Great PR photos: it's not about the camera

The most important tool to get usable PR photos isn't a $5,000 digital SLR camera. Or a camera phone. Or some in-between device, like a point-and-shoot digital camera.

It's your brain. The thinking machine between your ears. 

Yes, I can tell you about tiny imaging sensors that capture grainy, disappointing photos. Or how any bright light source you see on your smartphone's screen will trick the camera into under exposing the shot, making faces dark and unrecognizable. Or how that tiny flash won't light up anything further than six feet from your lens.

But you won't care. Or won't remember. So, instead, let's talk about your brain, and how it ought to think about PR photos. It should ask three questions, well before you decide that photos of a PR event would be good to have:

1. How quickly does the world need to see these photos?

2. Where will these photos be used?

3. What message will the photos say about your brand?

First, how quickly? Ninety percent of the PR photos we capture don't qualify as breaking news. So there's no need to rush them on to Instagram or Twitter without first editing them. Any tablet capable of shooting photos can run apps that correct them. Free programs like Picasa can remove red-eye. Even if you aren't using Photoshop, you should adjust lighting and crop the photo before catapulting it into social media.

Second: what's the destination? Facebook or an annual report? Facebook is ephemeral, temporary, and quickly forgotten. Grip-and-grin handshake photos may be fine here, and you can squeak by with snapshots. Corporate newsletters and annual reports require better, publication-quality photos, with highly controlled lighting. 

And a good PR pro should make a case for hiring a professional photographer who uses real cameras. And who can edit photos for flawless results. In these circumstances, only use your smartphone to call a professional. 

Third: how will the photo impact your brand? When you see a bad photo in a story about a business, do you think: "Boy, they're too stingy to spend money on decent photography"? That's what I think, and it's worse if the brand has anything to do with image capture: smartphone makers, colleges offering photography degrees, manufacturers of inkjet printers, etc. Your client deserves not to have his or her brand tarnished by crappy photos. 

My advice: plan ahead. If there's any chance of a photo from your next PR activity appearing anywhere beyond Instagram, you're better off trusting the photography to someone who knows which equipment will deliver quality images. 

Save your smartphone for family snapshots, not client events.


Popular posts from this blog

Questioning the New York (Times) Athletic Club

Image
The New York Times dropped the axe on its legendary sports department in early July. Sports reporting we read in the Times henceforth will originate with The Athletic, a younger (and perhaps more agile) sportswriting website purchased by the NYT Corp.  You'll find a good assessment of the move here .  As a Times subscriber, I have automatic access to any sports reporting it produces. I won't call it "free access," however, because my ever-increasing monthly rate for a three-day Times subscription surely will include a tithe to cover the Athletic.  But ditching the Times ' sports desk and dispersing its fine sports journalists and photographers to other NYT jobs? That's a loss. Here's why: Conflict of interest: The Athletic allows its staff to report on sports gambling, while some are paid contractors of the sportsbook companies. Is there a Pete Rose-style conflict here? I'd expect so. The Times allowed no double-dipping within its sports staff. The s
Read more

Your hand's already in my pocket

Image
I use an ad blocker, and probably you do, too. Every day, even on websites where I pay a monthly subscription fee, I see a pop-up that say: "We Notice You Are Using an Ad Blocker." And they ask me to turn it off. I don't. I'm already paying for that news website's reporting. Their hands are already in my pocket. And, truth is, I don't mind digital ads that are somewhat relevant to my tastes. Show me an ad for a guitar deal or Ford car parts, and I'll probably read it. Screen shot, unnamed Gannett publication, Sept. 2018 But I don't care about Patrick Swayze's secret son. Or what forgotten 1970s actress Loni Anderson looks like today. (I was more of a Howard Hesseman /Dr. Johnny Fever fan, anyway.) When newspapers relied on print ad revenue, I'd glance at those ads -- and sometimes, I'd bite -- because those ads were for local or regional merchants. They wanted to build a relationship with me.  They didn't try
Read more

Readers get the (drive) shaft in motorsports coverage

Image
In mid-August, the U.S.'s premier auto racing sport will compete at a road racing course in Watkins Glen, NY. NASCAR's brutish Cup series cars will race in this rural community Aug. 20.  May 2023, Charlotte Motor Speedway. (c) DKassnoff, 2023. But, don't expect  The New York Times  to cover NASCAR before then. The newspaper's sports section -- now outsourced to The Athletic, its sportsbook subsidiary -- hasn't covered NASCAR since July 2. That's when NASCAR's drivers competed on the rain-soaked streets of Chicago. The Times provided no coverage of their July 30 race in Richmond, VA, or any NASCAR race since early July. The Times  has focused its motorsports coverage on Formula 1 racing. These are the expensive, open-wheeled, high performance racing teams once called Grand Prix. This class of racing is controlled by another media company: John Malone's Liberty Media, which purchased Formula 1 in 2017 and returned it to profitability. Visit the Times '
Read more