November 24, 2009 by pmelcher.

For those who still think that Google Images is a great tool to find images and that it is somewhat the savior photography, I suggest they perform a simple search for “Michelle Obama“, the first lady of the United States, and apply a “face” filter.

This is what you get on the first page:

regardless of your political opinions, this is a revolting and pathetic search result for images. When confronted about this, Google hides behind its sanctified algorithms and claim innocence.  I am the first to praise the ability for technology to make our lives easier. However, technology without morality is violently dangerous and destructive for any society.

Freedom of speech, sure, as long as it doesn’t become freedom of insult. Robots, bots, algorithm to find the right images, sure, as long as the results are pertinent to the search. This is a good example of a world without photo editors. This is your images on Google.

UPDATE : Google refuses to acknowledge failure of it search algorithm. In an article published in the Los Angeles Times today, Google Inc. spokesman Scott Rubin said  :”It’s offensive to many people, but that alone is not a reason to remove it from our search index. We have, in general, a bias toward free speech.”.

While it is commendable for Google to support free speech, this is not the reason people are upset. The issue here is how an obviously inappropriate image of the first lady of America ends up on as the top result on a search for her name.  This is a complete failure of their search algorithm. Obviously, someone typing “Michelle Obama” and using the “Face only” filter is looking for a head shot of her, not a cruelly photo shopped image. If this type of result was offered on professional image licensing platform, like Getty, Vorbis or Alamy, clients would never come back.

Google, of course, cannot admit publicly that his search algorithm is a failure. That would send it’s stock price in the abyss as it is the core of their business. May this be a warning for those who still see Google and its image search as the perfect tool for photography.

Update 2:  Here is Google version of free speech ( apparently, its all relative) :

Posted in Search, celebrity, technology, No sense, keyword, photoshop, filter, google, news | Print | No 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 18, 2009 by pmelcher.

We often hire photographers at PictureGroup for shoots all over the United States. In order to find the appropriate ones, we use a combination of tools. Our number one remains recommendations. To us, there is nothing more valuable then when an editor, or another photographer that we like and trust recommends another photographer. There is not only a certain guarantee of quality but also very important, a guarantee of professionalism and business knowledge. Because, regardless of quality, if a photographer doesn’t deliver the proper files at the right place at the right time, than it is useless. It might sound ridiculous in the XXI century but there are still many photographers who hardly know how to properly FTP images.

Regardless, our second tool for hiring photographer is the almighty web. Contrary to what many would like you to think, we try to avoid Google. Why ? Because the results are very of poor quality. The photographers that surface to the top in a Google search are not the best, the most talented or the most relevant to what you are looking for but those who have spend many hours on building a SEO. And the most talented in this are the Commercial/ Wedding photographers. They are also helped by the fact that Google will advantage them because they are the most searched for. Google has recently added most click results after a search in their ranking. Nothing against these, but they are certainly not the type we are looking for. So, based on our experience, here are the do and don’t does of a photographer if they want to be found and hired on the web.

1. No Music. I have music in my office, thank you, and I really do not need you to supply yours. It is very annoying, especially if you are trying to browse in a public place and suddenly your computer starts playing some crappy RF song. I am here to find a good photographer, not a radio station.

2. Keep the flash and slideshow at a minimum. I have nothing against flash but when a whole site is just flash based, I move on. Although I have a very fast connection, I really don’t have the time to wait for some flash animation to load. You are not the first or the last website I will visit so please help me in my job. If you slow me down, I will hate you forever. Also, thanks for the slideshows but I prefer navigating at my own pace. Some images, I would like to study more, others, I couldn’t care less. I am an adult and know how to click.

3. Make it simple. I love cool sites for what they are : Cool sites. But when I am looking to hire a photographer, I have neither the time nor the will to try and figure out riddle navigation. It is distracting and not useful. I just want to see images, not great navigation tools.

4. Portfolio : Have many for your different interests. I don’t mind if a photographer has a people, architecture and animal portfolio for example. I will look at the one that interests me and not the others. Just don’t mix everything into one.

5. List your  clients. Very, very important. That will tell me that you have done work for similar clients and it will boost my confidence in your ability to deliver by 100%.  Please don’t lie.

