Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Only commissions mean anything.

Mean anything in what sense?  Help to make you rich or help to make you famous?

Or are your referring to something more philosophical?

Because whilst this position might be perfect for you, your work and your purpose, it’s not ideal for everyone by any means.

What if US Vogue called and said we love your work, we want to write about it but we can’t pay you?

Or a blog like Buzzfeed?

That kind of media attention may mean zero to you but to some young photographer, struggling to pay their rent, who knows what it might lead to?

Davian J wrote:
I have a problem with others making money off our hard work.

I agree with chiamac, I wouldn’t get too wound up about it. 

If you sell a print today for $200 what’s to stop your buyer from selling it tomorrow for $2000?

This has always been the way with anyone involved in any sort of artistic endeavour.  Others - publishers, dealers, agents, etc. etc. - will make money off your hard work.

Obviously it’s to be hoped that you’ll be making something out of it too but if and when that can’t be the case, there may be a  bigger picture.

Davian J wrote:
...
I have a problem with others making money off our hard work.
...

I find that most people who have a problem with others making money of their hard work fail to recognize the additional hard work required by others to do so and undervalue what they get out of it.

Davian J wrote:
...
Why give... turn over any rights to you if I'm not seeing any return?

Obviously there are cases where the return to you is not worth it, but not always....see above.

Davian J wrote:
I have a problem with others making money off our hard work.

You really do not understand this business at all; or perhaps, you understand an aspect of the business.. but not a current model that works anymore. This is  why there is a business for photography (and marketing) at all.

Davian J wrote:
I have a problem with others making money off our hard work.

It's a pretty safe bet that the POD/Magcloud magazine your photos would be going in to would not be making any money off  of you. In fact, I'd be shocked if even 5% of all the Magcloud magazines actually turned any sort of profit. Most of the sales of those things just go to the models, photographers, and their families who buy them. While there are some good quality ones and there are some rare few who actually manage to sell a decent volume, those are in the extreme minority. Most of the people who run those publications do it for the fun, their love for a genre, and some bragging rights of them being in the "publication business". Seriously, don't think that anyone is going to be getting rich off of your photo submission.

LOL...just a few weeks ago the local Las Vegas newspaper contacted me about using a photo I had on my blog. They were doing a story about the individual I photographed (a local police officer) and wanted to use the photo. At first they asked me if I could give it to them in exchange for a photo credit and I declined. They were actually quite shocked, and then asked if I could give them a price to license the image. I ran the numbers and gave them a price for print and web use of $240.00. The author checked with her editor and they told me they would have to pass, and instead they would send out their staff photographer to get a photo:



So don't ever feel bad by saying no. If you don't like where your images are being used or feel like you are not being compensated for your work, "no" is a very empowering word.

Shot By Adam wrote:


So don't ever feel bad by saying no. If you don't like where your images are being used or feel like you are not being compensated for your work, "no" is a very empowering word.

And the sad fact is this:  Even though your work is clearly better, not one of their readers even cares.  I've learned this the hard way...

Davian J wrote:
I recently had a falling out of sort with a long time model collaborator friend. She contacted me asking if I could crop some pictures from a recent TF shoot. Usually I have no problem with this kinda request esp. from her. The issue came up because she need them done ASAP because the deadline to submit was the next day, still no problem. Problem was she fail to properly communicate that she wanted me to submit them.
No.
There are maybe a only handful on magazines that I would even consider submitting to and this "magazine"(and I use that word loosely) is not even close to being on the list. My thing is this. Most of these "publications" are POD mags. Almost all of them have atrocious writing/layouts/etc. Don't put my work in such trash. Some might say "your pictures ain't all that". This could be true so why would you want to put them in your mag?
Model are so desperate to get the title "Published Model" that they would submit pics anywhere... but that's not my problem with it at all.
I have a problem with others making money off our hard work. I have about 100 emails with content release forms that will never get signed. Why give... turn over any rights to you if I'm not seeing any return?
If the models was getting paid, that's fine with me, signed, she was part of the process. Yet 50 submission later, her published list reads like some bad porn webring and besides social media bragging rights what has she gained.
I don't know maybe I'm being too anal about the whole thing.

Sounds like you might have lost a model friend. Sticking to your principles is good, but in this case I don't see the harm in having an image published. If it's a startup mag and poorly done, then no one will ever see it unless you show them the tearsheet.

Given the choice, sure I wouldn't go out of my way to get into a crappy mag, but it sounds like you might  be mostly bitter about how she handles her career and her desire to get published anywhere.

