Photographer collectives

Good questions. I think the term “collective” is sometimes loosely applied to groups that basically operate like agencies but do not really have offices and staff; they are streamlined for operation via the net. Oculi’s members, some anyway, are with agencies outside of Australia and now Oculi itself is related with Redux, but they probably got together originally to foster a group vision of the kind of photography they would like to promote. By far one of my favorite groups. Go, Oculi! Verasimages is another new group but they call themselves an agency and they function along the lines I have just suggested. Then there are others that seem to be united around an esthetic, dont really function as agencies, and focus more on gallery shows and the like. It would be nice to hear from some of these groups, get some feedback from them.

Thanks Jon:

I agree, it would be helpful to hear from someone actually already involved in a collective.

Yep. I have been planning for the longest time to circulate a survey of agencies and collectives and then write up the findings for everyone as another tutorial. I will be doing this some time during the Fall. The scene has changed so much, the old agencies been swallowed up, the survivors trying to suss out the new markets, and these new groups appearing with different MOs, so we live in interesting times. What I described above is more or less what I have concluded on the basis of talking with the folks at Veras, Oculi, and some other collectives.

Gonzo PhotoJournalism Collective acts as free representation for those who are members.
Instead of trying to generate a profit,
or charge “percentages”,
we are more concerned with the innovation of New Media PhotoJournalism.
By not working as a for profit-agency,
we are thus more on par with groups like the f/64 group as opposed to companies like Magnum or Mediastorm,
both of which have been outclassed technically by poor college students.

I have been waiting to announce the launch of our redesigned site because many of the current members have yet to send there portfolios and contact info for the gallery.
It will however be finished very soon:
http://www.gonzopj.net

What alot of people don’t know is that many photographers in agencies like VII don’t really get many jobs out of it and yet still have to pay the agencies upwards of 30% of jobs that they find on their own.

Being in an agency serves as more as an ego boost than anything else.

Ay, Patrick, what can I say in the face of such youthful but callow enthusiasm. It is a real stretch to say that groups like yours or “poor college students” are creating anything that outclasses technically, esthetically or conceptually what Magnum or Mediastorm are producing. If you can show me one thing you or the others have done that comes anywhere close to Chris Anderson’s recent coverage of Lebanon, I will take you seriously.

You are also incorrect when you state that photographers pay an agency “upwards of 30% of jobs that they find on their own.” That is not at all how it works. Being in an agency is far more than an ego boost, and people like the VII shooters hardly need such boosts. Their egos are firm, to say the least. But while a photographer at any agency must learn to survive on his or her own, there is no doubt that being associated with a prestigious agency will certainly help you to survive, cultivate more clients, and get your work out there. There are many facets to this agency business, and talking about it in a dismissive and cursory manner, particularly when the speaker is uninformed and inexperienced, doesnt really help those who honestly would like to know how it all works.

“What alot of people don’t know is that many photographers in agencies like VII don’t really get many jobs out of it and yet still have to pay the agencies upwards of 30% of jobs that they find on their own.” Well, since the VII members own VII collectively they are in charge of how big their share is. So there must be some kind of incentive to pay their agencies. It might be true that they find most of their jobs on their own (Would NG ever call an agency for an assignment?), but what happens after that? It takes a tremendous amount of work to promote stories, to deal with clients worldwide, to sell stock and I think VII is very good at it. BTW, how far is your revolution?

Jon, I really like what Anarchy images is doing.
Correct me if I’m wrong, the quality stems in part from a more free agent approach as opposed to a bureaucratic one?

I have alot more experience than you realize: “work for hire”.
I’ve cut and designed alot that will never be credited toward me.

We have entered an era where you don’t need agencies to survive.

We have entered an era where New York is losing control of the market.

We have entered an era where hungry college kids are willing to cut award winners for pennies and never get credited.

I’ll do my thing and express my opinion, and I expect you to express yours: we can agree to disagree.

I wish I could show you more of what kids are crankin’ out at WKU but not publishing. Soon I will.

You can innovate, or you can imitate.

“The revolution” is a joke. I do alot of counterculture art and comedy: http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2766134

“… the quality stems in part from a more free agent approach as opposed to a bureaucratic one?” What is the difference? What exactly is a free agent?

