June 27, 2010 by pmelcher.

If you have been like most people and keeping an eye on the world soccer cup, you might have noticed something quite interesting. Well, at least if you are watching it on ESPN, the US sports channel in charge of transmitting the games live.

This year, at least that we have noticed, the cable network has added a new twist : extreme slow motion. No, not extreme slow motion on the actions that led to a goal or a failed goal attempt. Not at all. That has been used forever. Extreme slow motion on expressions.

Here and there, ESPN cuts into the video action to bring forth a face, a reaction or  a slow sequence of arms being raised in sour despair. It will focus on a  frustrated scream, an insider smile,  an exhausted look and play it in very slow motion.

Why ? Because real time video brings the action, extreme slow motion video brings the emotion. It is so slow that it could be viewed as a still, or series of stills . It brings the viewers closers to what the players are feeling at that fleeting moment by slowing down time. Almost to a stand still.

This shows how much the still, the ability to stop time is so much stronger than video. This shows  how the two are not interchangeable as some my think, or wish. They are two modes of expressions showing two aspects of the same event. The video is extremely good at showing action, the still is a master in bringing the emotion.

The comparison between stills and video must stop here. The same way as the comparison between photogrpahy and painting stopped more than a century ago. Sure, all these can capture the same event, but what they bring out is not the same. And then should not be compare.

At first, ESPN extreme slow-mo on random “moments” of the game was annoying me as I couldn’t understand their purpose. I am so used, like everyone else, of expecting video to show me actions of a purposeful meaning that I could not figure out why I was forced to see these snippets of “inaction”. Until they started building into me, making my experience as a viewer of these games more emotional. I could finally be more in touch with the players.

And really, that is what sports is all about, isn’t it? It is not just the moves that make a team win, it is mostly about the individual efforts, frustration, happiness, smiles, pains, intimacy, winks, and cascades of emotions that fill each and every players who have spend a lifetime to perform at such a high level. Sure, goals are important. But the feeling of success and achievement in the eyes of the players that made it all possible makes them human. And only a still can catch that.

Posted in focus, magazine, wire service, editorial, news | Print | No Comments »

June 15, 2010 by pmelcher.

It’s on the verge of a precipice and let’s face it, it will be hard to prevent it. No, not the photo industry ; Ethics and photography. More and more we are seeing example of photographer being caught altering their images.

The issue is really affecting photojournalism and sports photography. Commercial shooters, Wedding “documentators”,  Celebrity photographers and  snapshooters have been doing all along with no real consequences . Sure, some aristocratic publication might find it awful that such celebrity had had her body airbrushed for this cover. They forget that celebrity photography is also a part  commercial photography. Celebrities are in the business of selling  their image and photographers are their to help them.   We don’t mind when pictures of fruits or cars are heavily retouched, so why do we care when it is celebrities?

The world of photo j, however, is another story. Because of our cultural background, we tend to gratify our sense of vision with the highest degree of realism. That is, between something touched, heard, smelled, or seen, it is the later that we credit with the most credible.

Why ? Because we have been taught that our eyes don’t lie. That if we see it, then its true.”Show me” is probably the most used term to categorically punctuate an argument. So has been the realm of photojournalism: Truly describe a moment in time and space. Or so we thought.

The history of photojournalism is riddled with example of fakes, altered images and other unethical use of photographs. Or where they ? And who decides what is ethical ? Where does these rule come from ?

Eugene Smith was notorious for spending long hours in his darkroom working on his prints ? Does it make any of his coverage lesser? Certainly not. Some other have cropped , enhanced, shadowed or even damaged their negative. After all, Robert Capa famous images of the D Day landing might not have looked like that if they hadn’t been damaged. They look real enough.

So where is the limit, and who decides? With technology making so much easier to profoundly alter images, deleting or adding items, changing the source of the lighting and so on, how can we, viewer, stay protected ? How can we be guaranteed that what we are seeing is the truth?

The short answer : we can’t. It is commendable that Reuters, along with Adobe, are working on trying to make altered files easily identifiable, but let’s face it, it will never fully work. No, the answer is where it’s always been. With the photographer and with the photo editor. If any of these two are ready to lie, than there is no protection. If they adhere to their own work ethic, than no lies will pass.

So, as our news coverage is becoming more and more crowd sourced and as editing barriers are falling, being replaced by automation, it is inevitable that our images will become less and less credible. I am still amazed, for example, that the Iranian Government did not use Twitter for its own advantage by posting images by fake users showing a different story. next time, certainly.

