The DIY Studio

STOCK BUSINESS UPDATE

2014-07-06T21:15:00.002-07:00

A few years after starting my journey into the stock world, I thought I'd put up an update regarding where it's taken me, including providing a few hints to you based on mistakes I've made 'lo these many years.

I had originally gotten into stock around 2011 after taking up photography in 2009. I had heard of folks like Yuri Arcurs making a great living from taking photos that clients would purchase online. I considered this the perfect way to do what I loved while making money at it. Let me say this...getting into the Stock world is NOT a get rich quick proposition! Like any other business, you must pay your dues by honing your skills in that particular field. And unless you've shot for stock before, you'll soon discover it's its own animal that must be tamed so-to-speak.

The best thing about being a Stock Artist is making a continuous income. Although each shot only makes what some would consider a paltry sum, it adds up when sales are coming from all over the world. Plus, the income doesn't end. My photos are selling right now, in fact... As long as you keep current by putting up photos on a regular basis and manage your uploads correctly, you will continued to see steady or increasing sales from across the globe.

Another great thing is the fact that you don't have to pay for advertising, promotion, signage, a store front, or any of those time consuming things associated with a traditional business. My stock sites do all that for me and all I have to do is be a photographer.

Shooting photos are only a small part of being a Stock Artist

One of the most time consuming things will be the post production of your photos. This will include the editing of your works of art and uploading them to the stock site for approval. Also, one of the most important things you can do is to correctly keyword your photos. So now is the time to make yourself a keywording expert! Making the post production streamlined is crucial. Otherwise, you'll find yourself hating that side of things and getting bogged down. It's more than 50% of operating a growing stock business so give it the attention it deserves.

Here are my top five...okay, the first five things that came to mind, but are pretty darn important to remember about being a stock artist list:

1). Don't imitate the style of someone you know is making money as a Stock Artist. Chances are they're better than you, have more client contacts, and have pretty much already cornered the market in their style. Make your own style which will then become your brand that people look for.

2). Set reasonable goals. Start with one money earner like Shutterstock; become a Contributor and start building your empire from the foundation on up. As you move up do your research. Shutterstock has a great program for helping its contributors make sales so take advantage of it.

3). Find a program that will allow you to upload multiple photos to your stock sites as well as being able to add tags. The time it saves is invaluable.

4). Don't be discouraged by rejections. They happen for whatever reason and are not something to give up over, they are something to learn from.

5). Keep building. Research the top earning sites and expand your business (if you want to earn money at stock, consider it a business with growth potential) by becoming a contributor on each of them. You can either import your top earning photos from your first site (a great way to be approved on other sites) or use your expanded knowledge gained and shoot new photos for the new sites. I would suggest keeping as many of the photos in your overall portfolio the same on as many sites as possible. Oddly enough, some sites will accept some photos and reject others so it may become difficult to keep track after you have 500 or more shots up on 15+ sites... Then you can expand into any number of other areas of artistic interest to you including music, illustrations, vector graphics, video and more and even become exclusive with some sites to earn even more.

In my own stock business...

I have a partner who now manages all of the 15+ sites we currently contribute to including keywording of images and uploading them to the various sites. Since our stock presence has continued to grow over the past few years and our shots have sold steadily, we've decided to expand into video (which I will write about in future posts). As such, we have invested in a new camera and lenses (see photo below) which will move us in that direction. It's the new Nikon D610 with a Nikkor AF-S 1:2.8G ED 24-70mm lense that will compliment our current macro and telephoto lenses, making us much more versatile. I'll make sure to write a review on our new investment in a future post. So far...it runs circles around the semi-pro Nikon D80 I've been using since day one 2009!

Remember, DIY is about the process of creation. Being a successful Stock Artist is also a process, so if you really want to make money in Stock, then go for it and keep going with that in mind.

Above all, enjoy what you do.

Thanks for stopping by. See you next time.

dave

PS For anyone interested in seeing our current portfolio on Shutterstock, please click the link on the left-side of the page titled 'Shutterstock'.

ONLINE VOICE PRESENCE IS A MUST

2013-04-17T18:04:00.001-07:00

In this internet age especially, it's necessary for a voice-over artist to have a good online presence. One of the many ways I keep myself out there in cyberspace is to put demos up on various sites that all link to each other. Voices.com is a pay site that also offers free registration which allows you to have a demo on their site on your very own webpage.

With free registration you can't be contacted for work through Voices, but none-the-less, it's yet another way for a voice over artist to self-promote. If you sign up for a membership it's around $40 per month or about $300 for the Premium Membership. It's definitely a good one to be signed up for to give yourself that extra online visibility.

If you want to give it a go, do so at your own peril. Professional voice artists with decades of experience and full home-studios are your competition. Even if you do bring your 'A-Game', you may never book. My advice is to use it as a learning experience, not a money making venture. With a home studio, your main goal should be to produce good works and lots of them. If you happen to make money as a sideline to your passion, so much the better. Frequent auditions will give you the much needed studio time, not to mention tons of voice practice!

Here's a link to my Voices.com webpage:

David Stuart Voice-Over Talent | Voices.com

Thanks for stopping by. See you next time.

IT'S NEVER TOO LATE

2013-04-03T11:46:00.002-07:00

COURSERA

Last year I discovered www.Coursera.org. They offer University level courses taught by Professors from around the world on everything from Neuroscience to Computational Photography to Philosophy to Calculus to music and so much more.

I felt I needed a boost, reminder, refresher what-have-you in my sound production skills. So I began taking Introduction to Music Production from Berkley College of Music, which I've now been doing for the past month. I'm four weeks into a six week program. There are obviously skills that I've retained, but when it comes to the technology involved in music production, it's never too late to keep current.

At the same time, I'm 4 weeks into a 10 week class through the University of Virginia called, Know Thyself. It's philosophy! So far I've studied Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Ryle, and Wilson with much more to come. Why? Why not.

In addition, over the next year, I'm signed up for such classes as Music Theory, Guitar, Fundamentals of Audio Engineering, Inspiring Leadership, Intro to Art, Online Games, Modern & Contemporary Poetry, Scandinavian Cinema and more.

All the classes are structured differently. For example, every week in my music production class, I have video lectures (5-10 at no more than ten minutes a piece) with 3-4 quizzes (with 100 tries allowed!) based on the material covered in the lectures. I then have a weekly project that I need to create after picking one of ten possible topics based on the info learned in the weekly video lectures. I then post the project on YouTube for my classmates to review. Once I post my project for review, I also need to review and critique not only my own effort, but five other peer's assignments. The bulk of the grade is on the weekly assignments.

Here's a link to the assignments I've done to date:

http://www.youtube.com/user/FromDavidStuart

There are deadlines for completing the work in the music production class, but in my Philosophy class there aren't. I simply need to read an optional text on the weeks topic, watch a bunch of video lectures and take a quiz. There are no deadlines for the weekly quizzes other than the end of the 10 week class. The catch on this one is you only get one attempt to do the quiz. It's open book and you can save your answers before submitting, but it's definitely not easy.

Some classes are easier than others requiring only a few lectures per week and a 6 question quiz, but the description of the course will let you know if it's over your head. Besides, with 80,000 fellow classmates, I don't think you'll be missed if you decide to un-enroll.

Oh, and one other thing... Did I mention that some of their classes are now accredited so you can use them to get a degree? One more thing... It's FREE!

Check it out. Who knows, maybe we'll be classmates someday.

Cheers,
dave

SOUNDCLOUD

2013-03-02T14:31:00.002-08:00

For all you musicians, music producers and more! Here's a great way to showcase your recordings. I've been on SoundCloud for a few months now, and it's really helped to get my stuff heard. There are a few different levels that will allow more functionality for the 'Pros', but as far as I'm concerned, the free level is perfect. Two hours of audio to showcase on the free level is plenty to let the people who might potentially hire you know if you're worth the dough.

It's been very helpful for me in showcasing my latest works. I've not only uploaded music production, but also my personal voice demos and audio generated from my production company.

This site seems to have become the way to showcase original audio works overnight. There's even a direct upload to SoundCloud in the latest version of Ableton Live, an industry standard DAW!

I've put a link to my page below so check it out, get yourself signed up and start showcasing your creativity today... Enjoy!

https://soundcloud.com/david-start-5

David Stuart Productions' photostream

2012-06-02T12:21:00.001-07:00

David Stuart Productions' photostream on Flickr.

Been enjoying a wonderful connection with the creator of late. So excited to see where it continues to take me! Please feel free to browse my current Flickr Photostream. Many of the photos and designs are also available at http://www.zazzle.com/david_stuart

iCOMPOSITIONS

2012-02-23T11:12:00.000-08:00

When I first became interested in making my own music, I had just purchased a Mac computer after being frustrated by PCs for over a decade since home computers were first introduced around 1990. Although I now use both formats with ease, when I first got my Mac I was amazed at how user friendly it was and how many multimedia applications made it possible for anyone to simply sit down and make music.

I had heard about Garageband, but had no idea what a 'loop' was and how to use this free software to piece them together and manipulate them to make it sound like a real song. Once I sat down, opened the program and began tinkering around, I had an overwhelming sense of accomplishment. Like Tom Hanks in 'Castaway', I was like, "I made music!"

For those who don't know what Garageband is, it's an entry level music production program that comes standard with Mac computers. It allows you to take standard, Royalty Free, loops of a particular music track like a 4 beat drum loop in standard 4/4 time, 1, 2, 3, 4... and add, for example, a tambourine to it, then an acoustic guitar etc. For a basic program, Garageband is surprisingly versatile. You can even plug in a mic and record your voice using various presets such as a pop music sound or rock sound. Even though I've used professional audio recording, mixing and mastering software such as Pro Tools, Audition, Soundbooth and more, I still like to use Garageband on occasion. It's fun and it's easy, but beware, it's definitely a gateway to much more!

