December 28, 2006 by pmelcher.

We have heard over and over how photojournalism is dying of a slow death. Numerous reasons have be given for this, from the lack of quality images ( to which I do not subscribe) to the diminishing space in magazine and newspaper.

Many years ago, with the advent of the internet and visionaries like Brian Storm and Msnbc.com, the internet became a light in the darkness. Cheap space, almost infinite real estate, surely, photojournalism can find a new space. And for a while it did. It had to first re invent itself and take the new name of “multimedia” as it accepted sound and music as a neighbor, for good and for bad. No one mind that some images are being “explained” by narration. Some call it vocal captioning, some other brought sounds to enhance the user experience. There were and are numerous successes. A few are known by everyone : Magnum in Motion, MediaStorm, Msnbc.com Interactive among my favorites. Some others, like the pale imitation of washingtonpost.com Cameraworks continue to badly copy and repeat what others have done. And, in a way, for lack of innovation, kills photojournalism a second time. Because the photographers know they will be adding voice explanation, their images are boring and lame. They are snapshots with a nicely documented comment and cute music. Certainly not photopurenalism.

But this is not the reason of this post really. What is, is the sorry state of photo editors in the photo journalism field. I was looking at “The year in Picture” from numeous sites, from Msnbc.com (still the best) to Time.com, aol.com and many more and what I saw was two fold:
- The same images ( Bush holding the baby )
- All images were from a wire service and wire services only. either Reuters, AP, AFP/Getty, EPA.
The fact that most editors agree on the best images is one thing which needs not to be argued. But that none of them go further than the feeds that they get daily and declare those the best images ? That is to say that NONE, zero photographers, either independent or from prestigious agencies like VII, Redux, SIPA, Polaris, Magnum, Contact, VU, REA, Bilderberg, Camera Press, and many, many others did not shoot anything worthwhile during all of 2006 ?
And that AP,REUTERS, AFP/Getty photographers are the best ? These people, the ones that create these so called Best images of the year, are the same that attend workshops, Festival, that are members of juries and write articles on how sad it is that Photojournalism is dying.

It’s dying of laziness from photo editors. In a digital age where one could scout a thousand website from all over the world for the best images or best stories, only the images that have gone through a wire service becomes the best.

Not every image deserves to be seen, quite obviously, but by practicing a politic of cost cutting (wire service images are much cheaper to license and bean counters are forcing editors to buy cheap) and having a lazy mouse ( less clicks), web editors are killing photojournalisms new frontier.

If this job is too much work, than give it to someone who really cares and will look for the best image. and then explain to the bean counters why this image or this story cost more than this one. or just put links to Flickr and go home. After all, you cost money too, and for what? Crowdsourcing and Prosumming can do the job you do these days . For free. After all, much is said about the Citizen photojournalist ( see London bombing), but the Citizen Photo editor is not far.
You just post the wire service feed on your site every day, ask viewers to select their favorite image and by the end of the day, you have your selection. At the end of the week , you have the best images of the week and by years end, something like “The best images of the year”. No professional editors needed.

Posted in wire service, photojournalism, slideshow, editorial, news, getty | Print | No Comments »

December 22, 2006 by pmelcher.

There is no imagination left in the professionnal fields of stock RM and RF photographer. Nothing. zip. Zilch.Nada. Has to be, because when you look at the images being offered by most stock agencies, they all look the same. Especially those taken with a piece of plastic added to their lenses.

Stop it. Please. whoever is responsible . I do not know if it is the photographers or the editors, but if I see one more image taken with that Lensbabies extension, I will start to cry too, like a baby. It is like those filters used in the late 70’s early 80″s that changed light into multicolor 4 tip stars. It was used so much, by photographers, movie directors, TV shows, that it is rare to see any images from that period without them. Those filters were stuck to photographers lenses, like Lensbabies these days.

I even see news editorial photographer using it. Aaaargh !! I guess reality has become such a bore that we need to distort it. Find another trick, quick !! and stop copying each other. I do not know if those bean counters with a humongous corporate background and a degree in Historical redundancy are telling you that “the numbers indicate that picture taken with lensbabies sell 80 % better than does without”.Of course they do, Image Buyers cannot find anything else.

One cannot find a food picture taken without it anymore. It was interesting at first but now it is becoming repulsive. I will call my congressman if necessary, pass a bill that bans the use of those things. Be creative, someone, quick. and throw these plastic things out or give it to someone you hate.

Trends in photography are like rulers of countries, they are made to be replaced. If one stays too long, the system gets corrupted.

Posted in filter, lensbabies, news, Royalty free | Print | 1 Comment »

December 20, 2006 by pmelcher.

