Star wrote:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-new-frugality-time-style.html

"Times are tough for everybody, especially, apparently, Time Magazine. Used to paying a stock fee of $3,000 for a cover, or $1,500 or so if it's an assignment (last I checked), take a guess how much the cover below cost Time?"

this blog makes references to the Model Mayhem thread. I think it is insightful. The writer of the blog is a very well known editorial photographer named John Harrington.

http://www.johnharrington.com

It sounds like a whiny rant to me. Too fucking bad for him.

Lumigraphics wrote:

It sounds like a whiny rant to me. Too fucking bad for him.

Do you understand that you are calling one of the great photographic business minds of our time a whiny ranter?

Next time maybe you should research who you are calling names before actually calling someone a name.

Star wrote:

Do you understand that you are calling one of the great photographic business minds of our time a whiny ranter?

Next time maybe you should research who you are calling names before actually calling someone a name.

It does sound like a whiny rant. An unnecessary one at that. I read the thread, it seemed to me the photographer was just fine with the $30.00( After all it was just a stock photo, pulled off a stock photo website). In fact he seemed excited to have a tear sheet of that caliber. So why can't people just be happy for him?


- Travis Sackett
www.TravisSackett.com

Star wrote:

Do you understand that you are calling one of the great photographic business minds of our time a whiny ranter?

Next time maybe you should research who you are calling names before actually calling someone a name.

Yes I realize who he is. Doesn't matter, its still a whiny rant. You'd think he would be above that kind of thing.

Star wrote:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-new-frugality-time-style.html

"Times are tough for everybody, especially, apparently, Time Magazine. Used to paying a stock fee of $3,000 for a cover, or $1,500 or so if it's an assignment (last I checked), take a guess how much the cover below cost Time?"

this blog makes references to the Model Mayhem thread. I think it is insightful. The writer of the blog is a very well known editorial photographer named John Harrington.

http://www.johnharrington.com

Lumigraphics wrote:
It sounds like a whiny rant to me. Too fucking bad for him.

I don't think making the observation that a $3000 cover was had for $30 is a whiny rant.  It's probably (coming from a professional stock /editorial photographer with some serious chops), closer to moral indignity or outrage.


And it's not really just too fucking bad for him.   The implications of all of this actually have a bearing on a number of people who made/make a living wage doing stock that's not micro and/or RF.

Star wrote:
Do you understand that you are calling one of the great photographic business minds of our time a whiny ranter?

Next time maybe you should research who you are calling names before actually calling someone a name.

One of the Great Photographic Business Minds of our Time -- whew -- John will love this.

DarkSlide wrote:

One of the Great Photographic Business Minds of our Time -- whew -- John will love this.

What's his MM number?

nudes by paul wrote:
isn't it the mind set that photography isn't worth anything that is driving this?  Think about the fact that time's circulation is huge, it's insulting to photographers that a photo made only a portion of a cent per print.  Hell, even if time's circulation was only 10,000, the photo was sold for 1/3 of a cent per copy.

Would ANYONE on here even consider a third of a cent payment for a portrait?

ON MM?????

are you kidding me?  OF course they would. 

What people rant about on here are about escorts and photographers who perv and models who flake and panties that have been worn and does nudity = porn and are his/her/their boobs too big, but certainly not getting paid too little.

nudes by paul wrote:
isn't it the mind set that photography isn't worth anything that is driving this?  Think about the fact that time's circulation is huge, it's insulting to photographers that a photo made only a portion of a cent per print.  Hell, even if time's circulation was only 10,000, the photo was sold for 1/3 of a cent per copy.

Would ANYONE on here even consider a third of a cent payment for a portrait?

If the cover photo had been sold at the standard rate of up to $10k, that would still be a fraction of a cent per issue.  Their circulation remains in the millions. We're not talking about a portrait client or a fine art print.

Lumigraphics wrote:
It sounds like a whiny rant to me. Too fucking bad for him.

+1 and the last paragraph of that blog is a cheapshot to the photographer. Uncalled for in my opinion. Not to mention he talks shit about everyone that was congradulating the photographer for the Tearsheet.

Cherrystone wrote:
What's his MM number?

Thats what I was thinking too. He obviously was in that thread as well

The Main Man wrote:

Thats what I was thinking too. He obviously was in that thread as well

John is not a MM member.

MinisterC  wrote:
Is Mr Harrington jealous?

I very seriously doubt that.

SLE Photography wrote:
I posted to his Blog, for some reason my Google ID didn't post correctly so it came up anonymous. 
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … 8913491412

Thank you for that. I agree with everything you said in that

Star wrote:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-new-frugality-time-style.html

"Times are tough for everybody, especially, apparently, Time Magazine. Used to paying a stock fee of $3,000 for a cover, or $1,500 or so if it's an assignment (last I checked), take a guess how much the cover below cost Time?"

this blog makes references to the Model Mayhem thread. I think it is insightful. The writer of the blog is a very well known editorial photographer named John Harrington.

http://www.johnharrington.com

I've heard many experienced photographers here tell newbies that shooting model portfolios for income is a terrible idea, and they need to focus on providing something unique in their market. I think that's good advice and subscribe to the logic. Models are not where the money is since it's so easy for them to build ports for free.