6. Contact info. It should not be an afterthought. Put it in a very obvious place where I can easily copy and paste it. I understand you are afraid of spammers, but I am not one. If you make it impossible for me to add your contact info into my system, I will get frustrated and that is not what you want. I don’t mind if there is a few phone numbers and one email, as long as any of those allows me to reach you immediately. All our jobs are rush and I need to know if your available or not. If I can’t reach you, I will move on.

7. Be everywhere. Don’t stop at just your website. We use Photoshelter, Sportshooter, Photoserve, Lightstalker, Blackbook, WorldAssignment and other database to find our photographers. You should too. Google is neither the beginning nor the end of a search. Be where your clients are. Most of these sites are inexpensive or free so why not post some of your best images there and linked them back to your site ? Help yourself be found.

8. Location. For us as well as many other people looking to hire you, location is one of the first search terms. With these crunch time, we , like many others, need to find a photographer in a particular city because we have no travel budget. So the city where you work must be very clearly visible . It is your second most important asset after your photography skills.

9. Bio. I like to know who I am dealing with. No, not your personal life and religious affiliations, but a short, well written bio that speaks of your photographic direction. Make it so I can feel that we have briefly met and you seem like a nice person to talk too.

10. Update it. Please, please. Don’t build a website and leave it orphan. If the latest picture on there is a bad scan from something you shot in the 80’s, however great it is, that is a complete turn off. You are only as good as your last three jobs. It can be six months old, that is fine, but not 6 years. Same goes if you have a blog. So many times I see blogs with three sparse entries a few years old. If you can’t update it than please don’t have a blog. It is not are requirement. No blog is much better than an unmaintained blog.

Hope these tips help a little. Of course not everyone looking for a photographer online will have the same requirements but these are certainly very, very common. Remember, you website should be like a seductive introduction to yourself, a bit like a speed dating exercise where you are not aloud to talk.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, technology, commercial stock, Search, google, editorial, slideshow, photojournalism, web 2.0, news | Print | 3 Comments »

November 4, 2009 by pmelcher.

How useless is your photo association? ASMP, PACA, NANP and others have been denied a voice in the Google book settlement . Why ? because they requested to be part of the class action suit much, much too late. According to court documents, the litigation regarding Google’s attempt to scan any and all books in existence had started back in September 2005 and these associations just recently requested to be a part of it.

The court probably felt that  the sudden arrival of photo association was more due to the agreed settlement ( or rather, the smell of money) rather than a real concerned about copyright issue.

So, next time you prepare to pay your dues, or you see your image used by Google, for free, thing twice.

full court document here: Photo Association Google Books

Posted in google, copyright, web 2.0, PACA, law, news | 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 15, 2009 by pmelcher.

We hadn’t heard from the PLUS coalition for a while. This loose organization of visual professional who has been tediously trying to create a standard for licensing has suddenly burst out of its silence with two important announcements:

1) The ASMP has dug into its $1,3 Million  fund it had received last year ( we hadn’t not heard of that for a while too) to retrieve $150,000 as a generous gift to PLUS. This adds up to the $85,000 ASMP had already given to the coalition. This probably makes the ASMP the biggest provider of funds to PLUS by far (usually, organizations donate around $25,000). The question is why is the ASMP so interested in PLUS as opposed to fighting Google and its book scanning initiative ? PLUS has made no headway in the last few years and although everyone agrees it could become a useful tool, it has yet to be adopted and put in practice anywhere. It is also quite evident, although never clearly announced, that the PLUS business model is to create a licensing registry that would charge for its usage.  For pennies, indeed, but with billions of licenses happening online worldwide, it can quickly becomes a huge cash cow. Maybe ASMP sees this as a long term investment.

Also, with such a heavy donor, will PLUS feel the pressure to satisfy their needs (those of ASMP)  rather than those of publishers. After all, like in politics, those who have put more in usually see the benefits first.

2) PLUS has chosen Picscout as the exclusive provider of image recognition services to the PLUS Registry . That resembles the deal that PLUS had made with ImageSpan a while back. How does a coalition that is supposed to create a standard make exclusive arrangements with private companies ? It is a bit like the IPTC deciding that the only tool for reading metadata should be made by Adobe ? Image tracking is still in its infancy but yet PLUS has decided that Picscout is not only the best, but the only one? There are companies currently working on similar, if not better solutions that I really doubt PLUS has even approached. What is behind this deal that we are not told about ?

Picscout has recently announced its  Image IRC, which is an image registry who does not to want to say its real name, and has now combine forces with PLUS, another image registry in the making, for more fire power. Both will split the huge potential revenue for access to their overgrowing databases. What will happen soon is that image creators and copyright holders will soon be held captive by these organizations that will become the forced middle man for every licensing transaction.

