August 12, 2008 by pmelcher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 16, 2008 by pmelcher.

“NEW YORK, Jul 15, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) — AOL announced the launch of PIXCETERA, http://www.pixcetera.com, a new site focused exclusively on top-quality photography. The site features thousands of professional images and galleries from across the AOL Network for users to browse, rate and review. In addition, AOL’s photo editors blog on trends in photography, as well as ways that readers can take better pictures.”

Double kudos to AOL for doing this !! It is the most exciting photo related website launch in years.Too bad its only wire service images. When will they learn to look elsewhere ?

Discover for yourself :

Posted in magazine, technology, web 2.0, photojournalism, slideshow, wire service, editorial | Print | No Comments »

July 15, 2008 by pmelcher.

Outside of the beaten path of wire services endlessly pouring at the same endless flow of images, there are islands of beauty. One of those, untouched by endless years of relentless competition, is photo agency Aurora. True to their initial vision, Aurora keeps on showing the world that true and great photojournalism can co-exist with a selfish capitalistic world. The images are beautiful, the topics not always made for easy viewing and the passion and dedication of the photographers almost medieval.

For those who were not at Look3 in Charlottesville last June 2008 as well as for anyone who believes and think that photojournalism is dead or dying, here is a little clip Aurora did on 9 of their photographers :

Posted in magazine, lens, Aurora, multimedia, photojournalism, slideshow, wire service, editorial | Print | No Comments »

June 29, 2008 by pmelcher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 26, 2008 by pmelcher.

I am a big fan of coops. Initially started in France, Magnum being the most famous one, Coops are small photo agencies created by a group of photographers who pool their resources in order to survive. Most do not last very long, because, along with the financial pressures, getting along amongst photographers with a lot of personality is not a easy task.

That’s what a coop is, really : a group of very individual individuals with a very strong ego. Thus internal fights and argument are quite frequent and explosive. Nevertheless, although very rare in the US ( VII being the exception), coops are striving in Europe. Not just France, but Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden and Italy. You have to have that socialist edge to create or be part of a coop, not really an American thing.

Photographers who belong to those coop have complete editorial freedom and shoot what they want, when they want.It is not always favorable to great business, but it allows for genuine photography. And that is where they are very strong. Far from the hard news already covered by countless wire services and photo agencies, Coop photographers tend to cover the unexpected and forgotten. In a industry now only obsessed by speed, they take their time. They do not produce much or fast and sometimes tend to over think their images. But nevertheless, you might be surprised. very surprised.

PictureTank, the Coop of Coops, or rather a platform that allows for different agencies to pool their images in one place, is a great way to discover and follow the work of many photographers. Presented in full sets rather than single images, it displays the story the way they were meant to be shown. It carries a full respect for the photographers work.

These agencies are not affected by Getty or microstocks. Not even Britney Spears worries them as they all seem to have made a vow of poverty. They understand that the path they have taken will not lead them to stardom or richness ( material, that is), but like priests of a Godless church, they have decided to devote their lives to photography. They cannot be touched because their world is not made of nice cars and expensive restaurants. They care about their work and nothing else.

Not all are good, far from it. You probably have the same ratio of good to bad than anywhere else. Some are helplessly useless while others shine like diamonds. No surprises here.

At a time when photography is all about numbers, dollars and no sense, where photo magazines worry about a supermodel’s ass while others are proud of their scatological content, where  Alain Meckler admits failure even in trade shows production and Corbis remains hopelessly in the red, it is good to see some fresh production.

Posted in photojournalism, Search, magazine, Magnum, wire service, slideshow, getty, corbis, france, editorial, Microstock | Print | 2 Comments »

May 6, 2008 by pmelcher.

(credit : Creatista / Zymmetrical.com)

It’s like playing with a set of Tarot cards. Or looking down at coffee residue at a bottom of coffee cup. Or better yet, hopping that the big round glass ball will reveal its wonderful secret.

Running a photo agency is  just really a never-ending game of predicting the future. On any given day, one has to figure out what will be the next big story. Picking from a thousand of daily news items, the trick is to pick the ones that will last longer than the time it takes to read them because of national, if not international interest.

And everything is game : a local murder, a politicians comment, a weather system coming through, a celebrity that might get engaged, everything can be the next big story. And, in order for the images to be relevant, it also has to be timely. Too soon, no one cares, too late, it’s over and done. Thus, as much it is important to have the right pool of photographers that will add even more value to an event, it is the constant act of divination that is crucial.

