Photography has become big business. From pricey ad campaigns by the leading camera manufacturers to get consumers to buy their wares, to the latest Vanity Fair/ Miley Cyrus debacle (does anyone actually believe that moralistic Graydon Carter’s motive was to exhibit Annie Leibovitz’s “artistic vision” – it wouldn’t have anything to do with luring consumers to the endcaps, would it?), manufacturers, media, and even photographers themselves can use (and sometimes abuse) photography to line their wallets.

Of course, that’s what business is all about, and no one faults anyone for trying to make a living. But for those toiling behind the lens, the effect of an artfully composed image often means so much more than a few thousand greenbacks, whether it’s an historic photograph of a natural artifact, or a photographic exhibit in a region of the world that is known more for suppressing the arts than promoting them.

Just ask the unknown photographer who captured what may be the world’s oldest photograph, as recently publicized in the U.K.’s Evening Post and the New York Times, among other newspapers of note. No sultry tween celebrities caught in compromising positions, or even a compelling photojournalistic shot in war-torn Fallujah – the possibly-200-year-old photo (once attributed to Henry Fox Talbot, but now cited as the possible creation of Thomas Wedgwood, 30 years earlier than Talbot’s photographic experiments) portrays a simple leaf, placed on light-sensitive paper and exposed in the sunlight.

Of course, even the discovery of such a momentous piece of photographic history can’t escape the money issue. A section of the Evening Post article is devoted to interviewing a Sotheby’s expert to determine how much the leaf photo went for in 1984, and how much it’s worth today if it is indeed the oldest photo (sky’s the limit, according to the auction guru). However, as historian Dr. Larry Schaaf explains, “”In the end, what is certain is perhaps the only factor that really matters in a work of art. This image of a leaf is extraordinary. It arrests our attention as much today as it has done for at least a century and a half, and just possibly for more than two centuries.”

In other news, the First International Photography Biennial of the Islamic World opened yesterday at Tehran’s Saba Art and Cultural Institute. The theme of the 150-photo Iranian exhibit (featuring photographers from 40 countries) is “The Muslim Family,” designed to showcase experiences and spiritual and cultural identity in the Muslim world. In our increasingly ethnocentric world, if photography ever had the opportunity to break down regional barriers and show the innards of a culture that may often be misunderstood, this is a start. Perhaps progress is indeed being made….

Let’s hash it out. We’ve all seen, heard, and dealt with Mileygate 2008. And although most of us are ready to forget it just as quickly as it has inundated our industry sphere, we must recognize that one of our own is undergoing unworthy media flagellation. As we all know, Annie Leibovitz is a world-renown American portrait photographer known for such images as the famous John Lennon and Yoko Ono Rolling Stone cover taken in 1980, as well as countless other celebrity portraits. Recently, Leibovitz photographed actress and singer Miley Cyrus for a spread in Vanity Fair magazine. The images produced from that shoot are the newest fodder for what has become a media upchuck of everything sensationalist and irrelevant. Leibovitz was lambasted by Disney, along with other media circuits denigrating the photographs as both provocative and mismanaged.
A photographer known for her close collaboration with subjects, it was no surprise when Leibovitz issued this statement: “I’m sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted. Miley and I looked at fashion photographs together and we discussed the picture in that context before we shot it. The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful.” Vanity Fair also defended the images, maintaining that “Miley’s parents and/or minders were on the set,” said a spokesperson for the magazine. The pictures are part of a full-length interview featuring the tween queen and her father, the country singer Billy Ray Cyrus who appears with his daughter in some of the photographs. A Disney insider told The New York Times that “unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines.”
In response to the media outrage, Miley Cyrus issued this response: “I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be ‘artistic’ and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed. I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about.” A starkly different tune than the one she sang a week earlier, praising Leibovitz’s artistic vision: “Annie took, like, a beautiful shot, and I thought it was really cool. That’s what she wanted me to do, and you can’t say no to Annie. I think it’s really artsy.”
However overblown this entire incident may seem in the grand scheme of things, it is necessary that we, as professionals, acknowledge the fact that we too are faced with similar issues in our own professional lives. Granted, we aren’t all photographing movie stars, but nonetheless: how do you gauge that fine line that separates what you deem art from what others might perceive as exploitative or even perverse? Can we learn anything from this media blitzkrieg befallen on an industry stalwart or is it all just one big waste of time?
– Tara Propper

This isn’t your father’s photo industry anymore. That statement is becoming more and more apparent with each introduction of new products and services that weren’t possible in the era of film. And yet some things seem to remain the same—or at least similar—until you take a closer look.

