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 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 »

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 »

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 »

September 24, 2009 by pmelcher.

I do not want to see another photo essay, multimedia or any visual on dying Africans. Never, ever again.  Enough. I understand that it makes for compelling images, that it seems that the photographers cares, but it present such a distorted vision of this beautiful continent. Not every country is at war, not every African is an orphan dying of aids or malnutrition. Not everyone lives in a broken down shaft wearing nothing more than rip jeans.

But from here, from the United States of America, a country which is still very much struggling with its very, very  racist past, it is just not sending the right message. It is actually saying “look, Africa is this continent full of malnourished savages with hatchets dying of aids because they are uneducated”. It is the biggest, longest, most powerful brainwashing operation that photojournalists have gladly contributed to with open arms.

This ongoing belief, supported by photo festivals like Visa and others, that photojournalism is all and only about blood, decay, despair and endless wars has found in Africa an endless feeding ground.

Although most of these images do not lie, it is not the Truth. This is not Africa. It would be like putting a loupe on a beautiful dress and  only continuously showing its one flaw.

The reason is clear. It is mainly because of NGO photojournalism. Rich people give money to NGO’s who then hire photographers to document their work. And since they operate in poor, war and disease stricken area of Africa, that is all we get to see these days. And because of the continued lack of funding of the editorial press, we will probably see even more, not less.

Just imagine your perception of America if all you would see were images of  9/11, Katrina, Detroit, urban ghettos and nothing else. Don’t laugh Europe, we could do the same with you. Would you ever consider going there on vacation ?

Africa, or at least it’s despair, has become the playing ground of the new photojournalists. Like a badge of honor, you’re not a real photojournalist if you have not covered at least one desolate part of the continent. The results is thousand upon thousand of reportages , essays, multimedias, especially online, repeating the same stories to a saturation point. No wonder magazines will not publish them even if some are extremely brilliant. They are, as the readers, fed up.

In  a way, photojournalism is killing itself by over repetition. Ironically, it is also deforming our view of the world by being so stubbornly surgical and mono sighted. It is replacing reality with cliches, destroying what it tries to explain.

So please no more images of half naked dying soldiers full of flies under an imponderable sun, no more death looking eyes on top of an extremely malnourished 3 year old, no more images of Kalashnikov-wearing tweens walking barefoot on dirt pathways amid the empty Savannah. It will end up making everyone look the other way, if it hasn’t already. Make us hope, make us want to get involved. Don’t disgust. You are not better, or more useful, because you took pictures of it and we didn’t. If you keep this up, it’s not Africa that will disappear first, but those who try, so poorly, to make us aware of its plights.

Posted in multimedia, magazine, focus, lens, newspaper, TIME, editorial, slideshow, photojournalism, news | Print | 6 Comments »

September 17, 2009 by pmelcher.

It is amusing to see that the photography world, especially those who persist in shooting for commercial stock, have yet to use the tools around them.

Up the now, the only intelligence gathering tool that has been used ad-nauseum, has been the mighty Excel sheet with pages of past sales. Does a past criminal has more change of killing again than someone who has never committed a crime ? If you answered yes, your the excel type, if you said no, read on.

Science, as we all know, has progressed by leaps and bounds. We all learned how we see light and color, something that has taken our scientists a very, very long time to understand. But then, we drop science, pick up our cameras, and rely on our spreadsheets to predict what will sell.

Why not continue to piggy back science ? How do we understand information, what are the colors that make us react, the shapes. Sure, it takes a lot of reading of different aspects of scientific discovery, but aren’t photographers humanist at heart? Well, at least those  with a heart instead of a wallet. Sociology, psychology, brain theory, history, anthropology, all those are fields which should be under heavy surveillance by all  photographers, and photo agencies agency.

For example, recent study in brain theory ( you known, the reason why our brains does what it does) suggest that our brain is entirely geared in trying to predict what will happen next. It uses our senses, plus our memory, obviously, to make an assessment of our current situation and quickly predict what to expect next. In another way, our brain dislikes surprises..

