June 15, 2010 by pmelcher.

It’s on the verge of a precipice and let’s face it, it will be hard to prevent it. No, not the photo industry ; Ethics and photography. More and more we are seeing example of photographer being caught altering their images.

The issue is really affecting photojournalism and sports photography. Commercial shooters, Wedding “documentators”,  Celebrity photographers and  snapshooters have been doing all along with no real consequences . Sure, some aristocratic publication might find it awful that such celebrity had had her body airbrushed for this cover. They forget that celebrity photography is also a part  commercial photography. Celebrities are in the business of selling  their image and photographers are their to help them.   We don’t mind when pictures of fruits or cars are heavily retouched, so why do we care when it is celebrities?

The world of photo j, however, is another story. Because of our cultural background, we tend to gratify our sense of vision with the highest degree of realism. That is, between something touched, heard, smelled, or seen, it is the later that we credit with the most credible.

Why ? Because we have been taught that our eyes don’t lie. That if we see it, then its true.”Show me” is probably the most used term to categorically punctuate an argument. So has been the realm of photojournalism: Truly describe a moment in time and space. Or so we thought.

The history of photojournalism is riddled with example of fakes, altered images and other unethical use of photographs. Or where they ? And who decides what is ethical ? Where does these rule come from ?

Eugene Smith was notorious for spending long hours in his darkroom working on his prints ? Does it make any of his coverage lesser? Certainly not. Some other have cropped , enhanced, shadowed or even damaged their negative. After all, Robert Capa famous images of the D Day landing might not have looked like that if they hadn’t been damaged. They look real enough.

So where is the limit, and who decides? With technology making so much easier to profoundly alter images, deleting or adding items, changing the source of the lighting and so on, how can we, viewer, stay protected ? How can we be guaranteed that what we are seeing is the truth?

The short answer : we can’t. It is commendable that Reuters, along with Adobe, are working on trying to make altered files easily identifiable, but let’s face it, it will never fully work. No, the answer is where it’s always been. With the photographer and with the photo editor. If any of these two are ready to lie, than there is no protection. If they adhere to their own work ethic, than no lies will pass.

So, as our news coverage is becoming more and more crowd sourced and as editing barriers are falling, being replaced by automation, it is inevitable that our images will become less and less credible. I am still amazed, for example, that the Iranian Government did not use Twitter for its own advantage by posting images by fake users showing a different story. next time, certainly.

The way to preserve ethic and photojournalism is to have brands. Like we trust the New York Times for the veracity of its information, we could do the same for photographers and photo agencies.  A certain credit will certify a certain ethic. If photographers decide that their work need heavy photo shop, fine, but they should say it out loud. There is no problem with retouching an image, only in lying and trying to let it pass as an original.

If the IPTC consortium would be smart, they would add a requirement to a field that would have a “R” for “retouched” . Make it easy for people to mark an images as altered. After that, its up to the editors and viewers to decide.

Realistically, we will see more and more lying images abound. It’s going to be up to the viewers to be smarter and interrogating what they see. It will also be to the photogrpahers to brand themselves as instrument of truth. But then again, that is really nothing new.

Posted in magazine, technology, Magnum, commercial stock, celebrity, IPTC, editorial, wire service, photojournalism, news | Print | No Comments »

April 19, 2010 by pmelcher.

Commercial stock photography is all about problem solving. The first is how to make a living shooting commercial stock. One way to do it, is to solve other people’s problems.

When image buyers go to a Web site, it is because they have been asked to provide a solution to a very specific problem: They have text, they have a layout, they have a concept and they have a client with a message. The task: fill in the visual space with the perfect image.

Seems easy in theory. If what’s needed is a picture of a tool, get a tool. If it is a concept, it is much harder.

A photographer’s job, one that shoots stock, is to preempt this problem and solve it. The more common the problem, the more successful the image. Potentially.

How does one figure what problems need to be solved worldwide? In a way, it is not that hard. As humans living in the 21st century, we share common experiences. We seek solutions to a lot of tasks and issues. Our lives, in a sense, are a continuous search to alleviate problems. And unbeknown to us, many are shared by our peers.

So, photographing our own problems, or at least solving them, is productive. Figuring out what the next problem will be is a better way to be a successful stock shooter. The image of the solution, however, should always be tied to the problem.

Once this is understood, that a stock photographer is a problem-solver, a big step has been made. But it is not all. A stock photographer should also know how to create meaning. And for that, we need to dive a little deeper in how the brain functions.

Our eyes, in a way, are very stupid. We receive light, and it bounces into the back of our brains, at the primary visual cortex, which only sees and recognizes basic shapes, like circles, squares, triangle, etc. However, this is not the end of how we interpret a photograph in our brains. It actually goes from there to at least 30 other different places in our brains, some of which we are still figuring out what actually they do.

Some we know:
We will skip quickly over the ventral stream, which is the “what” of our brain that recognizes what an object is and what it does. Sort of the catalog section of our brain. Photographs share this space, in the frontal lob, with words, and how we interpret them. We will also fly quickly over the dorsal stream. That part of the brain creates a map of where the object is. A sort of 3D GPS system that puts the object in perspective to its surrounding.

What is interesting is a third location where the information bounces, and that is called the limbic system. That is deep inside the middle of our brain and very old. Old in the sense that it has been with us throughout our evolution. The limbic system is the part that “feels” those basic emotions, from satisfaction to fear.

Those three parts are what create meaning for a photograph and what every single human being has in common, including your potential client.

That is what stock photographers should go after: create meaning. Images should tickle that part of our brains that recognize, put in perspective and make us feel emotions, because it also makes them valued.

When a creative director or a photo editor is looking for an image, it is not just a problem they are trying to solve, but a meaning they are trying to convey.

If you look at the stock industry, with photo libraries boasting millions upon millions of images, it is easy to see that maybe 90% will never sell. They aren’t useless; they just have no meaning to anyone.

Commercial stock photography, in order to strive, has to offer an emotionally meaningful solution.

Posted in copyright, technology, Magnum, commercial stock, license, multimedia, editorial, photojournalism, keyword, pictogram, news | Print | 1 Comment »

February 2, 2010 by pmelcher.

Well, not exactly. The Investment firm MSD managed by Michael Dell, the founder of the famous computers, has acquires 185,000 prints from the Magnum collection. The sum? undisclosed. But it is rumored to be the largest photo transaction in history. The terms, also unclear. Magnum retains the copyright and the  licensing rights.

So what did the MSD acquire ? Well, probably just that : 185,00 prints ranging from the the 1930’s to 1998. The prints will reside for now in Austin, Texas, Harry Ransom Center for 5 years. After that, nothing is known.It is certainly a well thought out coup for Magnum which has been struggling with financial issues for decades and avoided multiple acquisition schemes launched by the Corbis and Getty’s .

This will give them a financial security to continue to operate independently for a long while without losing their cherished independence.It is also great news for photography lovers. Not only Magnum escapes the claw of the greedy corporates and their notorious incompetence but there is a good chance this collection will travel across the world for viewing by even more people.

Finally, since Magnum is a co op, there is a very good chance the photographers themselves retain the majority of this financial downfall and they really, really deserve it.

PS : estimates put the deal at $100 Million. That is about $500.00 per print. Is that a good deal ?

More here  at Bloomberg news 

Posted in photojournalism, copyright, Magnum, finance, transaction, corbis, editorial, getty | Print | No Comments »

January 27, 2010 by pmelcher.

Before we go any further ( we spoke about the Ipad here already anyways), we need to point out something extremely important. There are people in this industry, when they talk, you listen. Jonathan Klein is one because who knows what other damage he will create with his roller company  and he lies a lot ( according to Klein. “We were the first people in the world to sell an image online,”). Ellen Boughn is another.

For those who don’t know Ellen ( are they any?) , let me explain : Ellen is one of these extremely rare person that have done it all. From editorial, to commerial stock, royalty free and Microstock, she has been deeply involved in every facet of this industry. Unlike others, she has gotten herself dirty with all aspects of licensing images from production to sales, from little to giant corporation. She has seen everything and pays attention to everything. She has an insight that is only surpassed by her intelligence. There is nothing that scares her and she has the curiosity of a 10 year old. She has met everybody that is anybody in this business and yet respects everyone the same way. She has a passion for photography that would put to shame anyone. She is so good that his master himself, Henri Cartier Bresson, offered her a signed print, something that he extremely rarely did.

To top it all, she is an independent thinker. She will tell you things the way they are, regardless of the consequences. She knows no camp but excellence and truth. Her incisive mind can be brutally honest  because she is not scared of anything or anyone.  She is an encyclopedia of knowledge that you will never read anywhere ( unless she publishes more books). She is one of the reason why I love this industry so much : It attracts some of the smartest, intelligent, witty, knowledgeable people on the planet. People with a vast culture and yet  constantly curious about everything.

