Eternally Conflicted

Sometimes I wish I could take pictures of my friends and family as a full-time job.

If I was smart and knew how to do it, I’d create an informal poll to see which of these two photos people think was the posed portrait and which was not.

Hmmmm……..maybe I’ll look into how I could do that.

The photo above is from a story on the techies who worked backstage during the latest high school drama production.

This picture was from a story on foster care graduates who are living on their own with help from a local non-profit.

Last August, I got an email from a production coordinator at the Forensic Files who was looking for photos from the three year-old Eric Copple double-murder case. For those who’ve never heard, it was a crazy story about a guy who killed his wife’s best friend and her roommate on a Halloween night that put Napa in the media spotlight for a minute.

The police were able to catch the guy because he smoked what was at the time a new brand of cigarettes and left a few butts on the street outside the victims’ house while waiting for the right time to strike. To this day, the general public is unsure of what drove him to do this — in fact, he says that he blacked out while it happened.

I sent the production coordinator a bunch of low-resolution images with the newspaper’s copyright on them and mentioned that they would cost $700/image.

It’s always a strange formula that takes, at least for me, a maddening amount of research to come up with dollar figures for photos to be used by other media. At around the same time this guy emailed me, I had just finished inking a deal with the UK womens magazine “Pick Me Up“. Three Copple case photos to be used once each, 1×2 inches wide at the bottom of a page came to $1,200. That, again, took a ton of research to come up with, but in the end worked out, mostly because I took into account the circulation and ad-page rate of the magazine while creating a price.

And yes, if you’re reading between the lines, the price changes depending on how they’re used and who is using them.

Keep in mind I know going in that the $700 figure is high, but that is on purpose so when they come back and say it’s too high (which they did), at least I’m not going beyond their worth while coming down some in negotiations.

Well, two weeks ago, I finally hear from the production coordinator again and he says they are nearly done with the show, picked out seven they liked, want to license them but are looking for a flat rate (aka $700 is too high).

Strangely though, he criptically said at the end of his email that if a flat rate is not possible, to proceed as planned. I took this to mean he would like to get a better deal, but understood if that was not possible. After talking with our new photo editor and managing editor, they decided a few people higher in the newspaper’s food chain needed to be consulted before making the next move.

So, I did some more research, chatting with the Sacramento Bee’s Director of Photography Mark Morris as well as Napa Valley wine country book-photographer and former National Geographic freelancer Chuck O’Rear. These conversations confirmed my notion that the original figure I put out was on the high end but I also learned that fair contracts used for licensing photos for television include wording different that what they had in their contract.

Typically these contracts, from what I can tell, allow usage with one or two-year unlimited airings of the show add 15-100% more for unique images (part of my reason for being on the high end) and add 15-100% more for video/dvd use.

Their contract said they could use the images in the show 1. in perpetuity, 2. worldwide and 3. in any current or future form of distribution not yet in existence.

This sounds unreasonable and is unreasonable, but I expected language like this and from talking with Chuck, these contracts are usually boilerplate and everything is up for negotiation.

Oh yeah, they also came back a second time and said that they only needed five total and had a deadline two-days away. And could we send them the images while working out the details.

The higher ups came back and said the price remains unchanged ($4,900) and the license will only be for one-time use.

They said no thanks.

I was disappointed because I thought the higher ups came back too strong with a counter offer. I know they do not want to give away the store, and I’m not about to give them use in perpetuity as well as current or future distribution, but they should have come down some. At least to string out the game.

As it stands now, we do not know if it was the price or the terms that killed the deal for them. And that is something I’d like to know because when it comes to knowledge of the business of photography, I’m just a toddler learning to walk.

Another video. This time, with some dramatic views from above.

I started shooting video earlier this year after I became a little frustrated with the glacial pace of the paper when it came to adopting new technologies for storytelling.

I finally just ended up buying a camera for my own use to practice on and when my legs eventually got steady while using it, I decided to document a trip we took to L.A. to visit my son Kai’s aunt.

Shot tons of footage and took lots of pics, then interviewed Debbie over the cell phone and put it all together. I tried to keep it short, but broke the two minute rule — oh, well. Rules sometimes need to be broken.

I’m still trying to find the perfect compression receipe, so my apologies for the length of time this may take to load. It’s almost better to hit play then pause and give it a chance to download; otherwise as it’s playing, the slider catches up to the end before it’s finished. The learning curve for publication on the internet is not really a curve but more like a high wall; if you put your mind to it and get creative, you can climb over it. But it will not be easy.

