Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: lisa_r on August 18, 2009, 11:29:46 am

Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: lisa_r on August 18, 2009, 11:29:46 am
Well, I am in NYC working in fashion, and clearly the competition in fashion has been such that everyone does editorial shoots either for next to free, or more typically as a $$ loss. Of course they do it for the exposure. Seems not to be the case in other specialties, such as food, architecture, etc. Am I right? Does mags in food/architecture/sports, etc. expect photographers to work for free?

(I have thankfully had a lot of commercial work for many years so I have been ok, but many are starving over here ;-))
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Dustbak on August 18, 2009, 11:47:15 am
I cannot tell you anything about NY since I work in the NL's however over here the situation is not much different. As long as there are loads and loads of people willing to work for free just to get their names in what they perceive as the pinnacle that can be reached as photographer (publication in a so-called 'hot' consumer fashion magazine) there is no money to be made.

I refrain from working for those kind of magazines. The B-to-B magazines pay better, even if they are not as hot  When I don't want to make money I much rather photograph stuff I really like for myself instead of working for some magazine (or any other freeloading 'client').

So, I guess they do expect you to work for free and if you are not they will find someone that does.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Graham Mitchell on August 18, 2009, 01:14:09 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY)
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: jonstewart on August 18, 2009, 02:40:43 pm
Good One Graham,

That just about sums up the basics!
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: TMARK on August 18, 2009, 02:50:09 pm
On NYC and Free Editorials:  

1.  You can squeeze some money out of the job on the production through markups.  Even Conde Nast would wink wink nudge nudge at 2-% markups, except when they made you rent from Fotocare which billed them directly at a highly discounted rate.

2. The exposure is worth their page rate for advertisers.  So think of it as part of your marketing budget.

3. I usually got work after an editorial.  $30k - $50k catalogue shoots, beauty shoots, etc.

4. There is usually minimal art direction, if at all.  You get a letter of intent from the magazine which gives your stylist the ability to pull whatever clothes, accessories etc you need.  The production is paid for, at discounted rates, so you can use the Piers or Splashlight or Fast Ashley's or Shoot Digital, and their equipment rooms.  Like those Brieze Focus umbrellas with an HMI?  Go to the Piers and get your freak on.  

5. The food us usually very good.

All that being said, I don't really shoot fashion anymore.  I lost the drive and energy, I have a wife and kid so I can't be at Mars Bar or the Rabbit Club all night, or that awful Lit Lounge where the newbies like to hang.  About two years ago I felt I was pushing harder and harder for the same amount of work/money I made the year before, so I started phasing out of fashion and beauty and getting into motion, which pays better, has less competition, a higher bar to entry, etc.  No one asks you to work for free in motion, because even a small music video, shooting the Red so no film/processing costs, runs $10k in hard costs, paid out with 30 days.  Two days of shooting, location/studio fees, transpo, lighting rentals, feeding 15 - 20 people, editing time, day rates for those 15 people, etc.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: TMARK on August 18, 2009, 02:53:11 pm
Quote from: foto-z
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY)

Fantastic!
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Dustbak on August 18, 2009, 03:37:13 pm
Quote from: foto-z
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY)

So recognizable!
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Doug Peterson on August 18, 2009, 03:59:30 pm
Just love that.

Doug Peterson  ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: nikf on August 18, 2009, 08:11:02 pm
another YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE)
(Harlan Ellison -- Pay the Writer)
Ok, it's Harlan Ellison and he talks about writers - but it's the same sick nonsense everywhere.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: bradleygibson on August 18, 2009, 08:51:47 pm


Great stuff, guys!
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: asf on August 19, 2009, 12:22:00 am
Editorial was never about making money.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Frank Doorhof on August 19, 2009, 02:42:58 am
I think working for free is sometimes not bad, however in the end it has to pay for the bills.

I do a lot of seminars for almost free, simply because they always pay back in visitors to the workshops.
I started out doing hairshots for almost free but only with some of the top hairdressers, it helped me to get into that market and there are large budgets there, that first session earned me also some prices and nominations which in return got me free clients and exposures.

For magazines it's always a bit more difficult.
When there is an oppertunity to get paid by an advertisement I will most of the time do that, simply put it gets me more revenue than working for the usual fee.

I think the market has changed a lot over the past years, there are A LOT of GWC's out there that do a nice/ok job that is more than enough for most magazines over here.
When you want to make a difference it's almost impossible to get there because the magazines are already struggling to keep alive, so they can stay the way they are pay little or nothing for photography or pay a lot more and get better shots.... but will they sell more with better shots..... (they think not).
So the best way to get in is to offer the work for the same price but demand advertising space.

I know a lot of people will now post that this is ridicilous and that a photographer should get paid or else do nothing.
I'm afraid however that those phones will stop ringing very quickly, the only way to get work is to work, the only way to get your work seen by the big public is get published......

It's a different method of work, but in the end if it pays the bills and you can save for later, what's wrong with it.....
Different times, different methods as long as the end result is building your business.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: heinrichvoelkel on August 19, 2009, 03:01:04 am
Quote from: asf
Editorial was never about making money.

excuse me???? you solely speak about editorial fashion, don't you?

Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Rob C on August 19, 2009, 05:20:05 am
[quote name='Frank
It's a different method of work, but in the end if it pays the bills and you can save for later, what's wrong with it.....
Different times, different methods as long as the end result is building your business.
[/quote]




I suppose that in general you have a point, but I am not sure that it always works out as positively as you seem to be suggesting it might.

