December 14, 2011 by pmelcher.

Our ability to achieve greatness is impeded by our  addiction to getting to fast results and instant gratification. We are a civilization focused on the ends rather than the means, resulting in a complete absence of ethics. While the Greeks , Romans and Egyptians have left quasi immortal legacy, our civilization will leave a huge trail of mostly consumed objects.
We do  not want to seduce, we want to have sex. We do not want to cook, we want to eat.
We do not see value in perfecting a task, especially if it slows down our reach to the final product. We actually seek out anything that will shorten our access to the desired goal.  We actually spend more time and energy trying finding those short cuts than perfecting our own means. Instagram, for example, is photography Photoshopped bundle, skipping the hours we would have to spend on learning and executing.
We mass produce and purchased prepackaged work, or processes,  so we can get faster and easier to the end.
This obsession to only focus on the ends also brings forth a dependency to renewal, instant renewal. Because we so quickly achieve our goals, we also more quickly go to what’s next. What is the next end that we can meet. And because we have no interrest in process, we look and seek those ends that are the most easily met.
Even if one tries to perfect process, he would soon be met with corner cutters that would transform ( destroy ?) His work by finding and executing a shorter path.
Part of it could be because we are obsessed with money, the best tool to get to ends fast, and have been taught that time is money, and until achieved, perfection is a waste of time. While we admire and venerate perfection, we out no value into it search. Because it is not considered valuable, the path to perfection is considered wasteful. Antique civilizations, for example, put a high value in apprenticeship, where one could learn to master the processes leading to perfection. Those lasted years, if not decades, but guaranteed a level of unparalleled transhipment. The type that build the giant cathedrals of Europe or the Stradivarius.  Those apprenticeship were all about mastering the process as to achieve perfection in the end result.
We seem to confuse and mix perfect process and time wasting. That somehow, working on perfecting on how we get to an achievement is just time wasted. We forget that the better the process, the better the result.
Yet we seem to get greater pleasure from process. A well cooked meal taste so much better than done with mastery, sex is so much better after a perfectly executed courtship. We pay fortunes for objects and services that are made by masters of their skills, be it a Ferrari or dinner cooked by a chef. We know that those did not come to fruition by a snap of fingers but rather through hours and hours of repeating the same task over and over until it was perfect. The task, not the result.
We learn from traditional Japanese philosophy that seeking excellence is all about breaking it down to a succession of small prefect individual tasks, or steps, which, added, lead to the result. We don’t even have to worry about the result if every little steps to get there is perfect. It might take time, it might seem useless, it will bring some frustration and dissatisfaction but it will bring a strong work ethic. It will teach you how you want things done and how you want them to be. It will bring forth the pride in your work and a constant search for excellence. After that, you will never work for free.

Posted in celebrity, commercial stock, Good Enough, license, multimedia, finance, photoshop, newspaper, editorial | Print | No Comments »

October 5, 2011 by pmelcher.

Goksin was a tall man. In a country where most men are small (you have Napoleon and two world wars to thank for that), he was even taller, towering easily in the  crowded office of the company he build and named after himself.
But Goksin was tall for other reasons. He was always above anyone else when it had to do with news photography. He was always looking further and higher than anyone else. He was a giant.
The ancient Greeks believed that sometimes the Gods would come down to earth and take human form to play tricks on us. If the Greeks had a God of photography, he would have certainly resemble Goksin, and acted like him. He had an uncanny ability to outwit, outsmart and outperform anyone in his field always delivering the “plaque” to the amazement to everyone. He knew photojournalism better than anyone and knew the impact of photography better than any editor in chief.
Like the Greek gods, he had an acute sense of humor as well as deep warm love for his fellow human. His generosity knew no boundaries. But more so than anything, no one could escape his charm.
In a few seconds of meeting him, you would fall into his inescapable charm and forever remain at his service, which you did with immense pleasure. It is hard to beleive that he ever heard the word “no”.
He was an unbelievable worker to the point that most of us thought he would die behind his desk. He had a foresight like no one else and believed in you more than you ever could.
There is hardly no one in the photo world today that he hasn’t touch and inspired and we are all his forever in debt children.
To say he will be missed is obviously an understatement but he has left so much to so many people in this business that it is hard to say he is gone. He continues to live in agency owners who thrive to replicate his style, he lives in the inside voice of thousands of photographers around the world who keep on hearing ” a little more” every time they are on a shoot. He lives in photo department everywhere when editors look for that images that will end up as a double page spread and sell more copies.
The passion for photography that Goskin had was unlimited and we are forever in debt to him. He was that shoulder we all stand on.  We will have to learn how to live like orphans because today we lost all lost a father.

