How a College Student Used Creative Commons to Dominate Political Photography(priceonomics.com)
priceonomics.com
How a College Student Used Creative Commons to Dominate Political Photography
http://priceonomics.com/how-a-college-student-used-creative-commons-to/
70 comments
The kid has money. Traveling to all these events isn't cheap. So I think it safe to assume he and/or his family are donors at some level. It doesn't take much of a donation to get a seat close to the front, far less than the cost of traveling to the event.
once you get connected to people like he seems to be, he's probably getting rides with people and crashing at houses and other hotels too. hell do you know how many hippie bernie supporters are riding around in the 'mystery machine' living on $6 dollars a day.
Parents in the US spend money on their kids' activities. This probably is equivalent to mid-level travel sports, selective musical organizations, and beauty pageants. It is almost certainly less expensive than traveling with horses.
Ten hours of driving each way and a budget hotel runs a couple of hundred dollars and provides a substantial operating radius...and that ain't much money for a lot of people.
Ten hours of driving each way and a budget hotel runs a couple of hundred dollars and provides a substantial operating radius...and that ain't much money for a lot of people.
Individual venture capital from parents to their son. Probably a lot less than a brand name university, with a lot more benefit in terms of network, personal brand, and skills.
The article mentions where he sees this as a hobby and is more interested in pursuing a more traditional career in business.
On the other hand, in the comments section you witness some bitterness by more well known photogs who see him as an amateurish interloper.
He knows it's a career that's dying that it'll be overtaken by crowdsourced images taken from cellphones as their image quality improves (for the telephotos), so he's uninterested in it as a career.
On the other hand, in the comments section you witness some bitterness by more well known photogs who see him as an amateurish interloper.
He knows it's a career that's dying that it'll be overtaken by crowdsourced images taken from cellphones as their image quality improves (for the telephotos), so he's uninterested in it as a career.
Access isn't too hard if you can get up early and hustle. I went to NH (invited by my SO), the candidates like publicity and photographs (bring a camera they said). Though I had to go through a metal detector they were fine with my rig (slr and 100-400mm lens, not small) I posted a couple "cc".
Though in the age of the cell phone, these photos pretty much they way things are going.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/acomjean/23968845552/ and the tablet: https://www.flickr.com/photos/acomjean/23450142553/
tv still seems to employee more than still photos.. https://www.flickr.com/photos/acomjean/24076930115/in/photos...
and the candidate: https://www.flickr.com/photos/acomjean/23450138963/
As former photo editor of my college (UMass daily) paper and someone who knows a couple people that make a living at it (though one is a freelance "stringer"), its truly is a hard way to make a living. Oddly I talked to one and after 15 years he's not loving like he used too, sees to much of the same things, finding it hard to keep a fresh perspective.
Though in the age of the cell phone, these photos pretty much they way things are going.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/acomjean/23968845552/ and the tablet: https://www.flickr.com/photos/acomjean/23450142553/
tv still seems to employee more than still photos.. https://www.flickr.com/photos/acomjean/24076930115/in/photos...
and the candidate: https://www.flickr.com/photos/acomjean/23450138963/
As former photo editor of my college (UMass daily) paper and someone who knows a couple people that make a living at it (though one is a freelance "stringer"), its truly is a hard way to make a living. Oddly I talked to one and after 15 years he's not loving like he used too, sees to much of the same things, finding it hard to keep a fresh perspective.
Agreed. There are, admittedly, a lot of political rallies and speeches and they're not particularly exclusive. That said, just looking at the first few pages of his photos, he was right up front at some Rand Paul event shooting with a wide angle lens. And he was at one of the Republican debates that I assume (perhaps wrongly) you can't just walk off the street into.
Hilariously, I'm pretty sure that this article is violating the license! This person's photos are licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/). Among its terms are "ou must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."
Maybe I missed it but I did not see any link to the license or indication of whether changes were made. Simply crediting the copyright owner is not sufficient to satisfy the terms of the license. Also, with CC < 4.0 you need to include the work's title.
The Trump site is doing exactly the same thing, not linking to the license
Maybe I missed it but I did not see any link to the license or indication of whether changes were made. Simply crediting the copyright owner is not sufficient to satisfy the terms of the license. Also, with CC < 4.0 you need to include the work's title.
The Trump site is doing exactly the same thing, not linking to the license
Given that Gage Skidmore owns all rights to the photos, and that Priceonomics apparently had contacted him for this article, it seems quite plausible that Gage allowed the photos to be used outside the CC license.
Furthermore, one might argue that showing photos in an article about them is covered by Fair Use principles. In this case no reference to license or source would be needed.
Furthermore, one might argue that showing photos in an article about them is covered by Fair Use principles. In this case no reference to license or source would be needed.
I use (and attribute) CC photographs all the time and I have to say that I wasn't even aware of a couple of those requirements. Sadly, I think terms like these, as well as the optional non-commercial variant, are serious issues with CC. Attribution can be hard to carry along with a photograph consistently but at least the idea of a photo credit is pretty deeply ingrained in professional publishing circles if not the Web more broadly. I expect most of the other requirements and limitations are rarely followed to the letter.
They aren't "serious issues" with CC.
They are the legal terms under which you are allowed/licensed the use of the copyrighted content. If you don't know the license and the requirements of the license, how you can pretend to fulfill them? You are just waiting for a lawsuit and "ignorance is no excuse" in the eyes of the law.
They are the legal terms under which you are allowed/licensed the use of the copyrighted content. If you don't know the license and the requirements of the license, how you can pretend to fulfill them? You are just waiting for a lawsuit and "ignorance is no excuse" in the eyes of the law.
> Among its terms are "[Y]ou must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
> I did not see any link to the license or indication of whether changes were made.
It doesn't say you must indicate whether changes were made. It says you must indicate if changes were made, which leaves the case of "no changes" ambiguous.
> I did not see any link to the license or indication of whether changes were made.
It doesn't say you must indicate whether changes were made. It says you must indicate if changes were made, which leaves the case of "no changes" ambiguous.
And what are "changes"? Does a minor crop or sharpening constitute a change? (Or, more precisely, a remix, transform, or build upon.)
Leaving aside whether they are free licenses and whether that matters, my issue with the CC variants is that both NoDerivs and (especially) Non-Commercial are nearly impossible to define in the general case and therefore cannot be safely relied upon as a grant of permission if you're being legally conservative.
