Some thoughts on the Portrait Prize

I have just made the annual pilgrimage to Elephant and Castle (LCC) to drop off my print entries to this years NPG Taylor Wessing Portrait Prize.
For anyone that considers themselves a portrait photographer being included in the final exhibition of the prize would be the ultimate recognition by your peers. But is it the case that such a prestigious competition could, or should, define you? There is a stigma attached to the prize a running joke among photographers that to get in it you need to shoot a ginger, freckled, miserable looking teenager. And having viewed the exhibition many times it has to be said that there is not much joy displayed. Is it true then, to say that the majority of people are melancholy, awkward or miserable? Or is it closer to the mark that a miserable or awkward looking portrait holds a higher pedigree in that it asks unanswerable questions about the subject and by default the viewer?
Like everyone I have had my own opinions on the images that have progressed and won in the past, some I like, some I don’t. My personal view is that a portrait should show a part of the person that is the subject - a visual representation of their aura in the present, in the flesh. All too often it looks to me like the photographer has projected their own interpretation of what a strong portrait is onto the subject they are charged with representing, I often don’t see a person but an idea of representation polluted by the photographers motives.
There is (as we all know) no right or wrong way to approach your work, and all we can do is execute it with the highest integrity we can, and hope that the execution translates our vision as we intended.
To pander to what you think would be judged right by the peers of a competition, no matter how highly regarded would be to water down the integrity of you work, and you would therefore probably have less chance of progressing.
This year I entered two prints, one I would say fits in well with the historical style that has been successful in the comp. The other is a portrait of a model called Meryl. I had to enter this because it is - to my eyes - as true a representation you will get of a person in a photograph that I have taken. It was shot during a break on a commercial shoot, we were chatting and I happened to have the camera in my hand, I photographed the moment without any consideration, even the composition is slightly awkward and unconsidered, but it all add to the moment that she was just being. Meryl.
I have more technically proficient images, I have images that are more instantly arresting and I have images that are more poignant. But this image is Meryl, when you look at it you see her, not me, or my idea or her, it is Meryl as she is when you meet her.
Who knows how I will do, I guess I have as much chance as anyone, I believe in the integrity of my portrait and that is all I can do. And if I am really lucky maybe next year there will be an image of someone smiling in the exhibition.

| LA |

Some thoughts on image rights

I shoot stock imagery! There I have got it out like some sort of stock anonymous introduction. I feel clean, like my dirty secret is out and I can finally start my 12 step program to recovery.
There is still a massive stigma associated with shooting for image libraries, something that until recently I have never understood. I started doing it when I was assisting as a way of commissioning myself, and with a view to easing the bridge to photographer with a monthly royalty income. It has to be said that at times this income has put food on the table for my kids when there would have been nothing otherwise. For this reason I continue to produce the occasional shoot for library. I know for a fact many household names shoot for libraries, often under different names, as do big name fashion photographers with catalog. The fact is everybody needs to make a living, and despite the hardcore voices booing from the height of giant horses, if the alternative is to not feed my kids I will gladly take it. I understand the argument against, and in many ways I agree, I can only assume that many of the vehemently anti faction must come from a time before the stock empire and remember when all clients came to you directly. I love my job, but at times it is difficult and uncertain, a quiet period involves sleepless nights wondering how to pay for my daughters ballet lessons. The library work is a fairly constant income that keeps her dancing.
So until now all has been rosy in my soirees with stock agencies.
Enter a popular Spanish band who contacted me about an image that they had found on my site. It was a simple portrait of a girl who I had shot on a shoot that had been submitted to a large image library. The actual image had not been used so I assumed everything was ok. After the image had been sent to the band they contacted me to request an official usage contract, fair as this was, it sent alarm bells ringing in my head, I suddenly remembered reading a section in the library contract that mentioned all images related to a shoot being managed by them, even if it had not been submitted. Surely an image that I had taken, produced and paid for with my own money must be mine? The fear of getting in trouble has always filled me with dread, even if people accuse me of something I haven't done I feel sick with guilt. To be perfectly sure I told the band to hold fire and contacted the agency. Turns out the image was not mine at all but theirs, apparently if I had not checked I could have been sued by the agency for whom I provide images, with my own effort and my own money. Worse than that the band could have been sued as well, bearing in mind the image would already have been produced on a run of CD covers, it would have been a disaster. This may seem naive to many but having never come across a situation where my rights were called into question I had never given it much thought. To some this will make me part of the problem, I understand the need to fight for rights to our work, but I had never really considered it much because until now it had not affected me, and this may be naive and a little selfish, but I am an image maker pure and simple. I don't pretend to understand the business or legal complexities of the industry, even if I didn't do this for a living I would make images anyway because that is what I love to do. What this experience has taught me is that this is not enough, if I want to continue to make my living from photography and provide for my children with a job I love doing then I need to pay more attention to not only the business of it, but also the politics. It is time to be involved in not only photography but also the photographic community.
I will probably still produce library images, I don't particularly hold any grudge against them, it was my mistake in not knowing my position. At the end of the day they run a business with rules to protect themselves, and over the years I have benefited from their business. I do however intend to be more selective as to what I do give them and become more educated as to the implications of not only my own rights but those of the wider community.
This week I will not have one of my images on the front of a CD by a popular band, but I will take more pictures and my daughter will dance.

| LA |