| 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
SI COVER!!!! YEEEHAAAAA!
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
 |
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 1:09 AM on 03.15.07 |
->> Now, many of you will notice that there are a gazillion little bitty shots of various players, coaches and such on the cover of SI this month, so it's not quite as big a deal as it might be, but I'd have been happy with the same size photo on the BACK PAGE of SI. So, when my first SI shot is a cover, well, I'm going down to the newstand with my hand truck!!
WOOHOO!! Cover of SI! I'll take it! Mine is the shot of Stanford freshman forward Brook Lopez, #11, above the "D" in "Sports Illustrated".
THANK YOU JOHN GREEN/LOUIS LOPEZ/JOSH THOMPSON et.al. OF CAL SPORT MEDIA! You guys are awesome!
Phil |
|
Andrew Smith, Photographer
|
Ross-shire | UK | Scotland | Posted: 1:38 AM on 03.15.07 |
->> Ah, I remember my first SI cover... yeah I wish!
Congrats Phil, that's fantastic. Wish I could see it for real but I still can't find any way to get SI in the UK. I'll look it up online. |
|
Rafael Delgado, Student/Intern, Assistant
|
Pasadena | Ca | USA | Posted: 1:41 AM on 03.15.07 |
| ->> Congratulations! |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 3:33 AM on 03.15.07 |
->> As I understand it, there are European versions of SI; there's one in China I hear... Sounds strange there's not one for the UK.
Phil |
|
Kenneth Gatlin, Photographer
|
Port Orchard | WA | USA | Posted: 3:34 AM on 03.15.07 |
| ->> Great Job Phil!! I hope you have many more. Congratulations. |
|
Simon Stacpoole, Photographer
|
Preston | Lancashire | United Kingdom | Posted: 5:02 AM on 03.15.07 |
| ->> Andrew, you can pick up SI and just about every other magazine you can think of over here at WH Smith and at decent bookshops like Borders...the one here in Preston stocks SI and SI Kids all year round. Congratulations Phil! |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 7:51 AM on 03.15.07 |
| ->> Congrats Phil! I got my copy yesterday. Looks like a lot of folks could have images there on this issue. Too bad the credits aren't a little more complete, but the page is just too short. |
|
John Howley, Photographer
|
Circleville | OH | USA | Posted: 10:17 AM on 03.15.07 |
| ->> I think I would have been a little more impressed if you said you shot the Beyonce cover. But seriously, congrats man. (And congrats to those guys at SI for piecing that together like that.) |
|
Shelley Cryan, Photographer
|
Southport | CT | USA | Posted: 10:29 AM on 03.15.07 |
| ->> Super, Phil. Congratulations! |
|
Jason Frizzelle, Photographer
|
Greenville | NC | USA | Posted: 10:55 AM on 03.15.07 |
| ->> Congrats!!!!! |
|
Brian Westerholt, Photographer
|
Kannapolis | NC | USA | Posted: 11:00 AM on 03.15.07 |
->> Congrats Phil!
I am not 100% certain, but in looking at the cover online I believe that they used one of my photos of Davidson's Stephen Curry, son of the former NBA star Dell Curry. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 12:37 PM on 03.15.07 |
->> Brian,
Look on the credits and see if you see your name.
Phil |
|
Josh Thompson, Photographer
|
Ontario | California | USA | Posted: 3:35 PM on 03.15.07 |
| ->> Congrats Phil. That's awesome. |
|
Robb Sepulveda, Photographer
|
Newport Beach | CA | | Posted: 8:55 PM on 03.15.07 |
->> congrats Phil..
your right Josh Thompson and Louie Lo all good guys..
way to go |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
 |
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 9:02 AM on 03.17.07 |
| ->> Quick question - when a magazine does something like this, and perhaps the work of several dozen/hundred photographers is shown, is each photographer paid something for their photo being on the cover? |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
 |
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 10:00 AM on 03.17.07 |
| ->> Congrats Phil!! The million dollar questions now are, did you get any credit for the image and did they pay you? |
|
John Green, Photographer
|
Redlands | CA | US | Posted: 12:28 PM on 03.17.07 |
->> The answer to that questions is, yes, Phil will get paid, as will all of the rest of the photographers who own their rights, as for those who don’t own their rights, I assume only the company will get paid.
SI did not give individual credits to any photographers (other then their own staff) due to the fact that there are way to many names on that list.
By the way, nice job Phil!! |
|
Sharon P. Fibelkorn, Photographer
|
Corona | CA | USA | Posted: 1:29 PM on 03.17.07 |
->> Phil, that's So-Right-On! Congrats man!
I love the creative on that cover -- to me it's interesting picking out details in all those players! Super nice project to have been a part of! |
|
Darren Carroll, Photographer
|
Cedar Creek (Austin) | TX | USA | Posted: 11:38 PM on 03.17.07 |
->> Mr. Green notes: "SI did not give individual credits to any photographers (other then their own staff)"
This is incorrect.
