| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Spec vs Commission
Jody Gomez, Photographer
 |
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 5:45 PM on 06.27.08 |
->> I asked the following question near the end of this previous post http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=29844 Since the thread was nearly full at the time, I probably should have started a new one because I really am interested in the answers. I'm not interested in a "work for free" debate as there are enough of those going on right now.
So here is the question again: What is the difference between shooting on spec and working on commission? If they are different, how? If they are not, why? |
|
Mike Strasinger, Photographer
 |
Nashville | TN | USA | Posted: 5:53 PM on 06.27.08 |
| ->> Sounds like they are the same. You only get paid if the image sells. |
|
Andrew Knapik, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Lincoln Park | MI | USA | Posted: 6:11 PM on 06.27.08 |
->> I wonder how many photographers here shoot youth (or have shot youth) on a spec basis. I know that the youth spec business is changing, and this is a dying field.
How is shooting spec for an agency such as USPW or Icon any different than shooting youth action on spec? You go to the event hoping to make money. If you do not sell anything, you do not make money!!! |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
 |
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 6:13 PM on 06.27.08 |
->> For the photographer shooting on spec means:
Spending your time to travel, photograph, edit, submit (and all other activities related) to delivering submitted images. In addition to this it also invloves self financing all of your camera equipment, automobile expense, insurance, camera repair (and all other photography expenses).
I'm not sure what the "working on commission" verbage is all about. For they agency, they are the ones "working on commission", as they are taking a product, (your images at your expense) and getting paid if they place said image/images. The reason this is a hot topic with so many people here is that if the "agency" really does not have a vested interest in the photographers submitted images, and really felt there was "value" in these images, they would be willing to pay a reasonable day rate/cover expenses. Basically these so called "agency's" are doing nothing more than convincing some photographers to provide images to them at the photographers expense, basically taking photographers images "on consignment" with no guarantee of anything.
While a couple of guys from Cal Sports Media have spouted off and then run away from the message boards, the fact is most of the guys shooting for them are not making squat, thus the reason for their revolving door and multiple classified ads soliciting more guinea pigs. |
|
Margaret Bowles, Photographer
 |
Houston | TX | | Posted: 6:20 PM on 06.27.08 |
| ->> Sales commissions arrangements with many companies sometimes include a mixture of commissions and base pay or draw and often expenses are reimbursed by the company for whom you are selling. Usually the company with whom you are engaged gives you a territory to work and you aren't competing with other sales people from your own company. When you shoot on spec, you get zippo, nada, unless you sell. What's worse, you might have another photographer right next to you at an event transmitting spec photographs to the same agency. Your already diluted efforts are further diluted by another desperate photographer. "Speculative" shooting is aptly named. It feels better to say you're shooting on commission, but calling it a "commission" is like putting lipstick on a pig. |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
|
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 6:49 PM on 06.27.08 |
->> Clarify above post.
I meant to say if the agency "does" have a vested interest, not "does not" |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 7:01 PM on 06.27.08 |
->> Jody:
As Mike Strasinger pointed out you don't get paid unless your images sell. If a photog can get past that point and still thinks it is a good idea then comes the next consideration.
If you are shooting on spec when a image does sell or is licensed directly by you, you collect the full dollar amount from the licensing or sale. Whereas with shooting commission that generally means you are shooting for another party who will take a piece of whatever licensing the images generates.
You could shoot on spec for an agency which means you outlay a bunch of cash or time and money to make the images. The agency makes the sale, to likely a party you would not have been able to do on your own, and for their trouble the keep 50-80% of the fee. This arrangement means your images have to generate twice the amount of income for you to make the same amount if you licensed the image directly ***if you had access to the same buyer***. |
|
Brad Mangin, Photographer
 |
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 7:56 PM on 06.27.08 |
->> Hello Jody- in my mind it does not matter what you call it.
(I will not address youth sports because I do not shoot youth sports, so I do not know anything about that area of the sports photography business. I will leave that to the experts in that field.)
I shoot assignment work for which I am paid a creative fee that also allows me to retain my copyright (over 20,000 of these images going back over 20 years are available in my cool searchable archive on my website: http://www.manginphotography.com) or I shoot stock. Smart stock.
If a client wishes for me to shoot a ballgame for them they will pay me. If they do not wish to pay me then I stay home and do some editing or captioning or watch bad reality TV.
If I do not have an assignment for a given day I will head out to the ballpark and shoot stock- shooting what I want, when I want without anyone telling me what to do. When I shoot stock I am not editing and transmitting on deadline from the ballpark. I act just like I did in the old days when I shot chrome. I shoot the pretty light and do my best to shoot nice pictures that I know will sell. After doing this for many years I am getting better and better at this.
I am going out tomorrow night to shoot the light at the Giants vs. A's game in Oakland. It is a 6:05 start and Tim Lincecum is on the mound for the Giants. Because I am a freak I know that a 6:05 game this close to the Summer solstice means I will have pretty sunlight on the mound at the Coliseum for the first 2 innings if no one scores a bunch of runs early. I will be able to get some GREAT stock tomorrow night shooting smart pictures of players I want as my own boss. When the light is gone I will bail and head off to a fun BBQ while the game is in like the 4th inning.
Shooting smart stock and submitting to a good agency (or licensing images yourself on your site like me) completes the equation. You need to have your images with an agency that does not give your work away and does not include your images to be a part of a bad monthly subscription all-you-can-eat buffet package deal like the ones all the websites have from all the wires. There is no money there.
Trust me when I tell you that I am a bastard about policing the price my images are licensed for. When I see my monthly statements from MLB Photos (licensed through Getty Images) I go through each sale line by line- like I did with my new one last night. If I see something that was licensed for what I believe was a fee too low I will raise holy Hell with people. I will usually start by calling Rich Pilling and Paul Cunningham at MLB. Then I will usually have to call up Carmin Romanelli and/or Peter Toriello at Getty Images to scream at them. They have been on the receiving end of many phone calls from me because I take this stuff VERY seriously.
Thankfully I was able to call Toriello this afternoon and thank him for the nice job he did this month licensing some of my images for good and fair prices.
I will try not to tell any of you what to do- but I will offer some help based on my very real personal experiences based on being a full time sports freelancer for the past 15 years.
Please create great photographs that you can be proud of. Have the self confidence and respect in yourself to know that your pictures are worth cash. Please do not run a better business for me. The Hell with me.
Do it for YOU. |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 9:39 PM on 06.27.08 |
->> Fabulous response Brad!
Great info.
Wonderful insight into the workings of a freelance photographer.
Hammering home the importance of protecting one's copyright.
This should be required reading in all photography programs. |
|
David Bailey, Photographer
 |
Flower Mound | TX | USA | Posted: 10:19 PM on 06.27.08 |
->> Thanks Brad! Great stuff!