The way to preserve ethic and photojournalism is to have brands. Like we trust the New York Times for the veracity of its information, we could do the same for photographers and photo agencies.  A certain credit will certify a certain ethic. If photographers decide that their work need heavy photo shop, fine, but they should say it out loud. There is no problem with retouching an image, only in lying and trying to let it pass as an original.

If the IPTC consortium would be smart, they would add a requirement to a field that would have a “R” for “retouched” . Make it easy for people to mark an images as altered. After that, its up to the editors and viewers to decide.

Realistically, we will see more and more lying images abound. It’s going to be up to the viewers to be smarter and interrogating what they see. It will also be to the photogrpahers to brand themselves as instrument of truth. But then again, that is really nothing new.

Posted in magazine, technology, Magnum, commercial stock, celebrity, IPTC, editorial, wire service, photojournalism, news | Print | No Comments »

May 28, 2010 by pmelcher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 »

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 »

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 »

September 11, 2009 by pmelcher.

LEADING MUSIC AND ENTERTAINMENT PHOTOGRAPHER,
FRANK MICELOTTA, LAUNCHES PICTUREGROUP AND ANNOUNCES  DISTRIBUTION DEAL WITH THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

MTV, BET, Comedy Central, FOX, MySpace, Columbia Records, Jive Label Group and EMI Sign On as Charter Clients of Digital Media Production Company

PictureGroup Offers Leading Entertainment Brands Complete
Photo Solutions Including Production, Distribution, Licensing, Archiving, Integrated Content Marketing & Event Management

LOS ANGELES, CA, September 10, 2009 – Leading music and entertainment photographer, Frank Micelotta, announced today the launch of PictureGroup, a unique digital media production company poised to provide top entertainment companies with an integrated solution for producing, distributing, licensing, archiving, marketing and managing their photo needs and assets.  Based on years of experience and in response to his high-profile clients’ input and feedback, Micelotta has developed a unique strategy to reduce costs, ensure a maximum return and exposure for clients’ visual content and manage entertainment brands’ photo and video assets.

PictureGroup also announced a strategic alliance with The Associated Press to license photos through the AP Images platform.  Under the arrangement, PictureGroup will distribute content through the AP Images Web site to more than 57,000 users worldwide.  At the same time, AP Images will offer premium content from PictureGroup to its online clients.  Furthermore, AP Images will be able to offer entertainment assignment services and the option of using PictureGroup photographers.

“I have recognized for some time that media companies have been grappling with the cost and complexity of producing and archiving their marketing visuals in-house and that there was a need for a full-service, very customer focused solution.  PictureGroup offers the perfect combination of cost-reduction and photo asset management, while at the same time creating a new revenue stream for the companies from the photography taken at their premiere industry events,” says Frank Micelotta, CEO and Chief Photographer.  “I am also thrilled to be partnering with the world’s largest and preeminent news organization, the Associated Press, and believe that this alliance allows PictureGroup to provide a unique offering to the entertainment industry.”

“We look forward to working with all of PictureGroup’s photographers to expand AP’s entertainment content, while furthering the evolution of AP Images into a dominant provider of commercial entertainment assignment services,” said Dan Becker, AP’s Director of Entertainment Content.

Numerous well-known companies and properties have already signed on as clients of PictureGroup including MTV, BET, Comedy Central, FOX, MySpace, Columbia Records, Jive Label Group, RCA Records and EMI.

“Frank is everything our business needs from a photographer — affable, flexible, service-oriented and relationship-driven,” said Carole Robinson, EVP, Communications, MTV Networks. “We’ve enjoyed working with Frank over the years, and we look forward to growing that relationship as many of our networks sign on for the enhanced service, capabilities and reach he’s delivering through PictureGroup.”

In addition to the A-list roster of clients, Micelotta also has incredibly strong relationships with the photo editors at all of the leading entertainment publications including People Magazine, US Weekly, Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone, among others.

“Frank isn’t just a talented photographer. He seems to know everybody, seems to be everywhere, and seems to be one of the nicest guys in the industry. I will be watching PictureGroup with great interest,” commented Brittain Stone, US Weekly Photography Director.

Micelotta has been the man behind the lens as the official photographer for America’s preeminent music and entertainment events for more than 20 years, including the MTV Video Music Awards, the Grammy Awards, Live Aid, Nelson Mandela’s “46664:Give One minute of your life to Aids,” and Quincy Jones’ “We are the Future,” and has served as the tour photographer for Madonna, Jay-Z,  and the Rolling Stones, among others.  Micelotta has captured events, including Madonna kissing Britney at the MTV Video Music Awards, which appeared on the cover of US Weekly and became the biggest-selling issue in the magazine’s history.  He also shot behind the scenes with the Rolling Stones as they were getting ready to launch their 2005 tour.  In 1998, Micelotta co-founded ImageDirect with Kevin Fitzgerald, the first all digital entertainment agency, which revolutionized the entertainment photography business by creating a valuable digital archive that could be accessed immediately and globally.  In 2003, ImageDirect was acquired by Getty Images and Micelotta became Getty’s Director of Entertainment.  The result was an explosion of sales and distribution, transforming Getty into a leader in entertainment photography.

