by Bill Cramer, Wonderful Machine CEO
A few months ago, I got my first assignment from Fast Company. I was happy to hear from Assistant Photo Editor Lisa Parisi, who asked me to photograph a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh for a story they were doing on robots. Fast Company tends to use great photography, so I was glad to have the opportunity to try to impress them.
Lisa was very organized about the assignment, which was really helpful. She sent me a Call Sheet with all of the details of the shoot – including contact info for the subject and a list of situations they wanted to cover. She also sent a Photo Directive that provided general guidance about what kind of pictures Fast Company likes to use, as well as nuts-and-bolts reminders about shooting with and without eye contact, horizontals and verticals, posed and off-moment pictures, a variety of angles, expressions and scale. Lisa also sent about 30 photographs to show examples of their idea of a successful environmental portrait. Having said all that, she was also quick to point out that if her expectations didn’t match up with the reality of the situation, I was free to take the pictures in whatever direction I thought was appropriate.
In her first email to me, Lisa said, “Our budget for the Fast Talks are typically flat fees of 1500. But I realize the travel might make it higher in this case.” She elaborated on the phone, saying that she could cover hotel, mileage, parking, tolls, meals. I took that to mean that she didn’t want to pay for a travel day for me or my assistant. It would be a five-hour drive to Pittsburgh, which we would do the night before. I would shoot in the morning and then drive back to Philly. In retrospect, I probably should have pressed at least for the additional assistant time, but I didn’t (of course, I paid my assistant for that time anyway).
Whenever I work for a flat fee, I back out the expenses that I would otherwise charge, to see what the creative fee really is. For a shoot like this, I normally charge 250.00 for an assistant (in this case, it would be more like 400.00 or so with the travel). I normally charge 300.00 for a digital fee, which includes cameras and the initial processing and posting a web gallery. If the creative fee is generous, I typically don’t charge separately for strobes or file prep. Otherwise, I’ll charge 150.00 − 300.00 for the strobes on a basic editorial portrait shoot, and 25.00 for each file prep. 1500 − 400 − 300 − 200 = 600. A modest fee, factoring in the travel. I asked Lisa if they pay space when they use more or bigger pictures and she said they didn’t. She said for this section, they usually use one or two medium to smallish pictures, and that they pay more for features and covers.
At this point, I usually ask the client if they have a contract they’d like me to look at. After all, the fee for the job doesn’t mean much without knowing how the client intends to use the pictures. But with the shoot coming up on such short notice, Call Sheets and Photo Directives to absorb, and some reading to do on my subject, I chose to concentrate on the creative rather than spend what little time I had reviewing and negotiating a contract. That’s not my normal operating procedure, of course. Negotiating terms after the fact can be awkward to say the least. But I had met Lisa before and I had worked with her Director of Photography Leslie Dela Vega when she was at Time, so I was confident that we would be able to come to terms amicably afterwards. If Lisa had sent me the contract before the shoot, I would have been obliged to read it carefully before accepting the job. If I had the contract in hand but let the negotiations go until after the shoot, it would be harder for me to press for changes at that point because it would be reasonable for her to say that I knew the terms in advance.
Photographers should be aware that there are some unscrupulous clients out there who will intentionally withhold sending a contract until after a shoot, thinking that the photographer will have diminished leverage to negotiate at that point. The fact is that both parties are equally disadvantaged in those cases. After all, the client can’t publish the pictures without the photographer’s permission and the photographer won’t get paid until they have reached an agreement with the client. That was not the case here.
I enjoyed the shoot. Here are a few of my favorite pictures along with a tear sheet:
A few days after I delivered the job, Lisa did send over their Photography Commissioning Agreement (modified, signed version). As far as magazine contracts go, it was more photographer-friendly than some and less than others.
Here’s a breakdown of the terms:
1. Fees. This says that we’ll negotiate the rate separately for each assignment. That’s fine. Though my preference has always been to structure editorial fees on the basis of a day rate vs. space. That way, the compensation is proportionate to the use and you only have to negotiate the expenses on a case-by-case basis.
