Photosmudger On the Road

Business Brief/Plymouth College of Art.

All of Rob's Work.

My Critique

Good:

• Technically very impressive. Something that stunned us when we visited Plymouth was the incredibly high percentage of students who knew how to wield a light or two, even outdoors!
• Good range and depth of shots and locations - enough to build a feature out of.
• Strong DPS opener (3), everything all named properly and handed in just right.
• A couple of very strong portraits (1,5). I'll admit I have a particular fondness for location portraits, and the one taken in the underpass (5), with the flash/ambient mix, is probably in the top 5 shots we saw throughout the whole brief. Technically spot on, lovely frame with a good balance between environment and subject, and just the right amount of ambient burning out to give it some mood.

• Biggest problem of all, is that the work doesn't answer the brief very clearly, in fact on first glance we thought this was a submission for the Sunday Supplement brief, as it seems to be mostly portraits of someone who could potentially be a Hollywood actor. We understand (and know it's our fault!) that the business brief was a touch open ended, but fundamentally we were looking for illustrations for the article, which was about business and ethics. Not very much of this comes across in these shots, without a bit of mental agility on the part of the viewer. I know Rob was actually setting out to make portraits of "Will Hutton", but we did point out in the brief that he wasn't available, therefore if you used portraits to illustrate this brief we'd like them to be creative illustrations of the business/ethics debate.
• The environment shot (4) doesn't fit in with the set at all - whichever way you interpret the brief it feels like an afterthought.
• It's not really a criticism, more a pointer for future reference, but be careful of what is called "incidental inclusion". In the opening DPS shot (3) a Marks and Spencer sign is fairly clear on the right hand side. If this work were to be illustrating a feature on "business and ethics" and the M+S logo was so prominent, the management at M+S might be a little perturbed, and complain to the magazine! As I say, it's not a criticism of these shots, just something to be aware of in future.

Right briefing checklist at the ready!

Well the subject is too young for The Music Mag brief, so that’s out. But he does have a lovely pair of sunglasses and shot 4 seems to be telling us something over and above the man himself so perhaps we are looking at the Sunday Supplement brief?

We could be looking at the Business brief but there seems to be too much focus on the one model here and, as we know ‘Will Hutton’ isn’t available.

And with not an apple in sight this can’t be our Education brief nor is it the Drapers brief despite the rather nice jacket the model is wearing. So I’d put my money on this being a response to Brief 2 and this being our film star Sam Delaney.

Reader I was wrong, and thus my main problem with these shots emerged.

Where I do appreciate the timeframe on this exercise is a smidge tighter than most students will be used to, it is a very realistic reflection of what you can find yourself up against in the ‘real world’. And subsequently it’s a great way to find out what you’re made of.

Not everyone thrives under this kind of pressure but that’s not necessarily a reason to shy away from it. Be aware of your weaknesses; train yourself out of your bad habits and never forget you’ve been commissioned to communicate a message. Whether it’s illustrating an editorial piece or selling tins of beans your shots have to stay on point.

Where Rob’s shots are almost technically faultless, the lighting well considered and the variety available for the Editor to fill their pages, I just don’t know what they are trying to tell me about Business and Ethics.I’m left with too many questions and not enough answers.

The brief says our ‘eminent economist’ is unavailable so who is this chap we seem to spending some much time shooting? Why are we trying to anger Fraser Hart, Hennes & M&S by questioning their business ethics? The passers by don’t seem to be generic shoppers nor do they appear to be businessmen, so who are they?

And why does our model have a jacket over his shoulder and a pair of sunglasses in his hand? I’m not saying economists aren’t a cool bunch (I’m not crazy) but this guy is certainly giving out more of a celeb vibe.

This work is a good case in point that you should consider the information stored in the frame and how it might be translating to the audience.

We are a culture ruled by stereotypes and if you put a pair of sunglasses in a shot there are assumptions we will make.

Rob you’ve certainly got talent and you really have lit your subject with great skill and where these will get your folio admired and eventually gain you commissioned work don’t forget to give the purse holders what they ask you for.

From Rich:

I thought this was one of the trickier briefs to handle and if I’m honest I’m not sure you pulled it off. You can obviously handle a camera, the compositions were good and the detail in your shots was very sharp. However I had no idea what the shots were telling me – Mobile phone advert, fashion shoot???

Using a model / friend could have worked well if you had concentrated on emotions but I felt that there was little point to the person in the shots except to show off his duffle coat. I think the portrait angle was probably a bad way to go with this and if I had this disk delivered I don’t think I could use it

Nice photos but essentially pointless, sorry

From Marco:

I’m guessing brief 3. Rob has clearly got a good grasp on the technical side of things and an ability to control balanced light. The location is good and the styling works. Very polished set at first glance, but… on closer inspection it doesn’t work so well editorially speaking. Though Rob has clearly thought of the space and proportions the busy background on the pds makes it very hard to get a headline to work and impossible for any bodycopy. Also, the lack of eye contact (except for shot 1 which is my favourite anyway) makes the shots feel more like a stock image set and less like an editorial story/portrait set. Oh, and there is no point to shot 4. If I was handed this set I would use 1 and 2 and possibly 5 but I would wish I’d had some landscape variations I could run a headline out of - particularly on shot 1 which really is very good.

Back to me now. That's it for this lot. My profound apologies for the very odd layout of some of these crits - I copied and pasted all the text from the original documents, and it appears the only way to fix the font problems is to go through each line of HTML by hand. It's 5.15 on a Friday evening, and that just ain't gonna happen....

Sunday Supplement Brief/Sheffield Norton College.