“You can innovate, or you can imitate.” Magnum is innovating.

magnum hasn’t experimented alot with incorporating video and other techniques which are rarely seen or discussed in the industry.

free agents can be loosely connected networks in which power and responsibility are more equal and democratized whereas bureaucratic structures are usually bigger more “corporate” type operations.

think feudalism.

Patrick if all you have managed is work for hire, then I still cannot take you seriously. And, as I said, if you can show me one thing you have done, or these putatively starving college kids, that is innovative, original, moving, well thought out and executed, then I will take you seriously. Maybe the new site will offer something, but the old didnt. Award winners? where? And if they wont take credit for their work, the more fool they. They will last about as long as a gnat.

No one ever said you needed an agency to survive, and in fact that was never the case; there have always been plenty of independents and many who associated with agencies but worked in essence independently.

New York doesnt control the market though it does constitute one powerful media center. But there are many. Arrival of the internet hasnt and wont change the fact that many media orgs maintain an address there.

I await the revelation and the blast of the final trump from WKU.

I’m part of a group called Metro Collective (www.metrocollective.com). Other members (most are on LS) include Hector Emanuel, Daniel Cima, Michael Bonfigli, Eros Hoagland, Michael Robinson-Chavez, Bevis Fusha, J Carrier, and Karel Cudlin.

Most of us were friends already, it wasn’t much of a leap to try to formalize things, try to create a common vehicle for our personal work. Like most photographers, we juggle working for the market vs trying to articulate our particular visions. I’d say Metro is trying to put vision first, market second, hoping the mountain will come to Mohammed.

It hasn’t yet, but we’re definitely a work in progress. I don’t know if our experience is particularly instructive so far, beyond the fact that it has turned out to be more work than expected. I think we have some great shooters but we’re far from being a model of efficiency and promotion. We have productive periods and times when things languish. And for any of you who have ever played in a band, the interpersonal dynamics are quite similar (x2) and require handling. Let’s face it, we’re all photographers because we don’t or won’t sit quietly in a cubicle.

We got going about a year or so ago. Right now we’re using a FolioLink template site for our combined galleries and a few of us are just beginning to try out PhotoShelter’s virtual agency. Not sure what else to say upfront, I’d certainly be receptive to any feedback/questions/comments, either about the work or the way we’re going about things.

Cheers, Bill

Bill, that was great! Thanks for bringing the collective to our attention, I really enjoyed going through the website. Excellent!

links to some other collectives:
www.tendancefloue.net
www.oeilpublic.com
www.bar-floreal.com
www.collectifdolcevita.com

Bill/Joao:

Thanks for the info and websites links. Lots to look through.

Rgds

Don

Bill:

You mentioned in your post that the effort has been more work than expected. I know that’s the usual for most things but what aspects in particular have been more work? Have you found the the group approach has also attracted more attention to you as individual photographers?

Patrick Yen said, “Jon, I really like what Anarchy images is doing. Correct me if I’m wrong, the quality stems in part from a more free agent approach as opposed to a bureaucratic one?”

So, running a microstock agency masquerading as a Documentary agency is a good thing now is it? And for that matter, how on Earth can you sensibly and responsibly market any documentary work as royalty free where you will have zero control over the images use and reuse in the future, especially where sensitive issues are concerned or may even arise in the future?

Dave Wyatt

Interesting thread… except for the silly rants… wanted to share a link, however, of another collective based in Philly that a fellow Mizzou guy, Ryan Donnell, is involved with… Wonderful Machine Inc. — interesting work, though the site is really just a shell for the photographer’s websites.

http://www.wonderfulmachine.com/

I think we’d all love to hear more from you, Bill, and also Ryan, Chris, or Bill Cramer about trying to make a collective work.

Best, -John

Allow me to clarify myself:
The “free agent system” is a communication network structure.
I did not literally mean a “free agency”.
I like anarchy images because:
i like their code of ethics and,
they seem to give more editorial and conceptual control to the photographers they represent.