2. Grant of Rights. Exclusive first worldwide rights. Fine. Archiving rights. Fine. Web use. Fine. Use in the publisher’s other magazines at their normal space rates. Fine. Anthology use is starting to push it a little. If they’re going to create a new product that generates new revenue, I think that deserves additional compensation for the photographer. I didn’t think the point was significant enough to object to, so I let it be. Reprint rights. Not fine. When a third party licenses editorial photos as part of an article, they’re typically used for promotion, which is essentially advertising. That has real value and should be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. I struck that line. Foreign language editions. Okay, but also pushing it. Again, if the publisher is making significant new revenue, I think the photographer should too. In this case, I don’t think they have foreign editions. So I chose not to fight that battle. Advertising use. In retrospect, I should have clarified that they could use the pictures for advertising provided they were used in the context of the magazine. As a practical matter, I think this is what they would do anyway. Syndication and other third party use. No. Again, if my photograph is generating new revenue, I think I’m reasonably entitled to some of it.
3. Services. The photographer will follow instructions and adhere to professional standards. Of course.
4. Expenses. Publisher will pay for travel expenses. Fine.
5. Publisher’s Expenses. Publisher will arrange and pay for studio and location fees. Fine.
6. Submission and Acceptance. Photographer will turn in the photos as soon as possible and the magazine has no obligation to run them. Fine. What it doesn’t specifically say is whether they’ll pay the photographer if they reject the photos. I take that to mean that they will. I’ve seen contracts where the client wants to pay a kill fee if they choose not to use the photographs for any reason. I think it’s reasonable for the photographer to reshoot the job at his own expense if the pictures were unusable because of his negligence. But I also think it’s reasonable for the client to pay the photographer in full if they choose not to use the pictures for any other reason.
7. Payment. Publisher will pay photographer in the ordinary course of business. Okay. But specifying 30 or 60 days would be better. Photographer will provide copies of receipts and will be issued an IRS 1099 form on the total invoice (which the photographer will have to claim as income). Good. Some magazines want original receipts, which is not reasonable. (The photographer needs the originals in case of an audit.) If the client does insist on originals, they should 1099 you for just the fees rather than the fees plus expenses.
8. Exclusivity. 90 days from on-sale date. A little on the long side, but fine.
9. Models, Etc. Photographer will get releases signed when asked by the photo editor. Fine.
10. Retention of Photographs. Publisher may hold on to original photographs until publication and duplicates thereafter. Okay, but not ideal. I’m shooting digital, so it’s a moot point. But photographers delivering original transparencies should put a limit on how long a magazine can hold the pictures without publishing them (this goes for exclusivity too).
11. Credit. You will get a credit, but we’ll decide what it looks like. Okay.
12. Representations and Warranties. You shot the pictures, they’re yours to license, and their publication won’t infringe on anyone else’s rights, and the photographer will cooperate in defending any third party claims. Fine.
13. Term. The agreement will be effective until terminated by either party. Okay, but not ideal. I think it’s better to have an actual termination date. The contract is going to evolve one way or another. Having multiple contracts can make it unclear which contract affects which assignment.
14. Independent Contractor. The photographer is independent for tax, unemployment, insurance and liability purposes. Fine.
15. Miscellaneous. The contract is governed by the laws of the State of New York. Fine.
I then sent my invoice with the appropriate back-up. (You’ll notice that I only had one hotel room. I actually didn’t share a room with my assistant. Our shoot happened to be close to her parent’s house, so she stayed there.)
Last week, Leslie Dela Vega was kind enough to field a few questions from me. Leslie has been the Photo Director at Fast Company since last November. After receiving a photography degree at San Francisco State University in 1998, Leslie landed an internship at Vibe Magazine. In between, she has also worked in the photo departments of Self, Premiere, Teen People, then back at Vibe as DP, Fortune, Time and Essence. Leslie is a frequent speaker and panelist and she has helped judge competitions for SPD Awards, American Photo Awards and Communication Arts Photography Annual. If that’s not enough, she has also continued to pursue her own photography when time allows.
The robot shoot I did for Lisa was for your Fast Talks section. The rate was 1500.00 plus travel expenses. Do you have standard rates for other sections of the magazine and for the cover? And if so, what are they?
We have just the front of the book, then features. For the front of the book our budget is usually 1500.00 which includes all expenses. Unless of course, there is travel involved. For the feature well, it usually depends on what is being photographed, how it is photographed, is there a concept, additional props, studio, etc. It’s a little more production heavy so the budget varies. But they usually start at 1500.00 and go upward.
How much/how often do you stick to those rates and how much do you negotiate depending on the photographer?
We stick to those rates all the time, unless of course, there is a special circumstance, like more equipment is needed for a particular shoot. At times, some negotiating is required if there is a photographer we really want to work with and travel is needed, etc.
Of the photographers you work with, what proportion of them sign your contract as-is and what proportion successfully negotiate revisions?
