March 10, 2010 by pmelcher.

Photography has a long way to go..Compared to other digitized creative forms, like music, it is light years behind. And, for once, that could be a good thing. Like the youngest brother of a family, it can learned from it’s elders. For once, it has not yet been touch at full impact by the whole free file sharing tsunami that hit music a while back. Certainly the dams are leaking and breaking, but we are no where near what the music industry has experience.

Unlike the music industry, the photo industry is not that organized. It has a myriad of little associations biting at each other, with little or no resources, it is deeply fragmented in small to very small businesses and it has no support from giant manufacturers. But this is not the point of this entry.

The story of David Cope, very well explained in this article  (careful, it is long) is a great example of things to come. In a nutshell, for those that are too busy, it explains how this music composer, rather than writing music himself,teach his computer how to do it. At first he experimented in replicating styles of well known composers. At first, with little successes, as he had forgotten to add their flaws ( or styles). But when he go it right, it turned into one of these Shakespearean monkeys ( you know, the ones you put in a cage with a typewriter). This was not enough for him, so he proceeded in developing one that could compose complete originals pieces of music. That is where he reached a new milestone. The result was so good that many music critics loved it. That was before they knew it was a machine that had composed it, and not a human being. Than the rhetoric changed and David Cope is still being cursed at. While he is getting ready to make his work more available, the debates still rages on: Mainly, is art made by a machine still art ?

His point, well taken, is that it doesn’t matter if he uses a pen and paper or programming code to compose, it is still art. The Human being is still behind the creation, he is just using different tools. Photography is still far from being able to be produced by a machine. We have face recognition, sound detection, automated color correction,  highly sophisticated light readers, but none yet really can work together. In theory, they could. And in theory, one could program all the parameters of David Lachapelle’s past work and come out with an almost  perfect suggestion of what his next images will look like . We would still need a human being to set everything up and take the picture.

But let’s take this a step further. In theory, we could give every parameter of a photographer works and produce, in a computer, a CGI image of the next shoot. Completely automated. No need for camera, lights, studio, models, nothing. Everything could be created artificially either by taking existing images and reconfigure them, or simply create new ones. Or, instead of replicating someones style, create a whole new one. Create a picture, or a series of picture, at a touch of a button.

This is coming our way. Faster than we think. If you are worried of the myriads of microstock shooters, just think of what happens when anyone, even without a camera can create stunning images without ever leaving their desks, for a fraction of the cost. Just think about it. Everything you thought you knew bout photography is yet, again, about to change.

( As I was writing this, French newspaper Le Monde published this article about the same issue, but for text journalist.)

Posted in copyright, celebrity, technology, commercial stock, license, web 2.0, editorial, photojournalism, flickr, prosumer, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

March 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

The Gamma/ Eyedea sinking ship saga continues : 4 companies/ projects have  filed to be considered for the reprisal of the almost defunct Company. French Number one photo agency, ABACA Press, Verdoso Media, Frank Ullman and a pair of ex bosses of Gamma. No Getty ( for once) , No Corbis.

The buying price ? A symbolic 100,000 to 150,00 Euros. Hachette Filipacchi Photo, ex owner of this group of photo agencies, had sold it to its current owners for 600,000 Euros. Not much of a profit here, if you also consider the money invested since, and lost. The main role of the court now is to figure out which of this project is the most viable. Their main focus is to see how many jobs can be saved. Out of the 60 + currently on staff, not more than 30 are expected to stay.

The good news ? There seem to be some interest by French companies to save the group of images and bring it, finally, into the 21st century. Most might be thinking that this move will get them the good favors of the French Government who will them jump in and  pour some welcome cash, or incentives. However, like everything in France, it is going to take a while for the decision to be made.

On a similar note, Retna UK, not to be confused with Retna USA, has sold, again. Now, it is to Photoshot, a agency eating company that seems to buy anything and everything hanging low from the tree. Wonder why they didn’t not bid for Eyedea/Gamma.

It’s Friday, don’t forget to look at images today…

Posted in celebrity, magazine, photojournalism, transaction, law, france, news | Print | No Comments »

February 26, 2010 by pmelcher.