For anyone that doesn't know Brad (I only know him from SS and his work) - he is incredible at what he does and at the top of his game as far as freelancing goes. We shouuld all take his words to heart and work to put more value in our art and our industry. |
|
John Green, Photographer
 |
SoCal | CA | US | Posted: 10:52 PM on 06.27.08 |
->> "If I do not have an assignment for a given day I will head out to the ballpark and shoot stock- shooting what I want, when I want without anyone telling me what to do. When I shoot stock I am not editing and transmitting on deadline from the ballpark. I act just like I did in the old days when I shot chrome. I shoot the pretty light and do my best to shoot nice pictures that I know will sell. After doing this for many years I am getting better and better at this"
Am I missing something? This is spec shooting described perfectly! Let me ask an honest question, (no disrespect intended) if this was another photographer from another agency saying the exact same thing, would there be 9 "informative" and 2 post saying how great that is? I doubt it. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
 |
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 11:05 PM on 06.27.08 |
| ->> Brad, I am putting that with my quote from a post last week about non profits and being a "for profit" photographer. Classic! |
|
Jon Gardiner, Photographer
 |
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:28 PM on 06.27.08 |
->> John,
I believe is the part of Brad's post you are missing:
"Shooting smart stock and submitting to a good agency (or licensing images yourself on your site like me) completes the equation. You need to have your images with an agency that does not give your work away and does not include your images to be a part of a bad monthly subscription all-you-can-eat buffet package deal like the ones all the websites have from all the wires. There is no money there."
This is different from many of the places that want you to "spray and pray" by uploading A LOT of images and hope that the volume will attract a couple of bites from which you might get 50% of a $25 sale.
-J |
|
Vincent Johnson, Photographer
 |
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 11:41 PM on 06.27.08 |
->> Jody
"Spec" is basically short for speculation. As in speculation that if you're work is good or gets accepted for what ever use the person/company is requesting it for, you will be doing more work for them in the future and it will be paid then. Modeling agencies giving someone just out of school a shot at being on their preferred photographer list comes to mind. So basically work for free once & if we like it, you get paid from then on out. IMHO, they are basically borderline scams for cheap labor.
"Commission" - is basically saying the work you are now creating is going to be placed somewhere that it might be sold by the second party or bought by a third party. Equaling a check for you in an amount agreed upon before you submitted the work. This is either paid a small fee for travel/time expenses or no pre-pay with a larger percent on the sale going back to the work's creator.
So they do get used a lot interchangably, but they are two different things.
John -- Brad's explanation, I guess is "spec" work if you just blanket statement it, but basically he's talking about shooting "stock" which is more, you shooting for what you think will sell, not you shooting to make a client hire you. In the end when the money comes, it sounds more like commission which is why it's called "stock" & not spec or commission. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 11:45 PM on 06.27.08 |
->> John,
In a way, you're right. Brad's non-assignment time is spent shooting with no guarantee of payment.
The major difference is that Brad is working for himself. He is not shooting to meet somebody else's requirements. He is also not filling a need that would otherwise have been filled by an assigned photographer.
Spec work has broad deleterious effect on the industry. It allows for-profit businesses to utilize the labor of a large number of workers while only paying one (or a few) of them. The reduction on costs goes directly into the coffers of those businesses. It comes from the pockets of the majority of spec workers who do not get paid.
The advantages to the individual workers are few, minimal and rare. The perception of advantage is short-sighted and FOR THE MOST PART (not always,) ignorant. In other words, many of those who think they're accomplishing something for their careers have simply not had sufficient experience to learn that they're being fleeced by better businesspeople.
Yes, there are a very few thoughtful exceptions. But the vast majority of spec work is bad for the industry and bad for those individuals doing it.
--Mark |
|
John Green, Photographer
|
SoCal | CA | US | Posted: 12:01 AM on 06.28.08 |
->> Jon,
The point is not what agency his images are with. The point is that he is shooting the game on spec, without an assignment and he is not guaranteed any money unless he sells something. That’s what all the fuss has been about. That is shooting on spec, and that working for free and that is what 150+ people posted against very vehemently. I personally have no problem with Brad shooting in this manner, in fact, this is my favorite type of shooting. But lets please call it what it is, if it’s wrong for all the people who are “Idiots” why is it OK for a prominent shooter like Brad to do it? Why is everyone patting him on the back when he does it, but attacking others for doing the same thing. Again, just asking, no disrespect to anyone. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 12:06 AM on 06.28.08 |
->> There seems to be one small difference when using Brad as an example. It sounds like he has the ability to "head out to the ballpark and shoot stock- shooting what I want, when I want without anyone telling me what to do."
*I* can't walk into Nationals Stadium in Washington DC and "shoot stock- shooting what I want, when I want without anyone telling me what to do." because *I* need to be on assignment to get a credential. If I remember correctly, according the the (most) credential agreements the images can only be used by/for the publication that was issued the credential.
The point is that Brad has an advantage that most of us do not have.
dbr |
|
Andrew Knapik, Photographer, Assistant
|
Lincoln Park | MI | USA | Posted: 12:47 AM on 06.28.08 |
->> Delane -
You made a great point. My question is how can Brad do this if he is NOT on assignment. Who is he getting his credential through? |
|
Joe Robbins, Photographer
|
Austin | IN | USA | Posted: 1:04 AM on 06.28.08 |
| ->> Great post Brad. I think it perfectly illustrates the difference between shooting on "spec" (or whatever you want to call it) and "working for free" and proves that they are quite different. |
|
Darren Carroll, Photographer
 |
Cedar Creek (Austin) | TX | USA | Posted: 12:59 PM on 06.28.08 |
->> Mr. Green inquires,
"Am I missing something?...why is it OK for a prominent shooter like Brad to do it? Why is everyone patting him on the back when he does it, but attacking others for doing the same thing."
Well, in a nutshell, yes you are. I think you're missing an important distinction that needs to be made between different *kinds* of spec shooting. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask, but only once you realize that the "others" you refer to are not, generally speaking, doing "the same thing" does the answer become clear. I kind of thought Brad (and later, Mark) did a pretty good job of explaining it.
But in case those explanations weren't clear enough, let me offer an explanation by way of example, using two different kinds of spec photographers. Let's assume they've both gone to shoot the same baseball game. For ease of differentiating them, lets just call them "Stock Guy" and "Free Guy."
1. WHY DOES HE GO TO THE GAME?
Stock guy: Consults with clients about their specific needs. Knows his market, what sells and what doesn't. Looks at schedule, cherry-picks games with good light and/or good teams that will maximize production of usable images.
Free guy: Receives letter from agency that gets him his sideline football credentials telling him that if he doesn't go and shoot more baseball, they're going to give his football credentials to somebody else who will. Mutters "Oh, shit" under his breath, tosses the 400 in the car, and heads to the ballpark.
