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 »

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 »

October 29, 2010 by pmelcher.

You know what’s funny ? I’ll tell you what’s funny. By continuing to put so much financial pressure on photographers and photography, the media will loose it’s source of imagery .

With declining space rates and assignment rates, increasingly obscene rights grabbing bordering on copyright infringement, unacceptable usage agreements and overall disrespect of the photography trade, publishers are literally pushing the photo industry to look for new revenues, and respect, somewhere else.

Already photo agencies like VII with news and X17 with celebrity have entered the publishing arena in direct competition to those who used to be their best clients. Others are aggressively investigating how to license images to the million of blogs worldwide while others, like Black Star for example, have left the editorial world almost entirely in favor of the greener pastures of the corporate world.

Independent photographers do not bother approaching publications  anymore for assignments and have long gone with either NGO’s or Foundations. Even new technology companies like Mediastorm already make most of their revenue from foundations/NGO’s. We talk a lot about the desertification of entire regions of the world, soon we will see the same happening in the editorial landscape: Magazines, whether on Ipads or not, filled with nothing more than text and lonely generic images. Textbooks forced to use the same images over and over because there are no more “image suplliers”, preferred or not. Not far is the day when, calling on the phone, a photo editor will hear over and over” Time magazine who ?”.

It is not the will of anyone in the photo trade to cease doing business with publishers. However, the business conditions are becoming so unbearable that they have no other choice than to look elsewhere for revenue. And overall respect.

There will always be photographers because it’s not a job, it’s a passion. But like any passion, it needs to be fed with substantial income. In it’s short history, photography has had a strong love affair with the editorial world. Now the editorial world is treating it’s favorite mistress as an old whore. The bond is being broken.

However, it is not like photogrpahy doesn’t have anywhere else to go to be treated as a princess again. The internet has opened new revenue streams and while it is still a wild west, it promises a lot of new beginning. A lot of new love stories.

There is really no logical reasons for this change in attitude. Publishers have seen a lot of pressure on their industry, certainly, but none brought forth by photography. However, if circulation goes down, it’s photography that pays the rough price. Cuts are made, because, unlike electricity, it is deem unessential for the survival of a magazine. Almost as if, completely rid of the cost of photography, a magazine or book would actually do better. Well, soon, that might just become reality.

With licensing fees coming close to insulting, there will be no one to take those images anymore. No one to shoot wars, politics, archeology or even movie premieres. No one left to service them with their needs. Just an obscenely huge amount of crowd generated images of everything that doesn’t really matter. Pretty, certainly, but of no interest. It will be cheap, but useless.

For now, the old whore still clings to its lifelong lover in the hopes of a change of mind. But for how long?

And yes, you are right, it’s not that funny after all…

Posted in magazine, celebrity, technology, Newsweek, Good Enough, license, mediastorm, finance, editorial, TIME, Search, multimedia, news | Print | 3 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 »

July 19, 2010 by pmelcher.

Man I love what this guy has to say :

Posted in license, multimedia, Search, TIME, celebrity, magazine, E Reader, commercial stock, technology, web 2.0, prosumer, news, corbis, getty, editorial, transaction, flickr, photojournalism, finance, Microstock | Print | 3 Comments »

July 12, 2010 by pmelcher.

 The Long love affair between photography and Media is over .

Because the editorial world is replacing experience photo editors with journalistic background for inexperience pixel pushers that are ordered to select the cheapest images, regardless of quality, they are opening the visual airways for steep competition.

A bit like traditional Royalty free opened the door to microstock by increasing prices and leaving a huge marketplace vacuum, magazines ( web or print) are leaving a wide open space for quality photography.  Because they are still thinking terms of gatekeepers, they beleive the audience will follow them into whatever they publish. Problem is, this is the internet : the many to many market. They are no gatekeepers anymore, just influencers.

More and more, out of frustration to see great images go unpublished, photo agencies or photographers are doing their own editing/publishing. Zuma Press, with their Double Truck magazine was one of the first ones. Probably fed up of not seeing great images published in their rightful format, aka double page, they proceeded in doing their own magazine, featuring the images they liked the most. Is it a runaway success ? No. But it was a first.

