It seems the practice of competitive edge seeking may benefit cash-strapped shutterbugs with the creation of a new stock market aimed at advanced amateurs and amateurs. Photographers of all levels that already showcase their work on Flickr now have the opportunity to get into the online stock game. Getty and Flickr joined forces on March 11th.

What’s beautiful, is their gain doesn’t seem to (as of yet) jeopardize the pros who sometimes make their living through stock. Getty, as a rule serves professional photographers. As we know, the last thing pros need is the digital weekend warriors encroaching into their income pools. The alliance was announced in July 2008 and is centered around images from non-pros offered to smaller companies and agencies, who can’t afford conventional stock services, at cheaper prices. Shooters get paid from $200 to $500 a photo.

According to Getty Images CEO Jonathan Klien, the reason for the alliance is that his clients were asking for access to Flickr’s vast trough of images–most of which were not yet cleared for commercial use. Over the past few months, Getty editors have been busily trolling through Flickr images and inviting those with stock-quality images to supplement their income.

Here’s how it works: When a photographer posts an image on Flickr they must allow public access, rather than choosing password-protected sharing. If a Getty editor tags the photographer with an invite, the selected image will show up in a special Flickr collection on the Getty Images site. If the image is used, the shooter gets paid. Take a look at some of the images here: www.gettyimages.com/Creative/Frontdoor/Flickr?isource=usa_nav_images_whatsnew_flickr.
Getty says they will continue to add thousands more every month. Wow, Getty editors are single-handedly buoying Flickr’s SEO rating at the same time.

“And to a whole new creative universe, chock full of images that capture the passion and personality of a global community of photographers – and of the places they call home,” reads the section on Getty’s website. Images are available exclusively on Getty’s site and have both rights-managed and royalty-free options. It’s all no so easy though. The rub is to know not only what makes a great image, but what makes a great stock image. And that’s not just about art, but about science.

With all of the recent hubbub surrounding Shepard Fairey’s artistic rendering of a Barack Obama photo, it made me start to think of all of the iconic photos of past presidents. There’s JFK having a powwow with Nikita Khrushchev. Then there’s Richard Nixon bidding adieu to the White House. And who can forget this rather amusing montage of past commanders-in-chief enjoying Thanksgiving dinner or pardoning the National Thanksgiving Turkey.

But in today’s 24/7 media-saturated environment, where a global leader can make the slightest public misstep and in seconds see his faux pas posted online for the world to see, it’s easy to forget about the relative visual anonymity many of our earliest forefathers enjoyed. We can view George Washington on the bucks in our wallet, but we’d be hard-pressed to find any type of actual photo of him toiling over the Constitution, or of Thomas Jefferson enjoying an afternoon at the fishpond at Monticello.

That’s what makes the possible discovery of a photograph of Ulysses S. Grant, our 18th president, such an astounding find. Collector Randall Spencer claims that the mid-1800s daguerreotype is the real deal, acquired at the San Jose Photographic Exposition in 1992 from a collector who had a whole stack of sixth-plate daguerreotypes.

Spencer stands by his find, and a forensic photo expert has backed him up. But it’s been a hard sell, mainly because historical institutions often want an “unbroken chain of custody” to prove an artifact is genuine.(Spencer says that a system that acknowledges probability would better serve such efforts). If he is able to sell the photo, Spencer will use the funds to continue what he’s referred to as his obsessive quest to find other remnant photos of historical figures. Nice job, Spencer, and for a noble cause — just don’t dig up anything that would incriminate our founding fathers too much. The country needs some optimistic news right now, not Monica-gate II circa 1802.

Maybe I was being presumptuous in thinking that art deserved equal time in the spotlight. If I couldn’t even get other artists to read a link about Putin drawing in pastels for a St. Petersburg cultural group, then the “a” word must really be a dirty word, especially when there are bigger issues at hand, like the Wall Street meltdown. Then I watched the Academy Awards, and listened to Penelope Cruz talk about art as a unifying agent, and even cheered when the Slum Dog Millionaire kids climbed the stage, and finally remembered my point… Is art all we have? Just thinking about some of the artists I know, and some of the artists I’ve studied, and their somewhat sporadic, somewhat maddening nature, it’s almost funny, or maybe even scary to consider art as the last stabilizing force in a world gone awry. However, artistic expression is the single most loyal counterpart to human existence since well, we’ve existed—so maybe I’ve just put myself in my place.

