A better question might be, “What’s NOT up with stock photography?”  Answer? Royalties, number of paid productions, royalty free and rights managed revenues and photographer satisfaction.

A few points on the graph are on the upswing: number of people submitting photos, number of photos being used, number of photos submitted, growth of the microstock agencies’ revenue and the quality of images available to buyers from microstock.

The scales are overloaded with bad news for professional photographers that have depended on stock sales as their major source of revenue over the past few decades. Hand wringing, doomsday predictions and misplaced insults only create the illusion that one is doing something about the situation.

It's not the end of the world, photographers! © Liliya Abdullina | Dreamstime.com

The industry has radically changed.  It is not likely to ever return to its glory days. What to do about the current state of affairs?

1.   If stock makes up your sole income and your work is so specialized that only a few could fill your niche; congratulations, you are safe for now.

2.   If not, develop alternative income and soon.  What can you do with your skill set outside of stock? The hard fact is that some of you will choose to leave the industry. You will trade places with the amateurs that left their day jobs to become serious about stock.  Those of you who make that decision are not failing but growing.

3.   Create innovative images that will satisfy the most discriminating art buyer and place them in rights managed collections. (The revenues may be in decline but millions are still generated with these licenses)

The recession has contributed something to the decline in stock photo reviews.© Stephen Vanhorn | Dreamstime.com

4.   Shrink your overheads to match your declining stock revenues. You can do it; most of America has figured out how in the last two years. Start with reviewing renegotiating charges for insurance, products and services.

5.   Develop as many revenue streams as possible. That will include participating in microstock for some.

6.   Revitalize your assignment business. Only a few have the talent, equipment, business skills and eye to consistently bring back the money shot. Make certain that that person is you by constantly improving and updating your skills and business sense.  You may be an artist but you must be a savvy business person to succeed.

Part II What’s up with microstock?  To follow

This post first appeared in slightly different form on the ASMP Strictly Business Blog

A question that is inevitably asked when I’m speaking to photographers, whether they are inexperienced or long time professionals, is, “When do my photos need a model release?”  My answer is always the same, “It’s not the photo that determines whether or not a release is required but how the image is used.”  One of the topics I cover in Chapter 12-”Legalese” in my book, Microstock Money Shots, concerns model releases.

Here are the key facts:

Even though the model's face isn't recognizable, some agencies might want a release since the dress, necklace and ring taken together are--at least by the person wearing them. © Shevelev Vladimir | Dreamstime.com

• Each distributor has rules about accepting images  with people. These include whether a person is recognizable. The standard for recognizable goes from rejecting photos where no one but the individual themselves could know who it was to some companies that won’t accept an image of a hand holding a glass without a release. I had an image of a pair of feet in non-descript black shoes rejected by a rights managed stock agency’s legal department because the ankle attached to the foot was wearing an ankle bracelet. OK, so the jewelry may have been recognizable.  We photoshopped the ankle. Still a no-go as the policy of that company was that even isolated body parts had to have releases.

• A photo that can seems that it can be used with impunity within the context of an editorial piece can turn around and bite the photographer. Example: you take a photo of a recognizable person sitting on a bench as they watch their child at a public playground. The photo is downloaded online for editorial use with either a micro or a macro license. The end user is a parenting magazine. All sounds on the up and up until the article comes out and is about predators that hang out around playgrounds. Even if the photographer had obtained a model release, it is possible that the model could sue if the photo didn’t carry a notice such as ‘posed by professional model”.  I leave it to the lawyers and the courts to come down with definitive opinions about whether such a suit has validity and that will have something to do with the wording in the model release. But I would think htat the outcome will generally be in the photographer/agency’s favor because of the EULA (end user licensing agreement) that prohibits using photos that imply that the subject is engaged in something illegal.

The model in this image appears to be unrecognizable but Tracy from the3dstudio.com noticed that lightening the image renders the model more recognizable. See the comments sections for more on this. The3dStudio.com. © Petesaloutos | Dreamstime.com

• Editorial vs Promotional. Both Dreamstime and Shutterstock accept images of non-released people for editorial use only. (Dreamstime carries it a bit far into property release land by requiring that all city skylines that show business signage go  into the editorial only slot. Most companies agree that a skyline with bank logos and other business ID’s on many buildings are not problematic and they accept them for use in popular travel ads and brochures.)