2. WHAT DOES HE DO AT THE GAME?
Stock guy: Shows up at ballpark for 6 pm game, shoots pitcher in nice light, gets a couple of hitters/fielders just because he's there, then leaves after an hour or so because he knows the last thing anybody wants to buy is a frame of a guy swinging a bat at ISO 1600 under vapor lights. Rather than waste a bunch of ones and zeroes on crappy stock pictures that *might* be of good enough quality to repro 1-column on newsprint or postage-stamp in a magazine, he heads off for a beer, or dinner with family, etc.
Free guy: Stays until the bitter end because agency threatening to not credential him for football has "deals" with newspapers for coverage, meaning he needs to shoot that winning run crossing the plate at ISO 1600 under the vapor lights.
3. WHAT HAPPENS TO HIS PICTURES?
Free guy: Spends another hour after the game frantically uploading a bunch of stuff to a web-based account that a couple of guys without their own servers have set up and decided to call a "wire service." Pictures get dumped into a queue at all sorts of newspapers, magazines, etc., where, for the most part, they get lost in a sea of thousands of other images.
Stock guy: Grabs a cup of coffee the next morning, does an edit, and sends pictures to his agency, which has been around for years, accepts images from a limited number of photographers and has a distinguished client list and reputation to match.
4. WHAT DOES HE DO FOR/TO THE BUSINESS OF PHOTOGRAPHY?
Free guy: Floods the marketplace with images. Eliminates agency overhead by providing a continuous stream of free work product, thus potentially reducing image price, which is then also reflected in lower commissions. Real-time internet distribution of images, coupled with lower cost structure realized by use of no-cost labor, diminishes the need for newspaper/magazine staff coverage of game, which diminishes the need for, well, staff.
Stock guy: Creates a limited amount of compelling images that command a premium price, thus enhancing the value of his images, his business, and his agency's business. Specialized, non-deadline content does not compete with (and therefore does not lessen the need for) salaried staff photographers at newspapers or paid freelancers working for legitimate wire services.
5. AND THE MONEY?
Stock guy: Gets a nice check every month from agency whose editors know the value of good photography, and whose clients are willing to pay for it. These checks cover all his expenses, and then some--if they didn't, he'd stop doing what he does, because it wouldn't make any financial sense.
Free guy: Because agency's deals with clients, unbeknownst to him, include a "free trial period," he might not see any cash for a while. And when those deals expire, the going rate his agency has established for newspaper use is 20 bucks per picture, meaning that shot of the winning run crossing the plate at ISO 1600 under vapor lights has just netted him $10.00, meaning he's recouped the expenses for the hot dog and Coke he bought at the game. Now if only they'd actually send him a check...but what the hell. At least he'll still be able to get into those football games... |
|
Jon Gardiner, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:22 PM on 06.28.08 |
->> John Green,
Darren Carroll just made it very clear.
-J |
|
Manuello Paganelli, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 1:45 PM on 06.28.08 |
->> Is amazing how some folks in here dont get it even if you are hit with a baseball bat.
Spec? Phone rings and someone wants you to drive to Chattanooga, TN to do a photoshoot of someone you never heard of. But you go for this guy could be hot tomorrow. The drive is 2 or 3 hrs away from your home and pretty the image has little potential to make any money outside of a 10 miles radio (figure speech you either get it or dont)
So here you drive, shoot this person and four days later the would be client calls you saying thanks but not thanks. All expenses is on you and so is the time you wasted and you cant license those photos at all.
Another spec, clients calls you to shoot a concert/baseball game , and this time they may even get your the credentials, but the problem is that they also called 3 other photographerswith the same conditions. The best photo will be use. Folks this is not a way of doing business or getting clients. YOu will be another dime a dozen and toss around like a baseball. Have respect for yourself and your work.
Brad, regardless how he gets into the park or how he gets credentials, already have a build clientele that can use his work. Folks this is where experience, networking, talent, know how to run your biz and the market comes in.
Also with PLENTY OF LUCK then rest will follow its course. When you add the numbers properly things ad up but trust me IT AINT EASY and it doesnt happen overnight. There isnt any magic formula.
In 1989 I took my very first trip to Cuba, 35 trips later, and still doing it. During those early yrs no too many folks, specially from the USA, were venturing down there.
Before I went there I called several clients and there were not interested. Then when I got back from that first trip there was a message from the San Franscisco Chronicle magazine.
They licensed some of my images and that paid for my first and second trip. AFter that I kept doing the same or was flying there on photo assignments. CAll is what you want to, but for sure a lot different from my chosen "spec" examples.
Finally, if you ever get your images with any stock agencies you can have a clause given them prices for images use according to the space/size/printing/client/need. YOu dont have to settle with low $75.00 checks. So make it clear to your contact at the agency like Brad does.
Going back to watching Nadal at SW19
More 2 come
MP
http://www.ManuelloPaganelli.com |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
 |
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 2:06 PM on 06.28.08 |
->> "
Shooting smart stock and submitting to a good agency (or licensing images yourself on your site like me) completes the equation. You need to have your images with an agency that does not give your work away and does not include your images to be a part of a bad monthly subscription all-you-can-eat buffet package deal like the ones all the websites have from all the wires. There is no money there. "
This is the part I want to know more about. How do I find one of these agencies, and know I'm not gonna get screwed? |
|
Damon Tarver, Photographer
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 5:36 PM on 06.28.08 |
->> I usually try to avoid these topics, but I am moved to comment. It seems both sides of the debate like to key on things and conveniently forget other facts.
DELANE said what I wanted to say so bad last night. I have had the pleasure of meeting Brad several times, and he is a very nice guy. Very skilled, with a lot of experience. But what important thing does he have that I don't? A season cred for the Giants, and maybe the A's too. So I do not have the luxury of showing up to the ballpark when it suits me, and shoot some sweet stock photos. At the same time, I am not in virtual slavery working 12 hour days for no money as others will try to make it seem.
How many photogs for YEARS would show up to the little league game, shoot (on Spec), edit hundreds of photos, post them online, in hopes of selling some? Why is that any different? And how is my shooting a game on spec costing another photog anything? AP is there. GIVING shots away for web use, with contracts for just about everynewspaper that matters. Getty is there, Bay Area News Group, Oakland Trib, SF Chronicle... Who's mouth did I take the bread out of?
