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 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 »

January 28, 2010 by pmelcher.

Must be something in the air… First, there is the mighty Getty, the company  that has invented photography according to it’s CEO, who launched a new interface. Users can now select what country they are from so they can get a more customized offering.  Here is how it looks:

That looks great, right? Except, they forgot the USA. Which is their biggest market . Man, those meetings must be fun.

Than, there is the always funny Corbis. In an interview for the BJP, a highly place executive try to explain the recent Veer  realignment from high end RM to microstock. Never mind this fits perfectly in Corbis’ history of destroying the brands they acquire, he says : ” To make that happen, he explains, Veer will ‘remove rights-managed images from the site when we launch the new offering.’ However, Nerland tells BJP that the images will continue to be sold on the Corbis website, which is targeted at ‘more traditional and sophisticated customers.”

“sophisticated customers” ? Does that mean Microstock customers are trash ? a bunch of trailer park hoodlums with greasy fingers ? Do they smell bad too ?

The same person proceeds to intelligently explain: “Nerland assures BJP that overall prices for royalty-free images will not go down as a result. However, he adds, ‘some images might migrate down in terms of price point, especially for content that we own.’”

Aaah, that makes sense: price images according to who owns it instead of their quality. Sure. So if they acquire Cartier-Bresson collection tomorrow, that would be cheaper than images of that schmuck over there who loves to shoot businessmen shaking hands. Brilliant !

Told you. Must be something in the air. The Corpocrates are loosing it.

Posted in technology, commercial stock, No sense, finance, getty, corbis, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

January 26, 2010 by pmelcher.

We are going to see a lot of desperate moves this year, in the photo industry. In an attempt to stay afloat in a depressed market, photographers, as well as photo agencies , will resolves to off the chart, crying for help, strategies. There has been many examples already, like the name your own price to pennies a pictures, none succeeding in making anyone rich or succesful. RF is already plagued with so many discounts and “special offering” that last all year that it is now almost impossible to purchase them at full price anymore, even if you wanted too.

In the footsteps of Getty Images, other smaller agencies beleive that the subscription model is the way to go. Enter Photoshot ( at least in Germany) . Owners of such collection as : NHPA, Bruce Coleman, UPPA, Woodfall Wild, Oceans Image, World Pictures, Photos Horticultural, StarStock, Talking Sport, World Illustrated, Photoshot Archive and Photoshot Creative, it is now offering…are you sitting down ?  Unlimited use of Photoshot’s rights managed images for 3 months for a flat monthly fee of only Euro 400 per month.

Right : for $400 Euros, you can use as many images as you want, for editorial use ( and some advertising) for three months. The license for these images , actually last for a year, if you read the fine print. So, for what used to be the price for a full page in a magazine, for a week, you can now publish 3 months of the same magazine.

The thought is probably that you will like the images soooo much that once the subscription is over, you will continue to purchase images from Photoshot at full price and make them unbelievably wealthy. Here is the reality. Why would anyone in there right mind go back to purchasing the same images for a regular price, when you got them for practically free. The exact same images.  Also, how is a three months subscription helpful to anyone besides a company that does not intend to use images after three months. Finally, if some of theses collections are commission-based, it will be a nightmare to track and pay those photographers.

The real issue here is that, even for non subscribers, you have devalued your collection so much that no one can take you seriously when you then ask for regular prices. How do you explain why an image that use to cost pennies before, suddenly goes back to hundreds, if not thousand of dollars ? if it is cheap trash, then it should remain so.

Of course, this company is not the only one, nor the first one, to turn to irrational pricing in order to save its bank account and keep creditors at bay. But, like the others, they just damage the market for the rest of us that have not lost our minds. As we once said, the photo industry is like driving a car, if you don’t know what you are doing, you are a danger to the rest of us.

Posted in license, celebrity, magazine, commercial stock, No sense, finance, getty, editorial, transaction, Royalty free | Print | 1 Comment »

November 24, 2009 by pmelcher.

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

This is what you get on the first page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Search, celebrity, technology, No sense, keyword, photoshop, filter, google, news | Print | No Comments »

November 14, 2009 by pmelcher.

Is creativity limitless? Can we go on and on creating new pictures that have never been seen or are we going to reach a point where we will start going into circles and re-shooting the same things over and over again? Is there a point where nothing will be new ?

Creativity is the lifeblood of commercial stock, whether micro, RF or RM. Without it, rates would plunge and photography would finally become a commodity, if not completely free. We have always taken for granted  that creativity was unlimited and that we would always be able to create new and original content. But what if its not. What if it is like oil, a limited resource and exactly like oil, we are starting to see the beginning of its end.

