April 27, 2011 by pmelcher.

You say photojournalism is dead. You say , where are all the good stories gone. You say, it used to be that we could see great photo essays in the pages of our magazine. You say a lot of things. But what do you do ?

Well, here is a suggestion : go to kickstater.com or emphas.is and indulge yourself in becoming a donor in photography.  Jump in with your two feet into the now and present and put your money where you mouth is. Support, sponsor, donate and get involved. Got your tax refund check ? take a small portion of it and spend it in high high luxury by helping out a photographer that has all the right tools but is just missing a few dollars.

There is no scam here, not wasted energy, to false promises. Be your own photo editor and pick the stories you like and make them come to life. You have no idea how good it feels. Do it for yourself, for the next generation that will see and enjoy them, do it in memory of those who died to keep this trade alive. Do it because you can and you should. Do it to make the naysayers shut up and the temple merchants disappear.

Do it because you want to see more . Don’t wait for stories to come to you. Make them happen. Be an instrument of change. You have absolutely nothing to loose. Do it often, even if its a few bucks here and there.

If you are not sure, here is a suggestion:

You already know you will not regret it.

Posted in multimedia, technology, Social Media, web 2.0, photojournalism, transaction, finance, slideshow, editorial | 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 »

April 12, 2011 by pmelcher.

It’s the content stupid ! well, no more.

Some time ago, if you were lucky enough to have created an image that all wanted, you could easily sit on it and wait for your phone to ring. Not really anymore. The center of the business gravity has shifted. To those who create value around the content.

The downfall of journalism is a good example. The great site of journalism are not doing as well as those who couldn’t care less about quality. The Huffingon Post beats the New York Times. Sure, traffic will tell you a different story. But, finance will not. While the NY Times is struggling to find ways to create dollar value, the Huffington Post sells for more than $300 million. Why ? Because they are in two different businesses.

One is obsessed at creating content, the other in monitizing content. And, right now, the money is in those who know how to monitize content.  In photogrpahy, the same shift has happened. You could be the greatest photographer alive, it wouldn’t matter if you didn’t know how to create value around your content. Those who have experience in doing so are the publishers.

They can take cheap text from one place , a cheap photograph from the other and voila, done. Why ? Because in the internet age of fast and free consumption, people do not expect value for their money as they do not pay. They are fine in receiving what they have paid for : not much.

Thus, why should publishers pay a premium for any photograph ? They will not retain viewers longer, nor will it guarantee  fidelity . Rather, what they focus on is the volume and the management of expectancy. As long as they deliver the little that is expected from them when it is expected from them, than they will create traction. And Dollars.

Why bother paying for an exclusive image when that image can be copied and pasted in thousands of websites within minutes ?  Why pay more for a photograph which will grab someone attention for less than a second before they move on ? It would be a waste of resources.

Rather, it makes much more financial sense to have a repeated pattern of offering over and over, with accurate consistency, the exact expected result. That is where the revenue resides. Within a context, not within the content.  Furthermore, a context can be managed, not content. That is the economy we see all around us and that is why photography, by itself, has little or no value. It is just a very small brick of a much wider context.

Photographers, photo agencies and related have no experience in building value around their images. They sell a raw material that has devaluated because the refineries, those who transform it in consumables, the publishers, only use them as small elements of their final product. They are not the product.

Can it be changed ? Maybe. No one has really tried to create a publication with exclusive or high end photography only. Mostly because those who have tried with text, like the New York Times, have spend a lot of money and failed. Up to now.

Will it change ? It will certainly if paywalls start to be successful . Because as soon as people pay for content, they expect the content to match or surpass the value they paid for it.

Thus, the future of photography, or at least the future of photography  online, depends on the success of paywalls.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, technology, license, Search, finance, photojournalism, web 2.0, editorial | Print | No Comments »

April 7, 2011 by pmelcher.

A great tribute to a great man, of a period when photo editing was so much more than just getting the “cheapest one”.

from the NPPA

Posted in magazine, Magnum, license, multimedia, photojournalism, editorial | Print | No Comments »

March 15, 2011 by pmelcher.

It used to be that photojournalism could be done by everyone. Lately, this seem to have shifted.

