Socialstock's new website is now live!

Finally after much hard work we have re-launched with our new site, more images, credit/debit card payments, easier to understand pricing in cash or credits and loads more which we will tell you about over the next few weeks, below is a sample of some of our new pages...

Environmental Photographer of the Year 2011

This came in today for those photographers who are interested in environmental photography.

Nick Fallowfield-Cooper

Dear Socialstock,

The deadline for the Environmental Photographer of the Year 2011 competition is approaching fast, so please do tell the photographers that Social Stock represent that they have until 5pm on 31^st July to enter.

And please note that this year we introduced a new video category for short film clips of between 5 and 30 seconds on all environmental issues.

As always, the competition is completely free to enter and is open to international amateur and professional photographers of any age, encouraging entries that are contemporary, creative, resonant, original and beautiful. The winning photographs come together to form the most outstanding collection of environmental, social and natural photographs in the world.

The 2011 competition categories are:

·         Mott MacDonald’s Changing Climates

·         The Natural World

·         The Underwater World

·         Quality of Life

·         A View From the Western World

·         CS2’s Building Our Future (New for 2011)

·         The Young Environmental Photographer of the Year (Under 16 & Under 21)

·         Environmental Video of the Year (New for 2011)

Copyright is retained by the photographer.

For more information, or to enter pictures, please go to www.epoty.org. Photographic libraries are allowed to enter photographs on their photographers’ behalves with the appropriate permissions.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Emily Doyle

Marketing & Media Manager

Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM),

Covering the Paralympic build up and training with photographer Ron Coello and competitor, Sophie Christiansen.

Our photographer Ron Coello has been working closely with Paralympic equestrian competitor, Sophie Christiansen. Ron will be following Sophie as she trains for the Paralympics and we will be adding new images as they come in.
Socialstock wishes Sophie all the best with the training and hopefully we will see some more medals next September in London. Good luck Sophie.


Nick Fallowfield-Cooper


Here's Ron's and Sophie's story so far


I first met Sophie in 2009. I got to know her through her dad, Karl, head of
humanities at The American School in England (TASSIS) where I was a guest
lecturer and had and exhibition of my work in late 2006.

Sophie was born two months prematurely with cerebral palsy.  She recovered
and started riding aged six as a form of physiotherapy and has gone on to
become a top horsewoman.

Sophie won 2 golds and a silver medal at the Beijing Paralympics games in
2008. At the 2009 European Championships she won individual gold and silver
medals as well as a team gold. At the 2010 World Championships in Kentucky,
she won 2 golds and silver.

I will be documenting Sophie's build up to the London Olympics, with the
view of producing a body of work for an exhibition and book.

Ron Coello.

Proof is in the Pudding!

After talking about representing mental heath issues in the last post we now have a image published in the Guardian today. Please keep them coming in, some of you have responded well but with more stock we can approach our clients with a greater choice of appropriate images in the mental health sector.

Representing mental health

Representing mental health can be a difficult area to get right. Over staged images tend not to work so well for example head in hands looking over desperate.
Below is a selection of images that we feel give a good sense of isolation and loneliness without over dramatising the situation.
Our clients tend to use images for case studies, so the need for a good cross section from teenagers to the elderly is always required.

Next time your on a shoot please bare this in mind, a few extra shots in a similar vane to the above could generate some extra sales.

Nick Fallowfield-Cooper

The development of photography over the last twenty years.

Pete Jenkins, one of our Socialstock photographers has written this interesting article about the changing face of professional photography over the last twenty years with it's trials and tribulations.

Nick Fallowfield-Cooper

Why is it that so many professional photographers seem to be having such a difficult time at the moment?

Why is it that so many professional photographers seem to be having such a difficult time at the moment? It isn’t just the economic crisis that seems to have been triggered by the banks, as many editorial photographers at least have been under increasing financial pressure over the past ten years.

