The Killers - (have their own photographer) [Archive]

blackshadow

12th of November 2007 (Mon), 23:44

I was contacted by a publication to photograph The Killers this morning but received the following text back in an email a bit later...

“sorry, guys......my mistake on this.

apparently the Killers have their own photographer and won't allow any in.

they will take their own shots, have them appropriately airbrushed, and then send them to us.”

The Killers have a reputation for being pretty anal when it comes to photography/photographers. They refused to allow any accredited photographers to shoot them at the Big Day Out this year and from accounts renowned as being pretentious when it comes to photography.

I’d love to see a photo editor run a blank box where a picture would normally be with wording along the lines of “no photos because the band refused to allow us to use our photographer and only wanted to supply airbrushed shots”.

narlus

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 00:40

you know, at this point, the Boston Globe runs photos for about 1/2 of their live reviews. of the photos they run, i'd say between 33-50% are not even from the show they are reviewing, but taken at the NYC show by the New York Times (who owns the Globe), or are Getty Images stock shots.

and i would bet 99.999% of the readers don't realize it, or if they do, they don't care.

such is life for a concert photographer these days...

jtfdzn

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 00:56

It's frustrating for us, but some acts simply don't need more publicity, when they can just snap their fingers and have it come to them when necessary. I can't say as I blame them, really...

Steve Parr

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 10:22

It's frustrating for us, but some acts simply don't need more publicity

That may be, but who the Hell are "The Killers"??

thelightofsound

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 10:28

That may be, but who the Hell are "The Killers"??
exactly! i think the high school kids sell out all of their shows.

sorry to hear about that richard, but something tells me it's no big loss

narlus

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 10:51

That may be, but who the Hell are "The Killers"??

i don't think you (or i, for that matter) are in their target demographic. :lol:

bacchanal

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 10:57

If you think about it, a lot of these bands are built around an 'image'. The image contributes at least as much to the artist's profit as the music does. Knowing how passionate the recording industry is about protecting the sound ( i mean profit), it shouldn't be surprising that they want to control the image as well.

bacchanal

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 10:57

i don't think you (or i, for that matter) are in their target demographic. :lol:

I was going to say the same thing...or something about target markets anyway.:wink:

elTwitcho

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 11:01

That may be, but who the Hell are "The Killers"??

Well, they have sold 9 million albums...

On the one hand I can see a bands desire to want to manage their image, especially in the niche the killers fall into which is extremely pretentious and image based, but on the other hand... well they pretty muh are pretentious egomaniacs from every account I've ever come across. C'est la vie

blonde

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 11:36

i am sorry but i just don't agree with some of the comments here. just because they want control doesn't make them aholes. as for who the Killers are, they are an amazing band that manages to create great music without being in the spot light of every tabloid all the time. i think that as much as you want to take their pictures, you have to also respect what they want to do as far as creative control.

CanonXTuser

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 11:43

blonde

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 11:46

No ... we don't "have to."

just as they don't have to let you take pictures. see everybody wins ;)
as for the other line, may i ask how they treated you? all they did was not allow people to take pictures. they didn't curse you, beat you up or anything like that.

bacchanal

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 11:51

Well hey, at least they are being up front about it. They could always do the whole "one song limit with no lights during the first song" thing! At least they save you the effort.:rolleyes:

severinl

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 12:21

at this years nova rock festival in austria the story with the killers was as follows:

- first info: no restrictions at all, not even a contract
- total reversal: absolutely no photographers allowed, repeated and confirmed several times. with this info, most of the photogs went to the 2nd stage to shoot slayer (including austria press agency and photogs of the biggest publications here)
- when they come back they are told that 5 photographers were allowed to shoot, but where already selected out of those who didn't go to 2nd stage
- 1 minute before the show starts the 5 photogs are told to leave the pit and are escorted on stage where they are allowed to shoot from the side with no ability to move to the edge of the stage, so nearly all pics have the band from more or less behind...

i had a good laugh

narlus

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 12:23

just as they don't have to let you take pictures. see everybody wins ;)
as for the other line, may i ask how they treated you? all they did was not allow people to take pictures. they didn't curse you, beat you up or anything like that.

exhibit A
(http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4308028&postcount=14)

CanonXTuser

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 12:30

just as they don't have to let you take pictures. see everybody wins
as for the other line, may i ask how they treated you? all they did was not allow people to take pictures. they didn't curse you, beat you up or anything like that.

no, everybody wins when they don't respect photographers so we don't have to respect them back

you were the one telling people we "have to" do this or that and now coming pack with this condescending comment, one that you apparently are oblivious that it goes right back the other way

likewise, all we did was not respect the killers for their decision. we did not beat them up or do anything like that

the "curse" is simply that they be treated like they treat others ... curse, more like, the way it should be and it's pretty arrogant and pretentious to think that they should be immune from receiving the same disregard as they show others.

p.s. you got yourself in trouble with telling everyone they "have to" just quietly accept it. are you going to stand up and recognize how arrogant that is to tell people they have to accept without criticism?

