This is an awesome idea - I wish I wasn't such a crappy photographer!

Hmmmm.... sounds like a bum deal for the photographer.

I'm glad somebody else brought this up, and actually it is sort of a bum deal. I did a FotoQuote price check, the industry average for a 16x20 Poster used for advertising/promotion with a press run of UP TO 500 is $756 and $568 for an 8x10. Prices go up the bigger the poster and bigger the press run.

grayhghost, bigfatrock, the_alpine, this should be a no brainer for you guys then..... don't submit you work.

Let some amateur get some fantastic exposure, and get paid.
...

So many shots out there for so cheap.... lot of guys going under. it's the wallmart efect.

So lets say you win this contest. You are an amateur and you are psyched. You get your shot published as a poster with your photo credit and Madrock pays you $200 dollars. Sweet.
Now your name is out there and another company contacts you for a photo you shot. Wow! Your in the big time now. This next company offers you $200 for the photo because they talked to Madrock (the climbing community is VERY close). Sweet! $200!
Now you buy some more gear, maybe a long lens ($2200) maybe some strobes ($3000) and now you are shooting some really nice shots.
The North Face contacts you for a photo they want to run in their catalogue. They offer you $200. So you say "Get to fuck, if you want some of the J-Man, you're gunna have to dish out a whole lot more than that!"

$200 was pretty sweet back when you were shooting your buddies at your local crag, but now your models want modeling fees (20%) and you need to get to cool locations (ga$), and the big companies know that, and will get the idea that you don't shoot for that low anymore. They know that for photos, just like gear, you pay for quality, and if they want your better quality shots, they gotta push the dosh for it.

And, failing that, there's always porn.

Those of you arguing against the_alpine and mshore might want to reconsider.

There are reasons:
http://www.highexposures.com/
http://www.mikeshorephoto.com/

I haven't posted in a while but this topic has been beaten to death.

A little advice - if you want to make money shooting photos - don't rely on the climbing world to come up with the money. The margin is too thin. Find a niche and exploit it. Climbing is the wrong niche.

There are many pots to pull from - find yours and don't look back.

Hey Chris

Chris,
First let me apologize in advance for my lack of writing skill...this will probably come across quite non-sensical. I agree with you for sure, I think that my photos [for the most part] are worth more than this in a photographic sense, but the way it works out for me is I'm shooting my friends and we're just climbing on moderates. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't think there is much of a market for unknowns climbing on moderates in less than spectacular locations [so please exempt my Lake Summersville photos from this thought].I guess the issue I'm pointing at is what to do with photos that are not newsworthy, or really notable beyond the fact that they are pleasing aesthetically/emotionally? and another note now that I'm asking questions and this sort of pertains to Mad Rock posters, the people I climb with climb almost exclusively on Metolius pads...is hope lost on marketing such photos to companies that sell pads other than metolius?
thanks, and for the record I think 'hero' would be a word I could use to describe you

Pico,

Checked out your profile - saw you lived in/near the Daks. Got out for a day to the Spider's Web last week and have to say - it is one of the best crack cliffs I have climbed at in a long time. Amazing place and great setting. You are psyched!

m

PM'd you Mike

guangzhou, you're a joke.

I don't understand.

Deep media play,

Maybe it's a PM because Crux magazine is "no payment until we get the magazine up and running."

Strange, bash MadRock for 200.00 offer, but don't pay people who submit to you. I guess your submiters don't know what their photos are worth.

I know that it sucks for you folks who want to make a living as a photographer, but hell this isn't the third world. Shooting photos is a luxury compared to harvesting coffee beans in Colombia and stitching clothes in China for $1 a day.

As incredibly frustrated as I am by many posts in this thread, I just cant be bothered having a full on rant.
I will say this though- if photos are worth publishing then they are worth paying for.

For the record I have I have talked to Joe about this. I think there's a lot to be said for understanding what you are worth & sticking to your guns.

Actually Gwungzow, the reason I PM'd Mike is because I don't think it's appropriate to discuss certain things on this forum.

But in order to set the record straight; in fact CRUX operates on a different business structure to a normal magazine.
We are a small community based magazine made up of a bunch of friends (currently myself, Simon Carter, Neil Monteith, Simon Murray, with a few others helping with advertising, proofing etc) that prints articles & photos by us & our mates & their mates kinda thing. We have a very small print run, and only have enough advertising to cover print costs (about 14 pages, in a 112 page thrice-yearly magazine) & none of the staff get paid a cent for our work- in fact we all lose significant money not only in direct expenses but also in massive amounts of time taken away from our own businesses.
Basically, the relatively small Australian climbing market is currently incapable of sustaining such a magazine if we were to pay full market prices, so it became a labour (and a labour it is!) of love project for the community instead of a business venture for a few people.

But thanks for your concern about my business ethics...

Putting spin on it does not change anything. You cant rip a guy for underpaying INYOP and then under pay yourself. makes you look like a tool. Typically small circulation rags pay $10 to $20 per photo, certainly you could at least try to cover that.......

As incredibly frustrated as I am by many posts in this thread, I just cant be bothered having a full on rant.
I will say this though- if photos are worth publishing then they are worth paying for.

For the record I have I have talked to Joe about this. I think there's a lot to be said for understanding what you are worth & sticking to your guns.

Mad Rock, a fairly small company...

Looks like an attack to me. Of course, I have been wrong before.

^^ add to that, whiners with an extreme sense of entitlement.
.

Or maybe shoes and crashpads?





There is ALWAYS going to be someone willing to work for less. Its too bad that they don't realize they are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. Not to mention dragging industry standards down too.





Way to keep undercutting everyone else to make yourself another buck Joe.

