August 25, 2009 by pmelcher.

The PACA is about to release their stockphotofinder. Or at least a Beta version of it. For those who do not know, PACA stands for Picture Archive Council of America and regroups hundreds of RM and RF commercial stock agencies.

They have recently decided, in committee, to create a photo portal for all its members to be included and released this preview video:

If you can get passed the crooner, late-at-night, crackling, I-want-to-be-sexy voice, of the commentator, you will see how a committee can destroy a potentially good idea. Where should we start? Oh well, the idea in general.

Between Newscom, Stockphotfinder, BrightQube and many others, such portal exist already, and for a long time. So you would think this one would bring something new, something compelling. Well, actually, it doesn’t.

It actually bring you back to 1990’s : a search will return…a list of agencies that have the existing keyword in their database. Not only that, but instead of returning the relevant images, it will classify the result with the agency who has the most result with the keyword you entered on top. Meaning that its not about the quality of the image but the quantity available. Does that mean that PACA favors agencies with the most pictures? Seems like it.

If you do not like that, you are offered another list. This one classifies the results by the proportion of the keyword relevant to the total size of the archive..mmm..who thought about that one? The claim is that this list will bubble up the agency who are specialized in the pics you are looking for. Maybe, but it will also highlight those with just a lot of images too . Again, no pictures here.

If you want to see the actual results with thumbnails, you have to click on an agency link. and then another one. If you use a Safari browser, one of the least-used browser on the internet, you can even open multiple tabs, if you twist your fingers on the keyboard a little bit .

Up to now, if you are not completely disgusted by the experience, you still have major hurdles left. Let say you like an image on one of the tabs you have open. well, you are now on your own and have to go register to that agency to license it. Great, how is that helpful ?

You also have to fight your way through so many exact similar that you might never license an image ever again. Some of these agencies represent each other content and if you add Newscom, or Stockphotofinder, who are  already portals , you might see the same image 10 or 20 times on different site. And probably at different prices.  Also, for some reason, DigitalRailroad appears as result option. Either this Beta is more than a year old, or someone forgot to tell PACA they are out of business. No sign of Photoshelter, by the way.

Maybe if you find the right image, they send it to you via messenger ?

We could go on and on with more comments. For picture professionals to regroup and to come out with a product like this is shameful. It clearly shows what is terribly wrong with commercial stock distributors who seem to have no clue on how to properly service their clients. It’s a monument to PACA’s archaism and its members complete ignorance of their market.

Posted in license, technology, commercial stock, Midstock, Search, Royalty free, PACA, No sense, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

August 19, 2009 by pmelcher.

Some photo editors need a medal…along with their editor in chief. Not a one time award for best editing. No. Something bigger, brighter and more reflective of their achievement.  Jody Quon, Director of Photography for the wonderful New York Magazine should be the first recipient. Not only the photography in every issue is always amazing, refreshing, surprising and captivating, but the Fashion Issue that just hit the stands this week surpasses everything. The portraits are dead on, the stock is carefully chosen, but the real treat is a 24 pages photo essay by Marcus Bleasdale on the fall fashion shows in Paris.

Yes, 24 pages, mostly double page spread, of pure, unaltered, hardly captioned photography. No article, no explanation, just pure photography. This is such a rare and powerful event in magazine publishing, it should be noted screamed about. When all other magazines, worldwide, are using less and less photography, in what they beleive is a healthy way to cut costs, New York Magazine goes entirely the other way and puts more.

It is not the first time a magazine hires a war/documentary photographer to shoot fashion. It has been done before, hoping to shed a different vision on the already over-photographed catwalks. Most of the time, the result is very bad. The reason : The photographers couldn’t care less about what they are seeing and you can see it. They would much prefer to be paid to go back on the battlefield, any battlefield.

Marcus Bleasdale, recent new member of  VII  photo agency and mostly known for his powerful and multiple award winning work on the horrible conditions of gold mining in Congo, was up to now, mostly seen in Time or Newsweek magazine, if hardly at all. He would take his work and expose it everywhere it could make a difference (See article here). If you know the man, he is not the type you will see at parties, movie premieres and or at fashion shows. That is a world that he avoids at  all cost.