Micelotta will run PictureGroup with Paul Melcher, another veteran in the photo media business.  Melcher was most recently CEO of Rex USA and V.P of sales at DigitalRailroad, Inc. Prior to that he was Director of North American Operations and Sales for Hachette Filipacchi Photo Group (www.hachettephotos.com) where he doubled revenues for the U.S. market in less than a year and led integration initiatives for numerous prestigious agencies, such as Gamma, Rapho and TOP.  Melcher and Micelotta were also partners at ImageDirect where Melcher guided the development of the company’s online real-time distribution platform, streamlined workflow to enable better distribution of more images to key buyers, and managed relationships with corporate clients such as ABC, MTV, FOX, NBC, Atlantic Records, USA Today and the NFL.

Elyssia Stratton is also joining as Director of Editing and Workflow.  Elyssia Stratton is the former staff photo editor for NBC, and freelance editor for The Associated Press, USA Today and Getty Images as well as an original staff member of ImageDirect.  Elyssia’s extensive experience over 25 years has generated a high demand for her services as a photographer, photo editor, and retoucher.

PictureGroup will combine Micelotta’s existing photography business and archive with some of the most prolific and talented photographers working in the entertainment field.  Founding photographers will include:

Evan Agostini will be one of PictureGroup’s New York based photographers.  Agostini has been in the editorial photo business for 20 years, 13 as an entertainment event photographer and 7 years doing library and photo editing work at Liaison Agency, part of the Gamma-Liaison photo news network.  Agostini has been published in nearly every major magazine and newspaper around the world.

Scott Gries will be one of PictureGroup’s New York based photographers.  He specializes in advertising for publicity for television and film.  His clients have included MTV, Discovery Channel, History Channel, Pfizer, Saatchi & Saatchi, Sony, Pepsi, AOL, Virgin Records and Rolling Stone.

Los Angeles based Tammie Arroyo will be PictureGroup’s key West coast event photographer.  She has worked for Michaelson Photo Agency, Retna Ltd., Sygmy, IPOL, Ron Galella and Celebrity Photo Agency.  In 1994, she went out on her own, first as Tammie Arroyo Photography, and then in 2002 under the name American Foto Features.

One of the premiere and most experienced red carpet photographers in the world, Gregg DeGuire will be a PictureGroup photographer based in Los Angeles.  DeGuire is a 27 year veteran photographer who has shot all of the major celebrity “Hollywood” events including movie premieres, award shows and Hollywood parties.

One of New York’s best-known celebrity photographers, Marion Curtis has been in the industry for fourteen years.  He is the co-founder of StarPix Celebrity Images, whose clients include Walt Disney Studios, Universal Pictures, Columbia Pictures, HBO, and Sony.  His work can be seen daily in the NY Post, Condé Nast and Hearst magazines, People, Us, InStyle and OK, to name a few.

Based in London, MJ Kim’s professional life of photography began 1999 when he joined The Daily Telegraph to cover nation’s news stories. In 2001, he had joined news agency ‘Press Association’ and in 2004, he became a senior photographer at the world largest image group Getty Images. After three years at Getty, he started his own photography company Image Factory.  Over the last 10 years, MJ KIM has been the tour photographer for the Spice Girls and Paul McCartney, personal photographer for Victoria Beckham, and has traveled with TRH Charles and Camilla for their state visit to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and India.  MJ also captured the very last official photo of Michael Jackson.

Other Contributing Photographers will include Brad Barket (New York), Todd Plitt (New York), Fernando Leon (New York), Ben Rose (Atlanta), Mark Davis (Los Angeles), Vince Bucci (Los Angeles), Amanda Edwards (Los Angeles) and Marc Deley (Boston).  Additional photographers and clients will be announced soon.

# # #

MEDIA CONTACT FOR PICTUREGROUP:

Marnie Black
MB Public Relations
(917) 828-7308
marnieblack@yahoo.com

also a great interview of Frank Micelotta by John Harrington on his blog

Posted in celebrity, magazine, technology, wire service, transaction, news, editorial, getty | Print | No Comments »

July 22, 2009 by pmelcher.

