SportsShooter.com - Pros & Cons:Getty, Wireimage, Icon, US Presswire, etc.

	Dallas (Atlanta) \| GA \| USA \| Posted: 11:30 PM on 08.18.06
	->> Ummmm. Jim... You may want to pick up a copy of SI, or SI for kids, or ESPN the Magazine, or USA Today, or... well you get my drift. I trust you've glanced through one of these publications in the past right? I know some very good shooters with all them. I think your getting real close to offending some very good photographers with your comments.

Jim Leary, Photographer

Island | NY | USA | Posted: 1:16 AM on 08.19.06

->> Todd,

I think its pretty unfair of you to create a controversy where there is none. For the record I do not read either SI for Kids or ESPN. Although I have read SI many times and admire the photography very much, I don't subscribe to it and I can't remember having seen US Presswire in any credits. My comments are in no way trying to put down any of the great photographers out there but merely to offer my opinion of the ones I am most familiar with. I've been in and around the industry long enough that I believe I can offer a valid opinion and that's all I'm doing.

To Matthew and Todd I say: You obviously have issues with Getty... I don't, so don't pick an unprovoked fight with a neutral observer for having a high opinion about the work of certain photographers. I never said there wasn't real quality elsewhere because there is but I am impressed more and more everytime I view the Getty website and I am inspired by the impressive talent within. If that bothers you then so be it. I'm allowed to have my opinion and you won't bully me away from it because you have issues with Getty.

Ron Scheffler, Photographer

Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 4:46 AM on 08.19.06

->> This doesn't address Jay's original questions, but I would like to jump in here anyway (sorry Jay).

AP and Reuters are very big and have a core of excellent sports photographers, but I'm going to leave them out of this since I interpret the direction of this topic as mostly about sports photography agencies, as in Getty vs. the rest. I can see where Jim is coming from regarding Getty. My opinion is it's because Getty is very, very big. Getty can afford staffing every sporting event of great and also minor importance. There is no doubt their photographers produce great stuff, and I think Jim's key word here is "consistent". They offer their clients consistent quality. But, you also have to consider who at Getty is producing a lot of this quality work, and many of them (from the impression I have browsing their site), are staff. Not always, but often.

If you look at WI, Icon, US Presswire - agencies with a strong or sole specialization in sports, the majority of the photographers working with these agencies are contributors (i.e. not staff). Many are also not full time photographers, (or not full time sports photographers - I'm an example). Certainly these photographers work hard to offer a high level of quality, but since the same standards aren't applied across the board, the consistency you see from Getty may not be as uniform from some of these other agencies. Basically, those agencies take what they can get. Often it is very good work... but again, not always consistently high across the board. It also depends on your definition of high quality and taste in what makes great sports photography.

I believe there is a substantial difference between being a staffer and shooting as a contributor. As a staffer you know you will be paid. If suitably motivated, you can take liberties in coverage, to an extent, and push the envelope in terms of artistic interpretation. Meanwhile as a contributor the bottom line for many is probably generating images that will sell. A lot of times very salable images are also quite routine and relatively boring. I don't want to imply that shooting as a contributor automatically means images will only be cookie-cutter action shots, yet when browsing through stock archives, it's evident that stock images are, well, stock. Take a look on the Getty sports site and compare staff images against contributor images for NFL games. I think you'll find a very noticeable difference in style and content.

Another comparision of note is specialization. Getty can afford to taylor photographers to specific sports and travel those photographers across the country and around the world. Often these photographers cover one or a couple sports most of the time. While this can lead to burnout, it also allows these photographers to develop a much more intimate understanding of the sport(s) they specialize in, especially very valuable understanding of the athletes competing in front of their lenses week after week. Compare this to someone who is regionalized and covers numerous different sports, but often not frequently enough for it to be a full time gig. Naturally there will be differences in the type of coverage. And again, there are always exceptions.

