Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Competition = working for free.  (Read 14783 times)
revaaron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2009, 09:06:51 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370


« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2009, 09:20:00 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2009, 09:46:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: heinrichvoelkel
excuse me?Huh 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'.
Logged
PatrikR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2009, 11:28:11 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 11:29:44 AM by PatrikR » Logged

Patrik Raski - Espoo, Finland
asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2009, 11:36:18 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 11:45:28 AM by asf » Logged
Alex MacPherson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292



WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2009, 11:42:59 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Alex MacPherson

Visit My Website
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2009, 01:54:00 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2009, 02:06:50 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 05:18:26 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
geesbert
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 19, 2009, 02:07:28 PM »
ReplyReply

the cool thing about working for nothing is next time you can ask for double that and no one minds!
Logged

-------------------------
WWW.RANDLKOFER.COM
Imaginara
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114


« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2009, 02:51:40 PM »
ReplyReply

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 Grin
Logged
lisa_r
Guest
« Reply #30 on: August 19, 2009, 03:26:27 PM »
ReplyReply

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?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 04:04:01 PM by lisa_r » Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #31 on: August 19, 2009, 04:29:44 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #32 on: August 19, 2009, 04:31:39 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 19, 2009, 11:40:44 PM »
ReplyReply

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


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.

Logged
aaronleitz
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #34 on: August 19, 2009, 11:49:11 PM »
ReplyReply

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 ;-).
Logged

mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 20, 2009, 12:43:18 AM »
ReplyReply

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/


... 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.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 12:44:26 AM by mmurph » Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #36 on: August 20, 2009, 01:21:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: heinrichvoelkel
excuse me?Huh 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.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 01:28:45 AM by ziocan » Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #37 on: August 20, 2009, 01:27:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: foto-z
if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
Absolutely true.
Logged
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 788


« Reply #38 on: August 20, 2009, 05:22:05 AM »
ReplyReply

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

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.

Logged
Fritzer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #39 on: August 20, 2009, 07:25:31 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad