Making Your Camera Pay Part 1

Making Your Camera Pay.

by Frederick C. Davis.

A WORD BEFORE

The demand of publishers for good pictures is increasing. Editors are eager to use the best photographs that may be obtained. They draw no distinction between the work of the amateur and that of the professional photographer. If a photograph meets their requirements, they buy it and care little whence it comes. The opportunity to sell good pictures has never been better than it is to-day.

To give accurate and helpful information with regard to making the camera a profitable investment is the purpose of this book.

Frederick C. Davis is well-known to readers of photographic magazines, and is a practical photographer in addition to being a successful and experienced professional writer. Mr. Davis has written this monograph in a non-technical style that will entertain the reader and encourage him to make the most of photography.

This little book is a practical, up-to-the-minute answer to the question: "How can I make my camera-work profitable?"

A. H. BEARDSLEY, Publisher, _Photo-Era Magazine_.

MAKING YOUR CAMERA PAY

I

WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT

Whence come the thousands of photographs used every month by newspapers and magazines?

More than that, whence do the photographs come which are used by makers of calendars, postcards, for advertis.e.m.e.nts, and for ill.u.s.trating books, stories and articles?

At first thought, the answer is, "From professional photographers and publisher-photo-services." But professional photographers do not produce one-third of the photographs used, and publisher-photo-services are supplied by that same large number of camerists that supply publications with most of their prints.

No one can deny that the greatest number of prints published are bought from amateur photographers in towns no larger than the average, and sometimes smaller.

The camerist does not have to get in an air-s.h.i.+p and fly to Africa in order to produce photographs that will sell. Read what Waldon Fawcett says, himself a success at selling his photographs:

"The photographer is apt to think that all his ambitions would be realised if only he could journey to foreign sh.o.r.es or to distant corners of our country; or if he could attend the spectacular events that focus the attention of the world now and then. _This is a delusion. The real triumph is that of the photographer who utilises the material ready at hand in his own district, be it large or small._"

And more, a person does not have to be an expert photographer in order to succeed at the work. Here is what one prominent writer says about it:

"The requirements of the field are well within the capabilities of even the beginner in photography, viz.; the ability to make good negatives and good prints, the ability to recognise news-value, and a methodical plan to find the market where the prints will find acceptance. The man or woman who can meet these requirements should be fairly successful from the beginning, and will open up quickly new avenues of special work and profit."

In short, ability to make metaphors, create lovely heroines or such is not at all necessary to the successful selling of photographs to publications.

Is the field overcrowded? _No._ If there were ten times as many persons engaged in the work they could all keep themselves busy.

The field--how wide is it? Get out your map of the world. The field for _making_ photographs extends from the top margin to the bottom, and from the left to the right. The field for _selling_ photographs--which is more to the point--extends over about five thousand publications which use prints; not to speak of a few score of other markets.

The markets may be cla.s.sified briefly:

(1) Newspapers (2) Magazines (3) Postcard-makers (4) Calendar-makers (5) Art-study producers (6) Ill.u.s.trations for books (7) Ill.u.s.trations for articles (8) Prints for advertising.

And there are more, of more specialised branches.

And how does it pay? Please note: "A certain magazine once paid $100 for four prints of sundials. An amateur, who happened to be on the spot with a kodak, made over $200 out of a head-on railroad-collision. A New York professional netted $125 from the newspaper-use of a wedding-party, of considerable local prominence, which was leaving the church after the ceremony." One amateur "realised $300 a year for two or three years from a lucky snapshot of eight pet rabbits in a row."

A set of South-Pole photographs brought $3,000 from _Leslie's_ and $1,000 more from the International Feature Service. These all, though, are very exceptional instances. The average print sells for about three dollars. But there is absolutely nothing in the world to hinder a wide-awake person with a camera from making from several hundred to over $3,000 a year from his prints. If he becomes a specialist he may earn as high as $5,000 or even more.

No discrimination is made between press-photographers. The person wins who "delivers the goods."

However, I do not mean that the instances of $200 or so for prints should be taken as the prices ordinarily paid. I do not maintain that there is a fortune awaiting the man with the camera; but I do say there are unlimited possibilities for salable photographs and almost an unlimited number of markets for them. But there are not "barrels of money" in it, for all. A person may add appreciably to his income for having sold photographs; and having developed the trade to a high degree, he may cash cheques to the amount of $5,000 or more a year. But not every one. Just some. And it isn't like the log and the falling off it. It's work--hard work--_hard work_.