CanonXTuser

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 12:34

exhibit A
(http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4308028&postcount=14)

if you note the thread, i was quiet till blonde, the killers apologist, came in to tell everyone what they "have to" do .... absolutely oblivious that she was affirming exactly the perception of the killers ... arrogant, pretentious ..... and she has yet to catch on how she is ironically affirming people's view of the killers and they incredible arrogant, pretentious and condescending attitude

elTwitcho

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 12:42

see refutation above. your amazingly quick to concede to someone telling you what you "have to do," Narlus

giving your old school punk, diy background, I would have thought you would be the last one to quietly concede to such a remark instead of defy it and likewise, concede to the "star attitude" that the "star" gets to control whatever they like cause they're the star and they're doing it for "art sakes" blah blah and everyone's suppose to quietly affirm that.

no, punk would promote blonde's incredibly condescending and arrogant attitude that people "have to" accept and affirm that approach.

I think you're looking into this alot alot alot way too much... I think "have to" is a figure of speach, I don't think he's implying that there will be harsh consequences if you do not do as you're told :rolleyes:

I don't see why a band should not have a right to decline to be photographed. We as photographers provide a service, but it's more than a little bit warped to think that somehow people HAVE to accept your service. That's not how the world works. If you're an excellent photographer who does great work, then any band who refuses your services is losing out. If your magazine sends you to photograph a band and they refuse you, the band once again loses out. If on the other hand their photographer is alot better than you are, why shouldn't they go with the better option?

Be the best photographer available for the band you want to shoot and you'll have no problems. But to get upset (and you are getting upset) as though everybody HAS to accept your services whenever you should offer it is downright silly in my eyes.

CanonXTuser

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 12:49

1] I think you're looking into this alot alot alot way too much... I think "have to" is a figure of speach, I don't think he's implying that there will be harsh consequences if you do not do as you're told :rolleyes:

2] I don't see why a band should not have a right to decline to be photographed.

1] Disagree. I assert the phrasing says much about the attitude of the poster and ironically affirms the perception of the killers

2] Are you making arguments up? I did not see anyone saying the Killers have to allow photography; that they don't have a right photograph.

I'm honestly scratching my head here ... maybe I missed a post, otherwise, you see a post that specifically says "have to" yet dismiss it ... while there is no post

Wow :rolleyes:

Maybe I missed a post of someone saying the killers have to or don't have a right to ... I apologize if I did, definitely, I apologize if I missed the post ... if not, then wow, the killers apologists, wow, the liberties they take

as is, the killers absolutely have a right to not allow photography by the press ... and we absolutely have the right to criticize and show disdain and disrespect for that

as blondie says, everybody wins!

blonde

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 12:50

no, everybody wins when they don't respect photographers so we don't have to respect them back

you were the one telling people we "have to" do this or that and now coming pack with this condescending comment, one that you apparently are oblivious that it goes right back the other way

likewise, all we did was not respect the killers for their decision. we did not beat them up or do anything like that

the "curse" is simply that they be treated like they treat others ... curse, more like, the way it should be and it's pretty arrogant and pretentious to think that they should be immune from receiving the same disregard as they show others.

p.s. you got yourself in trouble with telling everyone they "have to" just quietly accept it. are you going to stand up and recognize how arrogant that is to tell people they have to accept without criticism?

hahaha, thanks for the laugh, i needed that. "i got myself in trouble", that's cute...

and btw,i will stand by my comment about respecting their wishes. you do not have to shoot their images or even like them. if you feel like they are horrible people, simply ignore them.

blonde

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 12:53

I think you're looking into this alot alot alot way too much... I think "have to" is a figure of speach, I don't think he's implying that there will be harsh consequences if you do not do as you're told :rolleyes:

I don't see why a band should not have a right to decline to be photographed. We as photographers provide a service, but it's more than a little bit warped to think that somehow people HAVE to accept your service. That's not how the world works. If you're an excellent photographer who does great work, then any band who refuses your services is losing out. If your magazine sends you to photograph a band and they refuse you, the band once again loses out. If on the other hand their photographer is alot better than you are, why shouldn't they go with the better option?

Be the best photographer available for the band you want to shoot and you'll have no problems. But to get upset (and you are getting upset) as though everybody HAS to accept your services whenever you should offer it is downright silly in my eyes.

thank you for saying that bro, that is exactly how i feel. now let's let CanonXTuser go back to his punk ways and anarchy and keep fighting the damn system that brings him down and tries to control him.

blonde

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 12:59

1] Disagree. I assert the phrasing says much about the attitude of the poster and ironically affirms the perception of the killers

2] Are you making arguments up? I did not see anyone saying the Killers have to allow photography; that they don't have a right photograph.