Many have blamed digital imaging, but that is not really true either, although without question the ‘digital revolution’ for want of a better expression has certainly been a trigger. There are many myths about digital photography, not least being how easy it makes taking good quality photographs, and how cheap it makes photography. The former is of course nonsense, as the skill required in taking a good picture has not changed since the day of Fox Talbot.

Even though we now have auto-focus, auto-exposure; the taking of a high quality photograph still lies in the hands of the camera-user (photographer), and no amount of automation can determine the exact moment to press the shutter or the framing of the image. (Even with the fastest of motor drives, and greatest of luck, the choice element is still with the photographer).

Many people think that good exposure and sharpness denotes good photography - which is of course nonsense. These are merely, (and there are exceptions), the most basic, taken-for-granted requirements. All good photographs should be well exposed and well-focussed, all digital imaging has done is remove the mystique of the darkroom, and replaced it with the joys of the computer. Because in this day and age, even our children are taught to use computers, the familiarity with PCs has given so many people the false illusion that comfort in using a keyboard is the same as actual knowledge and skill. How many times has ‘John’ in ‘I.T.’ been given the job of producing photographs based on nothing more than the misconception that proficiency with computers is the same as thirty years professional experience with a camera?

Despite so few of us being real masters of colour management (and I include myself in this), the entire population now truly believes that the mere ownership of a digital camera makes one a photographer, with the acquired skills of thirty years professional photographic experience.

Even those people who really should know better, the editors who so often are those most directly involved in selecting imagery have been sucked into this idea that it is all now so easy. Easy then becomes synonymous with cheap. Remember when the travelling editorial photographer had to use those Hassleblad drum scanners, and the horrendous price they cost. We were all (newspaper photographers) told that without them we would not get any work, only those who invested in the equipment. Hundreds of us (thousands), spent (perhaps) £20,000 even then. The papers saved a lot of production time and effort, and yes we got 'wire fees' but probably not enough to quite balance the extra cost of the equipment, and the papers were 'quids in' as we say in the UK.

The next big step (1992?) was to ‘Macs’ and ‘Coolscans’. Thousands of us got sucked into this one. Something like £5,000 to buy an Apple-Macintosh laptop - mine was a 180c, a Nikon Coolscan and ‘Codex’ modem, plus the software to make everything work. No tuition, all skills acquired on the job. This equipment was the minimum required for the sole trader working on his/her own. We produced 4-megabyte files that would be laughed at now, but they did sell well for newspapers, and was the base of an income for many of us for maybe seven years. But this kit had to be upgraded, three times during the next few years and the increased costs were rarely fully recoverable, and within a couple of years, the newspaper clients that had insisted we buy all this still slashed the fees they were prepared to pay for all this extra digital work. The Sun started it and the rest of Fleet Street followed suit, and I am sure there was a similar progression in the US and other market places. The papers saved a huge amount in equipment costs, not to mention manpower, as the images were supplied already digitised, and in many cases practically ready to use bar perhaps a simple digital conversion.

Once so many of us were 'mobile' and able to produce and send imagery almost immediately the papers began to trim the numbers of photographers being commissioned to cover events. Why send your 'own staffer' on commission when you could get regular submissions from the local guy? As this progressed, it became why take stuff in from the 'local photographers', when you could get material in from the regional agency. Which today has become why use any agency when we can get the stuff on the PA feed, which we pay for on subscription?

From a situation where each paper (probably) directly or indirectly employed two or three hundred photographers, we now have papers directly employing five or six with maybe a similar number on contract and possibly using the occasional regional freelance for those 'special' stories too far to send their own guy/gal. Multiply this by the more than a dozen national daily and Sunday newspapers and one can see how our marketplace has changed. No doubt the scenario is repeated in the States, Europe and elsewhere.

These skilled photographers no longer getting work from the national press are doing what? Some (many) have left the industry altogether, but those who remain are working in ways that enable them to earn a crust. Many produce stock. It isn't all amateurs that the professional full-time stock producer is now competing with, but skilled professionals moving over from other parts of the industry.

