June 29, 2010 by pmelcher.

You gotta to work with facts. Opinions are good for cocktail parties and useless , endless conversation; facts are good for business. In the last year or so there has been an emergence of Social Media “specialist” popping up here and there arguing breathlessly on the magic wonders of using social media to make your business grow.

There is no success story right now proving that either Twitter or Facebook will indeed help you grow your business. Inversely, there is no failure stories either of anyone going bankrupt because of them.Yet, these self proclaims gurus that have way to much time on their hands think they have discovered the path to the new El Dorado of the photo industry. If you Tweet right, they proclaim, you will be extremely successful. Ok then, let’s take a look.

There is a cool site called Wefollow.com that shows how many followers a Tweeter based on the keywords they have. So we looked at #photography :

If we cancel the photo sites like The Creative Review or ID Magazine who are clearly not in the business of getting assignments or selling stock images, the first individual who tops the list is this guy : David Malby with 103,591 followers. He seems to have tweeted recently about the speed of a sneeze and seems to have a local radio show..mmm, ok, let’s go to number 2 .

With 93, 380 followers, TheBigKlosowski is Denver based photographer that does wedding. Seems his tweets are all over the place ( “All salad is better with steak on it.”) and not really photo related. Besides trying to sell his old gear, there is no evidence of him making any income from his tweets. Doubtful that any soon to be married couple care about his love of steak.

Nunber 3 Tony Mandarich ( 87, 163 followers ) seems to sell a SEO service business more than his photography skills. His Tweets are also a mix bags of Penny stocks obsession and links back to his SEO blog..

We are not having a lot of success here, are we ? we could go on and on down the list, jumping from Iphone lovers to gadgets junkies but no real photography junkies. The only ones close are those that offer tips and tricks and how to ’s.

Sure, if you like to caress your ego by counting how many no lifers have decided to follow your every brain burps, go Tweet. If you need to run a business, I would really avoid it. It is not photo friendly at all as the best you can offer is a link to images. Do people looking for photographers and photography go on tweeter.? No. It would be the last place they would go. There are more people using Craiglist to find photo service than on Tweeter. Except Craig’s List is not that cool anymore, so the Gurus won’t talk about it.

They say you need a plan so you can track your success. But will not tell you what plan would that be, because they don’t know themselves.

The problem with social media/web 2.0 these days is that everyone thinks he/she is a specialist because no one is.  They try to sell you their services without having a clue. As long as you are ready to listen, they are ready to talk. They have time on their hands, you don’t.

So here’s an idea ( for free). Don’t do tweeter for business, do it for fun. If it brings you business, good; if it doesn’t, well, at least your having fun. Whatever you do however, don’t listen to social media gurus or specialists : if they were that good, they would be making money with their tweets.

Posted in license, technology, commercial stock, Search, web 2.0, editorial, finance, Uncategorized | Print | 1 Comment »

June 27, 2010 by pmelcher.

If you have been like most people and keeping an eye on the world soccer cup, you might have noticed something quite interesting. Well, at least if you are watching it on ESPN, the US sports channel in charge of transmitting the games live.

This year, at least that we have noticed, the cable network has added a new twist : extreme slow motion. No, not extreme slow motion on the actions that led to a goal or a failed goal attempt. Not at all. That has been used forever. Extreme slow motion on expressions.

Here and there, ESPN cuts into the video action to bring forth a face, a reaction or  a slow sequence of arms being raised in sour despair. It will focus on a  frustrated scream, an insider smile,  an exhausted look and play it in very slow motion.

Why ? Because real time video brings the action, extreme slow motion video brings the emotion. It is so slow that it could be viewed as a still, or series of stills . It brings the viewers closers to what the players are feeling at that fleeting moment by slowing down time. Almost to a stand still.

This shows how much the still, the ability to stop time is so much stronger than video. This shows  how the two are not interchangeable as some my think, or wish. They are two modes of expressions showing two aspects of the same event. The video is extremely good at showing action, the still is a master in bringing the emotion.

