Abbitt Photography wrote:
Whichever pays more....

Well, as stated above NatGeo is my one and only bucket list publication but they don't pay crap.  Typically speaking they pay a $400 day rate plus licensing fees but they are still my one and only "dream" publication.

Anything else would just be work.

WIP wrote:
Some years ago I thought Vogue WOW yes... now I look at MM and think the work is as good and even better esp with photographers on '0' budget compared to what Vogue have as well as pre and post production staff.

Where are you seeing this ?
I see MM awash with selfies and desaturted train track photos

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:

Where are you seeing this ?
I see MM awash with selfies and desaturted train track photos

As opposed to the desat photo on this year's September edition?

Many of today's top shooters aren't known for their "objective technical ability" (Karsh, Newton, etc.) , so much as the overall feeling of the work.  And I think that's a good thing, but yeah - from a technical perspective, there are a LOT of better photographers on this site than what usually shows up in that mag.

Mine would be Aperture.  Great bragging rights, oversized book with (usually) excellent paper stock and fantastic printing .... probably the largest circulation of any "book quality" magazine, even if some others are better print quality.

If I had to pick something else (that is sort of the low-hanging fruit for a guy like me) , I'd say Hi-Fructose.  I LOVE pop surrealism, probably because it's so incredibly different from my own work.  I read Aperture because I figure I pretty much have to, but HF is the mag I most look forward to, and spend the most time on.  They feature very few representational photographers (doesn't really jive with their art style) , but I'd absolutely love to be the exception to that rule.

WIP wrote:
Some years ago I thought Vogue WOW yes... now I look at MM and think the work is as good and even better esp with photographers on '0' budget compared to what Vogue have as well as pre and post production staff.

Are you serious?

Yosh Studio wrote:

Are you serious?

Yep... I've bought Vogue for maybe 10 years French, Italian (2 of the best) mainly every month and ever since S. Meisel left Vogue has just gone pants... the editorial budget have been slashed...only one producing good work is Patrick Demarchelier.

Compare;
MM photographer and model...2 people maybe a MUA.
Vogue crew 2-3 assistants, MUA maybe 2, nails, hair, stylist 2 or more, art dir, retoucher.... and a shed load of clothes, shoes and jewellery to choose from.

MM looks good in comparison in relative terms.

WIP wrote:

Yep... I've bought Vogue for maybe 10 years French, Italian (2 of the best) mainly every month and ever since S. Meisel left Vogue has just gone pants... the editorial budget have been slashed...only one producing good work is Patrick Demarchelier.

Compare;
MM photographer and model...2 people maybe a MUA.
Vogue crew 2-3 assistants, MUA maybe 2, nails, hair, stylist 2 or more, art dir, retoucher.... and a shed load of clothes, shoes and jewellery to choose from.

MM looks good in comparison in relative terms.

That's because your not "looking" at styling or the models or just looking at photography. It like the person who cant tell the difference between $5 bottle of wine and $100 bottle, and actually thinks the $5 bottle tastes better

Yosh Studio wrote:
It like the person who cant tell the difference between $5 bottle of wine and $100 bottle, and actually thinks the $5 bottle tastes better

A $5 bottle of wine will taste much better than a $100 bottle if the former is drunk at the right time and the right temperature and the latter is not.  If you are going to spend more on wine you have to look after it better.

Yosh Studio wrote:
That's because your not "looking" at styling or the models or just looking at photography. It like the person who cant tell the difference between $5 bottle of wine and $100 bottle, and actually thinks the $5 bottle tastes better

At Trader Joe's ( a grocery chain here in the States) for several years they had specials on 2 buck chuck, $2.00 bottles of wine. The quality varied widely between lots, so, some folks would go into the store, buy a bottle and once back at their car discretely open it and taste, and if it was good go back in and buy a case.

Great fun with either side of the analogy and a way I much prefer to operate. ( aside from the questionable taste in comparing models to bottles of wine, which is pretty grossly cliched, or maybe just gross, not that I could resist).

Decay of Memory wrote:
At Trader Joe's ( a grocery chain here in the States) for several years they had specials on 2 buck chuck, $2.00 bottles of wine. The quality varied widely between lots, so, some folks would go into the store, buy a bottle and once back at their car discretely open it and taste, and if it was good go back in and buy a case.

Great fun with either side of the analogy and a way I much prefer to operate. ( aside from the questionable taste in comparing models to bottles of wine, which is pretty grossly cliched, or maybe just gross, not that I could resist).

Is there such a thing as bad $2 wine? 

I remember a friend of mine who rated women with "all women are beautiful, some just more than others"

Francisco Castro wrote:
As a model, photographer, MUA, stylist, etc., what magazine would be your goal in which to be published?

The one that is paying. Having my work appear in publication for free doesn't do anything for me unless it's for a charity or something like that. Bragging rights don't pay my bills and I can assure you, not once has anyone ever picked up the phone and called to book me because they saw a free pinup photo I did for a magcloud "magazine".