As for the latter suggestion that digital photography is cheaper, well anyone who is caught in the trap of upgrading, whether it be cameras, computers or software knows that this to be a serious error. Back in 1980s, I had Canon A- 1s and F1s that lasted what ten years? In fact they never needed actual replacement, but I chose to go down the EOS1 route in 1990. The EOS-1 was a wonderful camera, but cost more than three times that of either of its predecessors (£1500), just buying two was a huge investment. True these cameras also lasted me until I was market led into going digital thirteen years later, but the difference in price from a conventional body to an electronic one has set a trend which has not slowed down. Whilst in £s and pence terms the price of cameras may seem to have stabilised, market requirements (and the lack of longetivity of the bodies themselves) have meant that they need upgrading perhaps as often as biannually. Each body, far more expensive than the F1s of yesteryear.

And then one has to take on board the cost of the computer kit that makes all the imagery work. That first 180c Macintosh laptop was £3,500, Photoshop, £500+. Whilst today's computers are no question cheaper, their operating life seems to be no more than two years. More cost in both machine and software.

In 1994 I worked out my operating costs including overheads, running a separate office and working on a 48 week working year, four day operating week, (one day in the office), and my running costs were £50 per day. This included replacement equipment, servicing, car, phone everything. I did the same exercise in 2006 and came up with a figure of £105. In the twelve years between the two calculations my overheads and operating costs had doubled, whilst the commission fees paid by newspaper clients had remained static. Worse than this the expenses paid by those clients had fallen dramatically.

I did the same exercise last year and my overheads have reduced slightly to £95. I now work from home, have an older vehicle, etc.

Whilst I am fortunate in that some of the excellent lenses I purchased back in 1990 are still serving me well, like every other professional I am forced to upgrade camera bodies, computers and software at least every three years. If I don't, I remain less competitive in a market where there is now more competition than ever before.

As a photographer I have had to reinvent my business many times, and in today’s difficult economic climate that is an absolute essential. I am continually examining the services I provide and the markets within which I provide it. I no longer supply to newspapers (95% of my work in 1994), but my main selling point remains personal service and quality.

If my Unique Selling Point (USP) were price, then there would always be someone prepared to take me on. Providing a better service makes my clients loyal, and despite the difficult times helps provide a regular income.

I no longer do sport either, something which I was heavily involved in from the mid seventies until the end of the last century; that market has died for all but the persistent few who have made themselves an unassailable niche (it can still be done). Sheer quality will always win through, although due to the nonsense thinking in the current market place which places (in so many cases) price above quality, (‘Never mind the quality, feel the width’), one still has to work hard and be diligent, and not expect the earning power of even fifteen years ago.

The myth that digital, has made processing unnecessary is a difficult one as well, as many operators out there do none at all, and even more clients accept this, which is shocking. Gone are the days when film could be given to a specialist processor and a while later prints are produced which the client paid for (all the processing costs). Now, the photographer does that processing – what we need all that expensive hardware and software for. Even with my limited knowledge of colour management I spend between 100% and 400% longer digitally producing the files that my camera produces before I am prepared to give them to a client, than I do actually taking the photographs themselves, it is as much my diligence to processing and editing my images that makes me a quality photographer. This sort of thing is difficult for non-photographers to take on board. I have had many editors simply refuse to believe that this work is needed. What clients deem unnecessary they simply refuse to pay for. These are the clients who want to employ a photographer by the hour and receive a CD of JPEG images totally unedited after the job. Known as ‘Dump and Run’, there are many less professional photographers who simply see this as the way a photographic business is run. No wonder the marketplace thinks that photography is cheap, and why in so many cases the photographs we see in print are so poor quality. Since when did ‘Good enough’ become a marketing strategy for professional photographers?

The days when our collection of stock (our stock library) was for most of us seen as our pensions have gone, (this was a huge shock to me), but photography is not dead. There are more images used today than ever before. The marketplace has changed and we simply have to change with it. It doesn't mean that we have to lower our prices or our service, or quality, but rather those we have to adapt our rather unique services to fit in with client requirements. It also means we have to be evangelists, for quality, colour management and service.