GPC is not an agency, it’s a collective.
We are not selling photographs.
The gallery, which has yet to be launched, features photos that are:
low res
not available for download
and watermarked in the center with a copyright symbol and the photographer’s name.

it is not royalty free, the photographers all maintain their copyrights.

it is simply a vehicle for innovative photojournalists to share their visions and innovations with the world.

any jackass with a digital camera can take a decent photo;
not every photographer can shoot pictures, edit video well, design websites, animate, and program.

a GPC sponsored photographer is somebody than can either do all these well,
or have the potential to do all these things well in the future.

our current example pieces purposefully try to defy all existing models in journalism.

in a market oversaturated with photographers, it makes more sense for people to learn more skills.

that’s what we’ve been saying from the beginning:
http://www.gonzopj.net/v089.html

The finished manifesto is coming soon, and it will be quite different.

Loomis, if your idea of making a collective work is making money, then say that.

My idea of a collective that “works” is a collective that redefines an entire medium and sets the trend rather than following it.

Peace

“What alot of people don’t know is that many photographers in agencies like VII don’t really get many jobs out of it and yet still have to pay the agencies upwards of 30% of jobs that they find on their own.”

Dude, your sources aren’t good

Cheers

Gary

if only you knew my sources

Patrick, since I have no idea who you are, or what your experience is, or why you are acting like such a jackass… to people like Gary Knight, for fuck’s sake… let me just say this, its a small world you are stepping into. Be respectful; especially to those who are considerate enough to even enter into a dialogue with someone whose viewpoint seems as extremely limited as yours from your choice of words and tone. That being said… I think we all appreciate your enthusiasm and passion, and there are certainly ways in which this whole industry needs to and will change.

There aren’t that many people on Lightstalkers who got into this to make as much money as possible — because its just not a very good business for that. Personally speaking, my interest in this thread is to hear about the experiences of those who are working within a collective framework right now, and how they manage to fulfill the promises of working together in a shared passion, sharing knowledge, resources, etc., all while not killing each other and keeping organized enough to satisfy the needs of their clients.

An interesting thread indeed. To those who are in the process of entering the profession, there are many things that only get learned from experience and years in the business. That is not to say that evolution is not welcomed or embraced. The work of Martin Fuchs with Magnum in Motion is one example of that. But I remember when I was a kid thinking that I had a unique perspective on the business of photography. My peers and I would pick holes in the current (at the time) models of shooting and selling images, commenting that the big boys have clearly got it all wrong and are on the verge of crashing and burning. As we gathered more experience, more exposure to the whims and demands of various photo buyers, as well as a clearer understanding of what audiences want to see or are willing to see, the more we came to the conclusion that our original “we’re gonna change the world” ideas were not going to be very effective. Again, this is not to say that we didn’t want to change the world (and continue to work on it), but with the knowledge of how markets work, how they are evolving, and the potential latitude of work that we can produce (that would have a ready audience) we found it more rewarding to be able to spend more time developing great content, rather than burning time knocking the system. And it was those big boys that managed to evolve, sometimes with difficulty and as market conditions demanded, that are still around. Had I focused on developing my skills and style to meet the acceptance criteria of those agencies, instead of trying to carve out my own perceived niche, then I could now be benefiting from the infrastructure that those organizations offer, complete with established market awareness, ready client-base, and greater likelihood of paid assignments. Instead, I work for a variety of agencies and have to invest the time in driving my own business, which is working well but could always be better!

No system is perfect, and there are pros and cons to anything that we do. But there are also ways to make the best of what we have available to us, and to make our mark in the industry by being innovative and uber-creative in our area of expertise. Setting a trend is an extremely ambitious goal. Billion dollar organizations have spent fortunes trying to establish trends, many of which have failed miserably. I am a marketing major and have some commercial understanding of these things. So sure, go ahead and aim to redefine an entire medium. I would be happy to look back and say that I was wrong. But I don’t think that is going to happen.

