March 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

The Gamma/ Eyedea sinking ship saga continues : 4 companies/ projects have  filed to be considered for the reprisal of the almost defunct Company. French Number one photo agency, ABACA Press, Verdoso Media, Frank Ullman and a pair of ex bosses of Gamma. No Getty ( for once) , No Corbis.

The buying price ? A symbolic 100,000 to 150,00 Euros. Hachette Filipacchi Photo, ex owner of this group of photo agencies, had sold it to its current owners for 600,000 Euros. Not much of a profit here, if you also consider the money invested since, and lost. The main role of the court now is to figure out which of this project is the most viable. Their main focus is to see how many jobs can be saved. Out of the 60 + currently on staff, not more than 30 are expected to stay.

The good news ? There seem to be some interest by French companies to save the group of images and bring it, finally, into the 21st century. Most might be thinking that this move will get them the good favors of the French Government who will them jump in and  pour some welcome cash, or incentives. However, like everything in France, it is going to take a while for the decision to be made.

On a similar note, Retna UK, not to be confused with Retna USA, has sold, again. Now, it is to Photoshot, a agency eating company that seems to buy anything and everything hanging low from the tree. Wonder why they didn’t not bid for Eyedea/Gamma.

It’s Friday, don’t forget to look at images today…

Posted in celebrity, magazine, photojournalism, transaction, law, france, news | Print | No Comments »

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 »

February 19, 2010 by pmelcher.

      In the footsteps of the United States senate, the UK House of Lords is about to pass a law regarding Orphan Works. The UK  law is very similar to the US one, besides a few key elements. Like the US, it is unclear what defines a reasonable search and how that will be proven. Unlike the US, it does call for the creation of a registry. However, it calls for the creation of a Middle man body that will collect funds ( unspecified also) for those images first though Orphan and finally reunited with its Parent. The UK government will also take a cut, leaving to the copyright owner… well …crumbles… Not sure why all these people have to get involved and get their cut, but they will. The trade association BAPLA who has more than 400 photo agencies as members ( take that PACA ) is actively trying to change and readjust this law. Unless if you do not license images in the UK ( why not ?), this law will affect you like a pie in the face.

In the same proposition there is also an anti paparazzi part. A rule “that in effect will prohibit photography in public places where anyone who’s in the photograph might be unhappy about being photographed.”. This law, of course, applies only to pro photographers, otherwise tourists would be prevented to take pictures, and that, my friends would not be good.

Not that most ever knew they were being photographed, but most of Cartier-Bresson subjects could have made his life a living hell with such a law, along with ours ( imagine a life with no CB images). Sure, everyone is tired of these hordes of photographers ( not sure if that is the right term, here) snapping a 35 mm lens in a celebrity’s face as soon as they walk out the door ( any door). Gets worse at night when it’s combine with powerful flashes. However, that provision is extreme and allows for incredible censorship. How will pros be able to take pictures of, let say, a terrorism attack? Most people will not be happy to be photographed in such an event.

In a time where rates are dropping, where photographers are begging for a Messiah, the UK Gov finds comfort in adding a couple of very strong nails in the coffin. The interesting part is that , once passed, these laws will affect you, in whatever country you are. Wether because your images could be used for free ( or pennies) or because your government will takes these legislation as a good example to implement in their territory. America, you have a sleeping ( not for long) Orphan Works legislation in the corridors of power. You might also get a similar anti pap law that will affect everyone. Should you look for help in tour favorite trade organization ? Be my guest. You should.

To learn more, please read this very good article.

Posted in license, celebrity, commercial stock, No sense, photojournalism, editorial, transaction, PACA, news | Print | No Comments »

February 16, 2010 by pmelcher.

