Paul, it all depends on what you want more - the money or the "fame"? Moneywise it's bottom, Fame-wise - only you know. I think the editor in question takes it this way too.
Paul, it all depends on what you want more - the money or the "fame"? Moneywise it's bottom, Fame-wise - only you know. I think the editor in question takes it this way too.
If anyone out there happens to have a magazine you can publish all of the pictures of mine you would like. All I ask is that you spell my name right.
Interesting thread here. It really cuts to the issue of art as a business, art as a form of self validation, or art for art's sake.
If you look at your photographs as an investment or business venture, advertising (gratis publication) makes sense in that it is a way of putting your craft and your name in front of a larger audience than would be possible by most other means. You are basically showing your stuff to potential buyers---a good thing as Martha would say.
If you look at your photographs as a way of validating what it is you do, in other words you look at your photos as being an element of yourself and you natural seek the gratification and support of others to reaffirm your endeavors, then publication is certainly a way to stroke your ego and build confidence in your own talent.
If on the other hand you simply have a couple of prints you really enjoy and want to share just because you thimk others might enjoy them as well, then publication is certainly a way of acomplishing that as well.
As I see it, the rewards for publication in any of the above scenarios are immeasurably valuable.Unfortunately none will tend to generate instant monetary gratification which we can all use to buy more film, paper, chemicals, etc... so as to keep on taking pictures.
Thanks for the thought provoking post!
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
...Then again, if you're already famous and patrons will presumably buy the mag for your featured portfolio, a link and copies is kind of cheesey payment! Your photos are in effect, being used to sell advertising space for the magazine. Whether or not this is fair depends, I suppose on the nature of the magazine. Whats OK for, say Lenswork or View Camera is IMHO not acceptable for Esquire(well, not unless you get to work with that brazilian gal, but thats another post!)
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Why no comments from the Magazine Publisher who commonly uses this forum to shill his commercial ventures?
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
At this point in "my journey" I would do it. Name recognition has an intangible value. The folks who can take advantage of that leverage will. It may not be the right move for you though.
One one hand, I always think it is a bit unfair that the magazine would use your work, and not compensate you for that. After all, you are providing the content, and the magazine is cashing on advertising (and also marginally, subscriptions and retail sales). Not offering compensation is also in my book a form of disrespect, as it sends implicily the message that the work is not worth paying for.
Just assume that all the magazines would begin to operate this way, by offering solely credits in
exchange for photos. They might still find enough good images, since the vast majority of photographers are hobbysts, many of them very talented, and would be so thrilled to get published that it would be enough for them. However, it would soon devaluate the value of editorial photography (including your own in the future) to nothing. It is true that being published has promotional value for you, but as far as I can remember, when a magazine pays you for an image, they do not get the right to ommit your credit line without payment of more substantial fees. Also,
as far as I remember, the prestigious clients with high circulation, visibility, or name recognition,
would tend to pay you more, despite the fact that you'd get better exposure being published with
them, not less on the rationale that the increased exposure would make up for it.
On the other hand, it is common for photographers trying to break into a new field to accept
free or low-paying work, considering that there are other business possibilities in doing
the work. This is just smart business sense.
Paul,
Tim summed it up well in his post above. My personal experience echos Tim's comments. In addition to my recent writing for photo publications, early in my career I did a little writing for travel and regional magazines. In all cases, when I've written an editorial piece about a specific place, another person (including other photographers), a how-to article or an equipment review, I have been paid a standard rate agreed upon in advance. This rate varies from publication to publication and is dependent on their circulation numbers, ad revenue, etc. If the rate they offer is too low, I thank them for their time and submit the proposal to another higher paying magazine. In some cases, it may be possible to make it work to both parties advantage even if the pay rate for the article seems too low.
For example, one of the regional travel magazine publishers I wrote for in the past didn't pay very well for the articles they ran in their magazines, but they did pay quite generously (far above average for a small circulation publication) for cover photos. So, when I wrote for them, they paid their standard rate for the article, but also agreed to use one of my photos on the cover of that issue. It worked out well for both parties. The combined pay for the cover photo and article were enough to make it worth my while, I got some nice cover photo tear sheets, and the publisher got a nice cover photo that tied in well with one of their articles. Win:win.
On the few occasions where a publication has been interested in running a portflio of my work, I have not charged them for the use of the photos. In addition to the promotional benefits, I consider it a compliment and a favor. I don't charge my friends and family members when they pay me a compliment. So, I don't charge the magazine for an article specifically intended to showcase my work (but I do request extra copies for my family, friends and files).
Summary: For a how-to article that happens to be illustrated with my images, I charge a standard rate. For a portfolio piece about me, featuring my photos - no charge (and a hearty "Thank You!").
Kerry
Ok, if you want to know how it ended, I nearly agreed with the publisher on his offer. But then I realized that the magazine was fashion and glamour orientated. Doesn't bother me too much in itself, I'm not a subscriber, but how would I then be able to hand copies to my kids, family and friends, knowing they would come across some embarrassing stuff... well some might be embarrassed... I warmly thanked this guy, it would have been an honor to be published alongside some big names and the magazine was very classy.
Paul
While I was in college getting the useless Creative Writing degree, one of my professors talked about how he blew a big chance when he turned down publishing in Playboy. He did not agree with the content, and had the same thoughts as you about showing his kids and parents. He said that, even twenty years after the fact it was a bad career move.
Just food for thought.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks