August 12, 2008 by pmelcher.

- Misconception No1: Photojournalism is not being killed by celebrity photographers. In fact, photographers that cover the celebrity scene, weather red carpet or street photographer have the same ratio of good to bad photographers than in news. It takes some of the same skills to cover news and celebrity. Regardless. Time or Newsweek have not increased their celebrity photography coverage. They just have just lessened their news coverage.

- Misconception No2 : Editorial photography is dying. What is dying are the daily and weekly print publications. Newspapers, magazines, and old brands. They cannot compete with the speed of  news anymore. What is dying is the image that is formatted for a print support with a rectangular format. What is dying is the photography taught in school and colleges today. There is a new medium for editorial photography that has never existed before, that knows no boundaries will it be in size, amount, artifact and pricing ( the Internet). What really is dying here is an old mentality.

- Misconception No3:  Video will replace stills. Take a look at the amount of video images coming out of the Olympics. Hours and hours of footage. Now, tell me who will sit down and edit film pumped out at 25 frames per seconds to find the right image ?While you think, look at this great gallery done by Stern magazine and see what can photographers can do.

- Misconception No4: Anybody can shoot great images these days. Why would anyone say that when pro photographers have always used the same equipment as amateurs. This is not like dentistry or chemistry where the tools are hard to find, let alone the knowledge. Photography has always been easy to learn and the equipment always available to anyone. The only part that has changed is how easier it is these days to share. But really good images created by amateurs have always been around. Not as accessible, that is all. Its not the equipment that matters in great photography, it is the person holding it

- Misconception No5 : If you produce a lot of images, you can make a living with your photography. A rule of thumb more in the stock photography world than in the editorial one. It was true for a while when it was expensive to distribute images to clients. Today, it is a dangerous thought. Quantity will slowly be replaced by quality as the market will no longer be able to support myriads of photographers hoping to make a living. Image buyers will no longer be capable of keeping up with offer and start closing doors.

- Misconception No6: A photo editor knows a lot about photography. A photo editor only knows a lot about the photography used in their publication. He or she works, breath and sleeps in a very confined universe. Their ability to make one publication look great almost never  translate in making any and all publications look great.  That is why very successful photo editors never leave the publication they work for. They grow into them.

- Misconception No7 : Blogs about photography are useful. Besides posting press release they never read or repeating something they read elsewhere, they actually do not help much. Only a very few escape the ego narcissistic trip of the popularity contest and give out extremely valuable insight. They are extremely rare. The rest are operated by hit counters.

- Misconception No8: Every Magnum / VII photographer is a great photo editor. Why do thousand of photographers flock to have their portfolio edited by another photographer? It would vaguely make sense if one would want to be that photographer or replace him/her. And even so, photographers are the worst editors of their own work. But what makes a successful photographer a better editor than a non photographer ? If anything, if they see a great portfolio, wouldn’t they  try to dissuade that person from stealing their job?

- Misconception No9 : There is still room for a news agency. With AP, AFP, Reuters, Getty, EPA, DPA and other wire services employing some of the best photographers in the world while controlling most of the sales channel, it does seem obvious. There is no more oxygen. The best one can hope to do is represent a small pool of extremely talented photographers and help them get assignments, but even that is not a given. If they are extremely talented, they really do need much help. So what makes all these agencies try to cover events like the Olympics with 1/10 of the resources the others have with medium to mediocre photographers( crumb photographers)? Hope ?

- Misconception No10: Free photography will save the world. or a new pricing.or a association of good willing people. There is only one thing that will save photography, if it actually needs saving. It’s photography. great photography

Posted in magazine, celebrity, Magnum, Newsweek, commercial stock, newspaper, TIME, news, editorial, wire service, photojournalism, getty | Print | 4 Comments »

August 4, 2008 by pmelcher.

let them eat cake, she had said. As the eyes of the world are turning toward China and the upcoming Olympics, this is a good time to reflect on how photography is evolving. Not as a medium, but as a media.