The comparison between stills and video must stop here. The same way as the comparison between photogrpahy and painting stopped more than a century ago. Sure, all these can capture the same event, but what they bring out is not the same. And then should not be compare.

At first, ESPN extreme slow-mo on random “moments” of the game was annoying me as I couldn’t understand their purpose. I am so used, like everyone else, of expecting video to show me actions of a purposeful meaning that I could not figure out why I was forced to see these snippets of “inaction”. Until they started building into me, making my experience as a viewer of these games more emotional. I could finally be more in touch with the players.

And really, that is what sports is all about, isn’t it? It is not just the moves that make a team win, it is mostly about the individual efforts, frustration, happiness, smiles, pains, intimacy, winks, and cascades of emotions that fill each and every players who have spend a lifetime to perform at such a high level. Sure, goals are important. But the feeling of success and achievement in the eyes of the players that made it all possible makes them human. And only a still can catch that.

Posted in focus, magazine, wire service, editorial, news | Print | No Comments »

June 21, 2010 by pmelcher.

I don’t get it. It’s Monday, I don’t get it. People in this industry used to be really upset with Flickr and Creative Commons. Mostly because creatives and editors worldwide could get free images in exchange of a credit, or an electronic pat in the back. Scores of ad campaigns or magazines started to use unbelievably cheap images instead of “professional” images from Stock houses.

At the end of last week, Flickr and Getty announced a joint tool that allows Flickr members to call upon Getty to license images for them. Isn’t that what we all wanted ? Well, maybe not via Getty ? But to give uneducated photographers a way to get a proper license fee for their images and for ignorance to stop devaluating our industry?

Weren’t some of us looking for a way to counter the useless and dangerous spread of Creative Commons in our trade ? Well, the “license via Getty” tool is allowing just that.But, from all the thread in the Blogsphere, no one seems happy. Sure, Getty Images is taking an unbelievable 70% commission on every sale. However, they made the initial investment to create the technology, they are the ones supplying the billing and knowledge network. Furthermore, according to the press release, they have no intention of selling those images at microstock levels, but rather at accepted Right Managed price.

This can only be good for the dying commercial stock industry : Less free or ultra cheap images on the market. Yet, everyone complains. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t see any other company offering such a service to Flickr users.  Corbis, who had struck a deal with  Webshot in afailed attempt to provide content for their defunct microstock start up Snapvillage, has certainly not offer the same deal to its users. Maybe they should. Maybe all Commercial stock agencies should offer the same to any and all photo sharing site, instead of complaining.

Sure, this is a great deal for Getty who now, more than ever, doesn’t have to rely so  much on professional photographers to offer valuable commercial stock . Those who are solely shooting for stock are, once again, being blown a huge hit. But then again, they had their golden years and should have by now realized that their business model is obsolete. No one will miss them.

It is also a huge blow to the Creative Commons lovers and other “images should be free” prophets. It will only help the widening market to know and understand that usages of images should be compensated for, and for a reasonable price.

So, although we might not be huge fans of Getty on this blog, we reasonably give them a big Kudos for advancing the cause of our industry with this move.

Posted in license, magazine, technology, commercial stock, Search, web 2.0, getty, corbis, flickr, prosumer, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

June 17, 2010 by pmelcher.

Today, in honor of Getty images being the first one to launch a totally useless Ipad App ( I thought these things were reserved to Corbis ), we will share with you a few of the expressions heard or read, invented by corpocrates ( or wannabees) wanting to sound intelligent,  that are supposed to replace the words “Photography” or “Photographer” :

“Compiled  using lens-based imaging technologies” ( That is a photograph)
“Digitally captured  visual wavelength ” ( Ditto)
“Data Sensor light recorder. ” (DSLR)

or a variation..
“Digital light sensitive recorder”.(DSLR)

“Content provider” ( that’s a photographer. Expression coined by the suits at Corbis)

“Legacy data” ( That is mostly used by Digital Asset Management companies)

“Digital asset” ( Another one coined by the Seattle suits)
‘Photography’ for me,” he wrote, “denotes a wide range of imaging practices … dialectically enmeshed with the construction of practical reality
“sight machine” for the coalescence of imaging devices and their data that digital technology has permitted. ( this one is special to me)

“manufacturer of digital files ” ( that is also for photographers or photo agencies)

Why is Getty Images Ipad useless you may still ask. Well, because the Ipad was designed to have the best browsing experience, thus allowing anyone to use the website perfectly well. Of course, you can’t shake it to get a random search like their app does, but I am not sure that is a very demanded tool. I am glad you asked.

