|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 21, 2007, 7:27 AM
Post #1 of 46
(6618 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Deep Mediaplay:
Unlike you, i think the more people who speak about this, the better. I don't mind having my opinion made public. If you have such strong views about the Micros ruining photogrpahy, let's talk publicly and stop sending me IM. Of course, last time we did that, you put your foot in your mouth didn't you.
You still embarass about it.
my response to your IM
Again, 3700 a month for me is not chump change. The unfortunate truth is that the micros are here to stay and they are not going anywhere. The other unfortunate truth is that some starter magazines want pictures for free until they get off their feet. I don’t criticize them and I even give them images if I like what they do.
If you are serious about wanting to earn a living with your camera, you shouldn’t turn your nose at them. They serve a purpose and they have a market nitch that will never buy RM images.
Royalty free images have been here for a long time. They were once sold on CD room. Now, the CD room is obsolete and the internet helps market RF images to a broad market. I think one day soon, RM images will be obsolete too. That’s just part of life.
I don't think I under value my work. I have images I would not put on the micros, that's for sure. I sell those as prints and make 300 to 1000 bucks a sell on those images. The reason I don’t see myself as underselling is that I make over 3000.00 a month with a lot less work then I would if I sold fewer images at higher prices.
I also contribute to magazines on occasions. I sometime write too, but my full-time job is teaching. I love being in the classroom and I won't give it up.
Why the micros. The micros are easy, convenient, and fast. I upload images, add keywords and wait. They deposit the money in my Paypal account. I don't have to send out invoices, market myself, or run after non-paying clients. Basically, I get to take pictures and nothing more.
I suggest you look around at the industry once more. More and more buyers and sellers are realizing the power of the micros. They are a significant force in the industry and they are growing not getting smaller.
Whether or not you sell through them, I could careless, but I am here to tell you, I made 3700 last month with images from a D70. I shot what I wanted and I didn't find buyers, they found my images.
By the way, I am putting together a picture book. It's sort of an on going project and I have found a publisher. The images in that book are never going to be on the micros and I wouldn't put them online (Especially on this site). I guess that means the publisher sees enough in my images to think the books will sell in four languages.
I have no issues with my images selling for a buck each. I have traded them for gear, lift tickets, and airline vouchers in the past and still do. Now I sell them online with the micros and make more money than some of the so called "professional Photographers" make. No, I am not a professional tog, it’s my hobby and I get paid to play.
Photography is my hobby. When I started with my micros, my goal was 300.00 a month. I couldn't have imagined break beyond that, but I have. Giving up 40,000 a year because some "Pro tog" doesn't like what my sell model represent is simply not going to happen.
But thanks for your message on how lame I am for not getting paid properly for my images. Personally, I think over 3000.00 a month is fine in the big picture. Big buddy, the bottom line.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Sep 21, 2007, 8:44 AM
Post #2 of 46
(6593 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
guangzhou wrote: Giving up 40,000 a year because some "Pro tog" doesn't like my shameless spam is simply not going to happen.
here, I fixed it for you
(This post was edited by melekzek on Sep 21, 2007, 8:45 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 22, 2007, 2:57 AM
Post #3 of 46
(6511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
melekzek wrote: guangzhou wrote: Giving up 40,000 a year because some "Pro tog" doesn't like my shameless spam is simply not going to happen. here, I fixed it for you
Thanks for fixing it. Appreciate your insight.
Still love your photos by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
glytch
Sep 22, 2007, 4:14 AM
Post #4 of 46
(6495 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2006
Posts: 194
|
I don't know the backstory here well, but as far as I can tell, someone just got bitchslapped.
Seems like you have a good gig going. More power to you - if full time, professional photographers can't compete with an amateur, part time photographer selling his less remarkable photos for $1/photo, well, the pro should find another job. If a bunch of amateurs can provide the photos that the market is willing to pay for, well, the pros should get better or consider other occupations.
I'm in engineering, and I face the same issues - if I'm not good, I can be replaced by someone from another country who'll work for far less than I will. The right response is not to yell at the other person because they're willing to work for too little - the right response is to make yourself a more valuable employee (or, in my case, student).
