 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / May 2004Getting published
There is a new magazine which is just a gallery for serious photographers to display their photos. Check it out at www.exposuremagazine.org (that's .ORG) > There is a new magazine which is just a gallery for serious photographers > to > display their photos. > Check it out at www.exposuremagazine.org (that's .ORG) It should be .COM, $8/issue and $100 a year for the right to submit your photos. What a joke. Most magazines PAY THE PHOTOGRAPHER, not the other way around. If the magazine is as amateurish as the web site no serious photographer would want to be associated with it.  SignatureTom Thackrey www.creative-light.com tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com do NOT send email to jamesbutler@willglen.net (it's reserved for spammers) I've found the posts regarding this magazine quite interesting. It seems to me perhaps a few folks haven't run due diligence here? There is a payment schedule associated with the effort once one is published. I did some fairly serious research and found that this is clearly a viable and very honest start-up effort. While it may not fit exactly with the "established" market paradigm, the effort never the less is a genuine one. I believe that photographers who are embedded in (or attempting to break into) the established major market tend to voice strong opinions regarding any effort that might compete with their established market paradigm. The established paradigm is changing RAPIDLY though, thus one sees new alternative business models coming into the picture all the time. If one attends major conferences of professional photographers (which I do) one finds that the smarter pro's are recognizing and adjusting to the reality of the RAPID changing market and have started to embrace alternative markets with enthusiasm. Interestingly, folks who are adjusting slowly to the changing paradigm are usually their own worst enemies. I recently attended a major conference of photographers in which an award was given to a major environmental organization. The organization's Managing Photo Editor was there to accept the award. Darned thing about it...the photo editor also participated in portfolio reviews and suggested to some folks that they work and submit photo's pro-bono as a way to "break into the industry". Seemed real odd to me that this organization of "professional" photographers gave an award to someone who was advocating breaking one of the cardinal sins regarding their market and traditional business model. I don't see anything wrong with exposuremagazine.org's web-site either. Given this is a startup effort, the site is clean and clearly provides good information for an interested party. I've sure seen worse from some of the tier 1 pro's out there. Regarding the $100 fee. I would suggest that perhaps anyone on this board who has entered a juried contest and paid a fee has in essence paid the exact same type of fee. I would also suggest that anyone who has paid for their own drum scans, Lightjet 5000's, 8 ply mats and framing for a museum exhibit have put out funds in the same manner. This fee in my mind is nothing more than a marketing expense...tax deductible if your a "Real Pro". Just my thoughts... Richard Ellsbury Bellevue, WA > It should be .COM, $8/issue and $100 a year for the right to submit your > photos. What a joke. Most magazines PAY THE PHOTOGRAPHER, not the other way > around. If the magazine is as amateurish as the web site no serious > photographer would want to be associated with it. posted ... "... Darned thing about it...the photo editor also participated in portfolio reviews and suggested to some folks that they work and submit photo's pro-bono as a way to "break into the industry". ..." That's VERY "Self Serving" ... and BULL-SHEITE! > On 4/16/04 6:04 PM, in article BCA5A672.130%nwnp@nwnaturephoto.com, > "nwnp" <nwnp@nwnaturephoto.com> wrote: > I've found the posts regarding this magazine quite interesting. It seems > to me perhaps a few folks haven't run due diligence here? There is a > payment schedule associated with the effort once one is published. I did > some fairly serious research and found that this is clearly a viable and > very honest start-up effort. While it may not fit exactly with the > "established" market paradigm, the effort never the less is a genuine one. PWW Question: As a Magazine what is the circulation of the magazine? What is the ratio of PAID subscribers (and free Subscriptions) to Newsstand sales? How many actual magazines are printed per issue? How many issues have been printed to date? Real Magazines have this type of data available. I know, I published a "real magazine myself for a while. Sure it is a "Start-Up", but what type of start-Up is the question. To me it seems to be in business of taking money from wanna be photographers, and not really a true magazine. The problem I see. Is that it seems act like a magazine but be a photography "club". > I believe that photographers who are embedded in (or attempting to break > into) the established major market tend to voice strong opinions regarding [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the RAPID changing market and have started to embrace alternative markets > with enthusiasm. PWW Or professionals tend to voice strong opinions about business models which seem to want to NOT promote the best interest of even emerging photographers. Sorry but I can't believe pros would embrace and participate in this "Type" of venture unless they had some financial interest in it also. It clearly is way beyond "alternative market". > Interestingly, folks who are adjusting slowly to the changing paradigm are > usually their own worst enemies. I recently attended a major conference of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > portfolio reviews and suggested to some folks that they work and submit > photo's pro-bono as a way to "break into the industry". Why not give some real info here? Tell us who and where and when? And sure the "photo Editor" might (lets here who he really is) want to be able to publish quality pictures for free. HE does work for a company using the photos right! > Seemed real odd to me that this organization of "professional" photographers > gave an award to someone who was advocating breaking one of the cardinal > sins regarding their market and traditional business model. PWW Again, give us some real info on who you are talking about. I could be that your statement about what he said is taken out of context. Even, take the statement as true, I can understand that. To do some photos to get published. BUT and it is a big but, published by a recognized, valid, real, well known publication. All of which this "magazine is not. Plus I, do not believe that "photo Editor would have suggested that photographers pay $100 th have a chance to get published ina questionable publication. > I don't see anything wrong with exposuremagazine.org's web-site either. > Given this is a startup effort, the site is clean and clearly provides good > information for an interested party. I've sure seen worse from some