Leaving aside whether they are free licenses and whether that matters, my issue with the CC variants is that both NoDerivs and (especially) Non-Commercial are nearly impossible to define in the general case and therefore cannot be safely relied upon as a grant of permission if you're being legally conservative.
I think No-Derivs is only acceptable for interviews or speeches that are a statement of the author's views (allowing derivatives would not make sense). And No-Commercial is just nonsense and people shouldn't use it.
Unfortunately, NC is one of those things that is intuitively appealing to a lot of people--"I'm happy to give my stuff away for free but I don't want someone else to make money off of it". But it breaks down with essentially any non-trivial use.
Yes, using a photo off flickr as a screensaver on my home computer is clearly non-commercial but, really, who cares if that usage is properly licensed or not. Pretty much any substantive use could be argued to be commercial in some way, shape, or form.
Yes, using a photo off flickr as a screensaver on my home computer is clearly non-commercial but, really, who cares if that usage is properly licensed or not. Pretty much any substantive use could be argued to be commercial in some way, shape, or form.
I am not one to say that the rich get richer, but this may be a specific case of an individual being supported by his parents circumventing the normal process of working the ropes to progress up to taking photos of the people discussed.
On the other hand, it is great that these photos are available as they allow bloggers to use these to make their site look more professional.
Journalists cannot help inserting their views of candidates, Zachary Crockett, describes anyone who works for Trump as "Cronies." Since, @zzcrockett will read this now, you need to keep your opinion out, your other articles were great, keep them that way.
On the other hand, it is great that these photos are available as they allow bloggers to use these to make their site look more professional.
Journalists cannot help inserting their views of candidates, Zachary Crockett, describes anyone who works for Trump as "Cronies." Since, @zzcrockett will read this now, you need to keep your opinion out, your other articles were great, keep them that way.
This is the exact opposite of the "rich getting richer!" Whenever we start discussing income and wealth trends in the United States we always neglect how we as a society have gotten richer through technological progress. Even the poorest houses in the USA have computers and tv's that would blow the minds of people from the 1990's and be incomprehensible to people from the 1950's.
Cameras have gotten better and better while getting cheaper. Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup.
Cameras have gotten better and better while getting cheaper. Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup.
I think he was referring to the fact that his parents were able to pay for travel to dozens of political events, simply to promote their kids hobby. That's great, but I doubt that's an expense must people's parents would be able to incur.
Even with that in mind, your claim that even the poorest households in the US have access to computers at home is simply not true. The digital divide is still a very real issue within the U.S.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/heres-what-digital-divide-l...
Even with that in mind, your claim that even the poorest households in the US have access to computers at home is simply not true. The digital divide is still a very real issue within the U.S.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/heres-what-digital-divide-l...
> I think he was referring to the fact that his parents were able to pay for travel to dozens of political events, simply to promote their kids hobby. That's great, but I doubt that's an expense must people's parents would be able to incur.
That is true... but I also don't understand how that is "the rich get richer"?
That is true... but I also don't understand how that is "the rich get richer"?
On the cost of cameras, if anything, they have gotten much more expensive. It used to be possible to buy a pro-quality film camera and prime lens for less than $1,000 -- so, let's say $1500 in today's dollars. More money might get you features like better auto-exposure, auto-focus or high-speed film winders, but a lot of pros didn't use any of those features, and back in the day when I was shooting sports events at my college, I often had a more modern camera rig than the pros sitting next to me. Digital cameras that give similar image quality as those film cameras start at $2,500 today, and go up from there. It feels like the divide between pro and amateur equipment in photography has shot through the roof over the past decade, with the blanket adoption of digital.
What has gotten cheaper / more accessible is the ability to publicize, duplicate and distribute one's work. Twenty years ago, short of dropping off prints at the local newspaper, there would be no way for an amateur photographer to get her photos under the nose of photo editors at major news outlets. Today, that's as simple as uploading to Flickr.
What has gotten cheaper / more accessible is the ability to publicize, duplicate and distribute one's work. Twenty years ago, short of dropping off prints at the local newspaper, there would be no way for an amateur photographer to get her photos under the nose of photo editors at major news outlets. Today, that's as simple as uploading to Flickr.
I generally agree with you with respect to equipment cost although, to be fair, a lot of that difference is offset by consumables. A Nikon F4 may only have been modestly more expensive than a more consumer-oriented SLR but the pro probably shot thousands of dollars more film during a year.
So in addition to distribution, just using the camera has also gotten a lot cheaper.
So in addition to distribution, just using the camera has also gotten a lot cheaper.
You don't need brand new gear though: A used Nikon D2x or D300 on a good lens will produce results as good as most pros would get with film back in the day. Those bodies even drive all the old (cheap) Nikkor AF lenses. Total cost for a body and a couple of high quality AF zooms will run you less than $500 on eBay.
If you want to get really cheap, pick up a D1 for $35, a refurbished 55-200 VR for $100, and maybe a 2x teleconverter for $20.
If you want to get really cheap, pick up a D1 for $35, a refurbished 55-200 VR for $100, and maybe a 2x teleconverter for $20.
>Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup.
Eh. Plenty of amateurs using SLRs were taking good, solid photos 20 or 30 years ago. How do you think the pros got their jobs if not by becoming good photographers first?
It is far easier these days is to take photos that are technically proficient especially in difficult light. (My brain probably still holds way too much arcane and now useless information about B&W film processing chemistry.) And, of course, it's far easier for amateurs to get their photos seen.
Eh. Plenty of amateurs using SLRs were taking good, solid photos 20 or 30 years ago. How do you think the pros got their jobs if not by becoming good photographers first?
It is far easier these days is to take photos that are technically proficient especially in difficult light. (My brain probably still holds way too much arcane and now useless information about B&W film processing chemistry.) And, of course, it's far easier for amateurs to get their photos seen.
How many pictures do you think the average newbie needs to take to become a "proficient" photographer? 10,000? How much would it have cost to develop all that film twenty years ago? A modern user doesn't just have a better camera than those twenty years ago, they also have a built in dark room with unlimited "prints" (digital viewing).