I have not done a lot of magazine work because of geography: at the time when it was of interest I lived in Glasgow and publishing was in London, 400 short miles away but light years away in terms of living costs - a pointless choice to make when other work existed closer to a comfortable home.

Regardless, I did get involved with shoots for some English magazines via the IWS - the International Wool Secretariat during the early 70s. I also did quite a few trips to European destinations for English Vogue both for the IWS and also directly Vogue´s advertising sales people in Scotland. My experience of those days was disapppointing to say the least. We had no budget to speak of; we were shooting clothes supplied by the clothing chains buying the space and most of those garments were size 14s where the girls were pushing it to fit a 12, 8 or 10 being closer to their real size. Hotels/airlines/tourist boards picked up the travel. If I made eighty quid for a shoot it was a big deal!

I got something like twenty-eight pages in Vogue for the first trip and around twenty to eighteen or so for the others. Great exposure, you might think. Well, it brought me zero returns. I got the work in the first place because I was already doing reasonably well in fashion; absolutely no new advertising fashion came my way from the magazines. And I emphasise: that wasn´t editorial but advertising fashion we were shooting and there was no money there either.

In the end, during a trip to Lisbon and then the Algarve, it all came to a head when during the Lisbon leg we were staying in the Dom Carlos Hotel. The lady from Vogue wanted to go for a walk around town after dinner and the model (they would only hire one) cried off with a headache. I was still quite a young man and the lady from V was maybe sixtyish (?) - older people always looked much older in those days - so I had to do the honours on my own. The moment we stepped out of the hotel the problems began: wolf whistles, laughs, the entire gigolo bit was unleashed upon my embarrassed head. Asking myself whether it was worth it came up with the not astonishing reply that I was far better off without the pain. To be fair, I think the lady was as embarrassed by the circumstance as was I - but it soured everything.

In short, if the magazines are too miserable to pay properly, let them do without you; they will lose real, paying clients whilst you may or may not lose some which are probaly too likely to remain largely imaginary.

That video spells it out perfectly and, in my opinion, trying to wriggle around the obvious facts simply underlines the insecurity we all face within this trade. I hardly think of it as a profession now - if ever, indeed, it was.

Rob C
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Graham Mitchell on August 19, 2009, 05:50:38 am
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
I think working for free is sometimes not bad, however in the end it has to pay for the bills.

Sorry, Frank, I have to disagree. Enough people have had this attitude now that many magazines won't pay for photos at all any more. These magazines trawl the internet looking for photographers to give up content for free in return for 'exposure' and I think that entire sector is drying up as a source of income for photographers. The irony is that the exposure is counting for less and less, and will soon be worth nothing (unless your ambition is to be asked to work for free again). What's next? If I remember correctly you conduct lighting workshops and I assume you partly make your living that way. What if your competitors started to offer free workshops hoping that the exposure would lead to other work? Then free weddings, etc. This is a 'race to the bottom' - a viscious cycle of undercutting the competition until there is nothing left for anyone.

And while working for free, you inevitably have to make compromises - using amateur models, free locations (no travel), hair and make up stylists who are just starting out, etc. So you produce work which is below the standard you are capable of, and you starve the ancillary industries which you rely on at the same time (including the photo equipment manufacturers).

The quality of magazines is dropping and not surprisingly the readers are buying less. Magazines are already completely outdated when it comes to news items - the internet is so much faster and cheaper - but magazines still have 2 things going for them over the internet - you can take a magazine to the beach or the bath, and secondly the image quality of a well printed magazine is outstanding compared to the average computer screen. So it seems to me that there is still a place for magazines with great image quality ('Victor' is a good example) and fashion is one field which could really benefit from greater IQ. I expect that the ones who resist the race to the bottom and produce excellence will be more likely to survive.

Next time someone is asked to work for free I would just remind them that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Let your competition spend a week sweating over a job that pays nothing, and use that time to find a paying client instead.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Frank Doorhof on August 19, 2009, 08:11:45 am
Trust me, I always show them what's possible and I always deliver something that I'm proud of, and sometimes that means I have to invest in it.
The ammount I invest is up to myself, what's the publication worth for me.

I have to add that I don't do a lot of stuff for magazines because I find the market very unattractive at the moment and I have a different market aim.

We can as pros offcourse say, let's all join hands and we don't do anything without being paid for it.
But I think 99% of the pros will be bankrupt within a few months because there are a million GWCs out there wanting to work for free just by seeing their name in a magazine.
And as you can see on many fora, some GWCs are shooting very pro images.

I also don't like it, don't get me wrong, I would love to get paid for every job I do, but reality is that we do some for free, some for a big discount and some for the normal fee.
But the revenue I get in total including getting my name into places I would normally not go is higher than if I would only bill my normal fee.

I was always learned that sometimes you have to be flexible to get a better position you have now.
And again I also think it's wrong that magazines don't pay, heck it's a sinn.
But it's reality and you can go with it and get your money via the advertising or the status of the magazine or you can decline the job and go fishing and not get the call again.

And let's be straight, if vogue calls to shoot the cover for costs only I would do it.
If the local political party calls me to shoot their portraits against costs I would not do it.


One thing I have to add.
I'm asked a lot by local photography clubs to do seminars and they always ask me what the costs are.
Normally I will do the seminars for free if they pay the gas and let me sell our DVDs and workshops.
In the end I always go home with a lot less DVDs and a good ammount of the people there signing up for workshops.
Seeing back some seminars have made me more than 10 times the ammount I would normally charge for a seminar.

I do think however that you still have to make sure you are the best in what you do for the client. That way they know what you can do and are more willing to pay the next time.
If you can't pull off a job because there is no pay and you have to invest too much it's better to not do it than to deliver mediocre work.