Posted in SIPA, newspaper, magazine, photojournalism, finance, france, editorial, news | Print | No Comments »

September 12, 2011 by pmelcher.

Taking a cue from the succesful microstock model here is where photojournalism is heading.  It is happening under our eyes, right now and in four steps.

The decline of traditional photojournalism.
Nothing really new here. Rising cost of living (travel, lodging, food) has made it almost impossible for current print and web publishers to send top talents on stories anymore. The profit margins are not there anymore. Although there is a bucket full of very talented photojournalist available, there is just no funds to make them do what they do best. Furthermore, with the deaths of traditional photo agencies who used to pay for half of the costs, there is just not enough financial support to keep it going. It’s not photojournalism that is dying, it’s the funding that is going dry.  Furthermore, photo editors that championed the great stories have long gone, either retired or pushed out due to corporate restructuring or cost saving measures.

The rise in volume of the me-too photojournalism.

Here again, nothing we haven’t heard or seen before. Automated cameras that can nail an image in the even poorest conditions has helped introduced a new wave of photographers that can, and will snap at anything and everything and force distribute it via every channel possible. Force distribute because we really do not want to see it but thanks to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and other social media, we get to see them anyway. The poor state of our economy has not help, obviously, making this forced free lance job even more appealing to many. It also has become easier to get published, at least once, giving everyone the false impression that this is easy. Anybody can become a photojournalist these days : you just need to be where the media attention is focused upon.

The death of the photo agency.
Photo agencies used to be the gateway to the media. With trained professionals, they filtered out the bad from the good and edited the work of the talented to make it even more compelling. They would also seek out news stories and send the best photographers to cover them, not only creating the news, but partly covering  for the costs. It was a gamble, where talented journalists would scout newspapers worlwide for that snippet of information that could be turned into the major news of the week thanks to the talent of a brilliant photographer. Those editors are gone now. Gambling on stories is just not an acceptable business model in our corporate world. Photo agencies are not agencies anymore, they are image distributors.

Speed vs quality.
Thanks to digital, the key decision element for an image to be published is how fast they get to a desktop. Thus a bad photographer can very well become successful if he is the fastest.  More and more, this is what we, viewers, are being served with : the first images rather than the best. Thus the key to becoming a published photojournalist is where you are and not who you are.

Where does it lead us to:

Where everyone can be a shooter, with no money to be spend on travel, no editors acting as gatekeepers and speed as the key factor, the decision us easy;

Forget the photo agency as an agent of talented photojournalists. The key now is to have a lot of contributors worldwide and hope that one will be at the right place at the right time. With photographers everywhere chances you will get the right image at the right time will increase, like buying a lot of lottery tickets.
In the film age, the cost of film, processing, shipment was too prohibitive. Now, you can receive and store million of images for a buck or two.
This well know photo agency recently proudly claimed representing 40 photographers in Gaza only. For a territory 140 square mile ( 360 Km2), that is one photographer per 3.5 square mile.

Thus, taking a queue from the microstock model, photojournalism is now switching to the volume based model. While profitable for a photo agency, it is devastating for photojournalism and photographers themselves.

Posted in technology, magazine, Tweet, Social Media, Corpocrates, Good Enough, newspaper, TIME, editorial, getty, transaction, finance, photojournalism, wire service, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

May 23, 2011 by pmelcher.

 A couple of events rattled the world of photography recently, with no particular effect. Unaccustomed to be put into question, photographs of news event have continue to pour into our field of vision, with little regards for what just had happened. Here’s the narrative:

A little while ago, a bunch of very aggressive US Navy Seals dropped from the sky into a previously quiet compound and killed most of the people inside, including the number 1 most wanted person in the US, if not the world. No need to elaborate more on the event, besides asking why we are style fighting in Afghanistan, if the target of that mission is now eliminated. No, what happened next is what matters. After weeks of speculations and pointless editorialism, president Obama, acting as the Daddy  of us all, decided NOT to release any images of the attack or the dead body of Osama Ben Laden. We are not mature enough, he said, to handle pictures like that. Only he and it is presumed, a few of his staff members could see the images. End of story. Go play somewhere else.

Problem is, people do not beleive anything if they do not see it. Photography has become proof. Even thought we are fully aware that our eyes can be misleading and that photography can lie, we still need to see to beleive. One can tell you the most credible story , you will not beleive it until you see it for yourself. We do not beleive words, we beleive images. Photography has become proof. The interesting part of this, is that proof in of itself is not even truth. It is just the confirmation of a thought. It’s the exclamation point at the end of an argumentation.  A proof is nothing more than a rhetorical tool that confirms a point. But a proof can lie, it just needs to confirm. Photography can lie too ( ask Photoshop) but we still rely on it to confirm.

The second story is more recent and involves a very important Frenchman, a hotel room and a cleaning lady. The events are well known so no need to repeat them. However, what is less known, at least on the US side of the Atlantic is the reaction caused by one photograph : That of the person being walked out of a Police station with handcuffs in his back. The French press and the French people went haywire. How can you publish such a photograph ? What about the presumption of innocence, what about the respect of one’s private life, what about….on and on and on. See, in France, you are not allowed to publish such images : by law. Actually, the French law has lots to say about what images can be, or not, published. A little too much, actually. But this is not our point here.

What is however is the photographic proof. In this case, this was also the first image of this man after his arrest. We all had heard or read the stories but hadn’t seen much. Finally, we see the culprit in a photograph and all is confirmed. Ok, yes, he got arrested. But for the French, that is too much proof. We didn’t need to see that, they scream. The Americans couldn’t care less as they see thousand of equivalent images a day. Why is it that this time, the photographic poof was seen as too invasive? As if this was too much proof. Photography , suddenly, went beyond its duty to confirm.

The implication are the same for both images. Actually, in the case of the death image, it has potentially more impact on the world than a man in handcuffs ( that couldn’t be seen, by the way, as they were in his back).  Few jurors actually will base their judgment upon seeing this image and if they do, they shouldn’t be jurors. Are some photographs not to be shown, even if they depict reality? Is Obama right ? Are  we so immature that, as someone famously said , ” we can handle the truth ” ? Or at least, we can’t handle it if involves someone we know, if it is too close to us.

We see thousands of images a year of people in much more degrading situation as these yet we do not seem upset about it. Actually, we have entire photo festivals made entirely around these images. Indeed, those are in far away countries with people we do not know and couldn’t care about. It’s almost fiction, it is so far away. We seem ok with those proofs.

The good news about these two ‘affairs’ is that apparently photography still carries a very strong emotional impact. Photojournalists, rejoice : your images can still boil up people’s blood. As long as proof is still very much in demand, you will be needed. More than that, your images could stir up more controversy that the event you covered does.

Posted in newspaper, celebrity, photojournalism, editorial, france, news | Print | No Comments »

April 19, 2011 by pmelcher.

Always a late entry in the continuous flow of photographic awards, the Pultizer is still a very a very, very honorable one to receive. Mainly because it is one of the oldest ( the oldest ?), but also because it is so tied with sister, the written press. This year’s crop has made no discovery of young talented 20 year old who grabbed his camera and got the scoop of the year. None of that.  Rather, the jury went for established professionals with years of industry background and strong financial backing. Is that wrong ? Not at all. photography should not be about who you are, how you did it, but  about what you show: the photograph.

This year’s winners also show that while newspapers might be a dying breed, newspaper photogrpahers are certainly not. They still photograph world events with the same passion and commitment as ever.

That is exactly what the venerable Pulitzer showed this year . One little thing, however : Can someone redesign the site so it does look and feel it was made in the 70’s ? especially, can we make a little effort to display the photographic winners a tad better ?

See winners here :  Breaking News : Pulitzer 

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

February 6, 2011 by pmelcher.