10,000 is probably high for "proficient"--whatever that means exactly. I was probably shooting a few 36-exposure rolls of B&W film a week when I was in school. A roll of Tri-X is about $5 today and was probably something similar in adjusted dollars then. (We did generally load our own film but that's in the noise.) Chemicals and paper adds a bit more.
So, I don't know. $7 x 150 rolls or whatever. So maybe $1000 plus gear. The gear might actually be a bit cheaper than today assuming access to a darkroom. Color would be significantly more but you probably wouldn't do your own processing.
To your basic point though. Yes, it's much easier today. The instant feedback, much improved ability to work in low light, no-cost experimentation, easier to use equipment, etc. As a result, I think it's much easier for people to get to the "good enough" stage today even if becoming really accomplished isn't necessarily all that much easier.
So, I don't know. $7 x 150 rolls or whatever. So maybe $1000 plus gear. The gear might actually be a bit cheaper than today assuming access to a darkroom. Color would be significantly more but you probably wouldn't do your own processing.
To your basic point though. Yes, it's much easier today. The instant feedback, much improved ability to work in low light, no-cost experimentation, easier to use equipment, etc. As a result, I think it's much easier for people to get to the "good enough" stage today even if becoming really accomplished isn't necessarily all that much easier.
>Cameras have gotten better and better while getting cheaper.
>Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers.
>Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup.
I couldnt agree less.
This is not photography that he is doing, its just some sort of expensive and glorified social media thing. Good on him for having an interesting hobby, but please stop confusing this with "Photography" ... it is not.
Modern Cameras (just like smartphones) are getting bigger, heavier, more useless, and more expensive than ever. Please stop thinking that this is some kind of "progress".
I totally agree with your comment about the quality matching that of "Professional Photographers". The "quality" of these photos is just crap. Soulless, 2 dimensional crap. Its right up there with "Wedding Photography".
He may as well just leave all that DSLR garbage at home and take his happy snaps on an iPhone.
Real photography is actually more accessible than ever. There is no shortage of stupid in this day and age, and so you will find plenty of excellent kit being sold for pennies, because stupid people think that : - "It cant upload photos to instagram" (Canon 700d .. makes for a great neg scanner) - "Its only 5 megapixels" (Leica Digilux 2) - "You cant buy film anymore" (Canon AE-1, in mint condition, with a whole box full of filters and lenses) - "Wont recharge, and cant get batteries anymore" (Leica M3) - "Not sure how to use it" (Olympus OM-2n, with accessories including a gorgeous 50/1.4 Zuiko)
A college student need not work hard to afford a real camera, they need not work at all in fact.
As for developing and printing ... coffee grinds, beetroot juice, washing soda, cheap wine ... they all work, and experimenting with them will actually teach the student a whole lot of valuable things across multiple disciplines. After all - that is what they supposedly at college for isnt it ?
I couldnt agree less.
This is not photography that he is doing, its just some sort of expensive and glorified social media thing. Good on him for having an interesting hobby, but please stop confusing this with "Photography" ... it is not.
Modern Cameras (just like smartphones) are getting bigger, heavier, more useless, and more expensive than ever. Please stop thinking that this is some kind of "progress".
I totally agree with your comment about the quality matching that of "Professional Photographers". The "quality" of these photos is just crap. Soulless, 2 dimensional crap. Its right up there with "Wedding Photography".
He may as well just leave all that DSLR garbage at home and take his happy snaps on an iPhone.
Real photography is actually more accessible than ever. There is no shortage of stupid in this day and age, and so you will find plenty of excellent kit being sold for pennies, because stupid people think that : - "It cant upload photos to instagram" (Canon 700d .. makes for a great neg scanner) - "Its only 5 megapixels" (Leica Digilux 2) - "You cant buy film anymore" (Canon AE-1, in mint condition, with a whole box full of filters and lenses) - "Wont recharge, and cant get batteries anymore" (Leica M3) - "Not sure how to use it" (Olympus OM-2n, with accessories including a gorgeous 50/1.4 Zuiko)
A college student need not work hard to afford a real camera, they need not work at all in fact.
As for developing and printing ... coffee grinds, beetroot juice, washing soda, cheap wine ... they all work, and experimenting with them will actually teach the student a whole lot of valuable things across multiple disciplines. After all - that is what they supposedly at college for isnt it ?
You seem to be saying digital cameras aren't "real cameras". Can you define what makes a camera real? How will the difference be visible in the final pictures? Would a high resolution digital camera with a "film filter" applied to the pictures be just as good?
Like the comment in the article, you're not very clear on what "quality" means. What makes a photo soulless or 2 dimensional? This guy's photos certainly had out of focus backgrounds which I think is one way to indicate 3D depth. Would it help it he used an actual 3D camera and presented them for viewing on a 3D monitor?
To be honest, it sounds like you're frustrated that a skill you've perhaps spent a lot of time and money on has become easily available to everyone and thus lost most of its value. That happens in life and it's not the end of the world as long as you keep developing yourself. Just ask a programmer.
Like the comment in the article, you're not very clear on what "quality" means. What makes a photo soulless or 2 dimensional? This guy's photos certainly had out of focus backgrounds which I think is one way to indicate 3D depth. Would it help it he used an actual 3D camera and presented them for viewing on a 3D monitor?
To be honest, it sounds like you're frustrated that a skill you've perhaps spent a lot of time and money on has become easily available to everyone and thus lost most of its value. That happens in life and it's not the end of the world as long as you keep developing yourself. Just ask a programmer.
Ah .. not quite. Im not a photographer by any stretch. Im a Vexiologist by trade, and Ive invested a tonne of time and money into that. It has provided me with a wonderful lifestyle that I wouldnt swap for anything. That line of work has always been open and accessible to all (just like programming), but the skills are never diluted by progress (just like programming skills are never really diluted)
Not saying that Digital Cameras arent "real cameras" .. an empty packet of smokes with a pinhole in the side makes for an acceptable form of camera as well. Just making the assertion that pretty much ALL digital cameras are garbage. At least the metallic paper in the empty packet of smokes has many interesting uses, and can be crafted into something of lasting value .... no such luck with yesterday's used Digital Camera. They are a future landfill liability, just like all of your iPhones and other battery powered crap.