Furthermore, while individual sources of the images, be they agencies or photographers, will of course be compensated, in many cases that will only occur through an intermediary (i.e., agent or agency). In that case, I can't help but note that the $62.50 payment (that's the $125.00 S.I. usage fee for an image of that size multiplied by a presumed 50% agency commission) is hardly sound renumeration, from a business perspective, if the image was shot on spec.
I'm not saying one way or the other whether that's the case in this particular situation. Just something to think about, given the number of otherwise nameless "agency" credits given for that cover. |
|
Hazrin Yeob Men Shah, Photographer
|
Selangor | Malaysia | Malaysia | Posted: 8:38 AM on 03.18.07 |
| ->> Well Done ! |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 1:07 PM on 03.18.07 |
->> And that would be exactly as you stated Mr. Carroll "Presumed" as that is not always the case, while 50% may be the "norm" in the industry it is not with all intermediaries (to use your term).
You are also assuming that this was the only image that was licensed from that event taken by that photographer.
I can only speak for myself, but more than one image from an event is licensed or one image is licensed for multiple uses etc.. An image can sell over the years multiple times, as your archive grows you can begin to see residual income from your images.
A smart freelancer can negotiate a favorable contract, retain his copyright, shoot on assignment and by partnering with intermediaries, move the images for editorial use that he owns the copyright to.
Shooting on spec, is not the end of the world, business minded photographers shooting entirely on Spec, will reasearch in advance what images of players/ participants that are in demand and coordinate with the intermediary to move those images to publications that need them.
I realize that this is not always the case with most freelancers, but that is why some succeed and others do not, in any business, preparation is the key. |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 9:06 PM on 03.18.07 |
| ->> Great Job Phil!! |
|
Darren Carroll, Photographer
|
Cedar Creek (Austin) | TX | USA | Posted: 11:30 PM on 03.19.07 |
->> Many thanks to Mr.Lopez for the primer on how to succeed as a freelancer. I'll be sure to keep that advice in mind if I ever decide to give it a whirl. But since you brought up shooting on spec, a few questions that I hope you might answer in light of your response:
You say that people can re-sell images many times, license them for mulitple uses, etc. I'm sure that's true. But honestly, now, if I'm photographing a college basketball team that makes the NCAA tournament as a 13 or 14 seed, how many residual sales can I realistically expect? For that matter, what is the shelf-life of a photo of athlete in a program like that? I mean, it's one thing if I'm shooting Kevin Durant at Texas his freshman year--I might make some sales into next season (and even then, it'll probably stop after that--hardly a long-term investment), and maybe, if he's the next Michael Jordan, I'll sell those pictures for decades, but a senior point guard for, say, the Patriot League champs? I don't think so.
Beyond that, what kind of sales can I expect? To put it bluntly, I don't see, in a situation described above, too many $2000.00 S.I. covers, or $1000.00 ESPN Zooms coming out of something like this. Maybe a $125 thumbnail in S.I., or maybe a $50 black-and-white in USA Today around tournament time. Of course I'd expect an agency to take a commission off the sale, too--I'm not a big believer in (or supporter of) making altruism the primary building block of a business plan.
Speaking of altruism, let's look at the 400 2.8, the 70-200 2.8, the two 1DM2s, cards, and laptop I've provided, gratis, in order to get pictures to the agency that has so kindly provided me a credential (but nothing else by way of compensation). And let's look at the payment on the car I need to go to the arena, the gas I need to put in that car, the roof I need to keep myself and my equipment dry, and the insurance I need on that equipment in case that roof leaks. That's a good chunk of change I need to make back from that basketball game to make the trip economically justifiable. Let's put the number, conservatively, at about $350 per assignment. Are you telling me that if I go and shoot an assignment like that on spec for your (or any) agency, you can guarantee me that I'll get the 3+ S.I. thumbnails or 7 USA Today pictures I need to recoup my investment?
(And that's assuming the best possible commission rate--100%--for me, by the way. At a "presumed" 50% commission, those numbers go up to 7 and 14, respectively, which is about as close to impossible as you can get)
Help me out here, because I'm just not seeing it. And frankly, I think it's rather disingenuous of agencies (and there are plenty of culprits out there these days) to be holding out things like residual sales off of second-tier college basketball conference games, and sixteenth-of-a-page photos in S.I. as proverbial carrots on a stick to justify people shooting games on spec, or, as I like to put it, for free. The numbers--and the business considerations behind them--just don't add up.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a wall I need to get back to beating my head against... |
|
Les Stukenberg, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Prescott Valley | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:40 PM on 03.19.07 |
->> Darren,
You forgot the food on the table... Hope all is well down in Austin... Didn't make the FBR this year too busy shooting rodeos...which is a good thing....