Once I had a few musical creations under my belt I stumbled across iCOMPOSITIONS. It's a site where independent musicians like you can post your creations from your own page and have your music critiqued, downloaded, collaborate with other musicians etc. Not only can you post your music, but advertise CDs you have for sale linked to sites like CDBaby. I've found iCompositions a helpful place to post music, get feedback and promote my efforts as an independent music artist.

Many traditional professional musicians are displeased with the advent of this technology. Unfortunately this and other automatic music creation software is here to stay. I feel it's similar to when Rap music began making a dent in the traditional forms of musical expression. It was looked at by many as not being a true form of creating music. I'd say just ask multi-billion (with a 'B') dollar recording artist Jay-Z if he thinks rap music has legs. Listen, regardless of what someone wishes to call music, it's what you make of it. Just like an artist splashing a bunch of paint on a canvas and selling it for thousands, who's to say you can't slap a bunch of pre-recorded sounds together and call it music. I could smack one rock against another and call it music for goodness sake. If you want to make music, make music and don't let anyone tell you it's not music. And if someone decides to pay you for what you've created, then call yourself a professional musician.

A word of caution. If you plan to eventually sell your original creations for hard cash on sites like 'iStock', don't use Garageband. Stock sites do not accept submissions created by generic loops like those found on Garageband and purchased in bundles...unless those loops are made by you. Pick yourself up a 25 key Keyboard and presto! One finger on one key for four seconds and boom, a drum loop is born. It's all about having fun and experimenting to create a sound you can be proud of, then piecing it all together.

Once you've gone beyond making songs with generic loops to creating your own, it's not far from learning to master those creations to make them sound like gold. I'll talk more later about expanding into the world of stock sounds and getting that crystal clear sound from recording in places like the kitchen or the hallway closet; which is where my first produced CD was recorded and is available for purchase on iCompositions...

Now get out there and enjoy creating something!

MIRRORLESS CAMERAS ARE HERE TO STAY

2012-02-22T11:05:00.002-08:00

I've been holding off on getting a new camera until things settle a bit on the new tech front. Many companies have been coming out with mirrorless technology that surely will put a dent in the DSLR sales. Imagine, nano technology will allow us to carry a fraction of the weight we used to lug around.

With technology in products such as the iPhone and other hand-held devices improving and professional camera technology improving as well, pretty soon, most of us will be looking to sell off our antiquated (not to mention heavy) equipment as the two eventually will meet in a much more easily transportable case.

Yes, there are traditionalists who will poo poo the idea of way too many 'Auto' features, but there will still be plenty of 'Manual' functionality to appease the pros. In addition to the ability to have a professional quality point-and-shoot on hand without throwing your back out on a leisurely walk, the quality of the software now available to every experience level, makes turning your snaps into a money making product or artistic expression a painless experience.

Below is a great article I found on an amazing website called, Digital Photography Review that helps to sort the whole thing out. Enjoy!

IS A MIRRORLESS CAMERA IN YOUR FUTURE?

Mirrorless cameras may not have taken-off in all global markets yet, but they're making progress, both in terms of technology and sales. The marketing efforts have reached almost hysterical levels, helping to raise awareness that mirrorless interchangeable lens camera is here. We've had a chance to use all of these cameras extensively (and have reviewed most of them), so now seems like the ideal time to look at all the cameras and help you decide whether a Mirrorless camera is for you and, if so, which models you should consider.

GETTING TO GRIPS WITH SENSOR SIZES

It's difficult to engage with customers about the merits of sensor sizes so, to a great extent, the manufacturers sell these cameras on the strength of them offering interchangeable lenses. The association of interchangeable lenses with 'DSLR quality,' combined with the promise of flexibility that changeable lenses bring help to differentiate Mirrorless cameras from compacts. But it's primarily the increased sensor size that brings the image quality improvement, both in terms of low-light performance and control over depth-of-field.

The other key thing to consider is lens availability. The Micro Four Thirds lens mount, used by Panasonic and Olympus has by far the widest range of lenses, followed by Samsung's NX range, Sony's E-mount, Pentax Q and Nikon's 1 system. However, when considering the lens availability, it's worth being honest with yourself about how many lenses you're planning to buy - if you're only going to buy one additional lens, then it doesn't really matter how extensive a 'system' is, so long as it includes the lenses you might want.

WHAT'S OUT THERE?

Being a fairly new market, it's taken a little while for a consensus to develop amongst manufacturers about who might want a Mirrorless camera and what they might want it for. The result is a diverse ecosystem yet to be exposed to the evolutionary pressures that tend to result in homogeneity. In general, we feel it's possible to break down most of the Mirrorless class into three main groups, much as can be done with DSLRs: beginners, intermediate users and enthusiasts. But, beyond this classifications, there are some interesting niche cameras and alternative takes on the concept.

As you'd expect, the more sophisticated the audience, the more external control you get, the more features you can expect a camera to have and the more you can expect it to cost. In some cases this means more external control, or the option to add an external viewfinder, but it also tends to mean higher-resolution sensors and higher-resolution rear screens. The classes aren't precise - you could argue, for instance, that the Panasonic G3 offers more features and functionality than the GX1. But here we're trying to consider the overall intent - a balance of features and price, to split the cameras by the shooting style we believe they're intended for.

In this overview we're restricting our coverage to relatively recently-released cameras that we consider to be 'current generation'. Of course some older models are also still for sale new, often at a bargain prices.

Beginners' cameras

This is the area in which all the manufacturers think Mirrorless systems offer the most advantages: as small cameras that are as simple to use as point-and-shoot compacts, but with substantially better image quality. Between these and entry-level DSLRs there's been plenty of price competition, and even though we're only really on the second or third generation of these cameras, you can get a pretty mature product for a bargain price.

	Sensor Size	Pixel Count	Movie capability	Screen Size	Touch Screen?	Viewfinder?
Sony NEX-C3	APS-C (23.4 x 15.6 mm)	16.2MP	720p30 MPEG4 9Mbps	3" 920k	No	No
Olympus PEN E-PM1	Four Thirds (17.3 x 13 mm)	12.3MP	1080i60 AVCHD 17Mbps	3" 460k	No	Optional 1.4m or 920k EVF
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3	Four Thirds (17.3 x 13 mm)	12.3MP	1080i60 AVCHD 17Mbps	3" 460k	Yes	No

Intermediate cameras

The intermediate class is directly comparable to the popular 'Rebel' level of DSLRs. These are aimed at people who have perhaps already owned a enthusiast compact or an older DSLR and want a newer, more capable camera, or who are upgrading from a point-and-shoot compact but want to develop as photographers and take more control over their cameras.

The result is more external buttons, improved features and, in many cases, more accessory options.

	Sensor Size	Pixel Count	Movie capability	Screen Size	Touch Screen?	Viewfinder?
Sony NEX-5N	APS-C (23.4 x 15.6 mm)	16.1MP	1080p60 AVCHD 28Mbps	3" 920k	Yes	Optional 2.4m EVF OLED
Olympus PEN E-PL3	Four Thirds (17.3 x 13 mm)	12.3MP	1080i60 AVCHD 17Mbps	3" 460k	No	Optional 1.4m or 920k EVF
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3	Four Thirds (17.3 x 13 mm)	15.8MP	1080i60 AVCHD 17Mbps	3" 460k	Yes	1.4m equiv. EVF
Samsung NX200	APS-C (23.4 x 15.6 mm)	20.3MP	1080p30 MPEG4 u/n	3" 610k	No	No

Enthusiast cameras

These are the cameras aimed at people with extensive shooting experience. Perhaps intended as a second camera, or as a replacement for a similarly high-end camera. These tend to be the models that offer the highest levels of external controls, the strongest specifications and product design that says 'I'm serious about my photography.'

	Sensor Size	Pixel Count	Movie capability	Screen Size	Touch Screen?	Viewfinder?
Sony NEX-7	APS-C (23.4 x 15.6 mm)	24.3MP	1080p60 AVCHD 28Mbps	3" 920k	No	2.4m EVF OLED
Olympus PEN E-P3	Four Thirds (17.3 x 13 mm)	12.3MP	1080i60 AVCHD 17Mbps	3" 610k OLED	Yes	Optional 1.4m or 920k EVF
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1	Four Thirds (17.3 x 13 mm)	15.8MP	1080i60 AVCHD 17Mbps	3" 460k	Yes	Optional 1.4m equiv. EVF

Specialist cameras

A couple of niches have sprung up in the Mirrorless camera sector, from the video-focused Panasonic GH2, through to the fun, rather irreverent Pentax Q. We've currently put the point-and-shoot targeted Nikon 1 cameras in this group too, given their conceptual differences from all the other 'Beginner' level cameras (smaller sensors, more flexible autofocus), but you may wish to consider these too.

	Sensor Size	Pixel Count	Movie capability	Screen Size	Touch Screen?	Viewfinder?
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2	Four Thirds (˜19 x 13.5 mm)	16.1MP	1080p30 AVCHD 24Mbps	3" 460k	Yes	1.5m equiv. EVF
Ricoh GXR Mount A12	APS-C (23.6 x 15.7 mm)	12.1MP	720p24 Motion JPEG	3" 920k	No	Optional 1.4m EVF
Nikon 1 J1	CX format (13.2 x 8.8 mm)	10.1MP	1080i60 MPEG4	3" 460k	No	No
Nikon 1 V1	CX format (13.2 x 8.8 mm)	10.1MP	1080i60 MPEG4	3" 920k	No	1.4m EVF
Pentax Q	1/2.3" Type (mm)	12.4MP	1080p24 MPEG4	3" 460k	No	No

AMAZING ROUTER!