All of Jonathan's Work.

My Critique.

Good:

• Very good use of an already pretty cool location. There are some extremely interesting angles and crops here. I know from speaking to Jonathan, that all these shots were taken within a 50 yard radius, and yet there's a great depth to the shots. The location is obviously playing a central role in these shots, but it never completely takes over, and it also gives the subject something to do, as well as a series of situations for Jonathan to exploit.
• Somebody actually handed in a black and white shot with the colour shot as a backup. I'm impressed!
• Not 1, not 2, but 3 DPS opener options (5,8,9). Top bananas!
  
• Besides the range displayed in the location, there's a great variety of poses and positions from the model - not just 8 shots of "stand against the wall and look moody". I particularly like the "sprawled across logs" (9) shot.
  

• Technically they're a bit lacking in polish. I'd like to see something used to balance out the harsh sunlight - either some fill-light or just a reflector. It would help to lift them even further from snapshots and into the realm of Sunday Supplement work.
• Attention to detail. I appreciate it was a bit of a crowded location, and as always with this assignment, time is not on your side, but there are a couple of shots where a bit more attention to detail would work wonders. There's a hand in the background on the shot with the hollow wood (8), and the shot of Sam reading her script (1) has all sorts of stuff in the background that only draws the eye away from the main subject. The best solution to this sort of thing is to get into the habit of running your eye round the frame before you've finished composing the shot and get rid of anything that doesn't need to be there. You can do this either by selectively cropping the shot.

I’ve always thought myself a fairly observant sort. Hawk-eyed almost, but with more mascara and fewer feathers. So when I clicked on Pic1 and spied the paper in the models hand I figured she was reading her script, all be it a rather thin one!

So of course when I clicked on Pic8 I didn’t fail to notice the disembodied hand in the middle of the image either. Now unless this Sam Delaney is being photographed on the set of the latest Addams Family movie, I think Jonathan may have dropped the ball here.

Of course I could be wrong and this may be an intentional nod to the craftsman whose yard we’re in, but it does feel a little too incidental to have been shot on purpose. Was there not a frame a sec after sans hand?

Jonathan, I do appreciate you’re not paying a location fee and therefore not getting the privilege of an empty set but perhaps there were ways you could have used this to your advantage?

Too many photographers fall into the trap of answering a portrait brief only ever placing the one model in front of their lens. With a story like this, a well-lit, perhaps front facing portrait of Sam with a hive of whirling activity behind her could have made for a more dynamic shot. You’ve got a busy set, work with it; just don’t forget where you want your viewer to be focussing!

You’ve chosen a fantastic location and explored a good variety of angles, really making the most of it and getting your model to interact with the props around her. I just think you can afford to be a bit bolder on future shoots.

Hmm, brief 1, or is it 2 again? Could be either as this set could work for either a folk singer or a celeb. (well, apart from the 25 years thing Marco, but we'll forgive you for not spotting that - or did you think the lady in the pictures was older than she looks?)

I have mixed feelings about this set – some of it is fab, some of it doesn’t work for me at all so I’ll have to divide this crit into 2.

Lets start with what I don’t like: In gallery order shots 1,2,3,5and 6 look to me a lot like bog standard ‘this what I did on my day out with my girlfriend’. Just all very obvious and compositionally weak.

On the other hand this is what I REALLY like: shots 4,7,8,9,10. As an AD these are the shots I would use for my feature – particularly 7,8,9. I would also ask Jonathan to supply me with a desaturated version of 8 and 9 to match 7 and if I got this I would be delighted. It’s worth noting also that desaturating 8 and 9 would overcome the slightly harsh sunlight on the model’s face in shot 8. All of these shots I like are compositionally strong and interesting.

Basically, Jonathan has done a very nice job but hasn’t been self-critical enough in his shot selection to drop the images that don’t work opting instead to hand everything over but that should come with experience. I would give him more work in a real world scenario.

Music Brief/Stevenson College Edinburgh.

All of Meghan and Chris' work.

My Critique:

Good:

• Technically perfect, very good use of lighting, atmospheric. Good to see ambient/flash mix used well and not overcooked.

• They found a great subject - old enough to have been in the music business for 25 years, and very stylish too. No false beards here!

• They used a good range of shots/locations. There are 4 distinct settings for the shots, enough to give the feature some depth.

• There's really great use of contrasting colour in the cover portrait (2). You can't beat a bit of red/green contrast!

• They followed the DPS advice well (1), lots of space on half the frame for dropping copy and headers onto.

• Great mood in some of the indoor ones - particularly the last 3 (4,5,6) - very pleased to see some portraits where face is not so visible.

Not So Good:

• A little too dark on the sky/fill portrait shot (3), needs a dab more light, also watch for reflections in glasses - am being very picky indeed here!

• Would possibly crop in a bit on the garage shot (2)- just to lose the wall on the left.

• Purely a point of procedure, but as I've mentioned in some of the general brief advice, if you're going to hand in work that's been grayscaled/desaturated etc, it's good practice to hand in "plain" ones as well, just in case the art director doesn't like what you've done. On a similar petty note, the file naming was a bit confusing and inconsistent - not something we really penalise people for, but as with other issues of procedure, our guidelines were there for a reason.

On the whole, one of the strongest entries we saw, and probably the best attempt at the Music brief.

From Rich:

This is a really strong set of portraits that fit the brief spot on. If I received these for a feature I was laying out I would be chuffed. I think you were either very fortunate to know someone who fitted the bill or did your research very well. Great colours and emotion and lovely compositions

On a professional criticism I would have liked to see more landscape options for an opening DPS and I would have liked to see colour versions of your black and white shots but otherwise I think I could have made a great feature from this. Well done

From Emma:

Well no problems working out which brief this team are answering. Congratulations Meghan & Chris, great choice of model and brilliant propping here. It all feels right.