... If the situation is far different from what I imagine it to be, sorry for the misguided rant.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 22, 2007, 7:09 AM
Post #5 of 46
(6468 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
glytch wrote: I don't know the backstory here well, but as far as I can tell, someone just got bitchslapped. Seems like you have a good gig going. More power to you - if full time, professional photographers can't compete with an amateur, part time photographer selling his less remarkable photos for $1/photo, well, the pro should find another job. If a bunch of amateurs can provide the photos that the market is willing to pay for, well, the pros should get better or consider other occupations. I'm in engineering, and I face the same issues - if I'm not good, I can be replaced by someone from another country who'll work for far less than I will. The right response is not to yell at the other person because they're willing to work for too little - the right response is to make yourself a more valuable employee (or, in my case, student). ... If the situation is far different from what I imagine it to be, sorry for the misguided rant.
Nicely put. I work in the International School System and the same is true here. You get a two year contract, if you are good, get results, and keep the respect of all you serve, you get the new contract, if not, move on.
Eman
|
|
|
|
|
the_alpine
Sep 24, 2007, 1:05 AM
Post #6 of 46
(6388 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2003
Posts: 371
|
You guangwho - what's your name? You talk so much shit that I'm sure you can back it up. I just want to see some of your work.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Sep 24, 2007, 1:16 AM
Post #7 of 46
(6378 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
Google emmanuel lacoste photography (easy to find the name using public info from this site. Though I spent a few minutes with it a bit ago, I never came up with ANY photos that seemed more then just snapshots, definitely nothing nearly as good as the people he likes to talk down to here...
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 24, 2007, 3:48 AM
Post #8 of 46
(6337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
I already said I am an amateur at this. One who makes a nice income because he found a niche for his work. I recommend you look in magazines and see what sells. You’ll find most images are not fine art.
Not hard, I have given my referral links to various site. You can go look at my stuff.
My photos are not art, that's for sure, but photo buyers buy them and I make a ice extra income.
You can find my stuff on AbsoluteStock photo, http://www.absolutestockphoto.com/photo_45353.html, SS, Dreanstime, and Istock. You can also find other photos I don't sell on those sites in issues of Action Asia, Stars and Stripes, Oki Stripes, Outdoor Japan, Rock and Snow. Climb (China's Magazine). those are this years publication and should be around if you hunt for them.
(This post was edited by guangzhou on Sep 24, 2007, 3:54 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Sep 24, 2007, 4:43 PM
Post #9 of 46
(6281 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
I don't really mind your business model all that much, mostly because my day rate is what you make in a month, but your images simply hurt my eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Sep 24, 2007, 5:20 PM
Post #10 of 46
(6258 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
And I thought sport climbers liked to spray...
You guys take this to a whole new level.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 25, 2007, 12:29 AM
Post #11 of 46
(6191 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
grayhghost wrote: I don't really mind your business model all that much, mostly because my day rate is what you make in a month, but your images simply hurt my eyes.
Wow, a world class tog, not many photogrpaher make over $3000.00 a day for their shoots.
Again, I am just an Amateure. Some people like my images, some don't. No skin off my back.
Cheers,
Eman
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Sep 25, 2007, 1:43 AM
Post #13 of 46
(6162 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
If I may... (puts on slicker)
I don't deny that this thread has been hosed down, but I think what some of the guys in here are saying is this:
It's enough for the OP to spew his self-righteous drama queen spray "for thepublic to see," but add to that the fact that this guy's skills are mediocre at best just makes it that much more obnoxious. Typical rc.com, right?
Hey, that's right skippy that guanwho (!) is a pro photog with images like this:
I guess I should be more annoyed with myself, though. I mean, with stuff like that out in the ether, I guess I have no excuse, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Sep 25, 2007, 5:32 PM
Post #14 of 46
(6097 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
guangzhou wrote: I have no issues with my images selling for a buck each. I have traded them for gear, lift tickets, and airline vouchers in the past and still do. Now I sell them online with the micros and make more money than some of the so called "professional Photographers" make. No, I am not a professional tog, it’s my hobby and I get paid to play.
See, that's the crazy part, I treat photography as a side business as well, but rather than charging a dollar for an image I charge one thousand dollars for an image.
When people want your work, like you claim they want yours, you can set the price at whatever you want.
If you think your work is worth a dollar, then I pity you.
This whole "pro verses amateur" battle is simply absurd. We as image-makers are a resource that can change the world.
