Graham Snook

Graham Snook

Lives in United Kingdom Surrey, United Kingdom
Works as a Yachting Photographer
Has a website at http://grahamsnook.com
Joined on Jan 20, 2003
About me:

I've only been hit by a 12 tonne boat travelling at 30 knots once. Nearly fatal, but wasn't.

I shoot on:
Canon 1DX
Canon 5D MKIII
Canon XA 20

Equipment trashed so far:
1 550EX
1 Quantum Turbo
1 Canon 70-200 f2.8L
1 Canon 28-70 f2.8L
1 Canon 17-35 f2.8L
1 Pentax 6x7 mk II
1 Canon Eos 5
1 Canon Eos 1
1 Canon Eos 1n
1 Canon 1DS
1 Canon 1DSmkII

If you want to keep your equipment in working order, avoid yachting photography!

Studied photography, worked for Allsport/Getty Images, now I travel round the world photographing sailing yachts and motor boats of all shapes and sizes

Comments

Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Companies like Getty represent everything hateful about today's photography and corporate greed to endlessly persecute independent image story-telling and content creation. "Move your arses boys, Getty is here to take best positions because they bribed the Olympic Committee with a bigger pile of $. If you want photos, you may buy from them. If you complain, we'll call security".

It was an example of the power Getty/Allsport had 17 years ago when I worked for them. I wasn't the best photographer in that room, nowhere near...I just worked for the right company.

I never said I was one of the best – I said Getty had the best photographers, but nowhere did I say I was one of them :0)

I just worked for Getty, while I was there I was a darkroom/wire/studio tech, but I photographed all the events I could.

No chip on my shoulder – have you checked yours? :0) – I got out of sports photography a long time ago but still know some of the snappers there.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 13:00 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Companies like Getty represent everything hateful about today's photography and corporate greed to endlessly persecute independent image story-telling and content creation. "Move your arses boys, Getty is here to take best positions because they bribed the Olympic Committee with a bigger pile of $. If you want photos, you may buy from them. If you complain, we'll call security".

Getty get the best spots because they were (when I was there) the official photographers and were commissioned to cover the Olympics for the IOC. They are the only company big enough to be able to cover every round of every event and have the distribution network to get those images around the world as soon as possible.

The photographers they have are the best.

At the end of the day images by Getty togs will go to more places than any other agency, so it's in the organisers/sponsors best interest to get as much coverage, of the event, as possible.

I remember turning up to an event and asking for a press bib "There's a long waiting list and we have to wait for some bibs to come in. Who are you working for?" "Getty" I replied "Well you're at the top of the list and I think I've got a bib round here somewhere...".

Yes Getty do rule the roost, but they also lay the golden eggs.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 21:32 UTC
In reply to:

Individual11: I'd be interested in understanding more about who will be using these cameras. Does Getty hire the top independent photographers, have staff? All the above? How does it compare with past news agency practices? Just interested to understand what the market is like for pro sports photographers in the digital age...

The majority of Getty's photographers for the news/sports agency are staff. I'm not talking about the Getty image library, just their news wire services.

For a big event Getty will be using their in house photographers from their agencies around the world. They may also hire in their regular freelance photographers to cover home sports, or other commitments. Also over in Rio there will be teams of picture editor/caption writers/picture desk staff too. (I worked for Getty many years ago, and still know a few of the snappers there)

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 21:12 UTC
On article High Flyer? DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ Drone Review (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

bawbaw: Commercial use in the uk requires a CAA approved pilot to verify your ability to fly and operate it. Fly it without that anyone even seeing it in the sky on a commercial job can sue you, oh and the CAA can too.

Information like this needs to be in these reviews!

Some people think that because you can buy these on the high street you can do what you want with them:
Warning this will take you to the Daily Mail, you'll be looking at wrinkly celebs before you know it.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2780387/Tourist-jailed-fined-flying-drone-Paris-Notre-Dame-Cathedral.html
and in the UK:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/02/uk-first-drone-conviction
which contains "Knowles's case is the first conviction involving recreational use of a drone, though a caution was recently issued against a photographer from Lancashire, for "using a unmanned aerial vehicle for commercial gain without permission". The photographer sold footage of a fire at a school to media organisations despite not having clearance from the CAA to operate the device commercially."
Which is interesting.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 21:39 UTC
On article High Flyer? DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ Drone Review (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

bawbaw: Commercial use in the uk requires a CAA approved pilot to verify your ability to fly and operate it. Fly it without that anyone even seeing it in the sky on a commercial job can sue you, oh and the CAA can too.

Information like this needs to be in these reviews!

How about somthing like:
The laws surrounding the use of drones varies from country to country. DPreview advise any prospective drone buyers to thoroughly check their local aviation authority regulations before purchase.

See, it wasn't that hard now, was it :)

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 19:53 UTC
On article High Flyer? DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ Drone Review (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

bawbaw: Commercial use in the uk requires a CAA approved pilot to verify your ability to fly and operate it. Fly it without that anyone even seeing it in the sky on a commercial job can sue you, oh and the CAA can too.

Information like this needs to be in these reviews!

Indeed. Even if you're not professional it's illegal to fly these (Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft capable of recording images) in the UK "within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft". Otherwise you need CAA approval. A lot of people are ignoring laws, either through ignorance or on purpose. It's only a matter of time until one does some serious damage.
Full reg here: http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pageid=16012

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2014 at 15:55 UTC
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6