February 23, 2012 by pmelcher.

Historically, ( we are talking pre internet here) the only two places one could find images was either at a photo agency or via a photographer. You could, of course, always check if your neighbor had any photographs you could use but chances that there would a match was very, very slim.
During that time, both photo agencies and independent photographers controlled production, as they decided what to shoot  as well as where and how. There was no alternatives to the images produced by professionals. It is not longer the case. It hasn’t been, actually, for a long time.
Take Flickr for example. It has, and for a long time, offered a new channel of distribution to anyone looking for images, whether free or paying. Sure, Getty Images has tried to put the lid on that massive leak but with little success. The majority of images on Flickr are used without ever passing through a Getty representative. Why ? Because they use Creative Commons, a licensing tool that exists outside of the photo industry, invented and used simply because existing ones were inadequate.
The vast majority of photographs today are now used without any contact with the traditional photo industry, whether via CC, direct arrangements or just plainly borrowed ( shared is the proper word). Often, even if the image comes from a photo agency or a pro photographer. Spend some time on Facebook, for example and ask yourself if any of the image you see have been licensed ( or even asked for permission). In fact , a recent study by PACA has shown that 8 out of 10 image on the web is stolen ( used without permission).
Production? it has also been a long time since pro photographers and photo agencies no longer have any control. They have massively been overtaken by the decisions of the masses who now dictate to the photo industry the type of images that are successful.

This Infographic should give you a clearer picture :

The traditional photo industry has attempted to react in numerous ways. First by accepting this new source of production in their tradition distribution channel : microstock. Thus Most stock photo agencies have now lowered their bar of entry and are accepting submission by non professional photographers, forever changing the production landscape.
In order to compete with the widening of distribution channel, they have also increased dramatically their offering.  When a traditional photo agency used to keep a few ten of thousands  photographs maximum, they are now in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of million.Still a speck of sand in the overall universe of available images.
They have also, repeating the mistakes of its peers ( RIAA), try to engage image thieves into hopeless lawsuits. While some have anecdotal success here and there, the vast majority, here again, simply do not have the manpower and resources to fight back. It is anyhow, a self defeating process, as it will never be an effective solution against sharing. Piracy, you see, is not about stealing but accessibility. People do not steal images because they are evil, they steal because they are no practical alternatives if they want to use an image they like.
The industry continues stubbornly to apply old rules to a new landscape. For example, It still hopes to enforce the antiquated rights managed model on a space that obviously is not adapted to negotiate every usage, every fee, every image and where everyone is a publisher. It has failed to understand that in a world of Tweeter, Tumblr, Wordpress, Pinterest, Facebook, their client universe has changed from a few publishers to almost everyone in the world. We have switch form the “one to many” ( one magazine, millions of readers) model to the many to many (Millions of users sharing with millions of users). Everyone is a publisher.
Royalty Free might seem a little better adapted, but most images end up being used hundreds, if not thousands of time without the owner ever knowing it.
In other words, the stock industry is horribly in-adapted to the current market. And, instead of adapting, it is fighting it. Sounds very much like the dinosaur scenario to me.
The absurdity, for example, on trying to sue every copyright infringement borderlines with complete insanity. If people steal your images it is because they like them. For some reason, they either can’t pay for them (too expensive) or cannot find who to pay ( poor accessibility). Rather than find a way to accommodate this huge opportunity with a creative licensing solution,  the industry reacts with lawsuits or despair. Thus pushing these opportunities to seek out other friendlier ways to use images.  In other words, they are forcing their potential clients to find alternatives that fit their needs.
If the photo industry wants to survive, it has to quickly understand that it is not the amateurs that are taking their bread and butter away from them but their own infantile stubbornness. They do not seem, or purposely want to ignore, that their model does not fit the current needs and thus are chasing their customers away.
It is clear now, that the photo industry has completely lost control of production and distribution. It has now to face the challenge of becoming relevant in an economy that has no patience for inadequate business models.

Posted in magazine, copyright, technology, commercial stock, Social Media, Tweet, license, web 2.0, transaction, getty, finance, PACA, prosumer, flickr, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

February 10, 2012 by pmelcher.

The new crop of world press winners is out and as in every year many reflections come to mind.
Reminiscent of Eugene Smith’s Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath , the winning image, from Spanish photographer Samuel Aranda lacks all the required W’s that makes a great news photograph. By looking at it, you have no idea who,where, when, or why this picture was taken. It’s only after a required reading that you finally find out. Then you can return to the image. But even after, it is hard to connect. Mostly because there is a total lack of visible faces, making it hard to understand the feelings.

We are told by the jury that this image was chosen because it represented both the Arab Spring and the role of women.