The variety of shots used help illustrate a larger story. We have the man at home and on location, in B&W and in colour, engaging with the camera and caught in the moment of playing. The model is of the right age and with the choice of clothes here you’ve really given him a sense of character.

I’m a sucker for the details and with the cigar, whisky and Jazzy instruments these feel like very considered shots. If you dropped them on my desk I’d be happy with a job well done.

Perhaps something you’ve missed a trick on though is showing us some incidentals. It would have been good to have a shot of just his instrument (so to speak) or perhaps cropping in on his hands as he plays the piano? Also would a man 25yrs into his career still need to read from his score? But these are fairly minor points, more things to expand on than criticisms.

I don’t generally like to play favourites but Meghan & Chris get yourselves to the top of the class!

From Marco:

Hurrah! Not brief 2.

Nice job overall. The feel is absolutely spot on and by far the best choice of model to fulfill the brief (though to be fair this wouldn’t be an issue on the real job so is neither here nor there in pure terms of images). Also very good styling.

Shot 4 is my favourite shot but the complete set is very moody and nice with the pleasant contrast of the garage door shot to jazz up (see what I did there?) the overall feel. On the downside I would suggest that there is room for improvement on the technical side – more work on getting the balanced light on the sky shot would have lifted it a notch higher. I would also have liked to see some harsher and more selective contrast work on the b+w images. Even my favourite shot (4) could do with just a tiny touch of post-production in photoshop to get a little more detail back into the model’s face. But I’m being picky. Very nice job.

Sunday Supplement Brief/Reid Kerr

All of Andrew's Work.

My Critique

Good:

• A good strong consistent visual style across all the shots, yet there's also a fair range too, almost certainly enough to fill a whole feature.

• Good use of location lighting, adds drama to the shots, and helps to lift them well above the snapshot category.

• Very usable DPS openers (2,5) - I use the plural because they're both pretty strong.

• An absolutely cracking portrait shot - probably one of my favourites - against the grille and the wood (4).

• Some nice detail shots (1,6), as mentioned before, we don't need to see a face in every shot.

Not So Good:

• The usual criticism about handing in work that's just in Black and White - tempered by the fact that we didn't make much mention of this in the preliminary briefing.

• The Fiat Punto (1,2,5). I'm sure it's a lovely car, although not if the one I hired a few years ago is anything to go by! However, I'm not sure it gives quite the right impression in these shots. Since we're showing off a Hollywood superstar I'd expect them to be driving something a bit interesting - not necessarily expensive, just not mass-produced, mass-market. Bear in mind I drive a Ford Focus, so I've nothing against such cars, but they don't have the same connotations as, say, Ferrari, or a Jaguar, or even a 2CV, though obviously for different reasons. The key here is to have a vehicle that "says" something, whether it be "flashy git" in the case of a Maserati, or "quirky" in the case of, let's say, a Fiat 500. None of this would matter, except that Andrew's made the keys such a prominent feature in one of the shots (1), and the car is fairly visible in the colour DPS as well (5).

• Slightly sloppy cropping on the detail shots - the hint of jeans on the watch shot (6), and the lock on the car door in the key shot (1) both draw the eye away from the main point of attention.

• The lighting is a little unflattering on a couple of the shots (2,3) - be wary of using lighting from below!

I liked Andrew's set a lot - it was another gloomy day in Glasgow when we visited Reid Kerr, I do remember being in Glasgow in blazing sunshine, but I always seem to be in a traffic jam on the M8 at the time! These shots have a very strong and consistent feel to them, but are let down mostly by attention to detail, or lack thereof. I should point out that I find Andrew's work stunning, generally speaking, particularly his landscape stuff which makes me go a bit wobbly. Practice working under pressure, and pay attention to little details, and it'll be even more stunning.

From Rich:

Some good shots here but for me it doesn’t entirely fit the brief. Using an urban setting gives the character a background story which fits well with the model used (not sure it’s very Sunday Supplement though). There’s some nice bits of lighting bringing out subtle details and the shots are well composed.

However I have two words, ‘Black & white’! I would much prefer to receive colour images that I could turn to black and white, this really limits the amount of usable shots as I would probably end up using these as insets. Therefore you’ve essentially taken a decision out of an Art Editor’s hands. Also I felt your detail shots were a bit off, I would much rather see details of the subject’s (actor’s) face, though if these objects were mentioned in the story they may have some use? Finally your model was a bit static, I didn’t really get any of his personality and his hands are in his pockets in almost every shot. I would much prefer to see a bit more movement.

I would get by with these shots but it would be hard work making a great looking feature and I may think twice about calling you back

From Emma:

Had it not been for the fact that I read on Mr Miles’s critique that this was shot for the Film star brief I really would have thought it was the Business and Ethics task.

There seems to be a lot of focus on status symbols (the watch, the keys to the car) but none of them are premium enough to point us towards Sam Delaney. And for our location we have the slightly sinister alley, it all spoke of dodgy dealings to me.

In short these images didn’t really ring my bells. You’ve got some strong portraits and have had a good play with how to light your subject but the elements here weren’t adding up for me and I really struggled to get over that. Also the balance seemed odd to have just one shot amongst six in colour.

Andrew the work on your blog is so much better and you don’t seem to have done yourself justice here. The thing is if I was commissioning you off the back of your portfolio imagery, and you handed these in, I’d be a tad confused. They don’t seem to relate at all.