With investors with mysterious agendas, strange relationships ( Creative Commons), Exclusive agreements ( ImageSpan and now Picscout), it is behaving more like a secret society that keeps its operations in the shade while putting little effort in the wide spread acceptances of its offerings. Not very social.

Posted in license, copyright, Plus, technology, IPTC, google, transaction, finance, photoshop, law | Print | No Comments »

September 23, 2009 by pmelcher.

While the industry is  going through its most radical change of its small and short existence, it seems that everyone is caught standing and staring at the incoming headlights. Many violent issues are affecting the way business is done today, with possible long lasting repercussions, yet it seems that all are taking cover under a “business as usual” blanket.

Google Book: The DOJ has just concluded that the current agreement is not fair. This would be a good time for the photo industry to jump in and make its voice heard. why ? Because scanning books and offering them under a digital format requires a new license for the images and Google is not offering to compensate anyone for those. They are offering to compensate the authors of the books, however. Furthermore, the images thus scanned and available on line might become another source of orphan work and a playing ground for those looking for “free” images. The biggest providers of images to Book publishers ( think Corbis or Getty) have remained very, very quiet on this. Are they making their own deals ? But the real scandal here is the complete silence and lack of action from those associations who claim to represent the industry. PACA, ASPP, ASMP, APA and so on have not taken one step to seriously address the issue and only recently a single lonely voice coming from Europe has dared to express their concern (CEPIC) . It is not going to be enough.

Metadata: At a pivotal time where more images are being used online than on print, there is still no agreement between the photo industry and publishers on how to carry and protect metadata. You would think, since it’s their livelihood, that the photo industry would have spearheaded an effort to make sure information would travel, and stay, in each and every image published online. No. Nothing. Images can and will be published online with absolutely no credit outside or inside the image. Actually, software companies like Adobe, will gladly help strip any information inside an image, even when it’s a clear violation of the DMCA.  There used to be an agreement, sometimes still in practice, in the editorial world that when an  image was  miscredited or not credited at all it would be billed at twice the amount. Out of respect for the creator. Guess that will not going to survive.

Pricing: The latest quote I have heard was $5 for editorial usage on a website own by one of the biggest publisher in the world. The funny part was that the photo editor quoting me this price was amused that someone had actually agreed to this. Photo agencies, these days, are their worst enemies. They even get scared of themselves when they see a mirror. Everyone agrees worldwide that the future of editorial, and commercial photography, is online. Most form of print magazine will die in the next five years and be replaced by an online equivalent. Yet, everyone charges pennies for licensing rights . How will that ever replace the print magazine market as a source of income? It baffles me and any four year old with a calculator.

” Why did you go out of business ?”

” Me ? O well , for the price I was licensing my images, I couldn’t pay my bills”

“Mmm…brilliant !! What are you going to do now ?”

” I don’t know, maybe hit my head against a wall real hard. That sounds like fun too”

Getty and Corbis: One is using and abusing its dominance on the market to use and abuse photographers, and the other is playing unfair competition.  Yet, it doesn’t seem to bother anyone. I was recently having lunch with a commercial photographer from the New England area who mostly shoots travel and pharmaceutical images and who has a distribution contract with the oil company legacy company. He was proud to announce that he regularly sees, on his sales report, images licensed  to big companies, at $3. When asked why he accepted those prices, he said ” its better than nothing”. Needless to add that his overall revenue, from the same distributor, has dropped 40 to 60% in the last year. After taxes, those $3 images probably leaves him with a few bucks. I would not get out of bed for two bucks. Not only that, but Getty also pressures, threatens, blackmail and abuse contributing photographers on a permanent basis. Yet, no one seems to voice their concern. If that is not a monopolistic attitude, I wonder what is ? Next to them sits Corbis. Now, how many industries have a company that has not made a profit since their creation , 15 years ago ? How is that fair competition ? If Bill Gates likes loosing money so much, why doesn’t he open a car company ? Or bail out a few banks ? Why does the photo industry have to deal with a company that does not obey to the most simple and basic rules of business ? Sure, they are not a monopoly, although they could, but they are certainly unfair competition.