Let her be proud of her accomplishments. Better to just worry about yours.

Robert Jewett wrote:

And the sad fact is this:  Even though your work is clearly better, not one of their readers even cares.  I've learned this the hard way...

As it happens, I completely disagree with this comment but, since this isn’t the Critique forum, I’ll confine myself to a more general point.

There are many reasons, pertaining to print media, why an average photograph will win out over a good one.

An average photograph that meets the deadline will win out every time over a good one that doesn't - obviously.  An average photograph will win out if it fits the publications budget better than a good one (as seems to have been the case here). An average photograph that helps tell the story will win out over a good one that doesn’t.  An average photograph that is graphically strong will win out over a good photograph that is graphically weak or full of detail not relevant to the story.

There could be many other reasons but I won't labour the point.

ChadAlan wrote:
Sounds like you might have lost a model friend. Sticking to your principles is good, but in this case I don't see the harm in having an image published. If it's a startup mag and poorly done, then no one will ever see it unless you show them the tearsheet.

Given the choice, sure I wouldn't go out of my way to get into a crappy mag, but it sounds like you might  be mostly bitter about how she handles her career and her desire to get published anywhere.

Let her be proud of her accomplishments. Better to just worry about yours.

I think I was/am more annoyed than anything. She, of all people, knows how I feel but is constantly trying to involve me in the process. Like you got paperwork saying you can use the pictures, leave me out of it.
It's like there is no smoking in your home, right, everybody knows it, but you got this one friend every time he comes over he ask can he light up. Like "Why do I have to tell you no every time you come to my house? There no smoking in the house period."

Davian J wrote:

I think I was/am more annoyed than anything. She, of all people, knows how I feel but is constantly trying to involve me in the process. Like you got paperwork saying you can use the pictures, leave me out of it.
It's like there is no smoking in your home, right, everybody knows it, but you got this one friend every time he comes over he ask can he light up. Like "Why do I have to tell you no every time you come to my house? There no smoking in the house period."

Not really. You've said it's ok. So it's more like a friend coming to your house and asking to use the bathroom (when everyone knows yeah it's fine) and you getting annoyed at them because... they use the bathroom.

If you don't want to submit your work, don't. If you're ok with it you do need to be ok with it. You seem to be getting annoyed at absolutely nothing.

ValHig wrote:
If you don't want to submit your work, don't. If you're ok with it you do need to be ok with it. You seem to be getting annoyed at absolutely nothing.

+1

    Do you shoot for fun?  Then have fun. Why is the model shooting TF?  Apparently she wants to be published.  How is that a problem?  How is one of your pictures in a sub-standard venue a problem?  Do you really think it'll hurt your reputation?   Are you holding out for an offer from National Geographic? 
     I've shot with models who wanted to get published and told them fine by me if they do the leg work.  I even ask for samples from the magazine so I can edit the pics to match. I get an easy project with an enthusiastic model, win-win.  I have been asked to submit ridiculous releases that had to be modified, but that's not the model's fault.  A couple models got their/our pics published.  It never affected me in any negative manner.  I don't have copies/links cause I didn't bother to keep them.
     Honestly, for a reliable model, I'd be sending an email the next week asking her what's next on her wish list.  Go have fun shooting.

Derek Ridgers wrote:

Mean anything in what sense?  Help to make you rich or help to make you famous?

Or are your referring to something more philosophical?

Because whilst this position might be perfect for you, your work and your purpose, it’s not ideal for everyone by any means.

What if US Vogue called and said we love your work, we want to write about it but we can’t pay you?

Or a blog like Buzzfeed?

That kind of media attention may mean zero to you but to some young photographer, struggling to pay their rent, who knows what it might lead to?

I think your question is answerable if you don't take the single sentence out of context.


When you drop a name where your photos have run, it implies a form of an endorsement. You could get lucky and be in the right place at the right time and end up with a photo they choose to run, which is nowhere near the endorsement of them seeing enough of your work that they commission you to shoot something.

The idea that there's some significant difference between a model who's been published vs one who hasn't is a fallacy.

If a publication knows a models work and specifically seeks him or her out, that tells you that an experienced photo editor has seen a pattern in the model's work and recognizes them as being at least partly responsible for the quality of the photos they've been in, and that's something significant.

David Kirk wrote:

Davian J wrote:
...
I have a problem with others making money off our hard work.
...

I find that most people who have a problem with others making money of their hard work fail to recognize the additional hard work required by others to do so and undervalue what they get out of it.


