MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Jonathan Klein on Why I Fell in Love with Pictures  (Read 22727 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 18, 2014, 06:07 »
+1
oh man.... check 10:30

<a href="http://youtu.be/39TK1_SENSk" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://youtu.be/39TK1_SENSk</a>


http://infocus.gettyimages.com/post/repicture-jonathan-klein-on-why-i-fell-in-love-with-pictures#.U6Fx7BazL9E


« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2014, 06:17 »
+8
Yea that sure pays the bills, seeing my work in print and such. Oh and I happen to get a little money as an aside. He is lost. Maybe for those who aren't using photography as a near full time or full time source of income it's "wooohooo Funnnnn" to see their work in print. I would rather NEVER see my work in print if it meant making more money. Completely backwards.

Shelma1

« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2014, 06:21 »
+3
Oh jeez.

« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2014, 06:29 »
+9
the lack of respect for photographers is incredible, I don't understand how can he talk about us with so little importance, that is where the crowdsourcing lead us and a few shameless minds too

« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2014, 06:30 »
+9
I can't even bear to click on the video to hear what Klein has to say. Ugh.

« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2014, 07:29 »
0
I can't even bear to click on the video to hear what Klein has to say. Ugh.


To be fair though - he always speaks very well and it's a good talk. Even if you disagree with him it is interesting to understand the message he is communicating.

Somewhat related to this talk, there is an interesting new post at the Thoughts of a Bohemian blog entitled The New Photo Agencies. One of the points made is that sooner or later all online photos are going to be available for licensing in some form or another.

Quote
the barriers between pros and casual photographers are going to completely vanish ( they already are being erased) because for the first time, all images will be available for licensing in one way or the other.


That's absolutely correct IMO. Much of that content is already free. That's the competition.

shudderstok

« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2014, 07:47 »
+3
I can't even bear to click on the video to hear what Klein has to say. Ugh.

for some reason my hearts are not showing so i can't +1 you. but here is a +1

« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2014, 11:55 »
+6
So I watched it.

Lots was about Getty's editorial side. Sort of odd mixing in the creative (goldfish and horse - although I have no idea what you'd use that mane picture for) with the editorial as the users of both are so different.

It would have been a better talk if he would have stopped boasting, especially the parts about how much he's given to AIDs awareness - it added nothing to the message about the power of images.

I think Getty's trying to figure out how to reposition themselves but he had the awkward task of saying how powerful their existing images are and on the other how they're re-imagining things with new imagery to be more authentic.

He reminds me of someone's Dad trying to be cool when their kid's friends come over - clearly out of his element but blissfully unaware.

Tror

« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2014, 12:28 »
+4
I did not watch the movie. I do not care. The fact that the guy works for Getty degrades whatever he says to a questionable statement. His company lied to us. He is representing that company. His personality is not trustworthy. Period.

« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2014, 12:50 »
+10
I watched it. When he talks about editorial images, he knows the photographers, he knows the stories, not just about the images but also the artist.

But then when he talks about "crowd sourcing" it is clear he doesn't get it. He shows really famous images that have earned a lot of money, but he doesn't know the name of the artists. He belittles "cliches" without appreciating the very hard work that goes into creating them. These images sold because they are so useful. But artists that consistently produce these images are very few. Anna makes fantastic stuff and her story is just as interesting as that of the editorial artists that he happens to know personally.

We just see the same thing again, there is no real understanding how crowdsourcing really works.

Our plattforms are about nurturing talent, letting it develop and rise with hard work and education through networking. We are not a random mass of producers who happen to get a lucky shot once in a while.

The role the community spirit plays in creating the supportive environment that allows this international effort of people to help each other, inspire each other learn from each other....to create the "vibe" that allows creativity to flow...the interaction between agency, entrepreneurship and financial success...the importance of a regular income...it is all so much more than just a few people in a garage that said "everyone is a photographer"...

If he doesn't understand it, he cannot grow it. Which is what has been happening in the last few years.

Maybe they should just focus even more on editorial and news, that seems to be where his passion is.


