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 | No Comments »

March 9, 2010 by pmelcher.

Anyone can take a picture…that is the lesson Flickr and Microstock has recently taught us with a “pie in the face” method. It doesn’t take that much skills to create images that could use for licensing by someone else. Much less then painting, writing music, writing ( properly) or any other creative activity. Furthermore, technology has really improved the ease of access. Most images that we see today, even taken by pros, could have never existed 15 years ago because cameras, lenses and everything around it was just not that good. However, as much as photography is becoming more and more accessible, great images remain an act of creative magic. And its a talent, if not a gift.

The same goes for licensing images. Everyone claims they can sell pictures. However, it is not true. let’s take a few example, if you don’t mind. Microstock shooters. Sure they can take equivalent quality pictures as your average traditional RF/RM guy. But can they sell it ? Nope. They have to rely on the savvy tech marketing magicians of microstock sites like Istock or Dreamstime to make that happen. They could start their own microstock site with only their image, priced at even lower than any competition and yet see nothing. Ok..not convinced. Well, let’s jump into photojournalism.  We are all familiar with great images that never get published. Why? Because images do not sell themselves. It’s a tragic myth.

More and more, one can see popping up all over the internet, sites build by young geeky entrepreneur offering to let photographers sell direct and cut the “middleman” or agency. They make people beleive the age old myth “if you build it they will come”.  The more independent photographers create independent selling websites ( not the portfolio kind), the more they dilute and isolate their work.

Why do you think a lot of these database site scream high and loud how many images they contain ( 15 million, 43 million, 5 petratrillion..) ? Because they understand that the promise of a wealth of content is more important to most buyers than quality. They are looking for a solution, not a great image. Something that will fit well and appropriately in that space. They couldn’t care less if it was used before, like they couldn’t care less if their care is mass produced and others have the same model with the same color.

Think selling images in a big database is the solution ? wrong again. You can try, but there is no guarantee. Furthermore, the bigger the collection, the more chance your images have to be ignored . Great IPTC info ? Depends on what you call great: what you put in or what those guys in  Bangalore put in ? Or those so self proclaimed expert? Mmm.

So what is it ? Great marketing ? Sure…but do you know what that is ? and how to achieve it ? Probably not. If you did, you would not be reading this but instead, be enjoying a nice coktail on the porch of your summer house looking at the sunset dip into a deep blue sea.

Admit it. You don’t know. You have no idea how to sell images. It takes talent, like shooting great images. Whether learned or natural, it’s not something most photographer have. Great athletes have agents, great actor have agents, why do you think photographers don’t need any ?

Because building a searchable website with a shopping cart is easy, and cheap ? And that, with a kick-ass SEO strategy will make them millionaires? Well, let’s think of who have succeeded up to now…What? no names come to mind? However, photographers with crappy websites ( or none at all) that are doing very, very well…many.

So, next time someone comes to you with a turn key solution that promises to cut the middle man and make you truly independent, you can beleive them, because that is exactly what it will do for you. And nothing else.

Posted in Search, IPTC, license, magazine, commercial stock, technology, keyword, flickr, editorial, Royalty free, transaction, finance, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

March 2, 2010 by pmelcher.

You know there is a problem when a company selling you a service treats you with superiority and disdain. Somewhere in the sale cycle, someone hates the fact that they should be at the client service and not the opposite.

Take software solution companies, for example. They usually work in a vacuum creating  some software solution that they decide is very cool and once finished, look around to see if there is a market for it. There’s usually a market for everything. Once they find the market, they approach the “non software” people in a attempt to sell it. Because they usually fall on non technical people who have no clue on how difficult it has been to design and implement what they are trying to sell, they are quickly branded as “idiots”, “retards”, or “useless”. Nevertheless, the software company still needs to make money to cover the costs of creating and maintaining there operation. So they reluctantly continue  selling their product/services to the “incompetent idiots” that are not understanding the genius behind the applications they are buying.

The software companies stay very very close to their software peers in order to compensate and gather as much praises from them. After all, a praises from a peer is so much better than one from your clients. They couldn’t care less what their customers say about their products and what improvement they would like to see, as they see them as inferior that are only there to pay their bills. Like monkeys trying to explain to you how to operate your car. They come to really disdain this relationship whereby they have to take money from “idiots”. All they want is to be recognized as the new Google, get millions in funding and be admired by other programmers.