Obviously there are cases where the return to you is not worth it, but not always....see above.

Very true.

Outside of weddings and senior portraits, the entire motivation for someone hiring a photographer is that they want photos they can use to make money.

That's the underlying business premise in commercial photography.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
When you drop a name where your photos have run, it implies a form of an endorsement. You could get lucky and be in the right place at the right time and end up with a photo they choose to run, which is nowhere near the endorsement of them seeing enough of your work that they commission you to shoot something.

If you need to go around name dropping all the publications who’ve run your work, you probably won’t want to make that distinction.

Endorsement wise, I agree.  But most would probably be happy with either.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
The idea that there's some significant difference between a model who's been published vs one who hasn't is a fallacy.

If a publication knows a models work and specifically seeks him or her out, that tells you that an experienced photo editor has seen a pattern in the model's work and recognizes them as being at least partly responsible for the quality of the photos they've been in, and that's something significant.

Unless I’m mistaken, in these two sentences you are now arguing with yourself?  Both significant and yet insignificant at the same time? 

Sorry if I’ve misunderstood but this wasn’t part of the point I was trying to make anyway.

Robert Jewett wrote:

And the sad fact is this:  Even though your work is clearly better, not one of their readers even cares.  I've learned this the hard way...

Its sad that our industry has gotten so devalued...

Zack Zoll wrote:
In a nutshell, you need to:
1) do good work.
2) be a pleasure to work with
3) have your work on time.

You can discount 3) straight away. 

It’s like saying you have to remember to take the lens cap off.  If your work’s not in on time you can forget everything, no matter how good or charming you are.  What’s the magazine or newspaper that tries to employ the tardy, nice guy supposed to run, white space?

That leaves just 1) and 2) and you can really discount 1) too because they’re all good.  By which I mean you have to be good to get through in through the door these days.  We’re living in the age of Google.  Nowadays your work is out there for all to see.

So really it just comes down to 2). 

In real life, it’s all a more complex issue than you or Neil Gaiman might realise.  For a start, as the commissioner, you might never actually meet the photographer you’re hiring until the day of the shoot.  But what if you don’t like his or her agent?

You may say "what photographer in their right mind would use an agent no one likes?"  Believe it or not, this does happen because part of the equation, which the Neil Gaiman world view doesn’t take account of, is $$$.   This is because the right agent can make his photographer a lot of money and the clients are often simply focussed on working with a 'name' photographer.  Therefore people seem to tolerate agent foibles.

To use a musical analogy (the like of which I know you’ll appreciate Zack) is that it’s like being managed by David Geffen.   Hands up everyone who imagines him being a pleasure to work with.

The converse is also true.  I once knew a photographer whose agent - who I think was his wife or girlfriend - had such an array of personal charm and physical attributes that I'm sure the guy got far more work than otherwise he might have done.

Of course, that approach would never have worked if he was a fashion photographer.  For fairly obvious reasons.  But that's the real world for you...

Davian J wrote:
I recently had a falling out of sort with a long time model collaborator friend. She contacted me asking if I could crop some pictures from a recent TF shoot. Usually I have no problem with this kinda request esp. from her. The issue came up because she need them done ASAP because the deadline to submit was the next day, still no problem. Problem was she fail to properly communicate that she wanted me to submit them.
No.
There are maybe a only handful on magazines that I would even consider submitting to and this "magazine"(and I use that word loosely) is not even close to being on the list. My thing is this. Most of these "publications" are POD mags. Almost all of them have atrocious writing/layouts/etc. Don't put my work in such trash. Some might say "your pictures ain't all that". This could be true so why would you want to put them in your mag?
Model are so desperate to get the title "Published Model" that they would submit pics anywhere... but that's not my problem with it at all.
I have a problem with others making money off our hard work. I have about 100 emails with content release forms that will never get signed. Why give... turn over any rights to you if I'm not seeing any return?
If the models was getting paid, that's fine with me, signed, she was part of the process. Yet 50 submission later, her published list reads like some bad porn webring and besides social media bragging rights what has she gained.
I don't know maybe I'm being too anal about the whole thing.

Personally I don't see what all the fuss is, she dropped some admin on you at the last minute you're not obligated to do, and you fall out over saying "no".

Not what I'd call a real friendship, just move on.

Derek Ridgers wrote:

You can discount 3) straight away. 

It’s like saying you have to remember to take the lens cap off.  If your work’s not in on time you can forget everything, no matter how good or charming you are.  What’s the magazine or newspaper that tries to employ the tardy, nice guy supposed to run, white space?

