We photographers are a bit crazy. I guess it’s the same for anyone with a passion.
I was looking at the video of the big fight during the Buffalo Sabres and The Ottawa Senators game where every player on the ice dropped the gloves, including the goalies. In the video, we eventually see the coaches verbally fighting for a while.
Who else looked between them noticed the photographer in the camera pit? Who else said, “Wow! Great location to shoot! There is not even a glass!!” Who else said “funny hat!” And who else said, “Drop you 70-200 and get a wide angle to get the coach, you stupid!” And who else eventually said “Good job!” when he did?
|
||||
|
Recent Photos
Month Archive
Login
Recent Comments
Search
|
Saturday, February 24
Friday, February 16
Sympathy for the victims
by
Francis Vachon
on Fri 16 Feb 2007 11:07 AM EST
Last summer, I told you about how disturbed I was after I photographed a double murder attempt. 2 days ago, Trent Nelson at the Salt Lake Tribune was covering the follow up of a shooting spree in a mall. He talked with two photographers who were there during the shooting.
When the man couldn't see clearly through the lens, the photographer brought up the image on the camera's LCD screen. Seeing the body, he said, "That's my wife," and collapsed in grief. And Nelson to conclude: How should journalists cover these moments of tragedy, especially when the pain is so fresh that the bodies are still uncovered? I can't give you a simple answer.
Friday, January 26
Anatomy of An Assignment: 3 Minutes and counting
by
Francis Vachon
on Fri 26 Jan 2007 11:52 AM EST
Yes, that's 3 minutes, 19 seconds. Two set ups, travel time between sets, everything. And, the client has dozens of images to choose from. Wednesday, January 10
Fly on the wall
by
Francis Vachon
on Wed 10 Jan 2007 11:20 AM EST
I love Salt Lake Tribune photographer Trent Nelson's blog :
Fly on the Wall. You really get into his head as he tries getting the best picture.
The guy in a chair is a perfect example of how he get around pretty well with a
very dry subject.
Friday, November 17
Wanna pay to get published?
by
Francis Vachon
on Fri 17 Nov 2006 07:19 PM EST
In a surprising move, Getty, the biggest picture agency, is now open to any photographer who want to work for them. It’s called “Getty Open”.
So you want to work for Getty? The catch is that you have to pay 50$ for every image you submit. In exchange, they give up 70% of the sale back to the photographer with a two-year exclusive. Allen at Photoshelter posted an article on his blog and a SportsShooter thread is open. Many people think it’s a good gamble by Getty Jim Leary: Seems to me that this fee setup is being done for two reasons. First, it will generate some extra revenue for those willing to pay and second, it may give Getty a lead or two to some unknown quality photographers. Let's face it, anyone willing to pay $50 per submission is either crazy or very good. This opens the door for some completely unknown photographers looking to get noticed. You get those diamonds in the rough once in a while and this might just find one or two for Getty Derek Montgomery: I would also guess that it acts to ensure that the quality of the photography submitted remains high. At $50 an image the quality of the collection would likely be higher on the whole than if it was a total free-for-all. Getty could probably market it as such and editors would have a resource that they could always depend on as having high-quality work. Clark Brooks: Imagine if just 30,000 of the probably 600,000 amatuer/part-time/student photographers buy into this concept and submit two images each. That would be $3 million in additional revenue plus whatever income they generate from the licensing of those images. Imagine that numer if on average wannabees submitted four images a year. The concept gives "stock photos" a whole new meaning. Basically the shooter willing to pony up $50 is now an investor in his own work. Submitting an images with the $50 fee would like purchasing a share of stock hoping that the value of the share will increase. In this model the photographer now hopes that the photo will sell so that he/she can recoup their initial investment plus additional income. May be a lottery concept is more accurate. You are buying a $50 lotto ticket when they submit a photo, in hopes they will license the image two or three times at $200-$300 each. The $50/image is a fee for newbies to dream just like a state or national lottery. The number of people who will enter will be big, the number who actually make back their annual submission cost will be very, very small. What's the logic? Using this model, Getty will not have to rely on seasoned, full-time professionals to refresh their visual inventory in a few years who have high expectations for what their work could/should fetch. They can offer the images to clients at rates far below the $200-300 mentioned in the PDN article. The plan is brilliant as it cost Getty absolutely nothing to implement and they stand to gain more than they would lose. Hand me another Guinness... BRILLIANT! Some are not so sure Getty is the winner: James Escher: It's certainly a gamble. The flip side is that this plan could backfire, and quality photographers whose first choice would have been to have their images represented by Getty will turn to other stock agencies, thereby potentially providing a bit more parity for those agencies trying to compete with them. And the bottom line for most professional: Steven E. Frischling: I shot a number of stories on securities over the past few years. From these stories I have about 300 in for stock sales now ..... and they sell and generate income for me. I am pretty sure at least 200 of them have at one time of another been licensed back out for various purposes. If I had to pony up $15,000 to submit the photos I would have just said screw it and they would have lived in darkness on my harddrive. Wednesday, November 1
Not Tripping the Shutter
by
Francis Vachon
on Wed 01 Nov 2006 09:52 AM EST
The story of an award-winning photograph that was never taken.
What do we think as we shoot?
by
Francis Vachon
on Wed 01 Nov 2006 09:46 AM EST
Come in Trent Nelson's mind as he shoot a volleyball practice. Very interesting read. I'll try to post one like this soon. Tuesday, October 24
Sunday, October 8
Losing a hand
by
Francis Vachon
on Sun 08 Oct 2006 01:07 PM EDT
In a recent issue, Times reporeter Michael Weisskopf recall his struggle to learn how to use his new prosthesis after his right hand exploded when he tried to pick a grenade that landed into a military humvee, saving at the same time the life of photojournalist James Nachtwey.
The whole story is very touching – and sometime very funny.  Despite weeks of training on a computer, I had difficulty with the basic functions: my stronger outer forearm muscle kept flexing and involuntarily opening the hand--even when I was trying to close it. I had no more success with the mechanism to rotate the wrist. The simultaneous contraction of both muscles was unnatural and hard to remember in real time. When I did it right, I couldn't keep the hand from spinning 360˚, an annoying loss of control--and embarrassing in public.(…) Even putting on a tie remained a challenge, one fraught with danger. Rushing to a TV appearance a few weeks earlier, I tried to knot one in the backseat of a taxi. I gripped the short end with my prosthetic hand, which began to spin uncontrollably, almost strangling me before I managed to extricate myself. Monday, July 31
How to use off-camera flash in non-managed situation?
by
Francis Vachon
on Mon 31 Jul 2006 10:54 AM EDT
Just put the flah on a monopod! That Strovist guy is simply a genius!
|
|||