One of the interesting aspects of the launch of The Daily this week, for those of us who are in the business of licensing images, is how to price those images.

Traditionally, an image license takes in consideration the circulation of the publication. And with  print, it is no problem. A publisher will decide how many copies to print and hope that they will all sale. Thus, the circulation is clear, cut, precise.

With an Ipad only publication, well, at first, there is no circulation. The publisher releases an issue and waits to see how many people will download it. Thus, the real circulation numbers are only known after the issue has been replaced by the new one.

So how do you price that ? Well, the best you can do is price the license based on known numbers. Those would be the ones of yesterday’s issue and hope they will be close enough.

But what if it’s a new circulation and it has no previous numbers? Do you use zero as the circulation number ? probably not.

It used to be that the publisher took all the weight of the publication cost.  By deciding how many copies to print, they would, in effect, also decide the cost of an image. Now, it is up to the licensor to partly take over that responsibility. They have to try and figure out the licensing value of their images based on an educated guess. There is a good chance they will always be too low.

In a perfect world, the image license fee should be decided at the end of the day ( for a newspaper, like The Daily) based on how many downloads. It would be possible if the publisher would share these numbers with you. While they are more than willing to do so  with advertisers, they will not with image suppliers.

An ” intelligent image” could report back to you and automatically bill your clients based on downloads, at the end of the day. It would be fair, especially if your image( s) where instrumental in provoking a spike. Otherwise,  you are left to play a guessing game with a blindfold.

Slightly related :

Like everyone else, I have been following the events in Egypt. It is hard to say, and maybe see, the image or images that will remain as icons of this movement. However, they are plenty going around. However, one unnerving  item is Time Magazine. On their website ( and maybe in print), they have there sideshow by Dominic Nahr from Magnum. While the image are good, there are two main aspects that are wrong:

- One : they call it “Time Exclusive photos: The Clashes in Cairo.” . This make it sound like they are the only ones to have covered this event. Which clearly they are not.What is exclusive is that you will only see Dominic Nahr’s coverage of the clashes on Time.com.

Not sure if anyone cares.

- Two: The whole page has to refresh every time you switch to the next photograph. You would think that for a publication own by Time Warner, we could expect a better site design than one done by a 11 year old in 1994. Come on people, it’s 2011!!

Posted in magazine, license, Canada, technology, E Reader, multimedia, newspaper, finance, slideshow, photojournalism, TIME, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »

September 12, 2010 by pmelcher.

Just when you thought it was safe to go outside and shoot again, a new threat has appeared. Under what seems like a very benign press release lies another attempt from Getty to turn the photography world into it’s own private playground.

This is the press release :

“Getty Images, Inc., has signed a multi-year agreement with McClatchy-Tribune Information Services (MCT) to license its award-winning editorial imagery from their network of McClatchy and Tribune papers. From today, the strategic relationship will provide customers around the world with access to imagery captured by one of the most-respected news conglomerates, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services, and enables Getty Images to offer the most comprehensive editorial imagery for U.S. and world news, entertainment, sports, business and lifestyle.“

Seems like another one of these distribution agreements that Getty already has with a thousand plus companies and it is. Until you know what was the motivation behind this deal :

McClatchy and Tribune papers own 30 daily newspapers in 29 U.S. markets.. These local newspapers like to cover local news. Among the local news are, of course, local sports teams. At first, Getty images, owner of mutli deals with sport leagues like the NBA ( BasketBall), MLB ( Baseball), USGA ( Golf ), USTA ( Tennis) , NHL (Ice Hockey), and so on, tried to get  “local” photographers out of the games. After all, in Getty’s perspective, they are the official photographers for these sports and thus should be exclusive.

Especially since McClatchy  newspaper then licensed those images via MCT to other newspapers and via agencies to the whole world.

That didn’t work. You cannot prevent local newspapers to cover local sports . Just imagine if the Chicago Tribune would not be allowed to cover a Bulls game ? or a White Sox game ? The whole foundation of US democracy would have been in shamble.

So what did Getty do? They went to McClatchy and said, let us do your distribution of images. Why ? so we can grab your sports images and add them to our own coverage, or sit on them, thus making us practically exclusive on all these sports game. Except for AP and Reuters who have yet to understand against who they are fighting.