Jay, I think it's a matter of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence kind of thing, probably, yeah, probably. So why do I work with my agency of choice? Well, a number of reasons, not the least that I respect the people who run it as great people and great photographers from whom I learn a lot. It's a relatively small agency which means I can often suggest the events I'd like to cover (and probably aren't already taken). It's evolving and growing and it's rewarding to contribute to the growth and success. The agency is perhaps not taken seriously by some, which can be fun and liberating to capitalize on. Instead of producing the same as everyone else, this creates incentive to take risks even though the chances of failure (and fewer sales) is very real. A David vs. Goliath thing. When that risk pays off, and the photos kick a$$, it's a great feeling to look over and think - aha, yup, gotcha. It's very much a game... a sport among sports photographers as we quietly try to one-up each other. I believe a key to being happy is to play the game and create images your way. As soon as you conform to implied norms of other photographers, then you are drawn away from what works best for you.

Did that make any sense? (It's quite late... errr, early, right now...)

Drew Hallowell, Photographer

Philadelphia | PA | USA | Posted: 7:27 AM on 08.19.06

->> Matthew,

You state: "There are some of the best sports photgraphers at US Presswire and WireImage mainly because they want to keep their rights to the images they create."

This statement implies that if you are represented by Getty, you turn copyright over to them and that is not the case. Just because Getty represents your images, it does not mean you turn over your rights to them. If you own your copyright and submit your images as a contributor to Getty then they are your photos and they market them. When a sale is made, you get a cut of sales just like the other agency.

DREW

Todd Kirkland, Photographer

Dallas (Atlanta) | GA | USA | Posted: 11:39 AM on 08.19.06

->> Jim... I think you need to go back and read my post. I absolutely have no problems with Getty and nowhere in my post will you see written or implied anything negative about Getty's photographers. So please dont try and spin it to make it out like I have. I pointed out to you a few publications where you can see some of U.S. Presswires images since you said you couldnt recall EVER seeing them in print. If im provoking a fight by stating that as you mentioned above then... well.. ok. I do believe other members here are entitled to their opinions also.

Jim Leary, Photographer

Island | NY | USA | Posted: 9:29 PM on 08.19.06

->> "There is no doubt their photographers produce great stuff, and I think Jim's key word here is "consistent". They offer their clients consistent quality."

Thank you Ron. That is exactly what I was saying and this was never a put-down on anyone. To suggest it was is to look for something that simply wasn't there. There are very talented photographers throughout the industry in many of the agencies we have mentioned but for consistent, high quality and very impressive work in and out of sports Getty is in my opinion the best and most reliable source. If you disagree I respect that but don't put words or opinions in my mouth when I merely complimented the work of one group.

Robert Seale, Photographer

Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 1:16 AM on 08.20.06

->> Pretty ballsy statements there Matt. Even if I played for the Yankees - I probably still wouldn't talk up my own team like that. I know people with multiple Pulitzers who put no stock in photo contests......if you've ever been in the room during judging, you know what I mean.

That said, I think everyone should investigate every agency or wire service, newspaper, magazine, or whatever, and find the deal that works best for them. Perhaps Matt has a special clause or deal, and he actually IS getting paid for the work he does. I also know plenty of photographers with all the aforementioned agencies who have definitely been taken advantage of, and are obviously bitter as a result.

....a lot of misinformation here in this thread. I hope everyone does their homework before signing with anyone.

You might note that many agencies or "wire services" give away their product for free, or at a nominal cost, to "get the customers hooked", or rather, introduce them to their products, hoping to jack up their rates later, when they will presumably "make it up" to their photographers.

Many young photographers seem to be enamored with the idea of being at an NFL game, and for some reason, there doesn't seem to be a lack of people willing to do this type of work for free. They think that if they just nail that picture at the big game, or they fill their portfolio with images from other pro sports, rather than little league sports, that the next step will be SI.