In a perfect world however
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: amsp on August 19, 2009, 09:03:11 am
I get these stupid requests to work for free from fashion magazines on a weekly basis, it's gotten to a point where I don't even bother replying telling them to go troll modelmayhem or something. It's pathetic really. Here's one from today...

-------------------------------------------------

"Hey XXXXXXX!
Hope all is well
I am taking care of the fashion section of one of the popular XXXXXX publications , XXXXXXXX Magazine . I am interested to see more of your available works .
The theme we want to have is more edgy , sexy but highend fashion . its for the fall issue .
Do you have any unpublished editorial that you can show me ?
There is a possibility of a celebrity shoot with the chosen photographer for the commissioned editorial.

I do not have so much time on that so let me know asap"

-------------------------------------------------

Oooooh, the "possibility" of a celebrity you say? LMFAO  

Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: TMARK on August 19, 2009, 09:46:59 am
Quote from: amsp
I get these stupid requests to work for free from fashion magazines on a weekly basis, it's gotten to a point where I don't even bother replying telling them to go troll modelmayhem or something. It's pathetic really. Here's one from today...

-------------------------------------------------

"Hey XXXXXXX!
Hope all is well
I am taking care of the fashion section of one of the popular XXXXXX publications , XXXXXXXX Magazine . I am interested to see more of your available works .
The theme we want to have is more edgy , sexy but highend fashion . its for the fall issue .
Do you have any unpublished editorial that you can show me ?
There is a possibility of a celebrity shoot with the chosen photographer for the commissioned editorial.

I do not have so much time on that so let me know asap"

-------------------------------------------------

Oooooh, the "possibility" of a celebrity you say? LMFAO  

They can suck it.  They want stock, not a shoot.  Doing a shoot for low/no money with a letter of intent, a real production budget, and Ford girls is one thing, asking for free stock is retarded, even if there is the dangling prospect of a "celeb".  

I hope mags like that get flushed.  
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: feppe on August 19, 2009, 09:49:23 am
As much as I agree that there is a race to the bottom - which is the same in many industries, by the way -, that's not a reason to become protective. As Frank pointed out, there are plenty of GWCs out there willing to do (almost) pro-level work for free. Some trades have the "luxury" of protectionism from trade unions*, which causes artificial inflation of prices. We've all seen where that leads to: outsourcing.

Photographers don't have trade unions protecting their bottom line, so they have to do it themselves. Since a common agreement against working for free is unfeasible, one has to get revenue elsewhere. Frank, Michael, Joe McNally, Alain Briot et al all do peripheral work in the form of workshops, which I assume is to make ends meet. Adapt or perish.

* Not that I agree unions are good. In fact they hurt the members in the medium-long run, but that's an entirely separate debate.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Dustbak on August 19, 2009, 10:00:07 am
Quote from: Frank Doorhof
And let's be straight, if vogue calls to shoot the cover for costs only I would do it.
If the local political party calls me to shoot their portraits against costs I would not do it.


That is one part where we differ. I would do it the other way around. A local political party would mean photographing real people which I rather do for free than the Vogue cover, which I would never do for free! Call me stupid but I have principles, a magazine that wants to be 'big' should take care of the people that work for it.

I never work for free unless there is another good incentive. Meeting interesting people and shooting their portraits is one of my favorites, at least that is something I have fun in doing.

There is no competing against GWC's (not on price anyway) unless you want to become one yourself.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: revaaron on August 19, 2009, 10:06:51 am
I get and give freebies to friends and people I know aren't making money off things.
But magazines usually pay or stop talking to me.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Dustbak on August 19, 2009, 10:20:00 am
Quote from: revaaron
I get and give freebies to friends and people I know aren't making money off things.
But magazines usually pay or stop talking to me.


Yes, I also include several charities every year. I rather do that than giving them money which I don't have that much to begin with
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: asf on August 19, 2009, 10:46:54 am
Quote from: heinrichvoelkel
excuse me???? you solely speak about editorial fashion, don't you?

The point of editorial is not to make money. Or it shouldn't be. I didn't say it should be unpaid, but for things like fashion more often than not the production costs are more than the budget.
Conde Nast day rates are barely more than my assistants'.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: PatrikR on August 19, 2009, 12:28:11 pm
Quote from: asf
The point of editorial is not to make money. Or it shouldn't be. I didn't say it should be unpaid, but for things like fashion more often than not the production costs are more than the budget.
Conde Nast day rates are barely more than my assistants'.

Sorry but I don't get it. Why are you supposed to shoot editorial for free or for next to nothing? And why it's a photogs problem if its under budgeted? The models get paid, don't they?

If photogs shoot one or two assignments for free who's even ever gonna notice? If they shoot for free for 2 or 3 years maybe someone starts to think that this guy is good but then again that photogs reputation as a free shooter has set him in a bracket of free.

Why would anybody want to work for a huge corporation for free? If people do it for free they are basically amateurs. Amateur is french and means someone who really loves to do something out of their heart.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: asf on August 19, 2009, 12:36:18 pm
Models make editorial rates, as do photogs and assists, etc.

Some magazines are worth it, most aren't. That's up to you. Editorial paying editorial rates (or next to nothing) is nothing new.

I don't understand this indignant attitude. Is someone forcing you to work for free? Shooting editorial is neither a right nor a necessity. IF it's a possibility for you then you have to decide if each shoot is worth it. IF a good magazine chooses to hire you, then you can worry about it. These days there are very few commissioned editorial shoots anyway.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Alex MacPherson on August 19, 2009, 12:42:59 pm
Quote from: PatrikR
Sorry but I don't get it. Why are you supposed to shoot editorial for free or for next to nothing? And why it's a photogs problem if its under budgeted? The models get paid, don't they?