Most of them sign the contract as is. If there are any revisions, it’s usually the 3rd party clause, which is understandable. But [even when] that clause … is not revised, I will ALWAYS reach out to the photographer and discuss the situation (if it arises) with them so they are fully aware and will work with them.
Do you have any experiences you can relate or advice you can give photographers about how to best approach the negotiating process with magazine photo editors?
Please remember that most photo editors, if not all, are on the side of the photographer. We know how hard you work, and if we have a relationship with you, there is a trust involved. So you should be able to feel comfortable in negotiating any assignment and we will try as much as possible to accommodate you, if not more. Our goal is to bring incredible imagery to our magazines and we can only do that with you. It’s a 2 way street. We need each other.
50 Comments
As always, thanks to Wonderful Machine. I really like where Fast Company has netted out in the last few years and Leslie Dela Vega’s presence is well noticed. Thanks all. Oh, and nice shots btw.
It’s great to hear that the photo editors are on our side. I think it bodes well for the industry. It’s definitely the way to continue to “bring incredible imagery” to publications. Thanks Leslie and Bill!
Negotiating terms after a shoot makes me nervous but it seems like the right thing to do in the situation. I’m wondering how much the client had to do with you being okay with it, ie they are a reputable publication and a first time client.
great information in here, thanks.
I agree. What if things get sticky after the work is performed, expenses, and opportunity costs incurred? Best to have a clear agreement beforehand.
As for crossing out the offending passages in the contract, did Bill have a conversation with the PE beforehand, or did he just cross it out, send it over and wait for a response?
I find that every client has unique sensitivities and their own way of handling contracts. Sometimes I’ll have a conversation ahead of time about revisions, especially if I think there’s some major point of contention. Often the PE will hint at how strict they are with revisions when they send the contract. But it’s totally customary (and often the most effective way) to just make your cross-outs and send it back. Most people who write contracts are writing a “wish list” that they don’t expect to go unchallenged.
thanks for your reply. And I want to say super double thanks for taking part in all these “Real World Estimates”. I just bid an ad job and these posts have been very helpful.
The difference between an amateur and a professional photographer is not only experience but understanding the business side. I have a lot of very talented photographer friends. I always tell the if someone wants them to do some photos to charge and charge the market rate. Undercutting professional photographers hurts there livelihood and does nothing to help the amateur. It delutes the value of photography. My recommendation to amateur photographers is get good, get good fast and then charge the market rate. Let the customer sort out then who is the best based on quality and artistic abilities and not price.
Thank you Rob and Bill for revealing a photography contract (editorial) that many inexperienced photographers may not have seen or experienced yet. I find this contract typical of “respected and experienced” publishers that hire “respected and experienced” photographers. They’ve had enough photographers say -“no thank you” and have realized that “if we have a relationship with you, there (must be) trust involved.” What scares the heck out of me is the attitude that many of your readers (fellow photographers) are exhibiting. Statements like “makes me nervous,” should I do this.” “can I do that,” only make me wonder how these photographers deal with used car salesman and their day to day life. Remember – the client hired you and they “need” your skill and talent to create their publication. Yes – I constantly “mark through” contracts and send them back. I often ask for the “one time usage” contract that they have hidden away in their desk. I can’t emphasis enough that “photographers are in the drivers seat” and that we can and MUST demand respect and “fair” usage rights. Believe me – it works – if you just stand up and have some self respect.
Thanks for the info and Don is right on the money. I just started doing more magazine work and the contract I received recently wanted everything but my first born. I wanted the assignment and I have given things away needlessly in the past. Thanks to ASMP and listening to experienced photographers I stuck to my guns and got the work.
I don’t want to be a dick, however…I went to Leslie Dela Vega’s site and I’m shocked at the low quality of the portfolio. So she got a photography degree in 98 and has worked ever since in the image world, and that’s the best she can do?
I don’t want to needlessly pick on her. But as an amateur thinking about turning pro, I like checking out portfolios. In many instances I find that people who have been doing this for years (or decades) and even have degrees etc actually have little to show for themselves, which for me is fairly encouraging.
You do understand that she is the Photo Director for Fast Company, correct? A mag that has consistently good photography?
Photo editors don’t need to also be amazing photographers in order to be very good at their jobs. Being and editor and a photographer are not the same thing. Plus, as you grow in your career even if you really don’t like someone else’s work it’s usually better to keep it to yourself unless you have a very specific reason for challenging what they do. Photography is a lot about taste and someone’s work might not be good to you, but others might love it. Focus all your energy on your own work.