• What is the best release? That would be the one that you can get signed but, again, I say that the lawyers can best weight in. I recommend the Getty release as they have the most to lose. Thus I’m betting that they have all the bases covered. They have made all their releases in multiple languages freely available for download to all.

• Do you have to compensate the model? I recommend you do. Read the ASMP Strictly Business tutorial on the subject for the low-down on this and all things dealing with both model and property releases. Also read a current ASMP blog post: Q & A about releases. And another entitled: “I don’t need a release because I would win in court” (Consistently ASMP’s Strictly Business Blog posts comprise one of the best blogs for photographers, if not THE best).

It's important that you explain what stock photos are to your models, especially to friends and family that pose for you © Galina Barskaya | Dreamstime.com

• What are your other responsibilities to the model? You need to make it clear that you will have little control over the end use of the photo. If an amateur model sees their photo on a big billboard, they might come dialing for dollars on your line even though you don’t owe them anything. You can give them a copy of a site’s EULA to help with fears.

As promised: Here are the photo credits for Chapter 12 of Microstock Money Shots:

Aleskey Oleynikov/Shutterstock-Young couple on stone wall at sunset. Chapter Opener

Vling/Shutterstock-Woman in hammock on tropical beach.

Pete Saloutos-Rowing at sunset.

Wojciech Gajda/Dreamstime-Girl in yellow bathing cap at side of pool

Over the next few months, I will give you a glimpse of a few of the chapters in my new book-Microstock Money Shots, including tips from that chapter.

Since photo credits tend to be in tiny type in all books, I’ll give credit where credit is due by listing the photographers whose work appears in that chapter.

(Of course, I’m trying to entice you to buy the book! As we were advised in class, “always end a book report with…to learn more, read the book!”)

In the book introduction, Andres Rodrigues writes about his evolution into a top microstock success story. Much to learn from Andres about the learning curve in microstock.

Chapter one is titled “A Snapshot of the Microstock Industry” but it includes the key points in the history of stock photography that might effect the future of stock–if you don’t pay attention to history, you may repeat it and not with the best results!

Other topics include understanding the types of stock licenses including a solid explanation of the various creative commons licenses and what they mean. A quote sums it up: “No matter what licensing model they use, all serious amateurs and professional photographers want to know what to shoot to maximize downloads of their photographs. This book shares my more than thirty years’ experience working with companies that specialize in stock and microstock business models to answer that very question. This book suggest(s) which types of images the marketplace demands year after year.”

A section in Chapter One called “Understanding Your Rights” lays out the different kinds of businesses in stock photography: rights managed, royalty free and microstock with details on how they differ so that you can better judge where some or all of your photos will perform best. Copyright is highlighted with an explanation of the creative commons copyright and what it means to you.

I suggest that the motivation for someone to seek a stock photo is often because they believe that it already exists. Thus, like it or not, stock photography is a business of cliches. Highly unusual or artistic images may get used for marketing purposes now and then but are rarely licensed repeatedly. Speaking generally, the best stock photo is a photo that already exists. It’s up to you to create something new; combining commerce with art to produce a marketable and desirable image.

Photocredits in Chapter one: Chapter Opener: Pete Saloutos.  Interior shots: James Steidl, Chippix, Teng Wie, Yuri Arcurs, Alexander Raths, Beata Becla, Andresis Pidjass

Read more… or

The  panels at CEPIC, especially at the day long New Media Day organized by Microstock Diaries’ Lee Torrens, were thought provoking and for the most part, interesting.  I especially enjoyed the dialog between Sarah Fix from Blend Images and Taylor Davidson on my panel on the future: Taylor posed the question, “What core value does an agency create and deliver?” Sarah came back with some smart answers. I’ll interview her soon for a run down of her remarks. Unfortunately time ran out but we hope to continue the dialog  around the subject of disruption in the stock photo business at PhotoPlus Expo in the fall.