President Obama allotted $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts in his economic stimulus plan. Amidst some of his toughest critics was Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia, who, as an even tougher critic of the arts said “I just think putting people to work is more important than putting more art on the wall of some New York City gallery frequented by the elite art community.” Mary Chapin Carpenter questioned this statement in the Washington Times, “according to Americans for the Arts, Mr. Kingston’s congressional district last year had 778 arts-related businesses that employed 2,663 people. Are all those people in his district who work—professionally or as volunteers—in the fields of painting, dance, photography, singing, writing, filmmaking, pottery, poetry writing, computer design, art, architecture, history, acting, stage design and crafts part of the elite?”

I think not Ms. Carpenter. Our entire industry from capture to print to sales is in one way or another reliant on the arts. And though the photography industry doesn’t have an Academy Awards, we should still remember, while walking our own red carpet of trade shows— from Photoplus to WPPI to PMA— that art isn’t just an afterthought. It is the thought. Now, as I step down from my soap box, I want to ask for your opinion… How does art fit into your life?

The ban was installed by President George H.W. Bush for the 1991 Gulf War; he had been embarrassed in 1989 at a news conference in which he joked with reporters as split-screen television showed the first US casualties of the invasion of Panama returning to Dover. It was continued by his son.

But President Obama said on Feb. 9 that he had ordered the review, which the Pentagon said it would complete in a few days. Removing the ban will allow the American people to see the sacrifices made by the troops first hand.

We all hear stories on television and radio, read articles in the newspapers and magazines and hear speeches made by politicians. But as photographers, we KNOW the power of the image. The public should see these coffins, not only to have a heavier heart when they debate the war, but it may delete the apathy and ignorance of some.

These images are a form of accountability as well. Photos of our fallen, lend more transparency to the Pentagon. Coffins can be counted by more than a few pairs of eyes. With images we bear witness to the effects of atrocities going on in the world. Removing this ban will also give honor to the fallen as their sacrifices will be seen by the public. In fact, many families of these troops have requested a removal of the ban for this purpose.

Of course, there are families, and rightfully so, who want privacy during this time. Can’t those families be given their privacy by preventing photographing and the others be public? As different as each and every soldiers is, are the wishes they may have in case of death.

Likewise, families all have different identities. Why not respect the wishes of families nationwide by showing the flagged draped coffins of those who wish to honor their children in public and not allowing access for those who wish to grieve in private.

By now, everyone’s seen the Obama “Hope” image that was used on posters and other campaign paraphernalia during last year’s presidential race. Street artist Shepard Fairey manipulated a pensive photo of now President Barack Obama, turning an ordinary photograph into a red-, white-, and blue-infused work of art. Fairey’s already-iconic image has even inspired a pop-culture sensation through the Obamicon.Me website, which lets you upload your own photo and type in your own descriptor at the bottom of the image (you can even order a poster, T-shirt, mug, or stamp with your “Fairey-ized” likeness through the site).

Problem is, the Associated Press owns the copyright to the original Obama photograph, which was taken back in 2006 by photographer Mannie Garcia. The AP wasn’t happy about this and made public statements that hinted at possible lawsuits against the renegade California artist. The agency was subsequently taken by surprise, however, when Fairey actually filed his own lawsuit this week against the AP, claiming that his work is protected by the Fair Use Statute, which allows limited use of copyrighted material to make original works of art. Fairey and his supporters argue that he visually transformed the original photo to convey a completely new meaning.

Whether Fairey has a valid case in taking this David-versus-Goliath preemptive strike against AP to protect himself remains to be seen (and believe us, he needs all the help he can get in fending off the law—he was just arrested in Boston a few days ago for “defacing property with graffiti”). Posts on several blogs range from siding with the AP (Fairey should have sought permission before using an agency’s intellectual property; to defending Fairey’s creation (Obama always has that look on his face—does AP own that expression?; AP is not suffering any financial loss due to Fahey’s image). What do you think? Was it fair usage on Fairey’s end? Should he have filed suit against AP to protect himself, or was that just going overboard? Tell us your thoughts.

For the shooting tour, Panasonic hosted stations on the beach - South Beach - for us to test out the Lumix TS1 and ZS3. These “stations” were set up on right on the beach sand and at the walkway near the beach. Snake charmers, rollerbladers, volleyball players and even Miami Dolphin cheerleaders provided for great action-packed scenes to capture. The most anticipated feature of these new releases: HD video capability.

The ZS3 with HD recording in AVCHD LITE will be the flagship of the new ZS series which replaces the TZ series. This technology, as compared with conventional Motion JPEG format, allows for longer recordings and has the benefits of HD video and auto quality in compact.

This feature was pretty cool when the we (especially the guys) wanted to record the energetic cheers of the Miami cheerleaders to take home the experience ..um ..for their wives (ha! ha! ) or vice versa. I admit, I took a great recording of them for my husband. At that exact time, he must have been sitting in his artifically-heated office in Washington, D.C. as freezing rain hit the building’s roof. Earlier in the day, I recorded the quick moves of some very tan and fit volleyball players as well.