How does that affect photography? Well, here are some suggestions. If the brain constantly tries to predict, than it will quickly pass over banality ( what it considers will not change) and focuses on the unknown and /or the potentially versatile. Thus unpredictability will catch our attention much more than the obvious. Mostly because our brain functions will try to analyze and process the situation in order to figure out what will/could happen next.

Photography  should then be the art of catching the unpredictable (or suggesting it) . Not forcibly in the actual frame that is seen, but sometimes in the next one that is hinted. Thus, putting the viewers brain in a state of forced analysis of the situation it is seeing and provoking a thought. Or many. This will force the viewer to use past experiences, knowledge, memories, emotions to attempt to reconcile the photograph with a possible outcome. It can also be an emotional outcome.

Think about it. Look at the images that have striked you the most and that you like the best, and based on what you have just read above, see if it applies. Are those photographs your favorite because they provoked a sense of unpredictability that you were forced to reconcile with your knowledge of the world at that time ?

This is just an example of how current scientific advances are of tremendous help to our trade. There are many, many others. Those who are interested in perfecting their art should drop the business manuals, their keywording manuals and the SEO handbooks and should rather pick up any books related to human science.

Posted in focus, technology, commercial stock, keyword, photojournalism, finance, filter, editorial | Print | No Comments »

August 14, 2009 by pmelcher.

The future of photography is exclusive content. Not exclusive as in no one else wants to shoot this, otherwise called “niche” photography. No, no. Niche photography is just exactly that : a specialized market. And with specialized comes limited.

When photography was still film, print and slide, no one could really copy as they could not see what you had shot. As digital distribution came to become a standard, other photographers saw what was being offered, and said :”hey, I can shoot that”. They invented Royalty Free. As broadband became more and more available, individuals saw royalty free and rights managed and said ” hey, I can shoot that”. And microstock was invented.

The pricing of images became inversely proportional to the volume created. The more created, the least costly.

Sure, some did  some variation on images. But they only tapped on the variation of the market. Which is never much. Others came out with some new ideas, quickly replicated by the thousands by diverse photographers worldwide.

Others decided that the only way to keep some value was to get content hard for others to copy.  Like exploding volcanoes, or deep underwater photography. Or rain forest insects. and get really specialized at that. Problem is, that is also not a big market.

So what is the solution? Do video? doubtful. we will see the same trend quickly in video. actually microstock have already invaded video before it got mainstream and beat the traditional RM and RF companies to it. Forget it.

First, stop shooting stock. The market is not there anymore. well, not for pros. Shoot commission work only and put that in stock. That is how the whole market started anyway and how it will survive. why? because commission will give you access to places, or people that are not available to the common mortal. It will also create images that are specific to a need that no one else has thought about. why ? well, because if they had, they would have used stock instead of hiring you.

Once you have that content, sell it well and hard. Do not drop it in the dollar bin. Those images will be your calling cards, both for stock and for more assignments. Yes, you are expensive, but your are also very good.

Second, do not copy. If you have an idea, look to see if it has been done. If it has, drop it. Move on. be creative.

Third, stop looking at your sales report. They tell you what sold, not what will sell. and while you are at it, stop reading  those creative intelligence papers. If you read it, thousands of other photographers have too. What is the point ?

Go to workshops to learn how and what NOT to shoot. Same as above. Learn to be a loner.

Dis-learn: Forget all the rules, regulations, obligations, conditions, and other “…ions” that are stuffed in your head. Each one is another rope to your creativity.

Dis connect: Your computer screen is more a distraction than anything else. If you don’t have one, get a smart phone for those important emails and use that. On top of being a distraction, it can lead very quickly to a “groupthink” mentality . Its not a good crowd to hang out with.

Do not offend. If your images are offensive in any way, they will never be used for commercial purpose, and less and less for editorial. If you want to shock people, do it with beauty, talent and art. Beautiful sells, sometimes much better than sex.

