Scott’s Guest Blog: Creative Post Production and Why I Have a Hard Time Caring About Stock Photography.

[Note: I'm excited today to announce a new element to this here blog: monthly guest posts from my badass staff. Since each of them are experts in their own right, I figured you'd be interested in hearing some different perspectives. Today, Scott takes the reins and raps about our push for visual impact over "perfection" and how stock photography gives him the willies. Round of applause, please...take it away Scotty...]

We keep a lot of irons in the fire around here. In order to keep tabs on everything, we have a daily morning meeting. One by one, we touch base briefly about each of the projects we’re working on. Photo shoots, video projects, websites, fine art, etc. One of the project headings that comes up for discussion is stock photography. We’ve got quite a large collection of images represented by large stock agencies that we’ve built over the years by filtering older commercial work into the stock machine, but lately, this part of the business model has fallen completely off our grid. It’s normally my job to manage our out-of-house stock collection, so I’ve had to ask myself the important question: Why don’t I get excited to get images delivered to the stock agencies?

The cause has a lot to do with the fact that we’re incredibly busy doing interesting projects with new art and new media. But I also can’t ignore the fact that we just don’t feel inspired by the business of stock photography, at all. Any thrill that was once there from being able to shoot what you want and “get paid” is gone. Here’s why its gone for me… [Click the 'continue reading' link below.]

If you’ve ever worked with a major stock agency, you’ve learned that their editing and technical guidelines have grown more and more refined (read stringent). The goal has been to build a system of rules, protocols, editors and technicians that will help to create a product that appeals to the largest number of buyers and moves images across the market as quickly as possible. These systems completely retooled the business of licensing existing photography. Now the technically good image with perfectly even exposure values, textbook sharpening, and the subject’s eyes balanced appropriately in the right upper third of the image is worth tens or hundreds of dollars instead of thousands. The thousand dollar sales haven’t come to an end, but they’re reduced. And the stock agencies have built countless collections at various price points with uniqueness that increased commensurately with the price. Images now need to be on brand, fit a certain collection or aesthetic, have popular keywordability, be technically perfect. Buyers have to go elsewhere to find images unencumbered by bureaucratic limitations.

As the post production lead here at our studio, I’ll use post as a microcosm for the shift in the stock industry. I learned post production skills out of necessity, and the initial response that I had to the immense power of post production was to make the most technically perfect images that I could. Detail in every pixel. Perfect transitions between light and color values. Smooth, pleasing skin tones. Enhanced eyes and teeth. Erased blemishes. Grey cards, noise reduction plugins, hell, I wrote an article on the minutia of edge specific sharpening. You get the drift. I was a dream come true to stock agencies. Every image that went across my desk was PERFECT.

But creativity requires change. In this instance for me it was embracing the “imperfect”. If you look at Chase’s images that I’ve been working on lately, you won’t find detail in every pixel. More likely you’ll find that the highlights and shadows are gone, the colors have shifted due to a heavy hand with the contrast and saturation controls, the transition areas might be a bit harsh. To help me build this point, I’m going to take a spin through the online portfolio right now, I encourage you to do the same. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

8 of 32. 25%. That’s the number of images in Chase Jarvis’ portfolio that I would let through the system if I were a technical editor at a major stock agency. Not too “good” for someone who is regarded as an world-class professional. Despite, or perhaps due to, these technical “flaws” we continue to get great feedback from creative directors/art buyers and the photographic community. We have embraced a marked shift from technical perfection to *raw visual impact*, and it’s paying off.

So what’s our shift in post production aesthetic got to do with the stock photography market? This change that has happened in balancing of technical perfection with visual interest is not limited to us at Chase Jarvis Inc. It’s sweeping the world. Art buyers and general public alike are ready to see what comes _post_ technical perfection. The rigid control of the industry that allowed Getty, Corbis, and a host of others to dominate the market in the first half of this decade is now the driving force in their regression. While art buyers have limited patience for sifting through images, not one will think twice about investing the time to surf the web longer and further to find the the visual voice that they need to help tell their story. They have turned away from the big, traditional players because they have a constant need to find fearless photography. Post production and all.