You are in control if somebody wants your image!
The great thing is, if you start acting like your work is worth a thousand dollars then you feel pressure to live up to that price and start producing phenomenal work.
Try it out, it just might work!
|
|
|
|
|
deepplaymedia
Sep 25, 2007, 10:18 PM
Post #15 of 46
(6046 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 192
|
I just saw this thread... Guangzou, you are a douche. I have given up on you.
Firstly, all I did was PM you a link that gave some insight into why I thought micros were bad news. I COULD have posted that here, out of spite I almost DID! But in the interests of not appearing malicious and not embarrassing YOU I decided to PM you. Here is the thread starting with my original message:
In reply to: thought this may be of interest to you... http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/microstock_sites.asp -jc.
(I recommend everyone read that link before posting anything else here.)
your response;
In reply to: Thanks, nothing new with photographer direct. I think you really should relook at the micros. Whether you like them or not, they are here to stay. Most of the big stock house now have a micro payment site too. I make good money with them, why would I drop that income because some people don't like them. If I did drop them now, I wuold have last $3700.00 in income last month. Four site with payout of $.30 to 1.00 per photo download. I am not ready to give up nearly four grand. Thanks, Eman
my response to that;
In reply to: i'm not suggesting that you give up that income- im suggesting that you are selling yourself short & that if your photos are in fact worth buying (i can't say as i havent seen them) then you would be able to make FAR more by licensing far fewer photos on a rights-managed basis (even in this stingy industry it takes me about 5 or 6 editorial sales to make 4gees, which is EASILY done in a month. how many micro shots are you selling to make that? & thats not even counting commercial sales, which pull in LOTS more) PLUS you wouldnt be harming the industry that is helping to support you. I won't be looking at micros. ever. i fail to understand why you do, but its your choice. cheers, -jc.
BY THE WAY, ghost was not spraying- he was pointing out how skewed gungzunks view of reality vs. his business model is... that is pretty standard for a day rate. I charge about the same, depending on the client & the budget of the shoot. Many photographers charge MUCH higher just to get out of bed.
|
|
|
|
|
deepplaymedia
Sep 25, 2007, 10:31 PM
Post #16 of 46
(6039 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 192
|
wow.... i have not looked at your other work but based on the photos posted above...
i realise that quality of work has no bearing on basic business sense, but i'd like to introduce you to a friendly institution we have on wheelsandwax.com (an action sports photography forum) that is used to deal with photos that have obviously had very little thought or effort put into them....
gunkzonk, meet the squirrel nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
climb_eng
Sep 26, 2007, 12:20 AM
Post #17 of 46
(5997 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2007
Posts: 1701
|
If $3000 bucks a day really is your day rate, then I hope these microstock houses put you out of business. I have a real job (tm) doing useful things (not making pretty pictures for ads) and I make about $4000/month. If you make that a day, then I hope your empire crumbles and you have to work for a living like the vast majority of people in the world.
Sound cruel and tasteless, maybe... but lets break this down.
At a $3000/day day rate, working half the year (say 182.5 days), you make:
$547,000 a year.... thats more then many CEOs make per year. YOU ARE NOT WORTH CLOSE TO THAT!!!!!! Maybe you were, when photography wasn't digital, but now, anyone can take quality shots.... I hope your business falls out from under you quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 26, 2007, 12:47 AM
Post #18 of 46
(5984 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
climb_eng wrote: If $3000 bucks a day really is your day rate, then I hope these microstock houses put you out of business. I have a real job (tm) doing useful things (not making pretty pictures for ads) and I make about $4000/month. If you make that a day, then I hope your empire crumbles and you have to work for a living like the vast majority of people in the world. Sound cruel and tasteless, maybe... but lets break this down. At a $3000/day day rate, working half the year (say 182.5 days), you make: $547,000 a year.... thats more then many CEOs make per year. YOU ARE NOT WORTH CLOSE TO THAT!!!!!! Maybe you were, when photography wasn't digital, but now, anyone can take quality shots.... I hope your business falls out from under you quickly.