So, the big Kahouna himself, founder and CEO of the photo destroying company Getty, Mr Klein is on a visit to check on his troops in Vancouver, while they snap away at Olympic hopefuls. During his visit in Vancouver, he is snapped away by CNBC investigative team for what they call a “Power Lunch”.

While they sit down and eat nothing, the conversation immediately jumps into some of the toughest question the poor man has had to answer, like how difficult it must be to run a company that has turned private. The Klein manages to escape the potential trap by explaining that it is, O so hard to go from screaming shareholders to a lonely, but rich, sole owner. But then, in a stroke of never seen journalistic boldness, one of the journalist questions the CEO about Getty’s role in the now famous Tiger Wood image released two days before his press conference. Pap’ agencies allegedly “lost” a potential 1 million revenue because of that practically free image. Here’s what Johnathan answered:

“Over a long period of time, Getty Images has established itself as the gold standard in terms of not only the image quality, but the way we behave. As a result of that, we don’t do paparazzi images and as a result of that, we often get a called in either for a non-profit basis like we do all the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie photos entirely non-profit…We were approached and Tiger happened to know the photographer (Sam Greenwood) and has known him for a long time.”

Yes, you read it right : “we don’t do paparazzi images”. Well, let’s take a look at your website and check :

From yesterday:

Right, Getty doesn’t call that Paparazzi, they call it : Candids. Like they are just doing something quite harmless and innocent.  “me officer ? No, I am not a paparazzi, I am a candid photographer”. Do they also eat candies while taking candid pictures ?

During the same response, the Klein also notes on Getty’s such wonderful friendship with the likes of Angelina Jolie and hubby Brad Pitt. Again, let’s check on his site :

O ya. That is PR approved portrait studio in all it’s splendor, isn’t it ? I am sure Jolie is happy with that shot and the many other “candid” images of Jolie on the Getty site.

Getty, no paparazzi ? Right !! Like Corbis is making a profit. We beleive you, Mr Klein.

More of the Pulitzer prize quality interview by two top notch heavy duty CNBC reporters a this link.

While you that, I am going to take my 300 mm and find a nice bush from behind which i can hide and take beautiful Candid photography for my portfolio …

Posted in No sense, celebrity, magazine, lens, wire service, finance, corbis, news, editorial, transaction, getty | Print | 1 Comment »

February 19, 2010 by pmelcher.

      In the footsteps of the United States senate, the UK House of Lords is about to pass a law regarding Orphan Works. The UK  law is very similar to the US one, besides a few key elements. Like the US, it is unclear what defines a reasonable search and how that will be proven. Unlike the US, it does call for the creation of a registry. However, it calls for the creation of a Middle man body that will collect funds ( unspecified also) for those images first though Orphan and finally reunited with its Parent. The UK government will also take a cut, leaving to the copyright owner… well …crumbles… Not sure why all these people have to get involved and get their cut, but they will. The trade association BAPLA who has more than 400 photo agencies as members ( take that PACA ) is actively trying to change and readjust this law. Unless if you do not license images in the UK ( why not ?), this law will affect you like a pie in the face.

In the same proposition there is also an anti paparazzi part. A rule “that in effect will prohibit photography in public places where anyone who’s in the photograph might be unhappy about being photographed.”. This law, of course, applies only to pro photographers, otherwise tourists would be prevented to take pictures, and that, my friends would not be good.

Not that most ever knew they were being photographed, but most of Cartier-Bresson subjects could have made his life a living hell with such a law, along with ours ( imagine a life with no CB images). Sure, everyone is tired of these hordes of photographers ( not sure if that is the right term, here) snapping a 35 mm lens in a celebrity’s face as soon as they walk out the door ( any door). Gets worse at night when it’s combine with powerful flashes. However, that provision is extreme and allows for incredible censorship. How will pros be able to take pictures of, let say, a terrorism attack? Most people will not be happy to be photographed in such an event.

In a time where rates are dropping, where photographers are begging for a Messiah, the UK Gov finds comfort in adding a couple of very strong nails in the coffin. The interesting part is that , once passed, these laws will affect you, in whatever country you are. Wether because your images could be used for free ( or pennies) or because your government will takes these legislation as a good example to implement in their territory. America, you have a sleeping ( not for long) Orphan Works legislation in the corridors of power. You might also get a similar anti pap law that will affect everyone. Should you look for help in tour favorite trade organization ? Be my guest. You should.