If photogs shoot one or two assignments for free who's even ever gonna notice? If they shoot for free for 2 or 3 years maybe someone starts to think that this guy is good but then again that photogs reputation as a free shooter has set him in a bracket of free.

Why would anybody want to work for a huge corporation for free? If people do it for free they are basically amateurs. Amateur is french and means someone who really loves to do something out of their heart.

Editorial fashion work is a chance to be more creative than what is allowed in advertising work. There is much more freedom involved.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: TMARK on August 19, 2009, 02:54:00 pm
Quote from: asf
Models make editorial rates, as do photogs and assists, etc.

Some magazines are worth it, most aren't. That's up to you. Editorial paying editorial rates (or next to nothing) is nothing new.

I don't understand this indignant attitude. Is someone forcing you to work for free? Shooting editorial is neither a right nor a necessity. IF it's a possibility for you then you have to decide if each shoot is worth it. IF a good magazine chooses to hire you, then you can worry about it. These days there are very few commissioned editorial shoots anyway.

I don't understand the attitude either.  Editorial is an opportunity to have a really fantastic production.  I think there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding editorial in major markets.  Its not "working for free".  Its colaborating with talented people to produce some (hopefully) outstanding photographs. Its creative.  Its fun.  Its not like shooting a wedding or corporate headshots for Time Warner for free.  Its not shooting someone elses comp or idea, its your idea, your art direction collaborating with a stylist and an AD.  What it shouldn't be is commercial work for free, or space filling/stock for free, you know, to keep the (dwindling) supply of ads from touching each other.  Depending on the mag, it will keep your name on their mind.  Send your past/future clients the PDF of the shoot the day the mag is out.  You'll get work out of it.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Kirk Gittings on August 19, 2009, 03:06:50 pm
Quote
Does mags in food/architecture/sports, etc. expect photographers to work for free?

I do allot of editorial, mostly architecture related (but not exclusively) for state , regional and national magazines. The rates are poor right now with some magazines (but not all), but far from free and the difference I can often make up in the stock sales of images from these shoots. These editorial shoots also generate client contacts, high profile exposure and keeps my assistant working during slow times. Editorial also gives me access to unusual locations for my personal work and gas money to get there on someone else's dime. Editorial and the stock it generates is now and always has been been a vital part of my income and marketing strategy.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: geesbert on August 19, 2009, 03:07:28 pm
the cool thing about working for nothing is next time you can ask for double that and no one minds!
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Imaginara on August 19, 2009, 03:51:40 pm
Quote from: geesbert
the cool thing about working for nothing is next time you can ask for double that and no one minds!

 

Love that =)

Only people i work for free with are fashion design students (and textile design) and then i get to call the shots in how it is done. They are happy as they get a decent (me) photographer for free and i get high quality fashion and textile work for my portfolio that usually gets published at quite a lot of place (exposure).

That is the only pro-bono work i do now however. Rest gets to pay ;D
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: lisa_r on August 19, 2009, 04:26:27 pm
Quote from: Kirk Gittings
I do allot of editorial, mostly architecture related for state (but not exclusively), regional and national magazines. The rates are poor right now with some magazines (but not all), but far from free

This is what I was getting at by asking the question. *Far from free* sounds pretty good :-)

(There are plenty of industries which bring individual people great exposure - it doesn't mean they are expected to work for free, does it?)

Anyone else from outside the fashion industry want to chime in?
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: TMARK on August 19, 2009, 05:29:44 pm
Quote from: lisa_r
This is what I was getting at by asking the question. *Far from free* sounds pretty good :-)

(There are plenty of industries which bring individual people great exposure - it doesn't mean they are expected to work for free, does it?)

Anyone else from outside the fashion industry want to chime in?

I talked to s still life guy (NYC) I'm friendly with and he says he generally gets an OK rate for editorial, depending on the mag.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: feppe on August 19, 2009, 05:31:39 pm
Quote from: lisa_r
Anyone else from outside the fashion industry want to chime in?

By anyone else you probably mean photographers, but this is relevant: my dayjob is in corporate finance, and wouldn't even dream of working for free for any for-profit organization. I'm sure the same goes for doctors, lawyers, and other (non-artistic) professionals.

Perhaps the closest parallel is an unpaid internship - but those are only for students, not for established pros.

I do see the arguments for working for free on editorials; it's still a very alien concept professionally.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: mmurph on August 20, 2009, 12:40:44 am
Doing "free" or low paying editorial shoots for a **high quality** magazine is really a different discussion  than just about any other kind of "free" work.  Even Mario Sorrenti was doing unpaid editorial for Exit Magazine a couple of years back.

But for lower end magazines - well - heres a rant you all may enjoy:

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/?p=1220 (http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/?p=1220)


Is Shooting for a Bad Magazine Good?


... getting exposure in your magazine could be considered poison in disguise, wrapped in a sweet chocolate covered coating. Why? Because anyone in the know would see immediately by the content, layout, choice of talent and advertisers what your standing is in the Fashion community. This may sound cruel and arrogant, but the reality is, in looking at your web site, I would recommend to anyone wishing to shoot for this magazine the following…“Buyer Beware!”

