| 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
Please read Darren Carroll's article...
Bert Entwistle, Photographer
 |
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 2:33 PM on 04.27.09 |
->> Great newsletter article Darren...!
I hope everyone will read this, it's dead on...!
bert |
|
Patric Schneider, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | United States | Posted: 2:34 PM on 04.27.09 |
| ->> It was great! |
|
Russ Isabella, Photographer
|
Greg Francis, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 10:08 AM on 04.29.09 |
| ->> Darren, Thanks for taking the time to write that article! |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
|
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 11:18 AM on 04.29.09 |
->> I have a little bit of a different take on this, so if you don't agree don't get all nutty with the "inappropriate" button, instead please respond because this is a vital issue.
You can't tell me that 20 years ago people didn't have the same desire to shoot professional sports as they do today, so what has changed? First of all while people spend countless threads on this site discussing the latest and greatest advances in camera equipment the fact is because of this that it take less talent to create great shots today than it did in the film days with manual focus and exposure issues.
More importantly it is far easier to create marginal images with this technology in an age where cost seems to trump quality for most organizations you now have the perfect storm for the state of the industry we are in. Getty Images business model has been to smoke out all of the competition by low balling prices, and USPresswire and AP have all followed suit. Maybe if these organizations were not prostituting image usage in the first place things would not be where they are.
The con game that these "organizations" have been playing on aspiring photographers will continue. In Getty's case, they are able to con established photographers as well. I know of a few very well known photographers who spent a lot of money digitally scanning, editing, captioning, and submitting their NFL images so they could be placed in the Getty archives with the pretense of "commercial sales".
What did they get out of it? One got a usage fee of .35 cents for one image on their statement and now the "commercial" usage they were hoping for won't happen either because Getty no longer has the NFL contract. Do you think that Getty making unlimited usage deals that net the photographer .35 cents had anything to do with the fact that Getty fumbled the ball by not being able to maintain their relationship with the NFL?
If Getty is betting that the NFL will come back to them with their tale between their legs because the AP can't handle this contract they are sadly mistaken. That's not how the NFL operates, ever.
I don't put nearly as much blame on the people who are shooting on spec as I do the organizations that know full well they are taking advantage of people. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 12:09 PM on 04.29.09 |
->> It was a great article.
Unfortunately, the photographers who shoot on spec for agencies will still go to those major league sporting events and continue to shoot on spec.
It is a little too late to close the barn door now.
So what is to be done about it?
How about some actual figures and facts.
What is the day rate you should be getting?
How much are people really making from spec sales at these events?
It seems like the actual dollar and cents is the elephant in the room that no one wants to admit.
I read different sites where they say these small sales add up to enough to make it worthwhile. But do they really?
No one seems willing to share actual numbers.
Like - I charge $2,000 plus travel as a day rate, and then image usage based on FotoQuote.
Or, I sold 3 images to a .com news site for $25, and my share was $36.
Lets get the facts and figures out there so people realize that they are shooting an entire game for less than a case of beer and some hot dogs they were served for lunch. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 12:26 PM on 04.29.09 |
->> Darren's read is pretty good stuff. Read it.
I've shot my share of big events over the years and none of them has afforded me the access I have right now at my job. When I show up at an event, people are glad to see me. I am welcomed and I have the best access possible.
Last night, it was middle school track. The school's athletic director addressed me by name and with a smile when I walked in. The boys coach shook hands with me and the girls coaches both spoke and helped me with names I needed.
I didn't have to deal with any "stars" with shitty attitudes. I didn't have to deal with any coaches too good. too busy or too rich. What I did get was young athletes putting everything they had into an effort that may not seem to be much to others, but to them, it meant everything.
So it is true. Where you are at is where it's happening. |
|
Rick Osentoski, Photographer
|
Martin | OH | United States | Posted: 8:06 AM on 04.30.09 |
->> These spec agencies are here and are not going away, the same way RF stock and now micro stock has changed the stock photography business. So why not talk about which ones are good and reputable.