Getty images licenses a series of exclusive images to People and Hello! for a reported $14 million. No one questions this. furthermore, no one seems to believe that the number is just plainly insane. On one side of the spectrum, images sell at a buck a piece and on the other, at double digit millions of dollars.  Doesn’t make much sense. And I will tell you why : Image pricing was a combination factor of quality/difficulty/usability. The more an image was going to be used, or seen, the more it would cost. The better, or rather, the more relevant the images were, the more its price would go up. Finally, the more an image was hard to get, the more the price would go up. If you look at the RF microstock model, none of the above is true anymore. Does the Jolie twins bring so much value that they will reep sales above $7 million ( assuming People paid half the bill ?) . lets see : Angelina first baby picture sold for $4million. People sold 2.2 million copies at a cover price of 3.95. That is roughly  $ 8.8 million if you complitely ignore the subscribers. If they raised their advertising space rate, they should have broken even. At $7 million, it becomes more of a problem. After all , it is not because she had twins that there will be double the readership, is it ?

Actually, these images have become a story by themselves. They were priced way before Angelina even had the babies. And by whom ? The media. Rumors, speculation, interviews, opinions were running  like a mountain stream in Spring, finally settling around anywhere from $11 million to $14 million.

Interesting thus, that Getty sold these images for the same price as people assume someone would sell these images. Did the  megastar couple take the hint from the crowdsourcing pricing or is it just hype ? After all, the crowd will be more eager to see images that are worth $14 million dollars than a few bucks. Thus both Getty, People and Hello ! profit from screaming that those images were sold for $14 million. It benefits everyone, even the couple who gets to give even more money to charity.

Furthermore, does anyone who has been in this industry for a while really think that competing magazine USweekly or IN TOUCH  stop bidding at 13,999,999 .00 and said we give up ? Or that if the National enquirer had bid $15 million, it would have been in their latest issue ? Publicists and stars want to be in People magazine, not in tabloids.

Who cares if it is not true, really. What matters here is that these images  got a celebrity status, even before they were even taken.

The second incident is the revelation by Newsweek DP that the Olympics will be mostly a .com event. Ex-photography director, Mary Ann Golon had told me that TIME will be doing the same a few months back . Seems that this Olympic season will be online with additional reporting in print. The slow decay of the paper support is becoming more apparent as it cannot compete with the feeding frenzy. Photography becomes free at last of the written word and regains a position of strength. It can live, breath and exist by itself  on an online slideshow that doesn’t need much explanation. This will only continue to erode the news weeklies here and worldwide. It will also put much more pressure on the photographers to fully report with images and not just be an accompaniment to the text. Its good news.

Posted in license, TIME, celebrity, magazine, Newsweek, photojournalism, slideshow, Royalty free, getty, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | 4 Comments »

June 29, 2008 by pmelcher.

It is not going to get better. In fact, it is only going to get worse. With the price of gasoline rising everywhere in the world and political freedom slowly being burned out, journalism and  twin sister photojournalism, will continue to suffer a slow and painful death.

First, there are the newspapers, that cannot compete against the web anymore. While it was just  against the speed and visuals of television, newspapers still had a few weapons of choice : The written word, the photographs and the ease of location. Unlike a TV set, newspapers could be carried around everywhere. Against the web, none of these advantages exist anymore. We can get news as faster and in even more locations than any physical newspapers can provide. No need to find a newsstand, the news is on our phones, or laptops. We can select what we read where we want. And we get images, if not videos. The medium itself is dying.

News Magazines, at least weeklies, are not doing much better. They have to put all their efforts into exclusive reporting in order to continue to compete with the web’s immediate delivery. But with the rising cost of staff writers and photographers added to the ever rising cost of travel, it is very fast becoming a negative income proposition. If you cannot send your own team on location, you will not get any exclusive coverage.

As for the Web, well, it is obvious. Newspapers, magazines, TV stations, everyone is competing for attention while delivering the content for free. In a way, news outlets are cannibalizing themselves, eating away at their very own core.

