En Whatever

Time Q&A with Annie Leibovitz

Time Magazine had a Q&A with Annie Leibovitz in which readers sent the questions. I* wouldn't call it incredibly revealing, but it was interesting, and at the end there's a link to a video interview with her.

Labels: Annie Leibovitz, interviews, photographers

posted by Erik Sherman @ 8:40 AM 0 Comments Links to this post

Reporter Arrested for Photographing Senators, Donors at Democratic Convention

Once again we see a heavy hand coming down on those daring to use a camera in public. This time it was Denver police arresting an ABC News producer for taking pictures, on a public sidewalk, of Democratic senators and big contributor.

A police official later told lawyers for ABC News that Eslocker is being charged with trespass, interference, and failure to follow a lawful order. He also said the arrest followed a signed complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel.

Nothing like trespassing on a public sidewalk. This is just one more in an alarmingly growing series of people taking photographs being hassled by authorities. Maybe it's the memory of how video has captured police in brutal activities, or perhaps it's a thought that power brokers should be able to hide from public site even when out in the open. But it's bad.

Labels: law, news, photographers, police

posted by Erik Sherman @ 9:50 AM 0 Comments Links to this post

Some Great Photographer Interviews

When I was looking at the A Photo Editor blog yesterday, I noticed a link to another site that I thought I'd pass along. PixChannel is a site that has video interviews with great photographers, and is a way of learning more about the craft, art, and business.

Labels: interviews, photographers

posted by Erik Sherman @ 5:24 AM 0 Comments Links to this post

Five Words Never to Say to Pro Photographers

PDNOnline, the web site of photographer trade publication Photo District News, has a story about how pressure from angry photographers broke up a business relationship. Modern Postcard is a standard stop for pro shooters who have samples of their work printed to send to potential clients. The company was working with iStockphoto, a microstock site where photographers, often amateurs, upload photos and people can pay a pittance to use images for their projects. This is a major pressure on pros who can't ignore the costs of overhead, equipment, and so on, and must charge rates that let them run a profitable business.

Modern sent out a mailing with the following paragraph:

"As a Modern Postcard customer, you're entitled to free images, free credits and a 10% discount on any iStockphoto credit bundle over $20. So, skip the expensive photo shoot and create direct mailers with high quality images from iStockphoto.com!"

And the five words you can't say to pro photogaphers? Skip the expensive photo shoot.:

The response was so fast and negative that Modern Postcard sent out an apology the same day. "We sincerely apologize as this miscommunicates our intentions and our feelings about professional photography," the company wrote in another e-mail within hours of its first message Friday.

Labels: iStockphoto, Modern Postcard, photographers

posted by Erik Sherman @ 9:18 AM 0 Comments Links to this post

NFL Forces Photographers to Wear Product Logos

I was a little aghast when I heard an earlier version of this story. According to newspaper trade publication Editor and Publisher, the National Football League insists that working photojournalists documenting games must wear read vests that have logos for two product companies: Canon and Reebok.

The National Press Photographers Association has been protesting the action, but apparently not all that loudly:

"The NFL says there are no plans to add additional logos to the vests, or to increase the size of the marks, and that they think the Reebok and Canon logos are appropriate because the vests are made by Reebok and because Canon ‘has made the commitment to fund the cost of the vest,’" NPPA reported on its Web site after receiving the letter from NFL vice president of public relations Greg Aiello, which added that "Both logos are directly related to the manufacture of the vest. Given this, it is inaccurate to characterize them as advertising messages sold to NFL sponsors or others."

Not advertising messages? So they paid for the vests - but I wonder did they pay the actual cost, or did the NFL manager to eke out a few extra dollars of profit doing this?

As for saying that it's not advertising, oh, please. Who do they think they are fooling? The logos are there to be seen, and that means it's part of the marketing of the two companies. No plans to add logos? I'm sure that's true - at the moment, though I wonder if they asked whether the NFL might add logos in the future.

It was disappoiting to hear that this practice isn't all that unusual, and that in other sports photographers routinely have to be promotional billboards when they're supposed to be acting as journalists. One might wonder what woudl happen if a publication had a story that was unfavorable to one of the non-sponsors.

Labels: logos, NFL, photographers, sports, vests

posted by Erik Sherman @ 8:25 AM 0 Comments Links to this post