In the list of sexy subjects to write about, the Leveson Inquiry may appear to be low down the top 40 but this is the one that has huge potential to change working practise for every photographer in the UK.

The fourth day of the inquiry has now finished and, along with a large percentage of my colleagues, I feel truly let down at how we, as photographers, are being portrayed.  By way of a cheat-sheet for those not following the story, the inquiry was launched to investigate malpractice within the media, following on from the hacking scandal at News International but appears to slowly be turning into a witch-hunt against photographers.  While celebrity witnesses have been lining up to vent their anger at the ordeals that they have faced at the hands of the paparazzi, the differentiation between news photographers and paps has been blurred to the point where the whole industry is now being tarred with the same brush.

Having started writing a blog post on the subject, colleague and friend Christopher Pledger beat me to it with his “open letter” explaining how he feels about the situation.  He’s kindly let me reproduce it here.  If you agree with what’s been said or even feel that it’s made you consider how you feel on the topic, please share this page.  It’s important that as many people as possible get to know that there is a difference.  Over to Christopher…

“These are my personal views and are not intended to be representative of any organisation I work for as a freelance photographer.

The testimony of witnesses this week at the Leveson inquiry has included damning condemnation of the behaviour of the paparazzi. Both the celebrity and ‘ordinary’ victims of phone hacking have told of being chased, spat at and terrified by photographers. These experiences could have fatal consequences for the news photographer, a vital part of a truly free press.

There are important distinctions to be made between a paparazzo and a press photographer. A comparison of the two is like that between the cowboy builder and a professional tradesman. It is also important to distinguish between the paparazzi and celebrity photographers. Celebrity photographers work with the permission, and often to the benefit of, their subjects. This can range from red carpet premieres to organised and set up photo shoots of a celebrity out shopping or on the beach. I do not class them in my definition of paparazzi. Lacking moral or ethical guidance, the paparazzi work with little respect for the law. The composition, quality, or origin of a photograph is a distant second to its commercial value. Paparazzi agencies will often employ people with little or no knowledge of photography. The agency will provide cameras with settings taped over so they cannot be changed. It is not a photographer that is sent out of the office, simply a man with a camera.

Press photographers by contrast are skilled professionals with years of training and experience. They work within the strict guidelines of both the Press Complaints Commission and their newspaper or news agency. These guidelines include respecting both a person’s right to privacy and the boundaries of private property. A good news photograph will be technically excellent and able to tell the story in a single frame. In contrast to the paparazzi, financial rewards are low.

This is not to imply that all press photographers are angelic super-humans working to expose the truth to an unwitting public. Like any industry, there are a minority of ‘rogue traders’ who are prepared to bend or break the rules to get a picture.

The problem for legitimate press photographers is they are seen as no different from the paparazzi. Regardless of the assignment they are covering, press photographers now experience regular abuse from strangers in the street. When photographing something as mundane as a the outside of a high street bank, it is not uncommon to hear shouts of ‘pap scum’ or ‘leave them alone’ from members of the public. If a group of press photographers are gathered outside a court or government building, the first question asked by curious passers-by is not ‘what’s happening?’ but ‘which famous person is coming?’.

The problem of public perception stems from two different sources; celebrity magazine culture and television news. The dominant celebrity culture makes it hard to avoid a constant stream of images cataloguing the daily lives of the A to Z list. It is no surprise that the general public perceive the primary role of photographers as being to feed this machine. The problem is complicated by disreputable publications being prepared to buy pictures on a ‘no questions asked’ basis. This makes it hard to distinguish between photographers working in a professional way and those who aren’t.

Television news coverage is the other major factor in the problem of perception. During most stories a clip of press photographers is included as a ‘cut away’ shot to add visual interest. If the clip includes the subject of a story being surrounded by the media, reporters will often refer to a “scrum of photographers”. This ignores the numerous TV cameras both in the scrum and filming from a distance. This has been demonstrated during TV reports on the Leveson inquiry. Press photographers have been working from an official area behind a barrier to give the witnesses space to arrive without being disturbed. TV reports have consistently referred to ‘hordes of photographers’ while ignoring the numerous video cameras surrounding witnesses as they arrive. By using these tactics, TV news aim to draw a distinction between the dirty press and the clean media. In doing so, they may perhaps be driving the Leveson inquiry toward concluding tough privacy laws are required, privacy laws that will include a ban on photographing people in public without their permission.