Hard to avoid working with Photoshop if you are in this industry. And a great product too, with so many possibilities that shelves of books are available in book stores, numerous websites, classes, courses, workshops, video and soon, after the “certified” they will have a PH.D for it. My oldest son learned how to use it in school. I remember playing with my 2.5 version back in the early 90’s and having to figure it out alone, with the useful help from photographers who were doing the same. We should receive a medal from Adobe.

Anyway, I found this great tool : FAUXTO, and it is amazing. It is a proto version of an online photo enhancing tool. Of course, it is still in Beta right now but they are on the right track and soon, instead of using the 800 Lbs. gorilla that Photoshop has become, web based tools like these will allow for quick and efficient edits, either as a pay per use or subscription.
Since web browsers only handle sRGB color space, I am assuming that is the only color space available right now, but it is strong enough to enhance an image for web usage. Soon enough, color management will make it to web browsers, at least in Open Source at first.

We are getting closer to a fully web based workflow that could allow anyone one to use any computer to manage their entire workflow from start to finish. How does that help us ? Not sure as computer are going faster and space is becoming cheaper at a much faster pace than web access is improving. Web browsers are not improving very fast and offer many limitations, while broadband is not becoming neither cheaper nor faster.
Other notes:

The winners of UNICEF Photo of the Year have be announced. Not my favorite organization but always a very good selection of images.

Posted in photoshop | Print | No Comments »

December 18, 2006 by pmelcher.

Like every year, MSNBC.com has put together a “best of..” for the year 2006. A bit too focused on wire service images and very U.S.A. concentric, but still an amazing sideshow:

MSNBC.COM Year in pictures.

Enjoy !!

Posted in msnbc.com, wire service, slideshow | Print | No Comments »

December 18, 2006 by pmelcher.

It is about time… One key part of where photo agencies could save a lot of time, and thus money, is in their transactions. As I wrote earlier, one of microstock’s, and before that, traditional royalty free success’, is the credit card transaction. Since every transaction is made by credit card payment, the  billing process is  fully automated, thus extremely cheap to process.
The photo industry is still in its Middle Ages when it comes to transaction. A new client comes in and registers . An image is downloaded, an invoice is generated, a check is being, manually walked to a bank, a reconciliation is made, another check is being issued for the contributing photographers. This is not only time consuming but expensive.
Imagine having the biggest banks in the world as your personal accountants : they do the credit check, process the payment, reconcile and keep a record for you for a small percentage fee. Some of the biggest companies in the world, from E-bay to Amazon, from Wal Mart ( world biggest retailer, hint, hint) to Apple not only handle credit card transaction but prefer it from any other types.
In the RM photo agency world, rare and few are the agencies that even have that option enabled on their site. Everything else is practically automated, but not the payments. Is it because we love our accounting departments so much, with their stacks of papers, their binded check books, their inabilities to pay on time that we do nothing about it?
When I saw my good friend Roger Ressmeyer  at Picture House a month ago, I told him: “PACA should not worry and complain as much about Microstock as they should get together and start a “pay with you credit card campaign”. If all the photo agencies would hold their hands and convince, nicely, their clients to use this method of transaction, everyone’s life would be so much simpler, easier and cheaper. And no need to waste time complaining about those Microstock guys.”

Sure, they ( the Credit Card companies) take a percentage of every transaction, but compare it to the bottom line. You get cash much faster, you do not have bounced checks anymore, you can automate receivables but also commission payment among many, many other advantage. And you could save trees. CEPIC should do the same, as well as all the organizations.
But,it is up to photo agencies to drop the paper work trail and make their site E commerce friendly. It has become easy to set up.
There is a huge cost saving opportunity here. Let it be heard.

Posted in PACA, CEPIC, finance, transaction, Royalty free, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

December 15, 2006 by pmelcher.

There is a topic I have been wanting to write about for a long time. It is, in my view, as important as the orphan work legislation that is still, by the way, a living, breathing potential threat, democrats or no democrats.
The French Government, ruling in favor of the elite class (France class system is very strong and visible in everyday life), passed a law regarding privacy and the limitation of photography. Hidden behind this law was the need of celebrities and royals to be protected from the legions of paparazzi that seem to bother so many people.

on a side note : While everyone seems to complain about them, they are one of the richest branch of photography and I dare any photographer that believe there work is easy and crappy to spend a week doing what they do.

Anyway, The Prince of Monaco walked into the office of “Jack” Chirac one day and said, “this has to stop”. And it did. For those who are not aware, and think the only thing you cannot photograph in France is the Eiffel Tower at night, here is a brief description explained by pro photographers: Lightstalkers

This has made life unbearable for existing editorial photographers that have to have their images badly altered in order to get them published. It has taken all a huge toll on creativity and is slowly killing photography. Photography is about life and the human condition. If you take out the human, their expressions, out the picture, you practically loose everything. Not much a US photographer has to worry about since in this country, we are “protected: by the first amendment. At least for now.