That kind of logic kills assignment photography.

Think about it.

Ben Smidt, Photographer

	Sebring \| FL \| USA \| Posted: 2:48 AM on 08.20.06
	->> Well said Robert...I agree 100%

Jim Leary, Photographer

Island | NY | USA | Posted: 11:17 AM on 08.20.06

->> "They think that if they just nail that picture at the big game, or they fill their portfolio with images from other pro sports, rather than little league sports, that the next step will be SI."

While I don't think many are that gullible I do believe they feel if they can put together a decent portfolio by doing several freebies it might lead to a job or at the very least some freelance assignments. Frankly, I've seen and heard about that very scenerio many times. I also think many paid photographers in the field are underpaid because they know if they say no, there's another hungry hopeful waiting on line. I can relate to the established photographer who looks down upon all this but the industry doesn't exactly lend itself to a lot of opportunities otherwise. I don't think you'll ever see that scenerio go away.

Robert Seale, Photographer

Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 3:49 PM on 08.21.06

->> Jim-I respectfully beg to differ.

I learned how to shoot sports with legitimate jobs: college newspaper, newspaper internship, small newspaper job, big newspaper job, freelance (paid assignments...), magazine staff job. Believe it or not, most of the SI photographers did the same thing. A few of them were team photographers at one point, but that is a perfectly legitimate avenue as well, and has worked out well for many people.

There are opportunities to learn the business and get better at shooting sports without giving away the store.

Brad Mangin has given the slide show and talk many times on how he got his job at the National Sports Daily with a portfolio full of black and white prep sports pictures. The guy who saw his portfolio and hired him : Neil Leifer.

Good sports pictures are good sports pictures.....it doesn't matter what level the athletes are.

Sports photography is virtually dead as a paying profession. The culprits are many, but among them are autofocus, digital cameras, trust fund kids, people who are into it for the glory of being at a pro event, people who are willing to work for Chili's gift certificates, and photo agencies masquerading as wire sevices.

Sports photography, (or any career in photojournalism) is very difficult. The road to becoming a paid professional at this is long and hard. The shortcuts you think you can take now, may come back to hurt us all later.

Be careful out there.

Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Fashion Heights \| OH \| USA \| Posted: 10:01 PM on 08.21.06
	->> Matthew- "There are some of the best sports photographers at US Presswire and WireImage mainly because they want to keep their rights to the images they create." I shoot for Getty. I keep the rights to the photos I take. As one WI groupie on the boards would say, "don't make broad inflammatory statements".

Michael Hickey, Photographer

	Kokomo \| IN \| United States \| Posted: 11:42 PM on 08.21.06
	->> Groupie???

Dave Rossman, Photographer

	Houston \| TX \| USA \| Posted: 12:11 AM on 08.22.06
	->> Thomas, Let me get this straight, Getty pays you an assignment fee AND you own the rights and make resales? Please clarify. I have heard the opposite. I don't want to be misinformed.

Chuck Liddy, Photographer

Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:12 AM on 08.22.06

->> thanks robert. you're my hero. bob leverone used to be but now you are. 8)
and with that said....get ready to mark me inappropriate folks....I really wish some of the people that have been posting idiotic statements on my beloved sportsshooter site the past couple of weeks would stop. come on people....step away from the keyboard before you make yourself look like a buffoon. YOU know who you are..........I now return you to your regular rant. that is all.

Mike Isler, Photographer

	Santa Barbara \| CA \| US \| Posted: 2:12 AM on 08.22.06
	->> "people who are willing to work for Chili's gift certificates" C'mon Robert... that seems like a cheap shot at Mark Rebilas, with his well-known Chili's addiction. If so, I'd take offense at that, as I view him as a very talented member of this site and know that he's paid his dues. If I'm wrong with your Chili's reference... my apologies... but that does seem a bit unfair.