2012-02-05T11:44:00.000-08:00

For small sized production companies like ours it's nice to be able to have the same kind of networking capabilities that the big companies have at a fraction of the cost. For about a year, we've been keeping our eye on this new router from Netgear, but have been unable to find it in any stores.

So we ordered it online which seems to be the easiest and often least expensive way these days to get these kind of products. It's a sad state of affairs seeing traditional store-fronts disappearing, but change is never easy and the key is to adapt in this rapidly changing electronic landscape.

For us, being able to effectively network, even in a smaller space with only a few separate rooms, has been a breath of fresh air. Now, with this new router we're able to plug high speed USB into it, print from anywhere, as well as access files on iPhone, smartphone and tablet from anywhere! We're able to run 6 computers (and as many as we like) from anywhere in the office wirelessly and access our main hard drive. We're even able to wirelessly connect to our main hard drive from ANYWHERE. So all I need to do is open our Pitch Bible from my little netbook and run our various samples, storyboard, treatment, outline etc. sitting in the office of that big studio exec.

We can hook up our Macbook Pro via a HDMI cable to our TV (or Bluetooth now available on many new tv's) and stream in HD without a degraded picture or glitching, anything from our main hard drive. With this router, we can stream our latest trailer directly to our iPhone that can be wirelessly transmitted to the giant monitor in the studio exec's office. Check it out. It may make things run a little smoother.

I've put the link below. Enjoy!

Netgear WNDR3800 Premium Edition

AWESOME NOISE CANCELING HEADPHONES!

2012-01-28T14:11:00.000-08:00

I've used in-studio and bought for my own home studio some pretty expensive headphones. Many of them aren't very good or versatile, but sure cost a lot. A year or so ago I came across these from Urbanears. They're designed for much more than DJing or listening to tunes. They also work with your phone when a call comes in, they have a female plug to allow another set of headphones to be plugged in to share your listening experience, and they are great at noise canceling for when your walking downtown. Not to mention having reliable, crystal-clear sound and no bleed for when you're recording your voice over or song in your own home studio. The best part is the very reasonable price for the DIY Studio Producer, coming in at $60 USD (I've even seen them on sale for half off!).

http://www.urbanears.com/#/headphones/plattan/plattan-black

Check them out at:

http://www.urbanears.com/#/headphones/plattan/plattan-black

HOLOGRAPHIC INTERACTION?!

2012-01-18T10:13:00.000-08:00

I've been looking into new technologies such as touch screen and holographic projections. I recently came across a few videos that I'd like to share. In a way it seems unbelievable how user friendly technology is becoming. Simply wave your hand or slide it across a pane of glass an you too can be a DJ or a musician. I'm sure this new tech will allow people who would otherwise be nervous about learning to use a new instrument or software, to start playing music immediately without fear of making mistakes or having a long learning curve. No more will people become bored after reaching a plateau in their learning. This new technology is pretty much mistake free. Can you imagine how many people will discover musical and artistic talents they never knew they had when they find they can simply create?

Please enjoy and have fun creating. The future is very user friendly.

Also, check out this cool touch pad:

Also, check this one out:

And this one:

And finally this one (who knows where this tech will take us, but it's very COOL!):

Have fun!

ZAZZLE

2012-01-16T16:04:00.000-08:00

A SOURCE OF EXTRA INCOME

In this DIY friendly age, the internet has revolutionized the possibilities available for anyone from artists to craftspeople to business-savvy entrepreneurs to make a few extra bucks (or more) online. One of the areas I've branched out into is selling my photos and digital art online through stock sites. Recently, however, I've discovered ZAZZLE which allows you to upload an unlimited amount of good quality (apparently they do check for quality) photos, illustrations, digital artwork etc. to be placed on various products like iPad cases, t-shirts, bumper-stickers, mouse pads etc.

It's important to fill out the keywords as best as possible, otherwise, the uploading and creating of your store is pretty simple. Once you sign up and begin to upload your best shots, you can customize your store so it reflects your personality.

The store is yours which is kind of nice to have that control. Other than people searching products and hitting on yours, it's your own store and needs to be marketed like any other business, but without the massive overhead. Plus, it's really cool to see your artwork available for sale on iPhone/ iPad cases and more. Especially when it starts to sell!

I can literally create an interesting piece of digital art or shoot a funky looking photo that might never be accepted at any stock site, but looks great on a t-shirt, throw it into photoshop or illustrator, add some funny text within Zazzle, keyword it and boom, product created.

Who knows who will type in 'iPhone cases' and come across your simple drawing of the hang-mans game with half the word 'Screwed' under the half-drawn hanging man and think it's the funniest thing since sliced bread...and poof, you're right up there with the guy who invented the Pet Rock. Hey that's actually a good idea. I'm off to make it. Check out my store to see the product once it's done!

Have fun creating!

CREATING THE FIRE EFFECT

2011-12-11T11:54:00.001-08:00

I've been learning more and more about using Photoshop to enhance my photos. The biggest thing I've learned so far is that you don't have to destroy the quality of your photo using programs like Photoshop. I would always over expose, over sharpen and over color all my work and never realize it. Now that I've got a handle on what can be done, my ability to create spectacular photos is well within my grasp. Here's one of the recent tutorials I've been using to help out with a fire effect. You can creat this! Cool! Although it's an advanced tutorial and will take a few hours or more to perfect, the core skills in creating the effect are valuable as well like playing with the warp and transform tools, layering and more. Give it a go and have fun!

How to Create a Flaming Photo Manipulation

Tutorial Details

Program: Photoshop
Difficulty: Advanced
CompletionTime: 1-2 hours

Final Product What You'll Be Creating

In this tutorial, we’ll manipulate a picture so it looks like a woman burning in flames. The idea behind this manipulation was to create a nice looking illustration, only by using simple techniques and tools such as the Brush tool and Warp command. I hope you enjoy the tutorial and try it with your own stock imagery.

Step 1

For this project, I used two nice images that suits for the manipulation; image1, image2. I would like to thank the author of this two great pictures, which is thiquinho and huibidos from sxc.hu. And before we continue with the steps, I need to inform you that this tutorial is written using Photoshop CS3.

Step 2

Let’s start with image1, open and duplicate this image by using the Image > Duplicate command from the menu bar. In the Duplicate Image dialog box, you can name it anything you like, but to follow this tutorial reference, name it "PassionFire" and hit OK. By doing this, we kept the original image. Be sure to save.

Step 3

With the "PassionFire" image active, duplicate the "background" layer. Set the foreground and background color to black and white by pressing D on the keyboard. Click the "background" layer again and fill it with the foreground color ~ which is set to black. See the images below.

Step 4

Reactivate "Layer 1," then press Command + Shift + U to apply desaturate command. Now invert the color by pressing Command + I. Your image should look like a film’s negative now.

Step 5

Duplicate "Layer 1," then apply the find edges filter from Filter > Stylized > Find Edges. Next, invert the color by pressing Command + I and change the Blending Mode to Hard light. There, your image now has contrast white line and a very dark background.

Step 6

To give the white line more contrast, duplicate the "Layer 1" copy then change the Blending Mode to Screen.

Step 7

Now we move to the second image. Drag image2 into "PassionFire" document image window using the Move tool. If the Paste profile mismatch dialog appears, just click OK to fix it.

Step 8

The fire image from "image2" should be in "Layer 2" now. Change its Blending Mode to screen, this will hide all the black colors in "Layer 2." If done right, your image should be similar to the one below.

Step 9

Duplicate "Layer 2" by pressing Command + J. Make sure you use the Screen Blending mode, same as the original "Layer 2." Next, make "Layer 2" become invisible by hiding it from the layers panel.

Step 10

Click the "Layer 2 copy" to make it active, then use the Free Transform command ( Edit > Free Transform) to rotate and resize the fire image like shown below. Don’t forget to press Enter when you’re done transforming.

Step 11

Still in the same layer, now use the warp command (Edit > Transform > Warp) to bend the fire image – so it following the hair flow. Press Enter when done. See the example below as a reference.

Step 12

If you feel the result is not quite good enough, simply use the Liquify filter to fix it. I assume you already know how to use the liquify filter; the Forward Warp tool and Twirl Clockwise tool is the only tool I used to get this result (see image below).

Step 13

Duplicate the "Layer 2" copy, then use the Free Transform command to resize and rotate the fire image in the current layer. Don’t forget to reposition the fire image too. Once you get this composition (see image below), hit Enter.

Step 14

Repeat the previous process to get the hair covered with fire. Just duplicate and modify the layer until you get all the hair part covered. If needed, use the Liquify Filter again. The end result of this process should look like the image below, notice how many layers are used.

Step 15

Okay, now activate "Layer 2" and make it visible again. Then Change the Blending Mode to Vivid Light. This step will colorize only the white line in the layer below it.

Step 16

Still in "Layer 2," apply the Free Transform command to resize and rotate the fire image like shown below. The purpose is to cover up the girl’s body and hair with the fire texture. Press Enter when you’re done transforming.

Step 17

We’re gonna blur the fire image in "Layer 2," To do so, apply the Gaussian Blur filter from the Filter > Blur > Gaussian Blur menu. Fill the Radius around 10 to 15 pixels, then click OK when done. Blurring the fire image will cause its texture to blend smoother with the layer below it.

Step 18

Now add a layer mask to "Layer 2." Then use a soft round Brush tool with Opacity at 100%. Set the brush size according to your need, then just mask until the fire outside becoming hidden. See the process below.

