In my 40 years of copying paintings for artists I see a recurring problem to which I can offer a solution.

 The Problem:  Paintings done using reference photographs have too much contrast.

 The Reason:  Our eyes see a range of tones that stretch from 400-to-1 all the way to 10,0000,000-to-1 depending on various conditions. Film and prints don’t. Take an object seen by our eyes as jet black and put 400 times more light on it and it will look pure blank white. There are a lot of incremental steps of gradual lightening until we reach white.  Want to guess what film/print technology would do in the same scenario? Photograph the object to look jet black and then add…32 times more light before it goes to white. That means that the tonal range of the reference prints is missing most of the subtleties of gradation steps that we appreciate with our eyes viewing the original scene. The lights become far too light, too soon, conversely the darks.  Many a person, ( read: painter ), would assume that a picture doesn’t lie.  Really, though, it doesn’t tell the whole truth. Those missing gradations of tone make the picture very contrasty and if an artist paints from that reference, the painting is bound to have too much contrast. Once one stares at photographs intensely for a while it becomes very hard to be discriminating about how to adjust the tones for a painting; the photograph takes on a mantle of the authoritative rendition of the scene. An artist trying to adjust the tones from the reference photograph to something softer on the canvas often feels that the results are confusingly wimpy, not containing enough contrast. He/she doubts the interpretation because the authoritative reference is always boldly staring back, stating its  own case.

 The Solution:  Take at least 3 exposures of each reference scene; one that is too light, but that shows the darker parts of the scene with a lot of detail, a normal exposure for the mid-tones, and one that is too dark but which shows well the highlights that you want detail in. This method has two great functions: it allows one to see detail throughout the entire useful range of the reference area, therefore the artist doesn’t have the vexation of having to invent details and secondly, it forces the artist to start from the beginning of the interpretation process to establish his/her own criteria as to how light/dark the extremities of the contrast range will be and not be so distracted by the shortcomings of the photo-technology. The truly personal interpretive style of the artist will be much more apparent and appreciated.

The photograph in question shows the local bank manager extolling the Welcome and Expertise to be found at her bank.  As lovely and worthy as the manager and the company may be, the real reaction to such a poor photograph begs questions such as:

• Does one hand of the organization know what the other hand is doing? They have spent time and money to put this campaign together with certain standards applied at the head-office. Someone signed off on the master, what happened to the standards at the local level? Does this disparity carry through the whole organization?

• Has head office saddled the branch with the programme and not funded it at the local level, requiring the manager to stand against the wall while an employee shoots the picture?  Where’s the “Expertise” in this? How expert are these people

• Does the manager “hate having her picture taken” and just wants to get this over with and therefore will allow anything to pass just so long as she’s not discomforted further. “It’s good enough…”? If so, how will she deal with any problems that might arise with my account? Will she do whatever is the easiest way to get it out of her hair and not really look at the consequences?

• Does the manager or the person responsible for the production think that this is a good picture, telling the right story? If so, again, where’s the “Expertise” here?

•  How much does the bank really care about consistent quality in all its paradigms? Does it really look out for the details?

Am I being a bit harsh in my critique? Perhaps. But when the initial reaction to an important outreach is, “ Is this the best they can do?”  we find that a throwaway photograph can mean a throwaway outreach.

 My advice: hire a good professional photographer or don’t use a photograph you’re not proud of.

 While I am pretty good at it, when I am relied upon to wear all the hats in the creation of a message through photography I am distracted by too many elements of the process to be exceptional at all of them. And you’re hiring me in the hope of exceptional results. The truth is that commercial photographers’ main strengths are in the technical problem solving first and the details of the story-telling second. We can’t begin to tell the story until we have solved the myriad technical challenges. Everything about the real action of the direction of people and props is on hold until the tech side is ready for commitment to “film”. That plays out in real-life situations where we are often internally elated at solving these problems and are anxious to get to the story-telling because everyone is waiting for us to be able to get going. All the while we’ve also been fixated on what the action is planned to be; that’s why we have set up camera and lighting the way we did. It’s all planned out in our minds. All week long, leading up to this moment we have been mulling over solving the tech. of the plan. The problem is that once we get going with live action we tend to be so close emotionally to the “plans” that we have less ability to stand back and really see how well it is all working. We’re working the plan, with some flexibility of course, but it is a pretty predictable resulting image. And often less that what it could be.