You may be interested in:

95 Responses to Scott’s Guest Blog: Creative Post Production and Why I Have a Hard Time Caring About Stock Photography.

  1. Clark February 3, 2009 at 12:32 pm #

    Awesome article, I could not agree more, I see so many photographers starting out who think stock is the only way to go. Trying to make great stock images destroys a persons true creative vision!!

  2. Kurtis February 3, 2009 at 12:50 pm #

    Scott,

    Great perspective, interesting to hear what it’s like out in the industry before I graduate from my Photography program.

    The one thing I would love to see is the steps you do in post for a project (even a simple slideshow of turn all the image layers/adjustments on one at a time)… perhaps the kung fu fire shot ?

    {crosses fingers}

  3. Shelby white February 3, 2009 at 12:52 pm #

    Such a great idea. Can’t wait to read after the jump.

    Sent from iPhone.

  4. TMNK - The Me Nobody Knows February 3, 2009 at 12:52 pm #

    As a former photog, I agree. Keep doing YOU Scott. The great ones always do.

  5. Todd February 3, 2009 at 12:53 pm #

    It’s taken me awhile to get to the stage where I agree with this, but I am firmly there these days. “Raw visual impact” wins.

    What *didn’t* take long in coming was the realization that the big stockers could suck the creative life right out of me if I let them.

  6. David Bean February 3, 2009 at 1:05 pm #

    A powerful, moody image will always win out over a technically flawless image with a real client.

    It’s true the stock agencies don’t get it. To their defense they have to set some rules to filter out what must be an endless sea of crap they get submitted every day.

    I submitted some images to a well known stock agency recently and 2 of them were rejected for technical reasons. I wrote a pretty strong letter arguing the case for them and they ended up accepting them.

    David Bean
    Photographer
    http://www.visualreserve.com

  7. ezra of antioch February 3, 2009 at 1:07 pm #

    Stock photography is my achool. Just like other disciplines, you have to know how to follow the rules before you can break them with style. I will stick with stock as I stuck with school, and when I am capable of reliably capturing within the rigid guidelines and harsh feedback of stock, I may graduate as a successful student and all the whole keep my happy accidents that have impact before then. Stock is like a map, and the advertisers want a landscape. I got your point though. Well blogged.

  8. Shelby White February 3, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

    A couple years ago I tried shooting stock photos and submitting online. My approval rate was not very good. Much like you were saying, it felt like you had to ditch the creativity from each shot just to get them approved.

    I would much rather be hired for my creativity & style than being hired for some lifeless stock photos.

    I agree with Kurtis–It would be awesome to see a tutorial. How about connecting up with Creative Tech again and doing a live edit session of a photograph? Could also have online viewing too. This would be a great idea. Dibbs on a spot in the live crowd if you do do this.m =)

    Shelby

  9. garyallard February 3, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    Scott

    Great post. I’ve recently given up on stock as well. I agree that most of the images that have the highest visual impact would undoubtedly get bounced as stock. My feeling is that the more “perfectly exposed” images in the archives of the Getty’s and the Corbis’ the sooner discerning art buyers will seek original brand-specific photography with a pulse. I predict assignment photography will become more accessible and affordable and stock will be left as an archaic model with images fetching pennies on the dollar.

    For better or worse, it’s changing.

  10. Ben February 3, 2009 at 1:22 pm #

    Very interesting read. I love the fact that you guys take the time from your busy work to share and discuss some really great information.

    thank you.

  11. Anonymous February 3, 2009 at 1:25 pm #

    Great article.
    I’ll second Kurtis and Shelby Whites post comments!

  12. Anonymous February 3, 2009 at 1:29 pm #

    Images constantly serve more and more purposes. Just like words and you know how much crap you get to read. …not to mention the invoices

  13. JEFF HOLT February 3, 2009 at 1:41 pm #

    Great Article, thank you for sharing. I love the idea of including the staff and their viewpoints. I’m a believer in that nothing great was built by one but many. Thanks again!

  14. Mark February 3, 2009 at 1:45 pm #

    That was awesome, thanks for your insight. that really gives me some hope.