ETA: I mean, who does he think will be the artists that will shoot the "authentic" images that he is looking for now? The random hobby amateur sending holiday snapshots or the sucessful "cliche" artist that has been earning thousands of dollars a month? "Authentic" is just a style. The people that know how to communicate visually will shoot any style, as long as it brings in the money.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2014, 13:17 by cobalt »

« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2014, 13:35 »
0
I can't even bear to click on the video to hear what Klein has to say. Ugh.

for some reason my hearts are not showing so i can't +1 you. but here is a +1

It's because you need 10 posts before you can give hearts

« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2014, 13:49 »
-2
But then when he talks about "crowd sourcing" it is clear he doesn't get it.

What makes you say that ? What does he say specifically which makes it clear that he doesn't get it ? What is there to get  anyhow ? Doesn't everyone get it ? ETA: I mean "didn't" of course. A decade ago. It's no longer news.

He shows really famous images that have earned a lot of money, but he doesn't know the name of the artists.

The name of the artist is in big letters up the side of the image on the projection screen. Besides which the name of the artist is not relevant in the context of the point being addressed.

He belittles "cliches" without appreciating the very hard work that goes into creating them.

I don't believe that he belittles the clichs. I think he just acknowledges that there are clichs. That seems fair enough to me. There are clichs in editorial photography too. We are all sick of clichs.

ETA: I mean, who does he think will be the artists that will shoot the "authentic" images that he is looking for now? The random hobby amateur sending holiday snapshots or the sucessful "cliche" artist that has been earning thousands of dollars a month? "Authentic" is just a style. The people that know how to communicate visually will shoot any style, as long as it brings in the money.

As is pointed out in the blog post I linked to above, very soon all images uploaded to the internet are likely to be available for some form of licensing.

--

I cannot help but think that sometimes people are outraged about everything to do with Getty, no matter. Well that's fair enough. But IMO the positive person's takeaway from something like this would be around looking for the useful information. For example - he said, slightly polemically, that there are only 10 concepts which matter. Isn't that interesting and worth discussing ?



Shelma1

« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2014, 14:24 »
+10
Well, I went back and suffered through the entire video, watching from the POV of an advertising creative, and I can't count the number of ways he insulted his audience (advertising creatives). From insisting everyone in the world communicates through images while writers making up half the creative department, to his statement that there are only ten concepts (really? What are they?), to telling advertising people at Cannes, who represent the most creative in the industry, that they need to go beyond cliches, to thinking photographers are more interested in having the glory of their work being published while payment is an afterthought...all I can say is wow.

« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2014, 14:47 »
0
Well, I went back and suffered through the entire video, watching from the POV of an advertising creative, and I can't count the number of ways he insulted his audience (advertising creatives). From insisting everyone in the world communicates through images while writers making up half the creative department, to his statement that there are only ten concepts (really? What are they?), to telling advertising people at Cannes, who represent the most creative in the industry, that they need to go beyond cliches, to thinking photographers are more interested in having the glory of their work being published while payment is an afterthought...all I can say is wow.

Thanks for summing up so well. 

« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2014, 14:59 »
-1
Well, I went back and suffered through the entire video, watching from the POV of an advertising creative, and I can't count the number of ways he insulted his audience (advertising creatives). From insisting everyone in the world communicates through images while writers making up half the creative department, to his statement that there are only ten concepts (really? What are they?), to telling advertising people at Cannes, who represent the most creative in the industry, that they need to go beyond cliches, to thinking photographers are more interested in having the glory of their work being published while payment is an afterthought...all I can say is wow.

Thanks for summing up so well.

IMO Shelma is choosing to interpret the talk in such a way so as to take umbrage. As are several other posters. I am quite certain that the audience did not view this with such negativity.

It's really disappointing that the intellectual merit of what was said is not being debated here.

IIRC John Hegarty made a similar point in Creative Review in the late 80s about concepts reducing or normalizing to fewer than 10. I think he said 8 but I cannot find the quote at the moment.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2014, 15:18 by bunhill »

« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2014, 15:26 »
+2

I am quite certain that the audience did not view this with such negativity.


Maybe they weren't image creators? 

« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2014, 15:35 »
-4
Maybe they weren't image creators?

Everyone is an image creator today.