To learn more, please read this very good article.

Posted in license, celebrity, commercial stock, No sense, photojournalism, editorial, transaction, PACA, news | Print | No Comments »

February 17, 2010 by pmelcher.

Wired magazine, in the trail of others, has partnered with Adobe Air, to display what their publication will look on a E reader. There are a few interesting points here.

First, for the geeks out there, it is interesting to see that Adobe, whose Flash is not supported by Apple’s Ipad, is now pushing Air  as a delivery platform. There will be a battle out there on what application will be running all these E magazines and Adobe is shooting the first salvo.

The second part is that Wired present this as an addition to their print publication, not as a replacement. As much as they are investing in the new technology, they are not ready to drop their print, web, IPhone apps just for that.

The Third, is that besides a format, there is no mention of hardware. It is supposed that this is for an Ipad, but really, it is for any existing or to be invented color tablet  ( sorry Kindle).

What about photography usage? Well, they are some very compelling statements here.

Images are a key element of this evolution. From 360 to immersible, from stop action to galleries, there are many forms of photography shown. Nothing new indeed, but a new usage certainly. Where do you find stock for 360 photography ? nowhere currently. So where will they go ?  Assignment, surely. Are you ready ? There is stock for panoramas images, but will that be enough ? And is the micro stock community going to plunge into this also ?  Probably.

However, the more important element of photography usage here is the option to share it. Either via email or social networks, almost every image can be shared with a click of one button. Now, we all know that editorial pricing has always been about placement, time and geography. What has never been appropriately addressed with web usage is now going to become standard practice for all editorial. Al thought you have  licensed your  image for a week, a month and for a small side usage, next thing you know it’s all over the web, in different format, given away for free to people you have never heard of. And never will.

Sure, you can go the Getty way. Here, pay me $49 and do whatever you want with the image. I would like to see Getty’s executives faces when one of their $49 image goes viral. Ouch. Na..not a good idea. Images should be license based on usage and usage should be tracked per number of clicks. After all, if an article or an image published on Tablet gets shared a lot, it is all in the benefit of the publication, right ? It’s free marketing. Yet, your image has been instrumental to that sharing action, so shouldn’t you be compensated ?

What do you mean you do not know how much click it has seen ? Do you know how much circulation a magazine has ? Yes, ok, well, with a link, it is even easier to track. They want a sharing option on your images, charge them either an additional flat fee, or a fee per clicks. But please, charge something. You are not Getty. You will not get back in volume what you just gave away for free. Never.

So. first thing first: Add to all your invoices  and delivery statement “NO DIGITAL RIGHTS” . If they want web usage or E Readers, then lets negotiate a different fee. Ask if there will be a sharing option . If yes, then add an additional fee. How much? well, that is up to you to decide.

Be proactive. You will be proud you did.

Posted in celebrity, copyright, license, magazine, technology, E Reader, commercial stock, multimedia, newspaper, editorial, getty, Royalty free, transaction, finance, web 2.0, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

February 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

So, there was something very interesting about the photo news the week. On one side, you have the mighty Getty ( aka, the whale) who took a deep plunge in pricing with its subscription RF offering, combining microstock and pro , and on the other, legendary Magnum who manage a great coup by selling some used prints for an estimated $ 30 million dollars.

Like two extremities of the same stick, this is a great reflection of where the business of photography stands today . On one side an entity that has reduced its photography to a cheap commodity to be sold as individual snapshots and on the other, a photographers coop that is so highly respected that it can sell old back and white prints full of written notes as highly valuable historical artifacts.

Yet, both are selling the same thing : photographs . According to numerous interview given by Mark Lubell, director of Magnum New York, one key condition for the members of the coop to approve the sale was that the images would not be scattered and sold as individual entities. Magnum photographers have a long established tradition of selling pictures as a story, a group of images, that tells a story. It has been numerously debated, over the years, that Magnum could have maybe had made more profit if it had broken  these stories and sold them as individual images.

But none of the photographers-creator would have it any other way. Shot as a story, sold as a story. Part of the condition for the deal with the Michael Dell owned fund is that images cannot be separated from the story they belong to. On the other end of the spectrum, Getty does the exact opposite. It extracts images from their context, their stories , and sell them as individual files. There motivation is that the image, alone, has more chance of finding a buyer than a group of images, sold as a story. Also, individual files sales  can easily be automated while photo essay, and photo journalism in general, needs a pitch, an explanation, a real human sales person.