Many of the people on this site shoot for them, how about some comments on actual experience and like Mike Brice said let's get some general numbers, how do they fit in your business plan. |
|
Robert Seale, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 10:56 AM on 04.30.09 |
->> Rick-
They are not going away.....yes, you are probably right.
Do you know why?
Because most people don't consult their business plan when making the decision to shoot for these "spec agencies." If they did, they would quickly realize that it makes no economic sense to shoot for them. These agencies know that and are basing their business model (you bet they have one...) on taking advantage of gullible, stupid photographers.
We've done this before....but let's try it again...some simple math for everyone:
Add up the gear you need to shoot sports on a regular basis....2 to 3 of the latest digital bodies (8000.00), a 400/2.8 (7000.00), and a couple of zooms (3000.00)....add to that a laptop, hard drives, wireless card, etc (3000.00), then insurance for a year (1600.00). for the moment, we'll leave out office expenses, cell phone, internet, website, office computer system, online storage, etc.
So conservatively, you would have to spend about 25,000 bucks to shoot sports for a living. Don't forget that all that gear changes and needs to be updated every 2-3 years.
Now tell me again, what business model justifies that expense for the payoff of spec sales? What is the average spec sale? 100.00? 50.00? 30.00? 1.00?
Does that agency have a deal with newspapers and magazines to give away their content to gain market share? If so, your average sale is 0.
I've seen friends do this...I've seen them taken advantage of by these charlatans at various places, and it pisses me off.
So do the math. See if it works for you.
I’ve done it. And you know what, it doesn’t work. You won’t make a living at it. It is virtually impossible. Sorry to be a downer, but people need to know this. The only way to make a living shooting sports is to have an actual staff/contract gig…..be a staffer for the AP, SI, a team, a university, a newspaper….that’s it. I’ve racked my brain, and outside of those parameters, there are maybe 2-3 people in the whole country who freelance and make their income from shooting sports.
Let’s talk about this promise of exposure for a moment.
I was a staffer for 11 years at a national sports magazine. During that tenure, I shot the World Series, NBA Finals, Final Four, Super Bowl every year…all of the so-called “big time” sporting events out there. I shot 2 football games every weekend, and 60-70 basketball games a year….on strobes, with remotes, etc. I shot over 200 covers…many of them action from big events. I’m on a first name basis with every sports photo editor out there….many of whom are my good friends.
Do you know how much action photography I do now? Less than 5% of my assignments. Do you see any action photography on my website? No. Want to know why? Because there is no market for it. It is gone. Over. Done with. It has been replaced by opportunist "wire services" looking to make a quick buck at your expense. Why would anyone assign a photographer and pay them a decent rate when they can pull photos off the wire for free?
That doesn't mean there are a bunch of John Biever - level photographers out there....there aren't. But think about it. If you put enough monkees in the library on typewriters they could write a Shakespeare play, right?
That's what these services are doing. The good ones might be honest and might pay you....that's true. It won't fit your business model, though. you will still absolutely lose money. More often, they tell you you're doing great work, they will flatter you with promises of "exposure", and pay you little if anything. Then, when you finally wake up, figure out their game, and leave.....they will call the next decent college kid...flatter them with praise, and send them to the Kentucky Derby (exciting, big event, huh?) to make pictures for their portfolio. It works for them, because there exists an endless stream of young shooters clamoring for their chance at the "big time".
So be skeptical when someone promises you “exposure” because they are flooding the internet or their so-called "wire service” with your pictures. That exposure and 4 bucks might get you a latte at Starbucks.
You want to do this for a living...great. Tell these guys no thanks, and go get an internship at a newspaper. Bust your ass, and learn about video while you're at it....and how to shoot a portrait.