There are a few notable exceptions in Digital Cameras of course, but we already know that. The Sony Mavica (with the floppy disc in the side) was a work of art, The M9 with the Kodak CCD is justifably sort after in the 2nd hand market at premium prices, and of course the MM. Its even hard to find someone willing to part with a much loved M8. The X-Vario is not only a brilliant digital camera, but there is the added bonus of annoying any "experts" who see it in your camera bag. That is priceless.
No, what I find really annoying in this crappy article goes a little deeper than that.
For example, you can put a Rat in a maze, and measure how long it takes to find its way out. You can repeat the experiment several times over many days, and observe how the cunning little bastard manages to shave seconds, and then minutes off his time. Its only a filthy Rat, and yet the damn thing can reason and think for itself, and optimize a solution to a rather abstract problem. One has to respect the Rat, no matter what diseases the thing might be harboring in its dirty, matted fur.
Now lets take a look at the first photos published by the subject of this article. They look like the work of a noob with a new toy. Fair enough ... he is on an exciting new journey of discovery. Life is good for him, he has all the support in the world, and the doors are wide open to learn anything he wants to learn.
Fast Forward a few hundred photos.
The same.
Fast Forward a few thousand.
The same.
Dammit - Fast Forward 40,000 photos.
Exactly the same.
So you mean to tell me that after publishing his very best set of 40,000 images out of God-only-knows how many happy snaps he has shot ... that he has managed to learn, grow, and develop ... nothing at all. There is zero evidence of any artistic growth in 40,000 images ! NONE ! There is not even a hint of technical development in terms of composition, story telling ... or anything at all related to either photography or journalism.
There is no other word for this other than "Mediocrity"
The 40,000 images that are being thrust into the public eye are nothing more than a tragically monumental celebration of the Mediocre.
As a work of Conceptual Modern Art - A poignant epitaph to a dying culture, in the form of an endless series of the same mediocre images of the same mediocre plutorcats ... brilliant.
And then there is the mindless gushing of the so-called "Media" over this guys so-called "achievements". They are always so hungry to idolize the talent-less and the mediocre, in whatever form they can find it.
Its just horrible to watch.
Not saying that Digital Cameras arent "real cameras" .. an empty packet of smokes with a pinhole in the side makes for an acceptable form of camera as well. Just making the assertion that pretty much ALL digital cameras are garbage. At least the metallic paper in the empty packet of smokes has many interesting uses, and can be crafted into something of lasting value .... no such luck with yesterday's used Digital Camera. They are a future landfill liability, just like all of your iPhones and other battery powered crap.
There are a few notable exceptions in Digital Cameras of course, but we already know that. The Sony Mavica (with the floppy disc in the side) was a work of art, The M9 with the Kodak CCD is justifably sort after in the 2nd hand market at premium prices, and of course the MM. Its even hard to find someone willing to part with a much loved M8. The X-Vario is not only a brilliant digital camera, but there is the added bonus of annoying any "experts" who see it in your camera bag. That is priceless.
No, what I find really annoying in this crappy article goes a little deeper than that.
For example, you can put a Rat in a maze, and measure how long it takes to find its way out. You can repeat the experiment several times over many days, and observe how the cunning little bastard manages to shave seconds, and then minutes off his time. Its only a filthy Rat, and yet the damn thing can reason and think for itself, and optimize a solution to a rather abstract problem. One has to respect the Rat, no matter what diseases the thing might be harboring in its dirty, matted fur.
Now lets take a look at the first photos published by the subject of this article. They look like the work of a noob with a new toy. Fair enough ... he is on an exciting new journey of discovery. Life is good for him, he has all the support in the world, and the doors are wide open to learn anything he wants to learn.
Fast Forward a few hundred photos.
The same.
Fast Forward a few thousand.
The same.
Dammit - Fast Forward 40,000 photos.
Exactly the same.
So you mean to tell me that after publishing his very best set of 40,000 images out of God-only-knows how many happy snaps he has shot ... that he has managed to learn, grow, and develop ... nothing at all. There is zero evidence of any artistic growth in 40,000 images ! NONE ! There is not even a hint of technical development in terms of composition, story telling ... or anything at all related to either photography or journalism.
There is no other word for this other than "Mediocrity"
The 40,000 images that are being thrust into the public eye are nothing more than a tragically monumental celebration of the Mediocre.
As a work of Conceptual Modern Art - A poignant epitaph to a dying culture, in the form of an endless series of the same mediocre images of the same mediocre plutorcats ... brilliant.
And then there is the mindless gushing of the so-called "Media" over this guys so-called "achievements". They are always so hungry to idolize the talent-less and the mediocre, in whatever form they can find it.
Its just horrible to watch.
I used to agree with you about the reusability of things. It's sad to throw away a powerful computer/camera/phone/etc just because the latest app doesn't work and it's too difficult to repurpose the old components.
Nowdays, I consciously rationalize and think that tiny camera only cost a few cents to make. It's not actually a valuable item worth preserving. Sure it would have been an amazing treasure a few decades ago, but now it's common and worthless. Perhaps quite similar to parts of a human body - very powerful when they're working together but utterly useless when they're removed or broken. Even long lasting parts like bones have very specialized shapes and internal structure that make them hard to re-purpose.
I still don't understand what you mean by quality. What makes this guy's photos mediocre? The one on the Donald Trump website looks exactly like I'd expect a photo of a politician to look. How can it tell a story? Does he need a sequence of photos showing something changing with time? It's just a person, not an event. The guy's just a stock photo photographer taking pictures for people who don't need context around them, not a journalist telling a story about a specific event.
Nowdays, I consciously rationalize and think that tiny camera only cost a few cents to make. It's not actually a valuable item worth preserving. Sure it would have been an amazing treasure a few decades ago, but now it's common and worthless. Perhaps quite similar to parts of a human body - very powerful when they're working together but utterly useless when they're removed or broken. Even long lasting parts like bones have very specialized shapes and internal structure that make them hard to re-purpose.
I still don't understand what you mean by quality. What makes this guy's photos mediocre? The one on the Donald Trump website looks exactly like I'd expect a photo of a politician to look. How can it tell a story? Does he need a sequence of photos showing something changing with time? It's just a person, not an event. The guy's just a stock photo photographer taking pictures for people who don't need context around them, not a journalist telling a story about a specific event.