Why do I write this ? Because Ellen has started her on blog. And if you only read one thing, that should be it. Amateur, pro, super pro, whatever side of this industry you are, this should be the first thing you read. You will never be offered such a rewarding experience, for free. So, stop reading this and go bookmark her blog and hold on to you socks.

http://www.ellenboughn.com/blog

We are not worthy..

Posted in license, multimedia, magazine, technology, commercial stock, Magnum, web 2.0, photojournalism, getty, Royalty free, corbis, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | 5 Comments »

January 14, 2010 by pmelcher.

There is nothing worst for a photographer, like for an actor, to be typecast. For Dennis Stock, who passed away this week, that is what happened. Ultra famous for the iconic images he took of James Dean just before he became famous, he had to drag this notoriety like a canon ball tied to his foot throughout his whole career. To a point that few people know the rest of his work. Which is a shame.

Dennis was a relationship photographer. Unlike Henri Cartier Bresson or Capa , Dennis wanted and needed to know his subjects very well before he would photograph them. He had to see their insides before taking pictures of their outside.  Maybe that is what he took out of his two weeks assisting Eugene Smith.

Incredibly fortunate to have worked as an assistant for some of the greatest name of photography early on in his career ( Eugene Smith, Gjon Mili), he also had extremely good contact with the photo beast of the time , Life Magazine. Unlike other original Magnum photographers, he was not known for his nice, cuddly ways. Direct, sometimes harsh, he did not hesitate to say what he thought, regardless of the consequences. His images somewhat reflect this. They are direct, have no artifice, and can be cruel sometimes. However, that was the cruelty that comes with reality and he never apologized for it because he didn’t feel responsible. The world as it is.

Dennis Stock photography could be separated in two  phases: His people years ( Hollywood, Jazz, Communities) in the first half of his career  and his nature years.  Somewhere in his photography search, he must either have become very disappointed with people, as he completely stop photographing them until his death. Maybe it was because he wanted to escape the incredibly suffocating success of his James Dean images and show that he could do great images without a human figure in them.

What is certain, is that like one his mentor Eugene Smith, he worked on his stories for a long, long them. He was nt a snaphot shooter, not an opportunity snapper. Weeks, months, if not years was not an uncommon period of time for him to complete a story. That his why he does not leave a huge body of work, but rather a very selective passionate vision of the world.

Every time a great photographer dies, it is another eye on the world that closes.

Magnum in Motion did a great piece on Dennis Stock and his work :

Posted in magazine, Magnum, celebrity, multimedia, slideshow, photojournalism, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »

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 »

April 30, 2009 by pmelcher.

No..it doesn’t have the swine flu virus. But it does contain some photojournalism archeological evidence. Surely, photojournalism archeology is a brand new science that does not date back as far as human archeology, but it is just as fascinating.

The famous suitcase believed to contain Robert Capa negative of the Spanish Civil war, found in Mexico, finally reveals some of it content. The first surprise: its not just Capa in there, but also “Chim” (David Seymour, co founder of Magnum) and Gerda Taro. The New York Times calls it “groundbreaking work”. I call interesting but certainly not groundbreaking. And a little frustrating. Mostly because the images shown do not seem at the level of already known work of these photographers. Poor edit ( its the ICP who is in charge, after all) or is this suitcase made of non choice? Hard to tell.

The suitcase does not reveal anymore information on the famous Mexican soldier image by Capa. Whether the curators destroyed it or are hiding the evidence or nothing was there, that is up to you to decide based on your level of Paranoia.

There is no pre history of photography. Thus, these images fit right in with contemporary stories, whether it is Georgia, Sri Lanka, Israel and too many other places of neighbors killing  neighbors. The faces of the victims or perpetrator are  similar to those we have seen photographed by the likes of Capa’s legacy.

click image to see the NYT slide show:

PS: How come Magnum doesn’t have these images. After all, 2 of the photographers are Magnum founders. Is it because Cornell, Robert’s brother, founded the ICP ? But still, how does that take precedent? Well at least its not one of the G’s ( Getty or Google_)

Posted in magazine, Magnum, newspaper, photojournalism, slideshow, editorial | 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 »

February 16, 2009 by pmelcher.