So let’s recap….here are the ways to make a living shooting sports action in the year 2009:
-Run a youth sports business
-Be a staffer at a newspaper, AP, SI
-work for a team
-work for a university
Good luck out there. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:05 AM on 04.30.09 |
->> Paying for an airline ticket, extra baggage, rental car, hotel, internet fees (if the venue charges for this), and meals in order to shoot an event on spec is a near guarantee of losing money. Your sales for such an event would have to bring in quite a bit just to reach your break even point let alone cover your time on site and the time you spend in transit. Time spent in hotels, airports, and in the plane is time that you are not able to spend on other projects.
Shooting an event on spec that is three miles from your own house might be something to consider, if the event is something that has a high probability of generating enough sales to cover your time. If you can get to the event, cover it, transmit the captioned photos, return to your home in less than five hours from the time that you left then this can work. I have done this several times, but only when it can be done quickly, in town, and without incurring any out of pocket expenses.
Some will argue that my camera equipment, home computer, laptop, archive system, cell phone, home office, website, land line, car, car insurance, mileage, gasoline, medical insurance, and the breakfast I have at home before I leave and the late lunch that I have when I return home are all "out of pocket expenses" that are not being factored into this equation.
While it is true that these things all cost money, if I decided to stay home that day, have a few friends over, drink a few beers, and watch a game on TV this does nothing to assist paying for my camera equipment, home computer, laptop, archive system, cell phone, home office, website, land line, car, car insurance, mileage, gasoline, medical insurance, or the beers and pizzas that my friends and I would consume.
Covering an event on spec under the right circumstances while maintaining ownership of your copyright can be a profitable addition to your other streams of revenue. It will not, of course, be something upon which you can base your entire income as it will not get you the $10,000 day rate that all of us are supposed to be charging for our time. If you choose your events carefully, spend only a few hours covering them, and avoid any travel or lodging expenses it can work. |
|
Rick Osentoski, Photographer
|
Martin | OH | United States | Posted: 3:28 PM on 04.30.09 |
->> Robert
I understand you comments I have heard them over and over again here, but that is not what I asked.
I want someone who has or is working with someone like Icon or Calsport or US Presswire to chime in here and tell what it is like, if they get paid, do the services charge industry rates. Has it led to assignments or a staff position? |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
|
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 3:51 PM on 04.30.09 |
->> I think the better question would be to call management at Icon or Calsport or US Presswire and ask:
What is the average amount per assignment a photographer would make with their organization?
Why are they putting the "risk" 100% on the shoulder of the photographer?
Why can't they pay any sort of a day rate?
There is a reason nobody from these organizations answers these questions, because there are no "logical" answers. |
|
Jared Dort, Photographer
|
Yuma | AZ | usa | Posted: 5:10 PM on 04.30.09 |
->> Robert pretty much nailed it here.
The question you have to ask yourself is where is your place in the market?
There was a time when I was assigned the occasional Cardinals game in Phoenix. If I had to guess, there were no less than 40 photographers shooting the same game I was, guys from all over - staff and spec. That number continued to grow, and I thought damn, do people know this is the Cardinals their shooting.
Access was bad and the field was crowded. You really had to be original, but when you're covering the team by yourself, that's not easy to do. You have to get the plays that matter.
When I shoot a portrait for a magazine, there's only one photographer to compete with, and that's me. The money is a hell of a lot better and I don't have to sit through an entire game, captioning every image for SEO, uploading and waiting potential stock sales - which a lot of spec shooters don't do to maximize your business, just send em' in and hope they sell.
Yes, I know there's people who make money at shooting spec at pro events, and that's fine and dandy. Good for them. But there's a thousand more who don't.
Why be one of the thousand? Why not be original and create a market for yourself? Something unique.
Auto focus, digital and agencies have killed the market for sports photography, even for staffers.
There's a entire other side of the photography business that's wide open - http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2211 - but few want to explore it because it's just not cool.
Being at a major sporting event is cool. Having a 400mm is cool.
You know what else is cool? Paying your mortgage. |
|
Anthony Vasser, Photographer, Assistant
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 5:17 PM on 04.30.09 |
->> I know artists who pay a gallery a 50-60% cosign when their images sell. I think there are other industries that work on spec too. Lawyers, designers, authors, consultants, actors, musicians, auction houses, and playwrights… but they call it commission. I guess it's ok because they it's a nicer word?