Patrick: my father once said to me, after an argument about politics and philosphy, on a slow, long drive through Rhode Island, this: “bob, your blindness and arrogance will, eventually, lead you to see something more simple: you too will, one day, have a son that tells you he is right, you know nothing, that you are old and boring and that he, not you, will change things for the better. And only then will you see and finally recognize how much in his blindness and arrogance is that part of you you once denied so arrogantly….”…..that was before we even got to Providence…your blindness and arrogance is wonderful, not because you are right, but because it simply reminds me of our circular lives….one day, someone will say to you, “yo, patrick, you dont know my sources…” and you will think, shiiiit, that young fuck, is just like me…..

change the world, because you must, each of us must, and also, remember, that more than changing the world is a simpler truth: we are but there, with grace or gracelessness, that same….

im sure Gary is laughing, just as you too will one day when you remember what you spoke and dreamed and argued for….change comes from recongizing something simpler first, something you will understand with time…

good luck
cheers,
bob

Don, I think Metro Collective’s difficulties so far have been a combination of things. For one, we’re all working photographers – it’s proven hard to put proper focus into the collective without letting it drain energy from our individual freelancing. Also creating the right organizational structure to carry out our mission statement and goals has been tough.

On the plus side, we have had some sales/jobs/exhibitions come of it, and clients seem to like having a single point of contact for several photographers.

“how they manage to fulfill the promises of working together in a shared passion, sharing knowledge, resources, etc., all while not killing each other and keeping organized enough to satisfy the needs of their clients”

John, that very nicely sums up the problem!

If I could add, we’re currently looking for a web person to upgrade our gallery site. Anyone out there interested?

Another difficulty we’ve faced in metro collective ( i am one of the members) has been how to balance the needs of the collective with the individual needs of it’s photographers. From the start one of our goals has been to let the photographers be as free as possible (free to work w/ agencies, self promote, contribute as much or as little as they want, etc…). So, as one can imagine it is difficult to manage a group where everyone is so independent.

One solution, which we are currently testing w/ a few of the photographers, is the Photoshelter vitrual agency (http://www.photoshelter.com/user/metro). This helps because each photographer is responsible for maintaining their own archive and managing their archive sales. And the collective gets a large searchable group archive, which is not maintained by one individual. Of course, the hope is that a large diverse archive will attract more attention than single individual’s archive can.

Best,

hector.

John/Mike/Bob/Gary

Well said.

Bill/Hector

Good info.

Patrick

Pay attention to the above. It’s all great advice and they are far gentler with you than your posts deserve.

Don

Hello. For a year I was trying to form something that inicially was a collective but we have some problems to arrive a good port. In my case the reason was a necessity to found a space to share different archives, experiences, edit work, solve common problems and, the most important, a motive factor to begin to work with more creativity to found our style or new things in our approach to the photographed subjects. The principal inconvenient we have was in the few time we had to dedicate to the proyect. We can’t produce all the work we want and the kind of work we imagine before. Some partners found this way difficult to carry so they will go out. Another difficult issue is the heavy necessity of marketing our work because it make not sense to made stories that nobody see. Sometimes I was near a stress collapse. I learned a lot of things. Is very important that all members have the same commitment and passion. The ideal is that all have time to do his own work. And that gain access to editors that don’t know us is very difficult and hard work but not impossible. This it is my humble contribution.
If someone have experience in this item please post it. I think Lightstalkers is a good place where we can learn and interchange from other experiences. Saludos

“….on a slow, long drive through Rhode Island….”

Bob, good words. were you driving north or south?

Dear Patrick,

listen carefully to what Bob Black and the others here have said. There is a lot of wisdom in it. I read this thread with interest, and decided to visit your Web sites. Just FYI, if you feel that all of a sudden you young college students are the ones to have discovered visual journalism, and are the innovators of programs such as Final Cut Pro, and combining stills with video all shot and edited by one author, I would advise you to think again and do some research. I, too, admire your enthusiasm but you would be a smart guy if you absorbed what was being said by those who wrote the book, then considering what chapter you can add to it, instead of ripping the existing pages out to wipe your arse ;-)

Patrick recently asked me to ‘join’ the Gonzo Photojournalism Collective thing. My reaction was – why the hell not? I got tired of waiting for VII to ring me up (with their pizza order…)

What’s gonna come of it? I haven’t the foggiest idea right now, and I ain’t about to redefine anything in a hurry. I’ll leave that to the young ’uns.

Nice to hear at least one photojournalist talkin’ ’bout a revolution round here for a change though, because although we do love to play up the independent spirit thing, many photojournalists are a pretty conservative bunch if ya scratch ’em hard enough.