  15. Jon B. February 3, 2009 at 1:50 pm #

    The best arguments that I can come up with for selecting images with purely measurable criteria are (1) consistency throughout image collections, (2) efficiency in the image selection process, and (3) it’s a lot easier to hire editors who are really good at measuring than it is to hire editors who have really good taste. But, of course, there are counterarguments. Consistency throughout collections can equal homogeneity throughout collections (not always a bad thing, but it sure can be). And the mathematical selection formula, while efficient, can’t adequately incorporate subjective elements like style and taste (which is pretty important in art).

    Ideally there should be a subjective element in the selection process. And I think the subjective element should probably have at least as much weight as the objective elements. I’m guessing that the agencies just decided that an ideal formula is nothing more than a pipedream, and, believing that they fully understood the costs (at least in the short-term), the agencies just decided that it was too hard to incorporate subjectivity into the process.

    But I’m with you. Common sense says that, above all else, most buyers are looking for images with impact. Further, if an image has enough impact, I don’t think most buyers would care too much about technical perfection. So while there are nearly always some objective elements (measurables) that go into making quality images, the subjective qualities are at least as important. Probably more important.

  16. Side-FX Sound System | DK February 3, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    Totally spot-on.

  17. Jonny February 3, 2009 at 1:55 pm #

    Great insight Scott. Glad to see you posting! Looking forward to more of your thoughts in the future too.

    On perfection. To me, thats what separates the good from the great. The good produce technically perfect images every time. The great produce artistically perfect images every time. The stroke of CREATIVE genius. What good is a sharp contrasty photo if it doesn’t speak to me on some deeper level?

    Awesome post Scott.

  18. Jamie February 3, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    Great post Scott. You’ve definitely brightened my day as now I don’t feel so bad about being reject by iStockPhotography. You’ve convinced me that the images I submitted for review were had *raw visual impact* instead of technical perfection. Thanks. :)

  19. Travis Dunn February 3, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    I totally agree. Stock has become pop music.

  20. Simon February 3, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    I know its not very fashionable to stick up for stock agencies as a photographer, but:

    when I walk round Getty’s london office, they have stuck to they’re walls tearsheets of some absolutely amazing world class creative photography to inspire them for each brief. This is the kind of work the editors/ADs want to do! Of course its the dull businessy stock that sells a lot too, so I do some of that, but they do actively seek innovative photography for their collections. (now If only I was a good enough photographer to do it!)

    They also do allow some freedom… I’ve just shot a youth party scene, and purposely shot / lit / retouched so they look like the kids own low-fi snapshots. The editor if fine with this lack of ‘quality’ as its relevant to the brief.

    So they are some nice talented people who work in big agencies after all!

    Keep up the great blog! Si

  21. Abraxsis February 3, 2009 at 3:22 pm #

    Scott, I couldn’t agree more. I think too many people have been unknowingly “shoehorned” into believing that Photography should be “X” when in fact it can be “A” “B” “C” …. “Z.” Just today I was showing a perspective buy one of my newer images. It was simple, lots of negative space, but an amazing capture of the light. Other Photographers have praised the image for being striking while minimalist in design. The possible client did not get it at all though, he thought a good picture needed to have an animal or something going on in it. I just rolled my eyes and showed him some eagle shots. That is what you should do, when someone just doesn’t seem to get it, just roll your eyes and give them what you want, and save your talent for those who can appreciate it.

  22. Dan James February 3, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    Great read. This shift away from the perfect is what led us to develop ClusterShot.com (please pardon the shameless self promotion).

  23. ehoxes February 3, 2009 at 3:51 pm #

    It should also be mentioned that some corporations have opted to grow their own marketing production houses. I’ve been working in photographic and video production for the same company now for two years. There are essentially three of us who either shoot, design, edit and/or layout all of our visual marketing material. We use online stock photography only when we can’t shoot it ourselves. It gives our material a unique appearance, and the company an easier way to achieve their vision with a fast turn around time.

    I’m a huge advocate for companies who choose to pay a photographer directly to shoot something custom, than to spend thousands of dollars using images from stock photo sites.

  24. Andy February 3, 2009 at 4:20 pm #

    Thanks – this assured me that I’m not perverted or going nuts just because I have always considered stock as a frustrating, unrewarding and a restrictive channel of expression which gives no perspective on the individual called ‘the photographer.’