As with anything, be smart about how you conduct your BUSINESS, and it should work out. Shooting on spec has been OK to me, but I try to be smart about what I cover, and what the cost to me are, in real terms (gas,parking,food) as well as indirect cost (time, wear and tear on gear, insurance, etc)
Disclaimer: I shoot spec, and do it for Cal Sport Media (so Michael, if the others from CSM are anything like me, I didn't run away, I just got tired of the debate) |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
 |
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 6:05 PM on 06.28.08 |
| ->> It takes time to get a season credentail . I had one in NYC when for the mets and Yankees and gave it up to get married and move to Idaho hwere my wife lives. the point is to get to where Brad is you have to pay some dues and shooting on spec to me is one of them. I work football still for a card comapny it took 5 years of shooting baseball to get there. Making connections when you start if you are keeping your copyright, I see nothing wrong with going to a game and working just do not work with companies that give away your photos and tell you what to do. Find small magazines and papers and learn for yourself what works and what does not. Take some chances shoot those 6 pm starts and leave early get those long shadows. I use to love 4 pm starts at Yankees stadium . The light was beautiful. PS Damon nice to see you are hanging in there and shooting. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 6:40 PM on 06.28.08 |
| ->> One more thing I shot two perfect games on spec. One of those games led to over 70 grand of paid work since then |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 7:45 PM on 06.28.08 |
->> When a company pays a draw, it's a draw against commission, meaning that you are essentially borrowing against your future earnings. You incur expenses related to making a sale, and there's no guarantee that you will close a sale. If sales don't go well, not only are you out the expenses you incurred, but you could end up with a negative draw and owe the company money. I don't see draw/commission situations too much anymore, but I'm sure they're still out there.
A base salary plus commission means that one is an employee of a company. The base salary plus commission scenario doesn't apply to my initial question because the question pertained to shooting on spec which means we don't get a day rate for doing so, and there is no guarantee that we will make a dime for our efforts.
Clark Brooks said "As Mike Strasinger pointed out you don't get paid unless your images sell. If a photog can get past that point and still thinks it is a good idea then comes the next consideration."
When you work on commission, you get paid when you close the deal (make the sale, etc). You often have expenses related to your pursuit of the sale, not to mention the time you've invested.
When you shoot on spec - you get paid when you close the deal (make a sale). You often have expenses related to creating your product (photo), not to mention the time you've invested.
There are risks/expenses/benefits to shooting on spec and working on commission (in any field), so I see little to no difference between the two. |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
|
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 8:00 PM on 06.28.08 |
| ->> Why do people continue to justify working for organizations that often times are charging 75% less and in some cases a higher percentage than that for usage rates from 10 years ago? Again, Getty started this crap with drop your pants pricing in an effort to smoke out all competition. I'm still trying to figure out what the other "agency's" are thinking by competing with Getty by seeing which "agency" can be the cheapest on the market. I hope they all go broke. |
|
Mike Carlson, Photographer
 |
Bayonet Point | FL | USA | Posted: 9:22 PM on 06.28.08 |
->> "There are risks/expenses/benefits to shooting on spec and working on commission (in any field), so I see little to no difference between the two."
Jody, thanks for clarifying the answer to the question raised by the original poster...wait...did I miss something?
Kidding...sort of...
But at least there were some interesting answers to the never ending debate.
Attempted comic relief over. Everyone back to arguing. |
|
Ben Munn, Photographer
|
Elk Grove | Ca | USA | Posted: 9:29 PM on 06.28.08 |
->> I shoot for Cal Sport Media on a spec basis. It has worked very well for me. When choosing events to cover, I look for events that have a good chance for editorial sales as well as long term stock sales and then shoot accordingly. In essence, I do what Brad does when he is not shooting an assignment. I transmit during and after the game due to the editorial aspect of the pictures I am attempting to sell. On the bright side though, just like the stock guy, I do get to grab a cup of coffee the next morning.
I'm not sure but I am pretty confident that I have not destroyed the industry with my evil spec shooting ways. I am also fairly sure that even if I was gone and my agency was gone, Getty and Presswire would still be here.
Things that I find interesting in this article.
1. Brad Mangin sometimes shoots in a way that is very similar to spec. Knowing of his long and talented history in the business and the quality of his work, that is nice to know.
2. Somehow freelance stock shooting does not hurt the industry but spec does.
3. This subject seems to not have any grey area, either spec shooting is a viable option or their should be a website for registered spec shooters, to keep the community safe.
Good luck with the thread Jody, it is any interesting discussion. I for one feel like I got something out of it from Brad and John's responses and the subsequent posts. Should be fun to watch. I may return, assuming the pitchforks and fire aren't brought out :) |
|
Mark Davis, Photographer
|
Decatur | AL | USA | Posted: 1:26 AM on 06.29.08 |
->> Some here seem to be missing that Brad is basically shooting for himself, shooting what he wants, in the best light, going home when he wants, and he is commanding significant income from his selected images.
Whereas wire agency shooters are working longer hours, under poor lighting, transmitting on deadline, and shooting images on request, all of which is similar to an assignment, but without assignment pay.
If I am missing something wire agency shooters please advice how that is identical, or different, to Brad's spec shooting. |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 2:46 PM on 06.29.08 |
->> Mark, I pick and choose my assignments, and with the exception of one time, there has never been another shooter from the same agency as me at any event. The one time there were two of us was because we both needed to be there to cover the event, and we worked together to capture images that were unique from one another.
I've never been threatened with losing a credential if I turned a job down. Yes, I stay for the entire event, but I would even if I was shooting on my own as that is my nature. I transmit on deadline 99% of the time, however I too have my coffee the next morning and leisurely pick through the rest of my photos to see if there's anything that would work for stock. Another thing is that when I find out about events that I think are very cool, I make a phone call and my credentials are handled for me.
Let me tell you why I shoot for the agencies that I do: All I have ever wanted is to be a professional photographer. But when I graduated high school, instead of going to college to learn my craft, I found myself battling a very large spinal cord tumor and I was told to prepare myself to be paralyzed from the waist down. This painful and difficult journey obviously derailed the master plan I had, so the thought of becoming a photographer became nothing more than a pipe dream.
In my 30's, a twist of fate gave me another chance to become a photographer, and this time I wasn't going to let it slip away. Even though I knew I was far behind the eight ball, I wasn't deterred. So I said yes to every opportunity that came along - many times shooting for free and figuring it out along the way.
College isn't an option for me, so I do the next best thing, which is to teach myself. I buy every book I can get my hands on, read every website I can find, email and call more photographers than I can count, practice, practice, and practice some more.
I have met and become friends with some of the most wonderful and best photographers in the business and they are invaluable to me. They take time out of their day to look at my work, show me what's good or bad about it, and give me ideas on how to make it better.
But I've been slapped in the face by some of the best in the business as well. I've been told things such as "you have picked up photography later than most of us" and "You are not a seasoned photojournalist - thus I cannot critique your images". I've been dismissed when asking for ideas with shooting basketball, and I've been told that I have "no idea how to edit or what makes a good photo". These statements weren't followed up with answers to my questions or any type of teaching dialog so I was left on my own trying to figure it out, which is fine because I am.