I’ve always found that strange, seeings how the genre we take for granted today was founded by photographers grasping technological change – the invention of the small 35mm camera (with advancing film speed and colour technology) and the new visual aesthetic it engendered in the expanding mass market print publications of the day.

But that way of working stayed the same for decades, and it’s taken the almost total commodification and corporatisation of our sector in the last few years to kick us all up the arse into exploring new ways of representation and new ways of funding and distributing our work, because if small ‘independent’ agency owners hadn’t rolled over and got themselves bought up (or bought off) by big companies (without the consent of their photographers for the most part) entities like VII probably wouldn’t exist, and a lot of us would still be plodding along hoping to get that mythical big magazine spread, or joining some hallowed photo-pantheon-agency or other.

I recall Gary Knight mentioning in an article that it’s really up to us to find new ways of distributing and funding work, and I wouldn’t disagree. But you could go further and ask – what kind of work?

We ought to cut Patrick a little slack as sometimes youthful enthusiasm contains wisdom – it’s not constrained by existing conventions, and may see things which us old fogeys don’t.

Some questions to consider:

Seeings how its becoming self-evident that the internet and the Web is now the dominant communications medium of the day, and is set to be increasingly ubiquitous, what differentiates it from print as a medium? And how do photojournalists construct new ways of working, and even a new visual aesthetic to compliment it?

An aesthetic which goes beyond simply using it as a distribution tool?

Most photojournalists haven’t even begun to accept this as a fact – never mind think about what we can do with it.

For example – a Danish software company is currently developing a narrative multimedia visual documentary on Palestine…as a video game.

I mean, how cool is that? The audience for video games is vast. So how come photojournalists are nowhere near thinking as creatively about presenting stories and issues, using the intrinsic qualities of a new medium, as that game company?

http://www.seriousgames.dk/gc.html

Collectives and collaboration is one way of solving this, because I’m beginning to realise that being able to cover all the bases as a photojournalist in digital multimedia isn’t really viable. There simply isn’t enough time in the day to master all you need to know, so you can explore multimedia output in full.

Future agencies and collectives will probably have to be blends of photographers, writers, film makers, web designers and musicians who can utilise economies of scale and skill to produce multimedia work for the Web and handheld devices.

Nobody’s talking about setting trends…it’s safe to say most of us are still feeling our way – apart from people like Roger Richards and the Platypus folks, who are finally being seen as pioneers and not ‘semi-detached’ outsiders from the ‘true’ PJ path as they were once perceived – which again, says a lot about the conservatism of photojournalists…

…but even more of us (including me) are so far away from being up to speed with what’s going on, and how our potential audiences are consuming their media, that it’s not even funny.

“So, running a microstock agency masquerading as a Documentary agency is a good thing now is it? And for that matter, how on Earth can you sensibly and responsibly market any documentary work as royalty free where you will have zero control over the images use and reuse in the future, especially where sensitive issues are concerned or may even arise in the future?” If your assumption was right, your conclusion would be right too – documentary work and royalty free are divided.