Liu Wen at the Alexander McQueen show. (Photo: Marcus Bleasdale)

So, seeing his photographs of runways and backstage is a shock. I had to read his credit three or four times before I could convince myself that this was the same man who has been living in mud, contracting the worse horrible diseases, hiding from corporate-hired hit man, in order to expose the realities of Africa.

The New York Magazine spread is Marcus all right: It is clearly judgmental, sometimes violent in its opinion. Some models look like criminals just arrested for a crime they know they are guilty off and the whole atmosphere reeks of decadence. Like a party that has been going on too long. You see and feel that Marcus doesn’t like this crowd. There is also a strong sense of solitude, probably wanted by Marcus but accentuated by the editing of Jody.

So, for all those who complain and whine about the death of the photo essay in the American magazine landscape, go out and purchase one, or ten copies of this week’s New York Magazine. Not only you will love it, but you will also send a clear signal that this is what we all want to see more off. Furthermore, the images do not seem to be online, so if you want to experience them, you better get off that couch.

Thank you Marcus Bleasdale, Thank you Jody Quon, Thank  you Adam Moss ( That is the Editor in Chief, in case you didn’t know)

Posted in technology, lens, Newsweek, magazine, TIME, editorial, photojournalism, news | Print | 1 Comment »

August 18, 2009 by pmelcher.

Some photo agencies want to play with the big boys with no understanding of the fundamentals of business. Take Miami based photo agency PR photos. Right on the heals of the Getty Images announcement that they would charge $5 per image for cell phone usage on images of a certain very low size, that “agency in the sun” decided to replicate:

Unlike Getty, PRphoto doesn’t have staff photographers. According to their photographer’s five years contract, its a 50% share. Thus, each photographer gets $2.50 per image sold. Ouch! The photographer also has the obligation to submit images regularly , edit them, caption them, allow the agency to crop them, use them for promotional use for 10 years, and not complain if they loose anything.(welcome back, slavery !!).

How cool is that ?

Wait, it gets better. They also have a subscription plan:

Yes, you read it right. It starts at $1 an image and goes as low as pennies ( $1000 a month / unlimited downloads). And people are worried about Microstock ? what about Megamadness? Who let these people out ?

The funny part of all this is that, besides them, everyone knows this model will fail. It would take a huge critical mass of regular clients to make this viable. Huge. And with the type of content  they offer, in celebrity, news and sport, they will never achieve it.

Hopefully everyone involve in this company has a side job to sustain them and this is just a hobby. Or a bad dream. or both. Why would any photographer submit themselves to such a treatment is beyond any understanding.

You can browse and see more of the work of PR Photos here:

Posted in celebrity, magazine, Newsweek, keyword, transaction, getty, editorial, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

August 14, 2009 by pmelcher.

The future of photography is exclusive content. Not exclusive as in no one else wants to shoot this, otherwise called “niche” photography. No, no. Niche photography is just exactly that : a specialized market. And with specialized comes limited.

When photography was still film, print and slide, no one could really copy as they could not see what you had shot. As digital distribution came to become a standard, other photographers saw what was being offered, and said :”hey, I can shoot that”. They invented Royalty Free. As broadband became more and more available, individuals saw royalty free and rights managed and said ” hey, I can shoot that”. And microstock was invented.

The pricing of images became inversely proportional to the volume created. The more created, the least costly.

Sure, some did  some variation on images. But they only tapped on the variation of the market. Which is never much. Others came out with some new ideas, quickly replicated by the thousands by diverse photographers worldwide.

Others decided that the only way to keep some value was to get content hard for others to copy.  Like exploding volcanoes, or deep underwater photography. Or rain forest insects. and get really specialized at that. Problem is, that is also not a big market.

So what is the solution? Do video? doubtful. we will see the same trend quickly in video. actually microstock have already invaded video before it got mainstream and beat the traditional RM and RF companies to it. Forget it.

First, stop shooting stock. The market is not there anymore. well, not for pros. Shoot commission work only and put that in stock. That is how the whole market started anyway and how it will survive. why? because commission will give you access to places, or people that are not available to the common mortal. It will also create images that are specific to a need that no one else has thought about. why ? well, because if they had, they would have used stock instead of hiring you.

Once you have that content, sell it well and hard. Do not drop it in the dollar bin. Those images will be your calling cards, both for stock and for more assignments. Yes, you are expensive, but your are also very good.

Second, do not copy. If you have an idea, look to see if it has been done. If it has, drop it. Move on. be creative.