Ellen Boughn from Stock Photography Strategies, USA at the Rotunda in Dublin City Hall for a VIP Reception ©ctk photobank

Here are the best places to learn about what went on at CEPIC:

Tweek’s Daily newspaper

Videos posted to Vimeo: (Excellent selection of well made videos from the panels)

Selected (curated to use a popular word at CEPIC) vids on YouTube:

VIP Reception

Pavel’s interview with me

Beatte interview with CEPIC’s Klaus Plauman

FastMediaMagazine interview with Maria Kessler at Image Rights

StockPhotoPress Interview mit Norbert Weber von Polylooks auf der CEPIC 2010 in German

Flavors of CEPIC by Pavel

Interview with Pond5 video by Pavel

Flickr photo stream by Taylor Davidson

Complete photo coverage by ctkphotobank and previous years too

I have attended CEPIC almost every year since I held the position of Executive Editor at Corbis in 1997. (At least I believe an event in London was an early precursor to CEPIC as I recall being on a boat on the Thames with some Germans and Roger Ressmeyer taking a photo of me that he magically sent to my husband by the miracle of digital photography and email. AMAZING it was then.)

Once the delegates to the Congress are home , the content of the panels and discussions meld into the over all business view of those attending but the connections grow into good business.  We are daily connected in ways that dwarf our previous means of communication with business colleagues via the post, fax or even email. Even so there is nothing that compares to the many business relationships forged with international colleagues over a drink, serendipitously at a lunch table or during an impromptu or scheduled meeting. These can only happen in person and for stock businesses and archives, only at CEPIC.

Ellen Boughn in the stands at the new Aviva Stadium in Dublin for CEPIC interview with Pavel Losevsky

I have thought that CEPIC might be losing its relevance. But what was demonstrated by this year’s invigorated CEPIC is an industry strengthened and changed by outside forces that is smarter, quicker and, though smaller, stronger. Plan on coming to CEPIC in 2011 to keep up with the changes.

*Thanks to Russian photographer/videographer Pavel Losevsky who tirelessly documented CEPIC and the offical photographers from ctk photobank

Next week I will be joining colleagues Cathy Yeulet (MonkeyBusinessImages), Shannon Fagan (photographer), Taylor Davidson (business strategies), and Kelly Thompson (iStockphoto) in Dublin, Ireland as I host a panel entitled, The Future, at the New Media Conference. This crystal ball event (not of the disco type but more the fortune teller type of thing) will examine a central issue in the working lives of professional, stock photographers now in mid-2010: What’s next?

New Media Conference June 9, Dublin Ireland

Stock photographers worldwide are ringing their hands. They are seemingly in the midst of a perfect storm of events: relatively cheap digital cameras with decent resolution; a thundering crowd rushing toward microstock and helping turn the best of them into serious pros; established microstock photographers seeing declines in revenue as traditional stock photographers jump on that bandwagon; an Internet that sucks up photos by the billions; advertising budgets in the tank and magazines dropping dead. Some say revenues are falling like birds from the sky but overheads are still flying high.

Assigning blame for shifts in the industry is as silly as blaming the Internet for the fact that our way of life has been fundamentally changed forever. We are living through a period of unprecedented change and you as a photographer may get flattened as it rolls through the industry. What will you do to adapt; to stay on your feet?

Join us at the New Media Conference for ideas. You as a photographer are going to have to think your way out of the present into a productive future and here is a chance to bounce your thoughts off others who have been spending a great deal of time pondering the issues. Will Google Image search become monetized? Will Flicker, Creative Commons and Plus get together to organize another third party to issue image licenses…bypassing the Getty gatekeepers?  What’s next?

Taylor wrote about one of the events that will happen around CEPIC and the New Media Conference:

“Before the Future”, June 8th
Ellen, Shannon, Lee Torrens and I will be hosting an invite-only social mixer called “Before the Future” on the night of June 8th before the New Media Conference kicks off the next day. Our goal is to bring together a diverse set of thinkers in the photography industry and create thoughtful and valuable conversations and connections between people driving the future of the photography industry. And, well, have a good time.

Thank you to Jonathan Ross and Space Images for sponsoring the mixer.

A sad but true fact is that many photographers will leave professional photography behind and seek new challenges over the next months and years. Some will go completely broke while they wait for the business to return to previous levels. But others, and I hope you are one of them, will discover how they can use their skill and expertise in a related field. (I don’t think salvation for most lies in transitioning to video.)

What new ventures will appear? Will the time come that finally buries the stock photographer for good or will this be a time of energized regrouping and give us new businesses where the skills and talents of photographers/photoeditors/producers/stylists/etc are again valued?  I hope for the latter but know that the rewards of recovery will be going to a much smaller set of photographers.

Join us at the New Media Conference next week to listen and learn while adding your voice to the discussion about what’s next. Want even more information…illustrated? Lee Torrens has it all mapped out for you.

And if you are there, stop by and say Hello and thanks to the New Media Conference sponsor JaincoTech.

©Szefei/dreamstime.com

My birthday is this week, making it a good time to look both backward and forward. I thought I’d share some of the mistakes that I’ve seen photographers make over the years in the hope that my readers won’t make them.

A big mistake that a photographer made that almost cost me my reputation in photography before I had hardly started.

Before I started a photo agency, I decided to become a  rep for assignment work. My first photographer was recommend by several of my photographer friends. He had been in Europe for a while and had experienced a lot of success in advertising jobs according to him and to the tearsheets that he showed in his portfolio. I worked with him for a couple of days, getting ready to take the book out when I happened by the international newsstand on Las Palmas in Hollywood. As I browsed the European magazines, the guy’s work popped up everywhere. But in Europe, in those days anyway, ads carried photo credits AND my guy’s portfolio had been shot by at least five other people.

Instead of investing years of work overseas to build up an international portfolio, he had stopped by the magazine stand at Heathrow on his way back to L.A. and bought the magazines with the ads that he most would have liked to have shot. That was the end of my repping career, thankfully before I had called on any art directors/art buyers.

Here are some mistakes not to make, in no particular order:

1. Spending money as soon as you earn it but before you have it, even if you know you’ll get it soon.

2. Waiting until after the shoot to hand out model releases.

3. Not putting a value on your own time when figuring ROI (return on investment) per shoot.

4. Staying with the same vendors (insurance, bank, credit card, phone, etc) year after year without annually doing comparison shopping

5. Buying the most expensive equipment unless you absolutely need it. And buying is cheaper than regular renting.

6. Never registering copyright

7. Bad mouthing your competition

Cheaters almost always get caught! If not at the newsstand, online! ©Ariturk/dreamstime.com

8. Spending more than an hour a day on social media

9. Writing a blog that only other photographers read (unless you are Chase Jarvis.)

10. Not keeping excellent records in regard to deductible expenses.

11. Not having an annual budget

12. Not understanding a financial statement coupled with not having one.

13. Not reading distributor contracts, purchase orders and other legal docs or not getting help when you don’t understand them.

14. Cheating, lying and stealing (just for good measure). And that includes faking model releases, exaggerating expenses on productions, directly copying other’s work and violating the items listed in item 13.

Happy Birthday to me.

Who is the first brave soul to add to the above list based on a mistake they made?

Last week I closed my post with the mention that two items had caused me to wonder about the possibilities of future changes in the microstock business. First there was Tony Stone entering the market with his statement that he would help Vivozoom ‘focus on the most relevant images” and then an announcement from Microstock Israel that it would concentrate on images of life in Israel and the Middle East.

Stock photographers have been developing niches and specialties since the camera was invented. Many independent photo agencies, in the past, were known for a niche or specialty. If a picture researcher wanted a photo of a historical event, she/he went to the Bettmann Archive; for current events to Black Star or Magnum; for access to National Geographic photographers to Woodfin Camp; for science to PhotoResearchers; for lifestyle to Image Bank or the Stock Market. Several of these collections still thrive but some are closed or the brand and its culture lost to the uber-brands of Getty or Corbis.

Instead of contacting independent, specialized companies, today’s image buyers rely on keyword search and hope to find relevant content. But since few editors/keyworders or executives in the large RF/RM portals have expertise in niche fields, important images within a specialized field can go astray. They are lost in the vast middle of an online collection because the keywords don’t identify the key aspects of a technical subject or do so inaccurately. Since niche collections have a niche group of buyers, the images are not downloaded as much as more popular themes like business or families.  Thus they don’t license as often and are often dropped because of it. A lot of specialized visual knowledge has been lost to the industry with consolidation. (Nevertheless keyword accuracy and relevant search are much more likely in one of the traditional companies than at any of the microstock sites.)

According to Selling Stock (subscription required) textbook publishers are still afraid of microstock images because they can’t trust the captions/keywords. Jim Pickerell writes, “The percentage of micro uses continues to grow, despite the complaints of editors that often the caption information on microstock images is not detailed enough and its accuracy cannot always be trusted.”