Wire services have minimized the gamble to a minimum by covering everything and having photographers everywhere.  That is what corporations do : minimize and rationalize risk. The little and medium guys cannot afford to keep an international pool of photographers  always on the ready mode. So they have to carefully pick and choose.

Get it right once and it’s luck, get it right often and it is talent. Because there is even more  than just predicting what will everyone will talk about tomorrow. There is also predicting what the media will think is the next big thing. And they have their own vision of the importance of a story. So its not just figuring out what will be hot but what the medias will think will be hot and thus, make hot.

It is certainly not a science and can not really be taught by anything else than experience and an acute sense of human sympathy ( Etymology: Latin sympathia, from Greek sympatheia, from sympathēs having common feelings, sympathetic, from syn- + pathos feelings, emotion, experience). Knowing what people will care about tomorrow, not what is important.

Scarlett Johansson getting engaged is not important but everyone cares. Darfur is important but no one cares anymore. So what is a savvy photo agency to do ? Get images of Scarlett’s new ring, and forget Darfur.

Now, if it had been a really good photo agency, it would have known or smelled it, and would already have the picture, even before the story broke. How ? By brightly anticipating the engagement and having someone follow her for the last week.

This is just not in the celebrity world. It is useless for a small or medium agency to have 2 full time photographers follow Hillary and Obama everywhere in the hopes of getting a picture that will sell. It is, however, very important to read their schedule carefully and smell the right photo op. When and where will it happen ?

Same goes for commercial stock albeit in a different way . Trying to forecast the need of imagery is similar. The parameters are slightly different but the divination game the same. However, it is more a science when it comes to Commercial stock. Companies like Corbis and Getty will hire field engineers, card readers, to investigate the future. Others, who cannot afford to pay expensive fortune tellers will just put up as many images as possible in order to cover all potential needs now and forever. Nether approach usually  reap a lot of success. If it did, Getty would no longer have any competition, would they ?

A really good stock agency could make a fortune with maybe no more than 100 new images a month. A really good editorial agency could do with 10 stories a month. You have the 10 top stories of the month  every month over a year, and you will be making more than Getty Images.

But it is not because you have the divination gift that others do not, which makes it a tad harder. You can also  beat the divination game by having a better photographer, one that will make the better images even if they are not the first, making the event more caring. But that is beyond the point here.

So, while the Getty whale is about to sink deep into silence ( pay attention to Jamd.com and viewimages.com, two great divination tools) in its never ending quest for more revenue, that Jupiterimage will be the first let microstock merge with its traditional offering  ( announced in Russia this week), that traditional Commercial RF and RM are about to reunite in their last yearly bacchanal in Malta, that someone somewhere is about to launch the first model that will pay you to use their images (Picapp ?), and that about anything and everything is fair game these days, one should keep in mind that with no talent there will be no success.

PS: A big thank you to all those who have donated already. If you too want to keep this blog free, do you part here. The recession is coming and its my birthday soon.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, Zymmetrical, commercial stock, Midstock, photojournalism, news, editorial, wire service, getty | Print | No Comments »

April 16, 2008 by pmelcher.

I did not pick this image. I actually have no idea what it will be before I publish this entry. Why ? because it is a sort of semi “intelligent” algorithm in the background that will do it for me. A bit like Google ads scans a whole web page for keywords and post the relevant ads, this system, delivered by Dailylife.com, does the same.

It will scan the page for keywords and post the most appropriate image. Like an automated photo editor. And because it is looking thought the feeds of Reuters, GettyImages and AP, I believe, it selects from a pool of already very tightly edited images. One could also foresee a Flickr API, a bit like I did with the yahoo pipes.

I am guaranteed a good and hopefully, relevant image . This is the future of news photo editing on the web. At least for sites that do not care so much about the image and use them as an illustration of  a written report. Why pay some guy to look at a stream of pre edited  images, download one, resize it and post when the whole thing can be automated. And better yet, computers don’t whine, do not take lunch breaks, or holidays and never, never ask for a raise. So why keep a web photo editor, if only to do some “best of the week” gallery ?