When I shoot spec on deadline for an agency, my images are being critiqued and I have an ongoing dialog with the desk in real time. On the job - on the spot. I'm being told right then and there what's good and bad about the images I'm turning in. I bounce ideas back and forth with the desk about angles, settings, and all kinds of things during the game, with instant feedback on what works and what doesn't. If I do my job well, I make a sale and get a paycheck. Worst case - I've spent a couple bucks in gas for a little more education. Shooting on spec is the only college I'm going to get, and as far as I can tell, the money I spend on gas to get to the events will be much less in the long run than college tuition.
I won't shoot like this forever. The agencies know this and are fine with it. But I don't see how I'm being taken advantage of by shooting on spec because I learn at least one thing that makes me a better photographer at every event. If this makes me an amateur, then that's what I am, but I won't be for long. For me, for now, it's worth it. |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 3:24 PM on 06.29.08 |
->> I find it APPALLING to think that "some of the best in the business" have been so cruel and down right nasty in their responses to your asking for help/advice.
Tsk Tsk to these nasty people. Just because someone "picked up photography later than most of us"...SO WHAT! Does this not make someone a good photographer? Does this not make them worthy of getting hired? Just because I have been shooting for 20 something years--does this make me better than Jody or a recent graduate? NO! Does it mean I am more deserving of getting the job over them? NO!
I have never met Jody YET in person but have had the privilege of exchanging e-mails and phone calls. She is eager, hungry, willing to learn and try anything and NICE! In a heartbeat I would pass along a job to her because I know 1) she will get along with everyone and will not embarrass me, or this profession 2) she will get the job done 3) she will arrive early and stay late 4) she is professional. Nothing is more of a turn off than someone who is "the best in the business" but has a nasty attitude.
During the interview process for what later turned out to be my first daily newspaper job,I was sent out to shoot diving. To this day, I STILL cannot shoot diving. I have not had the opportunity to shoot sports like I did in my earlier days and if I shot next to Jody, I know she would blow me away. I also know there are others who have "picked up photography later in life" that are better than me as well.
Some people in this field are very fortunate and have had things handed to them. Some were in the right place at the right time. Some knew the right people. Does this bother me? Sure, but I have said this my entire career-IF someone gets a job over me, if they "steal" a client, if they get published over me and our image(s)are almost the same, it just wasn't meant to be.
What makes some of these"best in the business" act so self righteous as to treat anyone the way they treated you? I'll call it insecurity, and I don't care how "big" a photographer may be. Just this past week I was shooting an event where some "known"people were complaining about another photographer taking up space and how she wasn't a "real" photographer because her camera wasn't "pro" enough. Upon checking out her website, I realized that she is a multi award winning photographer.
IF you are against shooting on spec, against shooting on commission, against shooting as a staffer for $25k, THEN DON'T DO IT. If you are against Getty selling images for $49, then don't work for Getty.
The best ways for anyone to continue to fine tune their craft, to get better, is to keep shooting, to keep looking at photos by other photographers, to keep asking questions. THE DAY WE STOP LEARNING IS THE DAY WE DIE. No one on this board, or in this business, as far as I am concerned, is the Photo G-d. NO ONE knows it all. It's time for these self righteous attitudes to stop and for these miserable people to either get out of this business or take an extended vacation. |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
|
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 8:37 PM on 06.29.08 |
->> Debra wrote:
"THE DAY WE STOP LEARNING IS THE DAY WE DIE."
I think soon we will have alot more financially dead photographers soon, based on some of these posts.
These so called "agency's" in question charge 75% less than they did for identical usage 10 years ago. In some cases it is more than that. Please, someone who shoots for these so called "agency's" please explain why this is acceptable? |
|
Steve King, Photographer
 |
Ann Arbor | MI | USA | Posted: 9:03 PM on 06.29.08 |
->> I was just about to say this... "does anyone have a good response to Jody and Debra?" since they make very good points. So I'll say this.
I have shot for more than one of "these (not so called) agencies" where my work has been published at rates that are common in the industry, which means standard rates that are NOT discounted. None of the agencies I shot for was Getty, one shot in ESPN the Magazine paid the standard line rate for the size printed (it matched the quote in Fotoquote), many others that went into dailies paid top dollar, and these include the dailies in NYC and others.
I've done well, been pleased with my work, and to the point about the AP always being there basically GIVING away their shots I will say this. I've had at least 4-5 occasions where I had the EXACT same shot as the AP person, and their shot was used not mine, and in places like SI, ESPN the mag, etc. Did I bitch and complain about that? No. What did the AP charge that publication, I don't know but it was obviously WAY easier for them to go with AP "stock" than anyone else, probably because of the price, and known quality of the images available there.
If you've got a complaint then vent it against the big guy on the block, the AP for "providing" coverage to all dailies on the continent, at rock bottom rates, and the other rich kid on the block, Getty, for trying to buy out the market. Stop sniping at other entrepreneurial professionals who strive to do a great job at something they love, like Jody, Debra (I heard your saying as this "When you're green you grow, when you're ripe you rot!), or whomever else may consider shooting for some other business or method besides what has always been done OK? Welcome to the new Millennium folks, change or get run over. Even being on the right track, but standing still, you can still get run over.
Nuf said. |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
|
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 9:34 PM on 06.29.08 |
->> "Stop sniping at other entrepenurial professionals who strive to do a great job at something they love"
You are right, what was I thinking. As long as you are doing something you love, it doesn't matter. Forget that the "agency" granting you credentials in many, many, many cases is giving stuff away, (or trying to) to other organizations that have previously been paying photographers. Excuse me while I step away from the train that is headed straight for you guys. |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
|
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 12:24 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> Huh?
"This should be used when someone's point was not made because it was written in a confusing way. By marking a post with this, you are essentially asking the poster to try explaining their position again - this time more clearly."
OK, apparently we have some slow learners here in sportsshooterland.
I don't think it's OK to shoot for organizations that continue to drive prices down.
Do you? |
|
William Maner, Photographer
|
Biloxi | MS | USA | Posted: 12:40 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> Michael...
I think the point Jody and Debra are making is that people have to start someplace. Some people just don't have the connections or business acumen to start on their own. Perhaps there may be other personal circumstances in play.. But shooting on spec or for agencies allows them to develop their skills while building relationships. They make a little bit of money along the way.
Some people like the convenience of such arrangements while others hate it with a passion. |
|
Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
 |
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 1:00 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> just so i have this straight...let's assume i want to do exactly what brad does- exactly how he explains it (with the "smart...my own boss...good agency" stuff). brad somehow gets a 'free' season credential, just because- well, who knows. it's not the point. the point is, MLB players and ballparks are where the money is in this example- and in order to shoot them, we need access.
so, is it ok to give away an image, or two, or ten- if it's not on a deadline (an odd and somehow significant distinction mentioned earlier), in exchange for credentials?
remember now, i'm brad, i just don't have the necklace. but i need the necklace to accomplish MY mission. i can get the valuable necklace if i give up something of value- a few pictures.
what's the ruling here? for those of you who tell me it's wrong to trade images for access- make sure your ready to explain that brad is wrong as well. |
|
William Maner, Photographer
|
Biloxi | MS | USA | Posted: 1:23 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> Mike Anzaldi...