Here is the dilemma with journalism today:  It is still trying to be a profit center when obviously it cannot be one anymore. News used to be for sale and people would gladly pay for it. They even went along with the fact that their attention was sold twice, to them and to advertisers.

The past and present news empires are a testimony of its success. Organization owned the news because they were the only ones capable of gathering it  and distributing it for profit . Not so anymore.

Because the cost is rising and because we are dealing with profit businesses who need to cut cost , more and more news outlet are not even selling their own news, but news and photographs bought at wholesale prices and sold at retail . AP, Reuters, AFP and others are some of these news wholesalers. They can spread out their cost of reporting to thousand of clients. But for us, readers, we only get a washed down version of an event. We see the same photographs over and over. We do not feel any connections to our favorite publications ever since the competing one has the same exact content.

Why should I pay for something that is everywhere ? To anyone, something that is everywhere is either very cheap, or free. News is not considered as it should be a paid  item anymore. It has been devalued to almost nothing. News outlets played a deadly bidding war against each other not by increasing the quality of their reporting but rather reducing the amount of money spend on gathering it.

Aggregation, shut downs, mergers are certainly are only elements of this downward spiral. In its insatiable thirst to remain profitable, the news industry is killing itself by cutting costs. They rely on Britney Spears to pump up the sales: cheap to cover and rather entertaining. Wrong idea.  A single guy with a desktop and no notion of anything but himself can outdo any organization with no money : Perezhilton.com. With free images nonetheless, as he allegedly stole photographs from photo agencies.

So what is the solution ? Cut the middle man. For the readers to directly pay for the news by making news a public service. Before you start spitting on the floor while throwing your fist to the sky and cursing my name, let me explain. Currently, you are already getting a lot of publicly funded news. AFP, for example, widely distributed in the USA by Getty Images, is a government-owned company paid for with French taxpayer’s money. DPA, grand master behind EPA ( European press agency),  is also partly funded by the German government.

Some of the best reporting, currently, is done by  non for profit companies. In the US, channel Thirteen does some of the most amazing news coverage. It has the time, the resources and the will. Because it is not trying to sell you anything, it focuses on the issues. I know, you will say that you do not want to read or see propaganda. That is like saying that all public schools are brainwashing your kids, that firefighters are bias when they put out fires or that public beaches are secretly bugged with microphones.

Of course the temptation will be great, for a government to want to censor the news, if they feel they own it. But like other public institution, like libraries for example, there are many ways to protect the editorial content. And in a way, government interference might be more welcomed than any current hidden big business agendas ( think Newscorp and Murdoch for example). At least I can vote them out. I would much prefer my tax money goes to help fund journalistic investigations than helping killing people.

Just think of it : openly public funded news outlets with finally the right amount of funds to properly cover the news. Journalist and photo reporter will  not be under the pressure of being fired all the time. Foreign governments might just be that much more careful if they know that the journalist are government employees.

We would finally get some news. Any and all news.  Some regular updates on Darfur even if only less of us care.We would enjoy original and in depth reporting, great original photography and a much, much better understanding of our world. Would you really mind knowing that the New York Times is own by the US government ? Or by public funding ? That it serves the public needs rather than a private group of investors ?

It would be a real boost for photojournalists around the world and the quality of reporting because, let’s face it : It is not because of the lack of quality and interest that photojournalism is dying, it is because of the current inadequate economics behind it.

Posted in newspaper, multimedia, magazine, TIME, photojournalism, news, editorial, wire service, getty | Print | No Comments »

June 5, 2008 by pmelcher.

News of the sudden departure of Mary Ann Golan from the position of Director of photography might be link to this cover ?

The image comes from a Shutterstock / Istockphoto contributor and was licensed for legendary pennies. Microstock on the cover of Time magazine sure is a milestone. It would be interesting to know if it was the image or the cost that was behind the decision to use this image.

 More on this image and the reactions here.