In both instances, I felt like I had great control of the recordings and was able to zoom, pan and create a short video with ease. The fact that the record button is positioned right on the camera’s back panel, insures you don’t miss the spontaniety that a beach day offers. Basically there’s no searching to get out of a still mode. For this reason, Panasonic calls the ZS3 its Hybrid model, appropriately named because it makes you want to be an amateur filmmaker as well as photographer. The popular Intelligent Auto (iA) is expanded to include Face Recognition technology (which exists on some other brands already) and could be a good addition for novices. It allows you to register certain faces for the camera to remember. How does it remember? It has something to do with the exact measurement between a person’s eyes. When a registered face appears in the frame, the camera will prioritize focus and exposure for that certain programmed face. You can also select an order of each’s priority in a shot. (Warning not to take to heart: This could create problems in families with many children and people with more than one best friend.)

The real beauty of Face Recognition may be back in the home office. It allows the photographer to streamline the function into a computer and pick out all of the priority faces you are looking for. And while the technology has some limitions, such as only being able to concentrate on one person per shot, it will surely evolve. In additon, the dial of the model still needs some tweaking as it slipped into a different modes as I went along the busy day–but this it easy enough to fix.

Panasonic execs embraced the salt water and sandy surroundings when it came to capturing the day with the TS1. This model Panasonic touts as the world’s first waterproof, shockproof, dustproof camera. It also has the cool HD video capability and Face Recognition. To me, this seemed quite unbelieveable that you can stick this one 10 feet below water and drop it on ground from a distance of 5 feet. But as I was up in my hotel room running late for the beginning of our first shoot, my colleagues were downstairs by the hotel pool busily shooting Lumix mermaids underwater. Chlorine and all, the cameras managed to make it onto the bus and to the beach in one piece.

Personally, I have never felt comfortable bringing any camera, except a film throwaway, to the beach–so this could be a perfect solution for those worries. I couldn’t believe that I could be in a sandstorm and this camera would come out of it better than me.

The real test here- the ocean. This thing can be underwater and still snap photos as well as take video. This is no throwaway…but rather a very slick looking point and shoot. Egged on my friends, I bent down on the beautiful sand and got my blindingly white toes wet. I kneeled further towards the sea and outstretched my arm to lower the camera but ….I just couldn’t do it. Putting a camera in the ocean just seemed unnatural to me.

Eventually, after being called “ridiculous,” I fought my instinct and dipped it into the water and got some very good underwater shots of the sand. Mind you, I was on the land, fully clothed at the same time, so I couldn’t get the proper shots this camera deserves- like schools of glowing fish or sunken treasures. Still, the TS1 was a little treasure that did not shipwreck. I expect when it comes out in April, it will be very popular with beachcombing parents and even their kids.

Below are some of the visuals I captured on South Beach with these cameras. Since I felt more comfortable with the Lumix ZS3, most are taken with that one. For captions, simply roll your cursor over the images.

As I settled into our khaki-colored conference room to watch CNN’s coverage of the Inaugural proceedings, I noticed that one of my coworkers had begun recording the screen with her point-and-shoot. Sitting in my bluish-gray swivel chair, ducking acerbic comment after snarky quip from other smarter editors about Michelle Obama’s dress and Cheney’s wheelchair, I wondered: Has the entire country gone snap-happy?

CNN’s Photosynth technology, enabled via Silverlight, was another, albeit more advance way of historicizing the moment. Adjusting the resolution, color, and brightness, the software offered a 3D picture slideshow of multiple still images. My father and I watched the post-game highlights that night, as CNN’s political correspondent blew up images, displayed panoramic views, and explored interesting angles with a single touch. My father and I exchanged glances as we witnessed the far-reaching possibilities of technical innovation. Indeed, technology has come a long way since the days of waiting for Life Magazine to arrive.

I recall a friend that once told me about a Japanese emperor that traveled throughout Japan and wrote Haikus in order to document what he had observed. Maybe the photos that we collect from moments seen and vaguely remembered are our form of haiku; a way of stamping our fingerprints onto the thick canons of cultural history, and saying “I was there.”

See what our web editor, Alysha Sideman, captured from the crowd, as our on-site reporter here: www.imaginginfo.com

The digital revolution (it seems so antiquated to even call it that anymore) opened the doors for many to enter the photographic arena, but it also jump-started a quiet yet cranky undercurrent that chastised those who used Photoshop and other technological thingamajigs as a crutch instead of as subtle enhancement.

