The single worst failing of PR firms and arts press officers is in the provision of decent pictures.
With so much emphasis now placed on publishing design, raggedly old black and white pictures of artists and clients are no longer acceptable.

The provision of a good, high resolution image can make the difference between a feature being a spread or a page lead, or it being relegated to the role of filler .
Colour images are also now the norm in terms of j-peg provision.
However, time....and time...and time again I am finding the images offered are totally unsuitable for publication, especially when it comes to producing A3 supplement cover pictures.
Very often this is an inherent problem stemming from inadequate provision of original material from the artists themselves or their agents ( just how are some of these agents justify their own employment and obvious lack of professional advice, makes the mind boggle).
The advantage of good images is mutually beneficial. Newspapers and magazines are looking for material to publish, while artists, agents and PR firms are eager to gain publicity.
If I could have a fiver for every time I have had to downgrade a feature purely on the grounds that the pictures are so unsatisfactory, I would be able to open my own PR firm.
So having been tipped that several of the luvvy bretheren chance upon this blog site, I offer the advice in their own interests.
PS The three great image pitfallls beyond that of quality and resolution are the "Guardianesque" images - backs and sides of people's heads - blurred soft focus "impressionistic" images and others that look like little more than police wanted posters or or passport photos.

• Post to:
•  del.icio.us
•  Digg
•  Newsvine
•  Nowpublic
•  Reddit