 Enter the Art Director. Early on.  His or her responsibility is to have ( or devise) the total effect of the outreach and a sense of the angles,  perspective, lighting and nuances that will best present the message. They are unfettered by the technical stuff and have the time to reflect on the variations on the theme, directing it to be shot several times in slightly different ways to give a final choice that is exceptional. Just when I am congratulating myself in pulling off a great shot, the Art Director will say, “OK, now let’s try it this way…”. Invariably, it is the Art Director’s creative vision in the variations that makes the truly exceptional shot and we seldom use the “planned” shot in the end. (And once completed, that planned shot is often just when photographers tend to think it’s a wrap.) The world famous photographers rightly credited with great “self-created”commercial scenes all have talented assistants who do almost all of the technical stuff leaving the photographer time and energy to be a great Art Director. In the final tally of the costs to create and publish the images, the extra cost of the Art Director is a very minor component but one that will often make a huge difference in your viewer’s interest in your message.  

Many of your employees have been raised in a digital era and print media has never been as important for them as screen media. One of the bittersweet truths about digital imagery is that almost everything looks “good” on-screen. Sadly, though, as I’m sure you’ve discovered, most of what you see doesn’t print at all well when you try to do so. Print and screen have entirely separate technologies and specifications, with print being very much more restrictive in its settings. It takes years to understand what it takes to optimize an image for print: most employees have never had anywhere near the required practice to become proficient at supplying you with reliably printable images. Additionally they don’t really know what techniques and options are available you give you a finished file that sings and sizzles. You’ve paid good money to someone like me to create the negative with a wealth of promise, only to be exposing your viewers to a half-baked rendition of the vision.

I have a very large engineering firm as a nearly 40-year client. They bought out the raw files on the last job I shot for them. I made up some jpeg proofs of the scenes from adjusted versions that I quickly worked up from the raw files and sent them along as well for them to peruse. I later got a call from their employee “Photoshop person” who was vexed that he couldn’t get a selected raw file to open anywhere nearly as nicely as the proof. He, ( and many, many others ), didn’t know that raw files are typically two-part files and he had only opened one part of it. And in the end, the picture they used on their website was very lacklustre compared to its potential. I use this illustration to point out a very common scenario. When we ask the employees about Photoshop experience, many say that they “think” they have Photoshop and can work the files or that on further reflection admit that they only have Photoshop Elements, an amateur version reflecting their true knowledge.

So what to do? When in doubt and certainly wherever print is the possible end usage, give the file to an image-manipulation pro. I can recommend a few. If internet is the only use, be sure of your employee’s qualifications and software as well as making sure he/she has a good, calibrated monitor to work on. Calibrators are reasonably priced and essential. Give them the time necessary to do a good job and wherever possible a chance to review it the next day before going live. It is amazing how we can become so preoccupied with optimizing certain details of the files that some others, such as tonal range and contrast, go completely unnoticed until review the next day.

Be Involved and Immersed in your Overview Scenes, Not Just a Distant Observer

There are postcard views and there are your intimate views and experiences. Some of both types are likely to reward you later in your own memories or your sharing the stories with others. The postcard views are generally expansive and rather generic to everyone’s experiences. Pretty as they can be, they tend to be the minimum hoped-for generic remembrance of the site. I am inclined to shoot light on those sorts of pictures and instead go for the cultural immersion or personal-detail views that will make my story telling much more compelling because they celebrate first-hand experiences. Better for my memory and better for being able to engage my listeners/viewers later.  I want to make them yearn to follow in my footsteps and it is the special intimacies and discoveries that catch their imaginations of their own possibilities.

Give Your Friends Something To Do; Don't Just Stand Them Like Bowling Pins In Front Of the Monuments

Refine Your Vision: Don't Show Too Much

Compose to Full Viewfinder and Make Every Sq. cm. Count

Shoot Vertically When the Message Warrants

 When photographing people, the “moment” is hugely important. Be ready for that moment and don’t diddle around when people are trying to give you their best looks. Watch the background and move to keep poles and strange shapes growing out of people’s heads. Whenever desirable photograph people, ( such as the family gathering ), from above their heads. Doing so will make them look up at you to some degree. That will stretch their jaw lines and often eliminate double chins. It is even better when they lean forward andlook up. The slimmer their jaws, the better they’ll like the picture.

Show the Locals Actively Pursuing Their Culture

Be ready for the Moment: 3 pedicab drivers ride by on the Xian City Wall

 Be curious. Look over all the low walls and explore the side-streets. The paths less traveled are full of reward for they will show truer cultural details.

Often the Grand Sights, ( such as the Terracotta Warriors ), will have Profound Details and "Side Stories". Be Alert to the Other Possibilities to Tell These Stories

When Things Are Moving, Try to Anticipate the Moment of Best Composition and Arrangement of the Elements. Composition is Hugely Important to the Engagement of the Viewer

How has this movement grown from virtually nothing to the omnipresent state we find today? It started in America. A decade or so ago the Americans decided to change their copyright act 180 degrees from a prevailing international standard ( similar to Canada’s and others’ ) to a system where the photographer owns all rights and leases them to the clients. The clients pay for the original photography and the rights to use it later. This after intense lobbying to government by bodies such as the Professional Photographers of America, of which I am an otherwise longstanding happy member. Many Canadian photographers have started their practices after the American laws were changed. Because of the huge American presence in the media of most of our trade magazines and espousal of industry paradigms, many have assumed that the information from down South applies to us as well. There is no strong movement within the Canadian professional photography industry to counter this misinformation and in fact a large section of that industry is very vocal in its assumptions of erroneous entitlement.