Shelma1

« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2014, 15:55 »
+3
Well, I went back and suffered through the entire video, watching from the POV of an advertising creative, and I can't count the number of ways he insulted his audience (advertising creatives). From insisting everyone in the world communicates through images while writers making up half the creative department, to his statement that there are only ten concepts (really? What are they?), to telling advertising people at Cannes, who represent the most creative in the industry, that they need to go beyond cliches, to thinking photographers are more interested in having the glory of their work being published while payment is an afterthought...all I can say is wow.

Thanks for summing up so well.

IMO Shelma is choosing to interpret the talk in such a way so as to take umbrage. As are several other posters. I am quite certain that the audience did not view this with such negativity.

It's really disappointing that the intellectual merit of what was said is not being debated here.

IIRC John Hegarty made a similar point in Creative Review in the late 80s about concepts reducing or normalizing to fewer than 10. I think he said 8 but I cannot find the quote at the moment.

Then why don't you discuss the intellectual merit of what he said, rather than taking umbrage at us taking umbrage?

« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2014, 16:17 »
0
Then why don't you discuss the intellectual merit of what he said, rather than taking umbrage at us taking umbrage?

Ok. As an adverting creative, in what ways do you disagree him about it being possible to normalize the concepts down to, say, 10 key messages / themes ?

And why do you find that insulting ?

(10 seems a lot already. I think I can get to maybe 6 off the top of my head).
« Last Edit: June 18, 2014, 16:20 by bunhill »

« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2014, 16:21 »
+5
I made $31 while watching that video :)

Shelma1

« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2014, 16:28 »
+1
Then why don't you discuss the intellectual merit of what he said, rather than taking umbrage at us taking umbrage?

Ok. As an adverting creative, in what ways do you disagree him about it being possible to normalize the concepts down to, say, 10 key messages / themes ?

And why do you find that insulting ?

(10 seems a lot already. I think I can get to maybe 6 off the top of my head).

List the concepts.

« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2014, 16:59 »
0
Here are 10 off the top of my head. But at least 3 I think could be further reduced and all of the headings could be better defined.

Freedom & Individuality
Style, Grace & Beauty
Success / Failure
Health
Complexity & Simplicity & Purity
Progress
Age - youth and old age
Quality
Power
Sex

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2014, 17:10 »
+4
Sustainability.

Shelma1

« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2014, 17:18 »
+2
Here are 10 off the top of my head. But at least 3 I think could be further reduced and all of the headings could be better defined.

Freedom & Individuality
Style, Grace & Beauty
Success / Failure
Health
Complexity & Simplicity & Purity
Progress
Age - youth and old age
Quality
Power
Sex

Fear?
Anger?
Life?
Death?
Love?
Optimism/Pessimism?
Faith?

I was really hoping you had the definitive list, because Google as I might I can find no reference to the Hegarty quote or even reference to any quote that boils down all ideas or concepts to a list of ten.

But overall, I found that in the video he comes across as arrogant and dismissive. For example, his claim that Getty came up with the idea of using animals as metaphors. Or something along those lines, really don't want to watch it again. Really? Getty came up with that? Nobody ever thought of that before?

ShadySue

« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2014, 17:26 »
+2
But overall, I found that in the video he comes across as arrogant and dismissive. For example, his claim that Getty came up with the idea of using animals as metaphors. Or something along those lines, really don't want to watch it again. Really? Getty came up with that? Nobody ever thought of that before?

Hahahaha.
A bit like patenting shooting on white.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Metaphors_referring_to_animals
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/sommerb/pubs/zoomorphy_11.pdf
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/popcult/handouts/metaphor/animal.html
and another 6,390,000 results on Google for 'animal metaphor'.

But you knew that, Shelma.
Seems someone else didn't.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
2849 Views
Last post March 25, 2009, 14:01
by travismanley
10 Replies
8647 Views
Last post August 29, 2011, 14:40
by Jo Ann Snover
3 Replies
1471 Views
Last post April 12, 2012, 17:00
by rubyroo
6 Replies
2478 Views
Last post September 13, 2013, 09:01
by Ron
10 Replies
2667 Views
Last post February 19, 2014, 05:05
by StockPhotosArt.com

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results