|
climberjim
Mar 31, 2004, 9:57 PM
Post #1 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2003
Posts: 46
|
I was wondering about doing freelance work. like some of the photos in climbing magazine. do people just send those in or what ??? i am toatally interested because photography is a hobby of mine just like climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Mar 31, 2004, 10:07 PM
Post #2 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: I was wondering about doing freelance work. like some of the photos in climbing magazine. do people just send those in or what ??? i am toatally interested because photography is a hobby of mine just like climbing.
Oh, and: it also helps to be an effective communicator...
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Apr 1, 2004, 4:34 AM
Post #3 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: In reply to: I was wondering about doing freelance work. like some of the photos in climbing magazine. do people just send those in or what ??? i am toatally interested because photography is a hobby of mine just like climbing. It's HARD. Harder than whatever 5-bolt, 40-foot, 10a you're projecting. Not only do you have to be skilled, but you have to be persistant. This means giving up some of your actual climbing fun to get set up to shoot, burning off zillions of frames, visiting lots of areas (more than likely, the local crag isn't gonna be sexy or aesthetic enough), developing rigging systems (you won't get too many great shots from the ground), building relationships with editors, shelling out the cash for decent equipment and frequent processing (and slides are much pricier than prints), then scanning them and sending them out, all the while with the assumption that an editor is likely to boomerang them back to you. It's a very competitive business. Oh, and: it also helps to be an effective communicator...
Well of course you have to give up the climbing fun part! I learned that the first arranged photo shoot I did, and that was just for grins. From what little I learned about getting serious about climbing photography (and I was never serious in the BURT BRONSON sense of the word SERIOUS) it is nice to set small goals for your first shoots. Pick a model who would be willing to climb some routes for you while you shoot and go with it. Keep your goal simple: to come away with a few good shots. Because for your first outing, you will be lucky to get a few good ones, unless you already have your camera singing like a fine violin.
A lot of photogs now use high-end digital SLRs, and let me tell you, they are sweet. Straight to digital is the easiest way and in the end the lowest per image cost. Otherwise you are going to have to scan your negatives. That's right, negatives. Avoid slide film. It's dynamic range is inferior to print film, so why bother? And you will need every bit of that dynamic range to expose at least something in those high contrast scene shadows. Oh yeah, you can look at the positive image in a viewer. Big deal. If you are going to use film, use print film.
I borrowed a Canon AE-1 with an autowinder for my second shoot. The autowinder is a must if you are using an SLR. Don't scrimp on that. And fast lenses are also vital, as you will be using fast shutter speeds. I guess this is a lot of bla bla if you already thought about this junk. Heh. Be prepared for very little money coming your way. Consider making a poster of local climbers in your area and printing and selling it yourself at gyms and at the crags. Or make a calendar. That's a cool way to self-publish that sidesteps the whole photo editor BS. Use cafepress to keep costs low and yourself out of the printing business.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Apr 1, 2004, 5:58 AM
Post #4 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: A lot of photogs now use high-end digital SLRs, and let me tell you, they are sweet. Straight to digital is the easiest way and in the end the lowest per image cost.
:( Woe is I. I drool over digi SLRs like some of you nutbars drool over cams... mmmmm, 8 mega-pik-sillllllllls... *Homer Simpson drool noise*
In reply to: Avoid slide film.
I'm passing the hat! Who wants to buy me a shee-shee digital SLR? 8)Anybody?...
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Apr 1, 2004, 6:34 AM
Post #5 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
The whole fixation on slides will die as sure as film will die. It was stupid to begin with, sacrificing the better media for convenience alone. If you have a digital SLR, what's an editor going to insist you do? Make a slide? Hah!
At my company we employ a number of freelance illustrators. Eventually, like with magazines, we need digital files. We absolutely love the illustrators who scan their own work and send us nice CMYK files. Dig? If you want to endear yourself with photo editors, send excellent quality CMYK files along with RGB previews for screen. They'll forget all about that slide crap, I assure you.
|
|
|
|
|
drferling
Apr 1, 2004, 12:02 PM
Post #6 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 11
|
Hey, I would not print film if my life depended on it. Here is an excerpt from a webpage about print vs. slide:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film.htm
For what I happen to shoot I prefer the vivid colors I get from slides. Avoid print film, which is what 95% of amateurs shoot, unless you make your own prints or have an intimate relationship with one person who makes your prints. Here's why:
Slides are the actual film that was in your camera. The colors and exposure are whatever you did, period. Each film is a little different from other films, but overall what you saw is what you get.