With everyone else chasing prices down to the bottom, there comes a point in every market place when low price simply isn't enough, and clients start asking for something better - quality. The trick for most of us will be to survive until that pendulum swings our way. That means we have to keep our wits about us! :-)

Pete Jenkins.

Street Photography by Pete Jenkins

Street Photography

Can we or can’t we?

There have been a number of well publicised cases over the past few years where seemingly normal, perfectly law abiding citizens, (yes photographers are citizens too you know), have been stopped from doing what everyone had assumed was perfectly legal and publicly acceptable, that is to take photographs in a public place.  Or as we call it, ‘Street Photography.

Q.        Is street Photography legal?

A.         Yes, of course it is.  It is no more illegal for you, than it was for famous street photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson, probably the most famous street photographer of all.

           

Q.        So why do I keep reading about photographers being prevented from taking pictures in public places?

A.         This is the sixty four thousand dollar question isn’t it?  I have read of, and photographers have regaled to me first hand, dozens of tales of being stopped in the street, and in the case of professionals this has often gone on to include arrest and even detention.  But why this is happening when the Government tells us there are no laws against taking photographs in Public Places, is generally down to ignorance and foolishness, and by no means am I referring to photographers?

           

Ok, before we go any further I want to stress that photographing in public places is perfectly acceptable in UK law.  Let me quote from the Metropolitan Police’s own guidelines to their officers

“Freedom to photograph/film

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.”

So if this is the case, why do we hear of so many instances where it appears there is a problem?

The problems occur because so many individuals, including private security firms, individual police officers, and members of the public do not understand the rules laid-down by law, and react in a way they think is appropriate, rather than the way that is correct.

Common fallacies:

“You can’t take my picture – it is counter to my civil rights.”

Or “it’s against the law”, or “it is against the data protection act” (yes that was been said to me J).  A typical example of this was a ‘traffic warden’ telling me I could not take her picture whilst she was working.

Many people think, (wrongly), that one is not allowed to take a photograph in a public place.  There is no law that prohibits taking pictures when one is out and about, and certainly no member of the public has the right to make you stop, nor, the right to see or delete your images, or remove film from your camera. Security guards and traffic wardens, as well as community support officers do not have this right either.

“You can’t photograph this building it is private property.”

There is no law in the UK that prevents a member of the public taking photographs of any building, providing the photographer is in a public place.  This is different from being inside someone’s house or on private land where the owner or landowner can have some control and ask you not to take photographs

“You can’t take photographs in Trafalgar Square”

Well actually you can.  A commonly held misunderstanding, notably held by the wardens who patrol Trafalgar Square, is that one is not allowed to take photographs, and reports have it that these people can be quite vociferous, poorly trained, and ‘jobsworth’ about their imagined duties.  Without exception, all restrictions regarding filming and photography in Trafalgar Square refer to the use of film crews, tripods, and other paraphernalia that might endanger the general public.  In which case you need permission booked before hand to enable suitable facilities to be provided, and to be suitably insured. 

There have been other reported cases where agents of local authorities mistakenly think they have the power to stop individuals taking photographs, and in all cases reported so far the actual rules are similar to those concerned with Trafalgar Square.

An amateur with an SLR – you go on and take your pictures, the regulations have nothing to do with you J

Common Police errors

“I am a policeperson and I can stop you taking pictures.”

Well actually, not unless there is a dammed good reason you can’t, no.

A police person can ask you to stand behind an indicated line in the case of an incident.

A policeperson can ask you what you are doing if there has been a reported breach of the peace, and you can be asked to identify yourself and account for your activities, but there does have to be real justification for the policepersons actions.  Merely taking a photograph is never on its own, a breach of the peace.

Even the Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images, even in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place.

From the Met Police Guidelines

“Officers do have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism.  Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.”