    So many beginners, who have no idea of the business, who haven’t lived the film era, Polaroids, labs, seem to think that stock’s the way to go. I might be mean but I’ve always thought they’re just wannabes and way too greedy. But they’re just innocent and uneducated.

  25. dougplummer February 3, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    What you’re going to see next is the same shift we saw in the stock business in the late eighties and early nineties, when stock imagery was mired in a similar sea of mediocrity. One agency–Photonica–came in and changed the look of the entire industry as everyone worked to copy their esthetic and make it into a formula. Which led us to where we are today. It will cycle again.

  26. James Moes February 3, 2009 at 4:59 pm #

    This is a great post.

    While primarily a wedding photogapher, I have felt this evolution (even without working for stock agencies): I saw myself shifting from embracing the delightful flaws of film photography to becoming a hyper-technician with digital photography to now slowly returning to loving even the flawed-but-emotionally-perfect frames. I have found that the new digital cameras do produce more beautiful digital noise, making it easier to think this way.

    But, I am curious as to Chase’s portfolio of 32 shots. I really like the bold curatorial choices for this portfolio (really speak to who Chase is), but am curious how many of these images are either personal or outtakes not used by the client. What percentage of these images were used commercially and what percentage are personal images? Is this a fair question?

  27. Me February 3, 2009 at 5:21 pm #

    A well written post and I would agree with you to a point.

    I also shoot for the agencies mentioned and agree that their technical requirements have increasingly become more frustrating and demanding. However I don’t feel that this has hampered my creativity in any way.

    Whether I am shooting stock and trying to reel off hundreds of shots in a day, or working with a client on a singular concept that will be comped together in post, I still pay attention to the same technical elements to be sure that it renders correctly when it goes to print, screen, whatever the final use.

    Since the RF image boom the stock image market has become saturated with a lot of similar imagery. In addition to the shifting sales models (another frustration) the agencies are increasingly seeking ways to remain relevant and I actually find that in the last year the agencies are more open to the creative concepts that I pitch them.

    Whether I’m shooting for ad agencies, editorial publications or stock agencies each client has their own set of parameters that I need to adhere to; which is why they are called ‘assignments’ as opposed to ‘creatives’

    Enjoy the blog, keep up the great posts.

  28. Dennis Pike February 3, 2009 at 6:03 pm #

    I like what you (Scotty) said about “Raw Visual Impact” over technical perfection. I remember I recently had an image of mine critiqued, and it was torn apart by someone who was spouting off the importance of not blowing highlights. Sometimes highlights need to be blown damn it, and I blew those on purpose, I was going for an aesthetically pleasing image. That being said, it is important to know the rules before you break them. Once you have the technical proficiency to make a perfect image, you have the right to make them as imperfect as you want whenever you want. Cheers on a good read!

  29. jay February 3, 2009 at 9:25 pm #

    “raw visual impact” over technical perfection, no crap thats what makes me money in stock… not all of us have the alternative of shooting large budget commercial assignment work…so we have to shoot stock and to some degree, abide by the rules and break them to make some money.

    jay

  30. Anonymous February 4, 2009 at 5:23 am #

    Great someones got to do this. It´s true that some agencys (like istock) helping you to get your technical skills under control but at some certain skill level your photography only gets worse. because all creativity is gone. so now i get myself the softbox and do bullshit for istock :)

  31. Ryan February 4, 2009 at 6:04 am #

    Thanks for a great post! Having shot specifically for a stock brand for about a year and a half in the past, this article really hits home and helps me understand part of the reason I left the stock business. The technical guidelines are life draining and inconvenient at best.

  32. danieljenkins February 4, 2009 at 6:37 am #

    Great post Scotty. And Chase, kudos for bringing the perspectives of your team.

    Keep ROCKIN it guys, you are an inspiration.

    Daniel

  33. Robert Holland February 4, 2009 at 6:52 am #

    Yes, if you’ve done stock for a long time you got spoiled. Great money, lots of freedom and you had at least some power. Not anymore.
    Robert
    http://www.robertholland.com

  34. Sarah Rhoads February 4, 2009 at 7:32 am #

    Scott,
    You get it.
    end of story.
    -Sarah

  35. Reid Rolls February 4, 2009 at 7:57 am #

    well said scott. i have a good friend (and excellent photographer) who i constantly hear saying “there’s no data in those blacks!” he means well, but i think he, like the rules of mainstream stock, tend to miss the forrest for the trees.

    some of the most iconic images of our time have no shadow/highlight detail at all. but they’re iconic. they move you emotionally. that should be what we strive for.

