Neil Snape wrote:
....
From what I've sent up they have taken what I would least expect, the better ones not selected.
It may be that the site is a lot more popular than they first thought so now it's like clicking on whatever to pass through the oodles of images sent up every day.

Since watching I've seen war pictures, poverty, a frog  ( yesterday), a lot of retro pictures, a lot of old pictures win the daily selection.

An interesting exercise , yet there is nothing relative about their process.
It is a great place to showcase any kind of picture, and is in no way limited to fashion. ...To have the Vogue Italia stamp on the pictures though is not worth bragging about, not worth promoting, and not something to twist the reality for what it's worth!

Now I am too tempted. I am going to registger and enter two photos from my very first time pressing the shudder.

I'd rented a camera last week and went for a little bit of shooting. I am going to enter one of my first shots and one of my last shots. First being a homeless couple who asked me to shoot them and the last being a mechanical thingy.

Screeech!!! edit. Can't do it!!
No way. Neat thougth but, no way!

Neil Snape wrote:
^^^ actually your monkey pic is better than some of the model pictures accepted there sometimes!

He is an attractive monkey... I tried to tell him he was probably too short to be agency represented, but he just threw up the "Kate Moss defense".

I will say that I don't completely understand their voting process. But I don't really care either, it's a small accolade to have your work chosen by a third-party no matter how arbitrary the processes. The way I see it, it's all about visibility. They've created a false shroud of exclusivity, and just about everyone who has come into this thread has probably also hopped on the site to look through a few of the photos. Regardless of whether it's the shot I had hoped they would pick, or one I'm surprised they did, it still leads to exposure... exposure next to the name Vogue. It's foolish to treat it as a major accomplishment, but it also seems equally foolish to dismiss its value out right.

It's like getting your business card tacked to a well-traveled cork board.

Berghammer wrote:
He is an attractive monkey... I tried to tell him he was probably too short to be agency represented, but he just threw up the "Dean Johnson defense".

I will say that I don't completely understand their voting process. But I don't really care either, it's a small accolade to have your work chosen by a third-party no matter how arbitrary the processes. The way I see it, it's all about visibility. They've created a false shroud of exclusivity, and just about everyone who has come into this thread has probably also hopped on the site to look through a few of the photos. Regardless of whether it's the shot I had hoped they would pick, or one I'm surprised they did, it still leads to exposure... exposure next to the name Vogue. It's foolish to treat it as a major accomplishment, but it also seems equally foolish to dismiss its value out right.

It's like getting your business card tacked to a well-traveled cork board.

Looks like a Golden Lion Tamarin.

What about published in, as opposed to worked for?

A freelancer can get published in many magazines, but end up working for few.

Besides it is not about who you are and what you can do, but about what you can convince others.

Neil Snape wrote:
I don't rant so this is a first.

Through different posts here, we've voted for each others pix on a gallery open to submissions for showing your work on the Vogue Italia web site. Very cool way to get some pix in a high profile web site , and the images ( small jpgs) are water marked with the cool Vogue Italia logo.

I haven't posted any yet but will.

So yesterday I saw a MM photographer in England, saying they worked for numerous magazines including Vogue Italia.

There they had posted an image, they retrieved the image, and are using that for false promotion of work. Misleading llamas etc, in my opinion is fraud.

I remember all too well when I left Vancouver , all the local photographers would say , oh I worked in Europe, for so many months.

In the end the truth was they were on holidays, traveling around with a back pack, shooting some snaps, doing some tests. Never did they work here, especially not in Paris. It is not that easy. Very few really came to Paris and ever worked!

Yet this probably still continues today.

There are few MM photographers who have or ever will work with Vogue Italia. As much as we'd all like to!

Now how do you feel about photographers lying about themselves, to convince others of their greatness that doesn't exist?

/rant

I only claim what I can post proof of.  NO Not just an email of something!!! I do not consider proof as  an ELECTRONIC IMAGE  that has a questionable source.

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:
An art director told me how a photographer brought in his portfolio for a showing. Unfortunately, for the photographer, he showed a shot the art director had worked on,  with the REAL photographer. 

Lying happens... But I believe it'll bite them in the butt 

Sounds uncannily similar to this story...almost identical. Interesting isn't it?

