Of course there is (but I would say that, wouldn’t I?) Unfortunately, however, there seem to be more bad ones than good ones out there, which tends to give the genre a bad name.

A good PR photo will tell the story. It will engage with the readers, connecting with them and drawing them in, encouraging them to read the accompanying article. Four blokes in grey suits holding a giant cheque does not fall into this category.

If you are hoping to sell your PR story to the nationals, you are competing with thousands of other picture-led stories every day. A great picture may well convince an editor to run a dull story; a poor one could jeopardise the chances of the story being run at all.

So, what are the ingredients of a good PR photo?

• It must tell the story
• It should have real impact (which usually means it has few people and is tightly cropped
• It must be sharp and well exposed (sounds kind of obvious but, believe me, many are not)
• It has been well thought out, planned and ‘designed’ – ie. not the ‘obvious’ shot
• Try to avoid group shots – they’re just plain boring
• Overt branding in the picture may jeopardise publication. If branding is important to the story, try to do it subtly
• The shot must chime with the style of the intended publication(s)

As a photographer who takes a good many PR pictures every week, I like to have a good brief. Ideally, I need to know why the picture is needed, what messages you hope to communicate with it, what tone of voice you wish to express and I like to have as much information about the story itself and where it is to be published. A good brief equals a good result!

Finally, a good photographer, whilst responding to your brief, will probably suggest his or her own angles and approaches which could add another dimension to the story. Trust us, we’re doing this every day and we really do understand what floats a picture editor’s boat!

If you would like to add some sparkle to your PR photography, call me, Brian, on 07850 086802. Please check out my website: http://www.uknewspictures.com

Christopher Pledger: Press Photography and the Leveson Inquiry

“These are my personal views and are not intended to be representative of any organisation I work for as a freelance photographer.

The testimony of witnesses this week at the Leveson inquiry has included damning condemnation of the behaviour of the paparazzi. Both the celebrity and ‘ordinary’ victims of phone hacking have told of being chased, spat at and terrified by photographers. These experiences could have fatal consequences for the news photographer, a vital part of a truly free press

There are important distinctions to be made between a paparazzo and a press photographer. A comparison of the two is like that between the cowboy builder and a professional tradesman. It is also important to distinguish between the paparazzi and celebrity photographers. Celebrity photographers work with the permission, and often to the benefit of, their subjects. This can range from red carpet premieres to organised and set up photo shoots of a celebrity out shopping or on the beach. I do not class them in my definition of paparazzi. Lacking moral or ethical guidance the paparazzi work with little respect for the law. The composition, quality, or origin of a photograph is a distant second to its commercial value. Paparazzi agencies will often employ people with little or no knowledge of photography. The agency will provide cameras with settings taped over so they cannot be changed. It is not a photographer that is sent out of the office, simply a man with a camera.

Press photographers by contrast are skilled professionals with years of training and experience. They work within the strict guidelines of both the Press Complaints Commission and their newspaper or news agency. These guidelines include respecting both peoples right to privacy and the boundaries of private property. A good news photograph will be technically excellent and able to tell the story in a single frame. In contrast to the paparazzi financial rewards are low.

This is not to imply that all press photographers are angelic super-humans working to expose the truth to an unwitting public. Like any industry there are a minority of ‘rogue traders’ who are prepared to bend or break the rules to get a picture.

The problem for legitimate press photographers is they are seen as no different from the paparazzi. Regardless of the assignment they are covering all press photographers now experience regular abuse from strangers in the street. When photographing something as mundane as a the outside of a high street bank it is not uncommon to hear shouts of ‘pap scum’ or ‘leave them alone’ from passers by. If a group of press photographers are gathered outside a court or government building the first question asked by curious passers-by is not ‘what’s happening?’ but ‘which famous person is coming?’.

The problem of public perception stems from two different sources, celebrity magazine culture and television news. The dominant celebrity culture makes it hard to avoid a constant stream of images cataloguing the daily lives of the A to Z list. It is no surprise that the general public perceive the primary role of photographers as being to feed this machine. The problem is complicated by disreputable publications being prepared to buy pictures on a ‘no questions asked’ basis. This makes it hard to distinguish between photographers working in a professional way and those who aren’t.

Television news coverage is the other major factor in the problem of perception. During most stories a clip of press photographers is included as a ‘cut away’ shot to add visual interest. If the clip includes the subject of a story being surrounded by the media reporters will often refer to a scrum of photographers. This ignores the numerous TV cameras both in the scrum and filming from a distance. This has been demonstrated during TV reports on the Leveson inquiry. Press photographers have been working from an official area behind a barrier to give witnesses arriving space. TV reports have consistently referred to ‘hordes of photographers’ while ignoring the seven video cameras surrounding witnesses as they arrive. By using these tactics TV news aim to draw a distinction between the dirty press and the clean media. In doing so they may perhaps be driving the Leveson inquiry toward concluding tough privacy laws are required, privacy laws that will include a ban on photographing people in public without their permission.