For example, there’s been a resurgence in the wedding and portrait arena of canvas prints, but the canvas print of 2008 is far different and easier to produce. No need to make a print, pull off the emulsion and adhere it to the canvas, then stretch, and frame it. Now you simply use canvas media in an inkjet printer and output directly, then stretch it. (Or easier still, send the image to your lab to have them output directly onto canvas.)

There are even frames available that are designed so that the depth of the stretched canvas is visible, and many photographers are offering canvas gallery wraps without frames—some incorporate words around the sides, while others show part of the image wrapped around, and still others choose a solid color to border the image.

Canvases really make a statement, whether its just one large canvas on a wall, or multiples that make up one image. Studio Photography’s April issue features an article that shows how one photographer markets canvases to her clients. In future issues of Studio Photography we’ll bring you articles on how to create canvas prints in-house; as well as other uses for them, than just displaying on a wall.

Stay tuned…
Cheers,
Diane

Kodak is da bomb.

If you had asked me a year ago if I would ever utter that sentence, my answer would likely have been a befuddled, “Um—no.”

I mean, let’s be honest: Things were looking a little bleak awhile back for the Rochester behemoth. Not only did digital throw a wrench into the gameplan for the company’s legendary film brand, but it called into question Kodak’s entire stature. The company had suddenly become a dinosaur in a digital technology landscape, a silver-halide throwback that was now forced to compete against a slew of shiny new gizmos and gadgets.

The company tried to compete, but it was initially an awkward sight to see—kind of like a favorite uncle who insists on sporting a Speedo long after he should have settled into his Land’s End swim trunks. Digital cameras were introduced, photo sharing debuted à la the Kodak Gallery—but it still seemed a Herculean task to break free of its comfy-old-couch reputation.

But things (and times) have changed. First, a hilarious Kodak ad made the rounds on YouTube. Kodak had a sense of humor, and they were finally showing it off.

Being the reality-TV addict that I am (some people drink—I drink and watch trashy TV), I was pleasantly surprised to next see the Big K featured on this season’s The Celebrity Apprentice. Contestants had to hawk Kodak’s mobile printing solution, the Easyshare all-in-one printer, to passersby, translating to supergenius TV promotion for the brand (though I would still love to know how Kodak execs felt when Gene Simmons told them they don’t know their own brand as well as he does). Kodak even devoted a mini-site to its 15 minutes of reality-TV fame.

Now the Rochester photo titan has fully entered the social-networking scene by naming Jennifer Cisney, a longtime employee, as its Chief Blogger. Cisney will provide oversight for Kodak’s two blogs, A Thousand Words, a blog featuring personal stories by employees, and A Thousand Nerds, talking about technology and innovation.

This is an important development in a couple of ways. First, Kodak is now speaking the language of the next generation of photographers. By entering the social-networking arena, the company can ensure that photography becomes the shared, global phenomenon that it’s meant to be, not just a random smattering of pixels trapped in the black hole of a memory card.

Second, Chief Blogger Cisney (which could serve as a really cool rap name if she wanted to upload an original hip-hop MP3 to accompany her posts) will, according to the company’s official release, “serve as the company’s eye and ears online, listening to customer feedback and sharing ideas and tips related to Kodak’s products and services.” Big Brother-esque? Who cares? If it helps me take better pictures and hooks me up with the best Kodak product to help me do so in the process, that’s all right by me.

Kodak also took this forward-thinking step with the right person in mind—Jenny Cisney is a well-regarded blogger and loyal Kodak employee (one of the comments on the Thousand Words blog regarding her appointment exclaimed, “Jenny as the new chief blogger, [how] great is that! We now will have to start calling her CB! She’s hip, cool…and dynamite—notice they both come in small packages! She’s all those things but more importantly, she’s all Kodak!”

Of course, I hope for her sake Cisney takes the time to read the New York Times article I came across yesterday about “death by blogging.” Two prominent technology bloggers actually allegedly “blogged till they dropped,” with some attributing their deaths to constant stress and deadlines of an “around-the-clock Internet economy.” Somehow I doubt Kodak’s C.B. will forgo all her basic human needs to talk all things photography, but let this serve as fair warning.

The company finally gets it, showing that you really can teach an old dog new tricks—and meaning that Kodak could very well steal Best in Show.

Since the solutions available to save and organize photos seem infinite in today’s digital world, we usually don’t find ourselves losing images–unless we forget to save, backup or have a damaged card.

Certainly professionals entrusting a stock agency with their images have nothing to worry about. For, they pay or enter into a contract arrangement for their images to be organized and protected like the FDIC. Right?