When Bob Capa decided to go cover the Spanish civil war, he took with him ( or was it the opposite ?), photographer Gerda Taro. Probably because she died much earlier than Capa ( in 1937), her work is less extensive and much lesser known.

When Margaret Bourke - White photographed the Death Camps at the end of World War II for Life magazine, no one cared if she was a woman or not. Her images told the story and that was that.

Today, more and more, it seems that photojournalism wants to define itself by its gender. More and more, do you see cooperative, workshop, panels, etc for women photographers only. As if your gender was  influential in your photo-journalistic process . Who are we trying to fool ?

I have worked with many, many women photojournalist and I can tell you that if i hadn’t known, I would have never been able to tell the gender by just looking at the images. There is the same talent, or lack of, whether you wear a skirt or not .

It seems that political correctness has now started to reach the shores of the previously sexless island of photography. It appears that some people, with a highly develop social conscience, want you to know what sex was that photographer whose picture you admire. As if it made any difference.

Readers hardly read a photo credit, so why would they care ? Photo editors, the talented ones at least, a gender blind as long as the story is perfectly visually told. So who is behind this and why ?

And if was this was such an issue, why not create a group for black photographers, Jewish photographers, Muslim photographers, gay photographers, or left handed photographers ?

It is bad enough that photographers find the need to categorize themselves in one activity ( Sports, fashion, news, celebrity, etc..) but now they will also have to pick an appropriate social group ?

Why ?

To protect their photographer group against other photographer groups ? Or to make some kind of stupid statement that women photographers are better than men photojournalist ? or have more sensibility ? or are more tuned in other people misery ? Or is it to influence women photo editors to hire women photographers first because of gender wars ?

This self segregation of an already endangered species of artisan is not only ridiculous but pointless and harmful. It will only lead to creating a unnecessary distraction to those who only want to create, publish or view great images.

Posted in magazine, Waste of time, celebrity, No sense, editorial, photojournalism, news | Print | 1 Comment »

February 25, 2011 by pmelcher.

In an interview given to the french blog A l’Oeil, the court appointed administrator of the defunct Corbis Sygma , the french company set up by Corbis after its acquisition of Sygma, declared that he is about to destroy millions of Sygma’s photographs.

You might remember that Corbis, during its heavy acquisition years, purchased the legendary French news photo agency Sygma for about $20 million in the hope that it would give them the reportage-news cachet it was missing so much. After strikes, mismanagement, business bloopers and other incongruity, Corbis forfeited this summer and declared total bankruptcy. They used the pretext of a lost lawsuit by a french photographer as the reason and very quickly closed everything.

You might also remember that they had open an archive facility amidst the cows of Normandy, similar to the underground facility they have in Pennsylvania . All the negatives and originals were transferred there to preserve them for eternity.

Well, apparently, eternity is now partly over.

Maitre Gorrias, legal administrator of the defunct Corbis Sygma and in charge of its dismantlement,   announced on February 8 that after a failed attempt to sell the images at auction he will destroy them. Yes, you read well : destroy.

What are we taking about ? According to Dan Perlet « Global Director of Communications of Corbis » : The Preservation and Access site  contains approximately 50 million photographic elements which about 75% are under the control of Corbis Corporation (photographers who signed a contract with Corbis Corporation) and 25% of photographic elements remaining under the control of liquidator (photographers without a signed contract with Corbis Corporation and is represented by Sygma). We have no precise figures on the number of photographers. “

The images about to be destroyed are the last 25%.  That is 12 million images !

Maitre Gorrias apparently doesn’t have any issue in returning those images to the photographers who took them. However, he doesn’t have the resources to try to find them.

Thus, if you or someone you know might have images in the Sygma archive, please urgently contact :

Maître Stéphane Gorrias SCP BTSG 1 place Boieldieu 75002 Paris – France

and tell him you would like your images back.

More on this story on the excellent french photography blog written by Michel Puech , A ‘L’oeil ( In French)

Posted in photojournalism, license, copyright, transaction, editorial, corbis, law, france, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

February 19, 2011 by pmelcher.