Third, stop looking at your sales report. They tell you what sold, not what will sell. and while you are at it, stop reading  those creative intelligence papers. If you read it, thousands of other photographers have too. What is the point ?

Go to workshops to learn how and what NOT to shoot. Same as above. Learn to be a loner.

Dis-learn: Forget all the rules, regulations, obligations, conditions, and other “…ions” that are stuffed in your head. Each one is another rope to your creativity.

Dis connect: Your computer screen is more a distraction than anything else. If you don’t have one, get a smart phone for those important emails and use that. On top of being a distraction, it can lead very quickly to a “groupthink” mentality . Its not a good crowd to hang out with.

Do not offend. If your images are offensive in any way, they will never be used for commercial purpose, and less and less for editorial. If you want to shock people, do it with beauty, talent and art. Beautiful sells, sometimes much better than sex.

Be emotional : too many photographers, in an attempt to be as generic as possible in order to be attractive to the biggest market, create blend, lifeless images. Be as emotional as humanly possible. The more your images generates emotions in its viewers, the better. But do not shock, or repulse. Reach for the happy, good emotions.

Hide your best work.  Only your clients should see it. no one else.

Do not share or post your techniques. You will only be popular with the ones that have no imaginations. Like leeches, they feed on others knowledge.

Never, ever ask for the opinion of another photographer. If its good, they will copy you, if it’s bad, they won’t tell you.

Do not think volume. One image will not compensate for the other. The more scarce your work, the more valuable. You are not a factory, after all.

Do not beleive there is a “secret”. There is none. That’s the secret.

Work on the process, not the result. If the process is perfect, the result will be.

Do not equip yourself too much. Talent is not measure by the numbers of lenses or gizmos you carry. Actually, the less you carry, the more you can concentrate on your images.

In other words, be exclusive. Make your content unique and keep it so.

Disclaimer : The Bohemian is not a photographer. He never was and never will be. Although he did sell one of his companies to one of the Big Twos, he doesn’t pretend to carry all knowledge. The information above is to be taken “as is”. If it doesn’t work, no one is legally, or otherwise, liable. Should you want real counsel, please go buy one of those very expensive books, DVD’s, or boxes that promises miracles. That should work. Since you have not paid anything to view this blog, you will not be reimbursed. Satisfied or not.Ever.

Posted in focus, technology, lens, commercial stock, license, prosumer, Royalty free, editorial, transaction, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | 5 Comments »

August 12, 2009 by pmelcher.

In times of crisis, people will go anywhere to search for answers. Some will even start believing anything as long as the promise is for a succesful and happy ending. Some will even commit mass suicide if the promise is strong enough.

Surely, we have not come there yet. But as the situation for photographers gets more and more difficult, snake oil merchants seem to appear out of everywhere. They promise everything, as long as you pay for it. This package will make you a better while this one will transform you as the best salesman the world has ever seen. Interrestingly enough, since most of the photogrpahy commerce is done online, some technology companies also claim to have the key to success. With this or that program, website or  “secrets of the internet” booklets and free dvd, your images will be seen, and bought, by billions of happy internet browser.

They use as arguments their professional pedigree that ranges anywhere from the inventor of stock photography to ” i sold my agency for millions, therefore I know the market” . The tech companies themselves use exeptions as rules and claim that if one of their members succeeded therefor you can.

Let’s take a breather here. If you are such succesful photographer, why would you sell booklets and dvd for others to learn your ’secrets ” and compete with you ? If you sold your agency, ( did you split the revenue with your photographers, btw ?) how does that make you a stock photo savant ? and why do you need to sell some more stuff if you are so succesful ?

Tech companies, usually started by computer wiz kids with no experience of the photo market, also seem to have cracked the holy grail of selling images online. All you ever needed was a billing and invoicing plug in to your website and the door of fortune will be open to you.

Let’s deflate some balloons here: There is no “magic trick” to photograph, no hidden secrets. There is certainly no one who has the magic formula to success. Even extremely talented and successful photographers would be hard press to explain to someone else how they did it. And if they did, what is the point. Have two hundred more of the same ?

That secret recipe doesn’t exist.  It’s different for everyone and for every market. Some photographers do very, very well in small towns because they have all the local companies, families, boutiques and publications as clients. Can they  teach you how you can do the same on the national market? no. because they don’t know.