Step 19

Sure we will remove the white line shown in the image (marked in red rectangle below). First, add a new blank layer below "Layer 2." Then simply paint it with black using the soft round brush tool.

Step 20

Now go to the top most layer (mine is: "Layer 2 copy 6"), add two adjustment layers which is Hue/Saturation and Brightness/Contrast. Careful not to change the layer adjustment order, or the color effect will be wrong. Below you can see the setting I used to complete this step, also pay attention to the adjustment layer order.

By adding a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer, we unify all colors. The Brightness/Contrast adjustment layer brings more color contrast and makes sure the image color’s looks like real fire.

Step 21

I’m sure you notice the fire sparks effect. I create it using the Brush tool with this simple setting. No special brush needed, but if you have one that will be useful then feel free to use it. Below you can see all the settings I used within the Brush palette, of course you can change the setting as you like. Just make sure the brush spatter enough and vary the size.

Step 22

Now to use the modified brush, create a new blank layer below the adjustment layers ( mine is named "Layer 4"). Choose 50% gray from the swatches palette, then you can start creating the fire sparks. Remember not to be monotone, resize the brush size if needed. I start using a big sized brush, then reduce it to smaller size (you can change brush size faster by pressing the bracket keys on the keyboard ).

If you’re not sure how to do this steps, just imagine where and how the fire sparks will flow if it was real fire. For me, imagining stuff is very helpful.

Step 23

To make it more interesting, create a new layer and change the Blending Mode to Screen. Then use a normal soft round brush (not the one we modified earlier), with an Opacity of 50%. Just click in the part of body, neck, and hair. I’m not sure how to explain this, but you can see the difference between the above and below images.

Conclusion

And that’s all of it! Hope you learned something new and had fun. You can view the final image below or view a larger version here.

Article by Jayan Saputra

LIGHT-FIELD TECH IS A GAME-CHANGER

2011-12-06T09:01:00.001-08:00

How the Lytro No-Focus Light Field Camera Changes Photography

Building upon years of research by Stanford University, and with a PhD thesis and five further years of research in hand, Ren Ng has finally launched the infinite-focus, light field photography company Lytro. Fundamentally, a Lytro camera — a light field camera — does away with the single most important and limiting factor of conventional photography: the lens. Instead of focusing, distorting, and cajoling light onto a 2D digital or film plane, light field cameras capture everything that it sees. With conventional lenses, a specific focal point must be chosen — with Lytro, you simply capture every last grain of light data, and then use software to define a focal point.

This is quite a hard concept to get your head around, but it helps if you think of conventional photography as the equivalent of a flat, 2D bitmap or raster graphics, while light field photography is like 3D vector graphics. With conventional photography, what you see is what you get — you can’t resize your photos without losing data, and you certainly can’t alter the focal point. With light field photography, every single ray of light is recorded in a lossless fashion. You then create a virtual focusing point, and ray tracing is used to compute a digital bitmap image. Raw light field photographs will understandably be quite large — but not prohibitively so, according to Lytro.

With the technology out of the way, we should now focus on how light field photography will change the very fundamentals of photography. The basis of photography involves a hole — a lens — and some kind of 2D plane; a wall, a CMOS sensor, light-sensitive film, and so on. The quality of the image produced is entirely dependent on the lens that you use. With light field photography… there is no lens. Or rather, there is no lens in the conventional sense of the word. For over a hundred years we have struggled to focus the 3D world onto a 2D plane — and now, with one fell swoop, we can do away with heavy glass and entirely remove the concept of apertures. With light field photography, you point your camera at a scene and take a photo. No focusing, no thinking, just snap.

No more will candid low-light photography be limited to photographers with enough money to buy a $10,000 camera and lens — and no longer will you have to buy the perfect-bokeh 85mm lens for portraiture. Just point your camera at the subject, capture some light, and then play with the photo after the fact. Lytro will further democratize the digital photography field, allowing anyone and everyone to take perfect photos every time. The only difference between pros and amateurs will be the direction in which you point the camera — and the lengths you go to to find the perfect landscape, of course.

At the moment it sounds like the first Lytro product will be a consumer-grade point-and-shoot affair, which means you’ll probably have to use some kind of “focus browser” on your desktop or laptop to produce final images. Assuming light field technology can be scaled down to smartphones, though, it’s safe to assume that we’ll be able to pick a focal point using an app.
As for when the first Lytro camera will appear, we’re told that it could be on the market before the end of the year. There’s no data about how much it will cost — and don’t be surprised if the first light field camera costs a lot.

Read more about light field photography, and play with some Lytro photos

By Sebastian Anthony

IPHONE VS. DIGITAL CAMERA!? SAY WHAT??

2011-12-02T09:38:00.001-08:00

I'm always wondering if my bulky equipment will soon be replaced with a pocket-sized camera that will do the same thing. I'm sure it will happen the moment I upgrade to the giant $5000 pro camera with all the bells and whistles. Here's an interesting article I found on a really cool website called ars technica.

Can the iPhone 4S replace a "real" digital camera?

Clockwise from top left: Olympus XZ-1 point and shoot, Canon 20D DSLR with EF-S 10-22mm lens, iPhone 4S, Samsung Galaxy SII. Photo taken with an iPhone 4.

When Apple announced the iPhone 4S, the company certainly talked up the improvements made to the smartphone's integrated camera hardware. With 8 megapixels of resolution, a redesigned lens, and enhancements to its software, it certainly meets or exceeds the needs of most casual shooters.

Still, we here at Ars have received plenty of questions to the effect of, "can the iPhone 4S replace a 'real' camera?" That's actually a hard question to answer, because individual needs vary widely. Would a professional photographer replace her trusty DSLR with an iPhone 4S? No. But, might a casual snap shooter replace a pocket camera with an iPhone 4S? It's pretty likely.

Making a decision to ditch your camera for a smartphone is always going to be a matter of personal preference and a trade-off between convenience versus quality. With that in mind, we set out with a stable of cameras to give as fair a comparison as possible. Along with an iPhone 4S, we also took sample shots with a 5MP iPhone 4, an 8MP Samsung Galaxy SII, an 8MP Canon 20D, and a 10MP Olympus XZ-1.

There are two things we did not do, however. For one, we didn't compare every generation of iPhone. Camera+ developer Lisa Bettany already put together a really thorough comparison already, and suffice to say if you have anything older than an iPhone 4, be prepared to be blown away with the results from an iPhone 4S. If you already have an iPhone 4, the improvements to image quality are a little more subtle. But as we noted in our iPhone 4S review, the speed of the camera hardware and software is significantly improved; this alone is a significant factor that improves usability.

A photo taken with each generation of iPhone, from the original 2MP fixed focus iPhone to the 8MP autofocus iPhone 4S.

Lisa Bettany

The other thing we didn't do was compare the video capabilities of the iPhone 4S. We already found the iPhone 4's 720p recording ability to be sufficient for casual use, and at least one filmmaker managed to shoot an entire film using iPhone 4s. The iPhone 4S steps that up to 1080p resolution, and some curious filmmakers at Robino Films found that in static, well-lit scenes, it compares favorably to a Canon 5D mkII. Rolling shutter effects will be a problem, and lowlight shooting introduces some artifacts, but overall the hardware performs well shooting video.

iPhone 4S / Canon 5D mkII Side by Side Comparison

What we were interested in was evaluating the iPhone 4S as a still camera that could possibly replace a 'real' digital camera. To try and keep things as fair as possible, our Canon 20D was outfitted with a Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens was set to 22mm (a roughly 35mm equivalent) and left at f/4.5. Exposure was set automatically using aperture priority, just as most smartphones do. ISO was set manually (the 20D doesn't have auto ISO available in aperture priority mode) but was set to our best guess for the situation at hand.

Likewise, the Olympus was put into aperture priority mode, with its aperture set to f/2.5—similar to the smartphones we compared against. ISO was set automatically, and the lens was left all the way at the wide end—roughly 28mm focal length equivalent.

We took a series of subjects in a couple different lighting scenarios: flowers in outdoor lighting, a building at sunset, and some shots in very low indoor lighting at home and at a bar. We'll show you our comparison shots, noting the performance in each case as well as considering what each device was like to carry, pull out, set up, and take each shot.

Outdoors

We took our band of cameras outside during a brisk autumn afternoon with a clear blue sky to capture some images in bright light. First up is a series of photos taken of a flower arrangement.

Left: iPhone 4S, 1/3500 f/2.4 ISO80. Right: iPhone 4, 1/1150 f/2.8 ISO64.

Left: iPhone 4S. Right: Samsung Galaxy SII, 1/1400 f/2.6 ISO32.

Left: iPhone 4S. Right: Olympus XZ-1, 1/2000 f/2.5 ISO100.

Left: iPhone 4S. Right: Canon 20D, 1/1000 f/4.5 ISO100.

Here you can see the cameras capturing lots of color. Directly comparing the iPhone 4S to the iPhone 4 in the first image, there are two important factors to notice about the improved camera: a greater dynamic range and a tendency to keep colors—especially reds—from over-saturating.

Apple claims to have improved white balance in the 4S, and as such, its images tend to be a little less cold in regular lighting; they show a little less yellow (as we'll see later) under indoor tungsten lighting compared to the iPhone 4. It's difficult to say for sure why these improvements couldn't be passed on to the iPhone 4 with software, but it's likely that the white balance improvements are at least partially due to the new 8MP sensor and its hybrid IR filter.