I'm honestly scratching my head here ... maybe I missed a post, otherwise, you see a post that specifically says "have to" yet dismiss it ... while there is no post

Wow :rolleyes:

Maybe I missed a post of someone saying the killers have to or don't have a right to ... I apologize if I did, definitely, I apologize if I missed the post ... if not, then wow, the killers apologists, wow, the liberties they take

as is, the killers absolutely have a right to not allow photography by the press ... and we absolutely have the right to criticize and show disdain and disrespect for that

as blondie says, everybody wins!

i just have to ask if you actually read the first post or are you just trying to pick up fights by grabbing onto innocent words and blowing them up. the entire thread started because the Killers did not allow any photographers other than their own to take their pictures. all i said is that they have every freaking right in the world to choose who, how and when somebody takes their picture and just because they choose to use this right does not make them pretentious egomaniacs. let me ask you this: would you let a crappy photographer take your pictures and use them in a paper? i am not saying that anybody is a lousy photographer here but what i am saying is that by controlling who takes their pictures, they can control the quality as well as their image which is worth a lot of money in this industry.

CanonXTuser

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 13:00

hahaha, thanks for the laugh, i needed that. "i got myself in trouble", that's cute...

and btw,i will stand by my comment about respecting their wishes. you do not have to shoot their images or even like them. if you feel like they are horrible people, simply ignore them.

same condescending, arrogant attitude as well as revisionism and refusal to accept accountability ... false, you did not ask to respect their wishes. you told us we had to.

everyone sees that and now see you trying to downplay how arrogant your phrasing was.

you are not one to be telling anyone what they ought to do.

again, what amazing pretention and arrogance. imagine if george bush phrased something as people "had to" accept it and be quiet or then telling people if they don't like it, just ignore it.

if we feel that they are horrible people ... we can publicly criticize them also.

if you don't like it ... you can practice what you preach and ignore it ... unless you're a hypocrite. practice what you preach and stop posting and ignore it. you're the one asserting the standard. now live by it.

I assure you, you've done a great job of combatting the perception of the killers as pretentious and arrogant. nice going.

elTwitcho

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 13:01

1] Disagree. I assert the phrasing says much about the attitude of the poster and ironically affirms the perception of the killers

And I suppose if I told you to "lighten up" you would plug yourself into a wall socket too :rolleyes:

2] Are you making arguments up? I did not see anyone saying the Killers have to allow photography; that they don't have a right photograph.

I'm honestly scratching my head here ... maybe I missed a post, otherwise, you see a post that specifically says "have to" yet dismiss it ... while there is no post

Wow :rolleyes:

Am I to understand you now want to argue semantics as an outlet for your hostility?

It would appear the post you missed was your own. Easy to do depending on how much thought one puts into their comments; allow me to copy it here for you

I would have thought you would be the last one to quietly concede to such a remark instead of defy it and likewise, concede to the "star attitude" that the "star" gets to control whatever they like cause they're the star and they're doing it for "art sakes" blah blah and everyone's suppose to quietly affirm that.

Is not the implication that one should not concede that the star gets to control who takes photographs of them? Maybe you missed your point when you were railing on "punk ethic" and how it empowers you to do whatever you want so long as you view the world through your own narrowly defined and skewed perspective :rolleyes:

CanonXTuser

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 13:04

i just have to ask if you actually read the first post or are you just trying to pick up fights by grabbing onto innocent words and blowing them up.

all you have to do is say . .. "sorry, i didn't mean to come across as dictating that people don't have a right or legitimacy to criticize."

please show me where, you've done this and bingo, no conflict.

again, just see how the press would take it if a celebrity or government official came back with such remarks ... you that dishonest to believe they would not make an issue of it? and then not make an issue of being told they should just ignore the matter if they disagree?

anyone here honestly don't think the press would resent such remarks?

you're follow up has only confirmed an attitude of condescension and pretention.

you don't want it to blow up ... then apologize or qualify those remarks and the attitude they suggest.

It won't curse you or cause you to be beaten you up to do such a thing either.

CanonXTuser

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 13:16

And I suppose if I told you to "lighten up" you would plug yourself into a wall socket too :rolleyes:

Am I to understand you now want to argue semantics as an outlet for your hostility?

