I THOUGHT I had finally dealt with the subject of camera calibration in my last post; but, as the rain drives against my bedroom window, discouraging me from going out, I find myself reading Mac’s last comments – and agreeing with him in many respects.
I cannot say that I actually enjoy the prospect of calibrating new equipment and, like Mac, I would rather be using a new camera straight out-of-the-box to capture new images – than spending an hour blue-tacking a grey card to the wall; lighting it; photographing it; and analysing the results. (Pre digital, with the need to shoot each film stock and develop and dry the negatives, you could easily ‘waste’ half a day).
Mac is perfectly right. It is no fun messing around with all those ISOs, clipping points, EVs, and colour spaces. And, if I add that my new Nikon’s calibration only indicated an error of 1/3 EV in five of its seven main ISO settings: many of you will be wondering why I bothered. After all, apart from another photographer, who is going to notice that the exposure is off by a tiny third?
Well, the answer is that I will – and so will those with the power to decide to publish or reject my work. Glossy magazines set extremely high standards for photographic images – and so do most photo stock agencies. In the highly competitive freelance industry, it is often the quality of the photographic coverage provided with a speculative feature article that can clinch the sale.
In these days of reduced disposable income; higher prices; government cuts and looming redundancies, many are looking to turn their hobby into an additional income stream and there are now numerous photo stock agencies on the Web offering amateur and professional photographers alike the ability to market stock photos at the world-wide magazine and Website market. Individual rewards are low; but the market is large – and, these days, any additional income is useful. But it is easy to have images rejected; because the professional eye of a photo editor is much more discerning than that of the average photographer.
I once wrote an article on the then new web photo stock industry – when it was in its infancy and there were only a few sites around. As a test of the quality required I submitted two different photographs to Fotolia and sat back to await the results.
Neither image was well composed or particularly striking; but what they shared was that the exposure was spot-on. In photo A, the ‘wrong’ lens had been used, which distorted the lid of the trinkets box and, in photo B, the composition was, frankly, quite awful.
Photo A, with the ‘wrong’ lens, had been contrived to produce a white knockout (which many amateurs cannot produce). Apart from the lens and the weird composition it is a technically perfect shot.
Photo B’s only claim is that it is a faithful reproduction of the original scene (with an ill considered focal point).
When I wrote the article, Fotolia had one of the highest rejection rates. Each photograph that was submitted went before a panel of editors to decide whether it would be included in their library or not.
What I was trying to discover was whether a poor (but perfectly exposed) image would be accepted by the Fotolia panel – and therefore establish that using the ‘correct’ exposure gave the photographer an edge. After all, no one could say that the subject matter or composition in these images had produced a saleable photograph in either case.
Photo B was accepted by Fotolia (and, much to my surprise, achieved a sale some six-months later). Photo A was rejected; but, given the site’s high rejection rate, I think the case was nonetheless proved that using the ‘correct’ exposure influenced Fotolia’s panel. Even a tiny third EV over-exposure, in these shots, would have significantly degraded their tonal range and, in particular, their accurate colours.
So, while I sympathise with the view that camera calibration is a pain, I would be lying if I said I thought it was not necessary. Could I have produced those technically perfect images without calibrating the camera? Well, I could have fiddled around with various settings until I achieved the right image; but why go to all that trial and error each time you need to render an accurate scene? Better to spend an hour calibrating your equipment and then be sure that every subsequent photo you take will be ‘perfect.’
The two images here were set-up, taken, and transferred to Bridge in under five minutes. No messing around – and just the two exposures were taken (based only upon a spot reading of the white background and racking it up by three stops).
Like many, I too prefer taking photographs – and that includes not having to waste my time in Photoshop trying to rescue a poor exposure.
You do not need expensive equipment in order to earn money from your photography; but, as my research discovered, producing that ‘perfect’ exposure will set your work apart from the competition and make it more likely that it will be accepted.