Sports photography is big business and shows no sign of slowing down. Getty images is on the path to controlling every image that you will see coming out of a US sports competition, and everything around it. ( remember, Tiger Woods first public appearance ?)

This is not about fair competition anymore, where the best image wins, this is becoming a real monopoly. Heard that, Justice department ?

Posted in newspaper, license, magazine, finance, editorial, news, law, getty | Print | No Comments »

August 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

After you put on you dancing shoes and you are ready to spend some of the alcohol funneled energy you have kept for hours during the endless official ceremony, there is someone watching you very closely. Because soon, you will be offering them food for camera. That incredibly volatile moment that only he or she can capture in a millisecond flash and transform into a lifelong memory.

Sure, it’s your friends wedding party, but somehow, you are going to be the star.

It’s not that you want to take the spotlight. Someone will put you there. Despite yourself.

If you though wedding photography is that boring catalog of posed photographed in a park at sunset time, think again.  Thanks to the shifting media economy and more particularly, the demise of thousands of newspapers worldwide, the wedding photography trade has never looked better. You just don’t see it.

A multitude of jobless yet extremely talented local photojournalists have left their police scanners behind in favor of the sweeter sounds of 80’s disco inspired DJ’s to document, for  a fee, the lives of the common. The result is quite amazing :

These are the winners of the Wedding Photojournalist Association (WPJA), an international association of …well.. photojournalists turned wedding photographers. And it’s not just America, like other photo trade organization, it’s actually worldwide ( remember, photography knows no boundary ?).

Did I hear someone called the death of Photojournalism? Not so fast. I see a strong pulse  here.

It’s a peaceful organization : No endless whining, no boring tirades by old timers regretting the good old days, not talk of microstock or any kind of stock at all, no Getty images ( well, not yet), no pictures of dying Africans in B/W, no medium format photography of greenish empty parking lots ( in China, preferably), no Social Media gurus ( no Gurus at all, actually).

Just great photography…enjoy. ( click on the image above to see more).

Posted in newspaper, commercial stock, Social Media, photojournalism, slideshow, getty, news, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

August 4, 2010 by pmelcher.

From a Photo Editor job posting at Time, inc, the world’s biggest publisher of magazine in the world:

-Excellent editorial judgment and eye, must generate story ideas and identify topics to cover, must react to news.
-Edit and build various online photo galleries, notably never-seen LIFE archival content and LIFE.coms weekly feature: The Weeks Best Photos
-Oversee and perform the digital restoration of LIFE archival photos (basic retouching and color correction)
-Experience negotiating and managing usage rights and rates for digital, mobile and video content
-Assign, produce and direct original photo essays
-Liaise with Editorial, Legal, Sales and PR Teams in the execution of featured content packages
-Manage freelance staff
-Strong eye for young talent
- Must be creative in terms of doing more with less for less and must be ready and willing to do so

Revealing, isn’t it ? Especially the last phrase, which could be rewritten like this : Must be capable of getting the best images for peanuts and not complain about it. Ever.

This is symptomatic of the photo world today : Publishing companies profiting from the recession to squeeze top talent into a dilapidated photo department and forcing them to put pressure on photographers.

When will we see photo editors salaries only constituted of the money they save ?

Here is you budget. Whatever you do not use for photo purchase, you can keep for yourself.

Thus putting photo editor in direct survival competition with photographers.

As long as the publishing companies keep on treating photography as a necessary evil that needs to be crushed into “misc.” category along with other parasite expenses, nothing will change.

And, as long as there is photographers or photo agencies willing to accept this pathetic treatment , nothing will change.

O yes, if you wondered why we all had to sacrifice ourselves: 

Time Inc. Operating Profit Jumps 50%, Ad Revenue Climbs 4%

Posted in celebrity, license, magazine, Good Enough, Corpocrates, newspaper, SIPA, news, editorial, photojournalism, TIME, getty | Print | No Comments »

May 28, 2010 by pmelcher.