  36. Chris Conroy February 4, 2009 at 9:13 am #

    Here’s to Visual Impact!… in the face of Stock oppression.

    (although I think there are a few smaller houses that carry the impact stuff too…)

    But I’m with you.

  37. Chris Conroy February 4, 2009 at 9:15 am #

    Here’s to Visual Impact!… in the face of Stock oppression.

    (although I think there are a few smaller houses that carry the impact stuff too…)

    But I’m with you.

  38. Ryan Cardone February 4, 2009 at 11:12 am #

    Thanks for sharing Scott!!!

    Stock Photography might be technically perfect, but has become so boring and mundane especially at the big stock photography companies. I would much rather look at Chase’s photos than the millions of photos on stock photography sites today. I think it is a simple case of companies getting too big for the breeches. They have way too many photos but those same kind of photos have been selling for years, so why introduce something new, like you said this is why the big companies are starting to suffer.

    As a boutique stock photography company owner is a hard market because photo buyers are locked into subscription deals (which are not fare to the submitting photographers) and other factors that make them not want to look for something else. It is funny how most people want to see new and exciting photography but the same old stock photos end up being licensed. So who’s fault is it the big stock photography companies or the photo buyers?

  39. Sebastien Degardin February 4, 2009 at 11:36 am #

    Great article Scott !

    Couldn’t agree more.
    Had my pictures refused from Stock before I decided not to do Stock !

    Cheers guys.

  40. Daniel Regueira February 4, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    Wow, thanks Scott. I really appreciate that insight. Helps me as a teenage photographer understand where exactly photography is at the moment and what I have to do to be recognized.

  41. Tom Scott February 4, 2009 at 1:25 pm #

    Fearless photography – love it! Puts the individuality back into the art of photography, game on!

  42. Kristi February 4, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    Great Post! I used to be very against doing anything for stock agencies – saw too many good photographers selling out there best work just to make some money. Then, two years ago I took another look. While I’m not a BIG supporter of there are some advantages to doing stock. 1. If you are just starting out, it does provide extra income that can be used to purchase/upgrade your current equipment. 2. With the strict requirements it does make you learn about technical issues of photography – not necessarily creative. :) 3. Some of the top stock sites have great tutorials on taking photographs.

    I do have some pictures on a few of the top stock sites. These photos are ‘extra’ shots that I took for projects I worked on. My thought being – they will just continue to sit on my computer doing nothing – so why not see if they will increase the income a bit more. :) I do have to admit that they have made a nice sum over the last year – more than they would have if I just left them on my computer. :) AND, having them out there links them to my other work. . . so, in a way, free advertisement that I’m getting paid for. . . .

    I still don’t ‘stand up and root’ for stock agencies, but I don’t view them as harshly as I did before. :)

  43. Ciaran February 4, 2009 at 5:10 pm #

    Scott,

    I always read the blog and I love the inspiration that I get from it but I think maybe you and some of the comment posters should face some home truths. Stock photography is not a photo contest. Successful stock is all the basic stuff, businessman with phone or family on the beach, etc, etc. It needs to be well executed with a polished look. Get that and buyers will come. I promise. Lets not dis this further revenue generator available to photographers because it doesn’t seem the most creative thing to shoot. Keep up the great work.

  44. David Burke February 5, 2009 at 5:13 am #

    Excellent Post Scott! Thank you for sharing.

  45. Jon February 5, 2009 at 7:52 am #

    Very nice Scott! Thank you for your thoughts! As a n00b to the pro-photog scene, I found this interesting and reaffirming. In late 2008 I was considering taking a stab at stock. But I changed my mind in early January so that I could work on things I found fun.

    I talk about it a bit here: http://2factorphoto.blogspot.com/2009/02/another-reason-im-not-going-to-shoot.html

  46. Ken Cavanagh February 5, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    @dougplummer “It will cycle again.”

    Yes…I was thinking along the same lines. It is analogous to the slick advertising that was common during the time frame you refer to…80’s 90’s and then we had a trend (craving) for a more “realistic” or editorial look.