Prints are printed from the negative that was in your camera. When printed, the printer again has to control the exposure AND the color of the print when making the print. This is because there is NO standard for how to print color negatives. Every brand and every different film requires different settings of the printer. Therefore many printers attempt to correct colors automatically, and therefore usually they screw up your colors.
There is talk of film makers attempting to adopt the same color printing characteristics for all negative films, in which case a new day will dawn for print film. That day has not yet happened. Stick with slides if you are picky about color.
Your colors are going to be different every time you get your print film printed and they are always going to be too light or too dark. I got sick of this.
If you print your own negatives, fine, because you know what you want. It doesn't matter if you send your film to either Costco or a pro lab, they all have automated printers that tend to eliminate all the careful effort you put in to get the right exposure or color.
If you shoot slides you can get better prints because you can point to the slide and tell the guy at a custom lab "make it look like the slide," although contrast tends to build up.
Everything you see on my site is from slide film. I can't get these colors from print film.
Also film is definitely not going anywhere that soon. The dynamic range of film as well as the sharpness of film are still far superior.
Checkout:
http://www.arizonahighways.com/...m?name=Photo_Talk803
You can get a cheap SLR and get amazing results. Shoot slide film and be willing to pay for quality processing. Personally I will not believe what someone says until I see some pictures and I judge their advice on their pictures. Checkout the galleries on the sites I linked and decide if it is good advice.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
merock
Apr 1, 2004, 6:47 PM
Post #7 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2003
Posts: 234
|
Spend less time posting in rc.com and more time outrside shooting and reading books and finding a mentor and exploring other photographers websites to see what's good and what's not and know why stuff is good and why it's not is also important and reasearching and finding a niche and a style and why are you still reading this and not out shooting?
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Apr 1, 2004, 8:15 PM
Post #8 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
A few thoughts for you:
1.) HOURS upon HOURS of hard, Stressful work for very little pay. And having to fight for every $$ you make because Mags pay as little as possible for your hard work. I know a couple people in the free-lancing business, continually published, and thay can't afford to quit their day jobs.
2.) It no longer is a hobby, It's work. It's being able to produce results consistantly and at the drop of a hat. You may have a happy accident once in a while, but that doesn't make you a professional
3.) What makes you better or more desireable then all of the other photographers that already do it?
4.) Do you have connections in the industry? Gear manufaturers, Clothing Companies, Climbers, Editors?
5.) Is your photography REALLY that good. I'm not talkign about yoru close friends saying "WOW that's really cool", I'm talking about total strangers, climbers, seeing your stuff and stopping in their tracks, jaw dropping, unable to speak. This type of photography is RARE, that's why it's published.
This may sound harsh, but it's supposed to. What is it with Photography? When a hobbyist produces a nice product or two all of a sudden they see dollar signs? I started playing hockey a coupel years ago, and I'm not bad for playing once a week, but you dont' hear me talking about playing in the NHL. What about Knitting. People knit because they enojy it, not beccause thecan make a buck at it.
So my question is, Why can't we enjoy producing High Quality Photographs simply for the love of photography? Photographers work very hard, and very long hours. They choose this career, not because they can make a quick buck, but because it's what they LOVE TO DO. It's a serious persuit, and not a whim.
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Apr 1, 2004, 8:47 PM
Post #9 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: Spend less time posting in rc.com and more time outrside shooting and reading books and finding a mentor and exploring other photographers websites to see what's good and what's not and know why stuff is good and why it's not is also important and reasearching and finding a niche and a style and why are you still reading this and not out shooting?
