Sunday, February 19, 2012

Something for nothing

click photo to enlarge
I get regular requests from companies asking if they can use one or more of my photographs. In the main they are looking for a no-cost alternative to commissioning a professional photographer or buying from a photographic archive such as Alamy. My reply to anyone in business wanting a photograph but not prepared to pay to for it is to refuse.

Such people seem to think that I will be flattered by their approach and their willingness to credit me in their literature. But I'm not. The fact is I don't need to use my photography to generate an income or to supplement one. Were I starting out in photography as a business I might feel differently, but I enjoy the luxury of being an enthusiastic amateur. However, I do feel an obligation to my fellow photographers who are in business, and I know that every photograph I give away makes it a little bit harder for someone, somewhere to earn a living with their camera.

Consequently, to prevent me having to waste my time replying to people who want something for nothing, I've prepared a new "Contact Me & Enquiries" page (top right) setting out the terms on which I will sanction the use of my photographs. I continue to make them freely available to private individuals and charities. However, companies looking for a no-cost image will, I hope, look elsewhere.

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with today's photograph of the carving of a face on the porch of St Mary's church, Beverley, East Yorkshire. This character has a doppelganger on the other side of the doorway, the pair seeming to act as weird medieval welcomers to those who visit this stunning building. It took me a little while to work out that the face is not that of a fanciful creature but a person wearing an animal hat with ears, of much the same kind that parents today buy for their babies and children. Which reminds me that the only firm request I made of my son and daughter-in-law regarding the upbringing of their first child (my first grandchild) is that she wasn't made to wear such a hat because the ridiculousness that they endow on the defenceless infant constitutes child cruelty. Needless to say my wishes were ignored.

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 90mm
F No: f8
Shutter Speed: 1/200 sec
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation:  -0.33 EV
Image Stabilisation: On


3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hats?!!  I never forgave an aunt for knitting me a hat when i was five or six.  It was a rib knitted, pointy noddy hat with a huge pompon on the pointed apex.  The whole thing in vivid yellow!  But much worse was the wide knitted strap that went under the chin and fastened with a huge green button over one ear.  Whether such a hat was fashionable at that time remains unknown, but I don't recall seeing anything else quite like it - until the following year when I received a highly colourful striped version.  I never really got over those hats.
LA
Apologies for the reminiscences prompted by the stonemasonry and your observations.  It's obvious that the image is wearing a hat, minus pompoms.  The pained expression says it all.

By the way, if you look at the image upside down, the eyes take on a different light. Just an incidental observation.

Tony Boughen said...

I think many of us had knitting and hat experiences not too unlike the one you describe. In my case it involved astrakhan, a material that doeesn't seem to figure in hats these days, if in fact it can still be found. By the way LA, you didn't pose for this photograph did you?
http://www.knitnbitch.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/motherstopknitting500.jpg

I also like the slightly non-plussed look on the face of the carving. The one on the other side, as I recall, looks even odder and is more time-ravaged.

Regards,
Tony

Anonymous said...

Hahaha, so cute, but the poor child must have itched from head to toe in that hideous pea green suit.
LA