Beyond the obvious

Traditionally the difference between an amateur and a professional photographer is defined as one earns a living from their photography while the other does not. I think this definition is fine in as far as it goes but to me the word professional means more than just working in a trade. The other connotations of the word professional include, learned, expert and skilled. I suppose what I'm really seeking to differentiate between is someone who works as a photographer and someone that has a wholly professional attitude to their photography. A truly professional photographer cares about every detail and strives for perfection in everything they do, from dealing with customers, to models, to the quality of their work, to presentation, to doing business with suppliers and leading their team. Every aspect is handled professionally, with skill, expertise and the utmost care. Because the final image is the product of a long chain of decisions and actions. For example, the photographer wh...

I just wanted to say how much I hate on-screen frames that are totally over-the-top. So many people upload their photographs and then put elaborate frames around them as if this will improve a thoroughly mediocre image. If the picture is poor, or even if it is good, here's plea from the heart. Please don't put elaborate frames and effects around it. They invariably detract from rather than enhance an image. You don't believe me. Well take a look at just about any top professional photographer's website. What do you see? Maybe a discreet border, perhaps an edge that looks photographic like the negative of a film but not three deep layers of drop shadowed, semi transparent, selectively coloured, embossed mounts! As always my message is... concetrate on producing good images and then enhancing what's there through Photoshop. All the best, Paul Indigo

I'm working on a portfolio for an exhibition at the moment, so that and the rest of my work seems to be swallowing all of my time. But I've found a few other photographers you may want to take a look at. Nick Brandt is making quite a name for himself in the fine art photography world. He'll be exhibiting in the UK shortly, details on his site. I love his stuff. Tom Stoddart is a really gifted photogjournalist. Well worth a visit. Mika produces stunning colour photography and has started a whole trend in Japan and internationally. Take care, Paul Indigo

Recently I've read about more and more photographers turning from digital to film cameras. Many of them never took photographs seriously before the digital age and now that they've discovered the joys of capturing an image, well it's natural that they want to find ways of improving their photography. I've written before about the fascination photographers have with the technology involved in making an image. Judging by the latest trend of photographers turning to film, and praising it, I think that the ever present marketing spin has lodged firmly in their minds. What's the spin you may ask? Well the heart of it is that using a different camera or medium like film or digital is going to improve your photography. Of course that's nonsense. I see many photographers not quite getting the results they want with their digital SLRs. So what do they do? Switch to film. If you are such a photographer my advice is stick to the minimum equipment you can. Travel light. Pic...

Yep, that's me. Self portrait.

There are no excuses. Either a picture is interesting or it isn't, and it does not matter what the photographer had to endure to get it, what skills they've got, how many hours they had to wait, how cold they got, why something happened or didn't happen - it's all irrelevant. The only thing that counts is the final image. Many of us have been there. We go to great pains to get an image and the final result is OK, but just not a hundred percent. The image goes into the portfolio and we keep it there because we know just how hard it was to get it. All the time it should actually have been binned. Just not good enough. You've got to be ruthlessly honest, your own hardest critic and then you've got to go out and find tough experienced photographers, curators and picture editors, and subject yourself to their harshest critques. Not all of them will be right but you'll soon learn which are your weaker images. Cut them out of your portfolio. No excuses. You've ...

How much should I charge? It's question I've seen numerous times on forums. Photographers facing the prospect of their first professional commission wanting help to figure out how much they should charge for a piece of work. You could write a book to cover all of the aspects involved and of course each type of photography brings its own set of criteria. Instead I'll mention a few things here that should be considered. It's up to you do detailed research about pricing in your own field. Don't even think of taking on a professional commission without finding out more and it's vital that you should agree prices up front with your customer. Research your market. The short answer to the question of how much to charge is that you should ask for what you can get without over charging or under selling your services. Most keen amateurs charge far to little for their work because they don't need to live from selling their photography, they're flattered that someon...

I published an article on copyright recently. You can read it here . There's something that I should add. Beware of imitating the work of other image makers. If your image plagiarism someone else's work you are infringing on copyright you could be sued. There's a fine line between doing a parody, using an idea and copying someone else's image. Each case is judged individually. If you'd like to take a more cynical line then something Franklin Jones said may appeal. He said, "Originality is the art of concealing your source." It made me smile. Still though, I do I try desperately hard to ensure everything I do is unique. There's nothing more devastating than discovering someone else has had a very similar idea. Paul Indigo

What is fine art photography? A friend recently gave an interesting answer to this question. Photography becomes fine art when critics and curators decide that it is. Once they've decided then your work is endorsed and promoted. I see 'fine art photography' which is technically, emotionally, conceptually and basically on every level absolutely terrible. Perhaps that's why some curators support it. Oh, it's a fickle world alright. I've had moderate success especially among private collectors who just like what I do. Perhaps one day the mainstream will take to my work. We'll see. All I can do in the meantime is remain true to my artistic vision. The picture below is part of a series. I think it is thought provoking. It's about bringing the outside world, particularly nature, into ourselves. Or it's about whatever you choose to see and discover. I think art is 50% what's on the wall and 50% what the viewer brings to the experience. Paul Indigo Artwo...

I'll probably sound like a voice from the wilderness with this one. Yesterday I read a detailed review about the new Canon EOS 5D, full frame digital SLR. It sounds great and slots in nicely just below the top professional Canon digital SLRs. Hooray! Now here's the thought that once again struck me. Why are so many photographers continually chasing after the best and latest equipment? Do people really fall for the myth that they will make better images with more advanced equipment? Are the pictures that Ansel Adams, Cartier Bresson, Brassai, Matthew Brady, Francis Frith, or any of the other greats any less interesting, emotive, powerful or less brilliant because they used the technology available during their time? What's the difference between a beautiful image made on a glass plate, a 35mm piece of film or the latest CMOS chip? Yet so many photographers spend so much time, effort and money pursuing technology. As far as I can see all that technology does is increase conv...