Professionals certainly had a valid gripe: After all, now even posers could manipulate, twist, and finagle photos with user-friendly hardware and software in attempts to create art, whether or not they had the vision or talent necessary to pull it off. Sometimes, the technology paved the way for hidden genius to erupt, but more often than not, it simply let loose a gaggle of layer-crazy wanna-bes who used every toolbar, gadget, and gizmo to create a chaotic hodgepodge that would be unrecognizable in its raw format.

That may be why the exhibit mentioned in the New York Times’ New Year’s Day edition is so refreshing. Entitled “First Doubt: Optical Confusion in Modern Photography,” the showcase at Yale highlights more than 100 “confounding” photos from the mid-19th century to the 21st century. They’re puzzling, strange, eye-catching—and totally unmanipulated. That’s right: According to the article, there was no digital trickery involved in any of the images. All the photos were exactly as the professionals saw them through the lens.

It’s an experiment in surreal comprehension—and a shout-out to old-school photography done the way it should be.

Thanks to you guys, our loyal readers, ii.com just keeps getting better and better. As editor of the site, in 2008 I had the opportunity to monitor what you all like, what you don’t and am happy to report our online family continues to grow and grow.

And, the more our audience grows, the more opportunities it allows us to bring you the latest in breaking photo news, the most educational photo techniques around and an even larger selection of inspirational and informational online exclusives you won’t find anywhere else.

By all means, keep commenting on our stories and in our forums. As many of you have probably discovered, whenever we can we try to answer your questions and/or change copy/add photos to reflect what you tell us may be missing. Because of your comments, I know I continue to learn new things every day.

Two of the most important items I learned from our viewer comments in 2008?

1. Always post photos with articles on photo award winners (duh)

2. Always post prices with a product review (duh ditto).

I’m going to extend the same offer as I did in January 2008. Since this is your site, tell us what you want more of, what you want less of, and inform us of any questions you may have. This goes for any section of the website and for our three newsletters. BTW, if you haven’t already, you should sign up for them. They’re free and pretty cool. A lot of thought goes into them each week.

We have alot of new ii.com greatness in store for 2009. This year we will be adding many new sections, including a photo-of-the-day item where the photos we post are submitted by you. You’ll probably be seeing a new newsletter or two. And more.

Again, my sincere thanks for making ii.com your source for photography. And I know the other editors (Diane Berkenfeld, Jen Gidman and Tara Popper) of the imaging group, which includes Studio Photography magazine and Photo Trade News, feel the same way.

Feel free to drop me a line at alysha.sideman@cygnusb2b.com with the subject line: “New Year” with any comments or just leave your comments below. We actually DO love to hear from you.

On a side note, I want to congratulate Pete Souza for being selected by President-Elect Obama as the new Chief White House Photographer. Obviously a job of a lifetime. To check out a story we did on him in late 2008 and some of his work visit http://www.imaginginfo.com/web/online/Online-Exclusives/emThe-Rise-of-Barack-Obamaem-in-Pictures/49$4504.

Here’s to a great 2009 full of photography bliss! best, Alysha

Of course my mother didn’t know that when she asked me to produce instant pictures on a moment’s whim. But can you blame her for using terms like “album” and “Polaroid” when she should have said “CD” or “photograph”? The only thing I blame my mother for is listening to Bread… As for her inaccurate colloquialisms; words like “album” and “Polaroid” are cultural touchstones. They’re part of a vernacular that will most likely outlive not only my mother’s Baby Boomer generation, but my own. We’ve already seen the Polaroid name lauded in the chorus of OutKast’s catchy tune “Hey Ya,” which instructs people to shake their bodies like Polaroid pictures. You don’t get any more infamous than that…

And no matter its cultural significance, Polaroids, like albums, will be a technology of the past come January 2009. Though the company’s white-bordered prints will be on sale through next year, it will stop making instant film by December 31, 2008. The impact of the company’s decision to end production, which was heard most volubly in the art world, beginning some months ago, was also echoed in the commercial blogosphere on message boards and in “Save Polaroid” campaigns on Facebook along with other social networking sites. The subject of many art projects and a staple in commercial photography, Polaroid film was a quick way—and often the only way—to test the shooting environment. And in creating an on-site demand, you could even argue that it initiated a digital market.

I thought that Polaroid deserved more than just a cameo in the movie “Memento” or a name dropping by my mother to eulogize its departure. It has influenced our businesses and our personal tastes, and we should recognize its legacy—our roots.

How did you use Polaroid film—did you create unique Polaroid or Emotion transfers? Do you have an altered SX-70 image or just a favorite print that marks a particular time in your life? Did you use the positive/negative type of Polaroid film and print from the negatives? Are you a 20×24, 8×10, or 4×5 shooter? Let me know by commenting to this blog, or emailing me at tara.propper@cygnuspub.com.