Well put. For 30 years I have been hearing this. I particularly like the "client" who says shoot for free this time (or at a lowball fee) and I will take care of you next time. It's like the married guy having an affair and telling his girlfriend he will divorce his wife when the time is right (I watched "The Apartment" with Jack Lemmon and Shirley McLaine this morning). Ain't never gonna happen!
It happens all of the time. I have learned to shoot loose since my photo editor will have room to crop as needed. It also helps to have multiple shots of the same subject, facing left/right, vertical/horizontal. This helps with layout and ensures you will get in the publication.
As one of the guys I know put it:
"Papers and magazines used to arrange the layouts around photos, but now they arrange photos and text around the advertisements".
SmegHead wrote:
I submitted 6 photos to an online magazine for an article. They were all edited and composed for 4X6 layout. When the article was published they were all cropped to hell, even cutting off some of my models heads... who worked for free to get magazine exposure. I wasn't paid for the shoot (the magazine makes no money right now). I'm just wondering how to handle this. What exactly are my rights if any. I don't want to cause a fuss as I want to continue working with them... I'm just wondering how to get my point across as nicely as possible....Show more →
Magazines these days .. croppin & choppin to their hearts content with not the slightest concern for models unpaid extremities. Shocking behavior.
Draw a line in the sand my friend and just tell them that unless you have control over all aspects of your photo's publication then you will not work for them ever again. That should set them straight.
Also see definition of "work":
"A trade, profession, or other means of livelihood".
And "rights":
"Specified in a written agreement between persons to whom these rights belong".
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Draw a line in the sand my friend and just tell them that unless you have control over all aspects of your photo's publication then you will not work for them ever again. That should set them straight.
Artistic creativity and the monetization of it are separate issues.
Many artists starve because they don’t have the knowledge as to how to turn their work into a profitable endeavor. Yet others will make a very good living with inferior work.
Having been the publisher who refereed the battle between ADs and staff photographers in most all battles the AD won because in realty the page was the final product and the picture was the supporting actor, unless of course, the story was about the photograph.
As for compensation, while money is usually the goal sometimes other forms may result in bigger rewards. Credit for the work should be a requirement. A story about your photographic capabilities or ad space in the publication may result in more money for your bank account. Don’t be afraid to ask.
Customers, editors and ADs have preferences so don’t get bent out of shape about what they do with your product. My own daughter told me she preferred and was changing something I had done for her company. Come to think about it she is the customer. Ouch!
Do you give your work away for free just to see your name in print? It's been going on for so long...can you imaging what it's like to receive a check, imagine getting paid for your work? What other profession does so much to destroy itself?
thedruid wrote:
Do you give your work away for free just to see your name in print? It's been going on for so long...can you imaging what it's like to receive a check, imagine getting paid for your work? What other profession does so much to destroy itself?
Probably most professions that compete with hobbies. Unfortunately, photography is a hobby for the vast majority of people who take photos. The PRO is competing with the onslaught ( and growing every day ) of weekend warriors only happy to be published. Their reward is not money as they have a nice job that pays the bills and actually buys the cameras. Their reward is to be able to show friends and family their photo in a magazine. Maybe they value that more than a few hundred bucks. Their call.
I'm currently one of those weekend warriors. But I worked for a couple of years at a stock agency in the '90s, so I received a very good education on the value of imagery. That a magazine isn't making money isn't my concern. Do their paper supplier and the printer they use give away that paper and printing because the mag isn't making money? Of course not. Neither should any photographer. The exposure probably won't matter one way or the other when it comes to getting more work; in fact, it will probably guarantee the next prospect won't want to pay you either.
If you tell someone you won't work for free, chances are they'll find the money if they really want you. Otherwise, let some other sucker do it.
I have had editors not select the best photo before. I just took the money they paid me and let it go.
The worst thing I have seen is a full two page ad in which a photo took up one page. The ad was used in a skiing mag. I know the photographer and had seen the photo on his computer. It was definitely high quality color and beautiful. However the advertising department decided to turn in into a monotone green image. It totally messed the photo up. Looked like Hell. The photographer then told me what they paid for it and said, "For that price they can do whatever they want with it." Fortunately for him was the fact that he did not receive a photo credit in the ad.
generally many publishers recommend you never crop photos prior to submitting because they often never know what the final size will have to be and they like to crop to their own specs. I've had photos of mine poorly cropped before and as other posters have said that's the nature of the beast. Nothing you can do about it AFAIK unless your contract somehow stipulates "no cropping", which is something I've neevr heard of.
Just look at any high end fashion magazines Paris Vogue, Italia Vogue, Numéro, etc, etc. They all crop tops of heads, hands, feet, elbows, etc, etc. Fashion photography is all about selling cloths -- they are not model portraits.
happens all the time even when editorial layouts are already laid out and they are just missing the photo. this happens alot when magazines have articles written months before and an assign a photographer to take the shot to fit that space alotted.
just imagine shooting for ads. your raw image will get hammered and butchered by AD's and designers. its truly the nature of the beast.
