By now probably all of you have heard about Ms. Greenberg’s alternative images of John McCain. I don’t want to start a big fight here but people are asking my opinion, so I’ll give it.

I think that, especially at the level of media savvy that should be expected of McCain’s handlers, Ms. Greenberg is entirely clean in this.

First, editorial rates are so lousy that if a photographer does NOT make her own image to get something more out of any project, that is just bad business.

Second, she made image(s) that were absolutely acceptable by the client. Remember, McCain was NOT her client in any way.

Third, if someone agrees to be interviewed and the interviewer asks a bunch of good questions and then asks, at the end, a couple that are embarrassing or uncomfortable, by agreeing to the interview, that is the risk you take. Agreeing to be photographed for a news magazine is analogous. You are getting publicity and you don’t get to control it. You take your chances.

Again, Ms. Greenberg more than fulfilled her obligations to her client. I don’t have a problem with her making her own art on the side. 

As for how she has handled the press herself, I really don’t think that matters too much. She will be, at most, a blip in this election.

However, I do want to make one comment about how the community is reacting. On the PDNPulse blog, the comments by those who think that what she has done was less than professional have been far too often ugly and hateful. There was even at least one that made an anti-semitic slur. This is heartbreaking. She is one of us and if we attack our own…well…it is just sad.

Disagree with what she has done if you choose to, but do so with the respect one of your colleagues deserves.

—

Update

How she handled it after the fact is not what I am commenting on. She could have handed the press afterwards better, no question, but the act itself, I don’t think it’s half as bad as some think.

Every so often I hear some photographer complain about how an Art Buyer got a project shot for half what s/he estimated it at. The usual comment is something like “that AB is anti-photographer” and there is lots of spite and malice in the tone.

Thing is, if a buyer gets a project shot, at the quality level they need, at half the price, that is not the fault of the buyer–it’s the fault of the photographer(s). 

There is often a lot of hypocrisy in these complaining photographers. At the same time as they complain about the ABs going with the lower price, they are telling their colleagues how they can get a website for less here or, worse in my book, getting scans or retouching done off-shore for next to nothing. 

Why is it okay for you to save money and not the advertising agencies (via the buyers)? Any business needs to try and save money where they can. In an agency, it is the buyer’s job to get the right creative work at the best price s/he can. So why do we get so angry at them when they do their job? If the half-price photographer didn’t offer at such a low pricepoint, the buyer wouldn’t be forcing the more costly photographers to lower their prices–they are simply buying the less costly equivalent. 

Now, the really interesting thing about this situation is that there must be equivalent product and services for this situation even to present itself. That is, there must be multiple photographers of equal “vision” for a given project for the buyer to be able to choose a cheaper alternative (usually). So, if you differentiate, if you make unique images, then buyers who want to work with you won’t be able to find cheaper alternatives. A unique vision, by definition, precludes competition.

So, rather than get pissed the next time you lose a project to a cheaper alternative, take a good long look at what you are bringing to the table. Are you offering your best work? A unique vision? Or do you know, in your heart, that there are a bunch of other photographers who could do it just as good as you could?

Finally, keep this in mind when you get frustrated with an Art Buyer–they want more than anything to get the best photographers they can and, much more often than not, they are in there fighting for you. Sometimes the budget is written in stone and they know that they are going to have to compromise the quality of the work to hit a certain budget. But they hate that. Often, they will push back in their agencies to try and find some place where they can sneak more money into the photo budget. But they are not miracle workers and they do not have the power to dictate “we will use this photographer, no matter the cost.” They are your allies and if you can keep that in mind, you may be able to find ways to work together that will work for both of you.

At the very least, it will help you avoid being frustrated when they go with someone cheap.

I love it when people comment on my posts. I encourage it and even approve posts which are absolutely contrary to what I think. However, I won’t approve posts that fit into three categories:

1) They are essentially ads for whomever/whatever and have no substance or benefit to the readers;

2) They are not informative and contributory to the discussion/issue at hand–in other words, a comment that has no meat but has tons of venom won’t get posted. Here’s a hint: if you want to call me names, do it on your own blog. 

3) Posts that malign anyone (me or, more importantly, a third party) and that are anonymous. If you are going to say that someone lowballs or isn’t a friend to photographers, you had better have the proverbial balls to put your name behind it or it’s not going to get approved.

That last one happened today and it pisses me off (you can tell, I bet). Anyone can say “Bob sucks” or whatever when anonymous–that’s easy and it’s sneaky-mean. I’m not going to spread rumors and innuendo, which is all comments like that would be without some real person to attribute the claim to. 

So, please do comment, just be aware of the “rules.”

Sorry for the Friday rant.

Consider the APA competition… they’ve got some fabulous judges.

Heather Morton is back from her hiatus. If you don’t have her blog bookmarked, think about adding it. She offers up a lot of good info.

Speaking of good info, Nick Onken has a post on the importance of branding that I very much like. It says a lot of what I (and others!) have been saying for some time, but maybe it’ll be easier to take when it comes from one of your fellow photographers. Pay special attention to point #2.

And today Rob at APE has a post about fair use and blogs. I added a comment about maintaining metadata, but besides that, I think it is a non-threatening piece that, if it gets out to the right people, could help bloggers understand what’s up better. Of course, many of them will still claim commentary/criticism fair use…

I’m off to Contracts class…

AltPick Awards.

In Esquire’s case, the answer is, apparently, both. According to this AP article, Esquire is releasing an issue with an “electronic ink” cover that flashes images and text. Inside, Ford has a spread that uses the same technology to show one of its cars. 

What does this mean for print in the future? And what does it mean for photographers whose images may be part of a flashing electronic ink ad in a print pub?

Ms. Rowling scores yet another victory for intellectual property creators by successfully getting an injunction stopping the release of the Harry Potter Lexicon. The “author” of that book claimed that his “encyclopedia” using vast amounts of Rowling’s work was protected under fair use. Not so fast, Bucko!

Note that the damages awarded were really minimal. This was because the Court did not want to discourage legitimately compiled reference works. Also, the book had not been released yet.

HOW magazine has an interesting article on a researcher’s theory of creativity. It’s a bit (just a teeny bit) academic, but very interesting nonetheless. Give it a read and figure out which of the two kinds you might be.

Just because someone spends a ton of money on a promo, doesn’t mean it is any good. Take the newMicrosoft commercial made by CP&B with Jerry Seinfield.

How many millions did this cost to make? How many millions have been spent on placement? But where is the core message? What does it offer the buyer? 

In my opinion (and I’m sure others will disagree), it’s not even funny. But it fails mostly because the CP&B folks (and MS) tried too hard to be Apple-esque–quirky/witty as the Mac/PC ads have been–and in copying (without looking like they were copying) they stopped being themselves.

So, you can spend a butt-load of money, but it will fall flat if you forget to be, well, you.

(thanks åsk for the link)