You have a strong sense of style and a real feel to your other imagery; if you’d brought the same approach to this brief I think you would have totally blown the others out of the water.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, a photographer needs to find their voice. You want people to look at your portfolio and see your style throughout it. Commissioners want to know who they are buying into after all. There’s the old adage that a photographer is only as good as their last commission, consistency helps with this no end.

From Marco:

Nice job overall in terms of showcasing Andrew’s ability to shoot at late notice on location with a coherent visual style across all images. Also well done for remembering it’s an editorial brief and therefore leave space for head/copy on dps shots. I particularly like the courage to shoot detail shots as well as the portraits. On the downside I find the lighting on a couple of the portraits too harsh and would have preferred a touch more subtlety. I also think it’s a bad choice of model but in the real world this wouldn’t be a problem as he’d be working with the real subject so I’m just being a bit of an arse over nothing.

Sunday Supplement Brief/Glasgow Metropolitan.

Laura's Full range of shots.


My Critique:

Good:

• Laura handed in a good range of shots - different locations, approaches, crops, and styling. This helps to give the feature lost of depth.
• Very strong DPS opener, that's also very usable with lots of space for headlines/copy (shot 6).
• Variety of styling - simple little details like bare feet in some of the shots manage to add quite a lot to the feel of things.
  
• Superb locations - the civic hall shot (6) is fantastic, and shows what can be done with a limited time, just by quickly asking permission. Also love the glass brick shot (3) - the passing bus gives it real punch, and we don't need to see the actress's face in every shot.
• Range of crops, full length; half length, close-in head shots.
• Adapting to conditions, improvising well. The weather was foul in Glasgow that day. Rather than be put off, Laura incorporated it in to the shots - the umbrella one's great.
• Listening to what I'd said in the talk about maximising what you've got. Look closely and you'll see that 4 of the shots were taken in the same spot (1,2,4 and 5). Yet there's 3 distinct different shots in there, the only similar ones are the 2 in the green jacket. By adding a jacket, and umbrella, cropping in and moving round, lots can be milked from one spot.

• Technically some of the shots are a bit sloppy. The lovely DPS opener (6) has a slightly wonky horizon, and would perhaps benefit from a dash of light on the subject to lift her from the environment a little (although I realise that may have been impossible under the circumstances). The landscape crop in the green jacket (5) is too "flashy" and harsh for my liking. The black and white umbrella shot (1) is perhaps a little too dark as well.
• As with other submissions, be wary of handing in black and white images without a colour backup. This is a very nitpicky criticism, as we didn't make any particular point about this in the briefing.

Looks to me like Laura has decided to shoot for the Sunday Supplement brief, a brave choice in my opinion as in the ‘real world’ you’ve really got to bring it with this kind of assignment. The tricky thing with shooting celebrities, asides from their egos and their agents, is that you’re battling with countless other photographers who’ve already shot them or are about to tomorrow. Capturing that definitive image for your client, for your folio and for potential syndication is a tough task indeed.

But Laura seems to be a girl up for a challenge and certainly hasn’t shied away from the job. Laura I love the variety of shots on hand here. You’ve given your client a great selection to fill their pages with and it really feels like you’ve taken their needs into account.

With the thought you’ve put into having a variety outfits and locations, having a B&W shot in the mix and playing with your crops and framing, for me, you’ve given the piece more substance.

The only variety I’m having problems with is the range of styles that seem to be at play here. There’s no cohesive treatment or lighting style to pull all the images together as the work of one photographer. You go from a bright flash blast, to softly and warmly lit interior portraits and then to a very dark umbrella shot.

Now across a whole 30+ page portfolio, with some good pieces to blend these approaches, you may well be able to make it work, but for a 7 shot story it feels confused.

Look over your archive, identify the images that you feel most proud of, the ones you get the best responses to and see if a feel starts to come through.

For me a successful photographer is as much about their technical ability as their brand. You want people to look at an image and know it’s yours on sight alone. Now I’m not saying you ringflash all your models to death like Mr Rankin but have a play and start to find your visual voice. After all that’s the fun bit!

From Marco:

Laura has been very ambitious here trying to get several types of shot at once and squeezing them into one brief. I admire her for her ability to get this many different images together in such a short amount of time but the downside is that I would have a problem making my pages look consistent. We have a black and white shot with the rest in colour, also an ID – type of set, a creative arty shot, and a museum curator portrait. Too much.

For my money the best shot is easily the cropped portrait against the brick wall with the nice contrast between human skin, rough brick and violently green fabric. This is a great close-up portrait. Sadly the matching landscape image is overlit (overexposed?). I think Laura should have thrown all her energy into getting variants of this shot to work using a selection of images from the tight crop she has supplied then ranging out to full figure using the grey brick background to provide some dead image for copy space.

I've already critiqued Amie's work, as she asked me to for a college assignment, so her's will follow a slightly different format to the others. I'm a lazy sod and can't be bothered to re-write it!

Sunday Supplement Brief/ Sheffield Norton College

Tom's Critique:

Amie has produced one of the most, if not the most polished answer to this brief across all the 12 colleges we visited. The 2nd part of the brief where mention is made of Rankin and others was supposed to prevent people from just shooting their mates in a grotty flat, but unfortunately all too many people didn't make much effort in this respect, and it was very rare to see production values at the level Amie has used. The choice of model is excellent, along with the variety of clothing (far too many people just used 1 outfit) and attention to detail - there's different jewellery in the shot - another rare thing, along with different shoes. Having said that the patterned dress used in the first DPS (1) seems a little out of place on the plain black background, and not quite in keeping with the more formal feel of the other clothes. Mind you, that's more a styling criticism than a photography criticism!