There is no love in a application creator/client relationship. We have seen it and we still see it in the photo industry. Since going digital, and especially after the billions spend by Yahoo for Flickr, a little flock of software companies, mostly start ups, have knocked on the doors of this market. And reluctantly did so. From database management to image recognition, they have found and develop some interesting tools for this market. However, they disdain the fact that they have to rely on poorly technology educated photo people to make a living.

What are the signs of such companies ? Well, first and foremost, very poor communications skills. Do not return emails or phone calls or take a very, very long time doing so. Would you answer quickly to someone you despise ? They certainly don’t.

Poor or in existent sales team. Usually handled by an entry level person that has absolutely no power. He/she is obviously at the bottom of the pole at this company, and while usually very nice and understanding, a complete waste of time to communicate with.

No training or well thought out documentation. You either get it, like they do, or you are a complete moron that wouldn’t even understand a step by step instruction, so why bother ?

They want you to come to them. Since their creation is so genius, you should be begging to use it, not the opposite.

Finally, and probably the most important, they turn their creation into a “Solution”. Although they have develop an application that they thought was challenging enough to do, they will come to you as if they have found a cure to your problems. They will take the high road and declare: “we are here to save photography”. They take a superior stand to any seasoned professional and explain with a condescending air of ultimate superiority that they know what is wrong with the Photography business and that their software/app/service is THE solution. All like little messiah, they have a greater purpose than selling their companies services. They are here to save you from yourselves.

Let’s be realist. They are all in it to make money. Lots and lots of money. Nothing more and nothing less. They hide there real intention behind a mask of fake benevolence. Most have this annoying unsaid little scheme that if they can corner the market, they can turn around, raise prices, and get a choking stronghold on this universe. In the mean time they rack millions in investors money with this promise.

While technology is certainly a tool for growth, it is also full of the worst snake oil sellers one can ever meet. Their efforts are not as pure as they say. All of them are trying to make a profit , and as large as possible. So next time they ring at your door, think about their business model. How do they intend to get rich on your back. Sure, everyone deserves to be paid. But, is it worth it for your business ?.How tied up will you find yourself if they succeed in cornering the market ? Who will benefit the most ? You, or them ?

Most importantly, if they then do not respond promptly to your emails ( remember, these guys are on their computers/ smartphones 24/7 ), then you know that they could care less about you. And it’s time to move on.

Posted in technology, idee, picturemaxx, gumgum, commercial stock, copyright, license, finance, photoshop, flickr, web 2.0, transaction | Print | No Comments »

February 3, 2010 by pmelcher.

It’s not photography that is sick and dying, it’s the people that handle it. Sure, there has been dramatic bankruptcies, like Grazia Neri , l’ Oeil Public and now Eyedea Press ( that one was a long time coming). On the other hand, there more than a billion of images on Flickr, more on Photobucket, and Facebook. There has never been so many cameras in the streets and so many people interested in photography. With the Internet, there has never been such a demand, and need for images. Smartphones, Ipad, tablets, netbooks, are only increasing the demand for stills.

Yet, pro photographer can’t seem to make a living anymore, while photo editors have either no budget or are being laid off by buckets. So what is wrong ? Well, for one, it’s those who manage photography that are sick. None of the old and current guard have any idea how to take advantage of this Tsunami of demand. It’s leaking from all over the place. The only made with Flickr was when the original founders sold it to Yahoo. Since, it’s been bleeding cash. Instead of creating tools to allow members to license it, they passed it on to Getty Images to try and squeeze some money juice out of it. It could take decades, if not century for Yahoo to see a return on investment using this route.

While magazines are dying a slow and painful circulation death, there online counterpart have yet to be succesful in generate the same revenue as they used too . Why, because they keep on trying to replicate online what has been a success in print. The fact that its not working doesn’t seem to bother them. They keep on trying.

Photographers still shoot the same thing, the same way, for a clientele that is shrinking, both in size and resources. They desperately cling to old formulas that they hope will resurface some day. Not going to happen. And finally, photo agencies try to hang on the slippery slop of declining revenue by agreeing to cut fees in the hopes there is a trampoline at the bottom of the hill. Not there.

Everyone is playing the waiting game, hoping that some savior will find the magic solution. In the mean time, they are all guilty of killing photography by undervaluing it. It’s has become a commodity, some say. Other offer ridiculous subscription model, feeling comfort in the fact that mass production Getty does it. All whine all day, all night, all the time.