Getting to shoot for VOGUE, Harpers, Elle, Marie Claire, Numero, V, W, or ID has and never will be a question of “How Much Do I Make?” that is a joke! You couldn’t pay VOGUE enough money to shoot for them! The status associated with doing so is the following…“Once you are in VOGUE, you ARE in Vogue” and your phone will slowly start ringing off the wall to shoot Ad campaigns that command 5 to 6 figure numbers per day.  Now let me repeat that, anywhere from 10,000 to 250,000 dollars per day!

There is a very simple barometer in this business. The less credible the magazine, the more perks  and amenities it should provide for the team, as the exposure the team gets may actually be more detrimental to them than if they hadn’t shot for them at all.

Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: aaronleitz on August 20, 2009, 12:49:11 am
Quote from: lisa_r
This is what I was getting at by asking the question. *Far from free* sounds pretty good :-)

Anyone else from outside the fashion industry want to chime in?

I shoot interiors/architecture as well and though I have not been in the game as long as Kirk has, my limited experiences with editorial shoots have been the same as his. The pay is usually OK.

I would think that there are about a bazillion young shooters clamoring to be the next hot fashion shooter. Most likely not as many trying to break in to the fast-paced, supermodel filled and free cocaine at the after-party world that is architectural photography ;-).
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: mmurph on August 20, 2009, 01:43:18 am
This was posted in another thread here rece3ntly. I thought you might enjoy this if you have not seen it:

http://markstoutphotography.wordpress.com/...-exposure-trap/ (http://markstoutphotography.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/the-free-exposure-trap/)


... I quickly learned that throwing the coveted “tearsheets” from the free exposure work down on an art directors desk was a big mistake.

It’s a small industry, everyone knows who is out there and who the bottom feeders are. Throw down the free exposure work and they instantly know, and tell you, you got played. You have at that moment lost the respect of the person you hoped would hire you.

It is also interesting to note that whenever work is done for free, the recipient considers it, and you, worthless. If he were to do otherwise, it would make him guilty of having taken advantage of you. For this reason, if the promised paying work does eventually appear, it will go to someone else. In their eyes, you are worth only what you charge. If you were any good, you would have demanded payment!

I expect that I will come under criticism from those who defend their right to be taken advantage of. I have seen that oddity over and over on the various photographer forums and it was one of the more difficult things for me to understand. I did however, finally, come to terms with it. It’s just human nature.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: ziocan on August 20, 2009, 02:21:28 am
Quote from: heinrichvoelkel
excuse me???? you solely speak about editorial fashion, don't you?
I got paid pretty well working for ELLE, Marie Claire, Cosmo and similar magazines. Less well for Vogue and other Conde Nast gigs. Quasi free for Surface or Numero.
I got paid quite well for some popular magazines where I was not using my real name.
You do what you got to do.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: ziocan on August 20, 2009, 02:27:12 am
Quote from: foto-z
if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
Absolutely true.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: amsp on August 20, 2009, 06:22:05 am
Quote from: mmurph
But for lower end magazines - well - heres a rant you all may enjoy:

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/?p=1220 (http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/?p=1220)

Nice link    I've never had a problem doing editorials for good magazines with a production budget that covers the costs, or even at a loss if it's prestigious enough because naturally that's gonna result in commercial work later on. What I DO object to is the avalanche of local wannabe magazines contacting you nowadays expecting you to work with no budget whatsoever, that's just bullshit.

Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Fritzer on August 20, 2009, 08:25:31 am
Quote from: lisa_r
Anyone else from outside the fashion industry want to chime in?

I do mostly still life, and shoot quite a lot for US mags; I consider the fees I get from editorial a tip, paying the phone bills and such, so i don't worry about the money too much.
It's fun and relaxed, getting exposure is nice , though not worth much in still life.

But I won't accept assignments that don't cover all expenses, are too low-paid to have a decent production, or when a mag thinks my equipment and DB come without charge.

The majority of magazines are in the money making business, they should understand ....

The big publishing houses are inventing new rules for budgets and usage rights all the time; recently I was asked to sign a form/contract that granted them (some big publisher) unlimited usage and the right to not pay my fees if they chose not to use my images after the shoot.

Needless to say, I crossed out those passages, got the job anyways.
There's a lot of leeway in negotiations, you just have to have the guts to say 'NO' .

If the creative guys want to work with you, the (little) extra money you are asking will magically turn up; if they don't care, you are disposable to them anyways.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: TMARK on August 20, 2009, 09:50:01 am
Quote from: amsp
Nice link    I've never had a problem doing editorials for good magazines with a production budget that covers the costs, or even at a loss if it's prestigious enough because naturally that's gonna result in commercial work later on. What I DO object to is the avalanche of local wannabe magazines contacting you nowadays expecting you to work with no budget whatsoever, that's just bullshit.

Misbehave? Mass Appeal? I'm glad they folded, although Mass Appeal had some good photos every now and again.

Most of the crappy mags want Ben Watts for free, and they get it from the fresh out of SVA kids who all want to be Ben Watts.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 20, 2009, 10:30:45 am
There's a related article on "crowdsourcing" in this week's Macleans (Cdn) magazine: dirt-cheap-labour/ (http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/19/dirt-cheap-labour/).

Must be the new economy. Everyone is self-actualizing by doing whatever they want and not charging for it. I am waiting for the movement to catch on in grocery and real estate. I'd love it if food was free and I didn't have to pay for my house.

Won't be long now before the big box stores start asking their "associates" to stock those shelves for free. Free market volunteerism, yeah! Funny how CEOs still expect to be paid though. Obviously, I'm not seeing the big picture.

Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: amsp on August 20, 2009, 10:49:25 am
Quote from: Robert Roaldi
There's a related article on "crowdsourcing" in this week's Macleans (Cdn) magazine: dirt-cheap-labour/ (http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/19/dirt-cheap-labour/).