In microstock, photos of a technical nature or of specific plants, animals or locations are lost into the middle no man’s land in search because the keywords are even less apt to be correct than in the traditional companies.  The volume of images hitting the micro sites daily make it very difficult to check for accuracy or to add keywords to technical subjects. A perfect example of data that is key to many users is the scientific name associated with plants and animals. Or as I found, even the common name can be wrong.

I searched for ‘platypus’ on Shutterstock, iStockphoto and Dreamstime. One site returned a bald eagle against a flag, another several spiny anteaters and another several different species of fish. At least I could see why a spiny anteater was included since both the platypus and spiny anteaters are the only mammals that lay eggs but that wouldn’t matter a bit if I included an anteater in an educational program and called it a platypus. “So what?”  I can hear you think. Who cares when photos of people jumping on trampolines outsell platypus images thousands to one? Answer: Teacher’s care, students need to know, publishers will walk away if there is even a hint of inaccuracy in an image. Photos are tools of communication. Public communication has an obligation to be correct no matter how obscure the subject.

Does it matter that if you were looking for a platypus in a microstock collection, you could think it referred to an eagle, a duck, a fish or a lizard? If you are putting out a science book, you’d better be certain that what you see is what you want!

Dreamstime has made efforts to establish special collections that have been ‘curated’ by Dreamstime members. These often subject oriented groups of images can be helpful but there is still the lingering worry that the person that assembled the collection may not have any particular knowledge about the images besides the thought that the photos are ‘nice’.

Shouldn’t the case be made for specialty microstock companies that are staffed with reviewers that are versed in the subject? Either within a brand or as stand-alone companies? Would the costs be too high?  How about a medical collection reviewed by starving medical students? Or collections that are assembled by others with specialized knowledge? Or Like Israelis who know their land, its places, its religions and its businesses? iStock has taken a step toward the Tony Stone philosophy that only the relevant should survive in the creation of the Vetta Collection.

As a former biology teacher who  wrote educational materials and worked on science based exhibitions and books that required absolute confidence in the information associated with the photography that I selected, I believe that curated and specialty microstock collections could be an important next step in the business. What do you think?

The media often feature Mark Getty and Jonathan Klein as the founders of Getty Images, but were they truly the company founders like Mr Hewlett and Mr Packard, or Steve Jobs who started up their companies from scratch in their garages?

Mark Getty and work colleague Jonathan Klein cleverly identified the potential for huge growth in the stock photo industry, sought out Tony Stone Images as the market leader, acquired the company, and left their careers at London-based Hambro’s Bank to become Chairman and CEO of the company. It was Getty Holdings, representing a consortium of Getty family interests, which bought Tony Stone Images (Tony had previously purchased Click! Chicago and my company, After-Image).

The two re-branded the business as Getty Images, and worked with Tony and his existing management to carry the company forward. So you could say that Tony Stone (who founded his enterprise in the loft of his home decades earlier) was the true founder of Getty Images.

Tony Stone catalog from 1996 Vol 8

I was insulted by Klein’s remark in the recent NY Times article, “When we began, stock photography or licensed images, preshot images being licensed, was perceived as the armpit of the photo industry,” said Jonathan Klein, the chief executive of Getty Images who helped found the agency in 1995. “No self-respecting art director or creative director would use a preshot image, because it wasn’t original, it hadn’t been commissioned by them, it wasn’t their creativity.”

I know from  direct experience as the president of Tony Stone Images/LA that the top creatives regularly bought stock photography including for high visibility,  big campaigns for major advertisers prior to the invention of Getty Images.  I submit that neither Getty nor Klein were responsible for elevating the creative level of the stock photo business. Those laurels go to Tony and the photographer/founders of the Image Bank (Pete Turner, Jay Maisel, Larry Fried as well as businessman, James Garcia). There is no doubt of the immense achievement of Mark Getty and Jonathan Klein – they continued the acquisition of companies which Tony Stone had started, and accelerated the move into the digital world. But the very least they should do is refrain from continuously insulting those whose shoulders they  stood on.

It was Tony Stone’s vision that kickstarted Getty Images’ position at top of the creative market. When I sold my company, After-Image, to Tony and became part of Tony Stone Images, we had over 400,000 photographs in the files in Los Angeles. Tony took one look at the dozens of meticulously organized file cabinets and asked me, “Why do you need all these photos?” He had recognized the highly creative nature of some of the After-Image collection but correctly realized that much was just ‘filler’.

