Blue Planet Photography

I attended a workshop the other day. Well, it was called a workshop, but it was really a conference. A conference of agricultural writers, photographers, publishers, editors, designers. It was a good couple days, but don’t get it in your mind this was a large gathering. 20 or so; slightly less, actually.

The first day we toured some local agricultural endeavors. I shot some photos and got to see some aspects of the business I hadn’t before. It was mostly rush-rush, so no time really to set up any shots with proper lighting, etc. More of a scouting trip. The second day was all presentations.

Here is where we come to the question, what do professional photographers know? By that I mean, what do professional photographers know about their craft, and the business of photography? How saavy are they when it comes to keeping up with the industry? The featured speaker was a well known photographer of western culture; cowboys. His photographs are all over the place in advertising, editorial, books, calendars, etc. Kind of the Thomas Kinkade of western photography, you might say.

Anyway, he gave a good 3-hour presentation about his work, showed a bunch of images, and discussed a little bit about how he got into some of companies he works for, etc. Afterwards, he took questions. I’ve been to a couple of his presentations before, but at those venues there wasn’t the opportunity for questions. I was the only full-time photographer there (others were writers who also photographed) and I asked him how he felt about RF and if he felt it impacted his business in any way. I also asked how he felt about the Orphan Works legislation being run through the House and Senate.

He doesn’t like RF and it has had some impact on his business, but not much. He didn’t say this, but he also provides images (seconds, by the looks of them) for free to smaller magazines (one of them was being passed around), in trade for full page ads. The magazines eat this up because, you know, he’s famous and having his photos in the magazine is a real treat and probably sells magazines, too. These publishers generally don’t pay for photos, anyway, so I guess it’s a wash either way.

About Orphan Works he said he wasn’t familiar with it. After I explained it to him, he talked about how if you have a copyright notice on the photo or on the magazine ad, nobody can use it, but if you don’t then it’s in the public domain and you can’t do anything about it. After we talked about it for a few more minutes he said some people he knew (I think someone on his staff) had sent him some information about Orphan Works but he hadn’t looked at it, but maybe he should. Nice of him to say, but perhaps it’s too late at this point.

This led me to wonder if “top tier” photographers really care about how their work is being used. I came to the conclusion that they don’t take the time. They have a staff that is supposed to look out for that stuff and take care of it. They’re concentrating on photography, not the nuts and bolts of running a business. So, in a sense, there are probably many proessional photographers out there who could have had an influence on Orphan Works, and who could have influence on other matters related to the photography industry, but they simply are not paying attention to those issues. If it’s something they need to address, one of their staff will schedule an interview or make an apppointment.

There’s also been some discussion on the net about Annie Leibovitz and “Retoucher to the Stars” Pascal Dangin (www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005541,00.html) and how large a role he plays in not just her work but the work of other pro photogs.

I’ve watched videos of professional photographers where during shoot they defer much of the set up (lighting, props, set arrangement) and even camera operation to assistants (asking their assistant about what settings to use, or fumbling only to have the assistant come to their rescue). It seems sometimes that the pro walks onto the set, points, clicks, walks off, gets the check, and lets a whole crew do the post process and other “drudge” work.

Jay Maisel, someone I’ve followed for years and respect, said in a workshop a few years ago that he doesn’t like sitting at the computer and relies on digital assistants to process his work. Yet, he’s a spokesperson for digital cameras and oher digital technology.

Peraps there’s a difference between the perceptions and requirements of commercial clients versus fine art clients. People who purchase fine art photographic prints tend to expect the photographer to be involved from the click to the print. Having someone else do the post-process and printing, or even just the printing, is almost taboo. With all the retouching done on advertising imagery, many to the extent they don’t resemble the original (see my entry below about Photoshop and Fashion), and most viewers of that imagery thinking it’s been retouched to hell, who does the final work might not be such big issue. But, maybe it’s just the name that matters. 

I like to be invoved with my photographs from beginning to end. Do I ever wish I had someone to do the post processing and end marketing of those photos? You bet. But, then I wonder how much credit could I, or should I, take for an image that has been worked on for hours longer than it took to create the original? Who is the artist in that case?

We all know advertisements for cosmetics and clothing are unrealistic, in terms of the physical “ideal” these ads are attempting to portray. As much as we despise them and understand their fakery, they still influence how we look at one another and how we want to appear and be looked at.

I think these following links to videos showing the extremes of body shaping and “make-over” that can be done to a given image is both educational (in terms of the capabilities of Photoshop) and an eye-opener. We rely on our eyes to view our world and inherently accept most of what we see as real.

When body images are manipulated to such an extent as to barely, if even, resemble the original person, how do we interpret that? Does our belief then change to thinking everything we see in print and online is fake, or modified to some extent? I know some of my photography is thought to be manipulated when it is accomplished through a manual process. Others have told me their images have been questioned (and also their honesty) when telling viewers their images of brilliant colors or fantastic, unique, situations, are not modified.

Does that pass on to how we perceive real, flesh and bone, people? How much of that person’s body is real and how much is augmented or taken away, covered up or re-shaped? Does all this manipulation of pixels and flesh create a society that believes nothing is real? If nothing is real, what has meaning? We question ourselves (are we good enough, beautiful enough, smart enough, successful enough?) and we question others (are they real? what is their motiviation? aren’t they good enough? don’t they think highly of themselves? they’re taking advantage).

Regardless, these videos are interesting. Make up your own mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ0adXaY_bs&NR=1 The Magic of Photoshop - “look like a supermodel” 3:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knEIM16NuPg&feature=related The Evolution of Beauty 1:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0u0wWOMIsE&feature=related Slob Evolution (of course the obverse is true) 1:15

In these dark days of the upcoming Orphan Works legislation (the impression I get is the pro organizations I belong to, and the word on the web, is there is little hope of stopping it this time), it’s going to be even more important to be able to track the use of your photos on the web (and in print). These tools also make it easier for potential users of our images to locate you — out of a stack of possible orphan images there might just be one with your embedded contact info. For photographers tracking the use of their images and catching infringers, these tools give us more weapons with which we can protect ourselves. Technology is both against us and or us.

A company called Idee (www.ideeinc.com) is developing applications to do just that. You may have heard of PicScout (www.picscout.com), another company that has been tracking images online for a few years.

Idee is an up-and-coming competitor to PicScout, with applications to find images online (www.ideeinc.com/products/tineye/), in print and online (www.ideeinc.com/products/pixid/), and similars within large collections (www.ideeinc.com/products/piximilar/).

The task of finding your images online is monstrous. In the stone age, the only way you could search for your photos was by file name. It was easy for users to get around that by simply changing the file name. Then came metadata, but that can be stripped.

What can’t be stripped is the image itself. Both PicScout and the Idee products search for pixel similarity to an original, much like a bloodhound finds a person by first getting a sniff of a piece of clothing of the person needing to be found.

I’m not an expert on this technology, just pointing it out. If you want more information you’ll have to visit the respective websites for yourself. Idee is taking on beta testers, if you want to get involved.

John Harrington has a good write up on the new 2008 Orphan Works Legislation on his blog. It’s long, but worth spending time on, reading his text and following the links he provides.

This is important legislation that will affect current professionals as well as amateurs and part-timers. If you think you might one day license an image, you need to become familiar with this legislation and become involved in fighting for your rights because, so far, all proposed orphan works legislation to date has been geared toward limiting your right to claim copyright infringement and receiving reasonable compensation for image theft.

All artists, not just photographers, should be learning about what’s going on with orphan works.

Read John Harrington’s blog entry, do the additional research, and write your representatives to make sure they understand how this will affect your livelihood and future.