Sion: mate, I have to disagree with some of your sentiments. You know as well as the next guy that talk about “revolutions” or “revolutionary” action is the same empty clap trap to which Patrick finds so discouraging about his “elders” or that you find with the staid and pent-up world of photojournalism. I, by the way, agree wholly with your sentiment about the need to be aware of change: in fact, i dispise luddites and i find crusty old crumudgeons as loathesome as the next guy. But, really sion, Patrick’s annoying bravura is the same tint-hollow voice of the people who claim a photojournalist must carry a leica or publish in mags or steer toward the channel of the magnums/vii/occuli of the world: its all the same empty rhetoric. I agree (as i’ve argued many times before here and elsewhere at photo shows) that photography, because it is an artform (or better, an artistan’s profession) based on tools, it is innately innovative: to be a photography means, a priori, to embrace change/development/acceptance: since a camera is a mechanical object which must change, and photography is based on some apperatus, photography itself is, about fugit, photo and tempus fugit. I also agree that photographers (and yes, especially photojournalists MUST seek deeper, richer, wider veins in which to mine and to detail their stories). I personally never distinquish between my photographs: taken with my 35mm, my holga, my polaroid, my friends/students cell phones, or the camera on my g-5, its all the same to me. Likewise, i think any outlet by which my photographs can be seen/taken/used/swallowed is all good: i embrace the idea of “gaming” as a means for story telling as well as for photography (Imants and I have written exactly about that here). In fact, it has been humourous to me as a non-photojournalist (we’ve chatted about this distinction, you and i before), to see how reluctant the community is to accepting and challening new views of doing things. With that in mind, i still find patrick’s behavior and attitude (not only here but other places) very very funny: indicative of his youth, and positively predictable: as conservative as the lions he wishes to slaughter. Join him: go ahead. I find the joining of all revolutions, for the sake of revolution, deeply inadequate and superficial. Change: yes. In fact, i encourage each of us to mark our own change, to toss away all of our ideas and to swallow that which makes us feel the most unconfortable. The problem, however, without pointing out (and like he will not listen, because as a young man, I too did not listen, and actually as an old 40 year old fuck still do not listen ;)) )to Patrick the idiocy of some of the tone in his condemnation of non-revolutionaries is that it ends up the same pin prick….its clear (here and other posts) that his idea of revolution is to dismiss what has come: as you know, things occur hegelianly: ripe is born of the twin’d contact of seed and sallow….photographers should think ahead, but to think ahead means to have plumbed what lay behind, not from dismissal but from digestion…forgive me, if i find all of this shit humorous. I have a son and wife to support and they are my instrument for my change: i embrace new frontiers because it must, not because i am swayed by the drunken shouting of the youth…it is the same shouts generation after generation: i’ve seen it in my grandfather’s exhauted and sad eyes….bob

Perhaps what is needed is not a revolution, where we throw the baby out with the bath water, but an evolution of thought and more eagerness to embrace change. The key to this ‘new media’ stuff is for members of our community to look at what is out there and steer it in the direction that we wish. Problem with being stuck in the old way of thinking is that outsiders will eventually come in because of their technological expertise and force things on us that are anathema to the ethics we hold dear, such as no alteration of images or setting up and restaging situations.

For years one of the things those of us in the Platypus community have advocated is that we need to control this monster before it rolls over us. It is already happening at several newspapers, where the people up top are bringing in television folks to produce video. While they may have a lot of technical expertise and are capable of telling stories in the style of their medium, some of what they do is totally contrary to traditional photojournalists.

I recall years ago one photo editor saying to me that I was setting photojournalism on the road to where we would be ‘monkey cam’ operators, button pushers, someone with a mic in our ears taking remote direction of our shots. I argued that to the contrary, I was actively working toward making sure that we would be the ones in control. It is a battle I am fighting every day, and the jury is still out on where this will all go.

The bottom line is also that we have to earn a living, so revolution is not the way as it is usually a scorched earth state of affairs.

There are those who shun change, those who embrace it, and those who observe it and learn from the mistakes of others. The first group tends to find itself complaining about how change will bring doom and destruction to us all, while the second group goes all out, taking risks, making bold statements and investing time, effort, maybe money in trying to recreate a known entity. The third group will take the time to understand which changes will be around for a while, and which ones are flashes in the pan. Then they will focus their resources to absorb those changes that will help them positively evolve the way they do business. For photographers, that would mean not only developing a business model that would allow for extended appeal to clients, but also methods for actually capturing and presenting content, approaches to being creative, whether that includes stills, video, web-based media, audio, whatever.

The first group is one we probably all know – those who still shoot film exclusively and insist that digital photography is a fad. The second group are the revolutionaries, those who are convinced that “the system” is wrong (in many cases they have a point) and that they are unique in their ability to change it and set a new path for the world to follow. The third group is made up of individuals, organizations and, ideally, collectives, that take the time to observe all that is happening around them, understand how they and their clients can benefit from it, and then work it in to their business model.

Predictably, let’s consider “the Internet”. In the 90’s it was difficult to count all the new businesses that thought they had a unique idea for a new business and hurriedly rolled it out, often with venture capital money behind them, in an effort to revolutionize the way we communicate and do business. The major survivors are those that started with a simple business model, stuck with that simple model while others played revolutionary, then exploited the often inevitable failure of those revolutions, to their own benefit. eBay absorbed PayPal and Skype. Amazon absorbed a whole bunch of on-line retailers that could not make it on their own while Barnes and Noble (definitely a “first group” company) continues to try to play catch-up etc etc.