When an  amateur astrologist discovers an impact on the planet Jupiter, no one screams the end of professional astrologists, so why is it that when an amateur gets an image that pros did not get, it is the end of professional photojournalism ?

The Universe is huge and not even the sum of all professionally managed telescope can monitor it entirely. The Earth is certainly not that big but it is still a big place and certainly cannot be monitored by the sum of all pro photographers. So yes, and this is no newsflash, amateurs have, and will always get pictures that pros don’t have.

So why the big deal ? Well, here and there, companies spur out, claiming loud and far, that they can help any amateur make a fortune by bypassing all the traditional photo agencies, because, after all, they are all crooks.

These “new” companies claim they are the only option for amateur to sell their news pictures. They try to position themselves as the crowd sourcing photo journalism. The thing is, if anyone has a great news image, and hands it over  to any of the top  news agencies, they will make great money and be published everywhere. Reuters, AP, Getty, Polaris, Sipa and so on will gladly accept a great news picture from anyone, as long as its relevant and truthful.

Furthermore, these new citizen journalist companies, also use traditional editorial photo agencies. Mostly because they have no client base of their own. So all they do is become brokers between the amateur photographer and the established photo agency .

Their business model is the same as microstock and well explained in the long tail theory : make money with the sum of the multitude and not the single bestseller. These “best sellers” are just “call items ” creating an initial appeal, allowing the company to widen its client base.

Green and misinformed pro-journalists seem to get really confused by all this and like a fly is attracted by bright lights,  get their little wings burned in the process. That is normal. Like a lot of other pros journalist, they got their degree in a school, not in the streets. The world they monitor is whatever appears on their company screens : If it is indexed by Google, then it must be real.

Pro and amateur photojournalism are not opposites . Its like saying there is a difference between women and men photo journalist. News does not care who took the picture, nor does the publication that wishes to use them. They are complementary, like amateur astrologists are extremely useful to the whole astrology community. Sure they will be a little annoyed that they didn’t get the picture, but that is mostly because they weren’t physically there.

So, please, lets stop getting excited every time an amateur gets an image published on the cover of the NY Times and proclaiming the end of pro photo journalism. It will happen, over and over again, like the sun rising every morning. Amateur photography brokers will continue to appear on a regular basis, playing on the general public ignorance’s of the market of photography and its real players. No big deal.

Posted in license, Search, Jupiter, magazine, technology, SIPA, google, editorial, news, transaction, wire service, photojournalism, getty | Print | No Comments »

May 20, 2009 by pmelcher.

“ITN’s shareholders have reportedly held detailed discussions to sell a majority stake in the News at Ten and Channel 4 News producer to Getty Images, the international picture agency.

Getty Images, founded by Mark Getty, grandson of J Paul Getty, and the former banker Jonathan Klein in 1995, “is an enthusiastic bidder for a majority stake in the commercial broadcaster”, according to a report by the former FT and Times media correspondent Ray Snoddy, published in the latest edition of the Royal Television Society’s monthly journal, Television. It is not clear if the talks are still ongoing.”

Read more here

Seems Getty is going all out video stock in order to escape the declining photo market.

Posted in technology, web 2.0, wire service, transaction, getty | Print | No Comments »

May 20, 2009 by pmelcher.

Like a tree that falls in the forest and no one is present to hear it fall. Did it make any noise ? The war in Sri Lanka, is it even happening ?

War photographer Don McCullin reflects in the Times ( UK) how the war in Sri Lanka has become another example of how governments manage to  shield themselves from word opinion by blocking photographers to do their jobs. As the USA, along with other countries, continue to loose daily newspapers and reduce staff and cost, so goes the truth in information. It is slowly vanishing. Trust me, if a news outlet would offer $100,000 for any valid images coming out of Sri Lanka, there would have be hundreds of photographers. But why risk your life for $200? or less. Why bother getting arrested or wounded for your images to end up as a few frames in a bland daily wire feed ?

It is just not governments that have succeeded in hiding the truth. Corporations like Getty Images, by applying their “burned grounds” pricing policy, are they accomplices. They have rendered the job of photojournalist unsustainable for individuals. Thus, making it unrewarding to try and capture the images that make us learn.

Citizen photojournalisms, the buzz of  2008, cannot help here, as the victims cannot be observers in their own tragedy. And even if they did, they would have a hard case in getting those images out. Only a pro could have brought us back compelling images.

As McCullin writes, ” I am 74 now and I have been watching this conflict in Sri Lanka unfold with the same horror I felt 50 years ago. We cannot afford to be shielded from what people do to each other in war.”

Thanks Will !

Posted in photojournalism, newspaper, technology, wire service, finance, news, editorial, getty | Print | No Comments »