of the > tier 1 pro's out there. PWW Really. I beg to differ. To me it seems to be all geared to part the wanna be photographers from their money. And no real infor about the publication, like I asked for in my first paragraph. And you are judging apples and oranges. Try judging that "Exposuremagazine Magazine", against other publications like, National Wildlife, Birders World, Birdwatchers digest. I thought it was supposed to be a magazine. > Regarding the $100 fee. I would suggest that perhaps anyone on this board > who has entered a juried contest and paid a fee has in essence paid the > exact same type of fee. I would also suggest that anyone who has paid for > their own drum scans, Lightjet 5000's, 8 ply mats and framing for a museum > exhibit have put out funds in the same manner. This fee in my mind is > nothing more than a marketing expense...tax deductible if your a "Real Pro". PWW Again more apple and oranges. First $100 is excessive for a jury contest and second a photographer would only pay such a fee in a reconized sacioned and real contest. Plus I know of no pro photographer would pay such a fee. All you other points are where the photographer gets something of value back for their money. Framed prints have value. A unknown "alternative market" that promotes itself as a magazine but does not really meet the model of a magazine and wants $100 up front is the problem, as I see it. > Just my thoughts... > > Richard Ellsbury > Bellevue, WA The comment "... To me it seems to be all geared to part the wanna be photographers from their money. ..." seems to sum it up quite well.' In Line thoughts... >> "nwnp" <nwnp@nwnaturephoto.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Real Magazines have this type of data available. I know, I published a "real > magazine myself for a while. RWE: Seems to me like given this is a startup effort one would realize only time will tell on this. What I did receive was honest information when I talked with the folks. Did you take the time to talk to them? If not I think perhaps you should do so. > Sure it is a "Start-Up", but what type of start-Up is the question. To me it > seems to be in business of taking money from wanna be photographers, and not > really a true magazine. The problem I see. Is that it seems act like a > magazine but be a photography "club". RWE: Well then...shame on any professional photographer who has made money from Sierra CLUB, Seattle Mountaineers, National Geographic Society or Audobon Society. All are clubs...albeit mature ones, but clubs that never the less started as very small, radical ideas in the equivalent of someone's garage, parlor or basement many many years ago in a land far away. >> I believe that photographers who are embedded in (or attempting to break >> into) the established major market tend to voice strong opinions regarding [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > in this "Type" of venture unless they had some financial interest in it > also. It clearly is way beyond "alternative market". RWE: You seem to have said it all...To quote you: "I can't believe pros would embrace and participate in this "Type" of venture unless they had some financial interest in it also." By your way of thinking, it is okay for such a venture to exist so long as only an established pro realizes the financial benefit. >> Interestingly, folks who are adjusting slowly to the changing paradigm are >> usually their own worst enemies. I recently attended a major conference of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > publish quality pictures for free. HE does work for a company using the > photos right! RWE: This was meant as an illustration regarding the real type of issues that professional photographers are confronted with. My way of dealing with this was to discuss it with the organizations officers so they were aware of this type of thing going on. Other wise the organization and individual's name are not relevant. Here we have an organization that is a major source of revenue in fact almost stabbing the professional photographers in the back...yet these same photographers are willing to ignore this type of thing as long as they are still selling into the organization. They go after the new startup such as we are discussing, but don't confront the real forces at play that are eroding their market. >> Seemed real odd to me that this organization of "professional" photographers >> gave an award to someone who was advocating breaking one of the cardinal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Again, give us some real info on who you are talking about. I could be that > your statement about what he said is taken out of context. RWE: The statement was not taken out of context. I was "reviewing the reviewers" and went through sessions with 8 reviewers to assess their effectiveness and methodology. So...the comments were made directly to me personally. Otherwise, same answer as the above...there's no valid reason to mention the reviewer's name or the organizations name. > Even, take the statement as true, I can understand that. To do some photos > to get published. BUT and it is a big but, published by a recognized, valid, > real, well known publication. All of which this "magazine is not. Plus I, do > not believe that "photo Editor would have suggested that photographers pay > $100 th have a chance to get published ina questionable publication. RWE: No...the photo editor just suggested working for free. With the model we are discussing, one essentially agrees to support the initial effort...with payments rendered if publication occurs. Really the same concept as those organizations in the midwest with grain silo's that say COOP on them. Or that consortium of farmers called Darigold. I for one have absolutely not problem with this business model. It is a normal model and has been around since the beginning of time. Those who join know the risks up front with this type of effort. If the model and risks weren't so clearly spelled out, THEN I would have a problem with the effort. >> I don't see anything wrong with exposuremagazine.org's web-site either. >> Given this is a startup effort, the site is clean and clearly provides good [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > publications like, National Wildlife, Birders World, Birdwatchers digest. I > thought it was supposed to be a magazine. RWE: Time will tell on this one. You may be right, you may be wrong. It's a startup with what seems to be a very clear representation of what they are doing, without false representation of the model. Interestingly these "real" magazines sure seem to be doing a lot more damage to the pro's than this simple start-up could ever conceivably do. I'd suggest you research a bit regarding the litigation that is going on with National Geographic. THIS is the type of thing pro's should really worry about big time. One of the issues is that the pro's have failed to consolidate the many professional organizations under one umbrella to establish an effective lobby in Washington DC. >> Regarding the $100 fee. I would suggest that perhaps anyone on this board >> who