Our relatively high-end point-and-shoot, the Olympus XZ-1, over-exposed the image quite a bit. It's hard to say what tripped up its exposure system, but suffice it to say, having a more expensive "real" camera doesn't automatically guarantee better results. The XZ-1 has the benefit of offering a variety of manual controls, including ISO adjustments, exposure compensation, and manual exposure control that would let us dial in a better exposure if that's what we wanted.

The iPhone 4S, on the other hand, has no such control. Tapping around different areas of the viewfinder will bias the auto-exposure system for that particular part of the image, however, so there is a way to slightly override it. Still, we found that iPhone would generally nail the exposure about nine times out of ten without intervention.

At screen sizes, there really isn't much difference between the iPhone 4S, the Galaxy SII, and the Canon 20D. We note that the exposure and dynamic range of the Galaxy SII is more like the iPhone 4, while the Canon 20D's rendering is more like that of the iPhone 4S.

100 percent crop of flower images. From left to right: iPhone 4S, iPhone 4, Samsung Galaxy SII, Olympus XZ-1, Canon 20D.

Looking closer at 100 percent crops of each image—pixel peepers rejoice!—the differences are still subtle, but the iPhone 4S and iPhone 4 are clearly noisier than the Olympus or the Canon. The Galaxy SII shows signs of aggressive noise reduction that leaves odd artifacts, though at screen sizes or in smaller prints, these won't likely be noticeable. Both the iPhone 4S and Canon 20D show a little blurriness, but given the high winds on that particular day, I attribute this to a bit of motion blur, as other details in the image are sharp.

Photography and Article by Chris Foresman

Building and Soundproofing a Home Studio

2011-12-01T20:39:00.001-08:00

Setting up a home studio can be expensive and difficult. However, to many musicians and voice artists, it is well worth the expense. There are plenty of books available with advice on buying and wiring in equipment. The focus of this article is about constructing, soundproofing, and tuning your home studio.

A major concept in studio acoustics is to eliminate parallel hard surfaces that reflect sound waves. It's also important to stop sound from entering or exiting the room through holes. Also, forcing sound to pass through multiple surfaces that are insulated from one another will dramatically decrease the sound that escapes the room. For example, two walls with an air gap or sound insulation between them will stop more sound than one thick wall.

When selecting a room in which to build your studio, think about how any sound leakage will affect the rooms near it. Putting your studio next to the baby's room (or any bedroom) is probably not a good idea. A loft in a detached garage would be perfect. A room in the corner of the basement would work well also. The best suited rooms have non-parallel walls (so the sound won't reverberate between them). If you can't use non-parallel walls, consider placing bookcases diagonally across the corners of the room to break up the wall surface.

Soundproofing takes a bit of work, and for the best results you can expect to spend a fair amount for this step. The best way is to build a room with double drywall walls and insulation in between, then leave 3 to 4 inches and build another double drywall wall that is fully insulated as well. The double wall serves as a bass trap and will absorb the majority the sound before it leaves your room. Do the same with the ceiling and the floor if you can.

The easiest solution for the floor is to put the studio in the basement, but if you can't do that then you'll have to insulate the floor. A double layer of sub-flooring with sound insulation in between can be covered with a carpet. Make sure to stagger the joins on the sub-floor so that there is no complete gap for the sound to penetrate. Don't lay the sub-floor all the way to the walls because then the walls and floor will bridge and conduct sound between them. Leave about ¼ to ½ an inch around the sub-floor and fill it in with caulk.

In addition to all the above sound proofing, consider installing baffles in your heating and air conditioning ducts to prevent sound from exploiting these handy connections to other rooms.

Once your studio is built, you will need to tune the room to improve sound quality inside it. Blankets and quilts hung on the walls can be a cheap way of solving the sound reflection problems. Another inexpensive solution is to glue styrofoam panels to the wall and then glue styrofoam egg containers to that. There are also plenty of internet stores that sell sound-absorbing or diffusing materials. Look for panels that have adhesive backing to simplify the job.

The final step is to find your new studio's "sweet spot" or optimal listening point. The speakers should be located equal distances from your ears, forming an isosceles triangle with the two speakers and your head. Don't put the speakers up against the wall or you'll get a bassier sound. Move the speakers around and try a bunch of different configurations.

Now that you've built and tuned your home studio, you should get great sound within it and hardly any sound outside of it.

by Matthew D. Sarrel

SHOOT VIDEO LIKE IT'S 1899!

2011-11-28T09:48:00.001-08:00

Ever want to pretend you live during the advent of the camara? Now you can get that 35mm look with this new camera by LomoKino. You wind it! Awesome!

LomoKino lets you shoot VERY old school 35mm movies

The LomoKino Super 35 Movie Maker lets low-tech film-makers shoot their own 35mm movies, by hand-cranking film through the device.

Video cameras now routinely offer features such as full 1080p high-def video, night vision mode, and stereo sound ... if you're one of the people who reads that and thinks "Big deal, that just means people will have nicer-looking home videos," perhaps you would appreciate a camera that's focused less on the latest tech, and more on the art of moving pictures. Well, Lomography's new LomoKino Super 35 Movie Maker should fit the bill. Paying homage to the original Chaplin-era movie cameras, users hand-crank 35mm film through the box-like device, while a fixed-focus lens captures all the jittery, grainy action.

According to the company, any type of 35mm still photograph film will work - these could include slide film, color negative, redscale or black-and-white. A full roll (we're assuming that means one rated for 36 exposures) should capture 144 frames, which in turn will result in 50-60 seconds of footage.

The camera itself has a 25mm f/5.6-f/11 fixed-focus lens - although it can be shifted into close-up mode (down to 0.6 meter/2 feet) with the push of a button. Shots are framed using a top-mounted optical viewfinder, like those found on old twin-lens reflex cameras. Audio recording is non-existent.

Each exposure is captured at one one-hundredth of a second, while the user cranks the film through at approximately 3-5 frames-per-second. Considering that "real" movie cameras typically shoot at 24 fps, you get an impression of just how choppy the footage will look!

Before you can watch that footage, however, you'll have to get the film processed. Once the finished roll is back, you will require the LomoKinoScope to view it. Not a movie projector, the device is more like a Nickelodeon, in which viewers watch the footage through a peephole while hand-cranking the film through.

The LomoKino is available via Lomography's website, for US$79. A package including the camera and the LomoKinoScope goes for $99.

By Ben Coxworth

New Camera Tech to Allow Shoot First, Focus Later

2011-11-28T09:19:00.001-08:00

I've been reading up on these new technologies and find it so exciting. Just don't buy a really expensive camera in the next year. I think this new technology will completely change the way cameras are made, photos are taken and the amount of post processing being reduced significantly. In the past when I would submit to stock sites a high percentage would be rejected for focus issues. This new tech would eliminate that problem completely. Read on...

US start-up to release camera based on 'light field' technology

Lytro claims its new camera technology records the entire light field.

A US start-up company is poised to release new camera technology allowing photographers to set the point of focus in their images after taking the picture.

California-based Lytro claims it has developed a new camera to be released later this year that uses 'light field' technology to allow photographers to take a picture and set the focus on any point in the picture later on the computer.

Creating what it calls interactive 'living pictures,' Lytro says its new technology uses the light field - the amount of light travelling in every direction through every point in space - which conventional cameras cannot record.

Using a new kind of sensor called a light field sensor, the company claims its camera "captures the color, intensity and vector direction of the rays of light. This directional information is completely lost with traditional camera sensors, which simply add up all the light rays and record them as a single amount of light."

Lytro adds: "By substituting powerful software for many of the internal parts of regular cameras, light field processing introduces new capabilities that were never before possible. Sophisticated algorithms use the full light field to unleash new ways to make and view pictures."

The Lytro camera's pictures would allow photographers not only to focus pictures after they are taken, but also shift their perspective of a scene and switch between 2D and 3D views, the company claims.

For a more in-depth discussion of Lytro's camera technology, you can read the company CEO's dissertation.

Or you can visit Lytro's image gallery to see some examples of its 'living pictures' and adjust the focus.

By Jeff Meyer

Holophonic Sound

2011-11-27T08:14:00.000-08:00

I've been learning to use various techniques over the years in order to enhance the sound quality of my home studio recordings. I happened on this site and have begun to explore the various uses for it in our projects. Can you imagine how it might change the way movies are made? Combining holophonic sound with 3D graphics (and maybe throw in a little smell-o-vision too). Beyond that, I believe the therapeutic benefits are wide-ranging. We'll see. Next stop, the holo-deck...

How It Works

Hugo Zuccarelli, an Argentine who dabbled in various sound experimentations in the 1980s, believed the human auditory system not only hears sound but emits sounds as well. The combination of these heard and emitted sounds form a reference pattern from which the brain can determine the direction a sound is coming from. Zucarella based Holophonic Sound on this theory. In this recording technique, sound samples played through stereo speakers or headphones sound three-dimensional, as though they are not being amplified but actually occurring all around us. It’s very odd.

Holophonic Sound is based on binaural recording, a technique in which stereo microphones are fixed within a prosthetic head—replete with ears and sinus cavities—to mimic the complex auditory system of the human head. Doing this makes binaural and Holophonic recordings sound more natural and more realistic than normal stereo recordings because we hear the recordings with the same nuances we would hear sounds in real life within our own heads.

When played in stereo, Holophonic sound is so realistic and three-dimensional that it can often arouse other senses—smell, taste, and touch—within most people who listen to it. Allegedly, Holophonic Sounds can stimulate areas of the ear that normal recording or real life sounds cannot. For this reason, some people with hearing impairments whose brains cannot process other sounds can hear Holophonic Sound. HighLab found Holophonic Sound to be visceral, tactile, and altogether head-shakingly neat.

