WARNING… WARNING… this tutorial isnt for free

I’m not sure what it is about photography, if it is the birth of all these social networking sites, the massive amount of information that is available on the internet about how to do it, how to edit it, but you will be amazed at the amount of flack you get when you mention to people that to watch a video tutorial on how you captured and edited an image has a price tag that costs less than a foot long at Subway.

Just one recent example is this:

Last week I posted an image of mine on a social networking site, gave details about how it was shot blar blar blar and at the end I mentioned that for those interested there was a video tutorial on how it was edited. (I do this as it firstly promotes the site and also let people know that a resource like this exists)

A few days later I jumped back on the site to add another image and saw how someone has provided feedback saying that they liked the shot but I should have mentioned that it was a paid tutorial. Now the comment is fine… but the thing is has photography gotten to a stage where people assume and expect it for free and if it isn’t for free, that you should be providing disclaimers saying as much. Especially when you sit back and consider that this person has clicked on the link I gave, gone to the Rubbing Pixels website home page for the first time, seen all the content on there, searched and found the tutorial I referred to, realized it wasn’t free and then felt so “ripped off” to make them go back to the image page on the community website and posted a comment reflecting their opinion and saying how others should to be warned about this. Now is it just me or it’s that just ridiculous !!

Aside from the design and running cost of a website like Rubbing Pixels, the 70 + tutorials on there with a running time close to if not more than 10 hours and combing over 10 years of photographic knowledge. Is creating, sharing and providing a resource like this worth nothing, especially if your one of the few professional photographers out there willing to share there knowledge in such detail do you really need to put a warning stating it isn’t for free, for all those people happy to spend thousands on gear but not willing to invest a cent on how to use or process their work and gear correctly.

Maybe people who think this way believe they should be able to turn up to a photography course without paying, walk into Dymocks and grab Scott Kelby’s latest book and walk out without paying saying to the checkout person “It’s ok, its just a book on how to shoot and edit photos”.

But to end on a good note and it’s worth pointing out that I do get a massive amount of positive feedback from people who love and appreciate having a resource like Rubbing Pixels at their finger tips and the people who make these kind of comments are few and 99% of the time their own work reflects their lack of investment in their knowledge on how to shoot and edit photos correctly.

Soapbox: Editing your images for the future

This post isn’t a complaint or criticism on other photographers, but just something I think all budding photographers or those who have jumped into the field and who are planning to sell their work should keep in mind regarding editing their images.

Over the past few years I have been involved in projects with companies that use my images along with other selected photographers. The images are for something like A3 Digital RGB or CMYK off set printing and the clients will ask for high res proof files at 300dpi and on more than one occasion the issue of image quality has come up from images supplied by some of these photographers.

The images look great when on the web but when supplied at high res the problems start. Some key problems of the high res images have been poor stitching alignment and blending of digital panoramic’s, pushing the image too far for shadow detail, over saturation banding and bleeding, poor film scanning etc.

When editing my own personal images film or digital all the editing is done for maximum print output. Sure something you can do with extracting more shadow detail looks great when sized down to a 900 pix wide jpeg. But print that image as a 50, 60 or 75 inch wide panoramic and your customer will be asking for a refund. Just because it looks good as a web sized jpeg doesn’t mean you do it. Especially if you are uploading this image on your web site and offering prints.

Just something to keep in mind when editing your work if you decide to dip your toe into the world of selling and printing your work to private customers and also commercial print projects.

Soapbox: A sad day for photographers and Marc Adamus

Peoples jealousy today has taken on a whole new meaning for me. Sure in the past I have been the recipient of peoples snide comments and emails giving me a spray about my work and faking colour etc. The usual !!

Why just two weeks ago someone sent me a fake email pretending to be Ken Duncan giving me a serve about my work.

Don’t these people have anything better to do… all I (we) do is take photos and sell them… why the hostility ?

I’m sure a lot of you know American Landscape Photographer Marc Adamus. If not you can check out his work here www.marcadamus.com. He has some amazing landscape work, wish my digital stuff looked like this.

Now some clown has gone out and created a web site with the soul intention to try and rip him to shreds www.marcadamuslies.com (now I hate posting this link as it only promotes this kind of crap) but it is interesting to see the extent some people go to. One can only assume jealousy is this guys (peoples) motivation along with missing the odd psychologist visit as well.

Have a look at the depth and research invested in this site… would have taken months if not longer to put together. He even gives it to other photographers who have made supporting comments about Marc’s work, along with screen captures of posted comments they made and his own opinions about their work as well.

It is so crazy that it seams like a joke… is it April the 1st already and no one told me ?

Of course like all sledges and fake emails they never post their real name. I guess in this case if they did it will make Marc’s lawyers job too easy.

Soapbox – Over stepping the line

It is always nice to receive emails from people who enjoy looking at your work or who find inspiration in it, then there are those asking for a bit of advice or how was that shot info and I am more than happy to reply when I can.

Then there are the emails that really over step the line and get your goat. The email below is one I got a few weeks ago from a photographer I have never spoken to before and who also has Australian images on his site.

There is the saying “There is no harm in asking” but I don’t know why photographers expect other photographers to release this kind of information. “How are your cards printed” yea sure no problem…. “what’s your best product line and what’s your sites product turn over….” bugger off.

I had to get my General Manager to send a reply to this email. It was different to the one I wanted to send.

Would you also like my company business plan and MYOB account profile. Gee wizz.

———————————————————-

Hello Matt,

I am a landscape photographer over here in NZ and am in the process of upgrading my site.

I am wondering if I can ask a couple of questions of you regarding your product lines if you don’t mind. Do you sell many of your greeting card packs ? They look really nice – are they digitally printed or off set printed ?

How is your canvas / triptych side of things going ? Do you mind letting me know what are the best products / sellers for you and approximately how much product you turn over from your site ?

Really nice site by the way and of course great images.

Hope all is well.

Cheers

(name with held)

————————————————————