The third language

July 21, 2011 by pmelcher.

They say that 95 % of communication is non verbal. This is the realm of photography. It explores and transports through time and space the world that resides outside the Word. Confusingly enough however, we tend to give much more credit, and emphasis, to the written/spoken word.

Our newspapers and magazines spend more space on word than they do on photography, forgetting so often the famous adage that an image is worth a thousand words. We seemed convinced that if we do not read it, or hear about it, it cannot really be real. So, an amazing amount of energy, time, and money is spent on collecting data that can then be transmitted via words when a few images could easily, and more powerfully, do the same. Centuries of dubious philosophies however, started by Plato himself, has taught us not to believe in what we see. A concept that  we still carry well into the 21st century.

However, how many times have we witnessed a scene without hearing a word and immediately understood what was going on : people arguing on a street corner, a women paying for cloth in a store, a kid receiving his first ice cream of the year, all do not need a word for us to understand fully. No explanation needed.It is, in fact, how we understand our world best. Dogs, our best friends, can communicate with us without a word. 

That is what photography is all about, the third language ( words and music being the first two). If your photographs explain, then they have done their duty. If they just replicate, then they are no better than a mirror, or worse, a photocopy machine. No one has every been ecstatic in front of a well done photocopy.

 Photography is about the 95% of our communication that is non verbal. Not a word and yet a universe of comprehension. A vehicle of understanding that even Plato would have enjoyed.

Posted in commercial stock, focus, license, photojournalism, editorial | Print | No Comments »

In between

July 8, 2011 by pmelcher.

It is because we compare that we are able to judge. A photograph is nothing more than a tool for comparison. When someone looks at a photograph, he compares the content with his real world information. If there is a match, many things happen : for example, the person will automatically add the colors if the image is in black and white. He will also add sounds and smells if the scene and objects are familiar. Finally, the viewer will add a context to make sense of the content. However, there is so much that we can add to make a photograph more familiar. That discrepancy between what is seen and what is already known is exactly what the talented photographer is looking for. The subtle balance between what you know and what is new. He creates a bridges between your personal living experience and that of an unknown person by forcing you to fill in some elements and discovering the others. If an image is too familiar, it quickly becomes boring; If it is too foreign, it has no interest : great photography exists right in between.

Posted in Social Media, focus, Search, editorial | Print | No Comments »

In depth of fields

June 22, 2011 by pmelcher.

A new camera is about to change how we think about photography. Or is it ? This camera, called Lytro, records the light field instead of a beam of light. Let me try to explain:

Our current camera record light in one point regardless of its distance and crashes all the information in one location. The Lytro, however, records light from all direction and can take into consideration how far the light is based on its intensity. It than records and store this information so it can be retrieve at will later on.

The result. A camera that does not need to focus. By capturing all the information of a visual scene at once, including the distances, it creates a file that contains all the focus points. Thus leaving the focus decision to the viewers. Example ( click on the image) :

The result is an interactive image demanding viewer participation. No longer does the photographer control the narrative of his image, it becomes the prerogative of the consumer.

The good news is that there is no need for focusing anymore. Everything in the image is in focus when needed. Thus no waiting for cameras to find the focus point. The second advantage is since the sensor is so much more sensitive, images in very low light are not so difficult to capture anymore.

However, because there is always a However in new technology, this puts the burden of point of view on the viewer. Well, it’s not really a burden. The photographer no longer controls where he wants the viewers eyes to concentrate on. Since photography or at least great photography is all about point of view, this could not be such a welcomed tool.

It also kills depth of field . Well, it redefines how we experience depth of field. From a fix position, we can now navigate through it, revealing what used to be blurry elements. Again, we are messing with point of view and subjective perspective. A photographer uses fixed depth of field to convey a message. By allowing it to change, the message is partly, or greatly lost.

Finally, this technology is only available online. Obviously, it cannot be printed. It is not explained how an image taken by one of these cameras would look in a book, or a magazine . The assumption would be that one would need to select a point of focus and fix it in order to use the image for print, thus loosing all the novelty aspect.

“Proof is in the pudding”, as said the queen of spade, so there is no telling what the result would be until one of these cameras are put in the hands of very creative people. It will be interesting to see the results when the camera becomes available but we do not see this going much further then other trendy technologies like tilt-shift photography or lens Babies.

You can read some more and reserve your camera here

Posted in focus, technology, multimedia, filter, lensbabies, slideshow | Print | No Comments »

Un-framing

November 9, 2010 by pmelcher.