Sweet advice. And the guy that wrote that anti-print film rant is full of Shlitz. You like the colors you get with slide film and are used to that, hey, have at it. But it's not superior to print film. It's just what most people decided to use for other reasons, one of them the ease of viewing the positive image on the film. And with digital color correction, need I say, DUH? No film can give you exactly the colors your brain perceives. They just don't cover that wide of a gammut. To claim they do is ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
|
sandbag
Apr 1, 2004, 8:54 PM
Post #10 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 1443
|
Hey Hillary, if you buy bulk film the costs drop precipitously, and it does help to meet and greet the photo editors of the mags, I met the crew from Climbing in OUray, nice people all around, and ive gotten the interest of several other gear manufacturers and climbers alike just by sending them simple humble notes of interest. Just have fun doing it, if you can make money, a living at even its nirvana. And Dont anchor yourself with the "old " camera routine, go out and by a decent SLR and just shoot. Ive seen your stuff, its pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
sandbag
Apr 1, 2004, 9:07 PM
Post #11 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 1443
|
In reply to: The whole fixation on slides will die as sure as film will die. It was stupid to begin with, sacrificing the better media for convenience alone. If you have a digital SLR, what's an editor going to insist you do? Make a slide? Hah! At my company we employ a number of freelance illustrators. Eventually, like with magazines, we need digital files. We absolutely love the illustrators who scan their own work and send us nice CMYK files. Dig? If you want to endear yourself with photo editors, send excellent quality CMYK files along with RGB previews for screen. They'll forget all about that slide crap, I assure you.
ha!
Funny stuff. you obviously havent spoken to the photo editors of any of the mags recently. They still want slides, and they are starting to accept digital, and they dont wantr anything bigger then 72dpi jpegs to even bother looking at. then if they want your submission, RAW is the perferred files
. It comes down to this: any industry whether its climbing photography, skiing, cars etc, is geared to suck up new fanatics with enthusiasm to buy the latest and greatest bleeding edge technology. I saw some pictures this guy shot with his wiz bang 2000+ dollar SLR that does everything to make the picture as good as it can ie metering and autofocus etc....too bad it didnt tell him to use a red filter to help the overall color washout from the early morning sun combined with the red rocks he was photographing... go have fun
|
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Apr 1, 2004, 10:02 PM
Post #12 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
If you really want to sell your pictures, or your writing, start with other publications. Local magazines and news paper are a good way.
Plubisher at these smaller places are more likely to work with you. By working with them you can get an idea what editors look for.
Magazine, genrally speaking still prefer slides.
Don't rule out web sites. Small money sometimes no pay, but you can get some good exposure (not pun ) and also have sample clips when you approach new editor.
Sevral book have been writeen on the bussiness end of photography, and the local library shoool also have a copy of Writers/photographer Market. Very key to find publications that may need your work
Clarity and good compusure are crusial.
Good luck
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Apr 1, 2004, 10:04 PM
Post #13 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: ha! Funny stuff. you obviously havent spoken to the photo editors of any of the mags recently. They still want slides, and they are starting to accept digital, and they dont wantr anything bigger then 72dpi jpegs to even bother looking at. then if they want your submission, RAW is the perferred files
Right. My mistake. They would prefer raw files. And like you mention, for previews it should be 72 dpi anyway. That's a given. But what I was trying to get across in my post about how my company handles freelancers, is that we will accept either the actual artwork or the scans. We just like good work. Any magazine that passes up good photos because it didn't come to them as a slide is ridiculous. No all digital photographer should have to submit that.
As for the guy who didn't know how to use his camera, you can obviously take crap with a digital camera that is not color correctable. They aint magic wands or anything. Sounds like you are dead against digital. Want to know what the last camera I bought was? A Canon XA. I have both kinds and like them for what each offers. The last professional photo shoot I went to, and by that I mean these photos all ended up in a book, the guy used his digital Canon with a hard drive. It was pretty nice, and he immediately got to editing his shots when he got home. No waiting for processing. It's a good workflow.
But hey, you can always yell from your side of the fence. Ha ha ha! Laughing right back at you.
|
|
|
|
|
kpalsson
Apr 1, 2004, 10:22 PM
Post #14 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2004
Posts: 127
|
Film or digital is really not the topic here, but I do feel the need to say that "72dpi" for previewing is irrelevant. For viewing onscreen, it's just a number. It means NOTHING on screen. It is purely a direction for printing.
The _only_ thing that matters for onscreen viewing is the number of pixels. (and the quality of those pixels of course)
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Apr 1, 2004, 10:57 PM
Post #15 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: Film or digital is really not the topic here, but I do feel the need to say that "72dpi" for previewing is irrelevant. For viewing onscreen, it's just a number. It means NOTHING on screen. It is purely a direction for printing. The _only_ thing that matters for onscreen viewing is the number of pixels. (and the quality of those pixels of course)
But if you submit other than 72 dpi, someone might have to actually do a command/O to fit the image to the window. Heaven forbid! Usually one would submit work on CD. Smaller preview files load up their icons a lot faster, so that's one reason for wanting smaller files for previewing. The days of sending rewritable media are long gone.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Apr 1, 2004, 11:05 PM
Post #16 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
I just thought of something else a budding freelancer needs:
A thick skin. You're going to get rejected a lot. You're going to get told that your pics (or writing) just aren't good enough. Not all editors or peers are going to be as adoring as your mother.