Well, not exactly. It may depend on your birthday. Enter those who began using stock agencies in the 1970s when analog pics, known as slides or transparencies (to the younger folk), were as “in” as cell phone texting is now.

Many of these predigital snappers have now found themselves stuck in a stock purgatory…looking for lost conventional images somewhere between what images were and what images are. And while this may engender existential questions like, ‘if you can’t ever touch a digital image again does it still exist?’, pro shooters Chris Usher and Arthur Grace would say an image exists because it was captured by them.

Thousands upon thousands of images these guys took during the 70s, 80s and 90s of celebrities, politicians and high-profile news events were lost by Corbis and are now part of the MIA . Missing Images of Analog.

Grace and Usher, as well as many other pros which made the switch from traditional to digital, had made agreements in the 70s or 80s with Corbis, a stock agency privately held by Bill Gates since 1989.

Corbis admitted to losing thousands of Grace’s images but went to court to battle out the value of the images. Dissatisfied with a ruling of just under $500,000 for between 40,000 and 60,000 lost images, Grace appealed the judgment by a U.S. District Court. He was finally awarded $677,685: this breaks down to $300,960 for lost income in the past, $237,728 for interest on that amount, and $138,966 for lost furture income.

In Nov. 2007, it was determined that Usher should be awarded $157,121 for the loss of 12,640 of his images.

There are many other clients of Corbis and Sygma, the French stock agency Corbis bought in 1999, in this same time-warp continuum. A-list photographer, Michael Grecco, settled a similar case of lost transparencies with Corbis in 2000. Although these judgments may seems like a lot of bucks in one helping, they shooters would tell you it’s not worth it.

“It’s been a very long time, and all of those missing images were pretty much selects and I’m very sad not to have them,” Usher told News Photographer magazine after the trial ended.

“Regardless of what they are worth - the money is nice but I’d rather have the pictures back - and a lot of the pictures were of [George] Bush, and [Al] Gore, and the campaign of the century that was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, and it was all on film. I worked hard on that material; I know what was there because I see the outs, and I’m so sad that there’s so much of it that’s missing,” Usher added.

Can money ever really compensate image makers for blocks of history stamped out of their career timeline like photographic amnesia? Missing are original portraits of celebrities, White House documentations, Pulitzer Prize image nominees, Parisian photos, global images.

I don’t know about you, but I want to know. . .

WHERE DID THEY GO?

WHO or WHAT IS USING THEM?

No one really asked this question in all the court documents I pored through. It is accepted that they are lost somewhere in a dustry drawer, a hanging file or whatever.

According to Usher’s lawyer: “After nearly a decade of litigating lost image cases against Corbis on behalf of photographers, we have yet to hear an explanation or excuse for any loss of any image by Corbis.” He went on to say: “one in every four historical or photojournalistic images entrusted to Corbis by Usher were lost by Corbis.”

Unbelievable.

Can these huge losses be explained by the static technology of yesteryear? Well, among other points, Usher’s judge determined “that there were serious deficiencies in Corbis’ tracking and storage practices…”

Similarly, in the Grace appeal, it stated that “Sygma had no adequate means of tracking the inventory of images entrusted to it by any of the photographers it represented. Apparently, Sygma never had a system to keep track of its New York inventory and, starting in 1977, only a limited means of tracking its Paris inventory.”

These shooters have been put through the emotional ringer. In addition to their loss, part of the monetary argument was contingent on proving the “uniqueness” of the missing photographs. I imagine it was difficult not to transfer that from the images to themselves and their craft.

To these guys, those images still exist somewhere, if not in their mind’s eye. Perhaps cyberspace is not such a bad place when you compare it to no place.

Let’s give the lost images a moment of silence.

A self-proclaimed Long Island thrift shop connoisseur, I revel in everything and anything discounted. Just mention the “f” word, that is, mention that something is “free” and I am there, sporting my Vintage Jimmy Choo sandals which I found in a Hampton’s thrift for $120.00—yes, I’m THAT good. And like my Jimmy Choos, which will never go out of style, a new trend seems to be refashioning our own industry these days, which merges my love of finding a sale with my love of photography: free web-based versions of popular software applications like Photoshop.

Yesterday, Adobe released a beta version of Photoshop Express, a free web-based version of its image editing application. Users can now enjoy 2GB of storage space and editing tools like black-and-white conversion, cropping, blemish and red eye removal, along with special effects like Sketch, Distort, and Pop Color without having to tap into their own wallet. Instead, users just have to tap their mouse a couple of times and they’re storing, sorting, and sharing their digital images with an online community.