Stop whining. Do . Try. fail. Try again. fail again. Who cares? You will make progress. And if you are lucky ( or smart), it will work. Better than you had ever expected. It’s not obvious. But the market is there. The current model doesn’t work, we can all agree on that. So, try new ones. Take advice from no one. Just do. It will hurt, it will be frustrating, it will be exhausting, it will feel incredibly useless, it will not work. But it’s so much better than whining all the time. Stop waiting for something to happen. Take control.

Posted in license, multimedia, prosumer, copyright, magazine, commercial stock, technology, focus, flickr, photojournalism, news, getty, Royalty free, editorial, transaction, slideshow, finance, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

December 30, 2009 by pmelcher.

It’s all about connection. Remenber, when you were a kid, people use to gather around a print photograph and talk about it. They would also want a copy and travel with it and show it to other people. In a way, photography was one of the first social networking hub.

Because of its highly physical structure, it was hard to get a large amount of people around a photograph and for them to connect via it.  Slides and projectors allowed for bigger groups to see , share, and discuss an image. As we see in   photo festival like Visa Pour l’ Image, it is still a great tool for people to commonly share and enjoy photography together at the same time. But so ephemeral and still so location based.

Magazines took the sharing to even bigger and wider groups but in the process cut the discussion umbilical cord, leaving each one as a unheard lonely voice. It was assumed that others enjoyed the same image as you had seen in the page of your magazine but there was no way to communicate with them. That role, poorly executed, was left to a single ringmaster/photo editor. But the message was not going through.

Then came sites like Flickr. People could and can connect around photography again. But this time, its is not just friends and family, it is also complete stranger. Regardless, photography true essence as a social tool was finally reborned. Because, lets face it, photography is useless if it cannot be shared.

It is the core of its nature  to be extremely social. We photograph because we want to share what we see and the way we see it. However, up to now, the medium that supports photography, mainly print publications and now online publications, have done a very poor job to exploit this. One lonely person, mostly located in a cubicle somewhere, picks an image that she/he likes and post/prints it. People see it, connect with it or not and the images vanishes. what a waste. And this is only for a very small fractions of images produced everyday. Those selected by bored photo editors.  That is not a life for a photograph.

Photography does not need Twitter or Facebook, it is the opposite. Social networking sites need photography for people to sign up, share and interact. People connect, react, share, argue, agree, discuss and love/hate around an image wherever it is, as long as the tools to communicate and to connect exist. People create accounts on Facebook and Twitter to connect and share photographs, not the opposite .

The best way to kill an image is to prevent people from being allowed to interact with it. That is probably why I hate  photography museum so much. While it allows a great many people to see an image, it completely kills any possible interaction with other viewers.”sssh” is the reigning word in a museum.

So, knowing this, where does that leave us ?  Well,  remember this graphic ?

This is the new marketplace. It is no longer the “one-to-many” that  we have seen in traditional media and sadly currently  replicated online, it is the “many-to-many”. The next generation of succesful businesspeople in photography will be the ones who learn to use photography’s social and viral nature and capitalize on it.  Instead of crowdsourcing photography, crowdsourcing photo editing. Let the users/viewers become their own photo editors and decide what images they would like to see and share. Let the images become the social network around which people gather and communicate, for whatever length of time they need. This is the hyperlink photography economy that some have been searching for.

With that in mind, have a happy, safe and wealthy 2010 !!

Posted in web 2.0, multimedia, license, technology, prosumer, flickr, editorial, slideshow, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | 3 Comments »

November 23, 2009 by pmelcher.

There is more to the story than just numbers. Much, much more. And the official media ignores it. But what the photo industry is currently experiencing is much, much more than just a few layoff.

What we are seeing is the disappearance of  knowledge. Most of the photo editors being let go from magazines, newspapers, websites are those who have spent many years building the foundations of our industry withtalent. They are the ones who knew a great image from a bad one, who could spot a talented photographer from the masses of mediums ones. They are the ones who created “names” by publishing their work. They are the ones who did look at photo books,  went out to exhibits and photo festivals, no only to see and discover new talents but to personally connect with those they already knew.

Those “numbers” that  appear almost daily on the sheets of bored journalist where passionate about their jobs and about photography. They still are, they just can’t find jobs anymore. And the more the talented, the more experience, the more chances they have to be fired. Why ? Because they cost the most. When companies look to cut cost, they always go for the highest salary, which usually means for those who have the most experience. And when companies hire, they look for the cheapest, even if they have no or little knowledge.