Yeah, good luck, Bart.
I would consider Leslie very good at her job. Fast Company is a magazine that absolutely does consistently have top notch creative portraiture…. Major kudos to Leslie for that, and major double kudos for participating in this interview. There isn’t anything more valuable that she can do for the photo community than hire good photographers at decent rates, and give us good advice in the form of letting us peek behind the curtain. Thank you, Leslie… and thank you, Bill…
Loved reading all of this. Thanks for the support guys. Shooting for me comes second to my job as a photo editor. So I don’t take the time to do a killer wedding portfolio. But I do this for pure fun and pleasure. It makes me happy and I’m not out there to get the $10,000 wedding gig. But photo editing is my first passion so I will take this very seriously. It’s important to me to work with photographers who feel the same way. And together we can do some killer work.
Bart, how about a look at your pile. I have to say that if Leslie has been working as a PE for the majority of her career, I certainly wouldn’t be looking at her website. I would be looking at the imagery at each of the mags she worked for, and from the images I have seen at vibe and Essence over the years she has got a very good eye.
I think you are being unkind. There are photographers making a living doing work of similar or lesser quality. But judge her by the quality of the photography in magazine that she works for. I would say she’s very good at her job. The photography is consistently of a very high quality, even if stylistically I find it a bit narrow.
Being a great photographer and being a great photo editor are not necessarily linked. One of the best photo editors I know here in my regional market in Asia is an average photographer at best . Fantastic eye for great photos but not good on the other side of the camera.
I don’t agree with judging her work when she didn’t ask for it…but I have an interesting question.
Leslie seems to be putting herself out there as a professional photographer, and when you back out all the expenses like the post said…would LDLV shoot a job for $600? Just curious how she feels since she might be on both sides of the equation.
Yes, fellows, I do understand she is a photo editor at Fast Company and good at her job. I also understand she doesn’t need to be a fabulous photographer to do what she does. You are right that she shouldn’t be judged by her photography as it is not her primary job. She does however put it out there, and I was just surprised at the quality of it, given her long experience and degree. That is all.
Being naive, I don’t understand this contract as a money-maker for the photog. After paying for the assistant, depreciating his equipment and driving 10 hours, there just doesn’t seem to be much left from the $1500.
agreed. this was a great deal for the magazine on an out-of-town shoot. driving ten hours? he should have flown from Philly to Pittsburgh with the inevitable bag charges on top of the cost of a ticket, and submitted it as expenses. it would have increased the cost of the shoot significantly. he did them a big favor and I’m not sure why.
Why? I’m guessing because if he doesn’t…someone else will. It’s just reality.
Have not shot for Fast Company yet, but other magazines will arrange flights for that distance between cities and will use their in-house travel to so there is no up-front airline cost to the photographer.
Don’t be ridiculous, the drive from Philly to Pittsburgh is an easy 5 hours. For a shoot on such turnaround why would you want to waste all the time going to the airport, checking bags, going through security, risking losing or damaging gear in transit, renting a car..etc etc. On top of all of that, the cost of two roundtrip plane tickets would be difficult to justify.
Remember, clients will respect you and hire you more often if you’re mindful of and not wasteful with their budgets.
If you don’t want the work, fine, I’m sure Bill and the rest of us will be happy to do it.
welcome to editorial work. rarely do the economics make sense. but there’s always a steady churn ready to jump into the meat grinder – go look at credit lines from a decade ago and see how many are still at it today.
interesting insight..
Thanks for sharing. Great information.
Great post Rob,
I’m a big fan of Bill’s, first as a shooter and second as a good business man.
Keep up the great work, both of you.
Thank you for sharing the info about this report and images. It was very interesting to read.
[…] may be why we love these Real World Estimates features from A Photo Editor which detail exactly how a photographer goes about setting up a contract with a […]
Just got a chance to read this. Awesome and relevant post! Thank you for sharing in such detail, Bill… and to Rob for posting it here.
i just want to say, in regards to the comment about the contract being given afterward. its both the photo editor’s responsibility AND the photographer’s to ask for it. i think Bill should have asked for it and not made a point to just say it was the photo editor’s job to deliver it. its both parties involved.
Great stuff Rob. Love when you post this kind of thing.
