StudioRadu wrote:
Hey all, haven't been active on here much lately, and in general come to think of it. Over the years I've always just shot with friends and acquaintances, focusing on the art of it and the fun of shooting. And its been great, good photos, lots of happiness all around. Lately I've been wanting to dive deeper so I started looking more actively into publishing... and I couldn't really find any. Everything I could find seems to be vanity publications, where you do it 'for the exposure' or actually pay to be featured.

That's not entirely true. The issue is a lot of people think their work is way better than it actually is. Most legitimate publications have their in-house staff shoot things for them so they know it's consistent or they use the same contractors over and over again. My business partner used to shoot covers for years for the largest local magazine in Las Vegas (Las Vegas Weekly). He got paid but the pay wasn't huge and the work required more and more complexity so he eventually started turning them down. While the "exposure" didn't pay off, documenting that he has experience working with a major magazine and shooting high-end covers did, and so he would frequently get other work because he proved he had the chops. It's no different than shooting for sports teams. Most people don't realize that NFL and other major pro sports teams don't pay crap to their staff photographers. I know a few for a few different pro teams. They usually have a 4-5 hour commitment per game and they get paid $100. That's it. But their resume says "Official staff photographer for the Las Vegas Raiders" and that gets them plenty of work.

Every photographer I was following, who was posting getting published, I'd look up the magazine submission process and yea.. unpaid, you get a link to your published work.

The business model behind all of this has changed, and there are still some magazines that do pay for photos. Albeit, not much, but I've been paid several times by Nevada Magazine for photo submissions they wind up publishing. You get on their mailing list and every quarter they send out a list of photos they want for upcoming publications. I'd read through the list, setup a shoot, and submit photos. Almost every time my work was accepted and I was paid. They are out there, you just have to look for them and your work has to be really, really solid.

Way back in the day a company came to my school and commissioned poems, then you paid to buy the book, and you were 'published'.. and when I realized what had happened I just felt bad. It doesn't feel like something I, personally, would be proud of.

The other trend to this though are all the people who say "I just got published in XYZ Magazine!!!!!" and it's really a Magcloud rag  where 47 people bought the "magazine", 38 of which were the people who were in it or their friends and family. In my mind, that's not being published.

So... how do photographers these days find paid-publishing companies these days to submit to? (for artistic or boudoir or such). Are there sites, agents..? Or is it pretty much 'create an OF / Patreon' free-for-all and go straight to the audience?

I don't know why people seem to think there is still a market for this. There isn't. So yes, OF is your new market. Trying to find some magazine out there who's going to buy your boudoir photos is like trying to sell your box of buggy whips.

Or am I overthinking this and vanity publications have become the norm / you get as much street-cred from saying 'I was published' in them as for regular publications?

Or you just find new ways of doing things. You have to adapt or die. The old way of thinking in this industry doesn't apply anymore. It just doesn't.

G Reese wrote:
I think those days are gone forever. ... What little glam I shoot is often for wives who want to keep hubby's interest. Once in a while I'll book somebody to try out something just a little different. Keep it fresh.

That makes sense - I've done a couple of shoots like that, and some family gathering / prom stuff, but was hoping.. well. It is what it is. Thank you!

Shot By Adam wrote:
That's not entirely true. The issue is a lot of people think their work is way better than it actually is. Most legitimate publications have their in-house staff shoot things for them so they know it's consistent or they use the same contractors over and over again. ... there are still some magazines that do pay for photos. Albeit, not much, ... You get on their mailing list and every quarter they send out a list of photos they want for upcoming publications. I'd read through the list, setup a shoot, and submit photos. ... find new ways of doing things. You have to adapt or die. The old way of thinking in this industry doesn't apply anymore. It just doesn't

Totally agree on the adaptation, just asking 'cause having a tricky time figuring out the landscape for adapting into. So in your opinion is this one of those things where 'if you're in, you're in'? If so, for those who didn't get in early is there still a path 'in' beyond knowing-somebody / a way for the industry to keep pulling in new-blood and refreshing the talent pool? Like a way to get on the mailing lists you mentioned? Are there some publications that don't pay that are still selective enough that contractors can get spotted in them? Or is the new way just self-publishing and portfolios for 1:1 personal shoots?