See ? This is what happens when you think too much about photography. You end up thinking that the more the hidden meaning, the better the image. It’s becomes more about the underlying message than the actual reporting. It needs to have lots of keys and drawers.
This image, while nice, is certainly not a great photojournalistic photograph. If anything, it is a great image in a photo essay.

No, a great image is the one of this girl crying in the middle of a devastation :

General News, 3rd prize singles, Toshiyuki Tsunenari

Here, it is hard  not to understand what is going on and most important, hard not to want to cry with her or comfort her. There is both compassion and understanding, something totally lacking in the winning image.
In an age where there is so many images available all the time, it is sad to see that the jury would pick one that would have, and has been, missed in the flood of reporting because of it’s total lack of connection.

Again, it sends the message that great photojournalism pictures need to be explained to be appreciated.

The World Press needs to readjust its positioning if it wants to remain relevant. If it continues down that path, intellectuallo photo journalism, it will loose its otherwise passionate audience. In a time when there are more images available then any time in the history of photography, and where viewers are also photographers , it needs to avoid  the reclusionist trapping of the “too smart for you ” attitude of the salon photojournalists. It needs to step away from the temptation of seclusion brought forth by a handful of over protectionist photojournalists who would like nothing else then to wall themselves into a “you don’t understand” citadel.

Photojournalism is a popular art made for the masses. It is only succesful if it is vastly consumed. It belongs to everyone, everywhere and should be reaching to the lowest common denominator in order to get a point across. There is no need to try and transform it into an academical experience. It needs no priests.

What it needs is the widest audience possible. That can be only achieve if it continues to be a tool for powerful information.

You can see the winners of the World Press here : http://www.worldpressphoto.org/

Posted in magazine, photojournalism, slideshow, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »

February 7, 2012 by pmelcher.

Would a publication like LIFE be successful today ? The editors at LIFE decided to put photography first and text second in order To explain world around us via photography.  LIFE’s magazine decision to give prominence to photography worked in a world were photographs, at least compared to today, were scarce.

Worldwide events were seldom photographed and if they were, only by a handful of professional photographers. Even if amateurs had captured some images, it was extremely hard, if not impossible to make them reach the desks of editors in New York.

Photography had a discovery aspect. People were shown images of places or events that they had only previously just heard or read about ,  if at all.

Today there are images of everything everywhere all the time. Not only on tv and magazines, but also everywhere on the internet. It is really easy to find photographs of anything at anytime. When a ship sinks off the coast of Italy, you no longer have to wait a week to see images. They will appear on your desktop within hours, via Facebook, twitter, an email, your favorite news site or just a friend sending you a link. It is, actually, harder to avoid seeing images.

Let’s say that, for some reason, you didn’t want to see any images of the sunken cruise ship. It would have been really hard unless if you had decided to close your eyes for a week or two.

the balance has shifted. Whereby you had to seek images, today, there is no way to escape them.

What is the result ? Photography is killing photography.the sheer volume of available image is drowning photography. It is suffocating itself.

Let’s take the arab spring for example. Started in Tunisia, the first images fascinated us. Here we witnesses a population rising against the despair of their lives, take arms and topple a  long lasting dictatorship. Whether from professionals or amateurs,  we were witnessing something rare.

Then came Egypt. Again, we were captivated by the sheer power of a population taking extreme risk in order to control their destiny. Here, more than Tunisia, we were flooded with images, bot from pro and amateur. Because of the size of the country, the ease of access and its sequential aspect, there were more images from Egypt than Tunisia.

And then Yemen. And Bahrain. It became too much. We got flooded by images of people in the streets. It became hard to differentiate the country. Tunisia succeeded, Egypt succeeded, Libya became a battlefront. That was more than we can absorb. Back to Kardashian.

Today, because of this flood, we seem not to care about Syria. Mostly because we are tired of the images. Too many. Too similar.

In other words. The cacophony of images of the Arab spring has killed our interest. Like too much candies.

And its with everything like that. The first images are interesting, the other gazillions, not so much. The rest become almost repulsive.

It’s not about to change. There is no reason why it should. In fact, if anything, as the world gets more cameras enabled devices and internet connections, the more we will get flooded.

Photography is victim of its own success. And its not just in news photography. Stock imagery, with its million of images available, is even worse. There are more images of businessmen shaking hands then there are businesses or even deals in the world.

Anything, in volume, looses its impact. And its purpose.

In order to be remain relevant, a photographer today has to do much more now than what was ever ever required previously. It is not about getting the shot anymore, it’s about continuously supplying the market until it gets overwhelmed and does not look anymore. It has become a game of saturation where the winner has the most images published even if not always the best. The result is audience saturation.

Will photogrpahy survive ? Sure, because there will always be those great images that we all love and stand out. But it will be harder and harder to find them.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, commercial stock, Search, flickr, editorial, wire service, photojournalism, getty | Print | No Comments »