Yeah, its a pity the work that interests me most these days are by photographers who are almost totally unknown,who do stuff totally for themselves, certainly I don’t think our photo editor here would seriously consider using them, or at least his boss’s allow it. Then when you see the sartorialist getting some serious representation with silly words put next to and pumping up his efforts you realise just how much its about who has the power to give value, the strongest “pimp hand” if you will.

Indeed, but I don’t think you can roll together the interests of advertisers and the public. They are not synonymous, and the relationship between journalism and advertising is to an extent inherently adversarial. Certainly I have worked on magazines where advertiser opposition to editorial content led to ad bookings being cancelled (25k GBP on one occasion). I wrote and photographed a feature that criticised a major automotive company for rotten service, on the back of many reader complaints and my own experience. Dealers were furious and the manufacturer’s PR dept would not talk to me for 2 years and pressured the admirably unrepentant editor. However he was eventually ‘gone freelance’ after we managed to upset 4 of the 5 major advertisers in the course of a year. His circulation was doing fine, the public appreciated it, but the board’s duty is to shareholders. Right there, you have a point of compromised interests that no publisher escapes, and it leads to the advertiser tail wagging the dog.

Of course I understand what you’re saying regarding photographers treating what they do as a business and being professional, it’s sine-qua-non.

The fashion factor is also undeniably (and often oppressively) true, especially in style-conscious titles. But that pressures toward homogeneity, the opposite of indiividualist vision, so there’s a Catch-22. You want to eat? Here’s a checklist of things you had better conform to, but we are really only interested in seeing someone who’s substantially different. I know you are being helpful, but I bet in the next few months you’ll be seeing a ton of fresh faces with the same website, folio and similar work

I disagree with this statement regarding the public not being interested in certain styles. I think one could say that because most photography that the public sees is the same style and that those in charge of hiring are playing it safe and continuing to hire the photographers with the same look.

How often do we see work thats a rip off of Fiscus and Terry Richardson? If the look fits to sell the product use it but if the public does not know there are other looks out there they’re not going to ask for it. Kinda like the music industry.

Again look at Terry Richardson, I’m sure that he’s professional but I doubt he’s gonna show up on a set all prim and proper.

Personally I’m ready for the over sharpened CG looking crap to end.

You also underestimate how difficult it is to hire photographers. It’s a business. Museums and patrons and grants exist for photographer who aren’t interested in treating it a such. Koudelka doesn’t take commissions by choice. He’s not willing to treat photography as a business.

Taking great photos and taking great photos on assignment under a predetermined set of circumstances are completely different things. Looking at your portfolio to see if you treat it like a business is one test we use so is showing up on time and your appearance. It helps me determine what assignments to pair you up with. Wandering the countryside with gypsies is different than a 10 min. picture with the president.

Tastes change too. The public is no longer interested in certain styles of photography so it can’t be supported by magazines and advertising agencies. Do you think I should shove it down the editor and reader and publishers throats?

It’s awfully ignorant to think that companies who use marketing to reach and profit off an audience would not appreciate a little marketing from contributors trying to reach them.

Since then Magnum has changed course dramatically, out of financial necessity because what it was supplying the market did not want sufficiently. Of course PJG is a fundamentalist advocate of concerned, social, political PJ here and less than keen on the transition. He recently remarked of Magnum that ‘the barbarians are within the walls, for sure’. But they will be better paid.

I once had a client for a food rag I was shooting some portraits for go cheep fast. On the set the client canceled the sandwiches that was going to be delivered for Jack in the Box 99 cent tacos.

Thing is that there are costs to run your business and your costs are your costs and that’s it. I don’t fly first class all the time but if the budget is there then cool if it’s not then cool.

If you’re going to be open and honest with your clients you’re going to be clear in your communication. This means telling them what is needed to produce the results. Maybe you don’t need your digital tech and can use a local one but if it’s required that you use your crew to get the results then you hire your crew and thats that.

If you explain what is required to get the shoot and don’t jive your client they’ll appreciate it and the end result will be strong images that sell and happy client.

It’s an apples and pears comparison, and one I find slightly disturbing. The connection between excellence and reward is so tenuous as to be almost arbitrary. Other art eds will read this blog and take from it that these are necessary indicators that someone is or is not a good photographer.

Why not just look at the bloody photographs? Well, the Flickr experiment shows that few people are actually all that capable of seeing what is, they rely on cues and prompts if they are available. HCB = must be good, and Deleteme if they didn’t know who took it. The photo doesn’t change, only the perception. Then how much does the photo matter at all?

Just think of that : our financial viability, what work gets done, how, and who by, largely depends on people who are so massively uneducated and insecure at what they’re doing that they will take one look at your portfolio and if it’s crummy Rymans vinyl rather than hand-bound leather they already made their mind up and you’re doomed to a life of flipping burgers. The exact same photos backed by a super-cool looking web design, and you’re away club-class with lobster for supper.

Anyhow, that’s my thesis : that photojournalism is dead not thanks to TV or an overweening cultural myopia that favours marketing over useful information. Nobody even looked at the photos, it’s due to PJ’s having bad dress sense.

@ 29 Tony: That Magnum number is bullshit. It may be that the older guys like Philip are getting that but I’ve personally paid several dozen Magnum photographers $5k-$10k for a single assignment.

Sorry but the photo world is obsessed with “name” the whole sociology is based on it:

http://www.iphotocentral.com/news/news.php

I don’t think the quality of work will diminish for “some” magazines if they use “Mr Cheap Photographer” who can still produce similar work, but many photographers don’t really know how much they and their business are really worth and end up in trouble further on down the line.

For me its all about building good relations (that includes doing good business), producing damn good work and giving value to your client.

All the extra bling is a bonus if you can get away with it. You work for it, you earn it. I’ll be happy to stay in Hotel 31, NY. I’m a cheapskate from the UK.

Best regards
suryo wibowo

the uncle charlie portrait photographer down the street knows how to make a living charging for his time and overheads,

You ever flown flights that were delayed 6 hours on connections, gotten your luggage lost, etc etc?
Try doing that more than 3 times and see whether you’re still thinking “oh I would do this for $500…”

Using passion as an excuse for low fees is a real joke. It brings everyone down and cheapens photography
Among photographers themselves, fine, we can always try to make things work.
But as a photo editor I’m sure you have some power to say “no it cannot be done for this kind of price and we need more money”
You would know that people will take advantage of you if they see they can take advantage of you

You can’t make a movie for less than a certain amount of money nowadays because everyone has to be paid properly. The accounts people seem to understand this and understand that they need to raise that sort of money before they can produce a movie.
Maybe a lesson to photographers.

Ultimately you’re going to get lower standards of photography, and your budget’s going to go south too as the pictures get less and less important to a magazine’s worth.
Vicious cycle.

from APE in 18:
“the low budget one’s always assume they can’t have one. ”

replace “one” with whatever you assume there isn’t budget for.

and then, ASK FOR IT.

This is something that took me a few jobs to learn when I started.

It’s not just about saying “no”. It’s also about having the confidence to ask for things and assert your needs.

you want me to spend half a day pulling clothes instead of hiring a stylist? sure but, i need to bill a production day,

you need digital? sure. but, i charge XXXX…..