Watch this video :

Pretty cool, no ? a 2.3 Gigapixel photograph that allows you to zoom in and out with incredible definition. The future of photography, right ? wrong.  This image actually denies the fundamental role of a photographer and photography.

Let me explain:  The fundamental role of a photographer, whether a journalist or a stock shooter, is framing. It is to apply upon a subject a very constraining boundary  in order to force the viewer to see exactly what  he wants to show. Nothing more, nothing less. A photograph points to a very specific and very well defined area. Even wide angle photography is a framed vision. The purpose of a photograph is to extract the meaning of a scene and one of its major tool is the scalpel-like defining frame. Rectangular, square, small, big, it doesn’t matter as long as it brings forth the essence of a scene. Or at least tries to.

The 2.3 Gigapixel photograph above does the exact opposite. It throws back on the viewer the burden of discovering a meaningful value to the image, if any. It annihilates the role of the photographer by capturing everything, thus capturing nothing.

Sure, as a tool for architects, or the military, it is certainly valuable. Also, as a novelty, it can attract some attention for a while. However, it will certainly not be a widely used tool for photographer.

Posted in lens, commercial stock, technology, focus, photojournalism, photoshop | Print | 1 Comment »

I and them

July 15, 2010 by pmelcher.

Stop thinking about yourself and start thinking about your clients. Here and there, and almost everywhere you hear, or read, photographers and photo agencies complaining about this or about that. Their complains can be resumed to : ” But what about me”

Always starts with “I “. I used to make more money, I used to shoot this, I , I , I. aie.  Maybe the reason you are not making any money is because you do not think about your clients. They have shifted, evolved, not because they wanted to, but because they had to. Budgets or content, they needed to find other sources of photography. You, as you were continuing to think about “I”, you lost them.

The funny thing about sales, in any business, is that you always know how and why you gain new clients, but you never know why you loose them. They are tons of matrix to analyze  where new clients come from, what they do, how they purchase from you. But if they stop visiting you, you never know why. The reason is obvious : they are gone and you cannot communicate with them.

However, it is one of the most important piece of information that you might ever need; Why do you loose clients. Sure you can speculate. It’s my competitor pricing, it’s because I am too good, etc, etc. Because you do not have any hard data, the assumption is that it’s always someone else fault, not yours.

Well, recession or not, your clients retention should be the most important activity you have. You want them to come back, over and over again, even if you are not the cheapest. Because, unlike your new clients, you know them, their needs, their payments, their tastes. So much emphasis is made these days in new client marketing while nothing is done for current customer retention.

The same you probably managed to grab someones customer, someone else will take yours. Because you obviously do not care. You want new, now. Shouldn’t your growth of your business be measures as much by how many customers you retain than how many new you sign up ? Do you pay attention to their needs instead of looking for new markets ? Sure you can find yourself a niche, but what happens to your faithful customers, will they follow you ? Do they even care if you tweet ?

So turn the chair around. Stop looking at what you could do and focus on what can be done. Stop wasting energy ( and cash) on prospect and start fixing the leaks. Why are you loosing clients, why do they go for cheaper ? Do they feel that your content is not worth that much anymore? Did you even notice they left ?

Start building a sound and safe foundation instead of thinking about the tower . Sure new client marketing is cool and graphically challenging. But your stuff was cool too for those that still purchase from you. Why ignore them? So stop with the”I” complain and start listening to them.

Posted in technology, lens, commercial stock, focus, license, transaction, photojournalism, Midstock, editorial | Print | No Comments »

Eye Ball

June 27, 2010 by pmelcher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Search : The Future

April 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

The surf wizard. the Photo bot. Give a keyword to a bot, it comes back with the image. Better, enter a concept, or a description. it will then surf the whole wide web and return with an image. Whether from an amateur or pro, it won’t matter. Because the image matters. Like information, the image will come to you, instead of you having to got to the image. That is the future of image search.

If you are not in a rush, it could scout for days, weeks, waiting for the perfect image. It could even us knowledge base intelligence to return the exact photograph, based on thousands, millions, gazillions of queries and rejects/approvals.   It would be hard not to find the right image anymore, extremely hard.

Sure, it could use similar search, as well of graphical input. The technology exists already, it just has not been out in place.  The reason is that technology would not be profitable for anyone but a geek who could care about revenue.

Just imagine : You send a email with a photo description, and like a dog, it comes back with the right image. All you would have to do is license it properly and your done. No more webs browsing in multiple password protected photo collection, no more spending hours on Flickr, Google images or others looking at irrelevant images. You would continue your work as the bot would do the search for you.

