And so, just as the BBC / channel 4 would, we made it redundant and we've got ourselves a sexy new one over at
blog.glopho.com
P.S all the old content is there as it is here it's just a lot better looking!
Friday, 27 September 2013
Wednesday, 29 May 2013
How important is the eye-witness with a smartphone?
The tragic events that unfolded in Woolwich last week have proved once again how important ordinary folks with a smartphone can be in capturing breaking news.
How many of those who witnessed the brutal murder of Drummer Lee Rigby first hand would have left home that morning expecting to be at the centre of a major international news story?
How many would have expected to see their photos and video footage broadcast around the world and defining the tragic story?
The answer of course is none of them would. Professional news-gatherers - photographers, reporters and television crews - set out every day with the hope and expectation that they will get as close as possible to that day's breaking news. They are prepared for exactly that eventuality and indeed look forward to that call from the News Desk that sees them scramble to the rapidly unfolding story.
Woolwich was that story.
An horrific interruption to an ordinary day on an ordinary street witnessed by ordinary people. But the story was in fact littered by the extraordinary. The killers of Drummer Rigby courted exposure and many of those who just happened to be passing by, were happy to oblige.
But why and at what cost? And what of the innocent woman out shopping with her trolley who casually ignored the chaos around her and just walked on by?
Heroes, and most noticeably, heroines, emerged almost immediately. As Ingrid Loyau-Kennett jumped off her delayed bus she would have had no idea what she was stepping into but her courage and humanity was recorded by other passers-by for the annuals of history.
Professional journalists have in many cases become immune to the horrors of the stories they cover but how do we expect the rest of us to cope when it happens in our own backyard? This tragic sequence of events from the murder itself through to the shooting of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale by the police was witnessed and recorded by the public in such a fashion that they were integral to the story. From the video confession of Michael Adebolajo as he stood in the road, blood dripping from his hands, pleading with onlookers to film him, to the equally shocking shooting of the two suspects by armed police, we were given front-row seats to the horror of the unfolding drama. One eye-witness described it rather revealingly as being "...just like a movie".
The consequences of 'our' involvement and proximity to a dreadful news story are themselves not insignificant. The photos and the video shot by those at the scene - including the photo uploaded to Glopho by Biet Le - were quickly picked up by the media. As news spread of the horror, these images became a valuable commodity but also a controversial one.
The graphic amateur video of Adebowale that was broadcast by ITV and from which most newspapers and websites had 'grabbed' still photos, had attracted over 800 complaints to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) within 24 hours. Our willingness to record such horrors is seemingly matched by our discomfort in seeing those same images published and broadcast.
Once again we are reminded that with power comes responsibility as we all become accustomed to our new role as producers not just consumers of news.
How many of those who witnessed the brutal murder of Drummer Lee Rigby first hand would have left home that morning expecting to be at the centre of a major international news story?
How many would have expected to see their photos and video footage broadcast around the world and defining the tragic story?
The answer of course is none of them would. Professional news-gatherers - photographers, reporters and television crews - set out every day with the hope and expectation that they will get as close as possible to that day's breaking news. They are prepared for exactly that eventuality and indeed look forward to that call from the News Desk that sees them scramble to the rapidly unfolding story.
Woolwich was that story.
An horrific interruption to an ordinary day on an ordinary street witnessed by ordinary people. But the story was in fact littered by the extraordinary. The killers of Drummer Rigby courted exposure and many of those who just happened to be passing by, were happy to oblige.
But why and at what cost? And what of the innocent woman out shopping with her trolley who casually ignored the chaos around her and just walked on by?
Heroes, and most noticeably, heroines, emerged almost immediately. As Ingrid Loyau-Kennett jumped off her delayed bus she would have had no idea what she was stepping into but her courage and humanity was recorded by other passers-by for the annuals of history.
Professional journalists have in many cases become immune to the horrors of the stories they cover but how do we expect the rest of us to cope when it happens in our own backyard? This tragic sequence of events from the murder itself through to the shooting of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale by the police was witnessed and recorded by the public in such a fashion that they were integral to the story. From the video confession of Michael Adebolajo as he stood in the road, blood dripping from his hands, pleading with onlookers to film him, to the equally shocking shooting of the two suspects by armed police, we were given front-row seats to the horror of the unfolding drama. One eye-witness described it rather revealingly as being "...just like a movie".
