getting published

[Joseph O'Neil]

Dumb question here. I seldom have any of my images or photos published, and when I do, it is at irregular intervals. But as luck would have it, I have had three of my photographs published in the past two weeks.

Thing is though, two of the images were digital and ended up in newspapers, and the one 4x5 photo I had published was in an arts magazine. Just wondering for those of you who do have some of your work published, what's your ratio? If for me just based on the past two weeks for example, it would be 2:1 - digital to LF film.

The other question is how does one define "published' anymore. In the past, I always thought it was when you open the newspaper or a magazine and see your work. But of my three images, one is strickly a digital edition of a newspaper on the web, the other two (including the 4x5 shot) are on hard copy, paper. However, of the last two, both have electronic formats in addition to hard copies. I suppose there isn't much difference anymore in some quarters.

joe

[Don Dudenbostel]

Joseph, It's hard for me to answer the ration since I make my living with photography. About 80% of my money comes from commercial work which is published in ads or in some form or another. In the commercial world 95% of my work is digital the remainder is film. In the art world, www.x-rayarts.com , the work is totally film based. I've made my living from photography for forty plus years now and the traditional concept of publishing has changed. When the internet came into existence a totally new form of paperless publishing came into existence. For many years I didn't consider internet publishing to be a relevant as being published on paper but in recent months I've changed my mind. I was contacted by a Turkish photo magazine a few months ago ( http://www.fotoritim.com/yazi/don-dudenbostel--x-isini ) and had never thought much about the value of electronic media until then. I know my website has brought many business opportunities including international licensing, commissions and sales but online magazines just didn't seem to have the same feel of importance as a physically printed piece. After allowing my work to be published in the Turkish magazine and seeing the level of work and the excellent design I finally came to the realization that electronic media may even be more significant than a printed publication. The reach of digital media is much broader than a printed publication and the final eye appeal can be just as good a fine magazine. The only negative in my opinion is the lack of something to hold in your hand and view in a traditional manner. The traditional concept of a printed publication is what us old timers know but future generations may only know electronic publishing and printed publishing may go away in a few years.

Congrats on getting published!

[John Voss]

The other question is how does one define "published' anymore....... I suppose there isn't much difference anymore in some quarters.

joe

I wonder if one's web self-published 'graphs on blogs or web-sites are considered a disqualification when entering contests that only seek "unpublished" work. Any opinions?

[paulr]

I wonder if one's web self-published 'graphs on blogs or web-sites are considered a disqualification when entering contests that only seek "unpublished" work. Any opinions?

Or for that matter, what about pictures in self-published books? It's become so easy to print small run books in recent years that the question must come up for a lot of people.

[seawolf66]

I would not worry about what the ratio, and enjoy the fact you are being published < Some of us dream of it happening : Congrates

[Gordon Moat]

Published usually would mean printed, though I think it is safe to include images used in broadcast, motion pictures, or websites (other than your own). Since my profession is as a photographer, I have many images published, though quite a few are not very visible (trade magazines or corporate printed materials). I suppose if I did news or sports work, my volume would be much greater.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[QT Luong]

As far as I am concerned, any mass reproduction in any medium is publication. Print media has reigned supreme but it is being displaced by more modern media forms. If you are the publisher as well (book, website), then that's self-publication. Of course, not all media and publications are equal.

[Joseph O'Neil]

As far as I am concerned, any mass reproduction in any medium is publication. Print media has reigned supreme but it is being displaced by more modern media forms. If you are the publisher as well (book, website), then that's self-publication. Of course, not all media and publications are equal.

Personally I never considered self-publication to be "published", to me it was and always has been when somebody else wants to use your photography in some format or medium. Even if you do not get paid any money for that use.

For example, one of my LF photos ended on a CD cover for a small band. I never got paid any money, but I was given full credit on the inside cover of the CD, and a couple free CDs, including one autographed by the whole band. That was kinda cool, and in some ways, my best "sale" ever.

[Brian K]

To me being published is when a publisher, or a third party, invests the time and money to reproduce and sell your work (possibly in conjunction with other material such as in the case of a magazine) in quantity. The end "product" is your work, although in a possibly different form. I would say that books, magazines, posters, etc are publications.

I have had thousands of images appear in advertisements, brochures, catalogs, etc and I do not consider that to being published as the image itself really isn't the point of the printed piece but the product or service that is being sold is.

I don't think that producing your own book qualifies you as being published. There is a serious bar that has to be reached in order for publishers to back you, and invest their time,money and reputation behind you. If it all it takes is some money and Lulu, then I don't think it has the gravitas of being published. On the other hand, if the artist is established enough so that they could go down the path of having established publishers produce and distribute their book, but instead choose to self publish, I would consider that a publication.

Basically I'm trying not to diminish the accomplishment of having your work published by a reputable publisher, with people of far less accomplishment making a Lulu type book of their vacation and considering it on par.

[QT Luong]

Initially I included in my reply the term "informative" that implied the idea elaborated on by Brian, but after more thought I edited it out. If your work is used in a book other than a monograph or an article other than a feature about you, the artistic merit is secondary to the material it illustrates. On the other hand, if you are an advertising photographer and your work is used in a major campaign, it does say something about its quality.

As far as self-publishing, as the distinction that Brian makes shows, it is difficult to draw a black and white line, so I'd rather consider it as a form of publishing, knowing that not all accomplishments are equal. For instance, what if you self-publish using a traditional press ? What if your reputation should have been way enough for a publisher to accept your work but you didn't find one (Ray McSavaney) ? What if you turned down a publisher's offer because the terms were not to your liking, something that nobody would know (me) ?