Photography is a former hulk of itself. It's not even about art, etc. anymore, it's purely about money...
I mean when I read things like this:
"The prestigious Gamma and Keystone agencies, known since 2007 as Eyedea, have signed a deal with Getty Images that will see the leader in stock imagery leaderdistributes more than 750,000 images shot by some of the world's best photojournalists.
While only 55,000 images from both collections can be purchased at the moment, Getty Images says that it plans onmaking all images available in the future.
The prestigious collections span more than 75 years of European history, with images from key historical events such as the Algerian War, Paris during the Belle Epoch to images of Princess Grace of Monaco. "The Gamma-Keystone collection will provide Getty Images' customers with access to one of the richest veins of archival photography in Europe," says Getty Images."
I just cringe. All of this turned into stock photography now?
Also, BJP has articles right on it's front page reviewing the 1D4 and whatever latest zoom lens out there. Same ole...
With respect, Clayne, what do you expect to happen to these pictures? Gamma and Keystone were already picture agencies - you had to pay to get hold of any images. If they had been bought up by a state funded archive, like the Biblioteque Nationale, they'd rarely ever see the light of day and you'd probably have to travel to France to see them. Furthermore, state funded archives have a funny way of reinterpreting history...
When I was writing the "Master Printers" series, I visited the Getty archive to interview Brian Doherty, the head printer. I arrived with much the same kind of reservations, regarding Getty Images, as you seem to have now. I was forced, however, to change my opinion. The Getty is open to visitors and researchers and, despite its being a private organisation, there is no 'official view' on how the images should be used. The guys who work there are
amazing printers, too. Not only are they masters of their art, but they care deeply about what they do. A print from Brian, or one of his small team, is made with as much passion as one of Robin Bell's or any of the other people I interviewed for the series.
You can also order hand made prints from the Getty, online, for very reasonable prices - a mere £225 for a 12 x 16, fibre based, Bert Hardy or Thurston Hopkins, for instance. That's got to be one of the best bargains going in photography.
As for the BJP, it's been reporting on advances in photographic technology since 1854 (a claim you can't make about many other special interest magazines). If it ceased to do so it would go out of print overnight. It's seen the whole history of photography from daguerrotypes onwards and, if history is anything to go by, it will see 'digital photography', as we understand it, surpassed, too. On the current front page, as well as stuff about digital cameras, it also carries an article about Lee Friedlander.
The BJP carries the flag for still photography in all it's forms, long may it continue to do so.
Regards
Jerry