Fed up of the pseudo intellectualism of most photojournalism awards ? Then go see the winners of the WHNPA “Eyes of History 2010″. Those Guys/Gals are stuck, most of the time, with a very restrictive subject ( aka, POTUS) and yet perform some of the highest form of photography. Furthermore, when you unleash them into a different subject, they eat them up with a passion rarely seen, putting at work what they have taught themselves so well in the confinement of the White House.

A lot of great photography, mostly unseen, from some of the lesser known, and yet probably more talented photojournalists in the world.

 A lot of NPR photographers here ( NPR is the US’s public radio, funded by tax and people’s money). A good example that “public” journalism can be of extremely high quality. If you see only one winning gallery, I urge you to see David Gilkey’s Portfolio ( winner of third place in Portfolio). It’s very Don McCullin with a refreshing twist.

Finally, the World Press Awards should take many lessons: The winners slide shows are big and very visible,  yes, they have a multimedia category and the result, although about politics, are not so politically charged.

Posted in multimedia, magazine, technology, newspaper, photojournalism, editorial, slideshow, news | Print | No Comments »

February 12, 2010 by pmelcher.

If you like blood, you will love the new crop of World Press Awards winners. There is a lot of it, in full details and in brilliant colors. Hopefully for you, you will not look at the galleries just after eating, the results might not get along with your stomach.

The top winner, an image of a woman on a Tehran roof shooting news during the Iranian election protest shouldn’t have won. Why ? Because it is part of a series of images that Italian photographer Pietro Masturzo has done on the antiquated way Iranians communicated during the uprising. It is much stronger as part of the set than as a standalone. Obviously the jury doesn’t know the difference between a single shot and a narrative. This is not a single shot. It makes it seem that the other images are useless. They are not.

Elsewhere in the prizes, you see a lot of winners depicting the Gaza war from the Palestinian side. Obviously the jury had a political statement to make and they made it loud and clear. Too loud and clear. The result puts in jeopardy their ability the find the real best images rather than those images that agree with their very one sided and opinionated point of view.

The rest of the winners follow a similar pattern . Lot’s of violence and blood, if possible, too much Black and white (They can’t shake off  that old cliche that B/W makes it more..intellectual, more valuable somehow), interrupted with portrait galleries, something that has been plaguing European photojournalism for quite some time.

What will have everybody talking about this year, will be the  “Special Mention, recognizing a frame grab from a video posted on YouTube in June 2009 during the post-election uprising in Iran.”

Awarded to Reuters (?), not only it’s a video grab ( Still photography is dead !!)  , it was shot by an amateur ( here comes the citizen photojournalist !!) and was probably shot on a camera phone ( dump the DLSR, phones are the new cameras !!). Well, you can just imagine the rest.

Finally, true to itself, still no multimedia awards of any kind . Take a look and make a your decision :

Posted in magazine, technology, multimedia, photojournalism, finance, slideshow, news | Print | No Comments »

February 7, 2010 by pmelcher.

What happens when photographers cannot sell images anymore ? What do they do if magazines do not pay for their coverage? Well, they turn around and start selling to other photographers. Not images, but workshops.

There seem to be a craze of photogrpahy workshops going around. Established or completely  unknown photographers are launching into  what seems to be a lucrative market : Teaching others how to take pictures. The irony is that, by helping others mastering their cameras, they add to the already very saturated market. There has been nature workshops, documentary workshops, studio, lighting, macro, micro, flowers, shoes, you name it workshops. Now, in what seems a desperate move, here comes the real reality workshops.

First is the Covering Conflict workshop . Handled by some of the top war photographers around, this photogrpahy workshop will put you in a real war situation with people shooting at each other ( no, not real bullets) so you can feel comfortable next time you are parachuted in a war zone. Eric Bouvet, Philip Horvat, Jason Howe, Wade Goodard will meet you in Bosnia to help you cover the city of  Dubrovnik and what is left of the battle field. Then, “You will be asked to photograph a simulated conflict of two opposing armed groups. Approximately 20 men, many former soldiers and defenders of the region, dressed in uniform, armed with Air Soft weapons (these weapons look like really firearms - M16s and AK 47s but fire small plastic pallets). Though they cannot cause you any harm, they do hurt a little if hit at close range. This will give you the sense danger that exists in a real theatre of war.”