The positions of the talented photo editors are now being handle by  Art Directors, who perceive photography as a “block” that needs to fit in a layout, or to young, inexperience professionals that are given the task of finding the cheapest art, regardless of quality.

In the case of art directors, they probably always felt that the position of photo editor should have never existed and rather be a subset of their duties. Because their title contains the word “art”, they just feel it demeaning to have to talk money with suppliers.

Other replacement of the experience photo editors are the young, entry level professionals. Raised on Flickr, microstock and Google Image, they are immediately given the task to find the cheapest photography as possible. They hardly know anyone, or anything, about photogrpahy, nor do they care. They probably spend more time on Facebook and Twitter than any photography website and feel that they could, should be doing something more important in their lives.They are being paid low salaries as to reinforce the idea that finding and picking images for a website, or a magazine is as degrading as service hamburgers at the local McDonald’s.

No wonder then that prices are dropping like dead flies.  The current and new crop of image buyers see absolutely no value in photography besides being a huge boring time waster. It is incredibly difficult to explain  photography to someone who doesn’t care. Especially when they see it as a job (in the worst way) rather than a passion.

There is not much the photo industry can do to revert this trend. We cannot convince publishers to spend more money and hire experience photo editors . They do not see the value. They do not beleive that great photography will bring more readership, thus more advertising. They are in survival mode right now, just trying to weather the storm. We cannot explain photogrpahy to young bored professionals because their passion is elsewhere and they couldn’t care less.

All that remains to do is quietly put our heads in our hands and cry.

Posted in license, magazine, technology, Search, google, editorial, photojournalism, flickr, Microstock | Print | 2 Comments »

November 10, 2009 by pmelcher.

The current photo industry and newcomers apply a completely flawed logic to licensing images. It is too often believed that if an image is largely seen, it will be licensed. The thinking come from primeval logic. It goes like this:

- if an image is not seen, it will never be sold. (which is a truism). Therefore, if it is seen, it will sell.  (which is a complete myth).

With the age of the internet, thousands upon thousands of would-be entrepreneurs has set up shop with image archiving platforms thinking that it will be all the necessary work to be performed to make lots and lots of money. Just make sure that images can be seen, search and paid for and voila !! its done.

Even as the short history of the web proves otherwise, it remains a very potent dream. There are billions of images on Flickr or Photobucket that will never, ever be sold. and more are being uploaded as you read this. And they also will not sell.  beyond those platform, there are many many more with e commerce capabilities. Snugmug or the defunct DigitalRailoard are other examples. Sure, it is easy to create a platform where images can be seen and purchased but it doesn’t mean they will be sold.

What a large number of photo gurus misunderstand with the success of Istock is that it was build with customers first. if you recall, the first people to put images on the site were people who needed images. It was an exchange platform. As it started charging a fee for downloads, it kept on growing as those same customers were selling their images to other customers.  Many other microstock companies have launched since and are not understanding why their sales are flat.

This myth has also affected how images are edited. Before digital, every precaution was taken to only keep  the best images. Now, the same mentality applies through various argument: Better more than less, let them decide, you never know, better uploaded than not…and so on.

But the same rules applies. A digital crap is still a crap, even if it can be seen by millions. The reason images do not sell these days are exactly the same as they were pre Internet. They suck. No one wants to buy them. Whether they are on the Getty images site or some obscure lousy website.

It would be interesting to have one day an industry wide survey on what percentage of images are actually licensed compared to the overall size of the database. 4%? 8% ? 10 % ?. The same survey would probably also show that the most carefully edited images databases also have the highest yield ratio.

What is captivating is that it very often the same people that complain that industry has too much content offering that will turn around and explain to you that if an image is not seen, it will not sell. Thus feeding the same beast they complain about. It is the same people that will copy another succesful niche with subpar images that will also complain that there are too many images available.

So let’s not contribute to this problem and let’s call a cat a cat: making images visible or accessible does not create value . Let’s destroy this myth once and for all. and while you ‘re at it, delete all those crappy images.

Posted in No sense, license, technology, commercial stock, prosumer, flickr, Royalty free, getty, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

October 29, 2009 by pmelcher.