Be emotional : too many photographers, in an attempt to be as generic as possible in order to be attractive to the biggest market, create blend, lifeless images. Be as emotional as humanly possible. The more your images generates emotions in its viewers, the better. But do not shock, or repulse. Reach for the happy, good emotions.

Hide your best work.  Only your clients should see it. no one else.

Do not share or post your techniques. You will only be popular with the ones that have no imaginations. Like leeches, they feed on others knowledge.

Never, ever ask for the opinion of another photographer. If its good, they will copy you, if it’s bad, they won’t tell you.

Do not think volume. One image will not compensate for the other. The more scarce your work, the more valuable. You are not a factory, after all.

Do not beleive there is a “secret”. There is none. That’s the secret.

Work on the process, not the result. If the process is perfect, the result will be.

Do not equip yourself too much. Talent is not measure by the numbers of lenses or gizmos you carry. Actually, the less you carry, the more you can concentrate on your images.

In other words, be exclusive. Make your content unique and keep it so.

Disclaimer : The Bohemian is not a photographer. He never was and never will be. Although he did sell one of his companies to one of the Big Twos, he doesn’t pretend to carry all knowledge. The information above is to be taken “as is”. If it doesn’t work, no one is legally, or otherwise, liable. Should you want real counsel, please go buy one of those very expensive books, DVD’s, or boxes that promises miracles. That should work. Since you have not paid anything to view this blog, you will not be reimbursed. Satisfied or not.Ever.

Posted in focus, technology, lens, commercial stock, license, prosumer, Royalty free, editorial, transaction, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | 5 Comments »

April 22, 2009 by pmelcher.

“In five years? Maybe the only stock businesses are companies that add value by scouring the web for the best work within a genre….sort of back to photo research services.“

When the great Ellen Boughn speaks, the world of photography listens : read the whole interview here :

http://learnaniche.com/blog/2009/04/22/ellen-boughn-and-the-future-of-stock-photography/

Posted in focus, commercial stock, Midstock, prosumer, transaction, PACA, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

March 25, 2009 by pmelcher.

A bunch of photography associations recently banded together and issued a joint statement.  Called “Save photography !”, it is looking to garner enough signatures from photo professionals to make an impact. The country is France and the associations are Freelens (a photojournalist association), the UPC ( Union des Photographes Createurs) and the Saif ( An association for creators of visuals).

In a nutshell, the statement says that photography is under the multiple attacks of “royalty Free”, microstock pricing and images credited under the all encompassing “DR” , which stands for Droits Reserves, meaning Rights Reserved, which is a corny way to say “we do not who owns this image but it is certainly not yours and we will not pay anyone”.  Falling prices, the “commoditisation” of photography and the legal definition of an original are also issues being raised. You can read the full statment here ( in French).

There is a certain legitimacy to their complains, albeit it seems what they want to save is the business side of photography, not really photography itself. As all things French, the petition doesn’t offer any other solution than asking the government to do something about it.

What I suggest they do, is ask Getty Images to stop giving  $20,000 grants to TV photographer Alex Majoli.To see what I mean, please see his latest production on Magnum in Motion:

Maybe he needs the money to purchase a better  tv set for his next project ( in color, maybe ?).

Regardless people, who are you kidding? I see great work from pro photographers who could actually use the money to achieve great work. What is wrong with you ? is this the kind of photography you really want to promote ? Henri Cartier Bresson must be having a tsunami in his grave as I can assure you, that was NOT the reason he created Magnum. Not for that kind of nombrilistic, uber self-absorded, hyper refflective intello photography.

The only way photography can be saved, besides asking the French government, of course, is to stop promoting this “salon photography “whose serves no other purpose than…heck, I don’t even know what purpose it has.

Posted in No sense, multimedia, focus, Magnum, photojournalism, slideshow, getty, law, france, editorial, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »

March 11, 2009 by pmelcher.

Actually, it is much more. Very, very cool..I want one right now.

Posted in lens, commercial stock, technology, focus, photojournalism, prosumer, editorial | Print | No Comments »