Here's a link to the website called 'Get High Now'... http://gethighnow.com/holophonic-sound/

2011-11-23T18:29:00.000-08:00

Here's an article I believe is invaluable for any photographer thinking about getting into the stock world. Yuri Arcurs is the king of the stock game not only because of his incredible photos, but also because of his smart business sense. I've found following his blog extremely helpful (not to mention profitable). Thanks Yuri!

Stock Photography – By far the most profitable way to sell images online

by – Yuri arcurs….the world’s top selling stock photographer.

1. How does it work? – A beginners guide

The first barrier to pass once you have some images created is to sign up and actually get accepted as a contributing photographer at the most important agencies (list later). You may ask “hey, can’t I just sell the images on my own?” The answer is no, not if you want to make money. Really. There are a number of great agencies out there that you’ll want to try to get your photographs onto. However, this isn’t always so easy to get past the front door, because these agencies are strict. They don’t just let you fill up their servers with bad images, they want to make sure you are serious. They do that is in two ways:
1. Give you an entry exam. You have to submit test photos and/or pass a quiz.
2. Once you’re in, they give you upload limits detailing how many files you may upload based on your approval rating or sales.
The hardest entry tests to get through are on shutterstock or the Istock entry test and often you have to try more than once. The other tests are pretty easy.

————————————————————————–

2. Passing the entry test:

Digital mistakes that most often cause people to fail

Step one: passing that entry test! Here is where I urge you to have patience and take time to be sure you are creating technically correct photos. There are a number of common technical problems an image will be rejected for, and below I describe each of these in detail.

Digital Don’ts (aka, things that will make you fail your entry test or get lots of photographs rejected, get super frustrated and give up)

Many people fail their entry test, and it’s usually for the same basic technical reasons. If you make the mistakes I describe below, to a reviewer, it looks like you’ve been careless. If you are a professional photographer, especially a journalist, this is where you often fail. My tip? Don’t just go crazy on the forums and scream about how stupid stock photography is, read this first and learn why you were rejected. Work smarter, not harder. Learn from your rejections, and give the agencies what they want. Then you get what you want. Money and sales!

Fringing

Fringing problems as a result of chromatic aberration are very common. Chromatic abberation is a fancy way of saying the lens didn’t focus all colors to the same point. When this leads to a fringe, you’ll see slight lines of color (often purple or blue) on the borders of elements in your picture. Fringing problems are most visible when you push lenses and optics to extremes. For example, when using an ultra wide angle lens below 25mm or an ultra low F-stop below 2.0. Even great lenses will show signs of fringing when shooting high contrast too, such as shooting against a very bright background. Always look for fringing signs before submitting photographs to stock, because even the slightest fringe is reason enough for a rejection. There is a zero tolerance policy on this matter. Fringing is best removed by using a combination of the color replacement tool in photoshop or simply desaturating the problem area. Fringe is not only blue or purple, but can also be green, red and sometimes bright yellow. Do a google image search on “fringing examples” and you can get a visual of what I’m talking about.

Moiré

Moiré is form of chromatic aberration that appears on textures. Moiré appears when the digital camera has to interpret the real word into square pixels. Because the real world does not consist of small squares we do not see such problems in the world around us very often, but when we have to see the world through a sensor, patterns will appear much more readily between these squares. (Have you ever been reading the newspaper and seen an image that has a tiny pattern of dots throughout it? This is moiré and it is quite irritating.) Moiré can be avoided by choosing the right kind of clothes for your models–this really is a matter of fabric type and the way that the light hits it. Often small amounts of fringe will also be visible where the moiré is, making the problem even bigger. The best way to handle it is to desaturate the whole fabric and then artificially re-color it with a couple of color balance layers. Some cases of moiré are too strong and cannot be saved. Moiré is a clear-cut rejection reason.

Compression mistakes and artifacts

Artifacts appear as a result of compression and over-sharpening. When editing a picture in photoshop, if that pictures is a Jpg and not a Tiff file compression will appear every time you save the file. If you save and re-save too much, you will get artifacts on that file. Artifacts are another clear rejection reason. Edit in Tiff 8bit and only save to Jpg 12-11 just before uploading to a stock agency. Some cameras of low quality will create artifacts straight from the camera and should be avoided. The older versions of Camera RAW for photoshop also created artifacts when developed from RAW and into Tiff. It is highly problematic if your developing software creates artifacts even before the file is saved. This was the case for the older versions of Camera RAW and lightRoom. Artifacts can be blurred down with a gaussian blur of 0.3. If the artifacts are still visible after the blur, then do it again, but don’t go to 0.4 or 0.5 because then the image will look like it was out of focus.

Banding problems

Banding is another definitive rejection reason and one that even professional stock photographers often simply forget about. I just recently had a file rejected for banding because it slipped my mind. Banding happens when there is not enough color information in the picture to create a smooth gradient between two colors. Banding problems are only visible on simple (non-texture, not-in-focus) areas. Some colors are better at creating banding problems than others. Orange to red, bright blue to white, bright blue to darker blue, dark green to green are all trouble maker color gradients and it’s here that you’ll find 80% of your banding problems. Banding is a huge problem for a digital photograph. There really is no fix for it. Even for a person like me who has spent four to six hours per day in photoshop for the last four years it is not easy to fix banding. Normally my assistant and I will try to do a photoshop replace of the problem area with a similar area from another picture, so it’s quite a big operation. Banding is normally avoided completely if you do not over saturate and do not overuse color balance. If you use the “levels” tool this will create enormous banding problems, so don’t do that.

Unsharp or shaken files

Now it really comes down to skill. There is a reason why I always shoot on a monopod and that is because of focus. I have a reputation in the stock industry of being insanely obsessed with focus and I really go to extremes to create super crisp files. Here are the rules for a how a picture should be in focus: Focal point should be on the front eyelid, not the eyebrow and not the back eye. Focus is ok if you can separately count eyelid hairs and distinguish them from each other. Remember some lenses will simply not be as sharp as others. The golden rule is if you can separate eyelid hairs from each other, you’re in business. On pictures of people that are far away this is not possible so just try to execute good judgement. If the image shows the least bit of of shaking, this is not acceptable. A shaken picture is a photographer’s mistake and will be rejected. Some images are intentionally motion-blurred to illustrate action and speed and this is ok, but I would not send such files for your test- evaluation. Forget about trying to save an image with adding sharpening. A good inspector can spot it a mile away and your image will be rejected for the reason of being “overfiltred” or “oversharpend”.

Trademarks

You cannot have any trademarks (company brands) in your pictures, period. None. Zero. Finito. Think of this for a second. You are selling images to companies and big industries, off course they do not want to see the trademarks and logos of their competitors in the pictures they plan to use in their advertising. Also, there are some legalities involved. Retouch logos and trademarks away or shoot differently. The thoughtful reader will be thinking, “well how about pictures of Times Square or Tokyo’s Shibuya?” Well guess what–there really are no images of such places in stock, they are simply showing too many trademarks.

Visible Photoshop filters

(aka Flickr style over-photoshopping, deviant looking images… We are professionals…please, back away from the crazy artsy photoshop tricks.. )

Our buyers want images that are perfect and that they can print right away without any problems. This means no fancy flickr filters and deviant “baby retouching”. You should know that 99% percent of all images on flickr and deviant art would be rejected if they were submitted to a stock agency. They are simply what we call “baby photoshopped” – Showing too many signs of too many ambitious tricks and retouching efforts. By far the most overused effects would be diffusion glow or the hard light blending option on a denatured background layer. Yuck. Upload plain images. The inspectors will see an overly retouched or filtered image as an attempt to hide insufficient photographer skills. Don’t do it. This aspect is where most people get their rejections and also where they become the most angry. Just try to remember, this is the big league, harder than traditional stock (Getty images), harder than photography school, harder than what your mentor used to say and definitely harder then Flickr and DeviantArt.

Boring content

Make sure you think about what good stock photography is. Uninteresting content is things like images of pigeons, pets, trees, house utensils, fancy arty images in black and white, statues, public buildings, animals from a zoo, sunsets, waterlines, things around the house, computers, etc. The inspectors have seen it all.  Do them a favour and present something great.

A note on quality

Why to be careful with your submissions

When Getty bought Flickr, only 6000 images were transferred to be put for sale on Getty and this was out of millions and millions of images. 6000 images is less then one fifth of my own private collection of stock images so obviously, it is not easy to get image online on stock agencies. The good news is that once you know about the technical mistakes and how to fix them, not only have you become a much better technical photographer but you can also produce digital images that no art director in the world can criticize. Perfect images that no client can push back for technical reasons. When you look at my portfolio the images here are done within the above rules and that puts a lot of limitations on what I can do. I can’t go crazy and photoshop an image to the sky, because that would not be a stock image and it would get rejected.
Okay I’m IN. Now what?