Since the photography equipment to create national print quality images is now within reach of enthusiasts, the same laws of economics that applies to shooting model ports is beginning to apply to stock photos. 

It's the same as online news vs newspapers, online advertising vs print advertising, blogs vs editorial staff, open source freeware vs proprietary vendor software. If a cheaper, better, or faster way to deliver a product is available, expect to see it in use.

Lynn Helms Photography wrote:
Here's the thing... The guy who put his photo on iStock had no idea that Time Magazine was going to use it on their cover. Everyone acts like it's his fault. He just put up a photo to use for stock.

I also think it was kind of mean to take excerpts from his profile and rag on him.

Paul Tirado Photography wrote:
While insightful as to the state of the magazine world now and issues and inequity as to usage in microstock, I think the shots and veiled insults to Mr. Lam were quite petty and uncalled for. It is not as if Mr. Lam had taken the shot for Time Magazine and was offered 10,000 and said "nah, just give me 30 dollars and were cool"

+1 to you both.

People like the gentleman who posted that blog (often on this very site) like to take cheap shots at microstock shooters, part timers, and hobbyists.

As I said in my comment on his blog, we're really not threats nor are we trying to be.  So I fail to understand the animus they show towards us, and it's sad that they can't see how their own anger & prejudices keep their points from coming across as anything but anger or jealousy.

theda wrote:

I very seriously doubt that.

I was mostly being sarcastic. I found his blog to be a bit disrespectful. Some of what he said was a little cheap. This is the first I've ever heard of him and the last I'll ever read him.

azzara wrote:
There are clearly 2 sides to this. On Model Mayhem which is predominately an amateur site, most photographers would have given the image to TIME for FREE to get that kind of tear sheet. Then you have the "professional photographers" who after 25-30 years are getting peanuts for their work now since digital photography came along. Let's face it, without digital there would be no Model Mayhem and most shooters here would have a day job and instead of shooting models would have a bowling night.
As a 30 plus year photographer, it makes me sick as my monthly statements come in with the lines:
Your share $6.32
I agree Mr Harrington took a cheap shot with the TFP remarks, however for those who USED TO GET $600 to shoot NEW models and take some of that money to pay experienced models like Theda to shoot with them are finding this a thing of the past as well. Professional photographers who have been supporting their families with their CAREER for the past 30 years are finding it harder and harder to do so. They are angry, they feel betrayed, they are screwed. Picture the same happening on your day job and you will understand.
So I tend to understand WHAT was being said I agree with the complaints of HOW it was said.

Agreed (especially the bit about paying me).

The sad fact is, this influx of cheaper and cheaper photography is making it harder for a lot of us in this industry to make a living.  Economic Darwinism suggest that those being winnowed improve and/or adapt, but not everyone will be able to do that to the point of maintaining their former standard of living. And increased under- and unemployment means decreased capital in circulation and a weaker economy. Apply this phenomenon to enough people in enough industries and you have a problem.

SLE Photography wrote:
While you make some valid points, your tone and unnecessary personal attacks on Mr. Lam (especially your comments implying he has ugly motivations for what he does) do nothing to aid the credibility of your statements and make this whole thing sound like this's a personal issue rather than a professional one.

The world of full time commercial shooters is a small one, with few opportunities for success. Something like this is a big deal for hobbyists & part timers who often go their whole lives without this sort of exposure. None of them are trying to take your job, nor are they likely to do so.

Calling out screwy business practices is fine, but attacking a little guy who got lucky & saying he's probably a pervert is uncalled for.

He responded:

I did not say he's "probably a pervert", I came to some preliminary conclusions based upon a problematic history in the profession of photography. Almost every model on Model Mayhem, where he promotes his model work, feels it necessary to stipulate they don't do nude/etc and have to underscore it by saying "don't even ask just before the shoot...I will bring an escort..." Why is that do you think?

If you are really looking to grow your portfolio, you would be just as eager to photograph men as women. You would have more than just one guy on a website that is otherwise filled with women. You would want the variety of images that demonstrate your abilities.

This isn't personal, it's business. When you slash so severely your fees to the point of ridiculous, and then you contribute to photographers being mis-perceived as looking to interact with attractive girls under the guise of a "I'll give you photos of yourself if you let me take your pictures of you ladies..." mentality further erodes peoples' opinions of professional photographers as, well, professionals.

To date, I have yet to have had my work-product replaced by that of a hobbyist. Further, I have had clients who have left for someone cheaper, only to return because they got inferior quality. However, there is likely a studio photographer in New York City that has one less shot at a Time cover thanks to Mr. Lam, and I care too much about the profession of photography to simply sit back and remain silent.