Since then, a lot of photo agencies have launched their own blogs, featuring their own images, since their traditional clients would not use them. Not because they were bad, but because they were unwilling to pay a decent price for them. Some of these blogs, like X17online.com have become leaders in their markets. Photo agencies like VII have also launched  their own magazine, also in frustration of never seeing some of their great coverage go unpublished.

The result ? The public now has access to other sources of photography, previously hidden from them. They can see and compare. Gatekeepers are being challenged by influencers.

The smart publisher are the ones that will quickly realize and capitalize on this. Drop the most traveled image rat race for the lesser traveled side road of quality.

Here’s the deal : A well designed magazine with high quality- exclusive content will have no problem raising a successful paywall. The same way as people have no problem paying for very expensive Jewelry at Tiffany’s, or Cartier, they have no problem for paying for something they feel has value. They will not never pay for same middle of the road content. It’s not Pay walls that do not work, it’s what it’s what is behind them.

So here is the evolution of photography : More and more, creators of photography , disappointed of not seeing their best work being published, mostly because of unbreakable subscription deals made with mass providers, will start self publishing . More and more, those precious eyeballs that all want to retain so desperately will start navigating elsewhere and spread their attention span to other non mainstream sites.

The tide will be even greater when a critical mass will start understanding that they are not seeing the best , but the cheapest . Photographers will start combining their content with others and create their own outlets. Photo Agencies will gain momentum in their self publishing efforts. The media outlets that have spend millions to raise and maintain their brands will start being eclipsed by a guy and a computer.

Don’t think it can work ? Wireimage has been very succesful for many years in charging consumers to have access to medium  access to their images. No downloads, no editorial, just access to bigger thumbnails. Strangely, that model has never been replicated while their is no reason why it wouldn’t work elsewhere.

Editorial publishers are dropping the ball on their suppliers and forcing them to become their own competition. Or go out of business. Does that make any sense ? All that while lying to their clients. How long will that last ? Even with the advent of Ipads and E readers, this will not continue long.

Maybe the fall of Newsweek, and right behind, Time magazine, has a lot to do with that. If you have paid attention, you would have seen that in the last 4-5 years, they have reduced their image content to everything Getty/AP/Reuters in order to save money. Result ? Same images you all have seen on the web, but a week later…And then they wonder why people don’t purchase them anymore. They have laid off so many great photo editors that there is no way they can even find a great image anymore. In other words, they have both killed what had made them successful.

In other words, if photography is in crisis right now, its because Media is dying of a long slow agonizing death and trying the bring it along. Trouble is, photography can live without Media, not the opposite. These times are about to show it.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, Newsweek, E Reader, license, TIME, news, editorial, photojournalism, web 2.0, getty | Print | No Comments »

May 13, 2010 by pmelcher.

What is going ? I ‘ll tell you what is going on : Recently, Time, inc, the biggest publisher of magazines in the world has made an agreement with AP, Reuters and Getty Images to license any and all non-exclusive images for a flat rate of $50.00, regardless of size or placement . Magazines like Time, or Fortune, or Sports Illustrated, that used to easily pay $200.00 for a 1/4 page will now have the same images for $50.

It is not the first deal of the sort. Recently Getty Images had a similar arrangement with Bauer publishing for a 3 months try out. Probably because of photo editors resistant clamor and the very negative reaction of other photography suppliers, it did not last.

What does all this mean ?  Well, for one, big publishers are trying to cut costs as drastically as they can. After laying of hundreds of staffers, they are now squeezing suppliers as much as they can. It is somewhat predictable considering the hit they have taken on the advertising side.  Some magazines , like Time, know it is just a question of time ( no pun..) before their paper edition vanishes. It is the same for most weekly celebrity magazines who already suffer heavily from the onslaught of free celebrity website that are much faster at breaking news.

But why would AP, Reuters and Getty would agree to such prices ? Well, for AP and Reuters, born and bred on the subscription model, who hardly pay any commissions to photographers, it is not too much of a stretch.  Furthermore, each one must have thought that the other would have taken the deal and thus be shut out. Dividing to better conquer is something that just doesn’t belong to Julius Ceasar.

