March 2, 2010 by pmelcher.

How to iTablet the Ipad ? Microsoft is about to reveal something that could bypass the need to carry yet another big thing just to read magazine, newspapers or surf websites. Called the “Mobile Surface” and only to be shown to employees for now (must be extra beta), it is a small portable box that will project an interactive image on any surface.

Look :

 Of course, there is a lot of questions left. Mainly, will it not crash. However, this technology could be integrated in your cellphone ( the smart kind) and, while keeping the size small, allow for higher viewing real estate.  One will have to see how editing an image on a blue table will work out, or keeping your email private in an airplane.

This is however a very interesting development for E-publishing  ( just think of a 3D video or immersive photography) as well as computing in general. More stuff here

Posted in technology, lens, Newsweek, E Reader, magazine, multimedia, slideshow, photojournalism, web 2.0, newspaper, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »

February 26, 2010 by pmelcher.

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

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

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

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

From yesterday:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 20, 2010 by pmelcher.

If you haven’t seen Matt Stuart’s photography, you should stop everything you are doing now and take a look. His style his brilliant, his humor, pointy, his handling of perspective, a pure delight,  his mastering of composition, well, a masterpiece.

Do not go to fast through his images because you might miss something . The revelation usually happens in the background, where our eyes usually do not wonder.

If Henri Cartier-Bresson and Robert Frank  had had a son, it would had been Matt Stuart. Enough bla bla. Take a look :

Posted in lens, magazine, photojournalism, slideshow, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »

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 2, 2009 by pmelcher.

I was unaware of  Trent Parke until a friend pointed it out today. Maybe, and most probably, I had seen some of his images somewhere and had failed to register his credit. It happens.

Magnum in Motion, one of the best achievement of the Magnum photo agency, has just published “Minutes to Midnight”, a long but extremely well done multimedia, showing Trent, his work and his ideas. Amazing images along with an as well amazing character. A great show to discover this Week End while you catch up with the important things in life. Like looking at great talent:

Posted in technology, lens, Magnum, multimedia, web 2.0, editorial, slideshow, photojournalism, news | Print | No 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 »

August 19, 2009 by pmelcher.

Some photo editors need a medal…along with their editor in chief. Not a one time award for best editing. No. Something bigger, brighter and more reflective of their achievement.  Jody Quon, Director of Photography for the wonderful New York Magazine should be the first recipient. Not only the photography in every issue is always amazing, refreshing, surprising and captivating, but the Fashion Issue that just hit the stands this week surpasses everything. The portraits are dead on, the stock is carefully chosen, but the real treat is a 24 pages photo essay by Marcus Bleasdale on the fall fashion shows in Paris.

Yes, 24 pages, mostly double page spread, of pure, unaltered, hardly captioned photography. No article, no explanation, just pure photography. This is such a rare and powerful event in magazine publishing, it should be noted screamed about. When all other magazines, worldwide, are using less and less photography, in what they beleive is a healthy way to cut costs, New York Magazine goes entirely the other way and puts more.

It is not the first time a magazine hires a war/documentary photographer to shoot fashion. It has been done before, hoping to shed a different vision on the already over-photographed catwalks. Most of the time, the result is very bad. The reason : The photographers couldn’t care less about what they are seeing and you can see it. They would much prefer to be paid to go back on the battlefield, any battlefield.

Marcus Bleasdale, recent new member of  VII  photo agency and mostly known for his powerful and multiple award winning work on the horrible conditions of gold mining in Congo, was up to now, mostly seen in Time or Newsweek magazine, if hardly at all. He would take his work and expose it everywhere it could make a difference (See article here). If you know the man, he is not the type you will see at parties, movie premieres and or at fashion shows. That is a world that he avoids at  all cost.

Liu Wen at the Alexander McQueen show. (Photo: Marcus Bleasdale)

So, seeing his photographs of runways and backstage is a shock. I had to read his credit three or four times before I could convince myself that this was the same man who has been living in mud, contracting the worse horrible diseases, hiding from corporate-hired hit man, in order to expose the realities of Africa.

The New York Magazine spread is Marcus all right: It is clearly judgmental, sometimes violent in its opinion. Some models look like criminals just arrested for a crime they know they are guilty off and the whole atmosphere reeks of decadence. Like a party that has been going on too long. You see and feel that Marcus doesn’t like this crowd. There is also a strong sense of solitude, probably wanted by Marcus but accentuated by the editing of Jody.

So, for all those who complain and whine about the death of the photo essay in the American magazine landscape, go out and purchase one, or ten copies of this week’s New York Magazine. Not only you will love it, but you will also send a clear signal that this is what we all want to see more off. Furthermore, the images do not seem to be online, so if you want to experience them, you better get off that couch.

Thank you Marcus Bleasdale, Thank you Jody Quon, Thank  you Adam Moss ( That is the Editor in Chief, in case you didn’t know)

Posted in technology, lens, Newsweek, magazine, TIME, editorial, photojournalism, news | Print | 1 Comment »

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 »

August 3, 2009 by pmelcher.

Just caught an interesting initiative, half way between desperation and a great idea. A group of former LA Times photographers recently laid off from the newspaper have grouped together to form The prophotographynetwork

“We will shoot anything, anywhere, for anyone,” seems to be their key phrase, along with “the best of the best photographers for every event” . The group has an impressive pedigree with some Pulitzer prize winners in their mix.  While they do not advertise any pricing and the visible portfolios on their site is very weak, it is certainly an initiative to keep watching. Maybe it will grow into a nationwide, or even international, association of ex-newspaper photographers who will pool their resources. They seem to be closely associated to the Journalism Shop , a similar initiative for text journalist.

It remains to be seen if there is market for such an offer and if any of these two will be able to survive in these incertain times. However, it is certainly a great promotional idea for those in these groups and a very good way to attract attention.

We wish them luck and success.

Posted in technology, lens, magazine, newspaper, editorial, photojournalism, news | 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 »