Trade Associations: Someone has to explain why the photo trade associations are so useless. Not one has any usefulness and all should be referred as clubhouses instead of associations. They do nothing to represent or defend their members. They mostly act as social organizers, as if nothing of importance was happening in our industry. Not one has a lawyer in Washington DC to help promote and defend our trade. Instead, they act as conduits for manufacturers and service companies, while receiving nice juicy kickbacks for their executive members.

It will not be long for us to see more closing, bankruptcy and  maybe a Ponzi scheme or two. It is not a surprise. As long as those who work in this trade think silence and apathy are the best tools to increase business, nothing will change.

“Brave Clarice. You will let me know when those lambs stop screaming, won’t you? ” _ Hannibal Lecter_

Posted in license, Search, newspaper, copyright, magazine, commercial stock, technology, google, web 2.0, editorial, law, corbis, transaction, finance, CEPIC, PACA, getty | Print | No Comments »

August 12, 2009 by pmelcher.

In times of crisis, people will go anywhere to search for answers. Some will even start believing anything as long as the promise is for a succesful and happy ending. Some will even commit mass suicide if the promise is strong enough.

Surely, we have not come there yet. But as the situation for photographers gets more and more difficult, snake oil merchants seem to appear out of everywhere. They promise everything, as long as you pay for it. This package will make you a better while this one will transform you as the best salesman the world has ever seen. Interrestingly enough, since most of the photogrpahy commerce is done online, some technology companies also claim to have the key to success. With this or that program, website or  “secrets of the internet” booklets and free dvd, your images will be seen, and bought, by billions of happy internet browser.

They use as arguments their professional pedigree that ranges anywhere from the inventor of stock photography to ” i sold my agency for millions, therefore I know the market” . The tech companies themselves use exeptions as rules and claim that if one of their members succeeded therefor you can.

Let’s take a breather here. If you are such succesful photographer, why would you sell booklets and dvd for others to learn your ’secrets ” and compete with you ? If you sold your agency, ( did you split the revenue with your photographers, btw ?) how does that make you a stock photo savant ? and why do you need to sell some more stuff if you are so succesful ?

Tech companies, usually started by computer wiz kids with no experience of the photo market, also seem to have cracked the holy grail of selling images online. All you ever needed was a billing and invoicing plug in to your website and the door of fortune will be open to you.

Let’s deflate some balloons here: There is no “magic trick” to photograph, no hidden secrets. There is certainly no one who has the magic formula to success. Even extremely talented and successful photographers would be hard press to explain to someone else how they did it. And if they did, what is the point. Have two hundred more of the same ?

That secret recipe doesn’t exist.  It’s different for everyone and for every market. Some photographers do very, very well in small towns because they have all the local companies, families, boutiques and publications as clients. Can they  teach you how you can do the same on the national market? no. because they don’t know.

Adding a licensing tool on your website will not make you rich. Or add revenues. Selling images is as much as professional as taking them. It’s not because you are a great photographer that you know how to sell your images. Actually, more often then not, it is the opposite.

You see them every year at Photoplus : thousands of stands promising that if you buy this or get this, or read this, or watch this, then you will be on top of the game. You see it all over blogs or photo news website : “See that sunshine on the other side? if you buy my book, package, dvd, lessons, software, plug in…i can take you there. hey, I”l even throw in a free goodie, I am so nice”

If their product was so good, then why don’t they apply it themselves instead of trying to sell it to others ? This recession seems to have brought forth more of them then ever. Don’t be fooled by these snake oil merchant. They want your hardly earned money in exchange for nothing.

Posted in technology, commercial stock, license, Search, finance, google, transaction | Print | 1 Comment »

July 29, 2009 by pmelcher.

One of the hardest and most lucrative task in photography, is editing.

It is hard because it is not a science with clear established rules. Trends, fashion, moods, seasons, local culture, a lot can interfere in the process of finding the best image.

It is lucrative, not because it’s a profession that pays well (some, like photographers, do not get paid to find their best images in a shoot), but because it can find the gold nugget in an incessant photo stream.

While it is extremely subjective  exercise, we do all seem to agree on the majority of the basic foundation : composition, lighting, subject, contrast, focus, all have to be balanced in a coordinated resonance. And it seems to work since the greatest we all seem to agree on the majority of good to great images. We all like them.

Regardless, it is a time consuming, labor intensive activity. In the microstock, RF or Commercial Stock world, it is the only non automated, high cost division. A editor can kill or save a shoot. Not unlike book editors.