I appreciate your sentiment. I own an old Nikon film camera that I use every now and then and I'm always impressed with the photos it takes. There is something unique about them that isn't present in my digital camera. That being said, I think you are unfairly bashing journalistic photography. The purpose of his pictures isn't art, but capturing a moment for posterity. Your criticism is akin to complaining about a newspaper article because it lacks the plot and character development of your favorite novels.
>"Journalists cannot help inserting their views of candidates, Zachary Crockett, describes anyone who works for Trump as "Cronies." Since, @zzcrockett will read this now, you need to keep your opinion out, your other articles were great, keep them that way."
He puts in a few other silent "jabs" inside the article. Everything from "tea-partier" to "If you have the willpower to scroll past this image [of Donald Trump]". It's unfortunate, because it's a good article that conveyed and presented something very few knew of before reading it.
He puts in a few other silent "jabs" inside the article. Everything from "tea-partier" to "If you have the willpower to scroll past this image [of Donald Trump]". It's unfortunate, because it's a good article that conveyed and presented something very few knew of before reading it.
> I am not one to say that the rich get richer, but this may be a specific case of an individual being supported by his parents circumventing the normal process of working the ropes to progress up to taking photos of the people discussed.
It basically the modern version of the rich kid doing an unpaid internship fund by his parents. The new thing is skipping the company.
It basically the modern version of the rich kid doing an unpaid internship fund by his parents. The new thing is skipping the company.
I'm actually not sure how much is really new here. Yes, he's expended a lot of effort and done this systematically and he's released the photos as creative commons which isn't normally the default so a lot of people don't use it. However, as we speak, there are any number of students both on college newspapers and other amateurs taking many thousands of pictures of candidates at their stump speeches and rallies. And this has been the case for a long time. The photos just aren't readily available for reuse.
My thought on reading this was "how does he afford this?"
Gage's work is probably not prohibitively expensive in terms of money. A few plane tickets to Iowa and New Hampshire every four years, lodging in each for maybe a few days. He also attends Comic-Con every year. He has a good DSLR and lens kit, but that's a one time cost. If he had a paid summer internship in accounting, a side job during the academic year, and supportive parents this all seems doable for a middle class college student attending a public university with in-state tuition.
The bigger cost in Gage's photography is almost certainly time. He's uploaded almost 40,000 photos to Flickr since December 2007 -- roughly 5,700 photos a year. Even with the one-person-many-angles style seen in his Flickr stream at https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/with/24744613302/, that's a lot. He also captions his photos, e.g. https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/24744613302/.
The vast reach of his photography is likely a sufficient incentive for Gage to invest all that time and significant-but-not-immense money. I hope Gage continues his excellent work.
The bigger cost in Gage's photography is almost certainly time. He's uploaded almost 40,000 photos to Flickr since December 2007 -- roughly 5,700 photos a year. Even with the one-person-many-angles style seen in his Flickr stream at https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/with/24744613302/, that's a lot. He also captions his photos, e.g. https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/24744613302/.
The vast reach of his photography is likely a sufficient incentive for Gage to invest all that time and significant-but-not-immense money. I hope Gage continues his excellent work.
>>Gage's work is probably not prohibitively expensive in terms of money.
"between states to more than 40 speaking engagements." "I traveled to nearly every part of the country to cover his political events,” "Skidmore is hot on the campaign trail again, toggling his time between New Hampshire, Iowa, and Arizona"
Prohibitively expensive is a relative term, but it is hard to imagine this not costing 10s of thousands of dollars and being out of the reach of most high school and college students.
"between states to more than 40 speaking engagements." "I traveled to nearly every part of the country to cover his political events,” "Skidmore is hot on the campaign trail again, toggling his time between New Hampshire, Iowa, and Arizona"
Prohibitively expensive is a relative term, but it is hard to imagine this not costing 10s of thousands of dollars and being out of the reach of most high school and college students.
Maybe not in this particular case, but you could definitely make a case that photographing political candidates as that pass within range of a day-trip (or maybe a two-day-trip) of where you live is just the cost of time, gas, (food,) and lodging.
Someone could do something similar using such a model.
Someone could do something similar using such a model.
> * it is hard to imagine this not costing 10s of thousands of dollars and being out of the reach of most high school and college students.*
I would be surprised if Gage and his parents have spent more than $10,000 of their personal money on this hobby. Again, cost near that range is certainly significant, but not monetarily immense for a middle class kid with a consuming hobby and supportive parents over the course of 7+ years.
Gage has been frugal in his choice of college, and gets funding from GoFundMe campaigns. He also seems to have had side jobs. Simply choosing to attend a community college and then an in-state public university as Gage has done -- rather than a private university for 4 years -- is probably enough to defray a huge portion of his hobby's cost.
I suspect Gage is also frugal in his means of travel and lodging. A sibling comment mentions the possibility of photographing candidates that come within a day or two trip of home. I imagine that accounts for most of Gage's photography.
Consider this note from [2]: "Skidmore is a 19-year-old student at Glendale Community College in Phoenix and a freelance graphic designer. A Ron Paul supporter, he began photographing politicians when he was living in Terre Haute, Indiana, attending events held by Rand Paul during his successful 2010 Senate run in Kentucky." The drive from Terre Haute, IN to Lexington, KY is about 4 hours. That's completely doable in a day trip. I've driven 4 hours each way in day trips for similar free culture pursuits. It costs about $80 for gas and food.
> "between states to more than 40 speaking engagements."
Travel among multiple US states to attend 40 speaking engagements over the course of 7 years is not necessarily a major financial burden, even for someone Gage's age.
> "I traveled to nearly every part of the country to cover his political events"
"Part" can be pretty general. One could have covered events in Arizona, Iowa, New Hampshire and, say, Virginia and say one has traveled to nearly every part of the country -- the American West, Midwest, Northeast and South.
> "Skidmore is hot on the campaign trail again, toggling his time between New Hampshire, Iowa, and Arizona"
I think it's much more likely that Gage has been to New Hampshire and Iowa each once or twice in the 2016 campaign season, rather than flying out every weekend or so like a high-level political operative or corporate executive from his Arizona State University dorm room.
---
[1] http://priceonomics.com/how-a-college-student-used-creative-...
[2] http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/09/how-a-19-year-old-student-b...
I would be surprised if Gage and his parents have spent more than $10,000 of their personal money on this hobby. Again, cost near that range is certainly significant, but not monetarily immense for a middle class kid with a consuming hobby and supportive parents over the course of 7+ years.