Now I don't want to defend those who abuse young or naïve shooters, but manipulative business practices tend to result in failure. When enough photogs wise up and leave a bad biz and the archives contain just mediocre shots, their sales won’t support the overhead and they’ll crater. Problem solved. So like Rick Osentoski asked, we should be sharing and rating our experiences with companies. But we can’t, because we fear defamation litigation. We perpetuate the Joes Super Wow Photo Sites to sweet talk naïve shooters and never pay.
I shoot other stuff, but yes I suck because I do some work for a spec agency. Like all shooters, my income is based purely upon the value of the shots I take. I try to find a unique or valuable photos in the sea of mediocre opportunities, but I’m unable to make money off unusual photos, unlike Robert Beck. It seems my "mediocre" stuff sells better :(
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2194
Now I don’t know what arrangements other people have, but I hired an agency and pay them 50% of what they sell my photos for. This because they know more buyers than I do, so it stands to reason it has a better chance to sell with them. Because of this I expect them to work for me... and to work hard to get their 50%.
Like with any client or salary job evaluation, if they’re not working hard enough for me, if I get scammed, or believe I’m being treated unfair, @%#$ them and I’ll switch to a better agent. Unfortunately, due to the nature of our business model where multi-billion dollar distributers dominate the industry, I have no choice but to also hire someone to represent me. Unless I want to put in the unbelievable legwork required to sell my images myself.
Or I find an agent who’s willing to work for me for free! Can anyone hook me up? |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
|
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 5:54 PM on 04.30.09 |
->> Anthony writes:
"When enough photogs wise up and leave a bad biz and the archives contain just mediocre shots, their sales won’t support the overhead and they’ll crater."
Unfortunately this statement is not true.
You have to realize that the truth is most people who shoot for these organizations don't really care if they get paid. They look at it like "I would have paid $200 for box seats, so if I make anything it's a bonus".
You don't see plummers say, "I'd pay $200 to fix that toilet", and consequently you don't have plummers showing up at your house "on spec" to fix your toilet.
If as the "business" you are not paying photographers, not paying for photography equipment, not paying travel expense then you are able to run this "business" without any real assets, so if you have 50-100 people all around the country doing the "work" for you it's not really hard at all to stay in "business". |
|
John Bowersmith, Photographer
|
Lubbock | Tx | USA | Posted: 11:29 AM on 05.01.09 |
->> Robert,
Some one actually did a study on the monkeys with typewriters.
I hate to break it to you, and was disappointed to find out, but evidently when you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with a bunch of computers they just mash eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee and piss all over the keyboards.
I haven't seen the study, but I bet there is some funny video out there. I want to see that grant too and meet the person who wrote it. I am so in the wrong line of work some days.
But, now that I think about it, I bet the person who led that study thinks shooting the big game is awesome just the same way I can see myself looking through a window at 30 monkeys pissing on computers and trying to keep from buckling over with laughter. Something tells me there are factors neither of us are considering. In my case it's definitely clean up. |
|
Brian Dowling, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | USA | Posted: 12:17 PM on 05.02.09 |
->> I've only been shooting for two years. So, I am no master of wisdom, but I found shooting on spec last year has helped boost my portfolio and to help land paid assignments. I know I could have gotten great HS football game photos. But, it seems half my booked weddings, the brides will say they really liked my NFL photos. I know for most of us on SS, shooting a MLB or NFL game is peanuts, but it does impress the everyday customer and sets you apart from others.
If you are trying to make a career of shooting on spec, I agree with Darren. Now, I just go to paid assignments and if I am able to upload them to a wire, then I try to do so. |
|
Brian Tietz, Photographer
|
Fort Myers | FL | USA | Posted: 12:32 PM on 05.02.09 |
->> Brian, are you suggesting that you booked weddings based on your football images!?