After you have passed the entry exam the rest is not so hard and basically looks like this:

Produce content – Upload and Submit for review – Watch the sales

————————————————————————–

3. Producing content

The hardest part about shooting stock photography is coming up with creative ideas that will sell. I often get the question: “So how do you decide what to shoot?, do you just go out and shoot something?”. The answer to this is actually, yes. However, I never go out and “just” shoot, without some idea in the back of my head of what kind of imagery I plan on bringing home. In the olds days I would work with what we call a shootplan or a shotlist, with exact ideas that I would try to portray. Today my shootplan is almost empty and I shoot much more freely. I use the environment around me to get inspiration. If the location I am at has a chimeny I include that in the shoot, if the model is a gymnast I include acrobatics in the shoot. I simply take “in” the environment and use it. The big advantage of shooting like this is that it pays much better because I find myself not just duplicating what others have done before me (and probably have done better too). So here is how I prepare: I work with storyboard (a script basically) and plan props, locations and models around the script. Then when I arrive on set, I use the storyboard to keep track of time, sets, ideas, concepts, but other then that freestyle my way out of it. This style of shooting only works if you are highly productive and shoot a lot. If you freestyle and take your time, you will not go home with a lot of shots. Also this style requires knowledge about what sells and how to shoot it. Here are two articles about shooting style that my readers really liked:
Here are two articles about shooting style that my readers really liked:

————————————————————————–

4. What to shoot, what sells

Once you start selling you will also start to see some patterns in what people like to buy. To make a very long story short, people buy pictures within the big industries of the world. For example, medical pictures sell generally well and that is because the medical industry is big and needs a lot of images. Images of wellness and spa related shoots also sell well and again is an example of another big industry. Have this in mind when you are planning your shoots and try to include images that are targeted to an industry instead of just shooting blindly.

————————————————————————–

5. Uploading and submitting standards

Each agency has their own uploading system and online submission form. To be honest it is a pain to upload images. I wrote this article about how long it takes to upload to each agency and the income you get from them. Non-exclusivity (as in not exclusive to Istockphoto.com) probably pays a little better than exclusivity but on the other hand it takes long time to manage uploading to so many agencies. As soon as you start getting income you should invest in an assistant that can do this for you because your time is better spent taking more images than tediously submitting and uploading your images to 10 different agencies.

Industry standards

There are a couple of industry standards that have finally arrived in regards to digital images and submitting stock content. It was not like this 3 years ago, but today there seems to be some degree of consensus:

Images with identifiable humans need a model release. You can download and use my generic model release that all agencies accept here on this site
Images need to be saved as jpg 11-12 with no layers or paths. Native resolution – as in not upsized. Downsizing to get an image sharper is ok. Nothing else is accepted.

Tagging/keywording rules

Max 50 keywords/tag
Title cannot be longer then 50 characters
Description must be different from the title and include at least six words

Tagging directly into the IPTC data of the image 

Here is how you put the title into IPTC data so you are sure it will be read by the agencies. Tagging your images directly into the ITPC data fields on the jpg is by far the easiest way to go. Consider using my photo photo keywording tool here on this site. About 50% of all photographers in microstock use it.

Title goes into the Title field and the headline IPTC field
The description goes into the description IPTC field
Keywords goes into the keywords IPTC field
Copyright notice: Some agencies will include your details and don’t want you to do that yourself

————————————————————————–

6. Sales and statistics in stock photography

When you start selling images it is a good idea to keep track of what shots were the most profitable, what models sell well and what locations were good sellers. Do this and it becomes easy to optimize for greater success. Be careful that you do not overanalyze or spend too much time on this. I made this mistake and realized that every day I spent sitting at my studio looking into my numbers and statistics was a day not shooting and a day not being productive. It’s easy to get so caught up in the sales that one forgets to actually shoots.

Most new stock photographers get what we pros call the “F5 syndrome”, which basically means that new photographers will constantly sit and hit the F5 button for “page refresh” in their statistics page to look for new sales. Checking your stats five times per day is normal when you start out. You simply get exited to see people use your images.

————————————————————————–

7. Why microstock is the best choice.

Low entry level on skill required and potentially the highest earnings

Despite all the warnings and potential pitfalls just described above, microstock has a relatively low “entry level”. Stock photography was not always easy to get into and it is just recently, within the last three or four years that it has been become possible to get into. Consider this, if you were a professional soccer player, you would certainly have played soccer all your life and would be training 8 times per week probably. Now consider microstock photography (stock photography). Without much prior knowledge and without having done this all your life at all, you are actually able to enter this profession and earn a living from it, with no prior education, no real skills and no high-end camera gear. This is great. Think of it that way instead of thinking….Damn… A rejected file again.

————————————————————————–

8. Gear

You do not need a super big expensive camera. A Canon D7 is plenty or even a Canon Powershot G11 will do. Spend you money and time on educating yourself in digital standards instead because this is where you will get your rejections and not the quality of your camera anymore. The cameras today are so good, that a middle class/high-end camera from each of the major brands will do just fine. Photographers love gear and can get completely caught up in the great thing instead of focussing on the real obstacles in selling images. To many peoples surprise i bring a Nikon D3X and only two lenses on vacation. The 85mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.4. That’s is.

————————————————————————–

9. What agencies to submit to:

This part of the post will always be the most popular and is about which agencies to submit to. Check out my earnings yourself and do your estimates on which agencies to submit to. By far, the biggest mistake is to think “no..I will focus on these two or three agencies”. If you do that, you will NOT be successful and will not make a living from stock photography. Forget about this strategy. Submit to all the agencies on this list and have a small collection at the rest so you know if they suddenly do well and are worthy of your pictures.

Istock

The most popular stock agency in the world and a strong income generator. The drawbacks with this agency is a very low non-exclusive commission of only 20% to the photographer. Also the uploading system for submitting content is extremely time-consuming and they have zero tolerance for an “open forum”. Any discussions they dislike will result in consequences. This agency is very strict on digital quality. You have upload limits of between 15-35 files per week.
——————————————————–

Fotolia

A very popular site especially in Europe. Medium to very time-consuming uploading system for submitting content depending on content type (model released vs non-model released) This agency is fair on digital quality. No upload limits.
——————————————————–

Shutterstock

The most popular subscription based stock agency in the world. This agency pays well for beginners in stock photography, but does not pay well for full-time or high end stock photographers like myself. The uploading system is medium time-consuming and their rejections are fair in regards to digital quality. No upload limits.
——————————————————–

StockXpert

Getty owned site. Does ok. Income goes a little up and down, but it is certainly worth submitting to. Uploading system is medium easy. Hardly any upload limits.
——————————————————–

Dreamstime

Stable sales, medium time-consuming uploading system, high commission to the photographer.
——————————————————–

123RF

Low income site, but worth it. Easy uploading system makes it worthwhile. Ok photographer commission. Inspections are fair. The site is stable in income, but only if you keep submitting.
——————————————————–

Bigstockphoto

Low income site. Relatively easy uploading system. Ok photographer commission. Inspections are fair. Excellent CEO. No upload limits and good organization of online file management.
——————————————————–

Crestock

Low income site. Extremely easy uploading system makes it worth while. Low photographer commission. Very strict Inspections.
Below you will find a graphic overview of my total income from the different agencies over the last three years of my microstock carrier.
The non-exclusive microstock distribution channel (submitting to a lot of agencies, such as I do) still remains the best income provider, despite the higher commission of the exclusivity offers out there.
Finding where to sign up at these agencies can sometimes be a little difficult, so therefor I have provided links to the sign-up pages at each agency at the bottom of this post. If you use the link below you will become affiliated with me and are entitled to personal guidance by me or my staff. We can do this because we get a tiny percentage of your income if you are affiliated with us.
Income Primo 2008

Income Late 2008

The income speaks for itself but you should always take into consideration the time it takes to organize, upload, attach model releases and assign categories at the different agencies. Some agencies have made it extremely easy to upload and organize your images, including Crestock and 123RF. Other agencies have not thought so hard about this aspect and it can therefor be quite time consuming to get your files submitted for inspection. Files have to be categorized and organized before they are evaluated by the editors where they may or may not get rejected.
If you have just spent hours organizing your files and a lot of them get rejected afterwards it can be quite frustrating. Below I have included the result of a study on average agency online management time consume. (The time it takes to attach model release, categories and so forth once the files are already online).
Uploading time compared to income, (Primo 2008)

This survey was done by members of my crew as well as independent testers and was highly significant (p < 0.015).

The most cost-efficient (time spent uploading vs income) agency to upload to is Shutterstock, followed by StockXpert and Fotolia. The least cost-efficient is Snapvillage and Istock. This does not mean that you should not submit to these agencies, but just that you should take this into consideration if you have to do all the uploading yourself.
——————————————————–

2011-11-20T15:32:00.000-08:00

Speaking of DIY photography, here's an interesting article about a small town photographer who shoots with a D90 and a kit lens and buys equipment like basic lights and reflectors at places like WalMart. You don't need top of the line to create top of the line...

A big fish in a small pond, Brian DeMint takes an unconventional approach to fashion photography in Small Town, USA

By William Sawalich, Photography By Brian DeMint

It's suppertime when Brian DeMint returns from his 12-hour swing shift at a rural Missouri power plant—unless, of course, he's working the overnight. He usually grabs a slice of pizza and kisses his wife, but then he gets to work again. Unlike most folks in Joplin who work two jobs, DeMint doesn't moonlight as a fast-food worker or a security guard. His other job is fashion photographer.

Calling DeMint's photographic pursuits a "job" isn't quite right. It's his passion—the creative outlet that has been the focus of his existence since 2004. Calling him a fashion photographer doesn't seem quite right either, but no term fits better. He's occupying a creative space that isn't particularly well defined, and that's fine with him.

You see, fashion photographers tend to be commercial photographers working on assignment for magazines or ad agencies or fashion designers in exchange for money—often big money. DeMint, though, considers himself an artist. In fact, he has zero desire to turn his burning passion into a mere job lest it taint his artistic vision. So he works less at growing his business than he does refining his creativity and his photographic output.

"I don't consider myself a commercial photographer," he says. "I turn down nearly all assignments unless I'm given complete creative control. I loathe parameters and prefer my unconscious mind to take me where it likes—before conformity, logic or marketing kick in. I rarely, if ever, preplan a shoot. For me, the modus operandi is that the model shows up, and I get ideas on the fly and we shoot them. The ideas are influenced by all the visuals floating around in my brain at that moment.