And there is where a key differentiation appears that is reflected everywhere in the marketplace. If your business is about licensing individual files, then its all about volume. You do not take a proactive approach to selling. Instead, you try to cover any possible potential need for an image that could humanly be conceived. You stick them in an archive. And then you wait . You wait for a buyer to come and be hooked. or not. The market creates the demand.

If you license a photographer’s work, a story, a career, an inspiration, the approach is completely different. You cannot wait for a client to come and find it. You have to go out and fetch it. You have to take the photographer’s work, find a potential client who could be interested and close the deal. The photographer, in this case, creates the demand.

If you want the market to create the demand, the prices are low, very, very low. If you create the demand, the prices are high, very high.

Unfortunately, most photo agencies these days have gone the route of competing with each other on the individual file sales path. Mostly because it much easier, cheaper, and demands almost no special skills. The more the agencies, the more the offer, the more prices go down. Getting amateurs to fill these image banks has recently greatly lowered the costs, with the pervert effect of also lowering the prices.

Magnum, and others, like Contact, Redux, PictureGroup, Aurora have deliberately chosen to represent photographers’ work and not distribute individual files. Their production is the reflection of its chosen creators, their image bank set up to license stories , and their sales staff experienced in the complex art of pitching. Sure, it’s more expensive and much more complicated. It demands talent and sometimes obstination against frustration. However, the prices are dictated by the value perceived by the creator, not the by the market. The result : deals like Magnum just made.

In photography, it’s not the market who dictates the pricing. It’s how you present it.

Posted in magazine, celebrity, technology, Cosmos, Aurora, commercial stock, license, prosumer, getty, Royalty free, news, editorial, photojournalism, transaction, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

January 26, 2010 by pmelcher.

We are going to see a lot of desperate moves this year, in the photo industry. In an attempt to stay afloat in a depressed market, photographers, as well as photo agencies , will resolves to off the chart, crying for help, strategies. There has been many examples already, like the name your own price to pennies a pictures, none succeeding in making anyone rich or succesful. RF is already plagued with so many discounts and “special offering” that last all year that it is now almost impossible to purchase them at full price anymore, even if you wanted too.

In the footsteps of Getty Images, other smaller agencies beleive that the subscription model is the way to go. Enter Photoshot ( at least in Germany) . Owners of such collection as : NHPA, Bruce Coleman, UPPA, Woodfall Wild, Oceans Image, World Pictures, Photos Horticultural, StarStock, Talking Sport, World Illustrated, Photoshot Archive and Photoshot Creative, it is now offering…are you sitting down ?  Unlimited use of Photoshot’s rights managed images for 3 months for a flat monthly fee of only Euro 400 per month.

Right : for $400 Euros, you can use as many images as you want, for editorial use ( and some advertising) for three months. The license for these images , actually last for a year, if you read the fine print. So, for what used to be the price for a full page in a magazine, for a week, you can now publish 3 months of the same magazine.

The thought is probably that you will like the images soooo much that once the subscription is over, you will continue to purchase images from Photoshot at full price and make them unbelievably wealthy. Here is the reality. Why would anyone in there right mind go back to purchasing the same images for a regular price, when you got them for practically free. The exact same images.  Also, how is a three months subscription helpful to anyone besides a company that does not intend to use images after three months. Finally, if some of theses collections are commission-based, it will be a nightmare to track and pay those photographers.

The real issue here is that, even for non subscribers, you have devalued your collection so much that no one can take you seriously when you then ask for regular prices. How do you explain why an image that use to cost pennies before, suddenly goes back to hundreds, if not thousand of dollars ? if it is cheap trash, then it should remain so.

Of course, this company is not the only one, nor the first one, to turn to irrational pricing in order to save its bank account and keep creditors at bay. But, like the others, they just damage the market for the rest of us that have not lost our minds. As we once said, the photo industry is like driving a car, if you don’t know what you are doing, you are a danger to the rest of us.

Posted in license, celebrity, magazine, commercial stock, No sense, finance, getty, editorial, transaction, Royalty free | Print | 1 Comment »

January 21, 2010 by pmelcher.