Now, an I- “Pad,Phone, Pod ” that could randomly find expertly pseudo complicated expression to replace “photograph” or “photographer’, that would be really cool, no ?

Posted in E Reader, technology, web 2.0, corbis, getty | Print | No Comments »

June 15, 2010 by pmelcher.

It’s on the verge of a precipice and let’s face it, it will be hard to prevent it. No, not the photo industry ; Ethics and photography. More and more we are seeing example of photographer being caught altering their images.

The issue is really affecting photojournalism and sports photography. Commercial shooters, Wedding “documentators”,  Celebrity photographers and  snapshooters have been doing all along with no real consequences . Sure, some aristocratic publication might find it awful that such celebrity had had her body airbrushed for this cover. They forget that celebrity photography is also a part  commercial photography. Celebrities are in the business of selling  their image and photographers are their to help them.   We don’t mind when pictures of fruits or cars are heavily retouched, so why do we care when it is celebrities?

The world of photo j, however, is another story. Because of our cultural background, we tend to gratify our sense of vision with the highest degree of realism. That is, between something touched, heard, smelled, or seen, it is the later that we credit with the most credible.

Why ? Because we have been taught that our eyes don’t lie. That if we see it, then its true.”Show me” is probably the most used term to categorically punctuate an argument. So has been the realm of photojournalism: Truly describe a moment in time and space. Or so we thought.

The history of photojournalism is riddled with example of fakes, altered images and other unethical use of photographs. Or where they ? And who decides what is ethical ? Where does these rule come from ?

Eugene Smith was notorious for spending long hours in his darkroom working on his prints ? Does it make any of his coverage lesser? Certainly not. Some other have cropped , enhanced, shadowed or even damaged their negative. After all, Robert Capa famous images of the D Day landing might not have looked like that if they hadn’t been damaged. They look real enough.

So where is the limit, and who decides? With technology making so much easier to profoundly alter images, deleting or adding items, changing the source of the lighting and so on, how can we, viewer, stay protected ? How can we be guaranteed that what we are seeing is the truth?

The short answer : we can’t. It is commendable that Reuters, along with Adobe, are working on trying to make altered files easily identifiable, but let’s face it, it will never fully work. No, the answer is where it’s always been. With the photographer and with the photo editor. If any of these two are ready to lie, than there is no protection. If they adhere to their own work ethic, than no lies will pass.

So, as our news coverage is becoming more and more crowd sourced and as editing barriers are falling, being replaced by automation, it is inevitable that our images will become less and less credible. I am still amazed, for example, that the Iranian Government did not use Twitter for its own advantage by posting images by fake users showing a different story. next time, certainly.

The way to preserve ethic and photojournalism is to have brands. Like we trust the New York Times for the veracity of its information, we could do the same for photographers and photo agencies.  A certain credit will certify a certain ethic. If photographers decide that their work need heavy photo shop, fine, but they should say it out loud. There is no problem with retouching an image, only in lying and trying to let it pass as an original.

If the IPTC consortium would be smart, they would add a requirement to a field that would have a “R” for “retouched” . Make it easy for people to mark an images as altered. After that, its up to the editors and viewers to decide.

Realistically, we will see more and more lying images abound. It’s going to be up to the viewers to be smarter and interrogating what they see. It will also be to the photogrpahers to brand themselves as instrument of truth. But then again, that is really nothing new.

Posted in magazine, technology, Magnum, commercial stock, celebrity, IPTC, editorial, wire service, photojournalism, news | Print | No Comments »

June 13, 2010 by pmelcher.