And if you’re a Gen-Yer like myself, then you can add a third love to this Adobe experience: Facebook… Photoshop Express links to other social networking applications like Facebook, allowing users to share their edited images on digital Guestbooks and Albums in a variety of social venues.

Adobe is not the only one offering free web-based applications, Google’s Picasa is another online editing tool which allows users to locate and organize digital images, create albums and rate pictures. Microsoft too is offering a free online extension of Office on their website, enabling users to save over 1000 documents and access them from virtually anywhere. In light of all this freedom from the sometimes binding influence of the dollar, which in recent months has been flailing, the Web has become an industry stalwart, an unavoidable resource for photographers and retailers alike, but one question still stands on the tip of my tongue somewhat leery of the answer I will receive: Is all this freedom healthy?

This morning, while reading the New York Times and sipping on the first of my four-cup coffee ritual, I stumbled on a line discussing the economic downturn that I felt had some resonance within our own industry: “It is difficult to protect individuals without protecting the markets, and the markets will remain fragile if individuals suffer huge declines in their personal wealth.” Edmund L. Andrews, New York Times. I’m all about maintaining my personal wealth, and I’ve always celebrated a sale, but given the instability of the markets today, is it a fitting time for companies to jump on the “free” bandwagon? From iTunes offering free singles to free image editing applications offered online, when does the cost of freedom become taxing—and are we at all afraid of creating an industry standard that places the individual over the market, which in turn hurts the individual in the end???

As a born-and-bred New Yorker, I love going to local festivals. I can’t wait to gorge on the sausage-and-pepper heroes and zeppoles at the annual San Gennaro festival, suck down a few lagers at the Brooklyn Brewery bash, or throw back some littlenecks at the yearly Oyster Festival here on Long Island.

Yes, I admit – most of the festivals I get excited about involve food, drink, or, ideally, both. But there’s a new fest about to debut in the tri-state area that’s got me rethinking my reliance on fattening fare to have a good time. The New York Photo Festival (www.newyorkphotofestival.com) is coming to the Dumbo section of Brooklyn May 14–18, and it’s being touted by festival organizers as the “first international photo festival in the United States.”

I’m not sure how accurate that statement is—there’s an internationally billed festival in San Antonio that’s been in full swing for a few years now (www.safotofestival.com), and there may be others that a quick Google search could turn up. But I really don’t care, because a) they’re probably not of this scope, and b) I don’t have plans to head off to Texas or anywhere else in the country anytime soon—this inaugural fest is right here on my home turf, and I’m excited to see what talent is exhibited from around the world.

The promo they’ve got circulating on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRPAq_-AN1M) is pretty cool, showcasing some of square footage where the artists’ work will be on display. And they’ve got some well-known names associated with the event, including the four main curators overlooking the photography pavilions: Magnum photographer Martin Parr, New York Times magazine picture editor Kathy Ryan, Lesley A. Martin of the Aperture Foundation, and Tiny Vices’ Tim Barber.
At any rate, with nearly 100,000 visitors anticipated, I guess I’d better get my tickets now. I’m not too worried about the crowds, though—if I can handle San Gennaro’s 1-million-plus attendees, I can elbow my way to the front to catch a glimpse of the Microsoft-sponsored New York Photo Awards at the festival.

For the specialty photo store or minilab owner, there’s always a reason to celebrate photography and promote it in your store or lab. Photography even has its own month-long holiday. May is National Photography Month. I know I’m a bit early, spring hasn’t even arrived yet, but by thinking about it this early, you’ll have no excuses for not planning special sales or programs around the holiday.
Any and every holiday—for that matter—could be the impetus for a special sale: Mother’s day, Father’s day, Grandparent’s day, Independence day, Arbor day, Thanksgiving, and on and on… These are the times that your customers will probably be taking more photographs than usual, so its only natural that you offer creative promotions to get them into your store to order prints and other photo gifts. And if you decorate your store for each of these holidays, it gives the perception of change, so you may find your customers spending more time browsing because they think there are new items on your shelves. Don’t forget to change the displays in your front window either. There’s nothing worse than faded displays of old products sitting in your front window to insure passersby will pass your store by and shop elsewhere.
Another great opportunity for you to create special promotions is on the anniversary of your store or lab’s opening. You can use that as a year-long reason for celebrations, sales, promotions, and more!

