October 25, 2011 by pmelcher.

Picture yourself, if you will, at a baseball game ( or soccer, or basketball). Imagine that each player, from each team has a HD video camera following his every move throughout the entire game. A few seconds after the game is finished, 5 of the best frames from all the video feeds are send to to publications worldwide.

Just like that.

How is this possible you say ? It is not. At least not yet. But it is coming soon.

Researcher at the University of Washington are currently working on what could be called “machine based photo editing”

Using videos of people speaking at a camera, they can teach a computer to extract the best frames that would make perfect portraits.

How do they do it ? Simple. They first use real people to select the best faces in a feed. They then teach the computer the elements that make a good portrait, like a visible smile, an expression, open eyes, etc and that’s it. They compare the machine edit with the real people edit and see if they have a perfect match. when they do, they know that they no longer need humans.

This wouldn’t have to be limited to sports photography. The same could be done for movie premieres, press conferences, political rallies and so on. In the amateur field, this would be perfect to cover parties, weddings or any family/friends events. Imagine, you are filming and you camera could automatically pick the best images and post them to Facebook.

Harder would be coverages of wars or any brutally unexpected events.

The push for machine based editing is already happening. Microstock companies, for example, would be delighted to get rid of the thousands of free lance photo editors that comb through their millions of submissions and give it to a 24/7/365 machine that would never ask for a raise.

Most photo agencies would certainly also be  delighted. Since the advent of digital and with the continuous drop in prices of cards, they have seen the volume of images submitted to them increase dramatically. Being able to instruct a computer on how to pick the best frames would cut costs dramatically.

The possibility of quickly and reliably edit from a video feed will soon open up the doors to impeccable photo coverage without the need of ever using a photographer. When ? in the next 5 year. And you thought that declining space rate prices was a challenge.

Posted in technology, commercial stock, celebrity, wire service, editorial, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

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 »

September 7, 2011 by pmelcher.

“Thoughts of ” is relocating or expanding :

On Facebook :  Thoughts of a Bohemian page  for the daily snippets

On La Lettre de la Photographie for 2 columns a week. One column is dedicated on the best there is to discover about photography on the web while the other, brand new, is about the world of photojournalism and photo agencies. You can read it and subscribe, for free, here : La Lettre de la Photographie.

what about about the typos ? they will follow me everywhere I go…

Obviously this blog will remain open, while quite not as often,  for longer thoughts and  hair raising revelations

Posted in magazine, celebrity, license, multimedia, Plus, technology, Corpocrates, Good Enough, Waste of time, Social Media, Search, No sense, finance, transaction, editorial, news, wire service, photojournalism, keyword, web 2.0, prosumer, getty | 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 »

October 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

It’s not there yet but it is certainly starting to look like one. The Morel Vs. AFP lawsuit has all the ingredients of a circus stage, without the tent.

Morel, if you remember, shot some images of the earthquake in Haiti, put them of Twitter/Twipics, only to see them taken by AFP to be sold world wide. Both parties are now suing each other, provoking many public debates, to which we would love to add our voice.

To be a photojournalist is to be a witness.  Those who become the best of the best and pursue a life time career in photojournalism are driven by one passion that is stronger than photography: The urge to report what they see. Photography is only a vehicle to that passion.

Thus, how can one be surprised that a photojournalist would use social media ? It is a witness tool. Jean Francois Leroy, Kriegmaster of Visa pour l’image, self-proclaim Pope of Photojournalism,  has been decrying the lack of space in magazines devoted to these images. Yet, in an interview in the BPJ, he criticizes those who use social media as a vehicle for their images, including Morel. In a nutshell, he is happy Morel got his pictures stolen by AFP. That will teach him, and others, a lesson. He probably believes that photojournalism belongs only in the pages of magazines and in his Festival. Nowhere else. How so quaintly XX th century of him. Can someone hand him a computer and show him how it works ?

While Morel pavlovian’s reaction was to, of course, share his image with the world (Not AFP) via Twitter, it was also AFP’s duty to take that image and distribute it. Let me explain: Similar to a photojournalist, a wire service intravenous gut reaction is distribute images that show a news event. As quickly as possible. Not only because of the competition, but because of the urgency of breaking news, especially in the first few hours when little or no visuals are available. AFP did not take that image out of greed ( they are partly owned by the French government and will probably never go bankrupt). They took it out of duty. They, also, had to inform the world.

Morel and AFP were build to work together. They think the same way. Except, in this instance, they had not reach any agreement and both acted on instinct.  Who was right, who is wrong?

Let’s do an experiment. Put a table full a brand new Ipads in the street with a sign next to it saying ” Free, Take one”. Sit next to the table and wait. What will happen ? People will come to the table, read the sign, see you next to the table and ask you ” Can I take one ?”.

On the Internet, because no one is visible, no one asks anymore. You take. Everybody takes. No questions asks. Regardless if you have an contact info clearly marked. It’s a free for all. Especially photography. It is one of the most used asset of the internet, yet no one thinks they should pay for it, let along ask permission.

And this is where AFP is terribly wrong : Regardless of the terms and conditions of Twitter/Twipics, they should have asked. Common Courtesy.

They should have resisted their instinct and remain human : just ask for permission.

Instead, they turn to their sharks lawyer and desperately try to make a legal case of what should be a human courtesy case. The worst is that other photographers seem to take their defense and claim proudly ” The law is above human courtesy”. That is sad.

No “terms and conditions”, whatever they are, should prevent one company, one individual to politely ask another the permission to use a photograph. Ever. No one should hide behind these “Terms and Condition” and forget the most  basic laws of human interaction.  Especially if they have a common goal : Inform the world.

Considering the financial discrepancies between the two parties, it is quite obvious that AFP will prevail in this issue. That is the way law works in the  USA ( well, the world actually). The one who throws the most money on a trial wins. Laws are made for the rich and powerful. Quite frankly, it is not that important.

What is important is the role of social media and photojournalism. Twitter has been many times labeled as  the new journalism destination for breaking news ( see the Hudson plane landing, Iran,  Michael Jackson death, etc). It has become faster than news outlet, including the wires.  The confusion comes from misinterpretation of what social media is : A end product and not a distribution platform.

Morel, and many like him, use social media as a means to inform the world.  Morel posted pictures on Twitter/Twitpic for the world to see. AFP does not beleive that Twitter/Twitpic can do that properly. They still think  that, in order for the world to see these images, they had to go on the AFP wire.

What is important here is that AFP are, like JF Leroy and others, misunderstanding the role, the reach and impact of social media. Morel lives in the present, they live in the past.

Everything else is a comedy.

Posted in magazine, copyright, technology, Tweet, Corpocrates, Social Media, license, Search, editorial, law, transaction, wire service, photojournalism, news | Print | 1 Comment »

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 »