It would appear the post you missed was your own. Easy to do depending on how much thought one puts into their comments; allow me to copy it here for you

[/i]

Is not the implication that one should not concede that the star gets to control who takes photographs of them? Maybe you missed your point when you were railing on "punk ethic" and how it empowers you to do whatever you want so long as you view the world through your own narrowly defined and skewed perspective :rolleyes:

"concede" was referring to concede to be quiet and not criticize. wow ... that's some jump that concede would mean to deliberately violate the rule, causing one to likely be thrown out at the least and have one's camera confiscated and possibly be arrested, or to concede the killer's have a right to choose.

i don't have a problem saying .... no, I am not urging people to violate the artist wishes and especially risk getting thrown out, blacklisted, gear confiscated or arrested. heaven's no. moreover, the killers and other artists do have a right to not allow photographs, just as we have a right to criticize such decision ... something for the umpth time I've state yet "you honestly missed."

don't have a problem clarifying that.

i find it somewhat incredulous that you thought I was implying to not recognize the killer's having a right, but fine, if that's what you honestly thought. now please accept my clarification.

it takes two to have an argument, i have no problem clarifying my remarks to seek to avoid an issue that does not really exist.

elTwitcho

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 13:17

same condescending, arrogant attitude as well as revisionism and refusal to accept accountability ... false, you did not ask to respect their wishes. you told us we had to.

all you have to do is say . .. "sorry, i didn't mean to come across as dictating that people don't have a right or legitimacy to criticize."

Uh oh. I do hope you've got a healthy appreciation of irony :lol:

You've been abusive and you've been rude in what is a pretty straightforward exchange of ideas. It shouldn't be a challenge to keep things civil and yet you've made personal attacks on the guy, called him arrogant, gone off on a tirade about "revisionism" and as a whole it's been totally inappropriate. I've said my piece, I'm going to lunch and with any luck maybe we aren't going to be arguing semantics or stooping to the level of sardonically using "wow :rolleyes:" as a way of putting forth our argument.

CanonXTuser

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 13:33

Uh oh. I do hope you've got a healthy appreciation of irony :lol:

You've been abusive and you've been rude in what is a pretty straightforward exchange of ideas. It shouldn't be a challenge to keep things civil and yet you've made personal attacks on the guy, called him arrogant, gone off on a tirade about "revisionism" and as a whole it's been totally inappropriate. I've said my piece, I'm going to lunch and with any luck maybe we aren't going to be arguing semantics or stooping to the level of sardonically using "wow :rolleyes:" as a way of putting forth our argument.

I find being told what I "have to do" as abusive. My reaction is how I honestly perceive the remark and not just being hostile to be hostile. The remark came across as abusive, arrogant and pretentious to me. No where has the person said they did not mean to come off that way and I find it dishonest to claim saying we "have to do" as saying, asking people to consider.

Those are pretty straightforward assertions by me. No one was directly refuted them, but instead talked around the issue of why it came across as offensive, arrogant, etc. In contrast, I directly addressed and clarified my remarks that you claimed as alleging the Killer's don't have a legitimate right.

You do have a problem recognizing the legitimacy of interpreting "have to" as conveying an attitude of indeed ... thinking people have to, that it is not legitimate to not quietly accept the Killers position.

I was honestly offended by those remarks. It's not a game.

I strongly assert you are wrong to imply there is no basis for finding such remark offensive and even worse, strongly disagree with you implying that I am just pretending to be offended just to be critical.

You're right. I don't want to belabor the point. At the very least, I hope this post makes clear that I sincerely was offended. It's not a game. I really find it offensive to be told I "have to." Those are definitely "magic" "push buttons" words. I will have to work on not letting my buttons be pushed, but yes, now you know. In real life, you really don't want to say I "have to" unless you really do have that authority. I agree the Killer's have the authority that we have to not take photographs ... they don't have the authority to tell people we have to like it or not criticize it. I really do find that offensive.

blonde

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 13:50

bacchanal

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 13:53

All the banter aside, I think the relevant thing to take away from the experiences posted here is that it isn't worth wasting a lot of time and effort trying to get access to The Killers, at least with the way their current management is handling things. Who they allow access to and how much access they allow is their decision. The real issue seems to be that they seem to have the habit of stringing people along and changing information at the last moment. It's just something to keep in mind if they happen to come to your town.

blonde

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 13:53

I find being told what I "have to do" as abusive. My reaction is how I honestly perceive the remark and not just being hostile to be hostile. The remark came across as abusive, arrogant and pretentious to me. No where has the person said they did not mean to come off that way and I find it dishonest to claim saying we "have to do" as saying, asking people to consider.

Those are pretty straightforward assertions by me. No one was directly refuted them, but instead talked around the issue of why it came across as offensive, arrogant, etc. In contrast, I directly addressed and clarified my remarks that you claimed as alleging the Killer's don't have a legitimate right.

You do have a problem recognizing the legitimacy of interpreting "have to" as conveying an attitude of indeed ... thinking people have to, that it is not legitimate to not quietly accept the Killers position.

I was honestly offended by those remarks. It's not a game.

I strongly assert you are wrong to imply there is no basis for finding such remark offensive and even worse, strongly disagree with you implying that I am just pretending to be offended just to be critical.