Adding a licensing tool on your website will not make you rich. Or add revenues. Selling images is as much as professional as taking them. It’s not because you are a great photographer that you know how to sell your images. Actually, more often then not, it is the opposite.

You see them every year at Photoplus : thousands of stands promising that if you buy this or get this, or read this, or watch this, then you will be on top of the game. You see it all over blogs or photo news website : “See that sunshine on the other side? if you buy my book, package, dvd, lessons, software, plug in…i can take you there. hey, I”l even throw in a free goodie, I am so nice”

If their product was so good, then why don’t they apply it themselves instead of trying to sell it to others ? This recession seems to have brought forth more of them then ever. Don’t be fooled by these snake oil merchant. They want your hardly earned money in exchange for nothing.

Posted in technology, commercial stock, license, Search, finance, google, transaction | Print | 1 Comment »

August 9, 2009 by pmelcher.

The BBC posted, and probably aired, this video recently :

As usual with the BBC, it is full of errors and misconceptions:

1) It talks about Gamma/Eyedea yet shows only pictures from Sygma. It doesn’t say why Sygma ceased to be an active photo agency, implying it went bankrupt. Sygma was bought by Corbis ( need we say more?).

2) It explains that because of the recession, magazine are using “cheaper” celebrity images. Those who work in this industry, worldwide, know that celebrity images are not cheaper to use and license then war images. Most of the time they are much more expensive.

3) magazines using more celebrity images is not a recent economic trend brought forth by the recession, but a much longer trend, mostly created not to offend the advertisers : Magazine publisher can sign-up many more ads with celebs stories than they can with war images. They claim that’s what  people want to read. Just before shutting down.

4) Gamma, Sygma and war photographers are NOT competing  for space in publications against celebrity photographers. That is a pure fabricated lie. If celebrity photo agencies or photographers would stop shooting, magazines will not fill their pages with war images. The BBC is falling in the trap created many years ago by a poorly run photo agency claiming that if they couldn’t sell images, it was because of those cheap paparazzi shots. This fable is then supported by Agnes Gouvion St Cyr, French government’s photo spokesperson and probably the most boring person in photography.

5) There is no interview or even mention of Eyedea management team ? why ? or any management team ? Where did they go ? Couldn’t the BBC score an interview with them ? A more formal explanation would have been nice, no?

6) Claiming that the situation was brought forth by the rise of celebrity usage and not showing any management person results in “explaining” that this poor situation these agencies are facing is due to uncontrollable circumstances and are doomed. Never do they even remotely suggest that poor management could be behind the fall of these agencies. For Gamma/Eyedea, it would have taken the BBC no more than 10 minutes to figure it out.

6) Nice comment from the Corbis Sygma archive facility guy ” There is  no short term business model for this..” and yet doesn’t even explain the long term one.  Probably because like any Corbis’s business model, it is  “Bill Gates will pay for this”.

7) The only good guy to come out of this is photographer Noel Quidu who explains his predicament and how much he cares about the agency he helped build.

A much better and thorough article can be found in the New York Times today: read it here.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, license, photojournalism, france, editorial, news | Print | No Comments »

August 5, 2009 by pmelcher.

Recently, a lot of chatter spread over the photo-related  internet regarding a cover of TIME magazine whose image was sold for $30. It is not the first time that this magazine used a microstock image for its cover, and certainly not the last.

The tea cup storm was  a bit unfair to the magazine as a microstock site was probably the only place that they could find such an image ( a glass jar full of pennies) . Hopefully, not many pro stock shooter take that kind of image and probably less stock agency have such an image to offer.

But that is nothing compared to this: On a recent sales report ( last month) , an editorial contributing photographer of Getty Images had the nice surprise to see that they had licensed around 80 of his images for less than  : $2000.00

( We are not at liberty to publish exact numbers to protect the photographers’ anonymity )

For those who are paying attention, that is about $11 per image !!! or $25 before commission.

Again, this is a pro, editorial photographer shooting exclusive to semi exclusive content.

The  cover of Time magazine sold for more than that.

The truth needs to be told that Getty Images is ruining the market for pro photographers with prices like these.  They license editorial images as low as $3.63  to major outlets  like Yahoo.