Think about it:  the biggest news source of the internet has no photo editor. It is called Google news and it selects images with a similar technology. Indeed, it relies on images previously edited by pro photo editors. For now.

The dailylife link is completely free, with no uncontrolled ads, like a Picapp or a GumGum would like you to swallow. Sure , it has a link for the site itself but the same technology could easily be applied by anyone on their own site.

Finally, Dailylife.com, still in Beta, looks like an interesting destination. It seems they want to be a new Google news but put a heavy emphasis on photography and has a much better and smoother interface. More like a magazine designed for the internet, and not the opposite. Finally.

As newspapers and magazine are suffering more layouts as ad spending is weakening, most of the photo related professional are turning to the internet. However, because of its built in automation, it just seems that some of the jobs will not be recycle but ultimately replaced by machines. We will still need great pictures, thus talented photographers. Not so sure about needing photo editors.

Posted in multimedia, Search, newspaper, digg, magazine, gumgum, technology, keyword, yahoo, editorial, news, slideshow, wire service, google, photojournalism, getty | Print | 2 Comments »

March 24, 2008 by pmelcher.

Apparently Picapp is having some hiccups. As per many posts in their forum, Picapp has been supplying non authorized images to bloggers worldwide for free.

Apparently Getty  was supposed to only put their wholly owned images via the Picapp service. That is images either produced by staff photographers or bought outright. But by some API fluck ( that is the official version, at least) images from commissioned photographers also appeared.

Apparently, the issue is currently being solved but if I were a Getty contributor, I would check if my images are made available. There filtering system does not seem to be very efficient. The most amusing part of all this?  Picapp is run by Picscout, an anti copyright infringement service. I guess you can’t trust anyone these day…

Posted in copyright, technology, license, filter, wire service, getty | Print | 1 Comment »

March 24, 2008 by pmelcher.

As the beast stumbles, the race continues. Mighty Associated Press has decided to increase its celebrity coverage by an additional 21 staffers spread out between the East Coast and West Coast. And not just photographers, but also writers, videographers. Furthermore, AP will not just limit themselves to red carpet, but might join the ranks of the street paparazzi if the story demands it.

“AP is uniquely positioned to become the definitive provider of entertainment news for all media formats largely because of our reputation for accurate, unbiased coverage.” said newly appointed Director of Entertainment Content Daniel Becker in an internal memo. And this might just be true.

Getty and Wireimage are exponentially covering events as the publicist-hired company. Thus forcing themselves to commit an act of auto censorship and most times publicist censorship. Getty cannot guarantee any editorial freedom and independence when they cover these celebrity events on behalf of those who produced them. It is quite the opposite. Most will be edited and watered down before being send for mass consumption in magazines all over the world.

AP doesn’t take these types of assignments. Which is good news for the business side of Getty but certainly not for content directors. It will be very interesting to see how this battle plays out. Those who might suffer, however, are the numerous small agencies that survive on the crumbs left behind by the soon to be private Seattle giant.

More competition on celebrity events is certainly not good news for the Startraks, Starmax, Beimages, Celebrity photo and others who have managed to do well, for some, thanks partially to Getty’s and Wireimage’s inability to offer a full, truthful coverage.

The question now, is not if, but when will Reuters and EPA follow ?

Posted in license, celebrity, magazine, technology, newspaper, keyword, news, editorial, transaction, wire service, getty | Print | 1 Comment »

February 28, 2008 by pmelcher.

“my first (and probably my last, unless you tell me it is a good idea) guest post :”

How did it start?Was it the 1890’s ?Photographers took pictures, pushed the edge of the envelope but could not do everything, they needed agents.In the meantime copyright came along to try and stop the exploitation of artists, there where always those with money willing to exploit the talents of an impoverished artist.Come the 1950’sAgents came along and entered into a partnership with the photographers, 50/50 or whatever, photographers owned the copyright, agents sold and kept the collections in hard chemical form, their business grew in the center of cities, large amounts of real estate holding pictures.

Pictures where sold for 1st rights, 2nd rights, 3rd rights and so on, the sellers had a firm grip on the marketplace.

Photographers if they where good made money in editorial, rights managed, it was a financial meritocracy, the best made the most. Art and creativity was king.

Agencies like Sygma, Sipa, Magnum, Rex, and stock agencies like Tony Stone all flourished, not by employing photographers but entering into partnerships with photographers.

20 years went buy and they became big business.