You're right. I don't want to belabor the point. At the very least, I hope this post makes clear that I sincerely was offended. It's not a game. I really find it offensive to be told I "have to." Those are definitely "magic" "push buttons" words. I will have to work on not letting my buttons be pushed, but yes, now you know. In real life, you really don't want to say I "have to" unless you really do have that authority. I agree the Killer's have the authority that we have to not take photographs ... they don't have the authority to tell people we have to like it or not criticize it. I really do find that offensive.

you really have to calm down and stop making such a big deal over something as simple as this...

bacchanal

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 13:56

you really have to calm down and stop making such a big deal over something as simple as this...

Yeah, good thing he doesn't shoot weddings I guess (at least, I would assume not)!:D

skifurthur

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 13:57

Performers with egos making demands that others don't understand? What will they think of next? <insert sarcasm emoticon here>

If a performer(band) wants to control their image, I'm fine with that. Chances are they aren't the type of performer that I would WANT to photograph then. I want the random and unexpected, not some sterile, controlled photo-op.

elTwitcho

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 13:58

The real issue seems to be that they seem to have the habit of stringing people along and changing information at the last moment. It's just something to keep in mind if they happen to come to your town.

Absolutely, and it's probably bad business but at the same time one gets the impression that at this point in time they don't need any good will from the photographic community seeing as they have their own photographers.

I wonder how magazine editors feel about them and their stipulations though? Do they get printed in any of the magazines that show performance photos?

blonde

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 14:19

Absolutely, and it's probably bad business but at the same time one gets the impression that at this point in time they don't need any good will from the photographic community seeing as they have their own photographers.

I wonder how magazine editors feel about them and their stipulations though? Do they get printed in any of the magazines that show performance photos?

a quick google search shows quite a few articles about the Killers including quite a few images from different concerts.

Milner

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 15:41

I have found a lot of times, it is not the band, it is the management and the labels. Killers and many other big lable bands used to be a lot more open and accessible. But once that lable starts paying the bills, they (the lable want control. With all the music sharing/downloading going on, lables are sconging for money. They have made absurd money off artists for years, now that is starting to decrease, so they exert more control anywhere they can, and try to make the money from others means, such as photos.
Don't always assume it is the Artists being the A-Hole....unless it is Ryan Adams:D

Oh, And I just went and bought the new killers cd at luch...came out today....Guess you could call me a fan.

CyberDyneSystems

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 15:43

let's quit the fighting over this please.

blonde

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 15:43

IArtists being the A-Hole....unless it is Ryan Adams:D

.

finally something we can all agree on :)

sspellman

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 15:44

As a creative photographer, you should always evaluate your subjects and ask yourself "why" am I taking this picture. If you feel no empathy or connection with your subject-then why do you even bother to take the picture at all? That said, I do not expect to feel a positive connection with every artist-successful or not or weather I personally like them. So if a photography situation does not appeal to me-I dont shoot. I also do not assume that the subject is arrogant or has an ego the size of Montana any more than when I do not want to take a picture. I don't expect that everyone will want or respect my artistic gift, or that artists perform at concerts for my photographic enjoyment. If you don't agree with the limitiations of a photographic assignment-just don't do it.

This might be unpopular, but media coverage for an established artist serves the primary purpose of promoting an upcomming show. An article before the show is generally much more valuable to the artist than a review after. If the artist already has a large library of images that they can make available to the media, then new photographers might not be very important to them. I have shot the Killers twice now and enjoyed the shoot and concert both times. In this situation specifically, it is unlikely that the artist has approved and then denied media credentials-more likely your editor assumed that they would allow photogs and then was told differently.

-Scott

skifurthur

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 15:59

Don't always assume it is the Artists being the A-Hole....unless it is Ryan Adams:D

finally something we can all agree on :)

Geeze, gang. Ryan is one of the nicest, albeit operating on a different frequency than others, artists that you will ever meet. He's very shy, very sincere and hugely talented. Sure, I know of his past. That is something that will be less and less of a problem in the future. Trust me on this one.

blackshadow

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 16:08

1 - I didn't care whether I shot The Killers or not - I think they are a boring meaningless band but obviously others disagree and everyone is entitled to their opinion as am I

2 - Any band has the right to refuse photographers

3 - What I really take offence to is them having total control over images for news publications and supplying doctored images and expecting them to be published. The photos of a concert are meant to capture that event warts and all... it's an insult to news publications, photographers, journalists and the paying public to offer up doctored images as the only record of that show.

4 - If I or any other photographer are working for a publication that publication obviously respects and values our talents as photographers. If the band/management don't like the quality or slant of the publication then they simply refuse to allow media access to that publication instead of expecting a review and some puffy/fluffy photos to go along with it - it is an attempt to manipulate editorial content.

blackshadow

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 16:26

the entire thread started because the Killers did not allow any photographers other than their own to take their pictures.

Try rereading the original post. BTW I couldn't give a flying fundamental if it was The Killers, Tom Waits, The Stooges, Neil Young etc... it's the principle that really annoys me.