But a whole tradition of candid photography is being slaughtered right before our eyes and no one is actively reacting. why is that ? Why is it that the international communality of photographers do not rise together in show of compassion and revolt ? I guess photography knows and respect boundaries and as long as it does not happen in their own little back yard, it doesn’t exist. So let’s worry about Microstock and Orphan work, two very American trends and ignore the most important threats for the outside world.

It will come into our backyard one day as we tolerate more government invasion and “protect” ourselves from the preying eyes of fellow photographers.

In a digital age, where images taken on one side of the globe can be delivered to the other sides in matters of seconds, where images travel at the speed of sound, sometimes of light, our interest in other photography world has instead taken a turn for seclusion and self-worry.

But this is where the future of photography stands. In what is legislated in other parts of the world. Photography, photo agencies were invented in France. It is part of the cultural landscape and a second language to its population. Features, unlike in the US, are a large part of what people “read” in magazines. They read images as much as they read articles.

It would be, or rather, it is a big mistake to think that this will not affect the US. Or other parts of the world. Magazines, newspapers, websites are being pushed to use RF or Commercial Stock images to illustrate news because they have paid models in it. Is that what we want to see ?

PS: here is a good example of how the media bundles photography and privacy laws : MSNBC.

and here is some of the damaging results : RAPHO

Posted in editorial, france, law, news | Print | 1 Comment »

December 12, 2006 by pmelcher.

Thanks to Andy Goetze of the fame Stockphototalk blog, I received many comments regarding my first blog. I was not really expecting anyone to read it, as it was more a part of my new site MelcherSystem.

I figure, if I do have a receptive audience, I might as well continue.

So here are some more thoughts on Microstock or MicroRF (unexpensive Royalty Free):

The real success of Microstock is not the exactly the pricing structure, it is the almost full automation of image handling that allows them to come to such pricing. Something that Corbis doesn’t understand yet. Getty, however, by purchasing Istockphoto, purchased the technology. Although, right now, their RF section is being “cannibalize” (the 8 % is going to be 20 % by year end) by themselves, there is a very good chance that they will be able to dramatically capitalize on this knowledge and cut down on their cost of distribution and licensing across all types of licenses.

One might ponder why Getty has not gone full RF. Is it because their revenue from RM are so high that they cover the cost of so many sales executives around the world? What is the % of their client that actually need, want RM? What is the % of images that can actually be sold as RM. (can a handshake image be really sold as RM these days?). We all know that most clients of RM (mostly editorial clients) do not even ask for any type of specific rights. A machine could license these pictures. They do not make the money from managing the rights per say (exclusive, not exclusive), which is not cost effective and hardly scalable, but by charging per usage.

One image gets multiple usage, paid multiple times, making it much more profitable than RF. For exactly the same amount of money spent creating it. So while RF pricing and ease of distribution is extremely attractive for corporate thinkers, the real gold is in one image = multiple licenses.
So where is the growth? Reducing the cost of licensing an RM image: Every photo agency’s El Dorado

Posted in corbis, getty, Royalty free, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

December 8, 2006 by pmelcher.

I was reading an article by Leslie Hugues on mactribe.com , an old boss of mine at Corbis, regarding Microstock companies like Istockphoto and other. I noticed a few things:

Apart from the fact that she writes a lot to really no end, for which she is notorious, the whole point of the rise of Microstock is missed. For one thing, it should be called “cheap royalty free”‘ instead of Microstosck. The rights managed market is not affected at all by this sudden appearance of new, consumer made royalty free, nor should it feel threatened. Rights managed should worry more about site like Flickr if and when Yahoo decides to add E commerce, licensing tools to it.

Furthermore, if we look back at the history, short indeed, of royalty free, one would realized that when they were sold on a CD with 300 images for $300.00, the initial Royalty free were priced the same way. With the advent of big stock agencies and their control on prices, did they go up to the ridiculous prices of today. Obviously, Corbis and other Getty had no other choice than to raise prices year after year, after all, it is part of their growth strategy. But they left a door wide open for Microstock to come in. and they did.No big surprise there.

Finally, with prosumers climbing into the market, we see a growth of choice in a market already saturated with extremely good images. Now, there will be more choice at a lesser fee. Consider also, if you will, the addition of all the new “traditional” royalty free companies that have appeared in the last year or so.

What we are seeing here is just the readjustment of a market that was sustaining on irrational pricing due, in part, from an uneducated market and a lack of aggressive competition. It is fair, after all, that a market that considers images as a product and sells them as such suffers from the same economics than any other reseller of any other type of product.

The question that remains is who will become the Wal-Mart of Royalty free ?

Posted in Royalty free, Microstock | Print | No Comments »