A ban of this type would be the death of the free press in the UK. Current guidelines require that individuals should not be photographed while they have ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy’. In practical terms this means anyone in a public place can be photographed without permission, as they cannot expect privacy in a public space. If laws were introduced requiring the written consent of an individual before they were photographed, it would mean press photographers would have to ignore events unfolding before them. Some of the biggest news stories in the last year could not have been reported. Pictures of Charlie Gilmour swinging from the Cenotaph would have been taken illegally, likewise pictures of Oliver Letwin disposing of government documents in a park bin. Press photographers would be as ham strung as reporters are when they are prevented from covering stories of public interest that are subject to super-injunctions.

The problem of finding a solution that avoids this type of privacy law is extremely difficult. Legitimate press photographers already have licensed press cards that are required to be shown to work in places like Downing Street. This system has not stopped any of the behaviour reported this week, or prevented the use of faked press cards. Digital cameras are cheap and increasingly easier to use, making it hard for anybody to distinguish between professional and amateur, press photographer and paparazzo. If 99 out of 100 photographers comply with a code of conduct, one will always break the rules and tar the rest with the same brush. Introducing government or police regulation and control over licensing of press photographers would affect impartiality and freedom.

It would be very hard to argue that there can be no changes following the Leveson Inquiry. We must be very careful what these changes are and where they will take us. Press photographers are in danger of being so restrained by regulation that we become like the fire fighter who cannot enter a burning building for fear of breaking health and safety regulations.”

So there we have it.  This could well be a make or break time for British press photography.  Let’s hope that the inquiry sees sense before knee-jerk reactions destroy some of this country’s powerful freedoms forever.

I was recently sent a parcel of goodies to review/torture and while some items won’t be of use to me as a press photographer, one item stood out as being of interest; the Godox PB820 Propac battery pack.

To those of you who work in press, wedding and entertainment photography, you’ll already probably own either a Lumedyne or a Quantum battery pack.  While these are the market leaders for portable flash power, the combination of very high price and user reports of less-than 100% reliability always left me wondering what else was out there.

I originally bought two Lumedyne “Tiny Cyclers” (VHTF) before realising that I’d rarely need both so sold one.  The remaining power pack only ever comes out at major events such as the Brits or the BAFTAs so the £300 that it cost me seems a little extravagant.  If I was starting out again, I’d certainly think twice about spending so much on such a rarely used item.  With a price tag of just half the price of the Lumedyne, the Propac seems to be a much more pocket-friendly option.  Available in Black or Lime Green (only cowards go for black), the unit itself is light but well built.  With a protection cap to cover the standard Quantum cable input when not in use and a clear display showing how much charge is remaining in the unit, the design is well thought out.  While some other brand’s models opt to have a single light that changes from green to red when the juice is gone, there is no way of actually telling how much is left.  With the Propac, the top display features a charging light, a status light to indicate that the unit has recycled and is kicking out power and four charge lights that show the remaining power in the cell.  When handing it around to working press photographers in London, one of the first things that people comment on (after “what the hell is that bright green box?”) is it’s low weight.  It’s a gnats arse over 500gm, making it 2/3 the weight of its closest competition.  Aside from that, it’s a battery in a plastic case.  There really isn’t that much more to say.  Here’s a neat comparison of the Propac with the Quantum Battery 1+ though.

As I said above, I rarely use portable battery packs but, as it happened, shortly after receiving the kit, I shot two weddings as a second shooter for Kirsten Mavric.  Where better to give it a go?  The first one was the marriage of wedding photographer Nick Ray and his fiancée Camilla.  I can honestly say that the day provided a whole range of new experiences, from an open-top car-shot of a classic vintage car, through to bouncing on a trampoline with the happy couple.  It all used flash and the unit kept up with whatever I threw at it.