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/2009 … es-around/

Nyctiphaes wrote:
models too are quite annoying when they post images on FB and claim they got published in Vogue, same goes for photographers.
I really doubt the criteria with which photos are selected and by whom? I ve seen a number of photos up and since when did Vogue become a publication suitable to judge street photography etc? Now I understand how easily persuaded people are and why its called the "Bible" or whatever
i was a bit hot in the start with it, but it died pretty soon

The most troubling thing is how they try to convince participants to collaborate with this project Vogue does with Art+Commerce to  gain publicity etc etc, when in essence is that A+C will be getting nice images for almost scraps to sell to art editors globally.
You do see whats going to happen later on, with the production that takes place from test shoots etc increasing each year, magazines will be able to get material, that aspiring photographers will do anything to publish, for almost nothing.

Well the criteria are the same as any magazine, they publish what they want and in this case the photo editor explained it fairly well.  I am not sure why you feel a publication has to prove its suitability to judge anything, this isn't a juried contest its a magazine and there photo editors pick what they want - just like everyone else in commercial photography.

As for the Art+Commerce side, I believe their managed rights sales are in line with what others price stock work at and more then getty pays the artists.  But again its not like you have to sell managed stock its an entirely different process and sign up.

I agree with you that its annoying when people claim otherwise.  Getting a photo approved, while an accomplishment, isn't the same as getting into 1 of the printed issues.  I have no problem with people saying they have images from Vogue.it - it means they made a good image judged by at least one professional art director from a major international magazine

robert zimmerman wrote:
It's either fortune or fame
You must pick up one or the other
Though neither of them are to be what they claim...

I'll take check, cash or paypal... thanks

seriously...

Neil Snape wrote:
Now how do you feel about photographers lying about themselves, to convince others of their greatness that doesn't exist?

/rant

A lot like models claiming to be in Playboy when in fact they were some "Cyber girl of the week" because their friends voted and re-voted in the greatest number.

MKPhoto wrote:
By a wild guess-timate, I'd venture on the order of 50,000 images on PhotoVogue. ca 25,000 regisered users, every other has pictures, average 4 pics per portfolio.

Not even close, it appears that most do not have approved images.  Anyone is welcome to try however.  These days they are much more picky about fashion and beauty images they approve.  They listed the numbers of submission they get every day in a blog post, I don't recall the numbers but it was a very tiny amoun that get approved.

Again it's no the same as working with the actual magazine but it's not like getting approved here lol

AJScalzitti wrote:
Not even close, it appears that most do not have approved images.  Anyone is welcome to try however.  These days they are much more picky about fashion and beauty images they approve.  They listed the numbers of submission they get every day in a blog post, I don't recall the numbers but it was a very tiny amoun that get approved.

Again it's no the same as working with the actual magazine but it's not like getting approved here lol

I went through 15 random portfolios and 7  had approved pics. I'll play the count again...
LOL. I got lucky the first time around...You are right less but not by that far.

Next try:
50 portfolios, 15 with pics, 48 pics total, so a third with three pics each. ~29,000 registered users (counted by scrolling screens ). So on the order of 30,000 pics.

Interesting, everything desaturated or BW

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
I have had the pleasure of having 15 images selected by vogue Italia online. 3 of them winning the "best of" and 2 winning the PIC OF THE DAY. I was contacted that the pic of the day would be published in the magazine at a later date, but that has not happened and I am not holding my breath.

I have a link directly to the Photo Vogue site. So people can make up their own minds about my work there.

I think that the OP's original post, which is no quite old, is about the fact that the website is not the same as the magazine.  The problem is that I don't consider it to be false to say that you've worked with "Vogue Italia" if you've had a number of images on the website.  I think that we, as a group, have to understand that there are different levels.  Clearly starting at one level might lead to another ... or not.  It is the same with everything.

The paradigm has changed now that some publications have an online presence and then seek content.

Bobby Vu wrote:
Getting a photo selected by Vogue.it is great. Doesn't mean you work for them, but being on there pretty much means you are legit. Sure, you may think some images there suck, but that's your opinion. And it's also their opinion not to select your photo.

Don't be bitter and don't give up.

LOL immediately thought of you when I saw this Bobby.