Must be the new economy. Everyone is self-actualizing by doing whatever they want and not charging for it. I am waiting for the movement to catch on in grocery and real estate. I'd love it if food was free and I didn't have to pay for my house.

Won't be long now before the big box stores start asking their "associates" to stock those shelves for free. Free market volunteerism, yeah! Funny how CEOs still expect to be paid though. Obviously, I'm not seeing the big picture.

Yeah, I love how for some reason the people asking for free stuff always expect to get payed themselves, I wonder why that is  

Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: mmurph on August 20, 2009, 11:01:26 am
Quote from: Robert Roaldi
Obviously, I'm not seeing the big picture.

No, you're not!

Content, the Creative Commons, crowd sourcing -  anyone can **create**, all content is created equal, why pay for it when you can grab crap from anywhere and spoon feed it to the masses?

Now, the means of distribution - ah, that is where true genius lies - the oligarchy maintains control of distribution and reaps their just rewards for their risk taking!  

I mean, who would ever have thought of stapling two sheets of paper together to create - get this - a magazine!! In the past at least - or stringing wire so that something truly prescient like cable or the internet could come into being?  

The capitalists are being justly rewarded for their fealess entreprenuerism!  Ah, gotta love that word - you know, they are the heroisc risk takers. The content providers are just grist fior the mill, they oil the cogs of the machinery - with theor blood.  

Cheers!

Michael
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: feppe on August 20, 2009, 11:03:04 am
Quote from: Robert Roaldi
There's a related article on "crowdsourcing" in this week's Macleans (Cdn) magazine: dirt-cheap-labour/ (http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/19/dirt-cheap-labour/).

Must be the new economy. Everyone is self-actualizing by doing whatever they want and not charging for it. I am waiting for the movement to catch on in grocery and real estate. I'd love it if food was free and I didn't have to pay for my house.

Won't be long now before the big box stores start asking their "associates" to stock those shelves for free. Free market volunteerism, yeah! Funny how CEOs still expect to be paid though. Obviously, I'm not seeing the big picture.

The big picture is that nobody is forced to do this stuff for free. People already pay to advertise for companies (witness D&G shirts and Gucci bags), so doing some menial labor for free is not a stretch by any means.

You can get "free" groceries from some idealistic communes - free to some extent. Some religious groups already do crowdsourced real estate by building a prayer room with volunteer work and materials.

"Proper" crowdsourcing can be used for tremendous social benefit - there's a galaxy classification project (http://www.galaxyzoo.org/), for example -, and I don't see why it should not be used by corporations if people are willing to donate time to a worthy cause.

Then again, "worthy cause" these days might consist of writing a wiki of a TV series, or taking candids of Salma Hayek in a bikini, so perhaps you have a point

Actually, thinking of it, the latter is a worthy cause...
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: nikf on August 20, 2009, 12:01:22 pm
Quote from: feppe
You can get "free" groceries from some idealistic communes - free to some extent. Some religious groups already do crowdsourced real estate by building a prayer room with volunteer work and materials.

"Proper" crowdsourcing can be used for tremendous social benefit

How naive is that?! It's all about power, goals, interests, oppression, exploitation and so on ... if people are not chasing their interest in this societies they stand in line as sheep for a cut throat.
It's not a discourse about a different, more 'human' society - it's all about business that's forced on all creatives to survive.
What's next? Finding 'good' arguments for child labor?
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on August 20, 2009, 12:41:09 pm
Quote from: foto-z
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY)


THAT WAS JUST FANTASTIC!  haha...man I wish that could be a video you can do as a preview to a portfolio some how.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on August 20, 2009, 12:48:48 pm
Quote from: nikf
another YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE)
(Harlan Ellison -- Pay the Writer)
Ok, it's Harlan Ellison and he talks about writers - but it's the same sick nonsense everywhere.


That is just beautiful....!!

I think these in a series are a true display and a art expression for professional artists working in the new century!
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: feppe on August 20, 2009, 01:42:06 pm
Quote from: nikf
How naive is that?! It's all about power, goals, interests, oppression, exploitation and so on ... if people are not chasing their interest in this societies they stand in line as sheep for a cut throat.
It's not a discourse about a different, more 'human' society - it's all about business that's forced on all creatives to survive.

How exactly is it exploitation when an able-minded adult chooses to do something for free? Nobody's forcing anything on anyone.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Juanito on August 20, 2009, 02:16:01 pm
A few people have already brought up the point that doing work for fashion magazines is basically a form of self promotion. Sometimes you get enough money to pay for expenses; sometimes you don't. But what about books like the Workbook, At Edge, Blackbook etc? If I want to be in one of those books, I have to pay thousands of dollars. What's the difference between those books and fashion editorial?

Both make money for the publishers. Both go out to my target market. Both allow me creative freedom.

Given the choice between not having to pay for self-promotion and paying for it, I'll take not paying thank you very much.

John
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: PatrikR on August 20, 2009, 02:56:09 pm
Quote from: Juanito
A few people have already brought up the point that doing work for fashion magazines is basically a form of self promotion. Sometimes you get enough money to pay for expenses; sometimes you don't. But what about books like the Workbook, At Edge, Blackbook etc? If I want to be in one of those books, I have to pay thousands of dollars. What's the difference between those books and fashion editorial?

Both make money for the publishers. Both go out to my target market. Both allow me creative freedom.

Given the choice between not having to pay for self-promotion and paying for it, I'll take not paying thank you very much.