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Go to a magazine stand (if you can find one) and look for printed, published, magazines that you would like to shoot for. Look up their masthead and find out the name of the art director and in many cases you'll find an email address for submissions.
You should have an online portfolio that you can point them to in your initial contact message. Be persistent . . . keep trying until they hire you.

Interesting - so its still ok to cold-call (well, -email) as such? And that's not to get sets accepted I'm guessing, is it more for being considered to get on lists of 'here's what we're gonna want, if you want to submit for this'? Is there a proper form / protocol for these kind of cold-calls?

Shot By Adam wrote:
Most legitimate publications have their in-house staff shoot things for them so they know it's consistent or they use the same contractors over and over again.

I don't know if this is a commonly believed myth, but it is incorrect.

Even in the heyday of magazines relatively few magazines held an in-house staff of photographers. Some had contractors who frequently contributed, but most national, regional and trade publications hired freelancers for individual shoots/projects. When a freelancer successfully completed a number of assignments for a particular publication they might be considered a contributing photographer, but that is by far not the same thing as a staff photographers. Sure there were exceptions, but if you want to make the argument that because 10% of magazines had in-house or staff photographers and ignore the 90% as who didn't confirming the myth, I guess, go for it.

regarding the actual topic of the thread...  If you are looking at vanity publications like those listed on Kavyar.com, there are no paid assignments. Further, there are opportunities to pay for placement and inconsistent quality of published photos.  Somewhere in-between there are publications that do have a rejection rate and are more curated than others. They are not to be confused with traditionally distributed magazines, but I don't believe they are pretending to be.

What I have seen are covers and fashion layouts appearing in agency models' portfolios and agency websites. To me, that indicated there is some promotional or exposure value. At a granular level, it is an opportunity for a photographer who has a quality concept or resource to find/book better models predicated on vanity magazine submission. Some photographers understand the value of this, however, many don't.

(disclosure: I have submitted and been published 40+ layouts including covers in 10 different vanity publications in the last few years)

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Go to a magazine stand (if you can find one) and look for printed, published, magazines that you would like to shoot for.

Look up their masthead and find out the name of the art director and in many cases you'll find an email address for submissions.

You should have an online portfolio that you can point them to in your initial contact message.

Be persistent . . . keep trying until they hire you.

Not sure what you are talking about, but the lion's share of traditional/legacy magazines didn't encourage or accept submission. Most magazines are working one or two issues ahead of the newsstand display. It would be more like utter chance that a photographer submitted a set of photos than happened to be on point to what they magazine is working on for future issues.

Fashion magazines are a good example. Because of the necessary lead time, unless a photographer has the same level of access to NEXT season's fashion samples, anything they submit will instantly be dated. Music is another genre of magazines that were once popular. Again, unless an individual photographer has the same insider access to music/artists that have not yet been dropped or become popular, they are generally an issue or two behind the resources and publicity leads that a magazine has. Possibly you are assuming that the very narrow genre of adult publications were indicative of the breadth of the magazine market. It isn't.

The legacy methodology for interfacing with magazines was to contact photo editors or art directors to show portfolios and possibly pitch an idea for a future project with their participation. Submitting completed shoots, apart from the small group of adult publications, is not a recipe for success.

Dan Howell wrote:

I don't know if this is a commonly believed myth, but it is incorrect.

Even in the heyday of magazines relatively few magazines held an in-house staff of photographers. Some had contractors who frequently contributed, but most national, regional and trade publications hired freelancers for individual shoots/projects. When a freelancer successfully completed a number of assignments for a particular publication they might be considered a contributing photographer, but that is by far not the same thing as a staff photographers.

My point being is that they go to the same people over and over again instead of constantly fishing for new photographers or use only outside contributions. Yes, it's true that they may not have photographers on a salary like a news station does but the point is still the same.