However, Officers are not allowed to use the Terrorism laws as an excuse to interfere with ones lawfully taking of photographs.  There has to be a legitimate reason to stop you, and that is not simply because you are a photographer.  To be stopped under section 43v of the Terrorism act the policeperson has to reasonably suspect the photographer of being a terrorist.  This is not something that can be done on a whim.

From the Met Police Guidelines

“Photography and Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Officers have the power to stop and search a person who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist.  The purpose of the stop and search is to discover whether that person has in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist.

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism.  Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.  This includes any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence.

Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.”

“I am a policeperson and I have the right to delete any images that you have taken.”

Absolutely not!  Under no circumstances, can an individual policeperson delete images, as if an offence may have occurred, those images might well be needed as evidence!

From the Met Guidelines:

“Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.”

Are there any exceptions?

Well yes, and no.  On actual private property, the owner does have the right to say, ‘no photographs’.  The owners of ‘Canary Wharf’ for example can legally ask you not to take photographs of the tower, but they can only do this whilst you are on the land owned by them.  Five hundred yards away on public land, you can photograph the tower to your hearts content.  Should you choose to argue with the security guards, or not put away your camera, the guards themselves can (legally) do nothing except call the police.

One is not allowed to photograph Magistrates courts from within the bounds of the court, outside that boundary you can click away.

A policeman can ask you to justify your actions if you are seen to photograph a police constable or a member of the armed forces (all under section 58a of the Terrorism Act).

A simple explanation of your legitimate acts and verification of your identity will normally satisfy any enquiry.

There are certain restrictions on Photographing HM Prisons, Armed forces facilities, but most of these will only be an issue if you are seen to be loitering.  Be prepared to have a very good explanation of what you are doing, if stopped taking photographs at this sort of location…

What of Privacy?

Whilst there is right of privacy in a public place in the UK, it is still against the law to harass another person, and there are obviously circumstances when taking someone’s photograph can be perceived as harassment.  Continually taking someone’s picture after having been reasonably asked not to, standing very close to someone with a wide angle lens (clearly invading personal space), acting in a such a way as to cause a hazard or distress to someone else, would all be held in a dim view by a court.

What of data Protection?

The Data Protection Act refers to the use and storage of personal data.  An unidentified image taken in public would have no bearing or relevance to the act, but if one were taking many images of people, and identifying them, and storing them, then one might be perceived to be controlling personal data.  If you are in this position you might well be covered by the act, and in that case you should certainly take proper professional legal advice.

However, I know of no case where an amateur photographer has been caught by this act and there are general exceptions when it comes to artistic material.

What about photographing children?

Children have exactly the same rights as any other citizen.  Society, led by certain national middle market national newspapers seems on occasion to have a paedophilia phobia, and many photographers have found themselves accused of being a ‘peado’, or similarly unlawfully harrassed because they are seen photographing children in public places.

Due to the emotive nature of people’s thoughts regarding children, it is almost irrelevant what the law says and one would have to advise common sense.  I photograph my own children at will, and will continue to do so, but I am very careful and wary when I photograph other people’s offspring.  I recommend that you do likewise.

How do I deal with confrontation?

• The best way to deal with confrontation is to avoid it.

• It is illegal to obstruct the public right of way, and it is a sure fire way to attract the attention of a constable, so tripods and other heavy equipment are generally not a good idea.

• If confronted by a constable, treat that constable with respect and answer all reasonable questions, politely.

• Under the Terrorism act you are not obliged to identify oneself, but of course to refuse to co-operate with a police officer might well be regarded as suspicious, so please use your common sense.

• Use longer focal length lenses so that you are not overtly invading people personal space.

• Even if accosted by a rude, obnoxious, jobsworth, security guard, treat that person with respect and don’t give them any reason to call the police.  Make sure you are always in the right.

• Choose your battles carefully.  Even if you are 100% totally in the rights, sometimes it is simply better to say OK.  You can always return later.

• If in doubt walk away, and return to photograph another day