The tech spec of the battery cells state that the PB820 can deliver 250 – 320 flashes at full power on a single 2 hour charge, with just a 1 second recycle time at full power.  From the weddings that I shot, I used flash quite a lot in the evening and the power indicator is still showing full, so it really does store a serious quantity of juice.

In fact, I used it for a wedding, Kirsten shot a Barmitzvah with it and then I gave it a hard test with three days of car shots at half or full power during the recent News International hacking scandal, with consistently solid results.  Even after all of this, I still didn’t need to recharge.  A colleague gave it a look over as we waited for a job to begin and carried out a few tests with his Quantum unit and found that the much higher priced Quantum was only fractionally faster to recharge from a full power shot.  Pretty good for such a cheap option.

As you’ve guessed from what I’ve written so far, this is a genuinely good option for those looking at buying an external flash battery pack, but who don’t want the considerable outlay of the high-end products.  Sure, there are advantages to owning the higher-end products from Quantum or a Lumedyne, such as marginally faster recycle times and bomb-proof construction, but for those who just need the occasional extra punch, I’d suggest you give it some thought.

I should point out here that despite my praise, I’m not in fact the new owner of “Godox Industries” and desperately launching my new venture on the world but was simply lucky enough to be approached to test the battery.  They are interested in how many sales it gets through this site though, so if you want to place an order, please keep me in their good books by placing your order via this link.

Following a strong grassroots campaign to raise awareness among photographers of the potential threat to their livelihood, I’ve just followed the advice given at stop43.org.uk and written to my MP on the subject.  For those of you either unaware of the Digital Economy Bill or unsure of what it’s about, head over to the stop43 site.  It really is important that any photographer reading this gets in touch with their representative in the House of Commons to push for them to raise a question when it next comes up for debate.

You can either email your MP through www.writetothem.com or, if you can, it’s better to write a proper letter as then they have to reply to you individually rather than just hitting the delete key.

I’ve included a copy of my letter below that is a minced-up version of the well-written text from the stop43 site and my own style of writing.  Feel free to copy and tweak the text before sending your own letter.

Dear xxx,

This is the first time that I’ve ever felt the need to write to a politician before but there is currently a bill being passed through Parliament that is very likely to affect countless photographers throughout the country.

Until now, if someone found one of my photographs and wanted to use it commercially, they couldn’t without first asking me. Clause 43 of the UK Digital Economy Bill changes this by allowing the use of “Orphan Works” i.e. photographs, illustrations and other artworks whose owners cannot be found.

The proposed Clause 43 says that if someone finds one of my photographs, wants to use it and decides that they can’t trace me, they’re free to do whatever they like with it after paying a small fee to a UK Government-appointed “licensing body”. Any photographer affected will more than likely never know unless he/she happens to find it being used in this way. If they did manage to find it, only then would they be able to claim some money.

Even worse than this is that Clause 43 also introduces “Extended Collective Licensing”.

This means that if someone wanted to use one of my images, they don’t have to actually approach me. They could go to a UK Government-appointed “collecting society” and ask them instead. In this way, they’d pay an arbitrary fee and be able to do whatever they like with my photograph. This totally removes any value from the image. If I have an exclusive picture, why would anyone come to me for a fair price when they can go straight to the “collecting society” and pay a standard lower rate?

Can you imagine if this was talking about something commercially manufactured like cars? If I saw one for sale for £20,000, I could either pay the owner or choose to pay a Government body a nominal fee instead. Finally, the car’s owner would only get paid if they knew whom to approach to get the money from.

It really is a terribly thought out bill and I strongly request that you consider my concerns when the bill comes up for discussion or vote.

Yours sincerely,

Leon Neal

The address to send your letters to is;

(First name) (Second name) MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Now get on it, peeps..