No offense, but I would suggest putting that effort into shooting better wedding images. |
|
Brian Tietz, Photographer
|
Fort Myers | FL | USA | Posted: 11:36 PM on 05.02.09 |
| ->> Just wanted to clarify, didn't mean to suggest Brian's wedding pics were bad just thought it was odd bride's would hire him to shoot their wedding based on the idea he shoots NFL football. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:49 AM on 05.03.09 |
| ->> I've wondered about some of these "wire" services for years but figured something was VERY wrong with the system when I was at a Duke football (yes football not basketball) and there were FIVE, yes, count them FIVE people shooting for the same "agency". First off you have to ask, "Ok where the hell is the market for Duke football photos?" Ahhh, that year there was none. Secondly, there are FIVE shooters from the same agency. Guaranteed NONE of those guys were getting paid. But what's really sad about this? Ask (as several on this thread have) how much they're getting paid. Most often you'll get a dirty look and they'll move away from you as fast as they can, then later you'll find out they were trashing talking you in the media room for being so "rude" as to question their business model. Unfortunately I don't see this coming to an end anytime soon. With the advances in equipment it's actually probably going to get worse. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 12:19 AM on 05.04.09 |
->> Can someone please use real numbers.
I am starting to wonder that maybe there is money in spec shooting.
So you shoot a football game, and one of your images gets used on a website, newspaper, magazine, how much is the agency paying.
1) Website
2) Newspaper
3) Magazine
I know it varies by site, publication and size, but maybe if we could talk real numbers we would see what the difference is in business models.
Or maybe there is real money in spec shooting? |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 1:09 AM on 05.04.09 |
->> "Just wanted to clarify, didn't mean to suggest Brian's wedding pics were bad just thought it was odd bride's would hire him to shoot their wedding based on the idea he shoots NFL football."
Brian, interestingly, every paid, non-sports related assignment I've gotten over the past three years was because people liked my sports photos. The high school I regularly shoot for has been my biggest source, and has led to weddings, portraits, maternity, and even boudoir shoots.
If they didn't know beforehand, once a potential client learns I shoot pro sports, the deal is clinched. I don't know why this is the case, but it is. People seem to like the fact that their wedding or portrait photographer has been on the sidelines of the a major league event for some reason or other, and I won't be the one to ask them why.
:~)
Jody |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
 |
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 10:18 AM on 05.04.09 |
->> Jody,
Same here, but stupid me. I turn down the offer and direct them to a friend who specializes in wedding photography. Yes! I do get a finders fee. Nothing is free here. (smile) I've shot weddings before, but I feel more comfortable shooting sports and for their big day. I would rather have someone who does it for a living then have me miss some things. But to piggyback on what you just posted, I get asked that question all the time because they see my sports stuff on my website.... |
|
Karl Stolleis, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | | Posted: 10:40 AM on 05.04.09 |
->> Allright - you want numbers - how's this. I have said it before and I will say it again for those who missed it the first time.
Lets start with a simple "I do know what I am doing and shot lots of sports over 15 years"
A few years back I shot a couple of things, on spec, for a then fledgling service as a favor to myself and the owners, who I knew.
I shot two division one basketball games, Oklahoma and Texas and a PGA tournament. I had to travel from Dallas to Houston, Austin and OKC to shoot the three events.
There were pictures sold to SI Kids and a couple of other mags and after three months I got a check. 419 dollars. That barely covered my gas to get to these places.
I agree with Robert and I am sick of folks bashing him for telling the truth. You WILL NOT MAKE A LIVING doing spec work. You will make beer money, you will be the envy of all your friends, but face it - ITS A HOBBY, NOT A CAREER.
And if your business model includes your wife having a good job with benefits, you having a second job or living off a trust fund - you might want to rethink your model.