It is not by accident that many times, on this blog, photography has been compared to oil. Like it, Photography is a raw material that is only introduce to the mass market as a finished product ready to be consumed: A framed print, in a magazine, on a website, on a billboard. Never as is. Like oil, it is extracted. Not from the grown, but from the reality surrounding us. And like oil, the volume of its production can affect its pricing negatively. Even Mark Getty famously said, referring to photography :  ” Intellectual property is the oil of the XXI st century” . Thus it came with little surprise when stumbled on this chart :

Created and published by Overthink IT, it  matches the Rolling Stone Magazine 500 best songs list and when they where released with the world production of crude oil . Interesting, isn’t it? For multiple reasons.

Lets pass on whether Rolling Stones Best song list is actually the best songs. We all have our opinions on that. Rather, lets focus on when they were released and how they seem to perfectly match the extraction of crude oil. We could debate ad nauseum why the two graphs match so perfectly, from the increase production of Vinyl records to pollution affecting our R&R perception.

What is interesting here, is the appearance of a decline of creativity production indicating a possible drying out, exactly like oil. Like Oil, it is immediately consumed and has a rather short lifespan. Like Oil, creativity needs to reach farther, deeper, and in more expensive grounds to sustain. Like oil, this could be a tragedy.

What is causing this decline ? In stock photography, the  sheer volume of cheaper cameras associated with the extreme facility for copying is certainly a huge factor. Furthermore, the limited amount of topic covered by commercial stock is also a factor: Business, medicine, lifestyle, etc..it’s always the same concept that need imagery and hardly if none new ones appear. Finally, it just could be associated with it’s inherent inability to creating a self sustaining value

Is commercial stock photogrpahy headed the same way is non renewable energies ? quite very possibly.

Posted in license, commercial stock, No sense, getty, Royalty free, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

November 10, 2009 by pmelcher.

The current photo industry and newcomers apply a completely flawed logic to licensing images. It is too often believed that if an image is largely seen, it will be licensed. The thinking come from primeval logic. It goes like this:

- if an image is not seen, it will never be sold. (which is a truism). Therefore, if it is seen, it will sell.  (which is a complete myth).

With the age of the internet, thousands upon thousands of would-be entrepreneurs has set up shop with image archiving platforms thinking that it will be all the necessary work to be performed to make lots and lots of money. Just make sure that images can be seen, search and paid for and voila !! its done.

Even as the short history of the web proves otherwise, it remains a very potent dream. There are billions of images on Flickr or Photobucket that will never, ever be sold. and more are being uploaded as you read this. And they also will not sell.  beyond those platform, there are many many more with e commerce capabilities. Snugmug or the defunct DigitalRailoard are other examples. Sure, it is easy to create a platform where images can be seen and purchased but it doesn’t mean they will be sold.

What a large number of photo gurus misunderstand with the success of Istock is that it was build with customers first. if you recall, the first people to put images on the site were people who needed images. It was an exchange platform. As it started charging a fee for downloads, it kept on growing as those same customers were selling their images to other customers.  Many other microstock companies have launched since and are not understanding why their sales are flat.

This myth has also affected how images are edited. Before digital, every precaution was taken to only keep  the best images. Now, the same mentality applies through various argument: Better more than less, let them decide, you never know, better uploaded than not…and so on.

But the same rules applies. A digital crap is still a crap, even if it can be seen by millions. The reason images do not sell these days are exactly the same as they were pre Internet. They suck. No one wants to buy them. Whether they are on the Getty images site or some obscure lousy website.

It would be interesting to have one day an industry wide survey on what percentage of images are actually licensed compared to the overall size of the database. 4%? 8% ? 10 % ?. The same survey would probably also show that the most carefully edited images databases also have the highest yield ratio.

What is captivating is that it very often the same people that complain that industry has too much content offering that will turn around and explain to you that if an image is not seen, it will not sell. Thus feeding the same beast they complain about. It is the same people that will copy another succesful niche with subpar images that will also complain that there are too many images available.

So let’s not contribute to this problem and let’s call a cat a cat: making images visible or accessible does not create value . Let’s destroy this myth once and for all. and while you ‘re at it, delete all those crappy images.

Posted in No sense, license, technology, commercial stock, prosumer, flickr, Royalty free, getty, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

September 29, 2009 by pmelcher.

So the big buzz these days is all about social media. It started roughly with MySpace , followed by Flickr and now it’s all about  Twitter and Facebook.  A bit like the “Long Tail” theory has been improperly swallowed by a  lot of photography professionals, social media is all but properly understood.

It used to be that, after creating a blog, you had to have a page on Myspace. And then it was you HAD to have a gallery on Flickr. Now, it has shifted to Facebook and Twitter. There is even a scheduled talk at the upcoming Photoplus expo on how to master Twitter for photographers.  I wonder if, at the time, they had a “how to master CB radio for photographers” and how well that worked.