The mismatch of assumption vs. reality is also caused by the fact that virtually none of the proponents have bothered to read the Canadian Copyright Act where they would find that photography is treated differently and separately to other art forms and issues. The general understanding of copyright does not apply universally to photography under our laws. Here is a quote from the Act to cement the issue:

Ownership of copyright

13. (1) Subject to this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.

Engraving, photograph or portrait

(2) Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.

Here’s the link to the Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/

I want to go on record as deploring the practice of user and royalty fees as being greedy and usurious. I believe that we should be charging a fair amount for services rendered and images provided, and bully-for–the-client if he/she can use them to great advantage. A builder would not expect to receive royalties on the profits made by a hotelier on the constant sale of the rooms he built for him.

No, the philosophical paradigm that should apply here is that the client should make a wise decision on which photographer to choose to represent his interests. Some photographers are better than others in conveying the client’s interests and may coincidentally charge more for their services. But whatever the fees, they should be based on a photographer receiving fair value for the effort expended and the background fixed costs. What the client then does with the pictures is nobody’s business but his; if he uses them to great advantage then perhaps he chose his photographer well. Fortunately, for now, at least, Canadian statute law affirms this principle. Beware though; there are proposals in front of Government that have been ( justifiably ) delayed for years that could change all that and confirm a greedier side to the Canadian persona. In the meantime, I suggest you challenge any assertions by photographers who demand usage fees and/or choose another photographer.

Most of us arrive at the photographer’s studio thinking we’ll try to make the best of a bad situation when doing our obligatory headshot. We’ll hope that at least one of the pictures won’t make us look too ugly… I see it differently. I see it as an opportunity for you to present yourself in a way that will compel the viewer to understand that you are the right person for his/her needs. I want to help give the viewers what they hope to find.

For all that you are in the world, you will be appreciated by your client as a leader. Not a leader for everything in their lives but for the issues at hand that they cannot deal with on their own and need help in resolving. Easy examples are accountants, doctors, lawyers, and realtors. They have specialized skills and we need their professional help and guidance on occasion. So too the members of the management teams and boards of companies and organizations. We viewers are hoping to glean a sense of the timbre of the person and the company. Do these look like people I want to deal with and can have some respect for, straight out of the box? (“ I’d like to get a good sense of the person I have a meeting with next week about a proposal: what’s she like? Can I trust this person?” ) These are more the thoughts in the searchers’ minds than interests in the beauty or happiness of the person pictured. Knowing what the viewer wants, and keeping that firmly in mind when being photographed, is the key to presenting effectively.

If I think of what an appealing leader looks like to me I would say that she looks like an authority figure, in the kindest sense of the word. Not authoritarian, but someone who looks like she’s been around, she knows her stuff, and that she’d be worth listening to. She has a quiet confidence of years of experience. (That may not truly be the case, but she looks like it) Secondly, because I am likely to think myself the vulnerable party in this transaction, I would find him very appealing if I could see that somehow he was telling me that he will take good care of me in return for the power and monies that I will give him. Thirdly, I want to immediately sense that I can trust her. And lastly I want to see him as being up for the dialogue: he’s personable, a team player who will bring me up to speed and who won’t just blow me off when I have a challenge or suggestion.

And we can leave it at that. These are the key values that your viewer is looking for, making you appear to be the right choice. All the other things that you are, the sports coach, the Brownie leader, the dog lover, can be discovered later, perhaps. Right now we want to keep it a really simple message that doesn’t need to bare your sole or distract you with wondering how to explain yourself. This is enough. We’ve got someone who’s saying “I will use my professional sphere of influence to your benefit, I’ll take good care of you, you can trust me, and I’ll make it as pleasant as possible along the way.”

A natural sense of vanity will play a roll in the look of your outreach but it’s not what you look like, it’s what you look like.

I have a compelling set of “tools” and insights that we can incorporate into our session that will help you firmly connect with your viewers to help them understand that you could be just the right choice for them, or to appreciate what you bring to the table. This will be a portrait of a leader. Our sessions last an average of just over an hour and allow us to definitively choose a favourite image that I will retouch and send to you by email. And, as always, it will be unconditionally guaranteed to please you.

I am happy to tell you that I have been photographing portraits, advertising and commercial/industrial/architectural images for 40 years. I have received numerous meritorious awards and my work is widely published. Please have a look at a brief portfolio at  http://www.destrube.com/ and specifically business portraits at  http://www.destrube.com/business.html