Brad is a terrific photographer. His photos set a standard for the rest of us. What he has working for him is a long-time connection to the SF Bay area sports scene. As you say, MLB is a very lucrative photo market. Brad has some agents working oh his behalf, selling to an established, exclusive market.
I see that you are located in the Chicago area. What do you think would happen if you were to create your own stock agency and then call the media contact with the Cubs or the Bears and tell them that you want to come shoot some stock photos?
Brad's situation is a lot different than what's being debated here--the typical agency arrangement. I have to think Brad's early days in the business were quite different from what they are today. |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 1:28 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> I can't wait to see the responses to Mike's post.
Again, if you don't like how something is done, don't do it.
Too many here are so concerned, and consumed, with what everyone else in this profession is doing. Who is giving their work away? Who is shooting on spec? Who is shooting on commission? Who is shooting for xxx per hour, per day?
All I know is..I worry about the quality of MY work, how MY clients perceive me.To make sure they are happy with the finished product.To make sure they get the finished product ASAP. To be the best I can be, and remain easy to work with.
I could care less what Joe Schmoe or Jane Doe are doing or who he is giving his work to. Why waste my time with this? You can try and educate people to the best of your ability but the bottom line is-people are going to do what they are gong to do. Some will make mistakes and learn, and others will not.
Every year since I have gone freelance has been better than the previous year. I have lost clients, and gained new ones. When one door closes, another one has always opened up.
I have learned to diversify in my photography. I love to shoot, and shoot everyday-even if it is just for myself. I am nice to everyone unless someone gives me reason not to be nice to them. Then, I will just be on my way. I love to help people out. No one helped me in my younger years-they did everything to deter me from going after my dream. If I can make the journey a little easier for someone else, I have done another part of my job.
If someone does something I disagree with and they ask my opinion, I will certainly tell them but I will not belittle them or make them feel insignificant.
Has this profession changed since I first entered it full time in 1984? Oh yes, you bet. But the world has changed and it will continue to do so until I die.
Did I want to go digital? No. Has it changed our field? Completely.
As REO Speedwagon sang, "you've got to roll with the changes" |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
|
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 1:34 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> "I think the point Jody and Debra are making is that people have to start someplace."
Sorry, still having a difficult time why you would choose organizations with documented bad business practices, and horrendous track records of driving down prices as your launch pad for your career. |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 2:02 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> "Sorry, still having a difficult time why you would choose organizations with documented bad business practices, and horrendous track records of driving down prices as your launch pad for your career."
What other choices are there?
To clarify - the spec shooting I do is only one part of my business - but it's the part that right now is teaching me the most. I get paid to shoot everything else, most of the time, upfront.
Tell me how to learn my craft while being paid top dollar right out of the gate and I will do it
Debbie - for the record - you're my hero. |
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
 |
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 2:25 AM on 06.30.08 |
| ->> Look for the good light and go where the money is. That is my advice. |
|
Dirk Dewachter, Photographer
 |
Playa Del Rey | CA | USA | Posted: 2:46 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> I have been reading lots of these posts lately outlining shooting "smart" stock, spec, for free, not compensated. Well, I look at my photography business as I did many years ago when I began to invest my hard earned money with the big piece of advice being: Diversify, with the bulk of the income derived from a steady stream of repeat customers. The diversification is to (1) learn new photographic techniques in different circumstances and (2) venture into other aspects of the photography business.
People like Brad have an advantage that many of us do not have and he has established himself with the MLB and although he shoots other sports and events it is my impression from his writings that the bulk of his income is derived from baseball.
I too have shot for THOSE wire services but the amount of work and revenue from it is a small fraction of my photography income as the bulk of my work is commissioned by private parties and editorial clients that I developed myself or through referrals. So, who is to tell me what is right or wrong for my business. If I was shooting 100% for the wire service with no other source of photography income, I'd say go ahead stone me to death but in order for us emerging photographers to expand into new markets and develop new business relationships and meet new people on the inside of potential customers, I don't mind taking a small risk.
Photography is a wide spectrum and the business has many facets but to belittle emerging photographers for their inexperience is just a sign of insecurity. Quite often the schools only teach the kids the art of photography and nothing about the business side, that trend is thankfully changing.
Having a business sense comes for some easier than others, some have the natural ability to turn every contact in a positive event and some just bungle it. Making the right choices as it pertains to your business can only be done if you have the right information and factors in hand before making the decision.
In the short time I've been in business, I've had good and bad experiences with photographers that had much more experience than me. On the other hand, I always take the time to help others who are venturing into the business, take the time to teach them the right way or expanding their minds about the other aspects of the business.
To belittle and berate the emerging photographers does not help them, but a kind chat about good and bad business practices over a cup of coffee go a long way. I had the fortune of meeting a 20 year veteran photographer who has helped me during the first two years I ventured into the photography business with lots of talk about photographic techniques but he also taught me a great deal about the practices, which only fueled the desire to learn more and I am grateful for that.
I have said it before on another thread, the more you educate emerging photographers the more these potential clients may see that nothing is free. The least you can do is to help the new guy on the block get his tools together to make an informed decision. |
|
Carrie Niland, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 2:52 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> It amazes that even after such great posts by Brad and Darren people on here still don’t understand the difference.
Ben- What Brad does and shooting on spec are two very different things, if you don’t get that after reading the clear description of “Free guy” and “Stock guy” from Darren’s post, perhaps you will never get it.
Mike- Oh, Mike, - I find your post incredibly disrespectful. Instead of running your mouth about things you don’t know and clearly don’t understand, perhaps you should investigate or at least ask people questions nicely. It is clear that you don’t know Brad at all or his history by your poor remarks about him.
Are you guys seriously trying to compare what a company like USPW does to the Associated Press? That’s probably one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on this message board. For the love of photography, I’m not even going to go there.
I know a lot of people that got into photography later than planned. Heck, I was an accountant that knew how to speak Japanese after college. I don’t really see how it’s relevant. Like learning anything new, I surrounded myself with people who knew more and practiced, practiced, practiced. I started from the bottom and worked my way up. I worked at small papers and each step along the way I moved up to a bigger paper. When people would rip up (yes literally) my prints and use sharpies on them, it would only make me better. I took all the criticism in stride.
Not to be mean, but there are arrogant, not-so- nice people in every business. Learn what you can from them and move on. Even they have something important to teach you. Most of those people don’t spend their time on messages boards like this though- willing to try and pass along their knowledge and experience to help others. Sportsshooter is so cool because there are so many great photographers on here that do give back---everyday.