For 990 Euros, including food and lodging, you get as close to a conflict than anyone might ever come. Will it be useful, doubtful. However, you get to spend a few days with some of the best conflict photographers in the world, and that alone, is worth it. More info here : Covering Conflict

On another side, is photographer Zoriah workshop : “I have decided to offer a special small group workshop in Haiti focused on photographing the aftermath of the earthquake.  Subjects covered will be working in disaster zones and other difficult and dangerous situations, survival and logistics in difficult environments, photograph people, working with NGO’s (Non Governmental Organizations) and aid organizations, editing and digital darkroom technique and marketing and making your stories available for the world to see. 

For $4000.00 you get to cover the aftermath of Haiti . Like a Safari. Learn how to shoot real people fighting for food and survival. Photograph NGO’s as they try to save the most lives as possible with minimum help . Finally, learn how to distance yourself from the whole thing and pretend this is just a classroom exercise.You will certainly come out with a clean portfolio that will amaze your friends and neighbors.

To Zoriah’s credit : ” 50% of the money raised from this workshop will go to my friends at Hospice Saint Joseph, which was completely destroyed in the quake”

But still, is this appropriate ? Use the devastation and suffering of the Haitian people as a backdrop for a photogrpahy workshop? Isn’t this a tad cynical and tasteless ? It is understandable that a photo journalist has to distance himself from his subjects, but isn’t this too far ? Finally, why teach a job that you have just left because there was no money in it ?

You can sign up and get more information for this Haiti Workshop here :

Photojournalism Workshops - Haiti Earthquake Intimate Group

Posted in license, magazine, No sense, photojournalism, editorial, finance, news | Print | 2 Comments »

February 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

So, there was something very interesting about the photo news the week. On one side, you have the mighty Getty ( aka, the whale) who took a deep plunge in pricing with its subscription RF offering, combining microstock and pro , and on the other, legendary Magnum who manage a great coup by selling some used prints for an estimated $ 30 million dollars.

Like two extremities of the same stick, this is a great reflection of where the business of photography stands today . On one side an entity that has reduced its photography to a cheap commodity to be sold as individual snapshots and on the other, a photographers coop that is so highly respected that it can sell old back and white prints full of written notes as highly valuable historical artifacts.

Yet, both are selling the same thing : photographs . According to numerous interview given by Mark Lubell, director of Magnum New York, one key condition for the members of the coop to approve the sale was that the images would not be scattered and sold as individual entities. Magnum photographers have a long established tradition of selling pictures as a story, a group of images, that tells a story. It has been numerously debated, over the years, that Magnum could have maybe had made more profit if it had broken  these stories and sold them as individual images.

But none of the photographers-creator would have it any other way. Shot as a story, sold as a story. Part of the condition for the deal with the Michael Dell owned fund is that images cannot be separated from the story they belong to. On the other end of the spectrum, Getty does the exact opposite. It extracts images from their context, their stories , and sell them as individual files. There motivation is that the image, alone, has more chance of finding a buyer than a group of images, sold as a story. Also, individual files sales  can easily be automated while photo essay, and photo journalism in general, needs a pitch, an explanation, a real human sales person.

And there is where a key differentiation appears that is reflected everywhere in the marketplace. If your business is about licensing individual files, then its all about volume. You do not take a proactive approach to selling. Instead, you try to cover any possible potential need for an image that could humanly be conceived. You stick them in an archive. And then you wait . You wait for a buyer to come and be hooked. or not. The market creates the demand.

If you license a photographer’s work, a story, a career, an inspiration, the approach is completely different. You cannot wait for a client to come and find it. You have to go out and fetch it. You have to take the photographer’s work, find a potential client who could be interested and close the deal. The photographer, in this case, creates the demand.