    This is repeating itself, I think, with digital capture. We strived for perfection with digital to rival and surpass film quality and it has arguably reached a plateau. Hopefully, the pendulum will swing to “visual interest” and creative content. Might be a positive sign for the Photonicas of today.

    Scott…interesting post and topic.

  47. Anonymous February 6, 2009 at 2:51 am #

    Scott, lose the ‘stash and beard. You are looking older then your years.

    Side kicks are never supposed to look older. Never.

  48. Adam February 6, 2009 at 11:53 pm #

    Thanks for the post. The world is changing fast. Creatives in search for images are getting creative! Go figure. I’m a high school teacher, a student of mine just sold an image that a magazine found on her Flick’r page. Cool.
    Thanks Scott, I too was one of those guys for years toiling making pixels perfection. I teach those practices before and after the click, but try to leave room for imperfection. Often times artful imperfection happens more often when you already know how to make it perfect, and are after something else. Art doesn’t require technical perfection, it just needs something real in it. Sometimes perfect hides real.
    I’d love to have you come down and show my kids some tricks sometime…you’ll have to remember Photoshop 7 though. Keep up the good work!

  49. Kevin Arnold February 8, 2009 at 9:50 am #

    Good post, Scott.

    I fully agree with you, but interestingly enough my stock agent has changed it’s tune lately and is now asking me for more “imperfect” images. I guess that they have also realized the shift in thinking out there.

    My editor even referred me recently to an ad campaign out there that uses very candid, raw images that are purposely processed to look bad (from a technical point of view).

  50. Curtis Copeland February 10, 2009 at 7:55 am #

    Great insight Scott. We are also considering a move to release images for stock photography. This is an encouragement for us to do so. Thanks for the good word!

    C

  51. Taylor Davidson February 10, 2009 at 11:45 am #

    There never has been and never will be a single, ultimate, all-knowing arbiter or definition of a “good photo”. Stock agencies make their choices on images to fit what they think will sell to their clients.

    I’m fine with that; what I’m not fine with is that most traditional agencies haven’t shifted to address the broader, more fragmented and more specific types of client demand out there.

  52. Woody February 11, 2009 at 9:56 am #

    I agree completely! By the way, do you guys ever use freelance retouchers? Check my stuff out and let me know if I can be of service to you guys.

    Thanks, -W

  53. Anonymous February 13, 2009 at 4:31 am #

    My guess is that you're upset they don't allow this kind of photo there anymore:

    http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/200137439-003.jpg?v=1&c;=NewsMaker&k;=2&d;=E35B54D5385E960E02DDC6CF048D3A23B1863EE5A0B9D90C

    :P

  54. Anonymous February 13, 2009 at 4:37 am #

    Or even better, like this one:

    http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/AA052622.jpg?v=1&c;=NewsMaker&k;=2&d;=FF1B7BEA485BA1DC2F4352EECB3A4C1F

  55. Darren Whitley February 15, 2009 at 7:01 pm #

    I agree. Imperfection is artistic. Perfection is cliche as it panders to expectations.

  56. Daniel March 2, 2009 at 8:11 pm #

    “We have embraced a marked shift from technical perfection to *raw visual impact*, and it’s paying off.”

    Yes!!

    Why not create a stock site that would allow creative photographers to do just this? A whole brand of photos that are about one simple rule: raw visual impact.

    How can an industry (stock) be filled with so many ‘creative’ people, i.e., photographers, and yet all the images from these photographers look largely the same! In fact, stock has become a cliche due to the controls.

    It’s the culture that needs to change, and hopefully move away from the technically correct, but visually boring.

    You should start the new stock site!

  57. JS March 6, 2009 at 9:41 am #

    Not to be that guy, but “Scott takes the reigns” should be” Scott takes the reins” Sorry, it’s my pet peeve.

  58. Chase Jarvis March 6, 2009 at 9:47 am #

    @js – great catch. fixed ;)

  59. ingalbraith March 6, 2009 at 11:51 am #

    i kinda get the feeling that everything is changing ;)

  60. bambasko March 12, 2009 at 6:44 am #

    I hope i won’t sound too hasrh but … i really don’t get why you even discuss stock photography at all … for me – it was never a part of the equation. There isn’t even a tiny little drop of creativity in it.