In the previous article I talked about the Lomo phenomenon and mentioned Dave Waters. Today he won the lomographic site of the day award. Pretty good going out of 13 000 sites. Well done Dave. Paul Indigo

Ever heard of the Lomo LCA camera? It's a world-wide phenomenon and there's a very proactive organisation the Lomographic Society promoting the use of this 'cheap' little camera developed in the old Soviet Union. There are websites which eloquently describe the history and attitude associated with being a lomographer but fundamentally what it comes down to is that this little camera, because of its lens and design produces saturated colours and it's own particular quirky visual style. The camera has been used to produce work for major advertising campaigns by top professionals but fundamentally it is, as was the original designer's intention, a camera for everyone to snap away with. A friend, Dave Waters happens to be a great lover of this art form and his site on the Lomographic Society website is well worth a visit: an excellent introduction to lomography. Have fun. That's the spirit of Lomo. Paul Indigo

I can't believe the number of people who still don't understand the fundamentals of copyright. Daily I see copyright being abused. Mostly it's due to ignorance. So here's the short and sweet of it. If you write something that comes out of your own head or if you take a picture of something then you own the copyright. That means nobody can reproduce or copy what you've done without your permission. Simple right? Apparently not. I see the things people have written, for example the lyrics to a song, copied and placed in someone else's text without the slightest attempt to attribute where the original came from. Why do so many people try to pass other authors work off as their own? To get back to the crux of the matter. You make something of your own, then it's yours. But beware. There are the exceptions. If your picture features someone else's image and it forms the major part of your image then you've probably infringed their copyright. For example if...

The world is a stage upon which all of us perform as we go about our daily routines, often oblivious to the moments of pure chance that occur so randomly, like passing a stranger and exactly matching their stride, attitude and way of holding something. As a photographer I enjoy observing and in a sense ordering these events by choosing to push the shutter at the decisive moment. When it comes to street photography you can broadly speaking adopt two strategies. Chase after a subject by keeping on the move and hunting for the right coincidence to occur in front of your lens. Or you can 'set the stage' by looking for an interesting background or scene, and then just wait for life to unfold in front of your lens. I like doing both but I think that you stand the most chance of getting something valuable if you adopt the latter strategy. It allows you to consider the elements of composition and light carefully. You can even prefocus. Wait patiently and something will happen. The pict...

Aerial photography is not easy. So much depends on the right atmospheric conditions, the quality of the light and especially the visibility. I love flying and would really like to do more from up there. The camera's shutterspeed was so fast it froze the propeller, which you can't see normally with the naked eye. It was reasuring to know we still had one. Paul Indigo Flying up the Humber estuary toward the Humber Bridge.

Another urban guerilla image. See the article below. This one is unmanipulated, just as I found it.

There's something tremendously liberating about prowling the urban 'scape looking for subjects that show our environment in a fresh way. It's a voyage of discovery. Everything has meaning. The city environment is determined almost totally by its function, in contrast to the raw natural landscape which is shaped by the elements. Everything has a purpose in the city. Some of it we discard and other parts we treasure and protect. There are images everywhere based on strange juxtapositions, vibrant colour, interesting shapes and so much more. I'm overwhelmed by the wealth of material. All it takes is an eye for such things and the technical ability to capture the image. Most of my stuff is pretty straight but the image below was manipulated. Some people like it. Others are less keen. From a photographic point of view I think manipulation can work if it helps to free up something from within an image and evoke an emotion. What do you think? Paul Indigo Urban guerilla photog...

Having uploaded to numerous websites which allow photographers to share their images with a world-wide audience I've come to some interesting conclusions. Each website has it's own audience and character, although I have noticed that like me there are other promiscuous photographers who upload to more than one site. I may upload the same picture to different sites and the reaction will be completely different. Some sites, like altphoto are open about their preferences. They want to see 'alternative' photography and warn photographers not to upload sunsets and flowers - two subjects that are very popular on ephotozine . In many ways these websites for photographers to showcase their work and get feedback play the role of amateur photography clubs, albeit on a much bigger scale. Conforming to any of them, in the sense of pandering to the predominant taste on the site, can be detrimental to your photography. This is especially true if you take photographs to please a speci...

Today I discovered a site which allows you to print on demand and publish books and calendars. Printing is done digitally, mostly with Xerox printers. Ag magazine tested the product and seemed happy with it. I'd advise anyone considering using the service to read everything carefully, including the forums. It seems to work for many people, but not everyone is a happy customer. I may give it a try, after doing some more research. The advantage of using the site is that they will help you market your book on the net. You only pay for the copies that get printed plus a commission on the copies that get sold, but you can set your own price. Check it out at www.lulu.com If any of my readers has tried the service I'd love to hear from you. Paul Indigo

A lot gets written about colour profiling your printer and indeed you can get inkjet printers perfectly and professionally profiled. But there is a cost involved. Most amateurs will not go to these lengths. So here's a quick easy and cheap method of doing it. Buy a colour card. Photograph it. Print it out using the same settings you would for your photographs. Choose the paper you like and stick to it. What you are trying to do is limit the variables so that you can predict results in the future. Now instead of adjusting the printer settings to get the colours right, use Photoshop and tweak it until the colours in your test prints match your target (the colour card) as closely as possible. Your monitor is probably not calibrated so don't worry that it doesn't look right on screen. You're aiming for the best print possible. Once you've worked out how you need to change the colours in Photoshop to produce a good print on the particular paper of your choice you can tak...