Posted in magazine, commercial stock, TIME, transaction, editorial, Microstock | Print | 3 Comments »

April 3, 2008 by pmelcher.

You would think that you could immediately say which news photographer won 11 prizes this year. You would probably think..”mmm, someone from VII or Getty, no ?”.

You could say that but you would be wrong.

This year alone, he won:

3  National Geographic prizes.

4 White House News Photographers associations prizes

Grand prize PDN & National Geographic Traveler

2 Honorable Mentions PX3 Prix de la photographie de Paris

First Place portrait Best Of Photojournalism NPPA

Yet his images have never been shown at Visa Pour l’image, ICP and other venerable photo institution. You will not see his images at the first NY photo festival. Probably because he does not shoot wars, does not have any images of dead people and does not carry a HOLGA. However you have seen his images in Newsweek, TIME, Stern, Paris Match. And you will see more, trust me. You even have seen him published here.

Yes, it’s Olivier Douliery, from Abaca Press . Extremely talented news photographer from Washington DC who does magic with an extremely  difficult subject : US politics. A great example of what photojournalism can do when it does not desperately try to be art, but a communication language. Olivier does not capture faces and places, he gets their soul. From a defeated Mike Tyson before his final match, to a playful Dalai Lama, from a Bill Clinton looking through the shoes of his candidate wife, to a George Bush laughing like a little kid at his inauguration as if he just pulled a nasty trick at another kid in the schoolyard, Olivier photograph with a smart sense of humor that makes you smile and reflect at the same time. There is no politicians in Olivier’s image, but rather players on an empty stage that have their moments of sadness, doubt, happiness, exhaustion, triumph. People with emotions, like you and me. Olivier captures the emotions of the so called powerful. The whole gamut. And makes them human again, with an incredible respect for his subject. A little bit as he was photographing  his cousins at summer family gathering.

There is a sense of time in all of his images, of  immediacy. It would be almost impossible to take any of his image and put them out of context. They would look odd and wrong. That is why he is a great photojournalist. Because he no only captures the person, but also everything that is going in at that time, in that persons life.

And finally, Olivier is great human being. Nice, polite, helpful, he is respected and adored by his peers. I am privileged to know him. He as a great career ahead of him.

More of his images here

Posted in TIME, newspaper, magazine, Newsweek, photojournalism, slideshow, news, france, editorial, getty | Print | No Comments »

March 31, 2008 by pmelcher.

While photographers trade organization are wasting their time fighting issues like the Oprhan Work bill in order the save whatever they have left, and while photo agencies association seem violently silent, the world of editorial continue its downfall.

According to Radaronline, Newsweek magazine got rid of 111 staffers last week ( didn’t even know they had that many)  and the newspapers of America had the worst ad revenue in its 50 years history, according to E&P.Worst than the 2001 slump. While analysts seem to confuse Getty going private with Getty shutting down, it is quite obvious that the tide is retreating before the big hit.

As previously written here, the editorial world will loose its dailies and weeklies in favor of the internet. It is not a question of if, but when. Monthlies will continue to thrive as long as they keep away from time sensitive news. The old ways will not continue.

While this continues, photographers and agencies will continue to bear the heaviest load as they will be asked to support the biggest part of theit cost saving initiative. A lot of companies will sink with the ships they will be trying to save. Those who will survive are those who are, today, turning to the new market. Companies, like Getty, that have understood that the future is on the Internet and create for themselves opportunities to be competitive.

Istockphoto, and other micro/midstock agencies are a good example of internet savvy photo agencies. Lean, mean, fast, cost effective companies that have learned to both cut their costs and leverage technology to its fullest. They can reach wide and far accross the world and up and down the client ladder. Others have jumped into new licensing models like Gumgum which  allows them to operate like a microstock on but a RM model.

The issue will be the relenvency of content. Currently, the internet is replicating the print editorial world. Some are adding video or multimedia, but it is still very linear. But that will change too as “born in the internet” art directors will re -invent  the web page and how we consume our news. Photographers will and agencies will have to reinvent their offering to match it.