Gage has been frugal in his choice of college, and gets funding from GoFundMe campaigns. He also seems to have had side jobs. Simply choosing to attend a community college and then an in-state public university as Gage has done -- rather than a private university for 4 years -- is probably enough to defray a huge portion of his hobby's cost.
I suspect Gage is also frugal in his means of travel and lodging. A sibling comment mentions the possibility of photographing candidates that come within a day or two trip of home. I imagine that accounts for most of Gage's photography.
Consider this note from [2]: "Skidmore is a 19-year-old student at Glendale Community College in Phoenix and a freelance graphic designer. A Ron Paul supporter, he began photographing politicians when he was living in Terre Haute, Indiana, attending events held by Rand Paul during his successful 2010 Senate run in Kentucky." The drive from Terre Haute, IN to Lexington, KY is about 4 hours. That's completely doable in a day trip. I've driven 4 hours each way in day trips for similar free culture pursuits. It costs about $80 for gas and food.
> "between states to more than 40 speaking engagements."
Travel among multiple US states to attend 40 speaking engagements over the course of 7 years is not necessarily a major financial burden, even for someone Gage's age.
> "I traveled to nearly every part of the country to cover his political events"
"Part" can be pretty general. One could have covered events in Arizona, Iowa, New Hampshire and, say, Virginia and say one has traveled to nearly every part of the country -- the American West, Midwest, Northeast and South.
> "Skidmore is hot on the campaign trail again, toggling his time between New Hampshire, Iowa, and Arizona"
I think it's much more likely that Gage has been to New Hampshire and Iowa each once or twice in the 2016 campaign season, rather than flying out every weekend or so like a high-level political operative or corporate executive from his Arizona State University dorm room.
---
[1] http://priceonomics.com/how-a-college-student-used-creative-...
[2] http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/09/how-a-19-year-old-student-b...
Expensive to whom? The average college kid? Don't kid yourself.
Kinda like a VC-backed startup disrupting an industry.
Ok, and all this time I thought Gage Skidmore was a "fake" name like Alan Smithee[1] that photographers who didn't want to dilute their own brand used to get their work out. That it is a real person, and has such a wide swatch of candidate pictures, is pretty cool.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Smithee
Wow.
The film's creation set off a chain of events which would lead the Directors Guild of America to officially discontinue the Alan Smithee credit in 2000. Its plot (about a director attempting to disown a film) eventually, and ironically, described the film's own production; director Arthur Hiller requested that his name be removed after witnessing the final cut of the film by the studio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Alan_Smithee_Film:_Burn_Hol...
The film's creation set off a chain of events which would lead the Directors Guild of America to officially discontinue the Alan Smithee credit in 2000. Its plot (about a director attempting to disown a film) eventually, and ironically, described the film's own production; director Arthur Hiller requested that his name be removed after witnessing the final cut of the film by the studio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Alan_Smithee_Film:_Burn_Hol...
It's interesting that there is a backlash brewing against Skidmore from the pro photog community. Giving away his work for free seems similar to the way bloggers pour countless hours into creating content for their sites. People don't expect to pay to read your blog post, but of course they should expect to pay you if they need custom content made for them. Competition is fierce, and I'd be surprised if this type of thing isn't happening in every content-creation industry. I can actually think of an example relevant to HN: the ubiquity of free, open source software.
The complaints about undercutting real photographers actually kind of amused me. The big political parties spend literally half a billion dollars a year on advertising. If they find a photo good enough to go on the front page of their website, they are perfectly willing to make that photographer's year, and they're not going to skimp on something that important. There's no undercutting going on here - they decided that this guy's photographs were the best options. Maybe it's because the marginal value of a higher-quality photograph is not worth the money for some reason, in which case political photography as a business is doomed. Maybe it's because he's not making technically great photographs but is somehow better at political photographs. Maybe it's because the licensing is a bureaucratic nightmare and the cost to a party of using a professional photograph is 90% the manpower required to deal with it costing any money whatsoever. Whatever it is, I seriously doubt that it isn't the major political parties cheaping out.
>The big political parties spend literally half a billion dollars a year on advertising. If they find a photo good enough to go on the front page of their website, they are perfectly willing to make that photographer's year, and they're not going to skimp on something that important.
I'm actually surprised that a major campaign would just see a CC photo on flickr and decide to use it (assuming that's what happened). Pretty much no ad agency or other non-editorial user would do such a thing. There's too much risk that the photographer could object to the use (in spite of the CC licensing) or didn't actually own the rights to the image in question or had exclusively licensed it to someone. As someone else pointed out, they're not even using the image in a way that technically meets the letter of all the CC license requirements.
I'm actually surprised that a major campaign would just see a CC photo on flickr and decide to use it (assuming that's what happened). Pretty much no ad agency or other non-editorial user would do such a thing. There's too much risk that the photographer could object to the use (in spite of the CC licensing) or didn't actually own the rights to the image in question or had exclusively licensed it to someone. As someone else pointed out, they're not even using the image in a way that technically meets the letter of all the CC license requirements.
Political campaigns are ephemeral organizations and take financial and legal risks at a far higher rate than a typical company.
They get no credit for being good with money, only for winning the election. If they lose, they just disband and there is no one to sue. If they win, they have a good platform to find people willing to forgive or fund debt payments and legal settlements.
They get no credit for being good with money, only for winning the election. If they lose, they just disband and there is no one to sue. If they win, they have a good platform to find people willing to forgive or fund debt payments and legal settlements.
Reminds me of the letter Bill Gates wrote about hobbyist programming (almost exactly 40 years ago). "Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?"
To answer the question of whether his work is "undercutting professional photographers", look at the Free Software Movement. The movement has been wildly successful; GPL code is pervasive. Yet, the number of programming jobs today is at an all time high, and still growing. No undercutting happening there. Instead, GPL projects (like Linux) enabled the creation of programming jobs that wouldn't have existed otherwise (like jobs at Google, or Facebook, or Netflix, or...).
He's doing what he loves, and there will always be people who do what they love for free. But I don't think what he's doing is taking away the ability to still get paid for the same kind of work.