You're an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 26, 2007, 12:49 AM
Post #19 of 46
(5984 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
climb_eng wrote: If $3000 bucks a day really is your day rate, then I hope these microstock houses put you out of business. I have a real job (tm) doing useful things (not making pretty pictures for ads) and I make about $4000/month. If you make that a day, then I hope your empire crumbles and you have to work for a living like the vast majority of people in the world. Sound cruel and tasteless, maybe... but lets break this down. At a $3000/day day rate, working half the year (say 182.5 days), you make: $547,000 a year.... thats more then many CEOs make per year. YOU ARE NOT WORTH CLOSE TO THAT!!!!!! Maybe you were, when photography wasn't digital, but now, anyone can take quality shots.... I hope your business falls out from under you quickly.
In his very next post he explained that he and his magazine only took photos from professional photographers and they didn’t pay for them because they could afford too. Maybe he should use some of his day rate income for this.
About his day rate- His next comment will probably be about how little few days his works, so your number for annual income is too high. Maybe he would work more if he had a more reasonable rate. Study business a little and you’ll find that what charging less often yields more profits for very little more work.
Deep: I explained this to you before, but maybe the post was too complicated and long for you to understand. Here goes:
Different images for different markets at different prices:
I have prints for sell too. My print sells average me 250.00 a sell after my expenses. I sell one or two here and there. Why, I don’t have time to market them. (these are my great shots.) Very really are they climbing related, let’s face it, in the big picture, the market for climbing images is tiny and has no money. A+ image category.
Micros get my ordinary and generic images. The site market my work and they sell. Bottom line, those images are not art, but photo-buyers need the images for something and they sell. The micros match my teaching salary, so I wouldn’t give them up. In two years, I am taking a sabbatical and doing a around the world climbing trip for 15 months. This is because of my micro stock image income. I don’t plan on camping along the way either.
Editorial, sometime write and sell articles. Four editors use my stuff in all their issues and a three more use my stuff regularly. I use what ever images I have that fit the story for editorial. Again, it’s not my main income, so I don’t push.
You link to the stock photography request newsletter. Of course they don’t like the micros. It’s their competition. I receive that newsletter and photo request daily among others. The average photo price is $25.00. True they have some request in the hundreds too. In one year, I sold two photos through their requests. Two reasons, I don’t have what they need most of the time and I don’t send what I have often. Not time, this is my side hobby.
I originally sold photos to pay for my camera. Now, I make a little more and I keep selling them.
In all honesty, the images posted above aren’t great I agree. Especially my self portrait, but both have sold many times. I know for sure they would never make it in a climbing magazine in any country, but they have been used by insurance companies (they paid me 100.00 for the dyno shot), travel brochures, articles about taking risk in the stock market. Those are the only ones I know about because I sold those directly. Three sell, 215.00. I was ok with that. On the micros, the self portrait, me starting to rope solo a Yosemite route about been down loaded 1250 times in one year. I can live with that. Better then the photo seating on my hard-drive making me no money.
Look in textbook and magazines; you’ll see most images are mediocre. Look at billboard ads with climbers and you won’t see great climbing images. The public doesn’t see climbing photography like climbers do, the public pays more, so I cater to them.
Since this post was started, I have had 1500 downloads across the micros. You do the math. I have not uploaded any images in that time.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 26, 2007, 1:10 AM
Post #20 of 46
(5968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
caughtinside wrote: climb_eng wrote: If $3000 bucks a day really is your day rate, then I hope these microstock houses put you out of business. I have a real job (tm) doing useful things (not making pretty pictures for ads) and I make about $4000/month. If you make that a day, then I hope your empire crumbles and you have to work for a living like the vast majority of people in the world. Sound cruel and tasteless, maybe... but lets break this down. At a $3000/day day rate, working half the year (say 182.5 days), you make: $547,000 a year.... thats more then many CEOs make per year. YOU ARE NOT WORTH CLOSE TO THAT!!!!!! Maybe you were, when photography wasn't digital, but now, anyone can take quality shots.... I hope your business falls out from under you quickly. You're an idiot.
It's OK to have an opinion, but you have to be smart enough to defend it. Caling someone an idiot with no explanation.
See if you can back up what you say witth an explanation. maybe his math is wrong? maybe he didn't explain himself clearly? maybe he mis understood something?