Nice photos and good info. However, I have some observations. I would always add “Upon receipt of full payment” before any grant of rights. Secondly, I would strike the last two sentences in section 12. Why? because you have no control over what will make it into print. If they run your photo with the headline “Robotic lesbian baby-killer” you can be sure you will be sued along with the magazine. As a VERY small business, I prefer not to open myself up to liability. Also, what if you include a sculpture or building in one of the shots. It could easily leave you on the hook for violating “3rd party rights.”
Finally, if they are only willing to pay a flat fee, why should they get receipts for expenses. Your invoice is the only receipt they need provide the IRS. Companies are only required to provide receipts for EMPLOYEE travel expenses and in Section 14 it states that you are not one. Receipts are usually required to keep people honest about expenses and, in this case, you were dishonest about your assistant, IN THE COMPANY’S FAVOR.
You’ll find a link to the actual invoice in the post. The fee was only partially “flat.” Fast Company paid separately for my travel expenses (mileage, hotel, parking, meals) which I provided copies of receipts for (which is reasonable). I didn’t do anything dishonest about my assistant. The assistant fee was bundled into the 1500.00 “flat fee.”
This may sound stupid, but I just dont see how anyone can make a life out of these types of jobs. I mean, if we make a veritable list of cost-of-doing-business, this looks like a job where the photographer paid for the job, and he got losses, to boot. No way he can cover everything, including gas, use of car, and the ton of little costs with $1500.
The hard reality is the ad revenue of the past is gone, and the mag business is on life support. The blood and sweat keeping that life support on a respirator is coming directly from photogs who have made a choice to pay for jobs. I respect that choice with all of my bein, each one of us has to carry their own cross. Each man or woman’s choices are their own. But I can not share into this way of doing business by harpooning myself to a whale that is going under for good. Am I a Kassandra here? Doesnt anyone else see it?
This makes me sad. To watch the best of us give in to so many awful awful contract demagoguery that simply “falsely legitimizes” unscrupulous armed robbery, if you ask me.
But I am a nobody. I am just saying, it just looks terrible. If it smells and looks like,… then it is, right. I mean, what gorgeous photographs. I mean beautiful beautiful work!!! for $1500 where he porbably spend double that in CODB? Am I nuts? Show me any other business where the manufacturer pays the buyer for the product, ships it for free, takes losses, and delivers an amazing product at a loss. Please.
Anyway. Shame on the mag business. This is exploitative. And to add salt to open wound, all these rights grabbing the photog has convinced himself is fair?
Terrible.
I run a pretty low overhead operation, and I take a dim view of any job that averages out to under $150 an hour for my time. And my volume is fairly average based on my experience previously as a studio manager.
By the time you factor in the cost of insurance, retirement, general savings, equipment/software upgrades and necessary marketing expenses to get work… anything less than that is a losing situation.
The clear answer is: don’t do it. You’ll go out business either way. Might as well demand something realistic from the buyer. I’ve also found most editorial work has more money available than what is offered.
oh and then they take 50+ days to pay you. Bad deal.
Before I stopped shooting stills I shot editorial as a form of marketing and networking. I might make a few grand in usage and creative fee, which sometimes was not eaten up by production expensis that went beyond the budget. What I got out of such a deal was worth it: great photos; production costs to make those great photos; a very good lunch with my team and PE; professional contact with new stylists, MUAs, assistants etc. You cannot make a good living soley shooting editorial anymore, which is a shame, because it is the most fun a professional photographer can have. But in the end, I don’t regret (m)any of the editorial assignments I took.
Marco, You are not alone in your observations.
i know this sounds horrible, but sometimes you have to do jobs like this to get your foot in the door. everyone posting on here is failing to see the big picture here. bill had never shot for fast company before. the photo editor, Lisa, called him and he even states he was excited to hear from her. as a photographer myself, i will often go well out of my way to really impress a first time client. that doesnt mean i will KEEP doing it and repeat that behavior. and who is to say that Fast Company’s terms are like that for everyone? it is true their rate is 1500$ but there was travel factored in here. if there isnt travel, the photographer is getting more creative fee. there arent too many REALLY strong editorial photographers in pittsburgh. i think bill cramer should feel really honored that Fast Company (of all mags) picked him, that his photo editor chose him to drive from Philly to Pittsburgh, all on his first time shooting for them. i say rock on Fast Company, Bill, and that photo editor Lisa for giving a guy a shot.
David, that is point right on the money. And, in that light, my comments are off base. Though I am a newbie at this, specially as I just moved back to New York, after 4 years working in South-America, I have pursued the same philosophy for a first job, even a second job with a new client. So kudos for Bill, and I take my comments back.