A few months ago, I was lucky enough to pay a visit to San Quentin State Prison as a photographer for the paper. A minister and community leader from a small town just south of us was named the head protestant chaplin of the prison about a year ago, and right after I heard about it, my first thought was, “Can we get in?”

It took time and persistence by the reporter to get the green light, but we finally did. The strange thing is, for me, the hardest part was not the typical things you might expect from shooting in a prison with a PR person next to you.

At no point was I ever told not to shoot something beforehand and at no point was I ever get told to put the camera down while taking a picture. In fact, we were given a tour of the place and saw a lot of the prison while hanging out with the chaplin. The only thing the PR guy asked of me was if any prisoner asked that he not be photographed, I respect their wish.

Actually, the hardest part ended up being the mule-like stubborness of the reporter.

While I was more than happy to see and capture a lot of different moments during our visit, I still wanted to try and go back to photograph an actual Sunday service — we visited on a Thursday — as well as meet up with the pastor at home and in the community to show the other aspects of his life. In a nutshell, to try and paint a more complete picture of the pastor overall.

The reporter completely disagreed with my ideas and not only that, made it a point to throw cold water on them several times while talking with me and my supervisors. She did not see a need for the extra photos, felt getting back in would be impossible and complained that by holding off on publication, we were straying to far from the original intent of the story. She continually harrassed me on these points until I finally pretended she was a top 40 radio station and tuned her out.

I went ahead and pursued the other options — with my supervisor’s approval — and was lucky enough to get back on the phone with the prison PR guy. Usually, the San Quentin State Prision PR people only work 9-5, Monday to Friday, and if you need them outside of these hours, you have to pay for it. MSNBC, for example, just finished a big thing that took over 100 hours of their time, and they paid for it.

I told him that our budget was not that big, but we think the story of what the pastor is doing inside is special enough to try and get better pictures, even though Sundays are typically a day off for the PR department. I tried to brainstorm other ideas with him to maybe overcome the obstacle, but ultimatley he tells me to write an email to him outlining everything I said and he would forward it to the warden. He thought maybe he could work out a deal with the warden where he could work a Sunday in exchange for some time off.

I sent a long, elaborate email off and two hours later get a call from him. He says, “Today’s your lucky day. Two Sundays from now, a film crew will be in that I’m escorting around. If you want, you can ride their coat tails.”

I was elated. Not only did I catch a break with the prison, but my tenacity in the face of a visionless reporter paid off. I was on cloud nine.

That is, until the PR guy emailed me three days later saying the film crew backed out and therefore, he would not be working.

I tried calling and emailing him after that, hoping against hope, but to no avail. He stopped returning my calls.

On top of this disappoinment, the pastor made it clear that he was not interested in me hanging out with him at home. His said his wife trys to avoid the limelight. I actually had him convinced to let me spend time at his house, but I could tell he was reluctant, so I just let him be.

I can understand that some people may not want to have their pictures and story in the paper, and I’m fine with that, which is why I eventually just respected her wish and let that part of the story go. At this point, I could see the writing on the wall — what I got that day in the prison was going to be it.

I’m not sure I’ve ever been on such a roller coaster of emotion while working on a story. From the lows of dealing with an unresonable reporter to the highs of seeing doggedness pay off, to the lows again of watching your vision of a story die in the end. Overall, I’m happy with the photos I got that day, but if this story has not left me eternally conflicted, I’m not sure what will.

This picture has generated more unsolicited compliments than I’ve ever received. Including the following letter to the editor -

Jorgen Gulliksen’s picture of Efren Segura, airborne, lasso in full swing, was wonderful for its timing and also for its audience! That picture shows what we all hope for our children — generations of people — and more — smiling down on them as they accomplish something. If I could, I’d vote a Pulitzer Prize to you!

Sarah Miller

Speaking of the Pulitzer Prize, if you have not seen the story Renée Byer of the Sacramento Bee put together which earned the 2007 feature picture category award, you need to. One of the most powerful and moving photo stories I’ve ever seen.

It’s that time of the year again. This fire was only three acres and they knocked it out fast, but the wind and smoke did not make it any easier on them. Plus, the nearest hydrant was blocks away.

I was able to get up close and right in on the action, unlike the t.v. guys who came up here for a larger fire earlier this month. One of the firefighters scolded me for moving into an unburned area before the whole thing was under control. He was right, I should not have been in there, but it made for a better picture (see first shot below).

The paper did a story a few weeks ago on a student at one of the high schools who won a nationwide contest resulting in the grand prize of an acoustic concert by Mandy Moore for the senior class.