Yesterday, I was put on “Climate Camp” watch along with fellow AFP photographer and good friend Shaun Curry.  Following a few days of media hype with demonstrators refusing to give any information on their planned camp site location and the police offering “community-style” policing if the demonstrators were prepared to cooperate, we both went to our pre-arranged meeting points. With seven groups announced on the group’s website, I headed to the headquarters of Rio Tinto where the 70 or so protestors sat around waiting until we finally got the go-ahead and travelled via tube and train to the mystery final destination.  Before we started to move, all of the media were handed “guidelines” and here is where my annoyance begins.  While economic and environmental protest groups were falling over themselves to get images and video from members of the media following the recent trouble at the Mayday demonstrations in central London, they were now imposing their own rules.  It seems that as long as the footage shows evidence of police errors, the media is their friend.

With an official but smaller version available here, I’ll just pick a few choice highlights for you.  Firstly, it should be pointed out that the eventual destination and current climate camp is on Blackheath which is public common land.  This means that it’s open for the public to access and enjoy at all times.

You will be accompanied by an assigned camper during that time, who will ensure that both campers and journalists are kept happy, and can ensure that consent is obtained from people being filmed and photographed.

Outside of these hours, there will also be a particular spot close to the entrance to which TV crews can be escorted to do interviews.

What? So in a public area that has been cordoned off with temporary fencing by the protest groups, we have to ask permission to access this land which will only be granted between certain hours (10:00-16:00) and only if guided by a steward?  On the plus side, for some reason this year’s occupation doesn’t feel as insane as last year where the group illegally occupied land by the side of Heathrow airport and THEN started telling the media when we were allowed to come onto their land and to respect their rights and not to try to come onto their land at any other times.

Certain neighbourhoods and work spaces may decide to ‘opt out’ of the media access policy, and no journalists of any kind should go to these spaces in any kind of capacity. This is not because these areas have ‘anything to hide’ but because the camp process respects the right of those neighbourhoods and working groups who don’t feel comfortable engaging with the media. Our ability to provide wider access to the camp depends on us being able to respect the decision of these groups to opt out like this. Journalists will be informed by the media team on arrival which neighbourhoods and spaces have opted out. The neighbourhoods that opt out may change during the week.

Again, I’m not allowed to go to certain areas of this publicly-owned land because some people have decided that the laws that cover media access and control for every other part of society aren’t quite good enough for them.  However, if they decide that they now want publicity, they have the right to suddenly beckon the journalists in to record their experiences.

In another sheet, we are also told that “you must display your press badge at all times“.  The logic behind this is that “if you’re identifiable as a press journalist..then you’ll find it easier to get an insight into the camp”.  So it’s fine to retain your anonymity if you’re a protestor but not if you’re media.  ID cards anyone?

The guide goes on to say that “if you want to take a picture or video and it includes people, always always ask first.  If you can’t ask, don’t take the picture“  Again, UK law says if someone is in public and not on private property and as long as they’re over 16, you’re free to take whatever pictures you want.  This is a part of UK law that should be protected to the end as without this, how does the media hope to get a picture of anyone?  As soon as controls of this type are introduced, our hands are effectively tied.  The fact that these restrictions are trying to be enforced by “Smash the System” ecological and financial protestors would be hilarious if it wasn’t so stupid.  I was shooting for about ten minutes before I was told to stop.  When I enquired why, I was told I had to ask everyone first.  I told him that I didn’t and he informed me that camp policy was to strongly request me to ask first.  I informed him that I’d officially heard his strong request and chosen to ignore it.  I carried on shooting, he stopped talking.  Grrr..

For further reading on this situation, check out Jonathan Warren’s blog here.

Now after reading all of that, the last thing that I want you to think is that I’m some Neo-Con Littlejohn fan.  Far from it, I would hate people to grow up and live their lives thinking that they were unable to change the things in the world that they disagreed with.  The feeling that you can change the world is such a vital thing for everyone to feel at some point in their lives whether it’s for a phase during the College/University years or for their whole lives.  My problem comes from organisations believing that they have the right to cry that the world’s not fair and then bring in rules and regulations that are far tighter than the governing bodies that they rebel against.

At home, I have eco-bulbs, I reuse my shopping bags, I never use the standby function on my tv and I use public transport.  However, I now really feel like buying a Hummer..