has entered a juried contest and paid a fee has in essence paid the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and second a photographer would only pay such a fee in a reconized sacioned > and real contest. Plus I know of no pro photographer would pay such a fee. RWE: Nearly every pro out there has paid contest fees at one time or another to further their career. Usually early on in their careers. Today, pro's pay fees for whatever they feel will further their business interests. Sure I'm mixing apples and oranges, but they all fit into that bushel basket with the label "Potential Marketing or Sales Possibility". > All you other points are where the photographer gets something of value back > for their money. Framed prints have value. A unknown "alternative market" > that promotes itself as a magazine but does not really meet the model of a > magazine and wants $100 up front is the problem, as I see it. RWE: I just find it real interesting that no one up here has read the payment schedule upon publication. The risk is very clear up front, yes...but there IS a clear payment formula listed. You might not see a dime out of the effort. But bottom line is that they are very up front with what they are doing. This is sure more than I can say for some of the major publications who can forever fail to pay for images they have used, quite often intentionally and permanently... I'm sure I will see further responses... :) Regards, Rick Ellsbury Bellevue, WA Mine too, inline that is. And let me apologize for my spelling, I have just changed to a new G5 Dually and the keyboard is different, so I am getting many missed keystrokes. OOOOO. One thing I just checked this Address and found is a UPS Store (which bought Mail Boxes Etc), and not a real business address where one could go and meet them. http://www.ups.com/dropoff/director/935739 THE UPS STORE 1414 GOLDEN SPRINGS RD ANNISTON, AL 36207 So this is basically just a PO Box drop box. Wow. I guess they were up front about that huh! Funny they did not mention that. And there is no business in Anniston with the name "exposuremagazine." At least any I could find. Did they tell you that when you called and talked to them? Do you realize on Post Office boxes (USPS) you have to say PO Box, but with UPS and Mailboxes Ect, you don't have to. Huh. Interesting. > In Line thoughts... > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > when I talked with the folks. Did you take the time to talk to them? If > not I think perhaps you should do so. PWW No, I did not talk to them. I learned enough from reading their web-site that I would not be interested in anything like this. If they would post some of the information about the publication, ie actual magazines printed per issue, subscribers and they other info I asked for than one could really judge then as a REAL publication. Isn't this information extremely important if they are trying to sell (basically) publication credits. >> Sure it is a "Start-Up", but what type of start-Up is the question. To me it >> seems to be in business of taking money from wanna be photographers, and not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the less started as very small, radical ideas in the equivalent of someone's > garage, parlor or basement many many years ago in a land far away. PWW Clubs was not the point. It is the type of clubs. (Even though the ones you mention are not clubs.) "Exposuremagazine" is geared more as a CAMERA club for the sole purpose of engaging photographers, all the other publications of the associations you mentioned are geared towards other venues. They use photography on their publications to illustrate, engage and entertain their readers. I do not believe any other the ones you mentioned started they way you say. My point is that "Exposuremagazine" is not a real magazine. And thusly cannot provide photographers with "real publication credits that would be worthwhile for ones photographic career. >>> I believe that photographers who are embedded in (or attempting to break >>> into) the established major market tend to voice strong opinions regarding [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > By your way of thinking, it is okay for such a venture to exist so long as > only an established pro realizes the financial benefit. PWW I think you missed the point. I would never say that such a company should exist to (what I believe) take advantage of wannabe photographers. I speak out against many companies, cities, counties and other for Rip-off contests photo contests all the time. I was trying to say, that if a Pro was involved in this type of venture, and that participation was being used to validate this venture, then one would have to think if said Pro was being compensated in some way, either with money or an interest in the venture. >>> Interestingly, folks who are adjusting slowly to the changing paradigm are >>> usually their own worst enemies. I recently attended a major conference of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > aware of this type of thing going on. Other wise the organization and > individual's name are not relevant. PWW Disagree. If you are using this as a example I can only judge the worthiness of such example if I knew the source of the example. > Here we have an organization that is a major source of revenue in fact > almost stabbing the professional photographers in the back...yet these same > photographers are willing to ignore this type of thing as long as they are > still selling into the organization. They go after the new startup such as > we are discussing, but don't confront the real forces at play that are > eroding their market. PWW I just don't see this. What "organization" are you talking about? Let me try and use you example for you. Birders World Magazine, pays Pro Photographers all the time. But they do have "gallery" (or something like that) that they publish photographs sent to them and they state they pay nothing for such publication of the photos. Pro Photographers don't see a "bad" problem with this. Why. 1: It is a limited amount of space in the magazine; 2: Pros Realize that can't dictate what a company is going to do anyway. As long as they get paid for their photos, they are happy, that is what concerns them; 3: They would not allow use of their own Photographs without some sort of compensation; 4: Birders World Does not charge $100 dollars for the right to be published; 5: Birders World is an established reconized publication so publication in said magazine could benefit some wannabe photographers. If the value of publication credits is not important, I would startup hundreds of small publications, like "PWW Nature Magazine", "Florida Nature Magazine", "Sunset Pics Magazine" and so on and so forth. Sure the circulation might be only 10 people but I could state hundreds of publication credits on my resume. It is the value of the credits that is important. As in getting published in "Natures Best" has much more clout that being published in "Birders World". And I say being published in "Exposuremagazine" would be basically the bottom of the list. >>> Seemed real odd