We have done a bad job. A terrible job. If picking a photograph is all about its price and not its quality than we, the photo industry, have made a terrible job at selling our work.

Every time an editor, whether  from an ad agency or a magazine decides to use an image because it is cheaper than the others, that means we have all failed to advocate for the real value of photography. We have failed, all of us, Photographers, agents, photo agencies to make the new generation of image buyers see the real value in our images. Thus the current situation.

It’s not the fault of microstockers that prices have gone so low in the RF world, it is the fault of the original traditional RF sellers. They are the ones who have devaluated the work so much that consumers have no issue  at purchasing from amateurs. It is the fault of a complacent industry that has not been capable of maintaining some degree of high end quality, an industry that has put on the market a lot of crap for obscene prices.

People or companies have no problem paying high prices for products they see as being of high quality and that brings added value.  Ever since the adoption of digital,  an overflow of redundant images  has saturated people’s mind into believing that photography is a commodity. It’s not just the commercial stock photography world. Editorial has seen an explosion of quantity, to the point that some photographers will submit the same images to multiple agencies, who, in turn submit to the same outlets. What are the editors to think ? Why pay a premium for such a deluge of redundant images ?

If prices are dropping, it’s your fault, not Getty’s or microstock. It is the natural consequence of fighting competition with over production. Too much of a product on a market has always brought prices down.

If this industry wants to survive,  it is going to have to recognize that it is guilty of its own demise and do something about it.  It will have to recognize that like the Easter Islands, it is cutting its own trees to the point of self- extinction. It will have to do something about it.

Do What, you say ? Cut the edits to a minimum, stop distributing the same images via different distributors. Quality is scarce, and people pay for quality, eliminate the bad and the medium, stop thinking in terms of volume, throw out the bean counters and hire the artisans, the creatives, the bohemians. learn to say no : no to poor or medium quality, no to bad prices, no to redundancy, no to habits, not to quantity, no to the easy way.

Of course, that would only work if all the industry would agree to a voluntary simultaneous move  to  clean up the market. That is not going to happen. It’s like trying to get all the nations to clean up the environment. Not happening either. Like with any panic situation, everyone digs in, trying to grab whatever they can before it is too late.  Like a city being looted by its own inhabitants. Everyone for themselves !! Throw as many images on the market of whatever quality. It’s asphyxiating.

So, instead of writing me an email about how depressing my entry is, or how its not very nice, or how I should write more optimistic thoughts, or how I am so wrong but do not even deserved to be explained why, step away from this blog and go review your images. If you are an agency and you have a photographer submitting the same images to you and to others, dump him/her. If you have  more than 50 images of the same subject, dump the rest. If you are a photographer submitting to an agency that already has 150 photographers shooting the same things as you, leave. If your images don’t sell anymore or for little money, shoot something completely different. In very small precious amount.

Don’t blame the others for the mess we are in and instead of digging your nose in your smart phone and tweetering some crap no one cares about, take control and preserve the space in which you live. Limit yourself. Redo your edits, over and over. And when you are done, do it over. Eliminate, reduce, clean. Pick the 5 best images. not 500. or 5,000.

If you stop treating the marketplace like garbage, it will stop treating you like trash.

Posted in magazine, commercial stock, celebrity, newspaper, editorial, photojournalism, Royalty free | Print | 3 Comments »

January 19, 2010 by pmelcher.

So you would think that with all the problems that online publications are causing to the print magazine industry, they would fight back in some manner. The print paper world would be all gang ho in trying to secure its predominance as the primary source of news and information so that the crowds would rush to purchase copies. But no.

It’s a complete lethargy. Well, at least in the USA. Take editorial photography. As much as they care if an image has been used in a competing publication, they completely ignore anything online.  They seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that they come out sometimes with the same image that has been seen previously for more than a week on numerous websites. As if no one paid attention. However, with some URL’s drawing millions of visitors , and most, the same people they also try to attract, it should be hard to ignore.

Yet, they continue to ignore the reasons for their decline. Partly to save money ( as if it is going to help) , partly because a completely blindness to the forces that are shaping their market. If I have seen an image numerous times, for free, online, I am going to be a bit upset if I see it, again, days, weeks later, in a print publication I had to pay for. If it happens once, I could ignore it. If it happens issue after issues, I would want my money back.