A ban of this type would be the death of the free press in the UK. Current guidelines require that individuals should not be photographed while they have ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy’. In practical terms this means anyone in a public place can be photographed without permission, as they cannot expect privacy in a public space. If laws were introduced requiring the written consent of an individual before they were photographed, it would mean press photographers would have to ignore events unfolding before them. Some of the biggest news stories in the last year could not have been reported. Pictures of Charlie Gilmour swinging from the Cenotaph would have been taken illegally, likewise pictures of Oliver Letwin disposing of government documents in a park bin. Press photographers would be as ham strung as reporters prevented from covering stories of public interest that are subject to super injunctions.

The problem of finding a solution that avoids this type of privacy law is extremely difficult. Legitimate press photographers already have licensed press cards that are required to be shown to work in places like Downing Street. This system has not stopped any of the behaviour reported this week, or prevented the use of faked press cards. Digital cameras are cheap and easy to use making it hard for anybody to distinguish between professional and amateur, press photographer and paparazzo. If 99 out of 100 photographers comply with a code of conduct, one will always break the rules and tar the rest with the same brush. Introducing government or police regulation and control over licensing of press photographers would affect impartiality and freedom.

It would be very hard to argue that there can be no changes following the Leveson inquiry. We must be very careful what these changes are and where they will take us. Press photographers are in danger of being so restrained by regulation that we become like the fire fighter who cannot enter a burning building for fear of breaking health and safety regulations.

Christopher Pledger

ASB Law is a multi-displinary law firm, with highly specialised teams working in a number of niche areas. Their new website, currently under development (watch this space for an update), will feature imagery showing relaxed, approachable individuals and teams, all shot on location using real people – not a model in sight. There’s a tendency for businesses to use stock shots to depict groups of people and I’m glad to say that ASB decided to use their own staff (who, I must add, are as photogenic as many models I’ve worked with).

The shoot lasted for three very intensive days and we kicked off the first day with an art director from the web design agency, who was there to ensure the design brief was fulfilled. We used natural light as much as possible, using flash only to bring a few rays of ‘virtual sunshine’ when things got a little dark, and to fill in a few shadows. This helped to produce a natural, informal look, which plays well with ASB’s brand ethos.

Below are a few random samples from the shoot. If you work for a law firm or other professional services business and would like to discuss how this sort of imagery can bring your brand to life, call me on 07850 086802.

In the article, reporter Emily Steel examines one of the hidden costs of relying on inexpensive digital photo libraries — namely, different companies, including direct competitors, using identical photos in their respective marketing materials.

As Steel puts it:

Coincidences are happening frequently thanks to the proliferation of digital photo libraries that let marketers buy generic images at a fraction of the cost of original pictures. Advertisers often don’t buy exclusive rights, which are pricier, opening up the risk that others will use the same photos…

To convey an image of concern, both MetLife Inc. and Pfizer Inc.’s Viagra used the same image of a middle-aged man in a stripped button-down shirt resting his chin on his hands. And Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s Chase Student Loans sites both used the same image of a collegiate-looking boy working on his laptop for their websites . . .

Besides being embarrassing for advertisers, such duplications can make it difficult for consumers to tell brands apart.

What sometimes gets lost in discussions of selling stock photography is a simple fact that should be the starting point of all marketing considerations. Licence buyers are some of the most creative people in the world. Imaginative and aware people thrive on the new and the different; as the big distributors grow, they leave much incredibly good work on the sidelines. When the paradigm shift gains traction, much of this photography will find its way to market, causing some significant changes.

Thanks to the good people at Black Star for inspiration for this piece.

These images are cheap — but do they really offer the best value?

Eye-tracking studies by Jakob Nielsen, a website consultant and author of books on design and user interface, indicate that generic stock images may be worth even less to buyers than they cost.

What the Research Shows

Nielsen’s research shows that web users ignore decorative stock images used to ‘sex up’ web pages. Such images often simply add clutter to the design and do not help from a business standpoint.

But clients do pay attention to pictures that give them useful information about a product or service being offered, Nielsen’s studies show. They also respond to pictures of real people who work in a business, or of actual facilities, while ignoring stock images of smiling businesspeople (often from across the pond) and generic workplace settings (many of which bear little resemblance to the real life workplace).

