Charlie-CNP wrote:
...

Heck, one can even contact Conde Nast and pay a rate to have their work included in any of their publications these days. There are several publications that do not charge yet, but it depends on if the reach is worth it to promote your work. If they have a substantial audience, it might be one thing, but what is your end game?  If it is to simply say that you have been "published", there are many free alternatives. However, if this audience is part of your market, you might want to consider what this would lead to if you play along with them.

if they would be thinking you would be good enough they would pay for it, or at the minimum without charge....so it's not for your quality, sorry to say...

I think you will be needing a lot of soul-searching on this..

Kendra Paige wrote:
This has become a recent trend for several submission-based magazines. Superior, Dark Beauty, and Institute are among a few of those that charge for submissions.

Personally, I think the fact a publication is getting free, quality content speaks for itself. Paying their Admin fee is up to you based on the exposure you feel it may bring you.

Institute is by far the worst in my opinion, I love a lot of the work they post but they wanted $200 to share my series on their page, ridiculous.  I declined and got it published for free elsewhere.

Dark beauty is way more affordable at $5-$10 and I can at least understand how they want a bit of money for the online content, when I submitted before they had a payment thing it took them a nearly a year to review and post the image because of how much people send in, now if I pay them $5 for a instant review it only takes a couple of days.  Mostly it's great because every time they share my work I get around 100 likes on my page, I basically think of it as a way to advertise my work.

Paying to get published in a magazine or a site that isn't going to get you a lot of attention is worthless.  I know a local photographer that actually paid the $200 to get on Institute and it's done nothing for him and his work is no where near the caliber of the photographers they more regularly feature, really they just want your money.

Laura Bello wrote:
... Mostly it's great because every time they share my work I get around 100 likes on my page, I basically think of it as a way to advertise my work.

sorry but isn't this a kind of make-believe that you're publication-worthy?..only when people start paying you to get publish, is the threshold..

Laura Bello wrote:
...really they just want your money.

yes, and what is the emotion they want to trigger on you  to make you pay?...right...

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

KL_Photography wrote:
I submitted images to an online magazine and received an email back stating that they have been chosen to be published on their website and social media sites but are charging me an admin fee of €35.99. Has anyone ever heard of this? I am don't have a lot of extensive knowledge when it comes to submitting and being published, but I had never heard of the magazine charging you to use your images...

Without knowing what magazine it's hard to say if there's any real value.

I'm starting to work on getting published but I'd never pay someone to publish my work. I started out small, submitting to a few small magazines to try for an ego boost. Now that I've gotten into some of those and continue to do so I'm aiming a little higher and I'm going to try to get in to some bigger mags. Once I get into those, I'll aim higher.

Kendra Paige wrote:
This has become a recent trend for several submission-based magazines. Superior, Dark Beauty, and Institute are among a few of those that charge for submissions.

Personally, I think the fact a publication is getting free, quality content speaks for itself. Paying their Admin fee is up to you based on the exposure you feel it may bring you.

They get a bad rep
Good photographers don't want to be publish there anymore (because if they do people would assume they paid too)

Soon enough, they lose all credibility

KL_Photography wrote:
I submitted images to an online magazine and received an email back stating that they have been chosen to be published on their website and social media sites but are charging me an admin fee of €35.99. Has anyone ever heard of this? I am don't have a lot of extensive knowledge when it comes to submitting and being published, but I had never heard of the magazine charging you to use your images...

They have a good sense of humour, fools and their money easily parted. There are lots of desperate people out there itch to get published, it's a 21st century disease. Play along if you like to play their game.

Eyesso wrote:
Well.....what magazine? 

I mean, I'd PAY to be published in some magazines that I admire, maybe that's foolish, but I'll part with my money.  Most other magazines I could care less to be published in.... I know how to use InDesign, I can be "published" whenever the heck I want.

Lets make a fake magazine and get published too

GER Photography wrote:
Tell them to bugger off!! You recind the offer of publishing rights. Or send them a bill for €50 and pay their fee out of that.

I like that

Send them a bill for usage of your image and tell them to deduct their fee from it

F*****g chancers

me voy wrote:
There is a difference between being published and purchasing ad space in a magazine. If you pay $5, 10 or 35.99 what you are doing is basically purchasing an ad on their magazine. If you don't get paid, you are basically an idiot. You are supplying content for them to profit from without paying you a penny. Trust me, photo editors and art buyers know what publications are taking advantage of photographers. If you tell them you were published in one of those, they will think that you are an idiot. Don't embarrass yourself and don't degrade our industry by working for free.

100% ^^^ You will lose more then the 35.99 because all your time and effort will be worth $0.oo(SO YOU ARE SAYING YOUR WORK IS WORTHLESS),,  but they will make your 35.99 PLUS use your content to get x amount more people subscribing. Nothing like making of the back of someone elses work that you don't have to pay a dime for,,, OR better yet, make them pay you, so you can use their product to make you money,, AND YOU NEVER HAVE TO PAY THEM, THEY ALWAYS PAY YOU...
  Everyone wins,, EXCEPT you, perfect if your not you.

Herman van Gestel wrote:
sorry but isn't this a kind of make-believe that you're publication-worthy?..only when people start paying you to get publish, is the threshold..


yes, and what is the emotion they want to trigger on you  to make you pay?...right...

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

I don't count getting shared on their page as a publication, like I said it's like an online way to promote my work, like paying to post an ad on FB.  I just say I've been featured on their website which stands because they don't accept all images and I've been featured there long before you had to pay anything anyways (ps the payment is to have the image viewed quicker so you don't have to wait a year to see if they're accepted or not).

It's very dependent on the place that's 'publishing', my work, and the price. If you're not getting anything out of it then it's not worth it and 99% of the time for the cost of submission it's not.  Like with institute, the $200 could be better spent elsewhere.  That's just my opinion of what I'll personally put up with.

Chill out with the judgment.

Philipe wrote:
I think its bullsh!t.
Screw those type of magazines..

They should be paying you..
Obviously they are not selling much and maybe they do not have much or do not have high paying advertisers.
Lame...

I agree, they could potentially be making a ton of money before the magazine even gets printed. A nice way to save their butts, but it doesn't do any good for the individuals who are featured.