A friend fooled me into shooting sports on spec once. Being told that it was different than other agencies out there and they cared more about the photographer, etc. etc. I learned the hard way that wasn’t true. In the end, they were worse than the other companies and I will never do it again.
I guess it’s easy to say “if you don’t like it, don’t do it”- but that’s so narrow-minded, in my opinion. The reason that photography is becoming less and less valued is because people are so excited to have a picture published anywhere or because they want to stand on a football sideline with cheerleaders. The way that freelancers will be still able to make a living freelancing in the future is if they stick together and say no to agencies that give away pictures for $1 or have “free trials” to so many companies and for such long periods of time that you never see any money.
As a photo editor for a newspaper, we don’t allow people to shot free for us in exchange for credentials. If we hire a photographer to go out and shoot for us we pay them for a day rate and if a local freelancer sends us something newsworthy, we pay for the usage.
Jody, you started this thread by asking a simple question – I hope the posts on here were able to help you. You ask how else to learn photography other than shooting on spec? I don’t know much about you or your work or what area of photography you are interested in perfecting– but you could always find a mentor in the field you are most interested in---or work as a paid assistant and learn bits and pieces about different aspects. Or find photography groups that offer feedback on your work. There are a lot of talented, smart photographers that are willing to teach you their tricks in the industry---you just need to seek them out. |
|
Mark Davis, Photographer
|
Decatur | AL | USA | Posted: 3:10 AM on 06.30.08 |
| ->> Yep, seek them out and LISTEN to what they say! |
|
Ray Anderson, Photographer
 |
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 7:40 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> Brad has been around forever doing top quality work.
Like Donald Miralle , Peter Read Miller, and other great eyes he is a step above the average sports photographer that is shooting on assignment.
Most media personal know the quality of these photographers and are honored to have them cover their events whether they are on assignment or not. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 7:58 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> "what's the ruling here? for those of you who tell me it's wrong to trade images for access- make sure your ready to explain that brad is wrong as well."
I don't need to be ready to explain anything because Brad isn't doing anything wrong... You're still not getting it.
Brad isn't giving his photos away for access, he's LICENSING (selling) them though agency representation. (Smart stock.)
You're suggesting GIVING away your photos (licenses) so that you can gain access to an event... Doing that is bad because you're handing the team $10,000 worth of free usage. If the photos are actually of decent quality, then the gainfully employed team photographer risks having his position cut because why pay him for what they can get for free from you? But you aren't making any money either. So the team photographer is out of a job, you're not making a penny and all just so you can go watch a game for free. |
|
Rich Stieglitz, Photographer
 |
Norwalk | CT | USA | Posted: 9:27 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> Tom:
Bullseye.....I lost my job as a team photographer this season for a minor league baseball team not because of one person giving free photos, not because of two people, but because of three people who think it is cool to run around giving stuff away. There are even a few people who come to town with the visiting team and give their stuff to the home team so they can get a credential.
For a few years I was able to fight them off because of quality, coverage, service, and all of the other things that we as professsionals provide, however, in tough economic times eventually why pay for something that you can get for free, even if it is not quite as good.
Once they had 3 people doing my job, they no longer needed to pay me, the odds that someone whould show up were good and who could beat the price.
I cannot wait until next year when they need to print things for the season using images from this year and see what crap they truly have. Maybe I will get my job back.... |
|
Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
|
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 9:54 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> carrie- c'mon. disrespectful? i have zero intention of disrespect here. don't look at as me questioning brad mangin. look at the question- which is simply: what's the difference? also, i'm not comparing skills here. brad is by all accounts, a great shooter and a nice guy. ok. that's not what i'm asking. my post is simple to understand. if the answer is, mike- you can't do that, then fine. but, spare me the quips about being disrespectful by asking a valid question.
thomas- i understand your response, and appreciate what you are saying here- which is the obvious issue. however, you forgot that i might be making money tomorrow, next week, or next month on these images...just as brad is. i'm not suggesting giving the baseball team 10 grand in pictures. who's making $10,000 a game anyway? the team has a shooter. i'm suggesting- hypothetically- a trade. something valuable, for something valuable.
further, there is alot of talk about "watching a game for free" as motivation to shoot pro ball. are you folks just being funny about that? seriously. because if we are talking about sports fans whose primary motivation is sideline access so as to mingle with cheerleaders, then we are talking about different things. personally, if i'm going to watch a ball game, it's going to be in a seat with beverages and friends. i'm pretty busy while i'm shooting games. it might be fun, but it's not like being a fan- at all. |
|
John Harrington, Photographer
 |
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 10:48 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> To address the youth sports issue, consider this -
1 - Most youth sports leagues have a deal with one photographer or photography company. In many cases, in exchange for being the photographer that has their photo package materials handed out, coordinating a "photo day" so everyone gets their portraits, and so forth, the league is given a percentage of the gross revenues. Some call this a commission, others a vendor fee, and still others, a kick-back. Thus, no photographer, on photo day, would allow another photographer to come in and shoot over their shoulder, or even set up another photo station/lighting setup. And further, the league would work to preclude this from happening, since it would cut into their percentage total.
2 - A photographer covers the games, to get action shots of the players, and puts them up with the hopes of selling them. The photographer chooses who to shoot, focusing on the action. Some photographers will take a request (often for a deposit, or additional fee) to focus on specific players during a game.
To answer the question -
>>>How is shooting spec for an agency such as USPW or Icon any different than shooting youth action on spec? You go to the event hoping to make money. If you do not sell anything, you do not make money!!!
The difference is, you are there exclusively, save possibly for the local paper (and leagues have fought to preclude these local papers from selling images from their photographer - in part to protect their contractual obligations to their exclusive photographer and in part to protect their percentage of revenue due them). Shooting for USPW/Icon/CSM/etc on spec is not the same since you're not exclusively shooting, for one.
Perhaps I am mistaken though, but I do not believe there is evidence to show that the youth sports photo leagues are dying. They may be experiencing some contraction, but that's because of the dads/moms with cameras that can see if they got the shot, but the photo day packages are still doing well, as are well done sidelines images, from what I can gather.
What Michael Proebsting wrote needs to be read again:
>>> While a couple of guys from Cal Sports Media have spouted off and then run away from the message boards, the fact is most of the guys shooting for them are not making squat, thus the reason for their revolving door and multiple classified ads soliciting more guinea pigs.
PLEASE SCROLL BACK AND READ WHAT BRAD MANGIN & DARREN CARROL WROTE TOO! Both posts are through and worth a second read.
Jody wrote:
>>> There are risks/expenses/benefits to shooting on spec and working on commission (in any field), so I see little to no difference between the two.
There are also risks when crossing the street, and when taking the supposedly safe staff job. There are substantial differences between shooting on spec. Re-read your thread. There's lots of insights there.
