatever) and you present them in an aesthetically pleasing manner (web gallery or disk) that is branded to your business and looks better than just throwing them up on some server. You may even do some basic digital correction/retouching before the jpegs get seen. How long does it take you to do all that? Do you do it well–that is, do your images look good when you show them to your client?

If you are not charging for that time, effort, and expertise, you are cheating your business and making it much harder for you to be successful.

You are also making harder for the next photographer who does respect his/her business enough to charge for this.

The worst part of this lie is the implication within it: clients won’t pay for this. Horse-hockey (as Col. Potter used to say). Most clients will and those who won’t are not good clients. They are clients who are taking advantage of you. Why do you want to work with people who do not respect you and your business?

Only you can show clients that you value your work and your business. And you know, even when you feel less-than-self-confident, that your work is worth it. I definitely know it–I see it every day in the work my clients share with me.

Sequencing a portfolio has more of an impact than you might think. Yesterday, I had a client ask me to look at a prospective portfolio edit/sequence. I thought he had made some really strong choices, but there was something still not quite there about the whole thing. The flow was off and that made the individual images look weaker than they really are.

I made some suggestions, he made some changes, and between the both of us, we found a much better flow. Now the images look more related, showing a more cohesive sense of vision and, as a result, each individual image shows its own strength. The whole is better because its parts fit better in this order.

Unfortunately, there is no simple way to describe and teach good flow. It would make my life much easier if I could tell you all “put people who face the same way next to each other” or “similar object shapes go together” but there quite simply are no rules like that. Each work has its own best proceeding and following images; each image may, or may not, work well in a multi-image layout. What will work for your work may very well not work for any other photographer, and vice versa.

And, no matter what, even with the “best” sequencing and edit possible, there will always be someone who will have some problem with it. Perfection for all is simply not a reasonable goal.

A good portfolio edit and flow is, thus, not unlike the Supreme Court’s definition of pornography (or at least Justice Potter Stewart’s): I know it when I see it.