Info

You are currently browsing the Thoughts of a Bohemian weblog archives for May, 2011.

May 2011
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  
Categories

Archive for May 2011

Shaking the long tail

With $1.2 million dollars of fresh investment, a new company enters the world of photography monetization.  Called Fotomoto, it allows,  with a  simple javascript installation to transform any existing photographers websites into an e commerce site. Visitors will quickly be able to purchase your images for framing or other usages.

The great part of it is that it is free to use and install. A simple javascript and your done. Fotomoto gets a cut on your sales, if you sell an image. Simple enough.

However, the consequences are disturbing. First, their is an option to download. For a fee obviously and for personal use.

One, some buyers might not abide by the rules

two, some photographer might use this to price their images at micro stock prices for RF usage .

The result, even more confusion on the marketplace, where already pricing is all over the place ( towards the low end, mostly). Sure, allowing photographers to sell their work directly and easily is a great idea. However, opening the floodgates of free for all pricing, maybe not.

Since individual photographers will make a few sales from their respective sites, the big winner here will be Fotomoto who will accumulate all the sales done with this tool . Using a now well known economical practice called the long tail, they could generate millions in revenue while the photographers themselves will have to continue to do most of the work : shooting, editing, marketing.

It will be interesting to see how well this model is adopted and how it might effect companies like LicenseStream or even Photoshelter. Obviously, some investors seem to think it will succeed. This also confirms that the walls of traditional photo licensing are falling ( microstock being the first and strongest blow), leaving non-innovative  photo agencies in a dangerous position.

For now, you can learn more here :

and visit their website.

Hypocritical proofs

 A couple of events rattled the world of photography recently, with no particular effect. Unaccustomed to be put into question, photographs of news event have continue to pour into our field of vision, with little regards for what just had happened. Here’s the narrative:

A little while ago, a bunch of very aggressive US Navy Seals dropped from the sky into a previously quiet compound and killed most of the people inside, including the number 1 most wanted person in the US, if not the world. No need to elaborate more on the event, besides asking why we are style fighting in Afghanistan, if the target of that mission is now eliminated. No, what happened next is what matters. After weeks of speculations and pointless editorialism, president Obama, acting as the Daddy  of us all, decided NOT to release any images of the attack or the dead body of Osama Ben Laden. We are not mature enough, he said, to handle pictures like that. Only he and it is presumed, a few of his staff members could see the images. End of story. Go play somewhere else.

Problem is, people do not beleive anything if they do not see it. Photography has become proof. Even thought we are fully aware that our eyes can be misleading and that photography can lie, we still need to see to beleive. One can tell you the most credible story , you will not beleive it until you see it for yourself. We do not beleive words, we beleive images. Photography has become proof. The interesting part of this, is that proof in of itself is not even truth. It is just the confirmation of a thought. It’s the exclamation point at the end of an argumentation.  A proof is nothing more than a rhetorical tool that confirms a point. But a proof can lie, it just needs to confirm. Photography can lie too ( ask Photoshop) but we still rely on it to confirm.

The second story is more recent and involves a very important Frenchman, a hotel room and a cleaning lady. The events are well known so no need to repeat them. However, what is less known, at least on the US side of the Atlantic is the reaction caused by one photograph : That of the person being walked out of a Police station with handcuffs in his back. The French press and the French people went haywire. How can you publish such a photograph ? What about the presumption of innocence, what about the respect of one’s private life, what about….on and on and on. See, in France, you are not allowed to publish such images : by law. Actually, the French law has lots to say about what images can be, or not, published. A little too much, actually. But this is not our point here.

What is however is the photographic proof. In this case, this was also the first image of this man after his arrest. We all had heard or read the stories but hadn’t seen much. Finally, we see the culprit in a photograph and all is confirmed. Ok, yes, he got arrested. But for the French, that is too much proof. We didn’t need to see that, they scream. The Americans couldn’t care less as they see thousand of equivalent images a day. Why is it that this time, the photographic poof was seen as too invasive? As if this was too much proof. Photography , suddenly, went beyond its duty to confirm.

The implication are the same for both images. Actually, in the case of the death image, it has potentially more impact on the world than a man in handcuffs ( that couldn’t be seen, by the way, as they were in his back).  Few jurors actually will base their judgment upon seeing this image and if they do, they shouldn’t be jurors. Are some photographs not to be shown, even if they depict reality? Is Obama right ? Are  we so immature that, as someone famously said , ” we can handle the truth ” ? Or at least, we can’t handle it if involves someone we know, if it is too close to us.

We see thousands of images a year of people in much more degrading situation as these yet we do not seem upset about it. Actually, we have entire photo festivals made entirely around these images. Indeed, those are in far away countries with people we do not know and couldn’t care about. It’s almost fiction, it is so far away. We seem ok with those proofs.

The good news about these two ‘affairs’ is that apparently photography still carries a very strong emotional impact. Photojournalists, rejoice : your images can still boil up people’s blood. As long as proof is still very much in demand, you will be needed. More than that, your images could stir up more controversy that the event you covered does.

Beyond the image

Up to now, images would only give you remote information in a passive way. More than often, they illustrate an accompanying article, with no more duty than to confirm what you are reading. As much as the photographer or publisher tried, it was a view and forget operation. No so anymore.

Thanks to new technology, the image has grown to becoming more intelligent, by permitting its viewers to dig deeper into it’s content. It is also now able to call home and inform on how it is being interpreted.

Thanks to a company called Stipple, photographs acquire a new dimension, an interactive layer, that finally allows viewers to communicate with them. Thanks to a mouse over generated interactive layer, small dots appear on specific parts of the images. Those dots, once selected, present the user with numerous options. They can save, share or shop for some of the items. They can also be presented with live feeds of tweets or links to additional information .

Viewers can then interact with this new set of information in ways never seen before. They can purchase the items that they like, search for local deals or even better, be presented with discounts. Last but not least, both publishers and the photography rights owners can see, in real time, how people interact with their images.

Stipple works with all images : sports, travel, celebrity, news, commercial stock. There are no limitations.

Not only Stipple adds intelligent interaction to photographs in a smart non intrusive manner, but it also engages viewers to explore photographs in innovative ways. Beyond the frustrating limitations of the IPTC caption field that can only give an overview of the content of an image, Stipple dots can easily display extremely precise information on specific areas within a photograph.

One might think that this would be hard to implement : not at all. Photo agencies need nothing else to do then send a parallel feed of their images the same way they already do to their clients, while publishers only need to add a simple javascript code. That’s it. No added workload. And it’s free.

To top it all, both publishers and photo agencies receive a commission on all transaction generated by their images. In a depressed market, this is very welcomed news.

Finally, Stipple offers a great tool against orphan work. If the metadata of an image is stripped, Stipple will automatically reunite it with rightful owner and display the original information. Even if the image has been altered.

Using some powerful technology built in house, Stipple is the first company to fully offer an intelligent image solution to both publishers and photo agencies along with a new inventive way to generate more revenue.

You can get more information on Stipple on their website at www.stippleit.com

|