Enters science and computers: How can we automate editing ? How do we teach a computer to learn what is a good image from a bad one? How do we make such a subjective task into one that a computer can understand?

Since 2005, professors at Penn State University have been working on that task, with some limited but interesting success. It is called Acquine, and its an automated photo editing engine.  To simplify the process to its extreme, the system will not judge an image based on its cultural significance, nor by the beauty of the human subject. It is purely a “dumb” editing that seems to only worry about colors, light, form, contrast, rather than any identification of object or person in an image.

It will not be judging the World Press images anytime soon.

On the foreground, it is very simple . Upload an image and it will grade it anywhere from 1 to 100. The rules applied are not divulged publicly. The result is then publicly shown with a tool for a human being to also rate the image. The assumption is that this information is then retrieved to compare the computer and human reaction to an image and adjust the algorithm.

It is a slow and long process. The results are somewhat predictable. For example, the computer seems to give high ratings to photographs with a frame . Why? because people like the delimitation of a frame. It is a known fact. It also seem to appreciate Black and White images over color, probably because it easier to analyse and simpler in contrast and definition. A lot of computer assisted object recognition cameras only work in B/W for the same reason. Finally, it seems to prefer simple compositions with not too much content and color variations. I wouldn’t be surprised if object shots would get a high rating.

This is a very new and unexplored field. After computer assisted keywording with content recognition,  automated editing is another el dorado of the photography workflow. Imagine if all you had to do was shoot and leave the process of keywording and editing to a computer that would automatically select your best images for upload. The time and the reduction of cost, specially for photo agencies who deal with a large volume of images, would be tremendous.

In searches, it could quickly retrieve the “right” images in libraries of millions of images. In fact, one of the professors has been hired by Google. It could help during a shoot, by telling a photographer if the image they are seeing is even worth taking. Here again, another professor from this project has been hired by Kodak. It could be embedded in a program like photoshop to not only select the best images, but alsio advise on the changes that could be done to make the image more perfect.

We are still a very long way to see this applied in our daily lives as it is still very much in its infancy, but make no mistake about it, it’s coming our way. You can see and play with Acquine here. And you can learn more about it here.

Posted in Search, technology, commercial stock, keyword, google, Royalty free, flickr, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

July 26, 2009 by pmelcher.

If you think it’s just one among the numerous search engines that landscape the Internet and help you search for what you’re looking for, well, you couldn’t be more wrong – Google, to put it mildly, is a search engine giant. And going a little overboard, you could say that it sets the standard for search engines, in terms of quality, innovation, efficiency, and continued improvement. I think it’s a safe bet to assume that more than 90 percent of Internet users depend on Google for their daily forays down the information highway. So you would think that this search engine is probably the best friend for anyone who is searching for tips and information on photography, ranging from tricks of the trade to the best schools that teach this subject.
But there is a darker side to Google, as most opponents of this dotcom giant’s controversial venture, Google Street View, will tell you. They’re sick and tired of all the “snooping” that they think Google is doing and are protesting against the invasion of their privacy. Google sends out its camera cars, which are equipped with revolving cameras that are fitted on the top of the vehicles, into random neighborhoods across certain countries of the world and then puts up these images on its website. While some people do like searching for their homes and themselves on this application, there are others who are aghast at this blatant invasion of privacy.
Of course, Google does argue that the faces and other sensitive information like number plates of vehicles are blurred out, but that does not stop people from recognizing you or deter thieves from scanning neighborhoods using this application before they hit it. If you don’t like what you see, you can certainly have it removed, says Google’s privacy policy, but when people have already seen what you don’t want them to see, why go to all the trouble of trying to remove the evidence?
Now this high profile candid camera has ruined the good name of many a photographer who is just randomly shooting pictures of streets and people for their own reasons, especially when they’re of places that are famous as vacation haunts or which have historical significance – people become suspicious immediately and are at your throat threatening to take away your equipment.
But, Google does have its advantages too – Google Earth is a useful tool if you’re a wildlife photographer who is looking to research the availability of animals in the location where you’re headed for a shoot.
As with any technology, Google too is a friend or foe depending on how it’s used – the more wisely we use it, the more benefits we gain.
By-line
This guest article was written by Adrienne Carlson, who regularly writes on the topic of photography colleges . Adrienne welcomes your comments and questions at her email address: adrienne.carlson1@gmail.com

Posted in lens, technology, google, editorial, law | Print | No Comments »