John

Each month there's probably in USA alone 50 different fashion, style, beauty magazines for sale (estimated by quickly looking at Amazon's fashion magazines to make a point). If each of them has 5 editorials that makes 250 free jobs per month, 3000 shoots goes unpaid each year. If photog A should get paid 1000 dollars per editorial then the photographers donated 3 million dollars to the corporate world.

If photog A does one job for free who is ever gonna notice his wonderful and creative editorial out of those 3000 creative and wonderful editorials? This sounds like the Idols competition, few will make it the rest will pay it.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: harlemshooter on August 20, 2009, 03:18:06 pm
Quite an interesting thread...

Inevitably, given the poor state of our saturated economy, demand for goods and services will continue to decrease until our market driven economy corrects itself.  We would do well to question our assumptions and adapt to remain competitive (even premier brands/top photographers).  Another factor, I would think, is how the photo industry is easier to break into given the advent and efficiencies afforded by digital technology, paradigm shifts in e-commerce practices and less print in circulation.

Quote from: Frank Doorhof
Different times, different methods as long as the end result is building your business.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on August 20, 2009, 03:30:53 pm
Quote from: harlemshooter
Quite an interesting thread...let's not get too naive.

Inevitably, given the poor state of our saturated economy, demand for goods and services will continue to decrease until our market driven economy corrects itself.  We would do well to question our assumptions and adapt to remain competitive (even premier brands/top photographers).  Another big factor is how the photo industry is easier to break into than ever before given the advent and efficiencies afforded by digital technology, paradigm shifts in e-commerce practices and less print in circulation.


The economy will correct itself only so much, I think technology has just afforded things to be cheaper, and the global "worforce" as a whole has afforded to do things more by the numbers/masses, and I think something has to be recreated to localize labor in order to build value, but for a long time to come, things will not correct to any major level...the foundation things are building on are now a bit different.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: TMARK on August 20, 2009, 03:51:13 pm
Quote from: PatrikR
Each month there's probably in USA alone 50 different fashion, style, beauty magazines for sale (estimated by quickly looking at Amazon's fashion magazines to make a point). If each of them has 5 editorials that makes 250 free jobs per month, 3000 shoots goes unpaid each year. If photog A should get paid 1000 dollars per editorial then the photographers donated 3 million dollars to the corporate world.

If photog A does one job for free who is ever gonna notice his wonderful and creative editorial out of those 3000 creative and wonderful editorials? This sounds like the Idols competition, few will make it the rest will pay it.

Please re-read the posts by the fashion shooters for an explanation of how the industry works.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: lisa_r on August 20, 2009, 05:20:02 pm
So it does look like this pretty much is exclusive to editorial fashion - Don't Pay the Photographer. Or the model.
Like the sweet Mr. Ellison said in that video, everyone else at the magazine is is getting paid.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on August 20, 2009, 06:20:22 pm
Quote from: lisa_r
So it does look like this pretty much is exclusive to editorial fashion - Don't Pay the Photographer. Or the model.
Like the sweet Mr. Ellison said in that video, everyone else at the magazine is is getting paid.


 everyone...thats not an intern :-)
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: ziocan on August 20, 2009, 09:22:59 pm
Quote from: PatrikR
Each month there's probably in USA alone 50 different fashion, style, beauty magazines for sale (estimated by quickly looking at Amazon's fashion magazines to make a point). If each of them has 5 editorials that makes 250 free jobs per month, 3000 shoots goes unpaid each year. If photog A should get paid 1000 dollars per editorial then the photographers donated 3 million dollars to the corporate world.

If photog A does one job for free who is ever gonna notice his wonderful and creative editorial out of those 3000 creative and wonderful editorials? This sounds like the Idols competition, few will make it the rest will pay it.
What you say make no sense, because of those 50 magazines on the USA new stands, at least 45 pay and pay pretty well. SELF magazines, even pay up to 1000$ a page if the photographer is worth. Many of the american magazines pay 500$ a page (nearly double of european magazines) and if you do a story of 8 / 10 pages that is hardly working for free.
There are magazines that do not pay and are not worth working, because nearly nobody cares about them. But it does not take a crystal ball to tell which they are. On the other hand there are a few others which do not pay ( pay only expenses) but are worth working because they normally get on the desk of art directors, editor in chief and clients.
Some of the photographers here complain that magazines do not pay for editorials and make it sounds like all the magazines do not pay at all, simply because they are not good enough for being asked to work by the vast majority of magazines that pay.

Magazines do pay for editorials, just a small minority do not pay.

Not mentioning that beside what you are paid per page or photo, the magazines pay for the digital package, up to 1500$ a day (even on this economy) so if you carry your computer, cameras and assistant, you can claim those money and pay for your equipment and they pay for the retouching between 100 to 250$ a photo.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: lisa_r on August 20, 2009, 09:48:35 pm
ziocan, plenty of good and not so good magazines pay something - just not enough to cover expenses and have decent profit left over if you are doing anything other than renting a cheap studio and shooting on a seamless. $500/page does not cover it for a location shoot. Now if you are getting $500 or $1000 per page plus all expenses, well that'd be fine I guess. Still there are plenty of damn good fashion magazines which simply do not pay that.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: ziocan on August 20, 2009, 09:56:00 pm
Quote from: lisa_r
So it does look like this pretty much is exclusive to editorial fashion - Don't Pay the Photographer. Or the model.
Like the sweet Mr. Ellison said in that video, everyone else at the magazine is is getting paid.
It may be an exclusive of those that are not ready for better magazines yet.
that is what it is.
Vast majority of magazines around the world (even the good ones) do pay.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: ziocan on August 20, 2009, 10:00:57 pm
Quote from: lisa_r
ziocan, plenty of good and not so good magazines pay something - just not enough to cover expenses and have decent profit left over if you are doing anything other than renting a cheap studio and shooting on a seamless. $500/page does not cover it for a location shoot. Now if you are getting $500 or $1000 per page plus all expenses, well that'd be fine I guess. Still there are plenty of damn good fashion magazines which simply do not pay that.
Of course I mean 500$ a page just as photographer fee and the production expenses including at least one assistant is all on the magazine.
I do not know what magazines you are referring too.
But If you consider ELLE, Marie Claire and similar magazines around the world not so good, then good luck.
But even Vogue pays the photographers. Less than 500$ a page for sure and also you will wait to be paid for at least 4/6 month, but they pay.