Posted in license, copyright, commercial stock, prosumer, transaction, corbis, law, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

June 10, 2010 by pmelcher.

It is not just soccer frenzy that has been hitting Europe these days, it is also price slashing. In perfect timing with the Cepic Congress in Dublin, DKimages, announces a full month of £30.00 ( $43.00 or € 36.00) per image regardless of size and position.

“To celebrate the tournament in South Africa all images ordered online and used on an inside page at any size will be charged at £30.00.
This offer is open to all magazine titles, trade press, newspapers, national, regional and supplements and starts now. “.. says the press release. How the reduced pricing is related to the World Cup took me hours to figure out…And I didn’t.

Since it is not related to the number of teams/countries involved ( 32), nor is it related to the number of World Cup since it’s begging ( Less than 20) , nor does it have a link to the circumference of a soccer ball ( 27-28 inches), or the number of players on a team ( 11) , or the length of a game ( 90 minutes), it can only be one thing:

Someone at DKimage got hit really hard by a soccer ball in the face and came up with this correlation : ” I know..”, he/she said, with his index finger raised to the sky…”let’s make all our images available for a crappy cheap price . And since a soccer ball is round, like the earth, let’s make that price £30 .00!!!”.

Highbrows were raised, eyes interlocked , suspicion arose, forehead were scratched, a few throats were delicately cleared, a solitary fly buzzed around. Since the ball must of hit some high executive, no one argued.

If DKimages had lots and lots of pictures of Soccer to license, this would still somewhat make sense. But they don’t. The only thing that makes sense is that they do not want to be bothered while they watch the Cup so they priced everything low and at one price so they can set their machines to automated billing and quietly resume watching the telly. “Here you go” their press release says” take all these images, use them as you want and just pay us 3o quid . We’re busy watching the games. We will be back in July”.

Regardless, why anyone keeps on thinking that the only solution to selling more images is to slash price is still a complete mystery?  It is insulting to those who just bough the same image previously for a higher price and only confirms people’s opinion that your images are worthless . Furthermore, it also shows that you decide their value with the help of your foot.

After Photoshot, DKimages seems in a desperate position and willing to do anything to grab some attention with an ill-fated promotion . They might has well give their whole collection to a microstock company and close shop. They might actually see more sales.

Flier here :

Posted in license, magazine, commercial stock, No sense, CEPIC, editorial, transaction, finance, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

June 8, 2010 by pmelcher.

At your tables, chairs set…ready ? 1, 2, 3.. Go . The freshly renamed  Centre of Photography ( Cepic) Congress  is about to start in Dublin, Ireland, in what is now an annual gathering of photographic convenience stores. Wide computer screens boringly pushing one lifeless image after another, hundreds of neatly arranged 4 seats tables ( no more, no less), a huge hall of sedated whispering, and every hour, on the hour, the delicately pre-arrange ballet of musical chairs. The only thing that changes, year after year, is the location. But does anyone even notice?

The CEPIC congress is  Einstein’s definition of insanity at its best : Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.  Punctuated by “talks” from self-proclaimed “experts”, “gurus” or “coaches”, whose only claimed to photo knowledge is to have been recently vomited from an highly paid executive position at one of the photo corporations, it repeats, year after year, the same pattern of stubborn  blindness. Year after year, its resembles more and more a meeting of eggs in a closet whose shells show signs of heavy cracking.

Why this assembly of  Commercial Stock photography suppliers continue to be so closed on itself, so violently persistent in its obsessions, so un-creative, so resilient to change, is becoming a boring mystery.

The grand old pompous  IPTC Consortium will hold it cyclical marathon session repeating over and over the same things, demanding full respect by obstination, claiming high and loud that is it a standard when it can’t even get two software companies to agree on  the same field name.  The Plus coalition will continue to speak highly of its endless and obsolete development, announcing more and more board room agreements that are never implemented. The same faces, the same voices will take the stage, (also behind tables), to fill the stuffy word space with vague and inconsequential statements, in front of a sparse and half asleep audience. Finally, night after night, all will reunite to wash the whole thing down with huge amount of free alcohol.

Sure, the CEPIC is relevant because it allows for agents and suppliers to meet at one place and one time, do their little business, and go back home, agreeably satisfied with a job well done. It gives everyone who attends a sense of safe continuity, the sense that, after all, everything will be alright.

Here is what to expect : More will be said about microstock (snooze), vendors will painfully try to sell software solutions to agencies that do not have any money to invest, arguments will be made about switching to licensing video (really ?), old timers will parade the halls looking for some self-gratifying recognition, lots and lots of notes will be taken on blocks, pens will be given away, and people will cross each other saying ” Sorry, I don’t have the time to talk, I have a meeting with…”, all day long. There will be more talks about how keywords will save you, search is key and of course, a lot of comparing size of collections.

Something new ? Of course, social media will be discuss ad vomitum : Twitter will save you, you GOTTA have a Facebook account,  viral this and viral that, Youtube, Flickr, Foursquare , Tumblr,   along with SEO and Google this and Google that. If you do not have or working on a Ipad/Iphone apps this year, you will be considered a loser. You GOTTA have an App.

People will also hear that you need to create a Niche. Because that is only way to survive : a niche. In other words, they will tell you to get out out of Getty’s way, because you can’t compete, and find a corner, where, hopefully they will not find you.  Problem is with this strategy is that a succesful niche is not a niche anymore, its a target. And, in industry where everyone, absolutely everyone is looking for  market share, becoming a target is not good news.

They will also tell you about Freemium, as they have freshly come out of reading the book, forgetting to tell you that the only companies that can afford Freemium strategies are those that are very well funded. Or to think “Long Tail” because it’s a cool concept, no knowing exactly what it means.

The Cepic congress is a big feel good gathering, like a giant therapeutic group hug , where everyone leaves satisfied that everything will be alright and to continue business as usual. It’s a soporific ego satisfier, a yearly lobotomy. Everyone pats each other cracked egg shell fully knowing that only accepted growth business model is to screw each other.

For CEPIC to one day be relevant again, it needs to go through a violent change. It needs to elect young Presidents ( 30 or younger), it needs to invite speakers from outside the industry, it needs to start looking 5 years ahead and not 10 years backwards. It needs to bring image buyers, photographers, creatives, thinkers. What it really needs is to come out of its highly reactionary protective bubble and destroys those crippling walls that they think are protecting them.

Posted in IPTC, keyword, license, Plus, commercial stock, technology, flickr, slideshow, getty, Royalty free, corbis, transaction, CEPIC, finance, Microstock | Print | 6 Comments »

June 4, 2010 by pmelcher.

And you thought that the new features in the new release of Photoshop CS were impressive. Microsoft apparently does not want to be left behind and just showed to Techcrunch a sneak peek of the next release of Windows Live Essentials Photo Gallery upgrade, something called photo fuse.

In a nutshell, Photo Fuse will take the best head shots out of series of images in order to create the best final composition . For photojournalist covering a summit, or red carpet photographers shooting a group of people, this tool, while quite not ethical, is a life saver. No more images where one member is blinking, or looking away. Now, as long as you had pictures of all the members not making a stupid face and looking at you at one point or the other, you can quickly compose the perfect frame.

The technology already existed but done manually, it could take a lot of time and end up not very good. Now, it seems it can be done in seconds and looks perfect. As photographers around the world use this tool more and more, photo editors will no longer have to find the one gem image where everyone is looking at the camera. Those images will no longer exist.

Is this ethical ? Well, according to the eternal rules of photojournalism, no. But if the result is invisible and the change can mean the difference between a sale or not, we can be sure that, considering the high level of competition,a lot of photogrpahers will use it.

Obviously, this is also very useful for stock photography, where truthfulness of the event photographed is not a matter.

Video here :

Posted in technology, commercial stock, celebrity, photojournalism, editorial, news | Print | 1 Comment »