It is not what you photograph that matters anymore, it is how you photograph it. It used to be that cameras, processing,  access and mostly distribution was the privilege of a few, all nicely rewarded by a comfortable income. This closed “Boy’s Club” had many high level entry barriers . Not so much. Cameras have remain expensive tools, although currently starting to follow Moore’s law. But processing, access and mostly distribution have become so dirt cheap and easy that anyone can join. And because the pie seems to be limited, the photo industry is experiencing a Malthusian moment.

It is not clear yet if the photo licensing business has limit. Like the Universe, it could be expending and we might not be aware of it. yet. We know for a fact that microstock pricing and content, has either brought in or converted thousands upon thousands of new licensing customers. We also know that they are billions upon billions of images on the internet, mostly unlicensed, either by will of their creators or just plainly stolen. And as millions of new web pages are created every day worldwide certainly all containing at least one photograph, we can safely assume that the photo market is expanding.

We just have not, like scientists in space, found our dark matter, or it’s equivalent . How to reach and turn all these usages in paying customers. Sure, we battle  the constant threat of the evil empire take-over, also sometimes called Creative Commons, the Electronic Frontier or even Google, as they try to manipulate the rules of the universe by making all these images free.

But that is not what this post is about. This is about how photography, that used to mostly about what you shot is becoming more about how you shoot it. It used to be that a news photographer only needed to take pictures of an event to see it published. Since they were practically alone, or were the only ones with a distribution channel, the images were almost guaranteed to be published. Not so much anymore as photography, like our planet, has experience an uncontrollable population growth. There are photographers everywhere, shooting everything, either with cellphones or high end Leica M9’s (who pricing, BTW, is more adequate for a lawyer or Wall Street Ceo than a pro photographer). And, in consequence, there is photogrpahy everywhere too. From Photobucket, to Flickr, via Alamy, Istockphoto, Shutterstock and many many others, the total offering of images must be in the billions. Of everything and nothing. Creating a pool of images probably ten times bigger, and expanding ten times faster, than the user pool.

So, some curiously unamusing professionals have taken to their soap boxes and have either called for rallying behind HD video, Twitter, Facebook, time lapse, HDR in a desperate and futile effort to try and recreate, or protect, what is left of that “Boy’s Club”. They have failed to understand that what is available to a pro is also available to any amateur. There is no salvation in equipment nor in fads. Unless if you sell them.

Even less amusing is how the official photography press continues to embellish this myth with a monthly passion.

So what is the solution ? POV. What was always the tool of any brilliant photographer. Point of View. That is always what any photo editor worldwide is going to look for. Not what camera, lens, or technique is being used but the Point of View of the photographer. It  is not so much the access either, as even with exceptional access, one can still make bad images. If you want to license images and make money, then shoot everything with a POV.

It is not Peter Souza’s access, White House staff photographer, that make his images brilliant. It is how he uses it. It is not Annie Liebovitz privileged access to celebrities that makes her images incredible, it’s her point of vue. We could go on and on with examples ( Think Steve McCurry, for example, or HCB, Doisneau, Ernst Haas, Willy Ronis, and so on) of photogrpahers with no privilege acces to our world who have done wonders. Without fancy cameras either, or zoom lenses with built in GPS’s.

So next time you stand in line to listen to some succesful photographers telling you that whatever he is holding in his hand is the key to that elusive “boy’s club” you all so want to be a member off, you turn around and go outside to take some picture. That, and only that will give you access to the most exclusive club on the world where no one can you chase you away from, your own POV club.

Posted in license, focus, lens, commercial stock, multimedia, google, editorial, photojournalism, flickr, Microstock | Print | 3 Comments »

October 23, 2009 by pmelcher.

Getty Images’s decision to close it’s wholly-owned production division is a clear signal to the commercial stock industry that the market has shifted forever. If producing  images that correspond to a market demand without having to pay any commissions and licensing them via the biggest distribution channel worldwide is not profitable anymore, than nothing is. Producing market research wholly-owned content was to be the new El Dorado of the commercial stock photo industry. It is now a ghost town.

Coupled with the announcement from Jonathan Klein that Istock has made $850,000 in sales in one day, then it  all becomes very clear. Even after paying commission, Istock, and thus microstock, is more profitable than traditional stock. No production fees, no market research, no  high end editing and post production generates more hard cash than all the talent of the world combined. If I had a traditional RM or RF operation right now, I would be very, very worried. If not desperate.

There not even a comfortable exit strategy for thousand of RM and RF companies worldwide. It is doubtful that any will be purchased anymore and its even too late to dump all their production into microstock. Even that is getting heavily saturated.