Actually Gwungzow, the reason I PM'd Mike is because I don't think it's appropriate to discuss certain things on this forum.

But in order to set the record straight; in fact CRUX operates on a different business structure to a normal magazine.
We are a small community based magazine made up of a bunch of friends (currently myself, Simon Carter, Neil Monteith, Simon Murray, with a few others helping with advertising, proofing etc) that prints articles & photos by us & our mates & their mates kinda thing. We have a very small print run, and only have enough advertising to cover print costs (about 14 pages, in a 112 page thrice-yearly magazine) & none of the staff get paid a cent for our work- in fact we all lose significant money not only in direct expenses but also in massive amounts of time taken away from our own businesses.
Basically, the relatively small Australian climbing market is currently incapable of sustaining such a magazine if we were to pay full market prices, so it became a labour (and a labour it is!) of love project for the community instead of a business venture for a few people.

But thanks for your concern about my business ethics...

The comments you quoted were citing my frustration at some of the 'photographers' in the forum, NOT at Joe.

Your other comments in your last post demonstrate your complete and utter lack of understanding of the industry & how/why it works.

Editor of CRUX here:

There is a big difference between advertising and editorial photography. If an image is featured in advertrising, the talent and photographer are in effect 'endorsing' the product. It then means the talent/photographer is then eliminated from working on rival manufacturs (ie conflct of interest). 'talent' in advertsing photos are also required payment. The larger advertising photo rates encorporate these sorts of additional costs into what seems like inflated costs. Also, most advertisers will want to OWN the photo outright, and thus they pay a heap more to have sole use of the image.

Photo contributions to small magazines are in effect just a way of sourcing a compilaton of work to be enjoyed by the wider community. I treat a magazine as a condensed (edited) version of the web, a place where people can enjoy the best bits without wading through piles of crap posts/images. We offer considerable value prizes to randomaly drawn contributors to our magazine (ie $200 worth of gym holds is an example). Photos contributed to CRUX are still the property of the photographer, they can be re-submitted to advertising clients and other magazines wihout gaining our permission.

To compare CRUX to Madrock is ridiuclas. We are a tiny regional mag with an annual turn over in the low tens of thousands. Mad Rock on the other hand is a 'made in china' manufactuer and distributer to a huge world wide market.

What comment are you referring too? I would love a rational explanation, not an emotional response.

I never compared your magazine to Mad ROck, what I said was you co-owner couldn't bitch at photographer for participating in Mad Rock’s poster contest because MR is paying low when he doesn't pay at all.

I originally did start to disect your post and give a detailed explanation, but to be honest it was doing my head in.
If you would like to discuss this properly & in detail via email I'd be happy to. My address is photos@joshcaple.com
Though it is not something I believe to be entirely appropriate to do publicly, I must disagree with some of CRUXMAG's comments...
While a surprising number of companies originally request ownership of images, when they are properly educated as to the costs involved in such a thing (tens of thousands, or much higher depending on the client) they usually rethink their specific needs. 'Licensing' is the name of the game these days.

On the note of royalty-free stock, it's something I steer well clear of. If you need the 'throw images at them & let them do the rest' marketing power of a stock library, check out the fantastic rights-managed options available. As far as I'm concerned, RF is selling yourself WELL short.

EDITED TO ADD:


I also believe that you did & still are making that comparison...but whatever.
I am not bitching at photographers for wanting to participate, hell I think it's a great idea! I am just encouraging those who choose to participate to realise the value of their images & stick to their guns in terms of rights & reimbursement.

There is ALWAYS going to be someone willing to work for less. Its too bad that they don't realize they are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. Not to mention dragging industry standards down too.


Way to keep undercutting everyone else to make yourself another buck Joe.

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.

LOSER OF THE DAY AWARD RIGHT HERE BABY

are you guys going to stop this fight and give us the grace of seeing some poster quality picture??

No doubt. I'm looking forward to seeing which pics get selected.

are you guys going to stop this fight and give us the grace of seeing some poster quality picture??

$200 is a pretty low-ball shot for a poster, but I'd take it anyday...

Wait, are you saying that $200 for a poster isn't a low ball?

I sure like facts

I just don't think the guy who stirred all of this is a professional photographer.

I think he wanted to attack people on this forum and now he realizes that he didn't know as much as he though he did. From the private messages I am getting, a lot of people here know a lot more then he does and definitely a lot more than me. Now he is running away from could have been a wonderful discussion. As a teacher, I explain to my students that it’s great to express an opinion, but you need to have concrete facts to support your view. It’s amazing how much that helps in discussions like this.

A single McDonald makes more money a day then a fine restaurant make in a month. They serve a different clientele and provide a different product. Neither are right or wrong for what they do. The fine restaurant doesn't complain about McDonald. Royally free images are like McDonald, fast, convenient and cheaper, while Rights Managed are line a fine restaurant more exclusive, more refined, and often over priced.

Ok THIS is my last post.... promise



You are correct, photography is not my only source of income nor is it the majority.
But I do send out enough invoices (yes, ones that I have negotiated) to have some idea what I am talking about.


Holy shit dude, how did your divorce from reality go?
I wanted to attack people? I ran away from a wonderful discussion?


McDonalds is shit.

Good luck to you Gungz!!

DIE THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!!!!

i am amazed anyone is still paying for photos in this industry. it seems like every time i check in to see what is going on, contributor rates are dropping and companies are playing the, "if you help us out this time, we will make it worth your while in the future" card. it is funny (read:sad) to me that climbing exceeds snowboarding in popularity but no one is making any money within the sport. i wish all of you the best. cheers, matt

i thought this thread was dead!!!!!