That leaves just 1) and 2) and you can really discount 1) too because they’re all good.  By which I mean you have to be good to get through in through the door these days.  We’re living in the age of Google.  Nowadays your work is out there for all to see.

So really it just comes down to 2). 

In real life, it’s all a more complex issue than you or Neil Gaiman might realise.  For a start, as the commissioner, you might never actually meet the photographer you’re hiring until the day of the shoot.  But what if you don’t like his or her agent?

You may say "what photographer in their right mind would use an agent no one likes?"  Believe it or not, this does happen because part of the equation, which the Neil Gaiman world view doesn’t take account of, is $$$.   This is because the right agent can make his photographer a lot of money and the clients are often simply focussed on working with a 'name' photographer.  Therefore people seem to tolerate agent foibles.

To use a musical analogy (the like of which I know you’ll appreciate Zack) is that it’s like being managed by David Geffen.   Hands up everyone who imagines him being a pleasure to work with.

The converse is also true.  I once knew a photographer whose agent - who I think was his wife or girlfriend - had such an array of personal charm and physical attributes that I'm sure the guy got far more work than otherwise he might have done.

Of course, that approach would never have worked if he was a fashion photographer.  For fairly obvious reasons.  But that's the real world for you...

Derek, what you say is 100% correct for new photographers and creatives. I think Gaiman's advice only applies to 'the kind of employee you want to be.'

Terry Richardson and Annie Leibowitz are perfect examples. TR has a bad reputation among talent, but he gets his work done, and it's(usually) great. Leibowitz isn't anything special, but her employees are,and everybody loves working with her.

If you shot like TR, and had a bedside manner like Leibowitz, people would accept getting things at the last possible second from you. Maybe not Anna Wintour, but you could definitely shoot GQ or Wired that way.

You couldn't GET the job that way. But you could probably keep it that way.

Thing is, nobody knows how awesome you are until they work with you. So starting out as a newbie, who doesn't have the connections to wander into an editor's office with a portfolio and a charming smile ... That just leaves doing shit work, and building up a good reputation.

And you're right, I do appreciate the Geffen reference.

Derek Ridgers wrote:

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
When you drop a name where your photos have run, it implies a form of an endorsement. You could get lucky and be in the right place at the right time and end up with a photo they choose to run, which is nowhere near the endorsement of them seeing enough of your work that they commission you to shoot something.

If you need to go around name dropping all the publications who’ve run your work, you probably won’t want to make that distinction.

Endorsement wise, I agree.  But most would probably be happy with either.


Unless I’m mistaken, in these two sentences you are now arguing with yourself?  Both significant and yet insignificant at the same time? 

Sorry if I’ve misunderstood but this wasn’t part of the point I was trying to make anyway.

A third party endorsement can be significant without it meaning anything about whether there's a difference between a model who's been published or not.


It's not the publishing that means anything, it's where and how/why that means something.

If you're in Vogue because you were sitting behind Anna Wintour at a runway show, you've been published in Vogue. That doesn't mean anything about your modeling skills.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Terry Richardson and Annie Leibowitz are perfect examples. TR has a bad reputation among talent, but he gets his work done, and it's(usually) great. Leibowitz isn't anything special, but her employees are,and everybody loves working with her.

If you shot like TR, and had a bedside manner like Leibowitz, people would accept getting things at the last possible second from you. Maybe not Anna Wintour, but you could definitely shoot GQ or Wired that way.

You're twisting things now. 

Plenty of photographers have a bad reputation among the “talent”. 

You don’t have to go too far to find examples of that. 

But it's when they have a bad reputation amongst the people doing the hiring that it becomes a crucial factor.

As to the rest of your post, I won’t disagree.  That’s not to say I couldn’t but I won’t.  You present a lot of subjective opinion as facts and, with regards to working with various magazines, aren’t these just assumptions?

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
If you're in Vogue because you were sitting behind Anna Wintour at a runway show, you've been published in Vogue. That doesn't mean anything about your modeling skills.

Has anyone EVER done this and who would it fool? 

Most photographers aren’t fools and neither are fashion editors.  As a matter of fact, I don’t think most models are either.

But you’ve really started to lose me now on this thread.  The coherence of your argument isn’t helped by the jumbling up of the quotes.

I mean, I know what I originally wrote but how is anyone else ever going to - should they, at this point, care?

My only original point of disagreement with you was over the virtues of going into a magazine if you were not actually commissioned by that magazine.

I think there are many but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.