to me that this organization of "professional" photographers >>> gave an award to someone who was advocating breaking one of the cardinal [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > personally. Otherwise, same answer as the above...there's no valid reason > to mention the reviewer's name or the organizations name. PWW You were "Reviewing the Reviewers" interesting. What were you assessing them for? For what purpose? Were they telling you what you might want to do with your photographs? How maybe you could help your career? I doubt any said to you you should pay $100 (upfront) to get published by an unknown and unseen publication. Again, Yes I see it as important to know who said what and in what context. >> Even, take the statement as true, I can understand that. To do some photos >> to get published. BUT and it is a big but, published by a recognized, valid, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > risks up front with this type of effort. If the model and risks weren't so > clearly spelled out, THEN I would have a problem with the effort. PWW No, no, no! Working for free, "if publication occurs". Woooeeee. Most startup businesses I know use their own money or get a loan through the SBA or bank. They don't put up a web-site (which doesn't even have page titles other then "Untitled Page" and then try and solicit $100 for nothing. The risks are not spelled out, "if publication occurs" wow. Lets see let me put a web-site doing the same sort of thing. All my upfront costs are $8 for a domain name, 100 a year for a hosting site, a few hours making a limited amount of html pages, collect $100 from 100 wannabe photographers and then never publish because of some reason. Gee whiz for a little over $100 bucks of my own money, I just pulled in $10,000 dollars. Just think if I could get 1,000 wannabes, then I could get $100,000 dollars. Boy it sounds like a great chain letter. Again you mix apples and oranges. A Grain CoOp pays farmers for the grain the deliver. They don't require a farmer to pay them upfront and then say We " Might" pay you back when you deliver grain to us. It is no way the same. You did not have to be a member of Farm Bureau to take and sell grain to the Farm Bureau. >>> I don't see anything wrong with exposuremagazine.org's web-site either. >>> Given this is a startup effort, the site is clean and clearly provides good [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > professional organizations under one umbrella to establish an effective > lobby in Washington DC. PWW It is not a clear representation of what they are doing. I just don't understand you logic here. National Geographic does has some issues concerning CD's, but ask any Pro if they want to to get published and paid for being published by NG and every single one would say yes, in a heartbeat. Even with some of the problems. Which by the way are being worked out, one way or the other. And not reverent to today's sales. I am not worried about the pros, I am worried about the wannabe's who have stars in their eyes and believe anything they are told. And I not worried about the photography field. Not in the slightest. It will go on. And there are many valid, important Pro Photo organizations fighting for photographers rights all the time, EP, ASMP, PPA, to name a few. And they are doing a good job. >>> Regarding the $100 fee. I would suggest that perhaps anyone on this board >>> who has entered a juried contest and paid a fee has in essence paid the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > interests. Sure I'm mixing apples and oranges, but they all fit into that > bushel basket with the label "Potential Marketing or Sales Possibility". PWW Really, I am not so sure about that. And sure it is legitimate to pay fess for "Potential Marketing or Sales Possibility" but here is the point, it is the Value a photographer will receive for such fees that makes it worthwhile or not. And I just don't see any value whatsoever in spending $100 on this. How about you send me $100, and I will give you some publication credits, I can think up some good names, and maybe, if I publish one of you photos. I might pay you back ( a little bit), but I will still want to charge you advertisments. And by the way don't worry about how many magazines I am going to print and distrubute. I will be waiting on your check. >> All you other points are where the photographer gets something of value back >> for their money. Framed prints have value. A unknown "alternative market" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the major publications who can forever fail to pay for images they have > used, quite often intentionally and permanently... PWW The risk IS NOT CLEAR. This place has not even printed one issue. Not one. Yes, you might not see a dime but what is worse you might give away 1,000 dimes for the privilege. Please name these Major Publications who fail to pay? That is what Copyright Registration is for to go after legitimate publications. > I'm sure I will see further responses... :) PWW You betcha. ;-) > Regards, > > Rick Ellsbury > Bellevue, WA PWW SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com Time to drop this thread as I have other things the I need to do. My original thread served it's purpose anyway, established a bit of discussion to allow some due diligence given the prior threads. RWE On 4/17/04 4:54 AM, in article BCA69333.A7E6%pww@-REMOVE-PhotoStockFile.com, > Mine too, inline that is. And let me apologize for my spelling, I have just > changed to a new G5 Dually and the keyboard is different, so I am getting [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Do you realize on Post Office boxes (USPS) you have to say PO Box, but with > UPS and Mailboxes Ect, you don't have to. Huh. Interesting. >> In Line thoughts... >> [quoted text clipped - 303 lines] > > PWW Aw gee whiz, just when things started to get good. I guess the maybe your horse has been flogged enough, and is out of steam (dead.) That seems to happen when ones views (horse) has a hard time standing up to a vigorous debate. My horse (views) are still running fresh and strong. At least two more questions. Come on lets get one more trot out of that old nag before you put her down. ;-) Did you know their business address was only a UPS (Mailboxes Etc) Letter box? Does that make any difference to you with your evaluation of their business model? You did say that you did "some fairly serious research and found that this is clearly a viable and very honest start-up effort." SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com > On 4/17/04 3:17 PM, in article BCA6D0E4.161%info@nwnaturephoto.com > "Information" <info@nwnaturephoto.com> wrote: > Time to drop this thread as I have other things the I need to do. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> On 4/17/04 4:54 AM, in article BCA69333.A7E6%pww@-REMOVE-PhotoStockFile.com, >> "PWW" <pww@-REMOVE-PhotoStockFile.com> wrote: >> OOOOO. One thing I just checked this Address and found is a UPS Store (which >> bought Mail Boxes Etc), and not a real business address where one could go [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Do you realize on Post Office boxes (USPS) you have to say PO Box, but with >> UPS and Mailboxes Ect, you don't have to. Huh. Interesting. In Line... > Aw gee whiz, just when things started to get good. I guess the maybe your > horse has been flogged enough, and is out of steam (dead.) That seems to > happen when ones views (horse) has a hard time standing up to a vigorous > debate. My horse (views) are still running fresh and strong. Well, we will switch from the horse here and go after the donkey. The real viewpoint being rendered is that the industry is locked up and controlled by those who got in many years ago and for practical purpose are losing controlling interest and their market share due to basic laws of supply and demand. So...folks get real defensive if the existing model that works for them, or has worked in the past, is working less effectively. There are always going to be efforts like the one under discussion due to the closed nature of the market and the fact that the main players dominate it and control it as best they can. Most of these main players got in 20-30 years ago and have grown the market correspondingly. Now their market is eroding and they know it...and...it is their own fault for not pulling together all the pro advocacy groups to fight the folks who are REALLY doing the damage. This is what REALLY needs to happen. The folks really doing the damage are the folks with the agency's offering royalty free and images on CD and the like. Can you say "billionaire" ? There's your real enemy and there's the real focus of what the principled pro should be fighting. The forces eroding the pro market are the really huge players, it's tantamount to the use of power to control the market in the same way that huge players are sending jobs overseas in the technology sector. It really is the huge player that is the problem, not the mom and pop operation you are so willing to debate. You can expect many "wanna-be" pro's to go against your idea of what is right so long as pro's themselves don't get it that they need to fight the larger forces at hand and not "dump" on the smaller people. Is there really a diffence in paying this small operation to get published as oppose to paying an agency to "get in", providing you have the 10 national credits? There's a good point to debate. Another point...ever whine and dine a publisher or photo editor at your expense ? Make that wine... :) My point is that the few whining pro's out there (there are not that many whiners) have small minds when it comes to really figuring out how to shore up their industry. When they treat "wanna-be's" with poor regard, then they end up sowing the seeds of discontent and acceptance of alternatives as viable. The whiners are usually wanna-be's who don't have the publishing credits to get into the overwhelmed stock market anyway. Usually they start their own agency and then go belly up after realizing their real shortcoming was they needed to learn how to write and submit to the nationals. More leather for the whacking...I'd say... > At least two more questions. Come on lets get one more trot out of that old > nag before you put her down. ;-) > > Did you know their business address was only a UPS (Mailboxes Etc) Letter > box? Yes... > Does that make any difference to you with your evaluation of their business > model? No...many businesses use the method for maintaining records correctly. > You did say that you did "some fairly serious research and found that this > is clearly a viable and very honest start-up effort." > On 4/19/04 8:31 PM, in article BCA9BD8C.819%nwnp@nwnaturephoto.com > "nwnp" <nwnp@nwnaturephoto.com> wrote: > The real viewpoint being rendered is that the industry is locked up and > controlled by those who got in many years ago and for practical purpose are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pulling together all the pro advocacy groups to fight the folks who are > REALLY doing the damage. This is what REALLY needs to happen. PWW A bunch of words not really saying anything. I thought the debate was this business model "exposuremagazine.org" and not how best to protect the professional photography career fields. Real life is full of ebbs and flows, live with it. Make you own way. Who cares who gets defensive and for what reason. I am so glad you understand how best to change the professional photography world, more than, ASMP, PPA, EP and other professional photographer associations. Many of the above statements are not accurate. Pure and simple. > The folks really doing the damage are the folks with the agency's offering > royalty free and images on CD and the like. Can you say "billionaire" ? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sector. It really is the huge player that is the problem, not the mom and > pop operation you are so willing to debate. PWW As I stated before professional photographers can take care of themselves and the Pro field will be changing, things always change. Mom and Pop operations can take advantage of wannbees just as much or even more often than established companies. Mom and Pops can jump up, take a bunch of money from wannabees and then evaporate, never to be heard from again. To a wannabee, it doesn't really who fleeces them, small or large. You have never responded to any of my concerns about this type of business. I have made the point several times, like "exposuremagazine.org" is not a REAL magazine or publication, there is no mention of #'s of printed issues or #'s of paid subscribers or even when they expect to actually publish a magazine. How many pages? Where are they going to distribute the magazines? If one wants to go that route there are MANY REAL smaller publications that will publish newcomers pictures more often then not. And without $100 up front. Has "exposuremagazine.org" ever published a magazine before? I personally have quite a bit of knowledge about magazine publication. I published one myself. From scratch. It is not easy and it is a huge job. I used my own money. I did not try a scheme like this, and sure seems like it is. But of course mine was a REAL magazine and I gave REAL VALUE for my subscribers money. > You can expect many "wanna-be" pro's to go against your idea of what is > right so long as pro's themselves don't get it that they need to fight the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There's a good point to debate. Another point...ever whine and dine a > publisher or photo editor at your expense ? Make that wine... :) PWW You always seem to judge apples and oranges. My point is that this "exposuremagazine.org" does not have enough value in it for reasonable photographers to gain for their $100 upfront payment. Stock lists, (10 national credits) provide a real and KNOWN value for that outlay of hard earned cash. They have been around for a very long time. They have hundreds of photographers particpating for years and years. They are a KNOWN value. "exposuremagazine.org" is a unknown, and does not offer anything of value for that hard earned cash. The difference between the two examples is staggering. I just don't