Getty images in all this? Well, they have recently change their strategy completely. They are moving away from the fully wholly own content to the mega distributor. They no longer care if they pay any commissions or not and where they get their content from. They want to become indispensable so there is no way to avoid them. Be a monopoly without appearing to be. Thus, they will be willing to sell images for pennies (which they already do) as long as they are the sole distributor. In a way, they are applying the istockphoto model to editorial : “if it cost me nothing to get content, then I can sell it for nothing”

Obviously this is extremely damaging to the world of photography . It will continue to force thousands out of this business, including some very talented elements. It will further eliminate the need for good photo editor as their choice will only be a factor of price. It will devalue the role of photography altogether.

Together with the apostles of the free internet, the Creative Commons barbarians of the Free Frontier foundation, those who are accomplice to these ravaging pricing policies , sellers as well as buyers are contributing to the complete destruction of the photographic landscape. Sure, you will always find “push buttons” ready to execute for a few dollars while they search for another job, but you will no longer be able to see great passionate photography done by amazing eyes. It’s going to be the battle of the crabs, pushing and shoving each other for pieces of crumbs in an ocean of boring banality.  There will no longer be careers in photography.

For those photographers contributing with a smile to these “agencies” thinking they bet on the right horse, they will realize soon that they are no better than slime sticking to a rotten ship . Your photos will soon be free, the exact value that these companies have for your miserable little lives. If you think you are in control now, we shall talk in 5 years from now.

For the others, those who continue to stand against these increasing polluted waves, there is still hope. The hope that mediocracy will destroy itself in a vast self sucking black hole, that those nose-in-the-sky corpocrates who destroy the very own land they try to build upon for pure self interest will finally go the way of the dinosaurs, like so many before them. For those who stand for well rewarded quality work, for making and maintaining a trade made by individuals with a soul, with a passion, with a dedication for truth and respect, there is hope.

There is hope in the knowledge that soon readers will be fed up of seeing the same images everywhere, regurgitated by the same gross pipeline of photography. There is hope in knowing that soon, not every website, every magazine will want to have the same exact images that their competitors have, even though it’s cheap. There is hope in knowing that exclusive will soon regain their value and their grace, that talent attracts eyeballs and that pleased eyeballs bring money, lots of money. Finally, there is hope that by committing to these prices, these companies will fail to find anyone able to live to sustain their production.

What we are witnessing  are the first final steps of those who wanted to be giants who will  collapse on their own weight. Because, once you have reached critical mass, once you have cornered every major aspect of this market, there is only one way to go.

Posted in license, celebrity, magazine, technology, TIME, photojournalism, editorial, transaction, finance, wire service, getty | Print | 20 Comments »

January 19, 2010 by pmelcher.

So you would think that with all the problems that online publications are causing to the print magazine industry, they would fight back in some manner. The print paper world would be all gang ho in trying to secure its predominance as the primary source of news and information so that the crowds would rush to purchase copies. But no.

It’s a complete lethargy. Well, at least in the USA. Take editorial photography. As much as they care if an image has been used in a competing publication, they completely ignore anything online.  They seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that they come out sometimes with the same image that has been seen previously for more than a week on numerous websites. As if no one paid attention. However, with some URL’s drawing millions of visitors , and most, the same people they also try to attract, it should be hard to ignore.

Yet, they continue to ignore the reasons for their decline. Partly to save money ( as if it is going to help) , partly because a completely blindness to the forces that are shaping their market. If I have seen an image numerous times, for free, online, I am going to be a bit upset if I see it, again, days, weeks later, in a print publication I had to pay for. If it happens once, I could ignore it. If it happens issue after issues, I would want my money back.

No other industry has this approach to its consumer. Movies only show trailers, music have just snippets ( of  course, I am not mentioning stolen material) and you pay to hear/see the full version. If all was available online  a week before they could be purchased, it is doubtful that a lot of people would pay for them.