The consequences of 'our' involvement and proximity to a dreadful news story are themselves not insignificant. The photos and the video shot by those at the scene - including the photo uploaded to Glopho by Biet Le - were quickly picked up by the media. As news spread of the horror, these images became a valuable commodity but also a controversial one.
The graphic amateur video of Adebowale that was broadcast by ITV and from which most newspapers and websites had 'grabbed' still photos, had attracted over 800 complaints to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) within 24 hours. Our willingness to record such horrors is seemingly matched by our discomfort in seeing those same images published and broadcast.
Once again we are reminded that with power comes responsibility as we all become accustomed to our new role as producers not just consumers of news.
Wednesday, 6 March 2013
When photos become pictures
An interesting story came to light last week about the White House News Photographers Association 'Eyes of History' competition, and a winner being disqualified for tampering with their submission.
The original winning entry was recognised by eagle-eyed staff at The Washington Post and when they notified the prize givers the award was retracted. The reason? The image had been heavily manipulated from the original picture that had itself appeared in print previously without the manipulations.
The story is well covered elsewhere so we won't attempt to do that here. It did however raise some interesting debate in the office as to what extent post-processing is acceptable, and if so is there a limit to which the processing should affect the overall image.
In simple terms, the manipulated image is almost certainly going to be the better image aesthetically and probably always will be. This should be no surprise, as the photographer (and let's assume the same person processes the picture) has little or no motive to process an image in any way that would detract from the picture.
And it is nothing new. It is very common to tinker with the colour balance of an image, or to add light to a picture in processing. This is not the reserve of the digital photography age but has been very much a part of photo processing for many many years.
However, the extent to which the image in this instance was manipulated served not only to emphasise features in the picture, but in this case it served to remove entire elements of the picture - in this case a person, a match official, who was there had been removed or subdued to the extent that they were no longer visible in the image.
Under the rules of the competition, this was not acceptable. And although Glopho as a news network wants these true to life images, there is still a place for the more artistic representation of events that can be improved at the hands of the processing lab or, more commonly these days, some picture editing software.
In essence, the true to life photographic representation of events that we look for in our news, and which the competition in this case demanded, are what is required to ensure veracity of any images being reported and circulated as truths. The artistic representation is a discipline with equal merit, but they do have to live in separate worlds, and in many respects kept apart to preserve the integrity of both.
The original winning entry was recognised by eagle-eyed staff at The Washington Post and when they notified the prize givers the award was retracted. The reason? The image had been heavily manipulated from the original picture that had itself appeared in print previously without the manipulations.
The story is well covered elsewhere so we won't attempt to do that here. It did however raise some interesting debate in the office as to what extent post-processing is acceptable, and if so is there a limit to which the processing should affect the overall image.
In simple terms, the manipulated image is almost certainly going to be the better image aesthetically and probably always will be. This should be no surprise, as the photographer (and let's assume the same person processes the picture) has little or no motive to process an image in any way that would detract from the picture.
And it is nothing new. It is very common to tinker with the colour balance of an image, or to add light to a picture in processing. This is not the reserve of the digital photography age but has been very much a part of photo processing for many many years.
However, the extent to which the image in this instance was manipulated served not only to emphasise features in the picture, but in this case it served to remove entire elements of the picture - in this case a person, a match official, who was there had been removed or subdued to the extent that they were no longer visible in the image.
Under the rules of the competition, this was not acceptable. And although Glopho as a news network wants these true to life images, there is still a place for the more artistic representation of events that can be improved at the hands of the processing lab or, more commonly these days, some picture editing software.
In essence, the true to life photographic representation of events that we look for in our news, and which the competition in this case demanded, are what is required to ensure veracity of any images being reported and circulated as truths. The artistic representation is a discipline with equal merit, but they do have to live in separate worlds, and in many respects kept apart to preserve the integrity of both.
Friday, 18 January 2013
What's going on with photo-sharing?