understand how you could relate the two. If you wine and dine again you are participating in another known value (at least hopefully) and respected publication or contact. If you wine and dine ANYONE who says they can do something for your photography career, you will be parted from your money faster that you can make it. Like I said, send me $100 and I will publish some of your photos for you. I will even give you back $15 for any that I happen to publish. > My point is that the few whining pro's out there (there are not that many > whiners) have small minds when it comes to really figuring out how to shore [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > their own agency and then go belly up after realizing their real shortcoming > was they needed to learn how to write and submit to the nationals. PWW This is backwards. A lot of Pros want to and do help wannabes, in all sorts of ways. They do it every day. I have done it. Others have helped me and with the internet it is even easier. I don't know why you have such a dislike of pros. Sure there are some who aren't helpful but for every one who isn't there are many others who are. It is business models like "exposuremagazine.org" that seems to want to take advantage of wannabees. Not Pros. That is why some Pros speak out to warn wannabees about strange business models, copyright concerns and the like. Do you realize one major thing that makes the difference between wannabees and Pros? Pros actually do something, today! And then do it again. And again. They get in there and fight, scratch, and do whatever is necessary to become a PRO. And they do it TODAY and TOMMORROW. An example; when I did Outdoor Arts Shows. I jumped in and did it. And I changed and improved and learned. I met many wannabees that would come up to me and say "Yeah I was going to do this show." Or "Next year I am going to do this or that show." Quit telling people what you are going to do and JUST DO IT. As always in any business, one of the best ways to become a PRO, is to find somebody who is successful, in a way you would like to be and then emulate their approach and business model. There is no magic business model that will do everything for you. I know of no Pro who would participate in such a thing as "exposuremagazine.org", and I see no value from it. > More leather for the whacking...I'd say... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes... PWW Are you involved in this operation? Otherwise how did you know this? >> Does that make any difference to you with your evaluation of their business >> model? > > No...many businesses use the method for maintaining records correctly. PWW "for maintaining records correctly"... huh? Give me a break. It is not that they used a Letter Drop box but that it looks as they are hiding that fact. For a NEW publishing company (with no previous value or record for photographers to judge) and that wants to collect $100 BEFORE they ever publish single issue, it does concern me. I wish you could actually respond directly to my concerns about "exposuremagazine.org" business model instead of just all this anti-pro statements. > In Line... > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > More leather for the whacking...I'd say... More whacking is exactly how I'd put it. That is, if I didn't simply call it a huge pile of bullshit. What this has to do, in any way, shape, or form, with the question of having submitters actually pay to have their images put up is anybody's guess. If I were to take a stab at it, I would say this is a blatant attempt at misdirection in order to chase attention away from the fact that, if you're publishing a magazine, your income comes from the subscriber, period. Subscriptions get high enough, or even appear likely to, and the advertisers are on the bandwagon. All you need is an interesting content. Publishing any photo that someone pays for is not considered interesting content. What is most likely to follow, with no editorial control, is a collection of snapshots and half-a.s efforts. This isn't just speculation, because it's been done before. Little organization called the International Freelance Photographers Organization. Worst photos I've seen published in any magazine, and for that matter in quite a few local club newsletters. Advertisers? Sure! All of them IFPO, somehow. Imagine that. Should I mention that, with membership in the IFPO, you can get their "press pass" to provide media access to events? Should I mention how many security people I've talked to that find those passes hilarious? I'm not saying this for your benefit - it's pretty obvious that you ARE the magazine, despite the changing screen names (headers are a giveaway - you have to be a lot less clumsy than that). I'm saying this for the benefit of anyone who might be tempted. Paying somebody else for the privilege of working for them isn't any kind of deal. Get *paid* for your work, time, effort, materials, marketing, and so on. That's the deal. If no one is interested, you need to be better at photography, so work on improving. But a paid submission mag? What the hell is that going to provide? Supposedly it "opens the door" when other editors see that you've been published? Guess again - editors will be quick to recognize it for what it's worth, and it becomes a total waste of money. Go work on your "articles", nameless troll, and quit clogging up the newsgroup with spam and horseshit. And I hope your articles have a lot more cohesiveness and clarity than this nonsense. Or can you pay to have that lack of talent published too? - Al. Given the type of response I see here, this one isn't worth a response back other than this short note. I think this kinda went beyond the horse and donkey to the mule and beyond. And...it really did present the crass, condescending viewpoint that so encourages folks to consider this alternative model that is so detested by a few folks who are responding about up here. One final note though...I am NOT the magazine. Dropping this thread once and for all. RWE On 4/19/04 10:24 PM, in article Xns94D1E51AF184sandalsatwadinginnet@127.0.0.1, "Al Denelsbeck" <news@wadingin.net> wrote: >> In Line... >> [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > > - Al. > Dropping this thread once and for all. Oh we do so wish. You said it once before, though, and went back on your word. Paying to have your picture published in a magazine is like paying someone for sex. Some think it is a legitimate business, others disagree. But then, it isn't a magazine, it's the newsletter of a dues paying mutual admiration society. Now that I have no problem with - I'd wish you luck. Even sell the newsletter on newsstands; I would call it "Narcissism Today", though. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. You said it better than me. But one little point. Actually 99.5% of magazines are really published for the advertisers, to get their ads in front of possible customers. Very few magazines can survive on subscriptions alone. And you do need much more than interesting content. In fact, a magazine jammed packed with advertisements and have very little good content has a much better chance of surviving than one with lots of great content and little or no advertising. Trust me, I found out the hard way, $$$. There are a lot more problems with publishing a new magazine too. Up to 90% fail. Ops... Me too. PWW >On 4/20/04 1:24 AM, in article Xns94D1E51AF184sandalsatwadinginnet@127.0.0.1 > "Al Denelsbeck" <news@wadingin.net> wrote: > if you're publishing a magazine, your income comes from the > subscriber, period. Subscriptions get high enough, or even appear likely > to, and the advertisers are on the bandwagon. All you need is an > interesting content. Yup...understood more than I believe you realize, regardless of the way this thread developed. It was actually a healthy thread more than I think folks realize and may have actually produced a more positive result than some may realize. RWE On 4/20/04 7:45 AM, in article BCAAAFC1.A98F%pww@-REMOVE-PhotoStockFile.com, > You said it better than me. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> to, and the advertisers are on the bandwagon. All you need is an >> interesting content. More useless babble and no facts. > On 4/20/04 11:49 AM, in article BCAA9494.829%nwnp@nwnaturephoto.com, > "nwnp" <nwnp@nwnaturephoto.com> wrote: > Yup...understood more than I believe you realize, regardless of the way this > thread developed. It was actually a healthy thread more than I think folks > realize and may have actually produced a more positive result than some may > realize. > > RWE "PWW" <pww@-REMOVE-PhotoStockFile.com> > More useless babble and no facts. Facts? Facts! This is Usenet, we don' need no steenkin' facts... Besides, I think it's against the charter. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Now that's the third time you have popped up after promising to stay away. Is this going back on your word pathological? > Yup...understood more than I believe you realize, Probably, you seem to have understood so little to start with. > may have actually produced a more positive result [for my mag] Unfortunately ... there seems to be no such thing as bad publicity. OTOH: fools are soon separated from their money and you do seem to be providing a separation service. Now keep to your word, go away. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. > You said it better than me. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > much better chance of surviving than one with lots of great content and > little or no advertising. Trust me, I found out the hard way, $$$. I think there needs to be a balance, a magazine that is nothing but advertising and a lame article or two, will run into another problem, reader apathy. Advertising rates are based on circulation, a well read magazine with lots of readers, can demand more from advertisers for exposure to their reader base. A magazine with few readers, can not demand the high rates, so they need more advertising pages, to get the same cash. . It also depends on the market, if there are lots of magazines in a category and then advertisers run into market trouble, and need to cut costs, the magazines drop like flies..... > There are a lot more problems with publishing a new magazine too. Up to 90% > fail. Ops... Me too. Any new venture always needs the ability to operate for the first year with no income, the second year with income covering 25% of expenses, the third year with 50%, the fourth year with 75%, and finally 100% in the fifth year, profitability should be 6 years into the venture. If you don't have enough cash from investors to operate in the red for 5 years, don't even bother starting the venture, it will fail. This means if you plan on spending $1,000,000 a year on your venture you need $2,500,000 available, before you even start. This is why 90% of all new businesses (not just magazines) fail in the first 5 years, they run out of money, then the business starves to death, and the owners end up trying to prop up the corpse, until they often go under with it. Paul > On 4/20/04 11:53 AM, in article wHbhc.42315$Gp4.887301@news20.bellglobal.com > "Paul Schmidt" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote: > I think there needs to be a balance, a magazine that is nothing but > advertising and a lame article or two, will run into another problem, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > magazines in a category and then advertisers run into market trouble, > and need to cut costs, the magazines drop like flies..... When I started my Magazine there was a relative new magazine that was almost all advertising. With some Advertorial articles and one or two pretty lame articles per issue. That magazine is still going strong and has even prospered very well. It really is nothing but a catalog of advertisers. But it keeps going. I printed my magazine at the same printers that they did and I know how many magazines they actually printed and they constantly inflated their readership by huge multiples, and I do mean HUGE. Even when they were almost a give away magazine, with tons never looked at. And many people would never pickup a copy at the bulk drop offs, let alone read it. That is why I never really tried to sell advertising in my magazine. I just could not bring myself to lie so much. Almost all magazines inflate their readership. There are many trade magazines that are opposite of your model. They have small readership but charge high rates for subscription and advertising because they are very focused on a core trade. (Like Magazine Publishing) Resubscription is always a problem with magazines too. So you always have to get new subscribers and keep the ones you have. Not an easy job. > Any new venture always needs the ability to operate for the first year > with no income, the second year with income covering 25% of expenses, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > death, and the owners end up trying to prop up the corpse, until they > often go under with it. Well, magazine publications are one of the more risky ventures. Glub... Glub.... Glub.... PWW "Paul Schmidt" <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote: > I think there needs to be a balance, a magazine that is nothing but > advertising and a lame article or two, will run into another problem, > reader apathy. Magazines that are all ads are like the yellow pages: a directory of business, and some, Computer Shopper, Shutterbug do well (did well before Fe*** came on the scene). In Cleveland we have two 'free' newspapers, each claiming to 'Speak for the People'. The papers are nothing but advertisements separated by a few articles of foam-at-the-mouth yellow journalism. I think you can tell a magazine by its advertisers. The end sections of our free papers are wall-to-wall ads for 'escort services' - naked women on bearskin rugs who will accompany you to dinner. Do they take the their bearskin with them at the restaurant? Inquiring minds want to know. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > a magazine > jammed packed with advertisements and have very little good content has a > much better chance of surviving than one with lots of great content and > little or no advertising. Yup: Double Take, Photovision ... But some do well: Granta, Aperture, New Scientist .... SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > The real viewpoint being rendered is that the industry is locked up and > controlled by those who got in many years ago and for practical purpose are > losing controlling interest and their market share due to basic laws of > supply and demand. You're entire premise is based on a false assumption. The industry is NOT locked up - not even close. Sure, there are some big names who get a lot of images published, but it's because they have talent, work hard and have built large stock files of images people will pay them to use. There are tons of magazine and calendar publishers (REAL magazines with subscribers and everything) that are open and eager to see the work of new talent. Getting published, and getting paid for it, isn't hard at all. Getting published often enough to make a living as a full time pro is VERY difficult. No full time pro has to pay for vanity publisinhg to get their images published. If they did, they wouldn't be a full time pro very long. This whole notion that you have to pay someone to publish your images is ridiculous. A few years back, there was a similar notion going around that if you were a beginner you had to give your images away for free if you wanted to get published and break into the business. Total nonsense. If your work is good enough, you WILL get published, and you WILL get paid. The keys to getting published are really simple: 1) Take some great photos. 2) Send a tightly edited, targeted submission of your best work to a legitimate publisher. 3) Repeat 1 and 2 as necessary Do a little homework to identify clients who use the type of work you produce, get their submission guidelines and start submitting. Believe me, if your work is good enough, they won't care if your name is Joe Blow or David Muench, they will use your work amd they will pay you for it. Even the top pros get rejected on a regular basis. It's just the nature of the business. Not every publication can use every image that's submitted. In fact, the ones they use are a very small fraction of what gets submitted. It's nothing personal, just a numbers game. It's a very competitive business, but certainly not "closed". > There are always going to be efforts like the one under discussion due to > the closed nature of the market and the fact that the main players dominate > it and control it as best they can. Again, false assumptions. There is no collusion between the photographers and publishers. It is a free market, open to all who are good enough and willing to work hard enough to compete. Paying someone to "publish" your images is NOT the stepping stone to breaking into professional photography. In fact, it smacks of rank amateurism. A better tactic would be to target regional publishers (magazine or calendar) in the areas where you photograph, get their guidelines and submit. Include only your best work, and only work that is appropriate to their publication. Don't send shots of Maine to a regional publisher in Oregon. They won't use them, and you've just wasted their time and yours. Keep your first submission small (20 images is more than enough). Make them want to see more. These markets don't pay as much as the national publications, but they do pay, they use lots of images and are amost always open to submissions from new, previously unpublished photographers. My first published photo was on the cover of a regional magazine that earned me $350 - a lot better than paying someone $100 to publish one of my photos. Similar opportunities exist for anyone talented enough and willing to work hard enough. There are no short cuts to success. Kerry > ...industry is locked up and controlled by those who got in many > years ago... Naw. The reason you can't get in is you are not good enough: your work is no good, you don't try hard. The belief in evil controlling interests blocking your way is self delusion. Just a need to prop up a damaged ego. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Time to drop this thread. I think this horse has been flogged quite thoroughly. Besides, I need to complete work for an article I need to submit by Monday. :) <snip >RWE: I just find it real interesting that no one up here has read the >payment schedule upon publication. The risk is very clear up front, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the major publications who can forever fail to pay for images they have >used, quite often intentionally and permanently. The problem is, each time you release a 'printable' image, you're giving someone the chance to make money from you and never tell you. There are markets in the world, China for one, where no morals or laws are in place to stop the printing of illegal calendars or whatever. And the chances are you will never even know about it or get a dime from it. I don't mind releasing small low res images to organization which are interested in my work. In fact all my webpages have such images :-) But paying someone and giving away images that can be sold without you knowing is just stupid. Really, if you found one of your images on a calendar coming out of China, who are you going to sue? SignatureJim Davis Nature Photography http://jimdavis.oberro.com Replies in plain text only please! > But paying someone and giving away images that can be sold without you > knowing is just stupid. Really, if you found one of your images on a > calendar coming out of China, who are you going to sue? ....the great undead Mao? -- ian green Xeto : photo & graphic project : http://xeto.front.ru photo galleries @ BlurryImage : http://www.blurryimage.com/user/ian%20green selected photography : http://ian_green.photosight.ru/ . EOF <<Darned thing about it...the photo editor also participated in portfolio reviews and suggested to some folks that they work and submit photo's pro-bono as a way to "break into the industry">> Oh goodie, a chance to break into the giveaway photo industry. Lose everything you have invested in the giveaway images with every "sale." But once you break in, you might make up for it in volume? And there's always that other chance that a 1,000-pound solid platinum meteorite might land in your back yard. Good luck. Carl May Exactly... > <<Darned thing about it...the photo editor also participated in > portfolio reviews and suggested to some folks that they work and submit [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Carl May Hi Carl I'd be happy if ANY meteorite would land anywhere near my backyard. -- Jeffrey Nutkowitz/Optiques Classic Photographic Imagery Freelance Outdoor and Nature Photography Emphasizing a 'Sense of Place' http://members.aol.com/OptiquesJN "If you don't change the path you're on, you'll end up where you're already going." ____________________________________________________________________ > <<Darned thing about it...the photo editor also participated in > portfolio reviews and suggested to some folks that they work and submit [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Carl May |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.