Alan Look, Photographer

Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 7:57 AM on 08.22.06

->> Everyone of those wire's or agencies have some of the best working/contributing for them. Everything from assignment photography to what I like to call seconds (post the photos and take a percentage.)

Pros:
- Markets that individuals can't reach or just plain don't know about.
- book keeping
- sales force and marketing
- price negotiating
- a larger customer base than a most single photogs would have

cons
- the best deals are only 50 -65% for the photog - but if they find a market the photog can't, it's still more money for the photog. - I once had one that isn't mentioned above offer me 15% (yes they are still in business - no, they don't have a single image of mine)
- some don't give assignments of help you get credentialed.

I have contracts with 2 such wire's/agencies. One takes my sports, the other takes my non-sports stocks. For me it's a great way to extend my market with no up front costs for marketing. Yes, I lose 50%, but it's 50% of something I wouldn't have had otherwise.

Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Fashion Heights \| OH \| USA \| Posted: 8:58 AM on 08.22.06
	->> Dave- I can't discuss the terms of my contract with Getty publicly on the boards, sorry. I can however say that no contract is take it or leave it. Your fate as a photographer/businessman is based on your wit and negotiating skills. Take heed with Roberts last statement. The harder you work, the greater the rewards.

Michael Granse, Photographer

	Urbana \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 9:33 AM on 08.22.06
	->> Taking that a step further, the SMARTER you work the greater the rewards. If you are not careful about what you agree to, you can work very hard and go absolutely nowhere.

Randy Janoski, Photographer

Washington DC & Nashville | TN | USA | Posted: 9:58 AM on 08.22.06

->> I don't usually post to this type of thread but since Thomas stepped up I thought I'd add also.

I shoot for Getty, and also, from Jay's opener, Reuters (let's get the spelling correct) and, not on the list the AFP.

For the three I just mentioned I get an assignment fee (varies with size, scope and length), and I retain my rights.

But more importantly I feel, and Thomas and Robert have referenced it; your business plan, your negotiating skills are paramount to working with anyone.

People like Mark Loundy and Rick Rickman have tried to help out many here on SS for years, do any of them listen?

Darren Carroll, Photographer

Cedar Creek (Austin) | TX | USA | Posted: 7:33 PM on 08.23.06

->> Mr. Seale is absolutely right. Even on the Chili's thing--which, for those of you who might not know, has its roots not as a slam against any individual photographer, but in this story/rumor: Apparently, one particular "wire service" handed out Chili's gift certificates to some of its contributors as a Christmas gift, while a good many of its contributors, who had been (unfortunately) working for free but expecting royalty income hadn't seen a check in a while, if ever. Such a move resulted, outwardly, in howls of laughter among a few of us, but inwardly, I suspect we all were crying over what that said about the sorry state of affairs in our collective business...

Moreover, Robert is especially right about how hard it is to succeed as a freelance sports photographer. Don't get me wrong--it is possible to make it, but then again, anything's possible. I can probably count on one hand (two, if pressed and provided I can count that high) the number of truly successful ones out there today. But I assure you of this: all of them share three common traits: photographic talent, a savvy business sense, and a keen knowledge of their market that allows them to maximize their income by focusing their efforts on what works (i.e., sells) and not waste their time on what doesn't.

What they DON'T do, on the other hand, is just fly all over the place, happy to get credentials to some big event or another, and then keep their fingers crossed that something sells, and that they make a buck or two.

You can have all the talent in the world, but if you don't treat this profession--whether full or part-time--and your relationship with your agency as a business, you're as good as done. Mr. Granse wrote above that "the SMARTER you work, the greater the rewards." That is so true--and you should repeat that to yourself over and over again before you accept a deal from any agency. Far too often the first (and only) question out of an aspiring sports photographer's mouth is, "Can you get me into [insert big college or pro team here] games?" when, in reality, they should be asking questions like these:

"This 'grant and convey all right, title and interest in and to the Work' phrase in your contract seems a little serious to me. Are you sure a hundred and fifty bucks is enough to cover that?"