Plenty of european magazines prefer to do shooting on location traveling abroad rather than just outside the city, because they get packages for Tourism Bureaus around the world, therefore they do not pay for air fares and hotels.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: PatrikR on August 21, 2009, 01:33:39 am
Quote from: ziocan
What you say make no sense, because of those 50 magazines on the USA new stands, at least 45 pay and pay pretty well. SELF magazines, even pay up to 1000$ a page if the photographer is worth. Many of the american magazines pay 500$ a page (nearly double of european magazines) and if you do a story of 8 / 10 pages that is hardly working for free.
There are magazines that do not pay and are not worth working, because nearly nobody cares about them. But it does not take a crystal ball to tell which they are. On the other hand there are a few others which do not pay ( pay only expenses) but are worth working because they normally get on the desk of art directors, editor in chief and clients.
Some of the photographers here complain that magazines do not pay for editorials and make it sounds like all the magazines do not pay at all, simply because they are not good enough for being asked to work by the vast majority of magazines that pay.

Magazines do pay for editorials, just a small minority do not pay.

Not mentioning that beside what you are paid per page or photo, the magazines pay for the digital package, up to 1500$ a day (even on this economy) so if you carry your computer, cameras and assistant, you can claim those money and pay for your equipment and they pay for the retouching between 100 to 250$ a photo.

Great! and thanks for putting the data down and not letting everyone reading these posts believe that magazines do not pay photographers.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: ziocan on August 21, 2009, 04:14:58 am
Quote from: PatrikR
Great! and thanks for putting the data down and not letting everyone reading these posts believe that magazines do not pay photographers.
You welcome. there have been a lot of misinformation on this thread by colleges that are not familiar with working with fashion magazines.
These kind of information have to be kept straight, because for any individual posting on this forum there are many more reading this stuff and probably the majority are young photographers.
We cannot teach them to get screwed when it is not necessary to.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: lisa_r on August 21, 2009, 11:02:24 am
ziocan, in your experience do you know if the models are getting paid decently?
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Voltman on August 21, 2009, 09:36:39 pm
Quote from: Nick Walker
Harlan Ellison Pay the Writer - Warner Brothers the making of Babylon 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE)

"How dare you call me and ask me to work for nothing"

"I don't take a piss without getting paid for it"

Excellent!
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: ziocan on August 21, 2009, 10:37:56 pm
Quote from: lisa_r
ziocan, in your experience do you know if the models are getting paid decently?
The main stream magazines (ELLE, Marie, Claire ,Cosmo, Self etc.) pay the models.
The Vogue like magazines from large publisher companies, pay few hundred bucks. ( i believe no more than 300 per day)
Those magazines who do not want to pay the photographers do not even pay the models.

There are popular cheap magazines, that on order to have decent photographers and models pay catalogue rate, and photographers do not sign with their own name.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: TMARK on August 22, 2009, 02:10:23 am
What do your reps want you to do?  When I had a rep she wanted me to shoot free editorial (usage was $300 a page) for Zink, with several of the rep's other clients (MUA, stylists).  

It wasn't really a matter of competition, it was recognition that in fashion you have to always be shooting and getting exposure, which was more valuable than getting pissy and indignant over a few hundred bucks.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Alex MacPherson on August 22, 2009, 03:37:48 am
Quote from: TMARK
What do your reps want you to do?  When I had a rep she wanted me to shoot free editorial (usage was $300 a page) for Zink, with several of the rep's other clients (MUA, stylists).  

It wasn't really a matter of competition, it was recognition that in fashion you have to always be shooting and getting exposure, which was more valuable than getting pissy and indignant over a few hundred bucks.

I'd give my left nut to be published in Zink! The more people see your stuff ... the more people will want to pay you.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on August 22, 2009, 04:28:45 am
Quote from: Dolce Moda Photography
I'd give my left nut to be published in Zink! The more people see your stuff ... the more people will want to pay you.


Save your nut. It really isnt that big a deal!
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: amsp on August 22, 2009, 07:01:54 am
Quote from: Phil Indeblanc
Save your nut. It really isnt that big a deal!
lol, I agree, trust me your left nut is far more valuable.
Title: Competition = working for free.
Post by: TMARK on August 22, 2009, 12:29:44 pm
Quote from: Dolce Moda Photography
I'd give my left nut to be published in Zink! The more people see your stuff ... the more people will want to pay you.

Zink needs to fill space and they have contacts with reps who want new talent to get exposure. Sometimes they have nice stuff, sometimes they don't.  I think they just need pictures to keep the ads rubbing against each other, so quality varies.  I felt it was a scam, because at that point, in 2005, I had lots of editorial out there in better mags, with better printing.  One photographer had some four straight issues to herself, basicly, and I thought that strange, like the rep rented the page space.

That testicle is far more valuable that whatever is going on with Zink.