Let's see if you are smart enough to back up your comment.
|
|
|
|
|
glytch
Sep 26, 2007, 1:17 AM
Post #21 of 46
(5963 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2006
Posts: 194
|
climb_eng wrote: If $3000 bucks a day really is your day rate, then I hope these microstock houses put you out of business. I have a real job (tm) doing useful things (not making pretty pictures for ads) and I make about $4000/month. If you make that a day, then I hope your empire crumbles and you have to work for a living like the vast majority of people in the world. Sound cruel and tasteless, maybe... but lets break this down. At a $3000/day day rate, working half the year (say 182.5 days), you make: $547,000 a year.... thats more then many CEOs make per year. YOU ARE NOT WORTH CLOSE TO THAT!!!!!! Maybe you were, when photography wasn't digital, but now, anyone can take quality shots.... I hope your business falls out from under you quickly.
... harsh, but true.
That micro-propaganda link deepplaymedia put up is just hilarious and not even remotely neutral. In order to badmouth micros, he cited a competitor to the micro sites. Great research link 
As I understand it, amateurs are undercutting pros by selling the sorts of photos that people want at prices that people can afford, and the pros are worried that they are going to lose market share. As I see it, though, there are lots of interesting pictures out there, worth a couple of dollars to have. They're not cover-photo worthy or artistic masterpieces, but they're interesting, pleasant, and plenty of people are willing to pay a few dollars for them. However, nobody would be willing to pay hundreds of dollars for them; they're not appropriate as large sales, but that doesn't make them worthless!
Oh, and $3000/day as a photographer seems pretty insane to me. That's a $1.2million dollar year if you find daily. If you make, as climb_eng, even half that, you ARE overpaid, and you SHOULD be afraid of a talented part-time amateur undercutting you.
|
|
|
|
|
deepplaymedia
Sep 26, 2007, 1:44 AM
Post #22 of 46
(5940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 192
|
As gonkzonk so wisely pointed out, my next point is going to be: how many days a year do you think I invoice a commercial creative fee? Weigh that up against the number of days that a photographer might spend researching, communicating with, meeting, negotiating, etc etc in order to get those days & it doesn't look so ridiculous any more.
And not anyone can take quality shots- the company has chosen you over anyone else because they feel that you are able to fulfill their requirements the best.
Another bit of food for thought- If a company has 300k to spend on an advertising campaign, which your photos are going to be the forefront of, what is wrong with charging out between 2-3% of the budget? If you quote at significantly less you will probably not get the job in the first place, because a creative director with that kind of money to spend will not take a photographer seriously if they can't even take themselves seriously enough to quote an appropriate creative fee for the job.
As for whoever pulled me up for citing a competitor of the micros as my reference... this is completely irrelevant. The principles they talk about are solid, unbiased & accurate regardless of their own agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Sep 26, 2007, 1:57 AM
Post #23 of 46
(5933 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
I know several wedding photographers that make from 3000 - 7000 a "day". But, they usually have 3-4 days of time in supporting that one day. So, that is more like a weekly rate for something they might do 20-30 times a year. Good money for sure, but not outlandish at all.
The photography industry is undergoing rapid change, of that there is no doubt. It is pretty much an across the board issue, and it is going to be tough for some people to continue to make the same kind of money that they made even two years ago. I look at microstocks and the $500 a day wedding photographers pretty much the same way: That is not the quality of work I want to be associated with, so it is up to me to find costumers that can see the difference and are willing to pay for it. I have spent the last year or so trying to find a way to turn photography into a full time job, and the best thing I could find doing something that I like is weddings (maybe horses as well). And that is a tough place for full time pros, due to people with a dslr a couple lenses and a website. They might shoot a couple weddings, realize it is more work then it is worth, get bored, or whatever, but there is always someone else to take their place. Same with microstock.
I think it is pretty easy to get a few good shots here and there, but to be able to turn out exceptional work, day in and day out, under all kinds of conditions is what sets a pro apart. So, it is up to the pro to seek out those types of opportunities and to be fully compensated for them.
One other place to look at for coming trends is photo journalism - papers, cnn, etc. all have some form of citizen reporting where the person providing the content does so for free. That model is great for the media companies, but leaves free lance PJ's in a world of hurt. So, they have to evolve or risk getting left behind.