Social media is a critical tool if you are in the B2C market, directly selling your products, or services, to the general public. However, photography is much more ( besides wedding photogrpahers) then a simple B2B product and service. A bit like raw oil. Try and sell raw oil to general public. No one would buy as they wouldn’t know what to do with it.

So, having a business Twitter  account and spending hours a day updating it in the hope of closing a major assignment or licensing deal is like walking your neighborhood doing door to door marketing. A shot in the dark. A completely useless exercise in futility with the added bonus of wasting your time and concentration. No one cares if you just came back from a photo shoot or finished editing 341 images in less than one hour thanks to Aperture. And you could Twipic your “best of” until you are  blue in the face, all they care about is funny cat pictures.

Facebook has, for photography, pretty much the same marketing value as Twitter . Unless you are already friends with a photo editor, no one will search Facebook to find you or hire you. Might as well use your account to post funny videos. That, people will like.

The fascinating part of all this is that there  are now so called self proclaim experts in these “marketing photography via social media ” who claim they can take your business from zero to millions thanks to “secrets” they have found. If that was true, wouldn’t they rather be enjoying there money somewhere on exotic beach instead of trying to sell you their useless approach ?

It is somewhat pathetic to see how so much of the photography community falls, year after years, into these marketing dead ends and forget that the number 1 rule remains always the same : Shoot meaningful images. Or, in other words ” It’s the content, stupid”. Nothing else, nothing more.

Sure, you might even be succesful in getting thousand upon millions of hits on your website thanks to you mastering social media. Still doesn’t mean you will convert any of these into a sale. Actually, all this traffic might even block actual buyers to get to your site.

After hours and hours updating your blog, Facebook account, Myspace page , Flickr account and Tweeting about all this, when does one find time to actually work on photography ? Don’t we spend already too much time online  ? Are does really successful in creating a huge following on social media selling any images ?

Social media for photography is only good for one thing : make your clients talk about you to your next potential clients. For them to rave about your photography and your incredible customer support. Your exquisite sense of professionalism and your impeccable delivery.  And to accomplish that, you need to stop Twitering and start shooting.

Posted in Photoplus, license, technology, commercial stock, No sense, keyword, photojournalism, flickr, web 2.0, news | Print | 2 Comments »

August 25, 2009 by pmelcher.

The PACA is about to release their stockphotofinder. Or at least a Beta version of it. For those who do not know, PACA stands for Picture Archive Council of America and regroups hundreds of RM and RF commercial stock agencies.

They have recently decided, in committee, to create a photo portal for all its members to be included and released this preview video:

If you can get passed the crooner, late-at-night, crackling, I-want-to-be-sexy voice, of the commentator, you will see how a committee can destroy a potentially good idea. Where should we start? Oh well, the idea in general.

Between Newscom, Stockphotfinder, BrightQube and many others, such portal exist already, and for a long time. So you would think this one would bring something new, something compelling. Well, actually, it doesn’t.

It actually bring you back to 1990’s : a search will return…a list of agencies that have the existing keyword in their database. Not only that, but instead of returning the relevant images, it will classify the result with the agency who has the most result with the keyword you entered on top. Meaning that its not about the quality of the image but the quantity available. Does that mean that PACA favors agencies with the most pictures? Seems like it.

If you do not like that, you are offered another list. This one classifies the results by the proportion of the keyword relevant to the total size of the archive..mmm..who thought about that one? The claim is that this list will bubble up the agency who are specialized in the pics you are looking for. Maybe, but it will also highlight those with just a lot of images too . Again, no pictures here.

If you want to see the actual results with thumbnails, you have to click on an agency link. and then another one. If you use a Safari browser, one of the least-used browser on the internet, you can even open multiple tabs, if you twist your fingers on the keyboard a little bit .

Up to now, if you are not completely disgusted by the experience, you still have major hurdles left. Let say you like an image on one of the tabs you have open. well, you are now on your own and have to go register to that agency to license it. Great, how is that helpful ?

You also have to fight your way through so many exact similar that you might never license an image ever again. Some of these agencies represent each other content and if you add Newscom, or Stockphotofinder, who are  already portals , you might see the same image 10 or 20 times on different site. And probably at different prices.  Also, for some reason, DigitalRailroad appears as result option. Either this Beta is more than a year old, or someone forgot to tell PACA they are out of business. No sign of Photoshelter, by the way.

Maybe if you find the right image, they send it to you via messenger ?

We could go on and on with more comments. For picture professionals to regroup and to come out with a product like this is shameful. It clearly shows what is terribly wrong with commercial stock distributors who seem to have no clue on how to properly service their clients. It’s a monument to PACA’s archaism and its members complete ignorance of their market.

Posted in license, technology, commercial stock, Midstock, Search, Royalty free, PACA, No sense, Microstock | Print | No Comments »