So it is not that Patrick is wrong in what he is trying to do. He and his group believes in it – that’s great. A passion is a wonderful thing to have and live for. At the same time, and as Bob Black so poetically points out, it is not that we, as a group, are not open to change – it is happening all the time and those who are successful will roll with it. But those organizations such as VII, Magnum and many others exist and are successful for good reasons and should not be easily dismissed. They are the ones who may take some stabs at new stuff, but will also take up space in that third group, observing what the evolving trends are and then throwing the best resources they can find/afford to leap-frogging to the front of that trend.

There are always ways to carve out space for a niche approach to capturing and distributing content, and many of the techniques used may well be adopted, over time, by others. There IS a lot of talk about independents and I am not sure where this will go. Companies such as Digital Railroad and Photoshelter make it easy for everyone to be their own agency or collective. If I were a client, I would get confused and frustrated with such a huge choice of small groups of photographers from which to try and find the images I might need. The quality may be highly variable, I would need to negotiate pricing many different times, and have several different contracts to manage. I would have many different business relationships to maintain and I don’t have enough time as it is. So what will I do? I will stick with what I know unless there is a very special need and I know of an agency that meets that special need. So this gets us back to the original post on collectives. For me, it is a very good and strong concept if you can bring together a range of skills that individuals are willing to contribute in exchange for access to the skills of others – let’s say one person brings an amazing network of photo buyers while another has strong marketing skills, another knows people who hire photographers on a regular basis and yet another is a new media expert. They can all benefit from each other. It is not a revolution, but an evolution in an individual’s career and approach to doing business.

Finally, and also in reference to Bob Black’s very well constructed responses, being a photojournalist requires a certain attitude which is driven by a desire to question stuff. If we all just accepted what was presented to us, there wouldn’t be much point, would there? I always encourage people to question stuff which kinda helps me stay employed, and as I have advanced in my years, I continue to question things but find that the target of my enquiries has expanded. I have also learned that other stuff should not be summarily dismissed – there is a reason for everything and, as good journalists, we need to understand that even if we do not agree with it.

Collectives come in all shapes and sizes, and most of the ones I know – like Tendence Floue and L’Oiel Public here in France – are producing very important work, it’s not important how grand the photographers may or may not be, just as it is not imporatant how sexy the multi media presentations are or whether they shoot film, digital or even draw with pencils, we are all trying to change the way people think, not score points for design.

Patrick – my point to you was simply that what happens at VII is not quite how you described it, and rather than have that go down on the public record I thought I would correct it. VII is not much of an ego boost for us, and although it may not be perfect its suits us well. We started the agency with less money than most executives spend on lunch in Wall Street and we did it to challenge the orthodoxy of representation and to establish ownership over our ideas and our destiny, we could not know what it would become or how it would be perceived by people like you 5 years later. I do know that with virtually no money we have managed to compete with companies that have annual budgets in the hundreds of millions and that we continue to be inspired by the hope that we can effect change – that could inspire you, just like Magnum inspired me when I was young.

I salute your initiative and your get up and go attitude, and I wish your collective success but try not to knock others down unfairly in your hurry to get to the top. There is plenty of space on the way up.

Now I have to chime in:

Dave Wyatt stated in regards to Anarchy Images

“So, running a microstock agency masquerading as a Documentary agency is a good thing now is it? And for that matter, how on Earth can you sensibly and responsibly market any documentary work as royalty free where you will have zero control over the images use and reuse in the future, especially where sensitive issues are concerned or may even arise in the future?”

Did you bother to look at our site?? Anarchy Images has not even started accepting Royalty Free submissions as of yet. Anarchy Images Editorial photographers retain Sole Ownership of Rights. All Editorial photography is licensed on a per usage basis as stated in our Licensing Policy. And yes, we do intend to offer Royalty Free and Consumer Images eventually. While I started Anarchy Images because of my love of documentary photography and photojournalism, it is still a business. Documentary and photojournalism (as rights licensed) will always be the focus of Anarchy Images but I would be a fool to ignore what goes on in the photography industry as a whole. By-the-way these elements are treated as completely separate divisions of a business. If you are are going to make such statements you should visit the site and You should remember R.I.F.