Getty, by going private, will certainly take advantage of this new situation. They have already by acuiring Istockphoto. The celebrity photo agencies have also initiated the switch by producing videos and embrassing new licensing models. Others will probablly decide that book publishing, exhibits, grants are a better way to go and try to carve a controlled market. But, with schools already using Wikipedia and other National Geographic sites as references, how long will this market survive?

More technology based solutions are peeking out of the horizon that can help this industry  make a succesful transition. It is, a little, heartbreaking to see how slowly they are being ignored by the guardians of the old temple who beleive that saving what they have is better than growing in new markets.

Posted in copyright, license, Midstock, celebrity, magazine, Newsweek, gumgum, Zymmetrical, multimedia, TIME, editorial, news, getty, transaction, CEPIC, photojournalism, msnbc.com, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

February 8, 2008 by pmelcher.

The World Press awards has revealed its winners for 2008. As expected, the picture of Britney Spears having her head shaved off won for the best image of Arts and entertainment. Or wait..it did not. Once again, The World Press has shown its complete disrespect for the world of news in favor of an overly intellectualized vision of the world. A bit as if the judges, once gathered in a room, behind closed doors, had said: “lets kill photojournalism a little bit more this year”

The photojournalism intelligentsia has voted. A closed group of overly self adoring and painfully egocentric intellectuals whose vision of a news photography is closer to the likes of ICP than the masses. They look for the creative touch, the Holga/lensbaby effect, the “je ne sais quoi” that makes a news photograph a work of art. They over think photography to an excess and seem to look for the Picasso rather than the human touch. They do not believe that an news image can be good, if doesn’t carry the touch of a creative artifact.

This years big winner is a blurry image of a tired soldier. Although not taken in a combat situation, and probably because of low light, it is slightly blurry. I don’t care for such poorly taken image. What is so wrong about reality that it has to be altered and given the highest prize in photojournalism ?

Sadly enough, we see the same intelligentsia controlling most of the major prizes worldwide and spitting out the same type of winners. These judges are all friends with each other and spend the rest of the year over analyzing images as if they where reading a Kafka novel. It has to be dark, blurry, slightly incomprehensible and borderline boring.

No wonder photojournalism is dying. Once again, the sports images of this year seem to be the real winners. Amazing images of incredible situation. The rest is dark, so dark. Not just dark subjects, but simply slightly underexposed or taken with low light. The less you see, the more you can imagine. The image is good for what is not there, so you can fill in the blanks yourself. Even the Nature category is full of blood and sadness because a happy image, according to these judges, cannot be a good image.

Lets no forget that politics, for example, has no place in the World Press. We marvel at the John F Kennedy images in the Oval office yet there is not one image of world leaders in action. Between the French election last year, the changing of guards in England and the US election, you cannot tell me there was no great images.

It is a little bit as if, outside of Africa ( Kenya, mostly), Afghanistan and Iraq, the rest of the world stood still. Or, maybe it was not favorable for a nice moody b&w panoramic Holga image. You can almost hear the judges discuss the lightness of being, quoting “The human condition”, while sipping their warm cappuccinos.” This image is so Nietzscheen, isn’t it?”

Certainly not a good year for the World Press. Even more, because, once again, they refused to acknowledge multimedia, one of the most powerful tool of today’s photojournalism. Or, in a socially driven internet, they do not have a people’s choice, where image consumers could vote.

No, they prefer to remain in photojournalism Medieval ages, taking comfort in congratulating themselves for picking the least interesting images possible as to prove there is more to photojournalism than the reporting of the news. If anything, this, and other awards of it kind, are killing photojournalism. They create the false impression that this is the standard to achieve.

If you have time to waste and have really nothing else to do, here are the winners :

World Press

PS: At least I was right about John Moore’s images who, by the way, truly deserved this prize.

Posted in mediastorm, multimedia, celebrity, magazine, lens, HOLGA, TIME, slideshow, editorial, lensbabies, photojournalism, web 2.0, news | Print | 1 Comment »

January 8, 2008 by pmelcher.