"You'd like me to work 'on spec' (i.e., for free) while your agency attempts to gain a foothold in the industry. You're a startup, and running a photo agency isn't cheap, which means you must have drawn up a business plan, and figured out your start-up costs, to attract investors. Now, why should I entrust my livelihood to a company that doesn't seem to have taken into account a little thing like the cost of hiring photographers when they did that?"

"It's great that I get to keep the rights to my pictures. But in light of that little clause in your contract that says I can't market my outtakes to your clients or competiitors, what good does it do me?"

"Just so I'm clear on this: You need to gain market share. That much I understand. But if, in order to do that, you need to drastically undercut your competitors on the price of individual stock sales, what does that do to my income from those sales? And if your other appproach is going to be to offer subscription packages that price so ridiculously below industry standards that they threaten to put freelancers (including myself) out of business, why on earth would I want to be a party to that--and even if I were, how does that leave you with enough money to pay me?"

First of all, no agencies worth their salt should be in a position to have these questions asked of them. But if they are, they owe you a straight answer--and you have every right to ask. If they won't level with you about it, that's a big problem. If you don't call them on it, then you only serve to exacerbate that problem.

Bottom line: if you truly are one of the "best photographers" out there, you should be getting paid to work. Treat this as a real business, and go find someone who will pay you--up front--what you're worth.

Leon Bennett, Photographer, Assistant

Irvine | CA | USA | Posted: 1:32 AM on 12.30.09

->> I currently work for WireImage and Getty and got my foot in the door back in 2007. They have done well by me, even though I'm low on the seniority list, I get assignments from them here and there and I also make my own assignments with good contacts, and publicity with PR firms.

Getty and WireImage split the commission 50/50 with you. Yeah I know it should be more like 70/30 in the photographers favor since we do all the work....LOL

Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer

Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 2:53 AM on 12.30.09

->> Leon,

You are aware this thread is over two years OLD right? Why did you bring this back up?

WireImage, Getty, and FilmMagic are one company now...
[http://www.wireimage.com/about.aspx?sk=AboutCompanyOverview]
[http://www.filmmagic.com/about.aspx]

One company just gets three-plus spots on the carpet... more shooters from the same parent company... maybe someone else could expand on it.. but I don't think its anything to "LOL" about.

Things are a LOT different now then they were when this thread started. That said, the advice from Darren is still good.

Chuck Liddy, Photographer

	Durham \| NC \| USA \| Posted: 3:05 AM on 12.30.09
	->> yikes! scary! another zombie thread........

Tom Ewart, Photographer

Bentonville | AR | USA | Posted: 9:50 AM on 12.30.09

->> Robert and Darren,

I just want to thank you both for your spot on posts. Thanks for taking up the charge of Mr. Rickman, who saw the light and took on the problems back before the AP enforced their stringer contract which in my opinion started this whole downward spiral in the the photography market.

With the economy starting to make it's rebound, at least as I see it from my prospective. It's time for photographers to realize the value in their photography again.

With newspapers publishers giving away content on-line and reducing their own bottom line, the only way for publishers and managing editors to keep paying themselves the same or more is to cut staff or run the ship into the ground. With no thought to why the revenue is going down or really working on new ways to increase interest in their product--they have gone with the tear it down model to cut cost instead of building a better product and create demand. What Wire Services and Newspapers Publishers today are lacking is just plain good business sense. If they continue to whittle away at their product by reducing staff or not paying a living wage, soon they don't have people who can afford to stay "in the business" and produce material then in turn they don't have a product on which to base their own income.

There is still a lot to be said for paying your dues and working hard, in the end it will all pay off if you "mind the store" and walk away from low paying jobs and unfair business practices. It's always hard to walk away from any amount of money, but you'll gain a lot more respect for yourself in the end when you do.