A number of recent events have brought photo-sharing into
the spotlight and it made us realise that there’s no wonder there’s a lot of
confusion about relating to privacy, copyright and ownership.
The helicopter crash in London earlier this week is a prime example
of how user-generated, or user-captured images and video were the first to
report events as they unfolded. It proved again that unexpected events cannot
be covered as quickly by an army of press photographers and freelancers – you simply
cannot get to the scene quicker than someone who is at the scene already.
The Evening Standard used one of the pictures posted by
@craiglet, without their express permission, although they have confirmed that
they were unable to contact the user and would be happy to discuss compensation
with them if it was sought.
Most news outlets acknowledge that the owner of the picture
remains the user that posted it, and Twitter’s own Terms of Service do nothing
to change that, but they do give Twitter the licence to use any content,
including pictures, if they want to, and also to sub-licence that content to
pretty much anyone.
So why then the backlash in Instagram Terms of Service(to take
effect Saturday 19th January 2013)? Their changes effectively bring
their TOS in line with that of Twitter in many senses. Perhaps it is the change that people are concerned about,
as well as the manner in which they went about it. What had been a free to use
service with some very simple rules was now apparently trying to assume ownership
of users’ content. They have since changed the wording but they ultimately retain
a position that your use of the service grants Instagram and the group of companies
to which it belongs, a comprehensive licence, and permission to sub-licence user
content.
And in a more recent if somewhat less amplified move, Getty
and Google have agreed terms giving all Google Apps users access to several
thousand Getty Images, produced by Getty and Flickr users, for free (reported on aphotoeditor.com). The
reported fee received by photographers is just $12 as a one off payment. This
could of course see those images used many thousands of times each in
presentations and company documents without being credited (all of the meta
data has been removed), and without the photographer being paid any more each
time.
What seems to be becoming more and more apparent is that for
a few years users have been happily generating content. It’s fun, it’s
engaging, and we see a lot of it going on. But there comes a point, when
another organisation wants to profit
from that content that expectations are starting to change. Users are
increasingly aware that their picture might help sell more newspapers or drive
more traffic to your website, or it might help your company document be more
impactful or close a sale opportunity, and it therefore has a monetary value. The
user is increasingly empowered – even encouraged by others – to claim what is
rightfully theirs, and we think these instances are beginning to indicate a
shift, not way from content sharing, but certainly towards an understanding
that content producers deserve to be paid, and at very least credited, for
their contribution.
Friday, 7 December 2012
Is the smartphone killing photojournalism?
This was the lead question we put to the panel invited to join us at The
Hospital Club, during Internet Week Europe in November 2012, for a debate to explore the impact
of crowd-sourced pictures.
Host:
Simon
Walker, Founder & CEO, Glopho
Panel Members:
Roger
Tooth, Head of Photography, The Guardian
Olivier Laurent,
News & Online Editor, British Journal of Photography
Justin
Sutcliffe, Freelance Photographer
Simon, our CEO & Founder, kicked off the
discussion by firstly introducing the rest of the panel followed by defining photojournalism and giving a quick overview of the impact of technology on the industry.
Technology Changes Everything
Technology has changed the craft of
professional photojournalism immensely in the last 20 years or so, shifting
from b/w to colour, from film to digital, almost mechanical Muirhead wire
machines to laptops and satellite phones. Today technology delivers images
almost instantaneously to the front pages of news titles that are themselves
published across a range of new digital platforms.
And in the same way, the technology available
to the consumer has impacted on the volume and availability of immediate event
coverage in pictures and video.
And of course, the proliferation of cameras
leads to the proliferation of pictures. Some 300 million pictures a day are
shared on Facebook. But how many of them would count as news? And how many of
them are of any real interest beyond the immediate network of the person
uploading? Even a picture of a news-event may not, in the hands of the layman,
contain the qualities of the same shot, using the same equipment, that an
experienced photojournalist would capture.
Perhaps then the smartphone represents a
benefit for the professional, providing an ever-ready piece of equipment to
take anywhere, to be everywhere, and available to capture any moment.
Quality
Image quality naturally enough came into the discussion
from both a technical perspective and
also from one of expertise reference was made to the iPhone images from Dan
Chung of The Guardian covering the Olympics with a number of ingenious
attachments (including binoculars) to a collection of smartphones.