To answer the question of whether his work is "undercutting professional photographers", look at the Free Software Movement. The movement has been wildly successful; GPL code is pervasive. Yet, the number of programming jobs today is at an all time high, and still growing. No undercutting happening there. Instead, GPL projects (like Linux) enabled the creation of programming jobs that wouldn't have existed otherwise (like jobs at Google, or Facebook, or Netflix, or...).
He's doing what he loves, and there will always be people who do what they love for free. But I don't think what he's doing is taking away the ability to still get paid for the same kind of work.
Yeah the parallel to open-source software is quite interesting. Notably that the license doesn't prohibit resale. Ultimately though, they both face the same challenges: time. The only reason the guy was able to do this was because his parents sponsored his flights and he had the free time. FOSS developers are only able to work on their projects when they have the time or sponsorship. In both cases the usually argument against them is that they are "amateur", but like we can see, amateur is usually good enough for most people as opposed to paying. Like you said, those who need custom work will be willing to pay and the software industry is doing just fine. In fact, one could argue that FOSS actually enables businesses by reducing startup costs—even big companies are known to use certain libraries.
Admire his persistence and dedication to creative commons. That said, I can see why professional news photographers feel threatened and perhaps a little insulted too... Most shots in the article and on his Flickr feed look merely 'good enough' or 'usable' (as opposed to 'great').
To project your comment onto the software world:
"That said, I can see why professional software developers feel threatened and perhaps a little insulted too... Most projects in the article and on his Github profile look merely 'good enough' or 'usable' (as opposed to 'great')"
Which isn't too far off the mark, if I correctly recall Microsoft and Oracle's attitudes to free software circa 1999. Yet here we are.
"That said, I can see why professional software developers feel threatened and perhaps a little insulted too... Most projects in the article and on his Github profile look merely 'good enough' or 'usable' (as opposed to 'great')"
Which isn't too far off the mark, if I correctly recall Microsoft and Oracle's attitudes to free software circa 1999. Yet here we are.
They feel just as threatened as book publishers, MPAA, RIAA and all the short-sighted content producers who have been relying on quirks of technology that allowed them to monopolize distribution of content. Quirks that no longer exist in Internet/Digital age. These people have and continue abusing the legal system to shore up their previous monopoly.
Distribution of content is easy, yes. But creation of content is still just as difficult.
Intellectual property laws are a bit extreme, but they also protect the small inventor/business owner.
Without these protections, we would have an increase in trade secrets and any individual or company that had enough money and resources could just sit there and legally rip everyone off.
China is a good example of this. With weak IP laws, tecnology moves at a snails pace and small business owners really can’t compete.
Intellectual property laws are a bit extreme, but they also protect the small inventor/business owner.
Without these protections, we would have an increase in trade secrets and any individual or company that had enough money and resources could just sit there and legally rip everyone off.
China is a good example of this. With weak IP laws, tecnology moves at a snails pace and small business owners really can’t compete.
> With weak IP laws, tecnology moves at a snails pace and small business owners really can’t compete.
I beg to differ. With weak IP laws, technology moves at breakneck speeds with no artificial roadblocks (patents). Take dual-sim phones as an example of Chinese innovation - virtually every Chinese OEM supports them. Imagine if Apple had invented (and patented) this tech: only Apple would have it.
I beg to differ. With weak IP laws, technology moves at breakneck speeds with no artificial roadblocks (patents). Take dual-sim phones as an example of Chinese innovation - virtually every Chinese OEM supports them. Imagine if Apple had invented (and patented) this tech: only Apple would have it.
I'm not sure creating content is "just as difficult".
Writing a novel hasn't changed. It's the same as 50 years ago.
Photography: there are many time consuming effects that are not longer time consuming because of digital photography and digital editing.
Music: It used to require expensive equipment which is why you'd rent a studio. Now it requires a single PC or even just a single phone to replace $$$$$ of equipment and people. In other words it used to be much more work.
Movies: digital video cameras and access to cheap software have made it much less work for a tons of things that used to be much more time consuming.
Games: all the various engines have taken away man years of work that were needed to write an engine and all the support tools.
Writing a novel hasn't changed. It's the same as 50 years ago.
Photography: there are many time consuming effects that are not longer time consuming because of digital photography and digital editing.
Music: It used to require expensive equipment which is why you'd rent a studio. Now it requires a single PC or even just a single phone to replace $$$$$ of equipment and people. In other words it used to be much more work.
Movies: digital video cameras and access to cheap software have made it much less work for a tons of things that used to be much more time consuming.
Games: all the various engines have taken away man years of work that were needed to write an engine and all the support tools.
> creation of content is still just as difficult.
True and exactly! The same difficulty which is "not that difficult".
And I'm 80% against expansion of Copyright and patent, only a small portion against TM et al. Traditional patents are great (i.e. not look and feel, business process or software patents). Hell, original copyright was great. Those help with things you mention.
True and exactly! The same difficulty which is "not that difficult".
And I'm 80% against expansion of Copyright and patent, only a small portion against TM et al. Traditional patents are great (i.e. not look and feel, business process or software patents). Hell, original copyright was great. Those help with things you mention.
You show a lot of disdain for people trying to scrape out a living.
If 'good enough' and 'usable' @ a price of 'free' is what's becoming ubiquitous, hasn't Mr. Skidmore just locked in on a new-ish market equilibrium?
To be fair, the vast majority of photos that even top professionals take probably just fall into the "good enough" category as well. It's often hard to do a whole lot exciting with someone giving a speech from a podium. Magazine cover shot material is relatively rare. I also suspect that, in at least some cases, the pros' press passes may get them better shooting locations and opportunities.
That said, I basically agree with you. And I've certainly met photographers shooting conferences and similar who nonetheless manage to produce images that are a cut above.
That said, I basically agree with you. And I've certainly met photographers shooting conferences and similar who nonetheless manage to produce images that are a cut above.
Top professionals take many crappy pictures. If they have just once shot of a situation/person, that crappy shot may end up in the feed, but usually the bad stuff is filtered out by them or their agency. I see a lot in the flickr feed that should have been left out, or at least cropped.
One of my annoyances about flickr is that I wish there were a way to highlight a subset of photos as my "gallery" which would be the default view unless someone wanted to see everything.
An observation I've heard a number of people make about professionals is that, if they're covering an event, they'll basically always come back with something solid and publishable even it it's not knock-your-socks-off great. This is admittedly easier in general these days but was harder when you were shooting film under difficult conditions.