I got to hang out behind the scenes a little as Mandy Moore met student leaders and the winner before the show. After socializing for several minutes, everyone started to do the picture thing. At one point, the students (about 10) asked Moore to do a ‘Thizz Face’ with them.

She asked what a thizz face was. Myself and the reporter did, as well. The students all said it was a way of showing your pride in the San Francisco Bay Area, acting silly and having fun — all in reference to a style of hip-hop (Hyphy) that has its roots in Oakland and is unique to the region. They demo’d it for her and she started posing for pictures with the students doing a thizz face.

I had heard prior to any of this that some of the slang used in Hyphy music references drug and/or alcohol use. According to an urban dictionary website, a thizz face has a connection to ecstasy. But I also understood it to have several meanings, not just the drug reference. Kind of like the word ‘dope‘. For example, “Did you see that shot by Trent Parke? It was dope!” Dope meaning cool.

We used the image as the front page photo, and in it you see a group of students surrounding the star with cameras pointed at them while everyone is making a ‘thizz face’ (making a T with your hands then contorting your face).

The photo itself is not all that compelling, but I thought it did a good job of showing the star interacting with the students in a way many stars would not - with humor and a lighthearted look at life. Plus, a big reason that Moore picked the video that won to begin with was it presented high school as memories that she didn’t get to experience. She was home schooled after the career took off and never attended high school. To me, the photo illustrated her as the carefree high schooler she never was.

We didn’t mention the slang term in the cutline, but some people picked up on the pose anyway, including Moore’s marketing team — they wanted the photo to be pulled from the paper’s website. So did the high school administration, who suspended the students involved for a day and a half. Some of the students had strong records of academic achievement, including at least one who was elected to student body government. The paper took the photo and story down. My managing editor thought about doing a news story or editorial on the whole deal, but by the time he had heard from everybody on the matter, the story was old news.

There is a posting on ratemythizzface.com (which, by the way, illegally uses a cropped version of my photo) as well as a short youtube video of the star making a ‘thizz face’ (to loud applause) upon request during a Q&A session after the show.

Knowing what I know now, I think the newspaper probably should not have run the photo. But a part of me wonders “why not?” I never heard any whispers or snickering that would lead me to believe the kids were trying to “put one over” on the singer. From what I’ve heard, the slang has a wider definition than just the drug reference. If you watch the video, you hear the crowd go crazy when she does it for them, and that’s more than 100 students. Do they all love ecstasy? That’s something like five percent of the high school’s student body.

If you are serving the community and part of the community is the students, and they use slang in certain ways, do we just deny that?

The other side of the coin would be, sure, five percent of the student body sounds like a lot, but according to the 2006 Monitoring the Future Survey, that’s right in line with the lifetime use percentage among high school seniors of ecstasy.

I am conflicted yet again.

Photos with lots of emotion are some of the hardest for me to find. I’m usually good at capturing people laughing and smiling when having a good time. A couple of times I’ve even been able to sense the jokester in a group and waited long enough for him or her to crack people up.

But the photos of people breaking down in sadness, or happiness, either do not happen in front of me very often, or I miss them.

I’ve never covered a marathon before, so I had no idea going into the Napa Valley Marathon that I would see so many people getting so emotional. Once I found the area beyond the finish line where runners meet their friends and family, it dawned on me — in one of those “duh” moments — that the participants would be riding a wave of several emotions once the race was completed, and celebrating with the people they were close to would make it that much more intense.

The trick for me was the approach. Do I introduce myself to a runner and hang around until something happens? Or do I wait in the wings and try to capture something from a distance, doing my best not to interfere with the moment?

I ended up choosing the second option for this photo. I could see as she was approaching the gate to meet her family and friends that her accomplishment was hitting her in a powerful way. I just tried to stay back and mildly inconspicuous once she made contact with them. There were tons of people all over, so my sightline was not exactly clear the whole time. The background was awful — a chainlink fence with a sign — and offered nothing to add to the picture. I think I came away with 10 frames when it was all done. I, of course, missed an opportunity at the beginning when she first greeted people, but was able to capture a brief moment with her daughter a minute later, producing the picture below.

All things considered, I think I like the shot. I go back and forth when it comes to shots of emotion that are tightly framed around the subject. I think most of the time I would like to see more, but then again, sometimes a tight shot works. J.B. Forbes of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch had this shot from last year that is a great example of how going wide with emotion has its advantages. Willie Allen Jr. of the St. Petersburg Times has a nice example from Katrina that shows emotion in a tight frame.

The story behind her feelings make the picture better, in some ways. She was obese as a child and set a goal to one day be in good enough shape to run a marathon. “My dream came true today,” she told me.