“But one of the — Google — I mean, the harsh way of just defining it, Google devalues everything it touches. Google is great for Google, but it’s terrible for content providers, because it divides that content quantitatively rather than qualitatively. And if you are going to get people to pay for content, you have to encourage them to make qualitative decisions about that content.” _Robert Thomson (managing editor of The Wall Street Journal)_

I find this quote right on the spot, for two  reasons. Google, by becoming the number one search engine on the web has  become a standard that everyone follows and copies.  Most photo agencies these days  boast the size of their archives and the speed of their search result rather than the quality of their content. It used to be that photo agencies would only represent top talent regardless of the quantity. What you would find would never be available elsewhere and clients where guarantied a certain level of quality.

These days, everyone is representing just about everyone else and most of the content can be found elsewhere. Furthermore, a search on any of these mega sites  just return a hefty volume of images, hoping that the right one will be in the pack. No effort is made to separate the quality images from the pack. Creativity is trumped by productivity. A photographer producing more has more change of being sold than one that has great talent. Nothing new here.

But the second part of this quote is much more revealing. “And if you are going to get people to pay for content, you have to encourage them to make qualitative decisions about that content.”

The more you have content, the more you say that each and every unit of that content is worthless. If you have thousands of pair of shoes, what do you care if the one you are wearing got scratched. You will probably throw them out, regardless of who the designer is. It is in human nature to associate rarity with quality. Same goes with photography : These mega sites, offering millions, if not 10 millions of images, are really just saying that their content is really not that good, but they have a lot of it. Since their search result do not even offer a quality option filter, every image is treated like the next one: The quality  is based on the lowest common denominator.

Works great for Microstock who brand themselves as cheap  discounters. No one expects to find a Cartier-Bresson in there.  Not so good for the rest of the industry, yet it is where everyone is headed, if not already there.

If you want your customers to pay, they have to feel that their are purchasing something special, if not unique. It also has to be package so that it looks unique. Photography does not escape this rule.

Posted in Search, technology, Magnum, google, web 2.0, getty, corbis, flickr, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »

January 1, 2009 by pmelcher.

I like the new year. For one good reason. Everyone does a round up of all the best images of the year in a beautiful slideshow. So, like every year, I wandered through the internet, looking at different version of the year in pictures. This is where I went:

AOL

MSNBC

The Big Picture
The New York Times

Sports Illustrated

Der Spiegel

Time Magazine

And this is what I saw. Only pictures from either AP, Reuters, Getty and a little bit of EPA. All wire services, nothing else. At first I thought it was just a USA thing, but no. Even Der Spiegel, the famous German magazine did the same. Time magazine, The New York Times and Sports Illustrated decided that the best images were the ones that they had assigned, thus presenting only pictures of either staff photographers or assigned photographers.

Now, do not get me wrong. There are a lot of very talented photographers at the wire agencies, and some did an incredible job this year, but still. Ignoring photographers from Aurora, Redux, Noor, VII, Abaca, Sipa, Gamma, Reporters, Magnum, National Geographic, Minden, and so many other source, just because they are not accessible via a monthly payment is plainly ridiculous. Its pure journalistic laziness. And another pin in the machine.

All these so called photo editors who called themselves journalist either did not take the time to look around or simply refused to do so because it would cost them more money. Sad and pathetic. It is an insult to the photographic world to blindly close your eyes and the production of all these extremely talented photographers. It’s plain censorship. Economical censorship, maybe but still censorship. They will not publish and show these images because they are too expensive. Thus their readers will never see them. Not because they are bad, but because they will not pay for them.

Who is to blame ? The subscription model and the bean counters that have taken over. Who is suffering ? Everyone, since we are all deprived from seeing the real “best of” and only get to see a washed out version, pre packaged by the wires. What does it say about the state of our industry. Well, for one, that if you are not part of a wire service in 2009, you will have a hard time being published or seen. That real photo editors are disappearing and being replaced by researchers. That there is a real treasure to be mined for those who think outside the wires, and finally, that the public, the readers, are being scammed.

So all these year end “best pictures of 2008″ should be renamed “best cheap and affordable pictures of the year”, leaving room for someone with a budget, and a conscience, to do one with the real best picture of the years.

Posted in SIPA, magazine, Magnum, Aurora, TIME, photojournalism, editorial, finance, slideshow, msnbc.com, getty | Print | 1 Comment »