An observation I've heard a number of people make about professionals is that, if they're covering an event, they'll basically always come back with something solid and publishable even it it's not knock-your-socks-off great. This is admittedly easier in general these days but was harder when you were shooting film under difficult conditions.
I see why they feel threatened, but I don't agree that it's this photographer's fault. If the consumers don't want/need high quality, paid photos in their publications (as voiced by their dollars) then maybe the market for them is disappearing.
I am surprised that a protectionist, union-esque good-ol-boys club of photographers hasn't emerged that would use money to encourage organizers to prevent this person from taking photos. Seems every industry threatened with technology and the cheapening (or "hobbying" or "freeing") of their product tends to fight the producers at the expense of the consumers thereby accelerating their downturn.
I am surprised that a protectionist, union-esque good-ol-boys club of photographers hasn't emerged that would use money to encourage organizers to prevent this person from taking photos. Seems every industry threatened with technology and the cheapening (or "hobbying" or "freeing") of their product tends to fight the producers at the expense of the consumers thereby accelerating their downturn.
The professional photographers display the same arrogant entitlement mentality that's seen by so many of those being obsoleted by innovation. Skidmore is not putting professional photogs out of business, the professional photogs inability or unwillingness to compete is putting themselves out of business.
Yes, it is indeed difficult to compete with free even with a better product. This isn't about competing with "innovation." It's about better distribution channels for the free stuff that has always existed.
To be clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with putting photos up on the web and allowing for their free reuse. But, yes, it is the collective use of free/cheap photographs that are good enough for their target purpose (and sometimes as good as anything a pro would have created) that are cutting into the professional photography business.
To be clear, there's absolutely nothing wrong with putting photos up on the web and allowing for their free reuse. But, yes, it is the collective use of free/cheap photographs that are good enough for their target purpose (and sometimes as good as anything a pro would have created) that are cutting into the professional photography business.
Will it seem so arrogant and entitled when it's your job?
I recently took a cab for the first time in a long while -- I've mostly been using public transit and Uber. The cabbie was a nice 57-year-old guy who's scared that he won't be able to provide for his family in another couple of years.
Who's going to hire a 57-year-old ex-cabbie to service Uber's self-driving cars? This is a real social problem that we need to address.
I recently took a cab for the first time in a long while -- I've mostly been using public transit and Uber. The cabbie was a nice 57-year-old guy who's scared that he won't be able to provide for his family in another couple of years.
Who's going to hire a 57-year-old ex-cabbie to service Uber's self-driving cars? This is a real social problem that we need to address.
I don't think professional photographers are in danger yet. The guy was only able to succeed because of several factors: access to elections is open to everyone (he probably doesn't even need to be close if using the right lens), it isn't too difficult to take a picture of someone speaking at a podium, and if the subject is putting any energy into speaking the photo will come out looking decent. Professional photographers on the other hand have to deal with open environments with varying lighting and subjects which requires a lot more skill.
I think what he's doing is great. A creative commons is an absolute necessity in today's age. Imagine a blogger had to pay for each image they used; they wouldn't even be able to illustrate their subjects. Freely licensed content is also the lifeblood of Wikipedia, which doesn't allow images of living people under fair use. For things which can't accept amateur quality, professional work will always be available. It certainly says something about the profession if Trump's campaign is willing to choose amateur photographs over theirs: they're not selling themselves hard enough or networks are not worth as much as they used to be in today's digital age.
I think what he's doing is great. A creative commons is an absolute necessity in today's age. Imagine a blogger had to pay for each image they used; they wouldn't even be able to illustrate their subjects. Freely licensed content is also the lifeblood of Wikipedia, which doesn't allow images of living people under fair use. For things which can't accept amateur quality, professional work will always be available. It certainly says something about the profession if Trump's campaign is willing to choose amateur photographs over theirs: they're not selling themselves hard enough or networks are not worth as much as they used to be in today's digital age.
Here Comes Everybody.
Calling Ron Paul a "tea party" candidate is accurate only if you recognize the Tea Party as a grassroots libertarian movement that, among other things, supported gay rights. Calling him a "libertarian" candidate would have been more appropriate.
While the TEA PARTY was a libertarian movement (That supported gay rights) the term was not trademarked and was quickly hijacked by propagandists on the left and the right to try and pretend like it was a neocon movement.
This shows the wisdom of Linus Torvalds and Satoshi Nakamoto trademarking Linux and Bitcoin respectively.
Alas, having read this blog, I feel it is pretty well spun to support a vary specific political bias and I'm not surprised they made this statement-- probably attempting to portray Ron Paul as a neocon deliberately.
I know they are YC alumni and thus I risk being banned for daring to criticize them. But at some point you gotta get out of your filter bubble and realize there's a real world out there.
While the TEA PARTY was a libertarian movement (That supported gay rights) the term was not trademarked and was quickly hijacked by propagandists on the left and the right to try and pretend like it was a neocon movement.
This shows the wisdom of Linus Torvalds and Satoshi Nakamoto trademarking Linux and Bitcoin respectively.
Alas, having read this blog, I feel it is pretty well spun to support a vary specific political bias and I'm not surprised they made this statement-- probably attempting to portray Ron Paul as a neocon deliberately.
I know they are YC alumni and thus I risk being banned for daring to criticize them. But at some point you gotta get out of your filter bubble and realize there's a real world out there.
It is not easy to get into as many events as he has managed, and it even harder to get a seat or being allowed to get close enough to get a good picture. If he is not working for, or assignment for a media company he probably doesnt have a press pass, or at least not one that gets bouncers / security people to step aside.
Presumably he gains more and more access as his pictures are published. This is the key thing that will help him if he ever wants to get paid work out of it. Leading powerful politicians will know him, and know him as a photographer. Getting that recognition is not easy for a photo journalist.
Getting started in photo journalism is really hard, and its getting harder as news agencies downsize both regular journalists and photographers The market is turning more and more toward video and crowd sourcing images.
Lets say you went to school, studied photography, getting started as a freelancer, you take ok pictures and you submit them and pray for a publication. If you are luck you get picked up a little here and there, but unless you get lucky, no one really pay attention to who you are.
He has taken a bold step, and his name is now known to editors at major publications. Getting that network is far more difficult than learning how to take pictures.