The entire thread started because The Killers messed me around with making arrangements (I actually cancelled something to accept shooting the show) and then there was a change - as a result I am out of pocket but I can live with that.

What really peeves me though is the reason for them changing their decision - to only supply their own AIRBRUSHED images of the concert. It's insulting the integrity/talent of every publication and photographer who works for them.

blackshadow

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 16:29

more likely your editor assumed that they would allow photogs and then was told differently.

I checked on this with two editors and both were asked to put in for photo passes for the show. There was a change at the last minute. Whether it was the publicist or the band management I'm not sure.

I'm guessing the publicist has arranged for the media coverage of the concert prior to the band arriving in town and once they hit town the tour manager puts the kybosh on photographers being allowed.

blackshadow

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 16:34

I wonder how magazine editors feel about them and their stipulations though? Do they get printed in any of the magazines that show performance photos?

It wouldn't surprise me if they get a major serve from one of the major daily newspapers here.

Unity Gain

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 16:36

I went to high school with Ron from the Killers. Honestly, it's not possible to find a nicer guy than him . The dude has always always always crushed on the drums...even when we were too young to drive he was already drumming like a pro.

Anyhow, photographers should understand better than anybody else what a careful crafted image is. The killers are NOT what you see in the videos. Those dudes are regular jeans and t-shirt guys from the suburbs. They are In-n-out Burger, Walmart, and weekends at the Mall just like the rest of us. THe image you see is nothing like how they actually are...and they are not pretentious at all...just really good businessmen.

For whatever it's worth...thought I'd add that

Unity Gain

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 16:42

thelightofsound

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 16:50

OH and one more thing. Protecting access to the Killer's live show has a lot t odo with their craft as well as their image. They've got things going on backstage that have to do with their sound that they probably don't want advertised.

Think about it like this...Would David Copperfield (the magician) want some unknown photographer poking around his tricks??? Well, the Killers probably don't want some of their tricks revealed either.

kind of a moot point here, as photographers only have the access they are granted. i.e. most photo passes grant you nothing other than access to the pit for the first three songs.

but i hear what you're saying (esp in the previous post) and just wanted to chime in on this controversial thread :)

blackshadow

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 17:06

Anyhow, photographers should understand better than anybody else what a careful crafted image is.

If their image is so carefully crafted why won't they let editorial photographers capture that image as they present it on stage? It makes me wonder what they have to hide.

blackshadow

13th of November 2007 (Tue), 17:24

To the mods - I feel the change to the title of this thread was unwarranted... I was expressing an opinion and also feel the change has altered the intent of my original post. What was wrong with my opinion?

henleg

14th of November 2007 (Wed), 18:09

The worst thing about not only this, but all the situations like this, is that a majority of the people are none the wiser that stuff like this is even an issue.

Fans really don't care whether a concert photographer has been given the run around. They don't care that what they think are the photos of the concert they were at aren't actually from that concert. They generally don't care, or realize that they could've had a much more accurate and true account of the show thanks to the likes of Richard, or whomever else has been denied.

Until I joined this forum, I was completely unaware of the trials and tribulations endured by concert photographers. I know that next time I pick up Beat Magazine, Inpress or even a Rolling Stone, I'll be looking at the concert photos very differently.

Ethics & politics aside, my hat's off to the pro concert photographers. If the band/management choose to make those daft decisions that give people like Richard (in this instance) the run around, then all I have to say is that whilst the photog misses out on a pay cheque, the band misses out on a whole lot more.

As the signature in our very level headed, reasonable and tactful CanonXTuser says, you guys, "make your crappy band look good."

Hen.http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/52.gif

By the way, David Copperfield's best trick was having Claudia Schiffer as a girlfriend...
...Would David Copperfield (the magician) want some unknown photographer poking around his tricks...

DwightMcCann

14th of November 2007 (Wed), 18:32

Hey, Blonde ... trouble everywhere you go, eh? :-) I couldn't let this thread go without a post! My take is that there are a huge number of factors that go into the vibe of a band. If you guys think the way photographers are treated is bad you have no clue. I am privy to how the casino is treated as a venue and it is at least an order of magnitude worse because the talent has the ability to disappoint all your guests and the onus winds up on the venue, not the talent who will simply blame the venue. And often the biggest offenders are not the talent themselves, but small minds with huge egos who somehow get hired on because they are someone's brother-in-law. And you should see the riders (contract agreements) that some of the talent have ... a hundred pages of demands, from the brand and temperature of the bottled water in the dressing room to the ability to have any employee of the venue fired without cause ... just amazing. And yet others are as nice and friendly and helpful as they can be ... the one thing ZZ Top and Tony Bennett have in common are top flight, personable, easy to work with tour people. Most of the ugly stuff we run into as photographers is the result of little people trying desperately to have control over something and show that they are valuable. So, I'd blame "band management" long before I'd blame "band personnel" ... you'd have big odds on your side.