If you want the market to create the demand, the prices are low, very, very low. If you create the demand, the prices are high, very high.

Unfortunately, most photo agencies these days have gone the route of competing with each other on the individual file sales path. Mostly because it much easier, cheaper, and demands almost no special skills. The more the agencies, the more the offer, the more prices go down. Getting amateurs to fill these image banks has recently greatly lowered the costs, with the pervert effect of also lowering the prices.

Magnum, and others, like Contact, Redux, PictureGroup, Aurora have deliberately chosen to represent photographers’ work and not distribute individual files. Their production is the reflection of its chosen creators, their image bank set up to license stories , and their sales staff experienced in the complex art of pitching. Sure, it’s more expensive and much more complicated. It demands talent and sometimes obstination against frustration. However, the prices are dictated by the value perceived by the creator, not the by the market. The result : deals like Magnum just made.

In photography, it’s not the market who dictates the pricing. It’s how you present it.

Posted in magazine, celebrity, technology, Cosmos, Aurora, commercial stock, license, prosumer, getty, Royalty free, news, editorial, photojournalism, transaction, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

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 »

January 11, 2010 by pmelcher.

Photography should be a revolutionary act. It should be a kick in the establishment, the common, the mundane. It has to be an act of revolt against banality and conformity, a powerful explosion of new ideas. It should be as violent to the mind as a thousand thunderstorms. It should rip apart the accepted social fabric . It should denounce, point, accuse and solve. In one frame. It should be a declaration of war to everything we take for granted and accept as obvious.

It should incessantly question reality with the passion of a martyr. A constant question mark, it should make our leaders fear it, and our priest denounce it. It should know no frontiers, no borders, no cultural identity. It should have the same impact East of Bangkok and South of Lima.

Photography should be lifted high and proud by those who request to change the world as a constant demand for reform and social changes. It should beg for perfection, over and over, pointing at all the little details of injustice, abuse, destruction and greed. It should rattle every misconception until they break into a pathetic silence.

Too much of what we see today in photography ( thank you, commercial stock) is a sea of banality, of repetition, of dullness. It is status quo and no more. A long straight road of  boring pre digested concept. Like a TV dinner : Please reheat and serve hot. Millions upon millions of images that rote just a few days after being exposed, so much full of artifice they are. A constant stream of annoying visual buzz that we hardly notice anymore.

Photography should shove you out of your chair, make you react, force you to rethink everything you ever took for granted. It should stop you dead in your track and make you want to change your whole life, and the ones of those around you. It should haunt you  in your sleep, follow you all day and make you feel naked. It should empower you to make that change you had in you. It should break the heavy top that sat on top of  that lava revolt you have in you. Break the ice of indifference you so conveniently ignore.  It should not be a warm cosy blanket that keep you warm in the middle of a cold winter night but rather the violent act of removing it and exposing you to the freezing winds. A window blasted open.

Some aspects of photography are dying because too many have forgotten the revolutionary roots of photography, its iconoclastic heritage. As it becomes more common it also becomes more dull. Slowly, the reign of the medium is taking over. Medium quality, medium content, medium effect. Photography is becoming pretty, useful, a business. It’s an industry of expectedness, where chance and luck disappears in favor of technocrats shooting bullet points.

It should never live in a sales channel or exposed to RPI’s. It should never suffer the humiliation of being included in a compilation or a theme. It should never be treated as something you search for in a immense repository of banality. Finally, it should never suffer the assassination of being sold via a subscription.

Posted in google, license, celebrity, commercial stock, web 2.0, prosumer, news, editorial, photojournalism, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »

January 10, 2010 by pmelcher.

