Laura Bello wrote:
I guess it doesn't bother me that much but I like to assume that when people list their publications as accomplishments they'd leave out stuff they simply paid to get into.  It's like paying someone to say how good you are, it just seems dumb to mention. 

I don't get that upset over it though.  Maybe it's cause I'm broke but it just seems like a huge waste of money to pay to try and make yourself look better.  People can look at your work and tell how good you are without your publications, that stuff is often just icing on the cake.

yes

Randy C Photography wrote:
the reason i bring this up also is/was... very recently a possible client was apparently shopping for a photographer, and after there speech on "how man times ive been published, why would you go to any one else"

client goes to them for the job, then comes to me to bc it wasnt done right.

There's an issue of quality and standards in everything really. I've seen several of these web/magcloud magazines that don't charge to publish the photo, but they'll literally take almost anything as long as it isn't a cellphone shot (even if you've seen cellphone shots that look nicer). I've seen a couple of these magazines that accept these shots because the (rather foolish) editor believes in showing work with models and photographers of all skill levels. They must have been one of those "everyone gets a trophy" types. In either case, as others have pointed out, bad work still gets published, sometimes a lot.

It sounds like your client forgot that and feel for a flawed bit of reasoning.

ms-photo wrote:
I know of a "celebrity photographer".

All his celebrity photos are paparazzi style and taken at red carpet events he just shows up to.

Even worse, he thinks HE'S the celebrity!

I've never met the guy but I've heard of one around here that's like that. He takes god awful shots, over photoshops them and fakes magazine covers while he's at it. He mocks up these magazine covers and some of the magazines actually exist in one form or another, others don't. Of course, there are other things he does on top of that that are the real reasons no one wants to go near him or deal with him.

udor wrote:
Yeah... but... HOW did she become "a name" that sells?

She isn't a trust-fund baby with rich, affluent Billionaire family, she comes from working class parents, etc.

She was touring with the Stones in the US, taking their photos, did coverage for Rolling Stone Magazine etc. Got published with rare shots and perspectives she could provide.

She created some of the most iconic images with many A-list celebrities, even Royalty and heads of Nations, etc. and why? Because she earned her position in photography over decades of work and earned the trust of the celebrities and high society.

Leibovitz also has a body of work that is worth almost $50 Million in royalties, which she created since the 1970's as a full time working photographer and head photographer for Rolling Stones Magazine.

Anybody who doesn't understand why she is getting published should either study her body of work, or take some classes in photography history at their local community college.

I compliantly agree with you.

But the thing is... It doesn't matter what she does today because her name will sell it. That's it.

CHAD ALAN wrote:

+1

And marketing abilities. :-O

Exactly...
It doesn't matter how good you are on what you do if you don't know to transmit it to the public, or if you don't get somebody who knows to do it for you.

On the other hand, you can have a very successful business selling crap just with a very good marketing campaign.

Randy C Photography wrote:
ok so, is it a new thing for some photographers to found a "pay per print" or "digital magazine", just for the fact to say they are published....
i have seen a few do this. now i agree that having a website/digital mag/ print publish you is 100% proper to say published...

it irks me when i see photographers say they are published month after month after month, in multiple publications, that they have founded and dont make note of so to seemingly make people they are more featured then they are.

or what made me laugh is the "add 50 for a 2 page spread in XXX of 100 for a centerfold in XXX magazine"

i dont know why but this irks me in a bad way. i have worked hard to have the images that ive have published, published.

what are your thoughts...

[this doesnt count for a proper photobook being self published as that is something i would do. just in terms of digital magazines that a photographer owns and doesnt openly admit to]

There are several Photographers who own their own magazines like "FRENCH" by Thierry Le Goues http://www.thierrylegoues.com amongst several others. I guess it is getting harder and harder to be published in Hard Copy print mags. Most magazines put their teams together just before or just after the collections and do their planning for the next 6 months to a year.

All of the established mags are already online on the net and have their own iPad online pay for subscription versions as well. They will often add to the hard copy edition or add other images that were not published in their hard copy version. But for all intent and purpose it is published and is considered as such. On several occasions what has been published in Hard Copy is not what has been published online, thus the reason they often ask if I can retouch other out takes or backstage stuff from the shoots I do to be "published" in their on line versions.

The reality is, if you are published you are published. Now the credibility of "What" you are published in is much more important. I cannot count how often I am asked to either work for magazines or online mags or to have my already published work be published in their magazines (hard or virtual) stuff. 9 times out of 10 I say NO or connect with my licensing agency in New York to negotiate fees. So in the final analysis, it isn't the fact that you are published that is important, it is in which support that really counts in this industry. So don't fret, you will have the last laugh..believe me. Because those in the know, KNOW!

Marcio Faustino wrote:
But the thing is... It doesn't matter what she does today because her name will sell it. That's it.

Not really true. If Annie started doing really poor work... she'd stop selling. Regardless of name.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Not really true. If Annie started doing really poor work... she'd stop selling. Regardless of name.