Beyond the flashy fancy mini sites that Corbis and Getty Images have throwned to press release hungry industry newsletter and blog sites, I did a little search of my own.

If you click on any or all of these icons below, you will probably find some of the most amazing and less seen USA Election coverage. There is an advantage of being a photographer from a non “accredited” agency like Reuters/EPA for Corbis and Getty/AFP for Getty: you have no rules to follow and you get to shoot what you want.

It makes for some pretty amazing images: (click on any logo below and enjoy)

These are only a few. No Press releases. No mini sites. Just hard and pure work. VII, DigitalRailroad, Magnum, Contact Press and others had not yet made anything visible as I was writing this entry. I am sure they will. There has never been an election like this in the USA before and probably will never be again. While Corbis and Getty have gone the wire service way ( 100 photos a day covering everything and nothing), these guys are going both for the historical and the emotional route. Because the next president of the United States of America, whether the rest of the world likes it or not, is going to be the major news for the next 8 years.

Minimum.

I agree with my friend Pino Granata, Photography without passion is not photography, it’s only bored microstock.

Posted in SIPA, TIME, newspaper, alexa, Cnn, magazine, keyword, google, news, corbis, editorial, wire service, photojournalism, getty | Print | No Comments »

August 16, 2007 by pmelcher.

let’s be honest for a while. What we sell is Time. If we consider the passing of time as a continuous flow, than a photograph is nothing more than a very thin slice extracted and displayed outside of its natural place. A bit like a very thin glass of water taken from a stream.

It then proceeds in living outside of its time and becomes a object representing the time it was taken in. Nothing really new here. What becomes interesting is that we then proceed in renting that piece of time for a limited time. We are talking about RM here, obviously, not RF. Our clients, image buyers, will rent a piece of time for a limited time. The longer they want to display that time, the more expensive it becomes.

Quite obviously we need to ad space to the equation because since Einstein, we know we cannot separate them. And that time doesn’t just exist by itself, it has to be fixed in space. Both the image we take, is not only a fix time but also at a fix place. Licensing is the same, as we set prices based on time and the space that it takes.

Royalty Free has forever changed photography’s relation to time, at least on the licensing part, by offering a flat fee over large amounts of time and space. It broke the dualistic relationship that photography had with time both on the creation and licensing side. It is still a chunk of time when created but is no longer constrain to a specific time and space when it is licensed.

Part of that evolution is due to the medium on which we capture time. Since slides and print where physical objects, also clearly defined in space and time , it was always ask to be returned after a client usage.It reinforced the idea of time.
With digital, which refuses to be defined in space since it can be at infinite places at the same time, and has an infinite lifespan ( data does not die, hard drives do), the medium becomes timeless. And thus much easier to license as such.

It has also reduce our understanding of time and space. A news event that happened in the 1960’s in Israel for example was not seen for a day or two after it occurred. Today, we complain if we do not see images within a minute of it happening anywhere in the world.

Weekly or monthly magazines that were initially created to have the time to put all the information together have now switch to taking the time to cut through the vast amount of hourly information, including pictures, that bombard us every day.
As we all jumped into the digital pool with such enthusiasm, we never really took the time ( no puns intended) to analyze its consequence. Not that it would have change anything. We are now playing with a set of rules which have changed more than we think and has affected us far more deeply than we ever thought.

The next generation of picture professionals to succeed will be those who will master this concept and figure out how to manage it to their profit.

Posted in TIME, photojournalism, editorial, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »

February 13, 2007 by pmelcher.

News magazines continue to take a plunge as celebrity magazine continue to rise. According to a Reuters Headline, the latest numbers published by the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) for 2006 show a decline in both weekly news and business magazine, while entertainment based magazine seem to continue to grow.

Obviously, this has a huge impact on the photo industry as it guides, or at least should guide, what type of images are offered by agencies and photographers.

Posted in TIME | Print | No Comments »