Let’s review. Up to now, USG, or User Generated  Content, has dramatically and irrevocably changed the Commercial stock photography landscape. It has brought it down to a commodity by not only bringing the prices down to, well, the prices of a commodity, by making it even more widely and easily available ( no need to call a bored Account Executive anymore) and finally, by not passing the cost of production to the customer. No real news here. However, will it stop here ?Definitely not. UGC has made some roadway in the Video footage world ( Numbers not really available, yet), as well as in the editorial space.  The commercial still space is so overcrowded that, besides the companies offering the distribution ( Istock, Fotolia, Shutterstock), no one will be making money anymore. The top photo producers  of this space are all suffering 40% or more decline in their income and it is certainly not due to the Recession. It also shows no sign of picking up. It’s a dilution effect, quite expected for a Long Tail type of business. So what next ?The editorial space. We have seen some somewhat failed attempts up to now. The news oriented site like Scoopt and others did not succeed in creating enough traction to get consistent exposure to allow them to become a major distribution channel. Demotix, lately, was the talk of the town during the Iranian revolt, only to quiet down ever since to a mere murmur. Without regular income, it is also destined to fail.  News is a very hard, yet not impossible, segment to convert to UGC.  Mostly because the market is already very well served with wire agencies who can deliver pinpoint images extremely fast. Amateur do not have, yet, the reflex to send images out very quickly. Furthermore, they are the first one to be evacuated of a dangerous area, if they don’t leave themselves first. Finally, with current prices and lack of medium, it doesn’t have the appeal of volume that the commercial stock market has. Doubtful that a company will ever succeed in being a UGC only news photo distributor but not impossible that one of the existing distributor, be it Istock, Shutterstock or Getty increase their demand and offerings. Of course, since they will no longer incur the cost of helping a photographer get those images, they will be more apt in lowering their prices if needed.But what about other editorial spaces. Celebrity for example ? Shutterstock is already being trying to perforate it by helping amateurs cover movie premieres and other events that need official credentials. It is unknown how much success they have had in licensing those images, but if credit in publication is any indication, it is inexistent. Not many have followed yet because of the poor prices, huge already existing volume and the added cost of production. After all, Shuttertsock needs a full time person to call, email or fax those publicist and get approved to cover. Not something they do for their commercial stock contributors. Finally, since the red carpet coverage is also already invaded by low pricing photo agencies , it doesn’t make  the UGC pricing special or appealing in any way.What else ? Well there is the street paparrazi stuff. With rumors of images being sold in the thousand , if not millions of dollars, it is a very interesting space. No credentials needed, no risk involved. With celebs twittering their every move or blogs exposing their schedules openly, it is very easy for anyone to find them. If you add the flock of Fame whores who demand to be taken in pictures, well, there is plenty. And you do not need much. Even a cell phone is adequate to snap a celeb in the street. No need for heavy or expensive equipment . And since prices are still quite high, the appeal of lower priced images will be a huge draw for some dying publications. Thus those companies who have been living quite nicely thanks to a small army of tip filled street paparazzi are slowly seeing a rising competition of week end paparazzi’s who would gladly take half of what they are making. If not, 1%. Because like the UGC crowd, they have other jobs and could really care less. Having a picture published will be a treat by itself.Of course, existing Pap agencies are doing all they can to avoid such a leak. They now all offer, on their site, an upload button for those amateurs seeking a representative. But that will not be enough to stop the bleeding.These Pap agencies all know that is doesn’t require any skills to take these images, as they themselves have been employing hungry beginners, fitting them with cameras, showing them where to press the button and telling them where to go. But in this game, the masses have the lead as every celebrity has a neighbor. It will not be long now before we see this market also become flooded with part time shooters looking to make a quick buck on a sunday afternoon. It will not take long now before the prices of street celeb photography will tumble to un-previously known depth.Sure, most people in the photo industry will not care. However, as walls keep crumbling down, everyone is affected. Like an earthquake, it is just not the epicenter that suffer damages.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, commercial stock, license, photojournalism, getty, news, editorial, Microstock | Print | 6 Comments »