I like the fact that the lighting is not only very well balanced, but is also consistent across the shots. With a subject such as this, and a clean, studio feel, it would be a bit inappropriate to start mucking about with harsh shadows, flare and other tricks - the strong simple approach works very well here. The back-light has been kept under control too, as it's very common to see people overcooking it and burning things out.

Across the range of shots there's a very "hollywood"/High Class feel to things - very classical poses, and "filmic" feel to the lighting. The reclining pose in the red dress (2), and the close up shots (3,8) are very reminiscent of "Golden Age" Studio portraiture, and since this is supposed to be a series on a well known actress it fits the bill perfectly.

I was impressed by the range of shots - there's lots of different options for the Art Director to play with in their layouts. The variation from full length shots (2,7), right up to Head and Shoulders Close ups (3,6,8) is very good as well, and prevents the shots from looking repetitive. There's even a range of opening Double-Page-Spreads to choose from (1,2).

I like Amies tackling of this brief. Bringing her star into the studio she’s gone for a shoot that is as much about the fashion as it is the model.

And Amie I certainly salute your styling considerations! Four wardrobe changes in eight shots really helped to keep the pace of this shoot going. I also like that you’ve taken a simple/classic approach to the brief through your lighting and model poses, but still provided your client with a good variety of crops and compositions.

Approaching the celeb spread like this is a popular method seen in monthly woman’s magazines, and one that presents the photographer with a great opportunity to have a play with expressions and personality.

After all this isn’t a regular model and definitely more than a clotheshorse, this is a movie star and your audience are coming with a set of fixed assumptions. This gives you great scope to play. You can turn a comedic character into a classic beauty or show the softer side of an action star. Think Bonnie Wright (of Harry Potter fame) in the recent Grazia fashion story and Sienna Miller in the Boss perfume ads.

I suppose this is where my only, very small, criticism comes in.

Shots 4 & 7 have your model looking mighty uncomfortable and ever so slightly contorted. If poses aren’t working or your model is starting to tire don’t be afraid to lighten the mood in the studio a bit and even get them to start doing a few daft things.

You can keep the shots polished and glamorous and still a inject bit of relaxed fun into the shoot. I always quite like it when you get a couple of looser laughing shots in amongst the poses.

Amie seems to have studied some classic film portraiture poses and used them so hats off to her for her research (or possibly basic knowledge as she may have already known these). I like the range of images provided and the fact she allowed for copy space on several of her images. Also well done on thinking about a range of different clothing items. Technically also the lighting is nice and polished and I particularly like the use of backlight on some of the images.

If I had to pick holes I would say I would have preferred some form of background or setting such as a hotel room (most likely location in the circumstances described by the brief) but better to shoot as Amie has done in the studio and get it right than to task load on location and screw it all up so possibly a good call. As an AD I would be satisfied with the job but would try and push her for location work next time.

Something here I meant to get published before the tour started, but for various reasons it never quite made it. I certainly couldn't find the time during the tour, but on a day like this, when my other alternatives include some very boring admin, it's suddenly very tempting!

Anyway, months back I asked a couple of art directors and a photographer's agent if they wouldn't mind critiquing some of the submissions from the assignment in 2008. Obviously, I also checked with the 7 students in question as well (Amie Parsons, Andrew Black, Jonathan Macguire, Laura Liebnitz, Rob Passmore, and Meghan Giboin and Chris Black), and so here we have 6 submissions to the brief, (Meghan and Chris were working together) with a full critique from the following 3 people, Marco Crisari, Emma Taylor, and Rich Davis. For a reminder of last year's briefs, check the drop down menu on the right - 2008 Briefs Analysed. before we begin though, here's a quick introduction to each "critter":

Marco Crisari


Marco Crisari is a former art editor of MacUser, Wired UK, Maxim, and Men's Fitness. Since going freelance in 2005 he has worked on many news-stand titles such as Loaded, Radio Times, Woman, Gardeners World, Shoot and, currently, Triathlete's World as well as doing contract publishing work for clients as varied as Royal Mail, Mazda, Marks and Spencer, NSPCC, Sotheby's, and many more. In his spare time he likes to pluck the bread out of the mouths of hard working photographers' kiddies by taking the odd snap - particularly under water. Marco came along to UEL on this year's tour to help with portfolio critiques and the assignment



Emma Taylor

Emma Taylor is a Photographer and Illustrators Agent at Vue, currently representing seven photographers. Although based in London Vue has a worldwide reach working with Ad Agencies across Europe, Asia and the USA. Since joining the company in 2004 Emma has run shoots for Peugeot, LandRover, U2, Doves, Oxfam, Galaxy and many, many more clients besides. When she’s not negotiating budgets, corralling models and coming up with new marketing ideas, Emma can often be seen wandering the streets of London with very heavy portfolio bags. Emma was around at Sheffield Norton this year, to give portfolio critiques, and help out with the assignment work.

Rich Davis

Rich Davis is a freelance Art Director whose experience covers RCN Publishing, Haymarket, and Dennis Publishing. He was until recently the Art Director of Inside Poker Magazine, where he had the "privilege" of putting some of the biggest names in the Poker world on the cover. He has an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of music, and his greatest achievement was persuading his wife to let their first dance at their wedding be "Oh Gino" by Dexy's Midnight Runners.

As part of the roadshow we set time-limited challenges to a select group of students at each college. The aim of the challenge is to get students working to fairly tight commercial briefs, where they haven't had weeks to prepare things, and have to deal with what happens on the day. They're also a chance to work some business studies in, as we expect a completed invoice to be handed in with the images. In fact, when I come to critique the work, I'm almost more interested in the invoice than the shots!