As for eman, he is totally free to sell his images to whomever he wants for whatever he wants. But, I do think that he should be called out on the lack of quality of it, since he his had no problem in the past offering all kinds of advice on climbing photography. Just like a new trad leader is not the person that needs to be talking about escaping the belay 5 pitches up, he doesn't need to be giving out photo technique advise without showing his work so that people can decide for themselves if he is a credible source. I have seen and been impressed by the work of many people here, so I tend to give what they say more weight then those whose work I have not seen, or have seen and have not been impressed. I guess it is just a full disclosure type thing.
glytch wrote: climb_eng wrote: If $3000 bucks a day really is your day rate, then I hope these microstock houses put you out of business. I have a real job (tm) doing useful things (not making pretty pictures for ads) and I make about $4000/month. If you make that a day, then I hope your empire crumbles and you have to work for a living like the vast majority of people in the world. Sound cruel and tasteless, maybe... but lets break this down. At a $3000/day day rate, working half the year (say 182.5 days), you make: $547,000 a year.... thats more then many CEOs make per year. YOU ARE NOT WORTH CLOSE TO THAT!!!!!! Maybe you were, when photography wasn't digital, but now, anyone can take quality shots.... I hope your business falls out from under you quickly. ... harsh, but true. That micro-propaganda link deepplaymedia put up is just hilarious and not even remotely neutral. In order to badmouth micros, he cited a competitor to the micro sites. Great research link As I understand it, amateurs are undercutting pros by selling the sorts of photos that people want at prices that people can afford, and the pros are worried that they are going to lose market share. As I see it, though, there are lots of interesting pictures out there, worth a couple of dollars to have. They're not cover-photo worthy or artistic masterpieces, but they're interesting, pleasant, and plenty of people are willing to pay a few dollars for them. However, nobody would be willing to pay hundreds of dollars for them; they're not appropriate as large sales, but that doesn't make them worthless! Oh, and $3000/day as a photographer seems pretty insane to me. That's a $1.2million dollar year if you find daily. If you make, as climb_eng, even half that, you ARE overpaid, and you SHOULD be afraid of a talented part-time amateur undercutting you. |
|
|
|
|
deepplaymedia
Sep 26, 2007, 2:04 AM
Post #24 of 46
(5925 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 192
|
In reply to: In his very next post he explained that he and his magazine only took photos from professional photographers and they didn’t pay for them because they could afford too. Maybe he should use some of his day rate income for this.
ACTUALLY, I said something more along the lines of;
deepplaymedia wrote: In reply to: yea we have the right to submit photos to your rag for FREE but you think we are chumps for accepting $200.00 from Mad Rock. CRUX is not interested in random submissions from random people. Local photographers & writers here are stoked on supporting a local community based magazine. It is *their* project, their outlet, their labour of love. Everyone involved (and many people that aren't!) regard the mag as a valuable contribution to the local climbing community. If it ever evolves to anything more 'business oriented' than that (or if we happen to find a wad of cash in the CRUX drawers), we will figure out a way to properly financially reimburse contributors. Savvy?
I didn't say anything about 'professional photographers', I just let you know that CRUX is made by people who have personal non-financial interests vested in the magazine. I personally donate many many hours/days/weeks of my own time to CRUX (even as the senior photo editor, I don't make a cent of money from it) because I, just like the contributing photographers, believe that CRUX is a valuable resource to the Australian climbing commuinty.
|
|
|
|
|
macblaze
Sep 26, 2007, 2:16 AM
Post #25 of 46
(5911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2005
Posts: 807
|
Do you people ever stop and think about the intended markets of your photography?
20 years ago, before the advent of desktop publishing, photography was just a small part of the puzzle. People often avoided using images because of the high cost of colour separations. So now any Tom Dick or Harry can start up a magazine, and even more can go online and create the next generation of publishing.
So who is going to illustrate those publications? Where is the money to pay for "professional photographers" going to come from? There are an awful lot of fish in the sea now and not a lot of dollars to go round.
Corporate stuff? Sure...I still pay $150 an hour, but I sure as hell shop the micros for my magazine stuff and if I'm looking for a books cover... I want unlimited rights and you should be happy with very very little. Why? Cause there are 100s of thousands of new book sin print and I have to bend over and let the booksellers have their way with me if I want to get my books in a store where they are mostly likely just going to be returned unsold anyway.
Face it guys, the digital age is here, and while the cream will still rise, The lower end of any part of the publication process is now officially the purview of amateurs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