No other industry has this approach to its consumer. Movies only show trailers, music have just snippets ( of  course, I am not mentioning stolen material) and you pay to hear/see the full version. If all was available online  a week before they could be purchased, it is doubtful that a lot of people would pay for them.

Magazines, in some sort of oblivious superiority,  continue to publish , week after weeks, month after months the same images already seen online more than once. Maybe they think that if they ignore it, the problem might disappear. Maybe they think that by the time they come out, readers will have forgotten what they had seen just hours ago on a website. Maybe they just think that their support is so superior than the digital, no one will notice.

The second issue with this, a bit more hidden, is that photogrpahers and photo agencies provide website with a free first right  at a lesser fee than  what a print publication would pay. In other words, website get to use the same image, much sooner than print for 10% of the price that a magazine pays to use it a week later. Does it make any sense ?

In France, for example, no magazine would ever publish an image that has been used on a website previously. None. Photo agencies or photographers do not have a problem with that since website pay so little, it is not even funny. Thus, readers can be sure that will discover new image in every issue. And with just cause, they paid for that, and other privilege. They paid to purchase a  product that do not consider them like fools. They pay for originality. They pay for what they value.

In the upcoming or ongoing debate about online pay walls, how many of the newspapers, magazines and others will take the step to guarantee original photography ? Because if it is to see another slideshow made of pictures from the trilogy (Getty, AP, Reuters ) that you can see anywhere else, I doubt people will be happy. And if they are not happy, well, they won’t pay. A pay wall will only work if people want to get in. And people will want to get in if the content inside is not something seen elsewhere for free.

The war between original content ( expensive) and  cost cutting  (cheap) is raging with  cost-cutting seemingly winning most battles these days. However, creating something for cheap that no one wants to pay for is not at all a guarantee of success. Once the CFO’s and their bosses finish destroying the very nature of what made their companies successful in a rarely seen slaughterhouse of talent, there will be only a few standing. And those will not be the ones that are the cheapest to operate but those who have found the zen like balance between originality, quality, cost and timeliness.

Photography will always be here to offer  all of this and much, much more. We know it, we are just waiting for them to understand it.

Posted in license, newspaper, celebrity, magazine, Newsweek, TIME, photojournalism, editorial, transaction, finance, wire service, france | Print | No Comments »

January 14, 2010 by pmelcher.

There is nothing worst for a photographer, like for an actor, to be typecast. For Dennis Stock, who passed away this week, that is what happened. Ultra famous for the iconic images he took of James Dean just before he became famous, he had to drag this notoriety like a canon ball tied to his foot throughout his whole career. To a point that few people know the rest of his work. Which is a shame.

Dennis was a relationship photographer. Unlike Henri Cartier Bresson or Capa , Dennis wanted and needed to know his subjects very well before he would photograph them. He had to see their insides before taking pictures of their outside.  Maybe that is what he took out of his two weeks assisting Eugene Smith.

Incredibly fortunate to have worked as an assistant for some of the greatest name of photography early on in his career ( Eugene Smith, Gjon Mili), he also had extremely good contact with the photo beast of the time , Life Magazine. Unlike other original Magnum photographers, he was not known for his nice, cuddly ways. Direct, sometimes harsh, he did not hesitate to say what he thought, regardless of the consequences. His images somewhat reflect this. They are direct, have no artifice, and can be cruel sometimes. However, that was the cruelty that comes with reality and he never apologized for it because he didn’t feel responsible. The world as it is.

Dennis Stock photography could be separated in two  phases: His people years ( Hollywood, Jazz, Communities) in the first half of his career  and his nature years.  Somewhere in his photography search, he must either have become very disappointed with people, as he completely stop photographing them until his death. Maybe it was because he wanted to escape the incredibly suffocating success of his James Dean images and show that he could do great images without a human figure in them.

What is certain, is that like one his mentor Eugene Smith, he worked on his stories for a long, long them. He was nt a snaphot shooter, not an opportunity snapper. Weeks, months, if not years was not an uncommon period of time for him to complete a story. That his why he does not leave a huge body of work, but rather a very selective passionate vision of the world.

Every time a great photographer dies, it is another eye on the world that closes.

Magnum in Motion did a great piece on Dennis Stock and his work :

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