There is also a lot to be said for paying attention to the industry as a whole and not sicking your head in the sand and saying I've got a job and "that's a work for hire issue" and only pertains to the freelancers... I heard that a lot many years ago.. now how many staffers may take a diffrent line on those thoughts with many staffers being ousted and becoming freelancers themselves. We have to work hard to bring the perception that our work is worth something and its going to take everyone connected to photography to help make this happen.

Rick Rickman, Photographer

Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 10:09 AM on 12.30.09

->> There's never going to be a shortage of ignorance in the world. There have been many people over the years who've spoken to the importance of being thoughtful when working towards a career in photography and who have given good advice that's sound and helpful.

Robert Seale, Darren Carroll, David Burnett, John Harrington, Brian Smith, Joe McNally, Jason Grow, just to name a few people who have selflessly made good suggestions that warrant following. If you go back into the archives of SportsShooter, Editorial Photographers, Rob Galbraith, and many other sites you can readily find these comments and this solid advice.

If you look at the names of the persons who gave that advice, you find that all those persons have had great levels of success in this business and continue to do well as professionals.

The question really is, who do you choose to fashion your life and careers after. Do you choose to follow wisdom and success or, do you choose to listen to noise. No-one other than you can make that choice for you.

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor

San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:44 PM on 12.30.09

->> Randy, I'm here :-)

The owner of an agency that I mentioned (negatively) in my column a few months ago e-mailed me yesterday to defend his company's practices regarding photographers. Here's part of my response:

"The fact is that all businesses make policy based upon their own self-interest. My column is meant to point out information favorable to the interests of independent photographers.

"I certainly appreciate your point of view and, if I were you, would attempt to include similar clauses in my agreements with photographers. At the same time, I would understand that such a clause was solely in my interest. It is up to the photographers to understand what they are reading and (should they decide to) say no."

--Mark

Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor

Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 4:26 PM on 12.30.09

->> love when threads like this get dug back up because it's fun to see what the sentiment was years ago.

After five years I recently severed my contract with Getty due to their non-renewal of the NFL commercial license. Like Matt Emmons, I was one of the original NFL Properties photographers that got thrown under the bus when they sold off the library. Since I mainly shoot football, this was a big deal for me and I had four options.

-Go to Getty whom was considered the devil, but had a commercial license agreement.
-Go to Wireimage whom wasn't really a sports agency but also had a duality CLA.
-Go with my old standby ICON whom didn't have a CLA but are very professional.
-Go with an unproven upstart agency like USPW who also didn't have a CLA ad no proven track record.

I picked WI... And basically lost a year of my life. They were so poor at marketing photos that the money I made from (Spec) NFL imagery (annually) dropped off more than 95%. Mind you, nothing change with my shooting style, they were selling the same image I had on file in the past, and they were also getting new content. They did however pay their pittance expeditiously... But that's the least of my worries. You don't drop a decimal placement (or two as a matter of fact) and just accept it as the norm.

So after one year I jumped over to Getty (a few months before they swallowed up WI) where my royalties went up about 20 fold compared to WI, because the one thing Getty can do is market/push photos. The quintessential "sell a refrigerator to an eskimo" cliche. Things were back on track and I was making more than ever despite the widely talked about $1.48 sales which began cropping up in later 2008. I was back up to five figures annually for a single sport, had detailed statements and knew that every month on the 22nd I was going to have a direct deposit in to my accounts. Just when I'm getting ready to start talks to end my involvement with the $1.48 packages, Getty opted not to renew the NFL commercial license agreement and it went to Associated Press Images (the commercial arm of AP). Once again, two decimal points got chopped off almost immediately since now it was just editorial sales that they were capable of licensing. So over to API I decided to go and the results are yet to be determined since it took nearly 8 months to sever and sort out the contracts between both entities. (Don't even get me started on how much of a pain in the rear it is to sever your Getty contract despite all of the language in your favor on the contract. Another soap box for another day.)