Just to give you a flavour of what to expect, here's a brief behind the scenes video with 2 guys from Reid Kerr college in Paisley, John Morrison and Stephen Smyth. I went along with them on the day, strictly as an observer, and shot some video of them at work. I should point out to those of you who are thinking of getting a sneak preview of what to shoot that they interpreted one of the briefs a certain way - if you go out and shoot an Audi garage it may well not be appropriate to the briefs you're set at your college!

Apologies for the slightly ropey quality of the video. It looked fine on my machine, but by the time it had been uploaded to YouTube it had turned a bit rank. I'm quite new to this whole video lark anyway, and have got a lot to learn on a technical level!

Copyright seems to cause an enormous amount of confusion, both to clients and commissioners of photography, as well as photographers themselves. I've personally heard some lovely comments in my time ranging from "you're using a Nikon camera, so Nikon own the copyright", through to models acting outraged when shots of them turn up in magazines, despite having signed a release form that said "full library usage". This piece is mostly written by Emma Taylor of Vue Photographers agents, as she has more experience with licensing and copyright than I do. As primarily an editorial photographer my copyright status is fairly straightforward, and I've always read the contracts I'm asked to sign very carefully, so I defer here to someone with more intricate knowledge.

As a quick summary before we kick off, here's copyright law in a nutshell:

Providing you are not in full time employment, in which case your employer owns the copyright for any work you produce whilst working for them, you always automatically own the copyright to your own work, and will continue to do so until long after your death.

Now, the easiest way to lose your copyright is to sign it away if someone asks you to. This may seem like a no-brainer, but when faced with the choice of not working or signing it away it can often be tempting. You don't legally need to assert your copyright, though identifying your work, either through watermarks, stickers or embedded IPTC data is usually a good idea, as it makes it easier to prove in the event of a dispute. Needless to say, both myself and Emma are here talking about UK law, it will be different in other places, and as with anything of this ilk, if you're in serious trouble, get some legal help - don't quote a website!

And now on with the main bit, and I'll hand over to Emma:

One of the first things to check before you agree to take on a commission are the terms of the shoot. Make it a rule of thumb to ask what the Usage is and how many images your client requires from the shoot. Not only does this allow you to start thinking about a rough checklist of what to achieve on set but also allows you to gage whether you’re getting a fair day rate or if additional Usage fees are needed (more on this later).

So remember to ask . . .

- How long will the images be running? (3mths, 6mths, 1yr?)
- What media will they be run in? (press, posters, online?
- And in what territories? (UK, Pan European, Global?)

Unfortunately not all clients, or photographers for that matter, are aware of how the legal land lies and exactly who has what rights to commissioned images.

Rest assured Mr. & Mrs. Photographer the copyright always belongs to you. And if your client doesn’t understand that you can send them here . . .

Copyright for Clients

Now that doesn’t mean you won’t ever get asked for an in-perpetuity buyout. Although this is a rare occurrence, it can crop up and it’s up to you or your agent to make sure the commissioner pays accordingly.

Although your client is commissioning an original shoot, they are only buying the right to use, not the copyright to the images themselves.

As standard advertising (not always the same for other market sectors) practice included in your day rate is a clients right to use . . .

- One Image – Two Media – 1yr in UK (or similar size)
- OR
- One Image – One Media – 2yrs in UK (or similar size)
- OR
- Two Images – One Media – 1yr in UK (or similar size)

Over and above this you are within your rights to charge for additional usage.

So if you were asked to produce x4 portraits for a client across a two day shoot, that are to be used in Press & Posters – UK – 1yr, no additional cost would be required. But if you were asked to produce x4 portraits for a client across on a one day shoot, that are to be used in Press & Posters – UK – 1yr, an additional cost would be required for usage on X2 of the images. This is normally charged at a half-day rate per image.

Now however much we’d all love to be working to the 80’s ideal of fixed day rates and inflexible usages, these days we have to be flexible. Just make sure you don’t bend too far in one direction! Use your judgement; if you have a client who is looking for a days shoot to get a portrait to be used in trade press, online & direct mail for 1yr in the UK, it’s not totally unreasonable of them to expect this included your day rate.

When you get into the realm of Pan European, Worldwide, ATL (above the line) & BTL (below the line) you can turn to the AOP’s handy downloads to give you and your calculator a point in the right direction. There’s a very useful PDF titled Re-usage Guidelines on their site, although you may well have to join to get access to it.

It’s crucial to protect yourself as much a possible, establishing the terms with your client is just one area to do this.

You also need to be aware of third parties involved in your shoot. If you’re using models you need to make sure they sign a Model Release form. This states what the images are being used for, for how long and how much the model is being paid. As long as your model has signed this you have no fear of them turning around within the usage agreement and swearing blind they didn’t know they would see themselves on a 48 sheet! Having the model fully aware of the Usage can often turn out to be a huge blessing, especially when they spot an image 5yrs after the fact in a Brazilian airport!

Something that is becoming an increasing pitfall in this modern age, is protecting your clients exclusivity.

As a standard they retain exclusive use of your commissioned images in accordance with your Usage agreement. You’ll be hard pushed to find a client who will begrudge you the presentation of these images within your portfolio and website, But that doesn’t mean you can start to show them before they have run.

And neither can your assistant, make-up artist, model or stylist! In these Flickr, Twittering, Facebook days of camera-phones it is all to easy for shots to get leaked. Make sure all your crew are aware of your clients rights to show images first. Behind the scenes shots can be very interesting, but they can also be a potential legal time-bomb if an overzealous assistant posts shots of a celebrity getting changed to facebook.

And lastly but by no means leastly be very careful what you sign. Just because a contract has been thrust under your nose doesn’t mean you have to sign it. You are within your rights to cross through and initial any areas you feel are unfair or not in accordance with your own Terms & Conditions.

Useful links . . .

Copyright for Clients

Photo Agents London
Read more on "The Absolute Basics of Copyright and Licensing"!

Last in the little series of market guides, of particular use to those attempting this year's assignment.

Social

Probably the largest market in the UK, and quite probably worldwide. Social photography is the term used to cover all photography that is sold direct to the general public, and usually the customer is also the subject. Think family portraits, weddings, and other landmark events that need recording such as school photos and graduation pictures.

The fees charged can vary quite widely, as can the structure of charging. Some photographers charge a fee up front, and then extra for prints and finished images, whilst others charge no fee, and make all their money on reprints.

Licensing and copyright are not much of an issue in the social market, as the photos are rarely if ever for commercial use, and the photographer will likely have no problem keeping hold of their reproduction rights.

Many social photographers operate as sole traders, although there are an increasing number of franchises, such as Venture, springing up as well. Social photography can be very lucrative if well marketed, with some of the more successful social photographers comfortably exceeding annual turnovers in the 6 figure region. As always, the average is somewhat less than this, so don't expect to take a few family portraits and walk away with a hundred grand.

Corporate and Commercial

A slightly odd definition here, and perhaps not the best label. "Corporate" is often used as a label to describe a certain type of photography - generally meant to mean shots of business people. Usually in suits and offices and looking very clever and business like. Commercial work, in the context we're talking about here, is taken to mean all work commissioned directly by a company (rather than an individual - that's social work) without going through another agency - such as a Design, advertising or PR agency. In a nutshell, with respect of the other markets covered in this brief guide, commercial is "everything else"! When a local firm of accountants want some headshots doing of their staff, but have no need of a design agency to put together a brochure, and instead contact the photographer directly, that's commercial work. I guess, since it's likely to be shots of people in suits it would also be "corporate" too!

The type of shots this covers is, again, fairly broad, as it can effectively be anything the client wants photographing. Without the use of trained personnel available from a design agency or ad agency, commercial clients are likely to commission photographers whose work seems professional and polished, rather than go through a lengthy process of comparing different portfolios. In this respect it's often good exposure that can net a photographer work - things like an easy to find website, presence in local business directories, and membership of professional institutions will all help to bring in work. The fees for such jobs are whatever the market will pay, and some photographers even charge by the hour for this sort of work (a tactic unheard of in advertising, editorial and design). As a guide though, you can expect fees to be in the hundreds rather than the thousands.

Since there's often very little future resale value of the images, licensing becomes much less of a hot potato with commercial work than say, advertising. Clients often want the images for lengthy periods of time, and for as many uses as they can think of. This can easily be dealt with by a healthily sized one-off charge up front to save the client the hassle of having to come back every time they want to change one of the pages on their website.

Event Photography

Event photography is essentially social photography, in that it is primarily concerned with selling to the general public, but using events, such as parties or races as the focus. Event photographers often work within the framework of a parent company, though are usually self employed themselves with the parent company taking a percentage from them in return for smoothing their way with the event organisers. Marketing and selling such images has becomes a great deal easier by use of the internet. Images from an event can be online in a thumbnail gallery within hours of the event, and customers can then easily use secure credit card ordering systems and have prints delivered very promptly.

Rights are something of a grey area in events photography, as employment status will have a major bearing on copyright. There is also the fact that in the case of events such as races, it's quite possible that not everyone photographed has given their consent, and may not necessarily be happy with their image being used for promotional purposes, to give just one example.

Fees and wages are also quite hard to pin down. Some events companies will keep photographers on a retainer, whilst others will only pay on a per-diem basis. Photographers may take a direct cut related to how many of their images sell after the event, or all the money may go into a central pot with all the snappers taking a roughly equal share.

In House

In house photography is a blanket term used to cover all those photographers who are employed full time by a company to fulfill that companies photographic requirements. Generally their numbers have dwindled in the past few decades as companies have sought to cut overheads by getting rid of facilities and staff, and outsourcing their needs to freelancers. In house photographers are almost all fully employed by their respective company, and though this means they sacrifice the copyright to their work, in return they should reap the full benefits of being an employee, namely paid holiday, sick leave, and possibly pensions, company cars and healthcare. As with any full-time position, wages and fees can cover quite a range, although it's rare for in-house to be extremely lucrative, with job security being the trade off against reduced earning potential.

My definition of in house photography also includes people like Forensic and Scenes of Crime Photographers, MOD photographers and Cruise Ship photographers, so the remit of work that the job description covers is very large. The “market” these photographers are selling to, is of course the company they work for, consequently the MOD will have different requirements to a cruise ship photographer, and so on.

Other Markets: Editorial, Books and Stock Libraries, Advertising, Design and PR Agencies. Read more on "A Brief Guide to Photographic Markets 4: Social, Commercial, Event and In-House."!

A rough guide to advertising, design and PR agencies, from a snappers point of view.