As the business world seems to be moving more and more towards subscription/ sharing model, why doesn’t the photogrpahy world ? Already very much applied by photo agencies that offer monthly/ yearly packages that provide, for a flat fee a limited amount of images, independent photographers could jump on the bandwagon too.

Here is how it would work. A photographer would decide how much he would need to live for a year. He would then sale shares of his time to numerous clients that would need him throughout the year. Once hired by enough clients, the “share” would be closed. Then clients would book him when need, using an online calendar, a bit like Zipcar.

In order to make this work, he would have to not think in terms of jobs but in terms of yearly revenue. So he might loose money on some jobs but make some on other. Everything would level out to make a nice profit. The client would be happy, since they would be able to manage their photo budget on a yearly basis instead of per jobs.

Let’s take a wedding photographer, for example. Right now, they run a hit and run operation: They try to get the most money out of a client they will see once and move on.

Under our model, our wedding photographer would not only offer wedding pictures, but baby pictures, family pictures and so on. He would get hired for a certain fee for 5 years. During that time, he would be on call to shoot whatever the couple would need. In exchange, he would get a steady revenue . It would coat the couple much less money up front to cover the wedding while guaranteeing the photographer steady work and income for the next five years.

Multiply this by 50 clients and a photographer could live comfortably and stress free. Because of the revolving pool of clients, high and lows in revenue would be minimize.

The same could be done for a corporate shooter. Replace the couple client by companies and there you go.

Obviously, you would need some incentive for the clients to sign up for the share/subscription model. Free unlimited online storage of images or 100 free prints a year ? The options are wide open.

More and more individuals seem to be comfortable with the subscription/ share model . From Netflix to Pandora, from Zipcar to Cell phone plans, it is all about simplifying billing and avoiding one time high costs. It just fits better with how they are being paid.

It will be interesting to see if this model takes root in the photography community and develops into an industry standard.

Posted in web 2.0, license, Social Media, prosumer, photojournalism, transaction, finance, editorial | Print | 2 Comments »

February 11, 2011 by pmelcher.

No slightly blurry, underexposed images. No, “look at me, I took these pictures with a broken down Holga standing on one foot” pictures. No, “I am so much more important than the story I am photographing” reportage. No, “look at my Lego skills dude”. Nope.

100 % pure photojournalism. This year World Press Awards are a photojournalism feast with a buffet of the highest quality. Sure, there are more independents than agency photographers ( who cares ?)  . Sure, little Getty images in favor of much more Panos ( I wouldn’t bury Getty just yet). Sure, much more color than Black and White. But that is irrelevant. The World Press Awards is not a crystal ball.

I would question the decision of using a portrait photograph as the number one winner. Not because the image is bad nor that the subject is not worthy. Not at all. I would question it for its potential consequences. Now, every photo reporter in shorts is going to think that the best way to cover a story is to take a bunch of people, stick them in front of a white wall and declare it photojournalism. This trend  is already plagging countries like France and this might make it more universal. Regardless, that should not be the jury’s problem.

I love the slap in the face given to AFP and Getty by attributing Daniel Morel Haiti’s images a well deserved award. I am sure they considered the little girl image as a first prize for a long time.

Not sure, finally, about the Google Street award. Isn’t that a funny subject for a magazine to put together but really not a World Press award contender? Furthermore, aren’t we fringing on copyright infringement here ? I suppose that was the World Press jury “social media” moment.

Now, if magazines ( especially in the US)  would only have the talent to publish more stories like these, the world would be a perfect place ( well, almost). If publishers worldwide would recognize how important these images are to their publications and pay a decent price for them, that would be heaven. Until then, we can hardly say that Photojournalism is dead ( or even dying for that matter). Congrats to all the winner and a double cheer to the talented jury.  ‘Nough said :

Posted in TIME, license, magazine, Social Media, photojournalism, wire service, news, editorial, slideshow, getty | 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 »

February 3, 2011 by pmelcher.

Sometimes, away from the screams of the mainstream media’s ADD ( Attention Deficit Disorder) , you fall on some incredibly powerful story. This is one of them.

Beautifully photographed and edited by photographer Piotr Malecki.  ‘Nough said.  Take a look :

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