BTW, none of the papers I provide images to would ever run a canned image with a review, period, end of story ... images taken at the event and untouched by human hands unless there is a valid reason (I once retouched/combined two images so that a super sized charity check could be read and had to report myself ... worked out great and they ran the image.)

Yellow_Fuzzy

14th of November 2007 (Wed), 18:46

From speaking to the bands Lighting Designer:
It is the bands decision to not allow photographers in the pit, they dont really even like security in the pit.
They have a tour manager that is also a photographer that takes shots of every show. As soon as the show is over the band looks through all the shots and the shots are made availiable to local media via the bands website about an hour after the show.

blonde

14th of November 2007 (Wed), 18:54

Hey, Blonde ... trouble everywhere you go, eh? :-)

come on Dwight, that's not very nice :) all i did was give my opinion and i did it in a reasonable and respectful manner. how was i supposed to know that my innocent choice of words will enrage the missing member of the sex pistols?

DwightMcCann

14th of November 2007 (Wed), 19:02

come on Dwight, that's not very nice :) all i did was give my opinion and i did it in a reasonable and respectful manner. how was i supposed to know that my innocent choice of words will enrage the missing member of the sex pistols?

NO, No, no ... I was alluding mostly to the 1DMIII threads! :-) The tussle in here is just a lot of young guys with testosterone to burn ... ya' gotta' just smile and sit back and listen to both sides bluster since neither has anything useful to say but they like to hear themselves talk ... kind of mental masturbation. Yellow cleared up the actual situation and it is clear that it was the intermediaries who screwed over Richard who seemed to me to just be trying to share the situation.

[Disclaimer: My 1DMIII must go back for "an adjustment".]

blonde

14th of November 2007 (Wed), 19:51

NO, No, no ... I was alluding mostly to the 1DMIII threads! :-)

in that case, yes :)

blackshadow

15th of November 2007 (Thu), 23:48

OH and one more thing. Protecting access to the Killer's live show has a lot t odo with their craft as well as their image. They've got things going on backstage that have to do with their sound that they probably don't want advertised.

Think about it like this...Would David Copperfield (the magician) want some unknown photographer poking around his tricks??? Well, the Killers probably don't want some of their tricks revealed either.

I have rarely heard a bigger line of utter crap in all my life.

Photographers are given access to shoot the show not to poke around backstage and shoot their gear. From what I have heard The Killers don't have anything particularly original to protect when it comes to any special technical innovations.

Seems my post bought a few Killers apologists out of the wood work.

DwightMcCann

16th of November 2007 (Fri), 00:16

I have rarely heard a bigger line of utter crap in all my life.

Sure you have! But it does seem a rather silly contention ... heck, I was allowed to wander all over KISS's super secret backstage setup ... I've even got pictures on my website of the top secret pyrotechniques ... if seeing something backstage, other than a mirror loaded with blow, is going to reveal some deep dark mystical musical secret then they are in the wrong business. :-)

narlus

30th of January 2009 (Fri), 13:06

DwightMcCann

30th of January 2009 (Fri), 13:12

londonblue007

30th of January 2009 (Fri), 15:26

sorry to resurrect an old thread, but i just noticed that it looks like the Killers allowed the Globe to send their own shooter for last week's show:
http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2009/01/27/bombastic_heartfelt_band_shines_live/

I saw that pic and was very unimpressed with the photo choice. I've seen much better work from Justine... so I don't know what happened there...

johnstoy

30th of January 2009 (Fri), 17:55

That picture looks pretty tame... Not what you would expect from the supposedly killer "Killers".

narlus

30th of January 2009 (Fri), 18:35

the Killers *are* tame.

blackshadow

31st of January 2009 (Sat), 03:27

Perhaps Justine deliberately picked a poor photo as a bit of a f*ck you gesture to the band and their attitude towards photographers.

Was the review written by a 16 year old with a crush on Brandon Flowers?

DDCSD

31st of January 2009 (Sat), 03:39

Was the review written by a 16 year old with a crush on Brandon Flowers?

I almost spit up my beer reading this... Reminds me of a love affair with certain US politicians that the press seems to have lately. ;)

blackshadow

28th of February 2009 (Sat), 03:59

Brandon Flowers was quizzed about their photography policy and managed to cast aspersions on all music photographers with his comments in an article in The Courier Mail today which can be seen in full here (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25105568-5003421,00.html)

Public image

As such, the Killers have a global policy of not allowing media organisations to photograph them in concert.

Instead they supply publications with live photos after each concert has finished – once Flowers has personally selected authorised snaps.

He does not shy away from explaining his stance.

"Everyone's got an agenda. If you like me, that's super and you might put a great (live) picture up. If you don't like us, you won't. I've seen people do both. That's just how it is.