Patrick, while it is true that members of some agencies are expected to cough up a percentage of sales, even if they make them on there own, there are services that a good agency provides that make this acceptable, even desirable. The last thing a photographer on an important story wants to do is have to pick up the phone and deal with all of the small issues that this business requires on a daily basis. Staffing and operating an office is expensive and photojournalism just doesn’t pay that well, especially compared to what the top people in comparable fields. Many of us are just barely hanging on because its what we do. As is true with many things these days, the hype is a lot better than the reality, and believe me, people like Gary Knight, and Jeff Smith over at Contact, earn every penny that they make. Good luck with your project and welcome to the community.

What about costs?

Is it simply a web site?

I realize the larger groups are more involved and costly but what about those in smaller groups?

Don

Dear all,
I have just discovered your discussion that is every enthusiastic and full of ideas.

I am co-founder of the collective Luna (www.lunaphotos.com) created 4 years ago and present at Perpignan on the first floor. At the start, we were seven freelance photographers. One member of the group contacted a few photographers he had heard of or he knew. We were all working on the same type of features: social issues.

We then decided to share our resources. Basically, we share expenses (basic), we share ideas and get advice from the others to better edit our stories. We also work on joint projects or stories (bringing different views on the same topic). We also share contact details of picture editors and liaise with some newspapers to make sure that our fellow photographer will have a chance to present its work.

I think one of the main difficulties was to balance individual ambitions and the image of Luna. This was the main problem. Making sure that time devoted to Luna was going to be integrated by all of us.

There is also a kind of unformal code of conduct. Competition is not allowed between us.

We also have different styles of photography. Some are more aesthetic and articitc than others. This was not so easy to make it acceptable by all members.

Our objective is very modest compared to Patrick’s colletive. We want to improve the quality of our stories and images and distribute our pictures more effectively. We thought it would be easier to do it with the help of some friends or colleagues.

We have decided to distribute our pictures through agencies: Zuma, Rea, Contrasto. They accepted to recognise us as a collective and not only as individual photographers. In the long term, we hope to be able to distribute our images without using agencies. But I suppose we will need a bit more time to build new competences and capacities.

We prefer for the moment concentrate on photography and enjoy ourselves telling stories.

I hope this may help you undertsand how we function. I will be very pleased to send you more details.

Kind regards
Karl Blanchet

It doesn’t need to be about a website, or even a group name.

A small bunch of photographers can pool their money and get a coupla monster G5 workstations in a small office. Its not like they’d all be using it at the same time, just walk in with your 250gb hard drive with your ‘desktop’ on it, plug it in and crack on.

Similarly for big long lenses, studio flash kit, video cameras…I don’t know why photographers don’t try to take advantage of economies of scale more often, as the price of top-end photo gear is still pretty painful.

Speaking for Perpignan – I always had the feeling the photo-collective room in the Palais de Congress was considered to be a ‘Cinderella’ compared to the big-boy room upstairs.

Ironically enough though, there always seemed to be more of a grassroots enthusiastic buzz in the collective room, compared to the big room, which increasingly resembles a trade fair and a bit of a machine to be honest – you could make an argument that the collective room is closer to the original spirit of Perpignan than the photo-biznezz upstairs…

Small networks and collectives utilising larger networks like DR, PhotoShelter or established syndicating agencies to take advantage of economies of scale seems to be a way to go for independent photographers. That way, you can get the best of both.

This model has already proved to be er, somewhat successful, as apparently there’s another ‘network of networks’ or ‘collective of collectives’ which uses the same structure, which is ahem…

…Al-Qaeda :0

I fully agree with you, Sion.
Karl

Sion:

Thanks for the reminder that it’s more than just about promoting and/or selling work.

In every city I’ve lived there’s been a group or groups of amateur photogs who create collective darkrooms, studios etc. Why not pros?

Don

One idea might be to gather many of these collectives under a single umbrella or portal and creaye a photo feed, where features and even news stories are sent out like a wire service&#