It shouldn’t be long before we see this, or very similar product.

Posted in license, focus, technology, commercial stock, Search, keyword, filter, flickr, google, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

A piece of Advice (for free)

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 »

Monkey Business (For Real)

December 3, 2009 by pmelcher.

It said that if you give a typewriter to a monkey and a lot of time, eventually he will write a Shakespearean play. So what happens when you give a camera. Will you ever get a Cartier-Bresson book ? A 33 year old Orangutan named Nonja who lives in a zoo in Austria has been given a camera this Tuesday and has since been snapping happily.

“Nonja takes photographs with a Samsung ST1000 digital camera which connects directly to her Facebook album via wi-fi - when she presses the shutter button the photo is uploaded. The camera has a protective cover to protect against  chewing.” says The Age.com. She  has already accumulated more than 2,000 fans since she has started her Facebook page this Tuesday.Every time she snaps a picture, she also gets a raisin, which is more than most human photographers get.

So what next? Will Getty make her sign an exclusive contract ( isn’t it what Getty thinks of its photographers already )? Or will Corbis buy the entire Zoo and merge it with Veer and announce, once again, that profitability is right around the corner? Will microstockers go up in arms in saying this is unfair competition and request raisins too ? Or will they also start chewing their cameras? Will PDN make a cover story on her and will Nikon endorse her? Will she start her own photo agency and slashes prices to one raisin per image ? Will Getty be able to follow such a price ?

Regardless, Nonja will keep on taking pictures and posting them on facebook .

Posted in celebrity, focus, technology, copyright, web 2.0, corbis, slideshow, getty | Print | 3 Comments »

It’s not a time to be Thankful

November 25, 2009 by pmelcher.

It’s right around the corner. Actually, you can already hear it’s footsteps. E-magazines are coming and coming fast. From Hearst Magazines preparing its own player to the formation of biggest coalition of magazine publishers, from the upcoming Apple tablet ( maybe) to the current Kindle, publication are pro actively preparing their full digital migrations. It’s not a fad but a survival issue.

Already the New York Times and the WSJ are available on the Kindle for a subscription. They will all use images. If the web traffic is any reference, photogrpahy is one main reason for traffic. So how are you going to price them ?

Will you be happy to license your image by file size ? Good luck. The digital version of these magazine will need much smaller size than print magazine, thus allowing them to feed themselves on your lower priced content.

Will you apply the pathetic rates currently applied for online usage. From $5 to $40, that will certainly not help your bottom line, unless if you want to reach it very fast.

Will you do a subscription deal a la Getty? Unlimited use for a flat fee. Good luck here too. As digital takes much less space and has a more rapid turnaround, they will have used most of your library for a miserable flat fee in less than a year.

Finally, will you continue to let them tear away all the IPTC information that you so painstakingly added to every single one of your files

So, what is the solution ? Well, for once, unlike with the web publication, you should have a strategy, and a very clear one. You should not react to people coming to you saying” It’s new, we don’t know if its going to work, we have no budget ” and let them have your pictures for a -low fee. Why ? because as it might not currently look like it now but for editorial, those E- magazine will become your main source of income in the next coming five years. And if you let them, they will put you out of business.

So, before you accept crappy prices because you think that “any sale is better than no sales” mentality or that you get lured into this “oh, but it is great publicity” trap, think about how what you agree to now  will affect you in five years

One solution is to  continue to price your images related to circulation. It is much easier to track circulation online or on a E device than on print. If they start with a low subscription, the license fee can be low. And as their circulations rises, your licensing prices should too. That is simple enough, no ? You share their effort and grow with them. Since your images are partly responsible for their growth success, its only fair.

Don’t wait for your useless trade association to help you with this as they apparently couldn’t care less. None of them have come out with any recommendation nor analysis. They just want you to pay your fees and collect sponsorship money.

Talk to each other : use Facebook, Twitter,  or the phone. Do not agree on pricing, because that is completely illegal. But agree on licensing models that make sense. Organise meetings, discuss, challenge each other. Ask your agency what they plan to do and how they plan to face this new pricing challenge. Make them think.

It would be nice, for once, to see this industry to be creative and pro active. Don’t you think ?

Posted in license, multimedia, Search, celebrity, magazine, commercial stock, technology, focus, newspaper, web 2.0, transaction, editorial, law, finance, PACA, photojournalism, CEPIC, getty | Print | No Comments »