"So why not only put good ones out? That's my motto. It's my photographer doing it, I get to go through them. It makes sense to me, I don't know why it doesn't to everyone else."

Is it the height of vanity – only issuing approved concert photos?

"I guess, but (as a photographer) there are things you can do to a person when they're screaming their guts out and singing their life away on stage. With the way I sing you can make it look funny, I don't think that makes me any more vain than the next person because I don't want people to control me. That's them being more controlling than me if they want to do that stuff."

There were whispers the ban on external photographers started after Flowers saw an unflattering photo – he had a double chin – printed in a magazine.

"I don't shoot up," Flowers says of his mythical multiple chin. "I tend to eat."

Every working music photographer I know strives to present the best possible images they can for publication - they don't go around deliberately making an artist look bad or "funny" - that would be professional suicide.

Whatever happened to freedom of the press?

DwightMcCann

28th of February 2009 (Sat), 10:46

londonblue007

28th of February 2009 (Sat), 12:20

Brandon Flowers is the lead singer of the Killers.

DwightMcCann

28th of February 2009 (Sat), 12:46

Brandon Flowers is the lead singer of the Killers.
While I also have no idea who the Killers are, it was a facetious question! :-)

londonblue007

28th of February 2009 (Sat), 18:13

While I also have no idea who the Killers are, it was a facetious question! :-)

I figured.

The Killers are a really really good pop/rock band who's "demo" album for the record labels ended up being their debut record. Their two followups have done very well, but in my opinion have fallen flat compared to the first record. The energy level or feel or something in 'Hot Fuss' just hasn't either translated well in the new records, or just doesn't exist at all.

blackshadow

28th of February 2009 (Sat), 18:45

Egotistical and vain - Absolutely! infringing on the rights of the Free Press - Absolutely Not! The press does not have some absolute right to do anything they want. People have the right to privacy, including private events where you must have a ticket to attend. They do not need to justify their choices. That's called Freedom.

Now, who the he!! is this Barton Flowers guy?

A concert review is reporting on an event - if media outlets are forced to run sanitised photos supplied by the band it is a definite infringement on press freedom.

For the record I am yet to see a decent concert photograph from their official photographer.

How many of you know music photographers who deliberately try to make an artist look bad or "funny"? I don't know a single working photographer that doesn't strive to present the best quality photos for publication.

DDCSD

1st of March 2009 (Sun), 13:24

How many of you know music photographers who deliberately try to make an artist look bad or "funny"? I don't know a single working photographer that doesn't strive to present the best quality photos for publication.

To be fair, there was someone on POTN that said that when the band or the band's management act like jerks, he would turn in shots that didn't put the artist/band in the best light.

With that said, I wonder if Flowers knows (or cares) just how pompous of an ass this makes him seem like.

skifurthur

3rd of March 2009 (Tue), 07:27

A concert review is reporting on an event - if media outlets are forced to run sanitised photos supplied by the band it is a definite infringement on press freedom.

For the record I am yet to see a decent concert photograph from their official photographer.

How many of you know music photographers who deliberately try to make an artist look bad or "funny"? I don't know a single working photographer that doesn't strive to present the best quality photos for publication.

There's the rub, a media outlet doesn't have to run any photos to report the story/review. A photo is not a requirement. The publication/editor is the one to make that call. I am fairly sure that any publication I have shot for got this they would decline to cover the event.

Afterall, on a publication shoot, we all work for the publication and their decision is the key. If they want the shot, and you as a sub-contractor feels you can't live with their agreement, decline the work.

There are many acts still that don't do a rights grab.

blackshadow

12th of March 2009 (Thu), 06:06

My editors would be disgusted if I served up photos like these by their official photographer

http://www.concertlivewire.com/killerspix.htm
http://twincities.metromix.com/music/photogallery/the-killers-at-northrop/903627/content

René Damkot

12th of March 2009 (Thu), 08:21

First set is okay-ish, second is pretty bad.

DwightMcCann

12th of March 2009 (Thu), 09:53

DDCSD

12th of March 2009 (Thu), 10:10

First set, right-hand picture, second row from bottom. I wonder if he wanted to look more manly on purpose or if that one slipped by him.....

Talk about needing to watch were you put your guitar necks...

hooookup

20th of March 2009 (Fri), 22:21

DwightMcCann

20th of March 2009 (Fri), 22:24

I shot a New Years Eve event a few years ago in Hollywood at Paramount Studios back lot and the killers (purposely lower case) refused to walk the red carpet with the rest of the celebrities and were rather cunty about it. Ever since then I have lost all respect for them. They were the headlining act for the event and acted like a gaggle of primadonna's.
Well, truth to tell, there are a lot of total egos in the entertainment world ... when you surround yourself with people who will only tell you good things bout yourself and you get rid of them if they don't then it is impossible to be grounded in any reality other than your personal delusions, sigh.