He CLEARLY doesn't understand how MM works & has a skewed perception of it & its members.  He also exhibits even more of the bias I previously mentioned.  What's fascinating, tho, is that we see here a big time pro admitting that a) he IS threatened by the little guy shooting microstock (something they often strenuously deny while excoriating us for doing it) and b) for all that they like to set themselves part from us & heap scorn on us some pros are worried about us affecting perceptions of them.

Unfortunately, like too many of those individuals, his solution is not to reach out for mutual dialog but to try & force a set of standards on us from a world we're not part of or welcome in, or to try & get us to simply "go away."  It's disheartening to see this attitude.

I responded in a 2 part post:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … 7407824696

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … 2687588175

I'll be interested to see if he chooses to engage in an open & constructive dialog.  Unfortunately my posts were broken up by someone posting anonymously & name calling, but posts like his will inevitably breed that sort of angry response.  All in all the sort of fighting & negativity that's likely to be inspired by all this do FAR more to make us all look unprofessional & impugn the credibility of photographers than Mr. Lam offering TF.

Sita Mae wrote:
I feel pretty bad for the photographer being torn to shreds in that blog, I gotta say.  It made me wince.

With that said:

I'm constantly retorting to professional photographers who complain about my hobby that it doesn't take anything away from them, and they need to shut up and shoot.

I'm forced, with this event, to reconsider that position.

Sita, I brought that up in my reply to Mr. Harrington and I stand by it.  This sort of thing will NOT cause a "paradigm shift" in the market any more than one 5'4" girl getting a one time Vogue cover will "change the fashion industry."

Time chose the microstock image to make a POINT on a cover story about frugality.  There're plenty of reasons why such things won't become the norm, first & foremost that if more magazines started doing this others would change their business models to match.  Do you really think the stock shops won't put in policies about this sort of thing if they see the amount THEY aren't making on such deals, for instance?

While the fall of paper publishing & ready access to equipment & resources will allow more people who would previously never have a shot at the rarefied world of commercial & agency work to have a shot at fame the top talent will always be secure and most people will stay with them.  MM hobbyists aren't going to "ruin the market," no matter how upsetting some of them might find an aberrant event like this.

azzara wrote:
There are clearly 2 sides to this. On Model Mayhem which is predominately an amateur site, most photographers would have given the image to TIME for FREE to get that kind of tear sheet. Then you have the "professional photographers" who after 25-30 years are getting peanuts for their work now since digital photography came along. Let's face it, without digital there would be no Model Mayhem and most shooters here would have a day job and instead of shooting models would have a bowling night.
As a 30 plus year photographer, it makes me sick as my monthly statements come in with the lines:
Your share $6.32
I agree Mr Harrington took a cheap shot with the TFP remarks, however for those who USED TO GET $600 to shoot NEW models and take some of that money to pay experienced models like Theda to shoot with them are finding this a thing of the past as well. Professional photographers who have been supporting their families with their CAREER for the past 30 years are finding it harder and harder to do so. They are angry, they feel betrayed, they are screwed. Picture the same happening on your day job and you will understand.
So I tend to understand WHAT was being said but I agree with the complaints of HOW it was said.

It has been and currently is happening to everyone's day jobs.   Companies are cutting costs any way they can, including layoffs, furloughs, brownouts, moving operations to cheaper states or overseas, replacing workers with technology when possible, and looking for bargains wherever they can find them.

SLE Photography wrote:
I replied to your comment, Star.  You're mischaracterizing what I and a few others said.  No one was praising TIME, we were just pointing out that the unnecessary editorializing about the photographer, his motives, and the general populace of MM detracted from the overall conversation.

It's likely that Pat is correct & he wrote it to be inflammatory on purpose,but as seen in these links:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st10510879
plenty of other blogs have had heated discussions about the business aspects & ethics without attacking the shooter on a personal level.

I said no such thing. I said that the people replying were hobbiest photographers? true yes?

I then talked about what people should be focusing on, that TIME violated the usage agreement and did not buy the correct license nor did they do the correct crediting

Star wrote:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-new-frugality-time-style.html

"Times are tough for everybody, especially, apparently, Time Magazine. Used to paying a stock fee of $3,000 for a cover, or $1,500 or so if it's an assignment (last I checked), take a guess how much the cover below cost Time?"

this blog makes references to the Model Mayhem thread. I think it is insightful. The writer of the blog is a very well known editorial photographer named John Harrington.

http://www.johnharrington.com

Sorry Star, I really don't see any insight here.  I see a personal attack.  As I wrote in the original thread, I think that the fact that Time - part of a multi-billion dollar organization and one that has ad budgets in the tens of millions -- can pay $30 for the cover of the magazine is dreadful and certainly nothing to be proud of as the photographer.  So, in that respect, I agree with Mr. Harrington.  However, he goes much further than that and strays well into an area of personal attack that is both unfair and unwise for a professional.

Ray Holyer wrote:
They didn't use the image because it was cheap, they used it to sell the magazine.

They bought the WRONG USAGE. They stole the image, violated the license agreement and are illegally reselling it.