"I'm a business-to-personal photographer hired by models and would-be models," DeMint adds. "Magazines occasionally pick up sets, and that's very beneficial. But accepting commissioned assignments, for me, is equivalent to putting on a straitjacket."

Don't mistake DeMint's photography for some glorified hobby. Creating images is the primary focus of his life. He pours as much heart, soul and sweat into his images as the biggest New York photographers—though he does it for much less money, for much smaller clients, in a much smaller town and maybe for much purer reasons.

"I would be more apt to call it an obsession," DeMint says. "All my spare time is engaged with something associated with fashion photography: shooting, editing, studying, experimenting. Even when I watch movies, I pay so much attention to the makeup, the attire and the cinematography that I'm often clueless about what's happening in the movie. It's not something that I'm looking to get rich from, even though we could definitely use the money. My biggest fear is turning into a 'glamour shots' type of scenario. Putting people through, like, an assembly line is a nauseating thought to me."

DeMint is so focused on the end result—the perfect image of a beautiful woman in a wild outfit with great makeup and a vibrant, sculptural and textural quality—that he has all but completely ignored what most photographers would consider the essentials of equipment and technique. Certainly no other fashion photographer ever profiled in these pages—or likely in any other—can lay claim to as minimal a setup as DeMint favors. He recently traded in his Canon Digital Rebel for a Nikon D90 with a kit lens. "An 18-55mm, I think," he says. That's all he needs. Well, that and the chicken warmers.

"You know," DeMint adds, "those $7 silver dish-reflector lights with the clamps? I get mine at Wal-Mart because they have a 10-foot cord instead of a 6-foot cord. They run about 20 cents more, but I feel a guy has to splurge sometimes to get the equipment he needs. I use those with 100-watt soft-white bulbs and a stick to duct-tape them to when I have to move back a bit. They're used in some chicken houses to generate heat, I understand. So, if you want to get some great arty shots of chickens sometime, it's all set up.

"Usually, my setup is one light for portraits," he says, "two if I need a hair light, two or three lights for three-quarter body shots, and I rarely do full-length shots. For beauty sets, the setup is usually two: a backlight or fill light and the key light. I always hold the key light in my hand, so I can put the emphasis exactly where I want it. Plus, the model can pose as quick as she wants, and I can adjust the light to match so I don't miss a shot. These lighting setups give me a dramatic and baroque artistic feel versus the other lighting forms I've tried.


Brian DeMint is an equipment minimalist. Using a lower-end DSLR and simple lighting gear, he creates photographs layered with complexity of color, shape, form and texture. It's interesting that his minimalist approach on the equipment side extends to his choice of formats. Says DeMint, "I never shoot in RAW, never plan to. I've experimented with it and personally dislike it because it just adds to the image size and processing time. That's just a personal choice, so readers, please don't send me your arguments why I'm a dolt for not using RAW or for using a PC instead of a Mac. Yes, it's true! I use a PC."

"I've tried strobes and many forms of other gear," DeMint continues, "however, the hot lights let me see exactly where the illumination is hitting without doing tests. I'm ready to shoot immediately for each set. I have no lighting adjustments, except I might bend a reflector to make it more of a spotlight for a jewelry shot or something. Plus, I prefer the painterly feel it gives to the images."

Having very few lighting adjustments also means that the photographer can be present while the model is being made up. This is crucial for DeMint's process, as the entire look of the shoot—from wardrobe to makeup to hair to posing and retouching—are all spur-of-the-moment decisions. Since each piece of the puzzle is weighted equally, DeMint needs to be involved in the preshoot processes, too.

DeMint uses wild color combinations and juxtapositions in his work: "Color is a driving force behind the work. The base or key color is usually the model's outfit, and all my decisions on makeup, jewelry, accessories, backdrops and props are based off that key color. Of course, those decisions are also influenced by the other elements of design, texture, shape, line, etcetera. In the studio, I never shoot with gels, and as for in-camera adjustments, I may offset the white balance to get a golden or bluish hue to start with."

"I like seeing if my direction is working," he says. "If not, I can have my wife—my primary makeup artist and hairstylist, and an excellent craftsman—alter it before we waste time on mistakes in my styling ideas. It also gives me a chance to coach the model about the theme and come up with adjectives to think about when posing: angular, haughty, sultry, etc. Lastly, and this is big—the studio is completely non-intimidating, and it has a more intimate and creative painter-studio aesthetic to it versus the sterile setup I so often see. When the models feel at ease, it's a much more conducive setting for them to get into character. Posing, for me, is more like acting.

"For me, being a photographer often means I'm also a set designer, flower arranger, fashion consultant, jewelry maker," DeMint says. "My philosophy is if I don't have it, we try to make it. We're well versed in making useable objects from absolute garbage."

DeMint's hands-on approach is nowhere more evident than in the image of a model, Vera, as an ice princess. He constructed jewelry and accessories out of store-bought items he then pieced together. While he often paints backgrounds, in this case he used leftover snow flocking to create the backdrop on plywood.

"I bought a $5 pack of gem-cut plastic doodads," he says, "and constructed a necklace with a hot-glue gun, and that headpiece with a plastic trash bag, hot glue and the gems. We used feathers from a boa, torn in half, for the eyelashes. Then we shot it various ways with the theme being regal—thus, the head back. In Photoshop, I added some icy-looking textures and some fake snow with brushes. The result was boring, so I grabbed a stock image of a red wall and layered it on top of the stack using the 'soft light' layer method. It's not boring now! I'm not sure what we've got, but to me it's visually dynamic."

That this visual dynamo relies on Photoshop to add crucial finishing elements to his images is no surprise. DeMint loves working with layers and overlays to add texture and a tactile quality to his images, but aside from that, he says he doesn't do too much beyond color and contrast adjustments.

"I learned Photoshop by experimenting and doing tutorials online," he says. "I make very heavy use of color adjustments—hue, balance, saturation—using adjustment layers with layer masks. Photoshop is a big part of the work because it allows me to experiment with things that would take hours to try in a physical manner or which would otherwise be impossible. This is the digital age, why restrict yourself? I'm not concerned with reality for the most part. Fashion and beauty photography is that area between reality and illusion. For me, the original image is like a sketch one performs before moving on to the finished painting. It's the product, not the process."

Technicians get bogged down with process. Artists worry only about tools as a means to an end. DeMint definitely is the latter. Once a painter, all he has ever photographed is fashion and beauty, and that's all he has ever wanted to do. What he may lack in technical expertise or high-end equipment, he more than makes up for in creative vision and a robust knowledge of art. And, of course, there's his exceptional capability. The proof is in the product.

"I'm heavily influenced by the Fauves [French for the wild beasts], Abstract Expressionism and New American Surrealism," he explains. "My initial imagery was influenced by my admiration for a group of painters referred to as the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, and additionally by the dark and cerebral cinema of David Lynch, Ingmar Bergman and Krzysztof Kieslowski. As the work evolved, I began to study fashion designers, particularly John Galliano and Alexander McQueen, as well as the famous fashion shooters Miles Aldridge, Paolo Reversi, Sarah Moon and others. Now, the work is propelled by all of these influences, plus my study of art history and whatever weirdness seems to be floating around in my head. I've been very fortunate in that the work has steadily gained in popularity, which is both flattering and sometimes baffling because it's not my intention to create artwork that fits into any sort of category that's universally accepted.

"It's achieving the desired results," adds DeMint. "I'm most definitely not the 'me against the world' type. It's not my intention to be radical or different for the sake of being rebellious against the norm. However, I don't sell my artwork by the square foot either, so I do have the leeway of being unconventional. I'm steadfast in my commitment to producing artwork that I personally find visually compelling, and if a client likes it as well, then I get a bonus. I've turned down everything from doing band covers to beauty editorials for national magazines because their boundaries left no room for creativity. As long as I make enough money to keep the studio open, I'm happy."

The Tornado

On May 22, as one of the 175,000 residents of Joplin, Missouri, photographer Brian DeMint's life was turned upside down by the most devastating American tornado in more than 60 years.

"The tornado has been a life-changing event for everyone living here," DeMint says. "It's impossible to drive through the middle of town and not be moved to tears. The heartbreak continues as we still have people dying from wounds or infections, and others have received horrific physical scarring. And surely we all have been emotionally battered."

DeMint was fortunate that his relatives and home were spared, though some of his models weren't so lucky.

"Our family and home miraculously came through unscathed," he says, "as houses a block away were utterly destroyed. However, we did have two Eyeworks models directly affected by the tornado. One lost her home, vehicle and all the family's possessions. Most things that survived the tornado were ruined by the rain that continued all that night and the next day. The other model not only lost all her possessions and her vehicle, but also suffered physical damage with fractured vertebrae and other injuries around her heart and lungs. Thankfully, she's expected to make a full recovery."

Along with the dramatic impact the tornado had on the photographer's models, and the subtler impact it had on DeMint's ability to continue shooting and editing his projects, the events led to a bit of an ethical dilemma for many photographers. DeMint drew a simple line that he has stuck to.

"I personally vowed not to take any images," he says, "and I will not. What I have seen will unfortunately be forever in my memory. However, the city was an incredulous sight, and so many people were snapping pictures. Then signs started to appear in yards reading things like, 'Put down your damn camera and help!' Thus, the ethical debate can begin."

Look for Brian DeMint as the keynote speaker at the Missouri Professional Photographers Association workshops in September and as a mentor at After Dark Education in Charlotte, N.C. and Tucson, Ariz., this fall. You can see more of DeMint's work on his website, www.eyeworksphotography.com.