Tony Stone catalog from the mid-1990's

Tony Stone has joined the executive team at Vivozoom

Tony’s theory then and now, reinterated on Microstock Diaries, is that there is no point in wasting time and resources on anything except the best photos in a genre. He once told me that all the world needed was a dozen of the best photos of Paris as those were the images that would run as covers, chapter openers or full page spreads. Why have photos of every little burg in Provence when those images will usually only run small. Of course this was before the Internet and the decline of print. And prior to microstock’s long tail circling the globe.

In addition to the big news last week that Tony Stone has joined  former colleague, Lawrence Gould, at Vivozoom, I noticed news about a new microstock company specializing in images from Israel, with what seems to be an emphasis on religion. Is there a new era in the lifecycle of the microstock business, signaled by these two unrelated events? What do you think? Stay tuned.

I’ve spent a lifetime making mistakes in the photography business…and, ok, had some wonderful successes. In the process I’ve learned a lot, probably more from the mistakes than from the winners.

Here’s your chance to pick my brain about anything and everything stock photowise for the cost of a nice dinner (with cheap wine and dessert). This one is all about YOU.

My newly announced ‘mini-consult’ for first time clients is $39.00

• I’ll spend time reviewing your responses to the questions on the Ask Ellen page
• We’ll talk via SKYPE or on the phone (US) for a full 30 minutes,
• I’ll review your portfolio, a submission, answer business questions. It’s your call

And to kick off this new introductory service:

The first FIVE new clients that sign up will get to Ask Ellen for nothing | zilch | nada. Contact me here requesting the free mini-consult and let’s get started.

The photo below is an almost perfect stock photo. It’s not cutting edge; it’s not trendy. It’s not hip or cool. What it IS is a photo that will license again and again for years…extending its revenue stream long after its production costs have been recouped even with today’s lower fees. This is a photo with a very long tail.

I first analyzed the image for my blog on Dreamstime when it showed up as one of the best sellers two years ago this month.  I have also discussed it in my upcoming book. Initially the image seemed a very simple and easy photo to plan and take. But once I deconstructed it, I understood the amount of thought, research, experience and planning that went into the creation of this clean and versatile photo and its variations. I’m reminded of what the IT guys always say when a seemingly trivial request is made for a programming change, “Simple doesn’t mean easy.”

A 'perfect' stock photo. ©Iofoto

The image is a subject-based winner. Among the most consistently popular stock photo subjects are family related. When photos with these themes also spell “happiness/love/caring”, the image has a lead over all others. Images of families are used for financial services, vacation and hotel packages, for religious publications and a myriad of editorial uses on websites on a zillion topics.

A beach location is a great choice. Stock photo buyers often want ‘aspirational’ images that show an idealized place or situation. The beach is such a place in all societies. It is a place we vacation; go for weekend relaxation, education and fun. The exact geographical location is not identifiable. The location is non-specific geographically and yet still shows a top vacation spot: the beach.

Seasonality.  Because of wardrobe choices and the quality of the light, the photo could have been shot in spring, summer or early fall adding to the versatility of the image.

Style. Both the photographic style and the models/wardrobe/scene are relatively timeless. There is no skyline to go out of date; the clothing is non-specific and not tied to any fashion.

Palette/Wardrobe: The model’s clothing compliments the colors in the scene. Because there are blues, pinks, tans and yellows in the palette almost any color typeface could coordinate with the image. Shirts lack logos and the fabrics are all solid colors.

Casting: The models form the perfect, idealized family and yet they aren’t so beautiful as to look unauthentic. Their pose is relaxed and happy. (Just the way we all imagine the perfect family vacation.) Even the preteen girl appears to be pleased to be with her parents. (Anyone who has attempted to take a daughter of this age on a family vacation knows that IS really an idealized image.) The image depicts the vacation every family aspires to have.

Similars of popular photos can also be top sellers. ©Iofoto

Composition: Dad is at the top of a pyramid, representing a conservative (and thus good for middle of the road adverts) family relationships and the models are posed off center to leave lots of space for type. The background is clean and simple. In both photos, the photographer for Iofoto, Ron Chapple, has left ample space for insertion of a product shot, headline or copy. He has also offered the stock photo user several formats. Here we show the vertical and the image that he has prepared as a square.

Good keywording has also contributed to the success of these two images. Look up the keywords by clicking on the photos and you’ll see what I mean.