Les "I shot 1/3 a MLB season on spec and learned my lesson" Stukenberg |
|
John Green, Photographer
|
Redlands | CA | US | Posted: 4:07 AM on 03.20.07 |
| ->> Dude, I sooo sick of hearing you talk about shooting on spec, every time I read something by you its the same old song. You dont shoot on spec so why are your so offended by it? My guess is that guys like you (the top 1% in the business) who get the day rate and the copyrights are not happy because the quality gap is rapidly closing between what you do and what we do, and lets face it, there aint a lotta those gigs around, and maybe the competition is hurting the industry of Darren Carroll and not so much the industry in general. I shoot on spec, I like shooting on spec, I'm not going to stop shooting on spec. This thread was about Phil feeling good because he had his 1st picture in SI, and you have to come along and throw a wet blanket on it. Remember when you had your 1st picture in SI? Did some grouchy oldtimer come alng and point out all the negitive aspects of it? |
|
Darren Carroll, Photographer
|
Cedar Creek (Austin) | TX | USA | Posted: 6:50 AM on 03.20.07 |
->> Wow. An "inappropriate," even. An "oldtimer" at 36. "Grouchy?" Well, yeah, I can see that. But not because this "competition" is hurting me, specifically (it isn't.). It really does come down to looking at the business as a whole. And I'm sorry, Mr. Green, but somebody has to say it. Whether you're sick of it or not.
While I do apologize to Mr. Hawkins for throwing a wet blanket on his congratulatory thread, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that, as the barriers for entry into our business are lowered by leaps forward in technology, it now becomes more and more necessary to temper the irrational exuberance of publication with the harsh realities of business and economic considerations, lest we lose what precious little we have left in terms of rates, stock prices, and copyright.
We do, after all, still consider ourselves professionals, don't we? And to that extent, don't we have a responsibility to ourselves and to those who might want to be a part of this business to explain, in solid economic terms, with numbers, examples, and whatnot, how things really work? To perhaps try and leave it in better shape than we found it?
With all due respect, sir, "I shoot on spec, I like shooting on spec, I'm not going to stop shooting on spec" doesn't exactly accomplish that, on either count. To that end I noticed that you offered nothing to refute my analysis above which would show how shooting on spec, in the situation I gave (and, I think, the situation that prompted this thread in the first place) would be a sensible business decision. I still invite you to do so.
Unfortunately, some people are going to "get it," some will at least think about it (which is all I can ask), and some never will. Now, where was that brick wall again...? |
|
Chris Stanfield, Photo Editor
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 7:44 AM on 03.20.07 |
| ->> This thread is kind of like going to your own birthday party and watching your mom and dad fight in front of everybody. |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 2:23 PM on 03.20.07 |
->> Mr. Carroll,
How narrow of a view do you have in your world?, I see that you are focusing on this one image of the Stanford player, you must be privvy to the background on the sales of this image and know the sales history. Perhaps he was there covering the opponent? For all you know this image was one of many that sold from that event. no one image is going to make a ton of cash, possible, but unlikely.
I am aware of a spec image situation that a photographer has of a an image that has been licensed so many times that it has generated more income than all his other images combined, and of many images of other players from that same game that have sold as well, those $62.50 sales start to add up, Successful spec shooters, yes they do exist Mr. Carroll.
Sometimes the spec shooter captures the image that the staffers did not get, or they had the better angle, timing etc... despite the fact that there were four staff photographers from that "big time" publication at the game and the staffer's publication ran the spec shooters image double truck with 8 point type on the credit line, I can see how that might cause concern for the staffers that a spec shooter got the shot, and that with spec shooters providing high quality images consistently that it upsets the balance.
There is a market for images obviously , you are correct in that if a photographer sells the images themselves they can make 100% of the sale which is the ideal situation.
The reality is that most photographers don't have the contacts or the phone sales skills to make the sales themselves, and that is where intermediaries come in to assist in making the sales, and should they not be compensated?
I am not about to outline my business plan to everyone here, I can only speak as to what works for me,I earn a very good living all from photography and Spec shooting is a part of that.
Mr. Carroll "the primer on how to succeed as a freelancer" was not a lesson in any sense of the word, your attempts at sarcasm are silly at best.
Perhaps you are just trying to point out that no one is going to make a living by only shooting on spec, and I would have to agree with that, but it can be a significant source of income.
I want to point out that SI and ESPN are not the only publications that need images, there are literally thousands of publication throughout the world that need images, images have been requested from as unlikely a place as Saudi Arabia for images of a United States sports event, and the publication was not even in english, so don't think that SI and ESPN are the only outlets.
I think Photographers, get excited about there first image published in SI because it is a magazine that inspired most of us to want to pursue sports photography and we grew up reading the magazine every week and to have an image in it for the first time, well there is a sense of pride in that. I know shooters that earn six figures in photography and when they got that first shot in SI they were as excited as if they had won the lotto, I can understand that. I believe that is all Phil was saying with this thread.
So put away the wet blankets, and let him enjoy it. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|