    I admire you for the time invested in getting to the point of technical perfection that your job required, but in the same time i feel sorry that you came to realize the nonesense in situation this just now :)

    Considering that anybody can get fluent into photography … the thing that takes you one step ahead is creativity … it was and it will alwasy be about creativity … and not about technical perfection :)

  61. BDStudio Photography April 27, 2009 at 11:13 pm #

    Great post! I know from my experience with Getty had fickle they get with ‘imperfect’ shots!

  62. 13790906392 March 10, 2010 at 5:45 pm #

    Rolex watches

    ds cartes

  63. Jeff August 19, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    Great article, Scott. Thanks for taking the time. Couldn’t agree more about creating images that are visually impactful.
    Cheers,
    Jeff

  64. wholesale locks January 21, 2011 at 1:36 am #

    Very good post. I simply stumbled upon your site and wanted to say that I have genuinely loved reading through your blog posts. Any ways I’m going to be subscribing for your feed and I hope you post again soon.

  65. Video Engineer August 7, 2011 at 8:35 am #

    I do agree with all of the concepts you have introduced for your post. They are very convincing and will certainly work. Nonetheless, the posts are too short for novices. May you please prolong them a little from next time? Thank you for the post.

  66. Tressie Manweiler November 18, 2011 at 5:29 am #

    Hello would you mind letting me know which webhost you’re using? I’ve loaded your blog in 3 different web browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster then most. Can you suggest a good internet hosting provider at a fair price? Thanks a lot, I appreciate it!

  67. Malka Reibert January 5, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    I appreciate your post, it was interesting and compelling. I discovered my way here through Google, I am going to go back another time :)

  68. http://www.limelightphotobooth.com/ January 12, 2013 at 11:39 am #

    These are actually fantastic ideas in regarding blogging.
    You have touched some pleasant factors here. Any way keep up
    wrinting.

  69. Kwiaciarnie Gdańsk April 16, 2013 at 3:26 pm #

    I’m impressed, I must say. Really not often do I encounter a weblog that’s both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you have hit the nail on the head. Your concept is excellent; the issue is something that not enough people are speaking intelligently about. I’m very glad that I stumbled throughout this in my seek for something regarding this.

  70. Matthew Guidry April 18, 2013 at 1:18 am #

    I was very pleased to find this website. I definitely enjoy reading it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.

  71. Buy Breast Actives April 20, 2013 at 3:18 am #

    hi!,I love your writing very much! percentage we keep in touch extra approximately your post on AOL? I need a specialist on this area to resolve my problem. Maybe that is you! Taking a look ahead to see you.

  72. Jacqui Sallas April 22, 2013 at 1:27 am #

    This really answered my problem, thank you!Take care!!!

  73. men issue April 22, 2013 at 9:40 pm #

    I do not truly know as well much about this, i really just wanted to obtain some ideas from your site, but your post caught my attention.Although this is not 1 of my preferred topics i was still very entertained through the way you presented it. you’ve a very high quality blog.I hope that i can mimic your success, cheers.

  74. imitation rolex April 24, 2013 at 12:12 am #

    However, it’s the developments and intake of new materials favor ceramics, imitation rolex challenging metals alongside with high-tech diamond coatings which is completely different

  75. Tomoko Gardinier April 24, 2013 at 1:03 am #

    You’ve got a fantastic site here! would you like to make some invite posts on my weblog?

  76. imitaton rolex April 24, 2013 at 1:07 am #

    They are watches incredibly fascinating imitation rolex in particular when conversing about colours

  77. homemade dog shampoo April 25, 2013 at 2:38 am #

    Well put! My classmates think you have performed excellently!