With all the experience, knowledge and contacts she got with years of work, she will never do a really poor work. But she can do a OK or average work and her name will sell it today.

Which is a very good thing and what any business, brand or professional wish.

Randy C Photography wrote:
what are your thoughts...

The clout of a publication is directly proportional to the
power of their pull letter.

still-photography wrote:
For those who don't understand, ruminate on these statements...

-Paying Blurb to print a book of your pictures isn't the same as having a publishing company invest in you.

What a supercilious posting. 

I realise you work for a publishing company but in my experience it seems that very few are “investing" in young, unknown photographers these days, no matter how good.  Often they require outside funding or sponsorship in order to make a book a reality.  This can mean a requirement for money from the photographer too. 

So... often not all that much different from Blurb.

Besides which, some real life publishing companies have worked with Blurb themselves.

All those, like you, who look down their nose at books created via Blurb should check up on some of the photographers that are going down that route and look at some of their results.

still-photography wrote:
-Taking a picture of a building doesn't make you an architectural photographer.

This is true but if one wants to be an architectural photographer, it’s the right place to start.

still-photography wrote:
-Getting your snapshots hung in a coffee shop isn't a gallery showing of your work.

I’ve had my snapshots (your word) shown in places where they also sold coffee.  Some, like The Society Club in London’s Soho, even sell books too.  Having work in big, national galleries and museums won’t, in itself, pay the bills whereas smaller places can often have a good list of people who actually buy work.

still-photography wrote:
-Calling yourself an artist because you've copied Avedon, Penn, or Weston will only impress your mommy.

Not really.  Do you really think none of the photographic greats ever copied anyone?  I suppose it would be possible to become a great fashion or street photographer without ever seeing or being influenced by any of the greats you mention but I think it’s unlikely.  Much better that one studies the greats and, if necessary, copy them occasionally in order to develop and find one’s own vision.

still-photography wrote:
-Posting an Instagram of your bagel and coffee doesn't make you a food photographer.

See my comment above regarding architectural photography.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
I've been published in print and online mags...big deal. It still doesn't pay my bills. LOL

Bingo!

But you can't beat free advertising

Darren Brade wrote:
It really surprises me how many photographers turn their noses up online mags.

It reminds me of the snotty comments I used to get when I took up photography as a hobby back in 2002! When I was regularly told how "mad" I was for buying a digital camera because those things will never catch on!

It’s not good if established photographers are snotty and dismissive about up and coming photographers struggling to find a platform.  What are they supposed to do, keep their work in a box until they become famous?  How does that work?

Why is it even necessary?

I think I know.

Insecurity and jealousy. 

Creative people often have a lot of insecurities and many are jealous of anyone else's success no matter how small that success might be.

I have a good friend who is a wonderful photographer but he has the most delicate ego.  I don’t think he’s on MM but he’s had a great career and has published several books.  He’s shot some of the world’s most famous people and has a list of credits as long as your arm.  Yet he hates any other photographer (including me) getting any work and he thinks he should be doing it all.

He’s not the only one. 

There was an iconic, household name British photographer that was so jealous of other, younger photographers getting work he thought he should be doing that he adopted a pseudonym and tried to double up on his chances of picking up that work.  I believe this did work for him too.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
I've been published in print and online mags...big deal. It still doesn't pay my bills. LOL

+1

Same here! It's all/always about the hustle.

KMP wrote:

SO true.. I  Get really tired of the folks who down great shooters.   That attitude of.. "Well if I had..fill in the blank...  I could do that just as well as they do"  is such sour grapes bullshit..
I feel like saying.."Well get off your lazy ass and do it. No more excuses."

Kent Art Photography wrote:
And marketing.  And price.  And other things, too.

Telling someone you're a published photographer, like an agency-represented model, carries very little kudos these days with the people who know about these things, but it might work with the general public.

I am a published photographer - I used to work as a staff photographer for a local paper, my pics were in it all the time, otherwise I lost my job - but I don't tell people that.

CHAD ALAN wrote:
+1

And marketing abilities. :-O

I will agree it is a lot about the marketing, not so much about the price.  Its amazing how people "find" money for something they value.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
Published means absolutely nothing to me. Same with award winning, recommended etc....

I recommend that someone publish me so I can win an award.  Then I'll impress everyone.  Well, everyone but you.

Lallure Photographic wrote:
Yes......but.......they should also understand that taking on 30 Million of debt, as a photographer, is a very risky thing to do.......and that's why Annie has major problems now.

Actually, the debt that she incurred came out of misfired real estate projects in Greenwich Village, NYC.

I listened to an extensive discussion about this situation on Studio 360 (NPR) a few years back when that happened. Because of certain renovations of historical buildings (protected) with missing permits, or something like that, she had to collateralize her other properties and photo catalogue to cover the loan of an investment group. So, it's unrelated to photography.

Just because you are a successful photographer, doesn't mean that you have a golden touch in other investment areas...