Photography, like most industries affected by a center of gravity shift to digital, has experienced more than a migration from film to data packets. One of the most fundamental shift, however,  is how the decision process moved from quality of content to cost. Let me explain:

For a long time, the key decision in purchasing a license for any photograph had been it’s quality, it’s relevance to the intended usage. Sometimes, the photograph even outperformed its intended use, it was so good.  Cost, because it was perceived as a tool of value, was not an issue. Magazines had absolutely no problem in spending a lot of money to send photographers around the world and back in order to get the best images.

In fact, a lot of the magazines’ competition was done on newsstands with whom had the best cover. It was a badge of honor.

As images became easier and cheaper to transport thanks to falling memory prices as well as more readily available and cheaper bandwidth, the prices also started to drop. The cameras, the lens, the post processing, the traveling certainly did not drop. Just the cost of getting an image form A to B. Somehow, however, the belief that digital was cheaper to produce took root and, like a bad venom, infected  the whole industry.

Getting the best photographer to the location suddenly did not become a necessity. Getting the images faster took over. The best images was replaced by the fastest. Let’s just pick a photographer that is there already and get those images in. Assignment no longer included transportation to and fro. That lasted for a while as the still high cost of technology paired with the difficult technological learning curve kept the competition to a select few. However, that did not last long. Cost of equipment as well as it’s ease of use quickly lowered, allowing more and more to enter the competition for the fastest image.

Since it is impossible to transmit an image before it is taken, the competition hit a wall where everyone found themselves at the same level, transmitting as fast. So what happened ? prices dropped. The competition, as well as the usage decision, shifted again, this time to the cheapest.

Today, this is where we are : Decisions are no longer made on the quality of content but on its cost. It really doesn’t matter if your the next Cartier-Bresson, if you are too expensive, you won’t get published. If the photo budget is already spend on two or three subscriptions to photo agencies and your images are not part of the “feed”, forget it. You might as well go fishing. They will like your images, they just won’t use them.

What magazine readership do not see, is that they are paying to read publications that do not show them the best pictures but rather the cheapest. It is a very deceptive procedure. Don’t magazine attract your attention by the promise of delivering what they consider the best ?  Yet, as far as photography is concerned, they don’t. The rule has become to fit the image purchasing process within a pre-established budget. No longer do editors beleive that great images can boost readership. Instead, they beleive cheaper images will save them from oblivion.

How long would you continue to go to your favorite restaurant once you knew that they didn’t even try to purchase better product but just the cheapest ? This reminds us of those houses build with cheap dry wall imported from China that eventually made everyone badly sick. Sure, they were cheaper, and yes, cheap photography is not bad for your health. At least, not that we know of.

Photographs have a better chance to be published these days if they are cheap, not if they are good.

It is sad. Sad because there a great images being shot everyday that will never, never be seen because of this dictatorship of the wallet. Sad, because readers are being lied to by this money censorship. Sad because it is helping no one.

As magazine or website publishers continue to think in terms of broadcasting (One to many), our world is changing to social (many to many). Consumers are quickly evolving from passive participants to active contributors. As this migration is deepening, more will search for their own sources of photography that they will in turn grab and share. They will start invading the publishing world with images that they like rather than those that are being force fed to them by penny-pincher corpocrates. They will deconstruct and break the barriers of the conglomerate publishing world in order to resubmit their own vision of the world. It is already going in the world of text journalism, it will not be long before photography gets swept in.

It is no longer a viable proposition to beleive that image consumers will continue to just passively absorb cheap content. The barriers  that kept the suppliers of images invisible to the readers  have fallen, permitting them, for the first time in the history of photography, an unprecedented access to the source. They can now see where publications get their content from and make their own decisions. Ironically, as publications divert more and more what they use to the cheapest, the rest of the production become more and more visible, making their money censorship more obvious.

Obviously,  this uncomfortable situation is not going to last long. Photographers and photo agencies will soon be forced into finding lucrative ways to supply their images directly to the readers, by-passing those publishers who have refused to use them for monetary reasons. Some already do.

There is another revolution lurking here and once again, the photography world will never be the same.

Posted in copyright, license, multimedia, celebrity, magazine, E Reader, technology, newspaper, web 2.0, transaction, editorial, news, finance, wire service, prosumer, photojournalism, getty | Print | 1 Comment »