Advertising

Ah, the biggie, and the one that almost everyone seems to want to get into at some point in their career or other! The world of advertising offers potentially very high fees indeed, along with nationwide and possibly even world wide exposure of one's work in huge sites like 48 sheet billboard posters, as well as the (often begrudging) admiration of one's peers. The industry itself is largely centred on London, though there are smaller offshoots in Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol. The most typical way an advert gets from someone's brain to a billboard site is for the client (the people who want to sell more of whatever product it is they sell - chips, hairnets, dog food, insurance, or hairnet insurance) to contact an advertising agency. The agency will then put together a team to work on that account, and in their turn they will source specific people such as photographers, illustrators and so on to produce work for specific campaigns. Most campaigns run for a period of time, rather than reappearing in a different form within a short time period, indeed, some even run for years with very few changes. The long term sporadic nature of the industry means that it's quite rare to get commissions from the same agency over and over again in a short space of time. Each account team may only work on a few campaigns each year. Advertising broadly falls into 2 main types - Above the Line (ATL) and Below the Line (BTL). These are definitions of the media used to display the advert itself. Mainstream things such as TV, Posters, Press ads and such are Above the Line, and Direct Mail, Trade Press adverts and Viral are Below the Line. The definitions are getting steadily blurred as new forms of media become viable ground for advertising.

It should be obvious to anyone with their eyes open that advertising photography covers pretty much any and every subject matter and approach, and because of this it's common for photographers to be picked for specific jobs, and then not used again for 18 months or so, as their style of work doesn't suit the other campaigns that the agency are working on. This is common to much of the higher end work in photography, along with editorial and design work, although it's all the more marked in advertising, as what suits a campaign for Pedigree Chum may be a million miles away from what's required for British Airways, and the gap between major campaigns will be measured in months if not years.

Fees in advertising are hugely variable, although one thing they tend to have in common is a basic rate, which is what's paid for the shoot and the agreed basic usage of the images, and then a re-usage fee when the images are used outside that context. Day rates for photographers shooting advertising are rarely less than the high hundreds, and can often reach comfortably into 5 figures. There will also often be a significant production budget (think location fees, personnel costs, transport, equipment hire, retouching and so on) which will bump the whole bill up by a large amount. Some photographers handle all such things themselves, whilst other have agents who will deal with much of the production side. Despite the appeal of higher fees it's worth remembering that even a busy advertising photographer will spend a significant chunk of his or her time not shooting, as there is a great deal that has to be agreed upon before a shoot takes place, and often nearly as much work afterwards to ensure it comes out exactly as envisaged. The supposedly high day rates need to be balanced against the fact that that 1 day of shooting may well represent 10 or more of meeting in pre-production, and nearly as many after the event in post!

Advertising is one industry where licensing really becomes important. As a reflection of the value that a client derives from the advertising image, re-usage fees for advertising work are fairly high. There's lots more detail about this here, but in a nutshell, once the initial usage has been used up, any extension to it - an extra territory, time period, or media, will result in a nice, healthy extra fee. Photographers and their agents make a very lucrative income from this source, and it's vital to ensure that you've got things like rights and usages agreed before the shoot starts.

Design Agencies

Much of what's been said about advertising agencies goes for design agencies too - they tend to work on projects for external clients, and commission photographers on a bespoke basis. The big difference is in the end product. Design agencies are much more likely to work on things like brochures and annual reports, packaging, or brand identity work than a large nationwide advertising campaign. Having said that, many design agencies often do smaller scale ad work as well, as there are many similarities between the 2 markets as far as commissioning and producing work goes.

The rates a photographer can charge a design agency are fairly healthy, being in the several hundred and upwards mark, although there's rarely quite the same potential for more earnings from extended usage as there is with advertising work. By the same rationale licensing and rights follow a similar pattern, any usage above the basic agreed one incurs an extra fee.

Design agencies, along with advertising and most editorial work, tend to commission photographers for specific jobs, selected on the strength of their portfolio. They may well have a small roster of regular people, and in the case of long term contracts with their own clients they may use the same photographer repeatedly to retain consistency.

PR/Marketing Agencies.

This sector covers a lot of ground, as the boundaries between what would be seen as advertising, design, PR and Marketing work are often very hazy indeed. Some larger PR firms are nothing less than advertising agencies, and handle a great deal of work for their clients, whilst some only handle occasional events and photo calls. The type of work they commission matches this, with the smaller agencies more likely to be on the lookout for someone of a decent local press standard, who can take a good "grip and grin" shot, and have it ready for release within minutes, and at the higher end a much more creative approach with lots of consultation throughout the job, and a very polished final result from a photographer who's been picked from a short list of several other candidates. At the lower end of the PR market it's quite common to receive regular work from an agency, although the work tends towards the mundane, and the fees don't tend to be too huge either. Mind you, speaking from personal experience, they still tend to be very healthy amounts when weighed against the amount of time required - most jobs don't entail more than a few hours work from start to finish, so there's a decent overall wage to be had if you can get hold of lots of regular work.

Rights are fairly straightforward in PR, certainly at the lower end. The use the images are to be put to tends to be fairly immediate, so a simple first usage exclusivity is usually enough. Such shots generally tend to have limited resale value unless they depict things like celebrities, so there tends to be less pressure to sign away more rights to the agency. At the higher end of the market you can expect there to be much closer policing of rights and licensing, as the work commissioned will usually be for a wider market, and there will be more emphasis placed on exclusivity.

As far as a photographer is concerned, PR work can range from shots of a few local dignitaries presenting a giant cheque, all the way through to small scale advertising campaigns. As a result of this, the type of shots required will also vary immensely, so there's no such thing as a typical "PR" photographer, although this term generally defines someone who works towards the lower end of the market if you ever hear it used.

Other Markets: Editorial, Books and Stock Libraries, Social, Commercial, Event and In-House. Read more on "A Brief Guide to Photographic Markets 3: Advertising, Design and PR Agencies."!