As a whole, though, we need to push back a little more about rights grabbing. I think clienst are taking adavantage of the glut of good photogs in a horrible market, and we need to find a way to appeal to buyers’ conscience.
I’ve just read the thread of comments and would like to say a few things. I am a Photo Editor for an ipad only magazine based in the UK. I’ve worked as a Photo Editor for 11 years and appreciate every photographer i’ve ever worked with, and the amount of work they do produce for the publications i’ve been at over the years. If a photographer is easy going, great to communicate with, and always produces great visuals, then he or she will always have a place in the publication i’m working for.
Photo Editors have a very hard time working within the budgets set by the powers that be, and it’s not an easy job. in fact, it’s a very thankless task. I could just be speaking for myself here but if there is more money in the budget then the photographer will get it. Clients never take advantage of good photographers and the only way you can be a real asset and appeal to a ‘buyers conscience’ is to make yourself invaluable to that magazine….and that can simply come down to being approachable and great to deal with. You will always remain an asset to not only the magazine but also, more importantly, the Photo Editor AND Creative Director (who are also influencial). If a photographer becomes difficult to negotiate or communicate with then more often then not, the relationship stops. If you put yourself out there, be gracious for the commission, then the Photo Editor will always try to make the rights suit both parties. I’ve worked with many high end photographers who have been both wonderful and terrible to deal with. If the terrible person is a big name, then i won’t deal with them again. Regardless of who they are.
However, remember that a rights contract is very rarely drawn up by a Photo Editor, but rather by the company the publication is part of. It doesn’t mean to say that a Photo Editor has the authority to change these, but he or she will certainly want to try and help tailor these, to an extent.
David is right – you have to do jobs to get your foot in the door. Absolutely 100%. The reward is many many more commissions and a wealth of material for your own portfolio and archive. Only when you build this up through editorial jobs, do you then get those big advertising numbers. Photographers shouldn’t forget this.
As an ipad title, we deal with motion picture and factored into that is a whole other lot of costs such as sound design, post production editing and motion colour control to name just a few. Photographers often forgo a fee to have the chance to produce great films for an editorial platform. But they do this because they know it will lead onto bigger and better things that will always outweigh the salary of a Photo Editor…which isn’t much by the way! The saying ‘speculate to accumulate’ is completely appropriate here.
Thanks, Bill, for sharing. And Rob for the great post (as always).
Despite some of the criticisms above, the rate for this job, and the contract (plus the fact that Bill could revise it), are on the decent side as far as how the photographer makes out (compared to some of what is out there).
I’m curious how photographers respond when they submit edits to, or attempt to have a discussion about, a contract but are then told that the contract is “non negotiable”? (Which is the case with some larger publications).
I know Photo Editors are just doing their job, that they generally have good intentions for photographers needs, and are not the ones who make the contract. It’s heartbreaking though to work so hard to get assignments, but then be faced with so little rights for such small compensation.
So, to those more experienced than myself…. How do you respond to this situation? Is there a way of reaching higher in the contract chain to actually be able to make revisions to contracts, and have them approved? What do you do?
“She also sent a Photo Directive that provided general guidance about what kind of pictures Fast Company likes to use, as well as nuts-and-bolts reminders about shooting with and without eye contact, horizontals and verticals, posed and off-moment pictures, a variety of angles, expressions and scale. Lisa also sent about 30 photographs to show examples of their idea of a successful environmental portrait.”
I’m sort of amazed that the comments have all been about rates and rights on this – thank you for sharing Bill – or the absurdity – what Leslie’s website has to do with her abilities as an editor – wtf ?
Stunning and scary, is the indifference in this group to an editor outlining how to shoot a photograph complete with examples by other photographers.
I didn’t read it as “shoot the job this way”, more a “these are the kind of shots we like, in case you don’t have a pile of back copies of the magazine in your studio”. I actually think that’s immensely useful if it’s the first time shooting for a publication.
Very nice post. Although im from Denmark, I can use some part of the post, to create my own contracts to clients :)
[…] Change Collective and the Library of Congress to Cooperate (TIME LB: June 2011)Bill Kramer: Real World Estimates – Magazine Contract (A Photo Editor: June 2011)BJP: The future of photography? Kadir van Lohuizen’s launches an […]
[…] .Time Magazine Estimates National Equality March at 200000. Written by scott on October 12th, 2009Real World Estimates Magazine ContractJun 21, 2011 by Bill Cramer, Wonderful Machine CEO A few months ago, I got my first assignment from […]
Comments are closed for this article!