Posts by Lilith __
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
-
Hard News: Rough times in the trade, in reply to webweaver,
I think Amanda Fucking Palmer is an absolutely perfect example of this new breed of self-promoters – as anyone who saw her presentation(s) at Webstock this year will attest.
Yes...and I think she's amazing and wonderful, but she wasn't an unknown: back in the Dresden Dolls days she had a following from live performances and events, and also a record company which presumably promoted her.
-
Hard News: Rough times in the trade, in reply to giovanni tiso,
I think quality gets found, but it needs to be displayed in the right context.
That was precisely my point.
ETA
to give social networks their due – they are pretty good at promoting unknowns on merit
May be true up to a point but relies on the crowd to judge what has merit. Will anyone remember Justin Bieber in future generations? OK maybe it's unfair to take potshots at popstars. But if the crowd is the only judge, every human artist working today will be overshadowed by That Cat From Japan.
-
Hard News: Rough times in the trade, in reply to nzlemming,
creating a valued authorial “eye” (as opposed to “voice” for writers) which means getting paid for who you are and what you bring to your photography, rather than for the photo itself.
Seems to me that the ‘personality’ business model works well if you’re already famous, but how you’re supposed to get there if you’re not, is unclear. Was someone asking how would Ansell Adams do if he was putting out a calendar now? I think he might suffer the same fate as the world-famous violinist who had a go at busking – and almost no one stopped to listen. Context matters. Without “gatekeepers” (publishers, agencies, etc.) to promote new talent, it’s hard to see how anyone can succeed. The internet and twitter offer great new ways to connect with fans you already have, but unless you are very lucky and go viral*, you can put your brilliant work out there and no one will ever find it.
*Lily Allen and Justin Bieber are examples of lucky ones in the music business
-
Hard News: Rough times in the trade, in reply to nzlemming,
“we are stuck on licensing/selling intellectual content by the “unit” (a book, an album, a photograph)” and that photographers need to realise that we’re now in “a “streaming culture,” that moves away from the unit”.
Musicians can make money touring, even if they're not making anything from selling albums. I don't really see how photographers can do something analogous. It's not a performance art! How can we add value?
-
Hard News: Rough times in the trade, in reply to nzlemming,
My read is that Steven Mayes has realised that the money is no longer in selling reprints and licensing images (dare I say, “the copyright culture”) but in partnerships and reputation, but he’s marketing it as “integrity” so it sounds better.
So they're talking about working to commission rather than licensing stock images? Or something else?
-
Hard News: Rough times in the trade, in reply to Alastair Jamieson,
Here’s an interesting take that I think is just as relevant to future journalists and other media content producers as it is to photographers:
The Future Of Photography Is In The Photographer Not The PhotographI’m really not sure what this article is getting at. They mean the future for photographers is about being a brand? I think perhaps this has always been true for those seeking elite status and fees. But as they give no examples it’s hard to know what they mean.
And I don’t accept the glib distinction made between film and digital:
Analog photography is about fixing something and creating an artifact but digital is the opposite of this. The photograph becomes more fluid and online it is never static, there are an infinite amount of changes that can be made to it.
I’ve worked as a pro photographer with both film and digital and I think the distinction is artificial. A lousy digital image is still lousy after a lot of work, and a good one needs only small tweaks to optimise it. Yes, there are all sorts of manipulations you can do, but what’s the point? We’ve all seen the appalling results of people getting overexcited with the photoshop filters!
The enormous change I think digital technology is bringing has nothing to do with “fluidity” and everything to do with cost. The inexpensive point-and-shoot digital cameras available in the last few years can produce remarkably good images even for a novice photographer, if they have a reasonable “eye”. The means to take pretty-good photos is cheap and widely available, no longer the preserve of those with training plus lots of expensive gadgets.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Square Two, in reply to Jolisa,
Around here we were wondering what happens to the balloon-dinosaur when it bumps into the giant, invisible, Spiny Norman.
Ohhh...extinction! :-(
Better to go with a bang than a whimper, I guess. :-)
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Square Two, in reply to Bart Janssen,
a balloon animal
Imagine the menacing squeaks it would make when moving. :-)
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Square Two, in reply to Hebe,
See the Stuff front page for the upgrade, also the 5.5 now a 5.7
I wish we could be upgraded to first class, with the champagne and little snacks.
fuck leaving, I say… they won’t get me out of here except in handcuffs.
Thank you David! True grit. :-D