Yosh Studio wrote:

That's because your not "looking" at styling or the models or just looking at photography. It like the person who cant tell the difference between $5 bottle of wine and $100 bottle, and actually thinks the $5 bottle tastes better

Not to belabor the point, but other than Dom Perignon (which is almost always exactly $100, and had been for as long as I can remember) , wine doesn't start at $100/bottle.  Same goes for liquor, etc.; the costlier stuff is always older - sometimes because the age actually helps (in the case of whiskey) , or because it costs a lot to maintain for X years, and people think older is better (in the case of wine).

I started drinking wine in .... maybe 2008?  2009?  I still don't drink that much (I'm a whiskey guy) , but I remember reading that 2005 was an awesome year for grapes ... if true, what that means in theory is that back then a 2004 vintage would be worth more than a 2005 because it's some 20% older, but today a 2005 would be worth more than a 2004, because being from a better year is worth more than an 8% or so age difference.  In another ten years, the 2005 will be worth WAY more ... and in eighty years, they'll be worth exactly the same - because they've both turned into moldy vinegar, and both will be sold as "hundred year old wine."

I say 'in theory' because it depends on the region and the grape.  What goes down well with strong reds from Chile (my favorite, outside of a couple local places) isn't the same as whites from France or Napa Valley.  But one thing is certain:  bonkers high costs are ALWAYS a sign of age, rarity, and marketing, and only SOMETIMES a sign of quality.

Which makes this a perfect analogy for photography ... because as much as we like to pretend we're all worth the price tag when it's OUR work, we have no trouble saying that the price is only because of name recognition and marketing when it's someone else's work.  In reality, its about 40/60.

So, can a client always tell the difference between a cheap and expensive photographer?  Hell no.  And I'd put money on the fact that not a single one of us could tell every single time either, even though we should be able to.  I taught photography for almost a decade, and I'd miss an embarrassingly large amount.  Anybody that thinks otherwise is full of himself - just as all those reviewers who are "shocked" to discover that they just awarded a high rating to a $10 wine.

$10 is the cut-off, not $5   You're not going to have any $5 wine that makes you want to buy a case and stash it in the basement ... but you will for $10.

Zack Zoll wrote:
So, can a client always tell the difference between a cheap and expensive photographer?  Hell no.  And I'd put money on the fact that not a single one of us could tell every single time either, even though we should be able to.  I taught photography for almost a decade, and I'd miss an embarrassingly large amount.  Anybody that thinks otherwise is full of himself - just as all those reviewers who are "shocked" to discover that they just awarded a high rating to a $10 wine.

Virtually nothing you’ve written about wine here is really true IMHO apart from the last part.

But as this isn’t Wine Mayhem I will limit myself just to this story.

I was camping once with a good friend in France.  He was a bit of a wine snob and he’d buy relatively expensive wine (spending maybe the equivalent of $30) and I would buy it by the litre in plastic bottlers at closer to $2.

He’d drink his, I’d drink mine.

I told him that I didn’t think there was all that much difference.

One day we were picnicking in the countryside and at one point, when he got up to use the facilities (a nearby bush), I thought I would switch glasses and see if he noticed.

Then I thought to myself, what does that really prove? 

So I switched them back to their original positions.

When he got back, I just told him I’d switched glasses.

He then took one swig of his own wine, went “urgh” and spat it out onto the grass.

He took my glass and was then happy drinking the $2 wine.

Shot By Adam wrote:
The one that is paying. Having my work appear in publication for free doesn't do anything for me unless it's for a charity or something like that. Bragging rights don't pay my bills and I can assure you, not once has anyone ever picked up the phone and called to book me because they saw a free pinup photo I did for a magcloud "magazine".

I realise that you and I work in completely different areas but for me, this attitude would not make much sense.

Until about two or three years ago, people coming to me only ever seemed to want me to do one thing.  Replicate the stuff I was shooting 35 years ago.

That was fine, as far as it went.  Rather some work than no work.  But it was starting to get a little tedious.

The only way I could ever change people’s perception of what I can do is IMHO via shooting, occasionally, for free.  It gives me a certain amount of freedom to do my thing and, because no one is paying, they have to like it or lump it.

And of course, 99% of the people who see the results will never know whether you were shooting for free or not.

Has my ruse worked or not?

I don’t really know. 

But I do know I’m not the only photographer that uses free shoots in order to develop people’s perceptions of what they can do.

Derek Ridgers wrote:

Virtually nothing you’ve written about wine here is really true IMHO apart from the last part.

But as this isn’t Wine Mayhem I will limit myself just to this story.

I was camping once with a good friend in France.  He was a bit of a wine snob and he’d buy relatively expensive wine (spending maybe the equivalent of $30) and I would buy it by the litre in plastic bottlers at closer to $2.

He’d drink his, I’d drink mine.

I told him that I didn’t think there was all that much difference.

One day we were picnicking in the countryside and at one point, when he got up to use the facilities (a nearby bush), I thought I would switch glasses and see if he noticed.

Then I thought to myself, what does that really prove? 

So I switched them back to their original positions.

When he got back, I just told him I’d switched glasses.

He then took one swig of his own wine, went “urgh” and spat it out onto the grass.

He took my glass and was then happy drinking the $2 wine.

That's fair.  Like I said, I'm not a big wine guy - I'm cool with being wrong.  At least I got the important part right.

pixpal wrote:
Definitely National Geographic

+1