Getty also has a huge advantage by being able to safely mine both Istock and Flickr for new content for its traditional RM and RF offering at almost no cost. While anyone could source Flickr, no one has the time nor manpower.

From a recent internal memo released by John Harrington, Getty Images will also heavily invest in on-line automated sales in the upcoming years, taking a cue from Istock and trimming down on its operational cost. It is obvious that if RM and RF sales are going to decline both in volume and in price, it will be too expensive to have a full size sales force.

Once again here, smaller operation will not have that opportunity. They already function at minimum staff and have no room for downsizing with also losing revenue. They certainly do not have the extra cash to invest in automated sales.

From the same memo, we were told that Getty has made no overall revenue growth in 2008 and 2009 doesn’t look much better. Probably mostly because the fall in traditional RM sales was not compensated by Istock 35% growth. That is a huge statement, isn’t it ?

As for Corbis, they seem to continue their cutting cost approach to profitability. Every year now, for as far as the memory goes back, this has been their time to hit the headlines with another round of layoff. This year, London was apparently the most hit. Still no sign of profitability for the (very rich)  ugly duckling of the commercial stock industry. But as long as they are having fun, right ?

The recent melding of minds at the PACA conference in Miami should have been a funeral announcement. Most talks were oriented at escaping the commercial stock market for the hopefully more lucrative commercial footage. However, it’s more like choosing which cliff to jump from.

Finally, for those who really want to understand the current state of the industry, they HAVE to read Allen Murabayashi entry on the Photoshelter blog, it’s brilliant and right to the point.

Posted in flickr, license, commercial stock, PACA, finance, Royalty free, getty, corbis, Microstock | Print | 3 Comments »

October 13, 2009 by pmelcher.

While everyone is searching for what commercial stock might become in the future, the Chinese might have one solution and it is quite revolutionary. Researchers from TNList, Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University along with a Singapore based researcher, have put together Photosketcher, previously called Sketch2Photo.

The principle is quite simple : you sketch what and how your final image image  should look like and it fetches all the elements on the internet and stitches them together for a final composite image.  Better yet, here is a visual explanation :

This would be a major breakthrough for art directors all around the world. Instead of going to hundreds of stock banks trying to locate an image that remotely looks like  the one they had in mind, they could actually build it from different bits and pieces of a variety of images. Obviously, they wouldn’t even have to hire photographers for photo shoots anymore, at least for those that have common elements in them.

But, before we get there, this is a pretty nifty tool for art directors who would like to create comps to show their clients or  the photogrpahers they are about to hire  what they have in mind.

In the paper, it is unclear where in the internet the search is performed. It seems to be  everywhere, creating a huge copyright headache. Of course, some would argue that since the end result is a composite and thus a new creation, there is no copyright due. Let’s leave the arguing to Lawheads and revue the implication of this new tool.

If the search was only applied  to Creative Common content ( Flickr)  one could probably be free of any copyright issue. Furthermore, one would have the legitimate right to register the new finished product as their own and license it. Think about it. A completely computer generated image created with bits and pieces of images from various photographers would come and take its rightful place next to work from long-time pros. Wow. And some though microstock was bad. Wait until everyone can create photographs.

Currently, the end result is very average as the selection of images does not pay any attention to light orientation and shadows. However, that could easily be an additional search parameter which would allow for extremely realistic end photographs.

What would this imply for editorial photography, especially news ? Major, major trouble. On could easily put together, in any environment, two people that have never met and look very realistic. Our news imagery could suddenly be flooded with hand-made images of events that have never taken place. Would we ever trust photography ever again ?  Doubtful. Photography will have to go through rigorous credibility checking before being branded as real news.

Finally, could this Photosketcher be a hoax ? Doubtful. Finding image via sketching is already widely operational, while automated  extracting already exist ( Adobe has a great one in Photoshop Element). Stitching, as we all know, is also very common. Thus combining all these know application together is not impossible. It is actually not too hard. The whole operation must take a pretty hefty amount of processing power but then we have no information on what type of computer these students have.

This new tool, however amazing it seems to be, has many implication for the world of photogrpahy and will have far reaching repercussions. It’s acceptance and usage will be something to monitor closely for anyone involved in photogrpahy.

See a full explanation in this video:

Sketch2Photo: Internet Image Montage from Tao Chen on Vimeo.

Posted in license, Search, copyright, technology, commercial stock, prosumer, flickr, law, news, editorial, filter, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | No Comments »