In truth most agreed that those images would not stand up next to similar images taken by world-class sports photographers on more orthodox equipment, and most iPhone owners cannot be expected to reach the same heights of a photographer like Dan.
 |
| Dan Chung |
 |
| Dan Chung |
In truth most agreed that those images would not stand up next to similar images taken by world-class sports photographers on more orthodox equipment, and most iPhone owners cannot be expected to reach the same heights of a photographer like Dan.
Just be there
Or perhaps this was just a value shift? Whilst the art & craft of photography
will continue, being there remains
perhaps the most essential ingredient to a great news picture, and the lay-user
can be there in more places, more
often, than the commissioned bands of professional photographers.
Another great example offered was the
comparison of the cover of Time Magazine’s November issue. This
photo, depicting a wave that hit Coney Island during Hurricane Sandy, was taken
by a professional photojournalist, Benjamin Lowy, on an iPhone 4s without the
use of any sophisticated lens just using the app. It was felt that this was a limiting tool and
published more as a marketing exercise than through any qualified selection of
the best image available depicting the events.
iPhone the world’s most popular camera
A fact that was shared by Justin was that the
iPhone is now officially the most used camera in the world and 10% of all the
pictures ever taken were last year, most of which are of no relevance to the
reporting of news.
However another advantage of the smartphone is to
allow for far greater discretion and intimacy when used in delicate
circumstances, and a few occasions were shared with the audience of instances
that a professional photographer with recognisable equipment would be
prohibited (or worse) from taking pictures – whereas the mobile phone is
carried discretely and without the same fear of oppression in some
circumstances.
Credibility and provenance
With proliferation of technology has come the
proliferation of the hoaxers – we have almost all certainly been subjected to
manipulated images purporting to be genuine, and famous examples exist of
doctored or posed images making their way into the mainstream press such as that by Adnan Hajj (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Adnan_Hajj_Beirut_photo_comparison.jpg)
Or in another case of manipulation to sensationalise, The Citizen added dead bodies to a photo of a suicide attack scene before publishing, only to be exposed by one of their own staff (http://mg.co.za/article/2012-09-27-citizen-fires-whistleblower-of-doctored-cover-photo)
Roger Tooth and his team at The Guardian typically look at over 13,000 photos every day and to date he has only ever used a smartphone image in a small number of occasions, citing the difficulty in proving the images’ source alongside other quality issues as a key reason.
Or in another case of manipulation to sensationalise, The Citizen added dead bodies to a photo of a suicide attack scene before publishing, only to be exposed by one of their own staff (http://mg.co.za/article/2012-09-27-citizen-fires-whistleblower-of-doctored-cover-photo)
Roger Tooth and his team at The Guardian typically look at over 13,000 photos every day and to date he has only ever used a smartphone image in a small number of occasions, citing the difficulty in proving the images’ source alongside other quality issues as a key reason.
All in all a thoroughly interesting debate and
as a conclusion the overriding feeling was that whilst the smartphone was not
killing photojournalism, perhaps the news proprietors and their choices of news
were having at least as big an impact. After all, technology has been changing
the face of the news for many years already, and will continue to do so in the
years to come.
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Simon Walker, Founder & CEO of Glopho | Favourite Sites | The Good Web Guide
Simon Walker, founder & CEO of Glopho gives a little insight into what his daily digital digest includes...Click on the link to have a peek Simon Walker, Founder & CEO of Glopho | Favourite Sites | The Good Web Guide
Sunday, 11 November 2012
Remembrance Day
Today is the day we all take some time to remember the brave soldiers who gave their lives for our freedom and so much more.Browsing the Daily Mail website, I fell upon this touching article about photographs that survive from the war.
The photographs collected for the article really highlight emotions and characters that were created by the horrendous time.
You can find the Daily Mail article here.
Take a moment to look through some of these photographs, and if you have any photographs of your own from remembrance day services or events that you attended, do upload them to glopho so that we can all share what we did on this sacred day. We've already had some beautiful uploads from across the world; these are just two of my favourite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)