Ben Munn --
You've been shooting for CSM for about a year now, but, as you note in this post - http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=26835 - shooting for them is a THIRD job. (You note you have a day job (which is likely where you earn money to pay your bills and subsidize your CSM photography) as well as shooting youth sports.
Further Ben, when you write (in that above previous post) "I don't have the time to work at this anywhere near fulltime at the pro level", and then, in this thread, write - "I'm not sure but I am pretty confident that I have not destroyed the industry with my evil spec shooting ways.", your confidence is not founded on a realistic perspective. Please refrain from drawing conclusions about what is impacting a pro-level photographer when you've not walked a mile in their shoes.
Jody wrote -
>>> there has never been another shooter from the same agency as me at any event.
Ok, Jody, so we see you've posted about 281 items to US Presswire since October 23, 2007 ( http://uspresswire.com/search/photographer/2110491/ ) but while there might not have been a USPW person at your events, there likely has been CSM/Icon/etc there. Consider that every time another photographer shows up, your possibility of sales get's cut in half, and then half again. Or, are you referring to your work at Cal Sports Media 0- http://tinyurl.com/5bmoeg ? It looks like you stopped CSM in September and started with USPW in October, so I hope there wasn't an overlap, but are you thinking that USPW is an upgrade from CSM?
When you wrote:
>>> I've never been threatened with losing a credential if I turned a job down.
Did you check your e-mail recently? A week ago I wrote - http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/06/free-not-working-for-thee.ht... - which comments on a USPW letter saying just that. Jody, check your spam folder for that missive from them.
When you wrote:
>>> I said yes to every opportunity that came along - many times shooting for free and figuring it out along the way.
Here's where, at SS, you're supposed to "figure it out" and realize that shooting for free is a bad idea, instead of defending it!
When you wrote:
>>>I have met and become friends with some of the most wonderful and best photographers in the business and they are invaluable to me. They take time out of their day to look at my work, show me what's good or bad about it, and give me ideas on how to make it better.
Yes - emphasis on the phase "in the business". If they're so invaluable to you, why are you doing the type of work they do, but for free? You've sought out their counsel on the quality of your work, but you don't mention anything about also listening to them about business advice.
Then you wrote:
>>>Worst case - I've spent a couple bucks in gas for a little more education. Shooting on spec is the only college I'm going to get, and as far as I can tell, the money I spend on gas to get to the events will be much less in the long run than college tuition.
Nice. That statement should stand on it's own.
Debra L Rothenberg wrote:
>>> I find it APPALLING to think that "some of the best in the business" have been so cruel and down right nasty in their responses to your asking for help/advice.
I agree, in large part. I had a very similar experience when I started when asking what to charge and how, yet my response was to figure it out and then tell everyone I could. If anyone ever questions my motivation to speak out on this subject, it's because I made a karmic promise that if I could figure out the business side of things, I would tell anyone who would listen. Yet, during that time, I wasn't doing work for free, or otherwise devaluing our profession.
Perhaps pro's turned away because they knew she was shooting for free, and impacting their business?
To respond to what Mike Anzaldi wrote:
>>> for those of you who tell me it's wrong to trade images for access- make sure your ready to explain that brad is wrong as well.
Brad DIDN'T trade image for access. He has the access. He earned the access. And he didn't earn it by giving away images. Brad is leveraging his resources to enhance his asset library, but not at the expense of anyone's assignment, or for the benefit of someone else.
Debra then wrote:
>>>I could care less what Joe Schmoe or Jane Doe are doing or who he is giving his work to.
Really? REALLY? You are so selfish that you only care about yourself, and not about what others are doing to the profession? I don't believe that. What Joe and Jane are doing IS impacting you, make no mistake about it!
Debra then wrote:
>>>Why waste my time with this? You can try and educate people to the best of your ability but the bottom line is-people are going to do what they are gong to do. Some will make mistakes and learn, and others will not.
Why "waste" time? Some will learn, others will not. See this: http://www.starfish-malawi.org.uk/
For those that are here, and learning, that's why.
Jody wrote:
>>> What other choices are there?
There are a great many choices. May I suggest that before you reach out to them though - your website has quality work on it that is not being presented well. Using ExposureManager.com , which is focused on selling prints, isn't a presentation model that will help with your concerns about getting other clients. Use them for one aspect of your business, and get a well designed website to market yourself to editorial and other clients.
Whew! The end of ANOTHER thread on the business of photography. Here's to the next thread of 50! |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 11:05 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> "i'm not suggesting giving the baseball team 10 grand in pictures. who's making $10,000 a game anyway? the team has a shooter. i'm suggesting- hypothetically- a trade. something valuable, for something valuable."
Because the teams are more likely to use the photos for ad use than they are for 1/4 page inside B&W in a newspaper. A full page photo running as an ad in a national magazine is about $14,000 (give or take $1500). They won't run the photos in national magazines, but they will run them on billboards in your local area and blanket every marketing option they might have such as the game tickets themselves, newspapers, subway signage, calendars, yearbooks.... As they say in Spaceballs: "Moychendising". Let's face it, editorial usage is chump change. The big bucks come from commercial licensing.
10K worth of images from a baseball team photographer might be high, but with football, where there are 1/10th as many games, every game counts and every game produces heaping pile of rights held photos for the teams. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 11:46 AM on 06.30.08 |
->> You know, you're right. I should clarify that and say:
"You're POTENTIALLY giving them $10,000 worth of free usage."
Because let's face it, spec can be unpredictable even for the best of us. What Brad does for baseball, I do for football. Since I only have 1/10th as many games to work with every game counts. Having a bad head ache, the flu, a delayed flight, rain, pre-game-pyrotechnic smoke that doesn't blow out because of a low pressure system, stadium lights partially going out (has happened three times to me in the past two years) during a night game.... All of that can effect how well you shot or how sellable the images can potentially be. What if the team is one of the elites and plays 3 MNF games and 2 prime time? That means those other 11 day games you're going to need to be kickin' ass since those are the ones that a majority of your sales are going to be coming from. (I made a joke back when my book came out that the glory days were over in Cincinnati. We were blessed with 15 years worth of late season day game light until they had that little burp two years ago and played on Monday twice.)
So yes, there are games where some of the images will never see the the light of day; but the team will need just as many photos year to year. This means if you're the team photographer the remaining games offset the loss from that bad game by having the team use just a little bit more than normal from the other fifteen.
So you just never know and I shouldn't have implied that every game is worth 10 grand of commercial uses, but that doesn't mean that they potentially aren't worth that either. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
|| Sponsor Special Deals
Nikon D3 (refurbished demo!)
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $3799.00 |
Notes:
We have 15 refurbished demo Nikon D3 cameras available. First come, first served! Comes with a 3 month manufacturer warranty, and extended warranties are available. Send an email to samys@sportsshooter.com, or call 866-726-9463 and identify yourself as a person from SportsShooter.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|