  78. imitation watches for sale April 25, 2013 at 2:43 am #

    The main fact is it can under no circumstances be denied that imitation watches for salees are a wonderfully created watches

  79. replica hublot big bang April 25, 2013 at 7:31 pm #

    In this sense it would be a good idea to buy a Replica replica hublot big bang King Power Speedy of the original watch

  80. replica hublot big bang April 26, 2013 at 2:59 am #

    With the prices of these replica hublot big bang replica watches being so low, it makes sense to go in for more than one

  81. hublot replica f1 April 26, 2013 at 3:22 am #

    Beating inside hublot replica f1 Big Bang Earl Gray Watch is HUB1145 automatic mechanical chronograph movement with 37 rubies

  82. aberdeen vending May 2, 2013 at 12:15 pm #

    Good blog you’ve got here.. It’s difficult to find high-quality writing like yours these days. I seriously appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!

  83. Nannie Fondell May 6, 2013 at 2:10 pm #

    I hope you never stop! This is one of the best blogs Ive ever read.Thanks !!!

  84. docteur-assur.com May 23, 2013 at 3:35 pm #

    I was studying some of your blog posts on this website and I conceive this site is very instructive! Keep putting up.

  85. NYC Asian Massage June 11, 2013 at 11:06 pm #

    This is exceptional. I’m so glad that you chose to discuss this subject given that I required this info immediately. Several times there seems to be these types of articles that are not excellent, however you hit the nail right on the head. This is deeper than exactly what I believed it will. Great job and also well done.

  86. digital cameras June 19, 2013 at 12:03 am #

    Thanks a lot for the helpful article. It is also my belief that mesothelioma has an particularly long latency interval, which means that warning signs of the disease might not exactly emerge till 30 to 50 years after the 1st exposure to mesothelioma. Pleural mesothelioma, which can be the most common style and impacts the area within the lungs, could cause shortness of breath, breasts pains, and also a persistent cough, which may result in coughing up blood vessels.

  87. after effects free template February 9, 2014 at 8:00 pm #

    Thank you for sharing superb informations. Your internet site is so cool. I’m impressed by the details that you?ve on this web site. It reveals how nicely you perceive this topic. Bookmarked this web site page, will come back for much more articles. You, my friend, ROCK! I discovered simply the information I already searched all more than the place and just could not come across. What a perfect internet site.

  88. netflix prize March 3, 2014 at 3:07 am #

    This web site is often a walk-through like the info you wanted in regards to this and didn

  89. plus size clothing March 10, 2014 at 11:00 pm #

    magnificent post, very informative. I wonder why the other specialists of this sector do not notice this. You must continue your writing. I am confident, you have a huge readers’ base already!

  90. Sugaring Zürich July 2, 2014 at 6:41 am #

    Worked perfectly. For those of you whom it didnt work it possibly wasnt cooked ample. I cut the recipe in half and employed lime juice in place of lemon. I dont have a candy thermometer but ive produced candy just before with no. I stored it in the mason jar and it had been just ample to get a brazillian wax with a tiny left more than. What you want is for it to cook to a hardball’ stage. The moment it will get to a dark amber colour consider your stirring spoon and let a drip fall right into a cup of ice cold water. It’s going to make a minor flat disk around the bottom in the cup, should you come to feel it is tough being a lifesaver candy you understand its completed. Now it wont get this really hard in your skin one since the lemon juice stopps it from comepletely hardening and 2 your skin isnt ice cold lol. However it will solidify ample to grip the hair. When spreading it in your skin i went together with the hair growth and then against. I find you get a lot more hair going both instructions. Very good luck!

  91. Jane October 4, 2014 at 5:47 pm #

    Terrific steam showers, my family had one of these hooked
    up about 5 years ago and so it may possibly do with upgrading, never get a
    boring old regular kind of shower again

  92. Lilian October 7, 2014 at 4:28 pm #

    Thank you for this site, can happily state we now have a
    steam shower of our own and we like it so much

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Professionalism - January 25, 2011

    [...] he’s better than me, actually he’s awesome, but according to his retoucher Scott in this article, only 25% of Chase’s images would make it through stringent stock photo technical [...]

  2. 链接串串烧:2012年5月23日 | 闪卓博识 - 官方网站 - May 22, 2012

    [...] Jarvis常用的后期制作人员Scott冒出这样一个想法:接受瑕疵。 *最后——摄影师必看的两个链接: Tim Mantoani主张的爱你所做,以及Zack [...]

Leave a Reply

Highslide for Wordpress Plugin