Best,
Diane Berkenfeld
Editor

PMA is over and things are beginning to settle down. I had a different role at PMA this year than in year’s past…in addition to updating the Web site, I worked on the PMA daily as the “Roving Reporter.” I thought this was a great experience and one that every PMA participant should have had the opportunity to live. Because I was the one who (a little cheesily) ran around the convention center with a point and shoot and a notepad at 7:30 a.m. asking people why they came out and what they expected to see, I really felt like I was on the edge of the rail, the finger on the pulse of the know, if you will, of the building excitement before the doors flung open on day one. It was a different “in the know” than usual–not so much what’s new in PMA products, but what’s new with the PMA people…

Upon reflection, I learned from the collective YOU that people go to a show like PMA with a purpose..at least initially. They have a goal–in their head or on their back…a little blue jay whispering in the ears, of what their purpose is. But it is difficult to stay on track when you enter the show, those doors fly open and you step on the “magic” purple carpet the size of a football field. And there’s all those booths. And now even two floors…and the goal flies out of the head and to the back of the room. Way back, near the wastebaskets that you can never find on the show floor. Until day two–that is.

Day two, people know what they saw that excited them, inspired them and they are reminded of the purpose set forth, the goal. While everyone has a purpose, however malformed and fuzzy, there is one. Still, everyone’s goal (at least with all the people I interviewed) is different. Yet, they all find answers at a show like PMA and that’s the beauty. Here are some of the goals and highlights of the people I spoke to as a “Roving Reporter” (no, I didn’t wear a newsboy cap and puff on a cigar, smokin isn’t allowed).

One young lady from a small town in the midwest was after cool supplies for her scrapbooking store for those who don’t like scrapbooking. She wanted to compete with the other scrapbooking store in town.

Another chic woman I spoke to was conducting market research to see if opening an online scrapbooking business was a viable option.

A young man I interviewed was excited to quit his day boring financial-laden desk job and become a professional photographer. He was particularly impressed with the dye sublimation process exhibited.

A female CEO from Scandinavia was searching for the future method of packaging memories for her wholesale business. She believed were are seeing the death of the stand-alone print.

A male retail manager was looking for new way to incorporate sports photography products and classes at his store.

A photography teacher from Vermont was supporting her students who placed at the special international exhibit by teachers and students from around the globe. She commented that it was a relief to see the show had struck a balance between traditional and nontraditional photography from the oversaturation of digital of past years. She added that her students look at both darkrooms as different tools of the same art of photography. Her students want to learn liquid darkroom! Awesome!

A professional photographer from Jamaica was searching to buy equipment that he can’t find on his island. I learned that in that country photographers are actually hired to shoot funerals (did you know that?). The reason is both cultural and the fact that many family members can’t fly there to attend.

And there were many more goals. The last guy really move me because it was his first time in this country, he was sick (i had to sit down with him and hand him some tissues) because he wasn’t used to the cold of Vegas. (I told him it was a cold front) And he was jetlagged. He flew into Vegas to get camera equipment..not to party…I learned a lot from visiting the halls of people this year.

Did you find what you were looking for?

Working on a magazine, we tend to receive a lot of press releases announcing the launches of products but few announcing the discontinuation of them… On occasion however, some of these announcments are no surprise while others are quite unexpected.
Earlier this week, we got the news that Polaroid has decided to close the plants that manufacture the company’s Polaroid film. The reason is obvious—digital is ubiquitous.
According to an article in The Boston Globe, the manufacturing plants will close this year, giving Polaroid a small stockpile of film to last into 2009.
At one time almost every photographer—portrait, wedding and commercial—had at least one Polaroid back for their medium or larger format cameras. Instant film was a necessity—to check product or subject placement, lighting and focus—saving you from having to expose film that would need to be processed, and which could become expensive if you were shooting, say 8×10 chromes.
But digital has replaced the immediacy of Polaroid film, and you don’t even need to wait 45-seconds after you press the shutter, before you can view the image.
I suppose the second-hand Polaroid SX-70 camera I purchased on eBay a few years ago for fine-art purposes will now be a permanent museum piece next to the old Kodak Brownie I happened upon as a collectible. Sadly, I do admit that since I’ve gotten my first DSLR I haven’t touched my Nikon F3 or Bronica SQ-Ai.
Recently Kodak quietly announced the discontinuation of its high speed B&W Infrared film. A favorite of nature, landscape, and wedding photographers—there are now digital options, both hardware and software, to replace that old favorite too.
Although those icons of the past will be missed, the efficiencies of present day digital affords us so many new directions and opportunities. Some of these new products made their debuts at PMA last month. We’re bring many of them to you (see page 42 of the March issue of Studio Photography magazine) and will continue to do so in upcoming issues of both PTN and Studio Photography, and here on imaginginfo.com.
Best,
Diane Berkenfeld
Editor