This is even lower than the $5 pricing that was just announced today. What is the point of getting up in the morning if your images will be sold for less than $10? what is the point of having worked so hard, for so many years to have a respected career in photography and see your agency sell you images at these prices?

It is sad to see pro and talented photographers accept such treatment of their work, as if Getty was the last and only place to license images. because keeping your images in a company that license them for these prices is not only painful but criminal. It makes a statement that this is ok and that is all you expect for yours, and other photographers, work.

Sure, you see the Getty credit everywhere, but what you do see, or hear enough, is how it got there. There is on certitude in this industry : Getty Imageshas no respect for the contributors it represents.

More often then not, you hear photo editors who call Getty in order to get a specific photographer  denied their request. Not because the photographer is not available, but because he/she is not staff. They want only their  staff photographers on assignment, not contributors. They also do not want photographers to create a relationship with a client so they also make sure that the same staff photographer is not too often available to the same client

Trade associations should be at shame for not reporting this. Workshops, around the country, should warn their members, who paid a lot of money to attend, of these practices. Getty would be nothing without its contributors yet crushes them under its monstrous weight.

Shake off the 800 pounds Gorilla .

On another Getty note, its experiment into community- B2C-photo for all has quietly shut down. Brainchild of Microstock inventor, Bruce Livingstone,  Jamd.com, ex-viewmages.com is no longer:

Posted in yahoo, license, magazine, technology, photojournalism, finance, getty, news, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | 3 Comments »

August 3, 2009 by pmelcher.

Just caught an interesting initiative, half way between desperation and a great idea. A group of former LA Times photographers recently laid off from the newspaper have grouped together to form The prophotographynetwork

“We will shoot anything, anywhere, for anyone,” seems to be their key phrase, along with “the best of the best photographers for every event” . The group has an impressive pedigree with some Pulitzer prize winners in their mix.  While they do not advertise any pricing and the visible portfolios on their site is very weak, it is certainly an initiative to keep watching. Maybe it will grow into a nationwide, or even international, association of ex-newspaper photographers who will pool their resources. They seem to be closely associated to the Journalism Shop , a similar initiative for text journalist.

It remains to be seen if there is market for such an offer and if any of these two will be able to survive in these incertain times. However, it is certainly a great promotional idea for those in these groups and a very good way to attract attention.

We wish them luck and success.

Posted in technology, lens, magazine, newspaper, editorial, photojournalism, news | Print | No Comments »

August 3, 2009 by pmelcher.

A 60 % drop in pricing. That is, the prices have fallen 60% from where they were last year. The reason ? magazines, that either borrowed heavily or relied too much on advertising, crashed. The country : Spain.

Sometimes, it is important to pay attention to what is going on in other countries to have an idea of what can or could happen in your own. After all, the market is global, isn’t it? And photography  is certainly one of these products that exports really well.

Spain, for those who might not know is based in Southern part of western Europe, just south of France and next to Portugal. It is populated by some of the nicest and agreeable people on the planet and was, just until recently, referred as one of the fastest growing economy. Not so much anymore.

What happened ? Well, like with anywhere else, it go really hit hard by the collapse of the world economy. Many Magazines that use to pay top dollars, sorry, Euros, for images, shut down. Completely. The survivors, in a desperate effort to protect themselves, cut costs dramatically. Photography was hit hard.

So what did the photo agencies do ?  They followed. Not only did they accepted the dramatic licensing fees cuts, but in a desperate effort to keep revenue and market share, they increased their offering. The idea was that more sales would compensate for the pricing fall out. So they inundated the market with more images of lesser quality, thus accelerating the pricing debacle. First and foremost, Getty Images and Corbis led the parade : Keep market share at all cost, including lowering their prices dramatically.

Average price per image ( editorial) fell from 110 Euros to 50, if not lower. The increase in volume also impacted workflows, whereby photo  agencies can not even process all the images they receive, especially since they also had to cut down in manpower. Seems like a panic situation.

Some photo agencies have shut down while others are merging in a final attempt to survive. However, merging is hard enough for big corporations, just imagine when its two or three family -owned businesses. Emotions must be running high.

Other countries are our neighborhoods and what affects them will affect us. No one is immune from  a crash and it is no longer enough to say that  it will never be business as usual. Lessons have to quickly be learned.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, technology, license, transaction, corbis, editorial, getty | Print | No Comments »