Magazines, in some sort of oblivious superiority,  continue to publish , week after weeks, month after months the same images already seen online more than once. Maybe they think that if they ignore it, the problem might disappear. Maybe they think that by the time they come out, readers will have forgotten what they had seen just hours ago on a website. Maybe they just think that their support is so superior than the digital, no one will notice.

The second issue with this, a bit more hidden, is that photogrpahers and photo agencies provide website with a free first right  at a lesser fee than  what a print publication would pay. In other words, website get to use the same image, much sooner than print for 10% of the price that a magazine pays to use it a week later. Does it make any sense ?

In France, for example, no magazine would ever publish an image that has been used on a website previously. None. Photo agencies or photographers do not have a problem with that since website pay so little, it is not even funny. Thus, readers can be sure that will discover new image in every issue. And with just cause, they paid for that, and other privilege. They paid to purchase a  product that do not consider them like fools. They pay for originality. They pay for what they value.

In the upcoming or ongoing debate about online pay walls, how many of the newspapers, magazines and others will take the step to guarantee original photography ? Because if it is to see another slideshow made of pictures from the trilogy (Getty, AP, Reuters ) that you can see anywhere else, I doubt people will be happy. And if they are not happy, well, they won’t pay. A pay wall will only work if people want to get in. And people will want to get in if the content inside is not something seen elsewhere for free.

The war between original content ( expensive) and  cost cutting  (cheap) is raging with  cost-cutting seemingly winning most battles these days. However, creating something for cheap that no one wants to pay for is not at all a guarantee of success. Once the CFO’s and their bosses finish destroying the very nature of what made their companies successful in a rarely seen slaughterhouse of talent, there will be only a few standing. And those will not be the ones that are the cheapest to operate but those who have found the zen like balance between originality, quality, cost and timeliness.

Photography will always be here to offer  all of this and much, much more. We know it, we are just waiting for them to understand it.

Posted in license, newspaper, celebrity, magazine, Newsweek, TIME, photojournalism, editorial, transaction, finance, wire service, france | Print | No Comments »

December 24, 2009 by pmelcher.

Today should be a day to rejoice, worldwide. People all over the world close their doors, and eyes, from the surrounding world and regroup in their family cocoon to enjoy a few hours of peace and serenity. Outside, the battles still rages creating more casualties.

French newspaper le Monde just announced that collective photo agency, L’oeil Public, was filing for bankruptcy.  For those who only care about what is happening in their own country, or even backward, that might mean nothing. However, like a upcoming storm, events that will soon be over your head tend to start somewhere else. L’oeil Public was one of the most successful collective in the past ten years. Composed of a handful of very talented photogrpahers, they had managed to elevate social photojournalism to new heights. Mostly specialized in french social events, they were not afraid to tackle international events if they deemed important enough L’oeil was one of the rare few collective to have managed to cross the Atlantic successfully , getting regular assignment from US publication like Time or Newsweek.

A collective is not a photo agency. A collective is made up of like minded photographers who decide to pool some of their resource needs in order to reduce cost and help each other. It is a tad socialist concept, thus very unpopular in the USA as it might potentially lead to a communist revolution .

The reason for L’oeil’s closure is now becoming a banality : Falling prices and  lesser assignments. A declining demand for original photography thanks to a marketplace that is more eager to save money than make money. A marketplace that has become a playground for CFO’s and their armies of blindly dedicated bean counters. Where photojournalism has been replaced by coupon journalism, where photo editors recruit amateurs to submit free images and where photographer hold high and proud checks with $2 and $3 license sales while screaming ” This is Better than nothing”. It is a market place where pundits will tell you that the road to posterity is paved with Twitts, blogs and Facebook updates. That the next Google search could yield thousands if not millions of dollars and that SEO is your key to success, not photography. It is a marketplace where trade publications turn a blind eye to monopolistic behaviors and where cheap has replace talent. It is a marketplace  that now sees editorial sales fall to 8 and 11 cents a piece.

L’Oeil Public’s situation is certainly not  a fluke and should not be dismissed as extremely far and extremely irrelevant. It is what is awaiting a lot of businesses and individuals in the year to come. Prosperity in not just around the corner and the “something is better than nothing” mentality will not work.

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