Archives For Thomas

Really interesting posts here from Paul Melcher who has been in the biz for years: (Keep in mind he is head of biz development at Stipple) He explains why selling your photographs online might be not a great business plan for the single artist web sites.. you should read all of the posts as they are spot on.

“Publications are no longer the place where photography is consumed, social media is. The so called professional market has become an infinitesimal portion of the marketplace. The big Internet companies have understood it and are waging a take no prisoners battle to control it.”

“Exactly like TV, who creates shows to attract viewers who are then sold to advertisers, photography is used to attract traffic, which in turn, is monetized by advertising. But none of these photos come from a professional photo licensing outlets. Photographers and their photo agencies have been completely overtaken by a marketplace shift that is making them more and more irrelevant. Only two companies have understood this and have recently make deals that will guarantee their future relevance. Shutterstock, by providing images to Facebook’s advertising channel and Getty images, by monetizing their content posted on Pinterest.”

 http://blog.melchersystem.com/2013/10/30/escaping-the-wall-gardens/

With 19 Albums under his belt Josh Rouse might still be one of the best kept secrets in the music biz for most.  A nice melancholy musical start for the holiDAZe now upon us…

Thanksgiving Music Break: Josh Rouse sings The Happiness Waltz

The Photographs of Sarah Schonfeld

I love this series by Sarah Schonfeld. She basically decided to see what kind of chemical effects drugs would have on film. The results are beautiful yet mirror the troubling aspect of introducing chemicals into anything human or otherwise.  See the similarities between speed and caffeine and ponder how drugs effect not only humans but the visual aspects of film as well.

 

All you can feel 

“Since the 1950s, we in the western world have increasingly come to understand our most intimate desires and
experiences, as the products of a so-called “chemical self”. We are able to explain moods, angers, and diseases
both physiological and psychological through an imbalance of substances in the body. All of this, of course,
takes place against the backdrop of a constantly shifting legal and political climate regarding the regulation of
different types of mood altering substances.

 

What all these substances actually look like when their essence is visually depicted?

Sarah Schönfeld squeezed drops of various legal and illegal liquid drug mixtures onto negative film which had
already been exposed. Each drop altered the coating of the film. Much like the effect
of some of these substances on humans, this can be a lengthy process – sometimes one that can barely be stopped.

 

She then enlarged these negatives including the chemical reaction of the particular drug, to sizes of up to 160 x 200
cm. All of the substances behaved very differently: the shapes and colors that appeared showed unique characteristics
and revealed unique internal universes. Schönfeld explores the possibilities of photography at the frontiers of what
can be visually portrayed– the interface between representation and reality.”

 

via http://www.sarahschoenfeld.de/en/works/all-you-can-feel-2/

The nudes of Nadav Kander exhibition titled Bodies 6 Women 1 Man at the Flowers Gallery in London is maybe the best exhibition of nudes I have seen since Irving Penn did his wonderful series of Odalisque women.

via http://www.flowersgallery.com/exhibitions/flowers/nadav-kander-bodies/works#2927

Shutterstock and the End of Getty Images

By all accounts Getty Images who is owned not by folks with a passion for photography (but basically bunch of accountants) will see its market share erode daily from now on given the explosive growth of Shutterstock. Jon Oringer who is a kid who just happens to love photography (and happens to be very smart) started one of the first photography subscription services that essentially shook a decades old highly profitable photo stock industry to its knees. (Shutterstock is now valued at 2.5 billion and growing rapidly).  The old equation was that pro photographers could make a very good living selling images through Getty or Corbis web sites working in tandem with their editors to make sure the right images were being made for the market place. It takes a village to make a great stock image as its both a conceptual problem coupled with eye catching content.  (Yours truly made Getty Images around 4 million over the years I was working with them). Microstock destroyed this profitable Industry by driving prices down to absurdly low levels that were economically impossible to compete with for any pro photographer with an actual studio/business overhead. At this point the big players have only one choice:

Buy Shutterstock or face getting eventually run over.

What I have never understood about the business decisions in the current stock industry playbook is what industry constantly undercuts and devalues its products from $500 to a $1 sale per unit.  The diamond industry for example could flood the market and give us very cheap diamonds. They don’t for a very good reason…

“The emergence of microstock—the low-priced, generic images that customers don’t want to shoot themselves—knocked the photo industry on its heels. Shutterstock and a competitor, iStockphoto, were selling im­ages that once cost $500 for $1. Incumbent Getty Images ended up acquiring iStockpho­to for $50 million in 2006 and then took itself private in 2008 at a 65 percent discount to its pre-credit­crisis high. “All the trends line up with what Jon’s doing today, but he saw it when others didn’t—he saw it 10 years ago,” says Jeff Lieberman of Insight Venture Partners, which invested in Shutterstock in 2007”.