It's a cruel, cruel world ;)
|
|
|
|
|
okinawatricam
Apr 1, 2004, 11:46 PM
Post #17 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 420
|
You are so correct climbsomething
|
|
|
|
|
sandbag
Apr 1, 2004, 11:57 PM
Post #18 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 1443
|
In reply to: In reply to: ha! Funny stuff. you obviously havent spoken to the photo editors of any of the mags recently. They still want slides, and they are starting to accept digital, and they dont wantr anything bigger then 72dpi jpegs to even bother looking at. then if they want your submission, RAW is the perferred files Right. My mistake. They would prefer raw files. And like you mention, for previews it should be 72 dpi anyway. That's a given. But what I was trying to get across in my post about how my company handles freelancers, is that we will accept either the actual artwork or the scans. We just like good work. Any magazine that passes up good photos because it didn't come to them as a slide is ridiculous. No all digital photographer should have to submit that. As for the guy who didn't know how to use his camera, you can obviously take crap with a digital camera that is not color correctable. They aint magic wands or anything. Sounds like you are dead against digital. Want to know what the last camera I bought was? A Canon XA. I have both kinds and like them for what each offers. The last professional photo shoot I went to, and by that I mean these photos all ended up in a book, the guy used his digital Canon with a hard drive. It was pretty nice, and he immediately got to editing his shots when he got home. No waiting for processing. It's a good workflow. But hey, you can always yell from your side of the fence. Ha ha ha! Laughing right back at you.
I just got gifted this past fall with 2 digicams from different people, ive liked the instant gratification, but i also learned that film will long provide more intresting composition until CCD are at the level of the film emulsions.
Yeah, get a thick skin, or hell, dont take any heed to that either, if your janging your ego on your pictures, youre really maligned in the world of happiness to allow people that depth of power to affect you.
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Apr 2, 2004, 12:07 AM
Post #19 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: I just got gifted this past fall with 2 digicams from different people, ive liked the instant gratification, but i also learned that film will long provide more intresting composition until CCD are at the level of the film emulsions.
I've read some photographers think it is there, but that's not the consensus yet by far. And a gift camera is like comparing a Hasselblad to a Brownie.
|
|
|
|
|
sandbag
Apr 2, 2004, 12:18 AM
Post #20 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 1443
|
In reply to: In reply to: I just got gifted this past fall with 2 digicams from different people, ive liked the instant gratification, but i also learned that film will long provide more intresting composition until CCD are at the level of the film emulsions. I've read some photographers think it is there, but that's not the consensus yet by far. And a gift camera is like comparing a Hasselblad to a Brownie.
were so off topic and the egoism is raised up too much for my fun level any more.
Free lance photoging: just get out there, learn what good composition is, the quality of the camera wont overcome crappy composition, the mags are approachable, its how all the current spec photogs and retained photogs got there. they were persistent and they learned to give them what they wanted. good luck
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Apr 2, 2004, 12:19 AM
Post #21 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: Free lance photoging: just get out there, learn what good composition is, the quality of the camera wont overcome crappy composition, the mags are approachable, its how all the current spec photogs and retained photogs got there. they were persistent and they learned to give them what they wanted. good luck |
|
|
|
|
timstich
Apr 2, 2004, 2:15 AM
Post #22 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In reply to: were so off topic and the egoism is raised up too much for my fun level any more.
Se la vie.
|
|
|
|
|
akornylak
Apr 6, 2004, 3:37 AM
Post #23 of 23
(2798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 251
|
In reply to: I was wondering about doing freelance work. like some of the photos in climbing magazine. do people just send those in or what ??? i am toatally interested because photography is a hobby of mine just like climbing.
If you are thinking about selling your work:
1. Dont quit your day job - really!
2. Never show anything but your best work, and remember that your best work better always be tomorrow's
3. Don't confine yourself to one market
|
|
|
|
|
|