It’s the 1990’s along came digital, Getty and Corbis.

Digital, binary code was an astonishing revolution allowing millions of images to be stored in a box the size of a car instead of a 10 story building, on top of that images could be sent thousands on miles in a few seconds and reconstructed to the original quality thanks to jpeg compression, opportunity was knocking and along came the bankers and big business.

Getty and Corbis knew with a few million spent wisely they could dominate the industry, they started their acquisitions

Most of the agencies sold out but this was the first knife in the back for the photographers, the content creators, whilst an agency owner pocketed the $ 20 million from Corbis the photographer got nothing and in Sygmas case an assumption by Corbis that they owned the archive!!! I think the lawsuits are still continuing. What did I last hear Microsoft has $ 40 billion dollars in cash, what chance does a poor photographer stand?

Getty, owned by bankers saw an opportunity for consolidation and cost saving, they also thought “ Art” could be created on a 9-5 hour day, a salary and no incentive. They went ahead and spent $ 500,000 million dollars acquiring photo agencies.

Bill Gates, he initially just wanted art on his walls digitally, constantly changing to fit his mood, this was when big screen plasmas cost $ 30,000

These where tough times for artists, creative photographers who ideas where stolen, their percentages crushed, financial ruin approaching.

The agencies new owners drove hard bargains and percentages to the photographers, if you did not sign, get lost, plenty to fill the departing artists shoes, plenty of styles to copy.

A typical business model bulk sold content on monthly deals, sending thousands of pictures a day to clients, 1st rights, 2nd rights, 3rd rights became a thing of the past, your pictures where likely to be bundled at a $ 100,000 deal a month for 200,000 images used, you do the math !

By 2000 the creative photographer had been destroyed, art had become sterile, its becoming obvious bankers are not good for art!!!

Mix with this through the late 90’s early 2000 the growth of Google, a search engine with a bland front end. What the hell was this and it was free!!!

By 2004 we knew what Google was, an advertising agency who had managed to optimize the Internet and its revenue through click through revenues and who was being screwed the most in this, as if in a double whammy, creative photographers and newspapers, in fact anyone who published!!!

Those bulk all you can eat deals really paid of for Google with free rights in perpetuity as they displayed the web pages of most of the publications in the World, blatantly using fantastic images for free to drive click through revenue to their advertisers. The poor old content creator ( photographer) got nothing

Catching onto what was happening the media industry jumped on the Google band wagon and followed Getty’s lead and obtained pictures under tough contracts ,  New York Times, Tribune Group, Associated Newspaper, News International and almost every publishing group in the World started their own web sites, using pictures for peanuts whilst lamenting, “ We are loosing Money” they continued to make money off pictures through CPMs, “ accidentally” using pictures without paying  or sometimes purchased for ridiculously low fees.

Then came the blogs who where inspired by Googles claim to free usage under the The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 and other internet users of pictures, all claiming they where making no money, whilst the poor old photographer where having to spend money to apparently make nothing
Then came blogs and other internet users of pictures, all claiming they where making no money, whilst the poor old photographer where having to spend money to apparently make nothing.

In 2007 the World implodes, what happened to the American Dream ?

In 2008 when Getty Images sells for $ 2.4 billion with a failing business model they still do not understand what they did and their errors. Quite simply they where conducting business using digital with analog business models, they distributed full resolution digital images on a daily basis to hundreds of users, millions of asset files that could be stolen and used by everyone for free, whilst those users made millions on click through advertising revenue in perpetuity.

It all seemed hopeless and then along came GumGum, and they have suggested a solution that could get the creators back in financial control of their lives and the industry back on a firm foothold.

For in the end it’s the creators of new art that drives the marketplace but the industry must change the way it markets images in this maturing digital age. The artists have to be paid and then the flow of great marketable images will continue and big business through shared revenue will make even more money and survive.

And I suspect Bill Gates will still be rich!!!!

Paul Harris

Pacific Coast News
Celebrity Home Photos
Pacific Coast News Video
United States Head Office
BWP Media USA Incorporated

Posted in Midstock, license, multimedia, Search, newspaper, copyright, idee, Pacific coast news, gumgum, technology, magazine, keyword, google, editorial, law, news, corbis, finance, PACA, web 2.0, photojournalism, wire service, CEPIC, getty | Print | No Comments »