Flipping back a few pages to touch on USPW and ICON... Both companies sell images on a regular basis - yet unfortunately I have several friends working at one of them who still have never seen a check. And yes, they are moving images, I've seen their bylines. I understand it can take 90 days sometimes to collect payment and dispatch it to the photographer, but we're talking 24 months in some cases... on a $75 share.

So what am I trying to say in all of this?

A: No one company is perfect. I can say great things about each of these companies and in the same breath say some rather disparaging things.

B: You can NOT make a living selling editorial stock. If you read closely, the keyword used throughout was "commercial". Far too many photographers on the board strive to get their photos in Sports Illustrated or ESPN (Evident with the annual "I got a photo on the cover of SI" threads when the March Madness issue comes out), making it the pinnacle of their careers. That's great and all, and I have a healthy working relationship with both magazines... But why get so excited with a $250 sale when you can have a $2500 commercial sale? I would much rather have one image used uncredited in a double truck MNF ad for $13,000 than have five covers on any magazine, name in 40 point type for $2500, because...

C: Photographers are an egotistical bunch. Half the people out there (heck, maybe even 75%) are more concerned about being seen on the sidelines or having their photos and names being seen in print than they are about their own business decisions. That's nice and all, and a pat on the back for finally achieving your goals. I'm not trying to take away from that because I know how (emotionally) rewarding it is to get a double truck or cover in/on SI/ESPN/Pro Football Weekly/Insert-name-of-something-here.... But is it financially rewarding? What did you spend to get that image there in the first place? Did you even get paid for it from your respective agency? If you aren't netting at least 200% return on investment you need to reevaluate what you're doing, because on top of covering your expenses (this is referring to spec mind you) you need to earn enough to compensate for a day rate.

Ideally you’ll be working on a day rate to begin with, had the foresight to make sure you were retaining your copyrights with a short term embargo, then submitting your images to a third party agency (that can move your photos but most importantly collect and pay you) for secondary licensure.

I think that just about covers everything, but I’m sure some things slipped between the lines.

Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Cincinnati \| OH \| USA \| Posted: 4:29 PM on 12.30.09
	->> Hmmm, looks like I poked my "I" out (first word) when I cut and pasted this from Word.

Michael Granse, Photographer

	Urbana \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 4:57 PM on 12.30.09
	->> Interesting, Thomas. I actually read the "I" even in its absence. Must be a Gestalt thing.

Mike Brice, Photographer

	Ogden \| UT \| USA \| Posted: 5:47 PM on 12.30.09
	->> I am just glad that people are finally owning up to the fact that these online sales don't bill out at much, and it takes forever to see any money. Maybe now I can enjoy the game from the comfort of my couch and not feel bad that I am not on the sidelines losing money.

Michael Fischer, Photographer

Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 8:33 PM on 12.30.09

->> If there's ever been 3 better posts back to back on SS.com than Rick's, Mark's and Thomas', I challenge you to find them. I bailed 4 years ago when I could see the NFL photo business going in the toilet.

I've joined Iowa Professional Photographers, am starting to study for certifications (the sample tests look pretty easy but I've got to brush up). I am embracing change. I will not participate in a segment of industry that I cannot be profitable in. I'm not geared to starve to death (although my waist line could use some shrinking). There are plenty of good photographers on SS.com who make a good living doing things in addition to sports. Notice I said in addition to.

Learn good business practices. Learn other areas of expertise. Photography has never been easy to make a living at just like being an artist has never been easy. You don't make it worse by being stupid about it. Mr. Witte's comment about being egotistical lot is spot on. So, you got a double truck in SI -- nice ... but so what? Will it pay the rent this month?

It's that simple: Shoot stuff that makes money.

Thanks Rick, Mark and Thomas.. if they don't get it by now, you can find them in the food stamp line in 90 days or so.

Michael

Return to --> Message Board Main Index