As Nielsen puts it: ‘The commonality across all of these examples … is that users pay attention to information-carrying images that show content that’s relevant to the task at hand. And users ignore purely decorative images that don’t add real content to the page. So much fluff — of which there’s too much already on the web.’

In other words, web users want to see photos that contain specific information. Not generic stock images, but images that help them learn more about a business. For this reason, Nielsen advises companies with a strategic online presence to ‘invest in good photo shoots: a great photographer can add a fortune to your website’s business value.’

However, Nielsen’s study won’t slow the flood of cheap stock images on the web in the near future.

In fact, many web design firms have a vested interest in ignoring Nielsen’s research. It’s so much easier to just grab cheap images from the web and plug them into a design than to coordinate a photo shoot: it’s easy for them and good for their profits. The additional cost of hiring a photographer can cut into the design firm’s margins when their client has a limited budget.

There is evidence to suggest that blue chip companies are no longer using stock, and certainly not microstock. They have been burned in a number of different ways, and are perhaps now recognising that ‘real’ photography is worth much more than the price difference between microstock and commissioned photography.

Good photography is a shrewd investment. I’m currently working with a client – a City law firm – to produce a unique set of images that will speak volumes about its brand. They will show the firm as being tuned in to its niche sectors as well as being approachable, modern and engaging. The photos will be used as artwork throughout the building, on the firm’s website and in all marketing collateral from the Annual Review to the graduate recruitment brochure. Over time, the imagery will become a key part of the visual element of the firm’s brand.

My thanks to BlackStar for bring Nielsen’s research to my attention.

We’re going to look at the average ‘profile’ picture you see in the press. All too often, it’s a dull head & shoulders shot of a grinning subject dressed in grey; the pose, the expression, the lighting – all very predictable and pretty boring. Now, if you’re the picture editor of, say, the FT or Management Today, would you be thinking “I must have that picture”? Probably not. It might work for the ‘Smalltown Argos’, but it won’t cut the mustard with the majority of design-led national news and trade publications.

Think about it: do such head and shoulders pictures tell the reader anything or add nothing to the piece? Do they add anything to the look of the page? Do they compliment the design of the publication? If you’re very lucky, pictures like this might get used. Most of the time, they’ll be binned. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.

Furthermore, think what such pictures say about your brand compared, say, to a striking, fresh and altogether more creative alternative. What best conveys your brand messages – the former or the latter? Here are a few examples of the sort of pictures editors like to see . . .

There’s no doubt that people like looking at pictures. In the printed and online media, they help readers to gain a greater understanding of the story and, depending upon the subject matter, can actually help the reader to feel a part of what’s going on.

If you would like to discuss how my corporate headshots can bring your news stories to like, call me on 07850 086802, email me at brian@mustardpics.com or check out the website: http://www.mustardpics.com

Anyway, I thought I would post a few recent examples, which give a fair representation of my style. Although one or two clients insist on the ‘bloke in grey suit smiling at camera’ approach, I try to steer them towards something with a lighter touch, something that reflects modern corporate life . . .

For further details, please email brian@mustardpics.com, or visit my website: http://www.mustardpics.com

Sounds simple? Well, not quite. It would be easy to shoot ‘stock’ style photos which reflect these areas, but if that were all they needed, they could have easily bought a batch of stock from an image library. What they need is a combination of arty, quirky and figurative; something that will look good reproduced on a 12ft x 10ft board.

So, the work has started – here are a few early examples . . .

Do a quick Google search on George and you’ll have to dig deep to find people who have nice things to say about him and his party. He’s had more skirmishes with the press than you could shake a stick at over the last few years and is hardly Mr popular amongst his former Labour Party colleagues. As well as plenty of press coverage, you find lots of pictures of George Galloway MP wearing a pink catsuit during his spell in the Big Brother House. Nice.

However, I’m a ‘take them as you find them’ sort of guy and I must say that I immediately warmed to George. Even during a general election campaign, it’s hard to find MPs who will give photojournalists the time of day but, to his great credit, this chap was helpful and co-operative throughout. Good on you, George.

And it was interesting to experience his unique style of campaigning. Striking a Nelson like pose on the top deck of an open top Routemaster, he bellowed the party message over a PA system cranked up to max volume, to the background strains of tunes such as ‘It’s a lovely day’ and ‘Harvest for the world’. Reactions from the public were generally good, though I suspect some of the hand gestures he got would not have been dished out to say David Cameron or Gordon Brown.

Apparently, George and his team are mobilising the battle bus every day in the run-up to the election. There’s no doubting his commitment to the cause and electioneering stamina, which is all the more evident in light of the invisibility of his competitors, who seem to be conspicuous by their absence.

George is defending a majority of just 823. I’m not convinced by your policies, George, but I wish you luck.