Success at selling press-photographs does not depend on the size of the town you live in, the cost or manufacture of your apparatus, or on your literary ability. It depends on you and your wors.h.i.+p of the homaged G.o.ds of success if you would sell photographs. The gift of these G.o.ds is the ability to make good.

II

THE TOOLS OF THE TRADE

Have you ever wakened in the drear dead of a dismal night, possessed body and soul with a great desire--an incontrollable, all-moving, all-consuming, maddening desire that knows no satisfaction--a desire for a new camera or a better lens? It is a sensation more disconcerting than that of the father who is detected by his small son in the act of rifling the latter's bank for car-fare. Never would I be so unwise as to cultivate that desire in any one; for that reason I do not here go deeply into a discussion of the best kind of camera for press-photography! Unless the camera you now possess is of a hopelessly mediocre grade, it will do very well.

A reflex camera is of course the ideal instrument for the purpose, for sharp focusing is so easy and so necessary. The high speeds of the focal-plane shutter incorporated into such a camera will rarely be utilised by the average user; but its other features are admirable.

However, the hand-camera of the folding type is supreme. It is so light it can be carried for a long time without fatigue; the user of one is inconspicuous when making exposures; the cost of operation as well as the original outlay is comparatively small--and there are several dozen more things in favor of it, including its greater depth-of-field, which is most important.

The lens is the heart of the camera, and some cameras have "heart-trouble." If you intend seriously to market photographs you should possess an anastigmat lens; not necessarily an F/4.5 lens, nor even an F/6.3 lens if too expensive; in that case an F/7.5 lens will do very well. An F/7.5 anastigmat is slightly slower than a rapid-rectilinear of U.S.4 aperture; but its excellence lies in its ability--as with all anastigmats--to form images of razor-edge sharpness, which is a prime requisite of a print intended to grace a page of a periodical. A rapid-rectilinear lens will do very well if you are always a.s.sured of suns.h.i.+ne or bright clouds to supply exposure-light--and in such conditions even the lowly single-achromatic lens will suffice.

Now you see I have agreed that virtually any lens that will form a sharp image will meet the requirements. Indeed, to paraphrase Lincoln: "For the sort of thing a lens is intended to do, I would say it is just the lens to do it." In other words, each lens has its limitations and abilities very sharply defined; and these limits the user must know and appreciate.

And the shutter; it is folly to put a poor lens in a good shutter, and just as absurd to do the opposite. An expensive shutter with high speeds cannot be successfully used except with a lens capable of large aperture--otherwise underexposure will result. A speed of 1/300 second is the highest available in an ordinary between-the-lens shutter, and that is sufficient for almost anything.

The slower speeds, as one-fifth, one-half and one second are in my opinion more usable than the extremely fast ones. Speeds varying from one second to 1/300 second are embodied in two well-known shutters: the Optimo and the Ilex Acme. The one is on a par with the other. But no such high-grade shutter is needed unless the high speeds are necessary to the user, for the slower speeds may be given with the indicator at B. But enough! This is not a manual on the elements of photography.

The requirements of the apparatus to be used for press-photography are that the lens produce a sharp and clear image, the shutter work accurately, and the whole be brought into play quickly.

I have used every sort of camera; reflex, 8 10 view, 5 7 view, hand-cameras with anastigmat, rapid-rectilinear and single lenses, and box-cameras, and they are all entirely satisfactory "for the things they were intended to do."

The camera I have used most and which is my favorite is a Folding Kodak, that makes 3-1/4 by 4-1/4 photographs, and is equipped with an Ilex Anastigmat working at F/6.3, in an Ilex Acme shutter. To this I have added a direct-view finder for reasons apparent to any one who has tried to photograph high-speed subjects by peeking into the little reflecting-finder. This camera has served me admirably for interiors, flashlights, outdoors, high-speed work, portraiture, and anything else to which I have applied it. Your own camera should do the same for you.

A photographer comes to know his camera as a mother knows her baby--and if he doesn't he will be no more successful than the mother who does not understand her child. The camera-worker must forget all about manufacturers' claims and should judge his tool by experience; he must ignore most of the theory and rely wholly on practice. In short, he must know his camera inside and out, what it will do and what it will not do; everything must be at his finger-tips ready for instant use.