Unfortunately many of you will wake up in 15 years and wonder why you dont have enough money to fix your car. Its because the college kid down the road is now getting your 200 dollar check for shooting a college game that no one cares about "for his portfolio." |
|
Brian Tietz, Photographer
|
Fort Myers | FL | USA | Posted: 10:43 AM on 05.04.09 |
->> So Jody are you suggesting it is worth it to shoot on spec so that you can tell potential clients that you are a "professional sports photographer" in order for them to take you more seriously for non-sports related work?
Would you recommend that a a viable business model?
Again I'm really trying not to be a jerk about this, but this is the point I was trying to make with Brian's post, wouldn't you feel better about yourself as a photographer if your non-sports work spoke for itself?
For example, if you booked a wedding based on the people liking your wedding photos instead of having to close the deal by selling them on the idea you must be a great photographer because you cover professional sports? |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 11:03 AM on 05.04.09 |
->> I agree with Brian...it's sad that people are using the fact that they shot a few professional sports assignments to call themselves "pro sports shooters" so they can book a boudoir shoot or a senior portrait.
Seriously, you're better served by spending that time getting better at shooting the stuff that actually generates income instead of pretending.
Just because you're on the sideline at a Cardinals game doesn't make you a professional sports photographer. If "every paid, non-sports related assignment I've gotten over the past three years was because people liked my sports photos" was a true statement I'd really need to rethink the way I market myself.
I've learned quite a bit over at http://www.zarias.com/?cat=82 listening to critiques about work. You'll find that being consistent in your message and in what you SHOW to clients is important. Wanna shoot portraits? SHOW PORTRAITS. Want to shoot kids...SHOW KIDS. Want to shoot corporate images for Annual Reports? I think you get the picture. |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
|
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 2:10 PM on 05.04.09 |
->> SportsShooters, it is simple; Nobody needs you. The horse has left the barn.
There are too many shooters for every event from championship hip hop dancing to extreme high altitude yo-yo.
Spec or otherwise if you do not find a way to be unique and different you are not going to make any money. Unique and different can be a different business model, whatever it might be, but if you are just going to do more of the same and price compete, you are done.
Darren's article is dead on, 100% correct. I have been watching the same discussion here for a few years, and have made the same recommendations as have so many of the guys who are doing ok.
How many of you have taken it to heart and changed? How many of you are still plowing the same ground and not getting anywhere?
Show of hands :)
I really would like to see everyone do better, it would be good for all of us. |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 3:50 PM on 05.04.09 |
->> Brian,
I responded to your comment about finding it odd that a bride would hire a photographer based on his or her sports images.
I wasn't and have no desire to enter the debate (yet again) about shooting on spec. This issue has been beaten to death and I, for one, am sick of it. We accomplish nothing other than to disparage and hurt each other whenever the subject comes up, and frankly, I'm not going there anymore.
My opinion is what it is. I'm not secretive about it. I know why I feel the way I do, and I'm not interested in debating it. Period. Paragraph.
The only thing I can say is that if my opinion is that important to you (or anyone), please feel free to search the message board and read all the other spec/free/commission/blah/blah/blah threads, and you'll understand why I'm not entering this conversation.
Oh...and I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything either, but I don't care if it's my sports work that gets a client's attention because if they like my sports photos, then they tend to explore my non-sports photos; and if my non-sports work fits the style and look the client wants, then I get the job. So I guess you can say that my non-sports work does speak for itself, and I feel great about it.
Cheers.
Jody |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 3:56 PM on 05.04.09 |
->> Karl,
Thanks for being honest. I think it does a great job proving Darren's and Robert's point.
I was hoping when people put the numbers in black and white, they realize how little they are making.
Unfortunately, it looks like most don't won't to share numbers because when they add it up, they realize how little they have been working for and are embarrassed to share. |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
|
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 5:02 PM on 05.04.09 |
| ->> Ok. Call me crazy, but what is so inappropriate about what Mike just posted? |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 5:07 PM on 05.04.09 |
| ->> Ditto, Mark. Oh wait, it's probably the same guys who were bashing me behind my back for calling them out on working for free........ |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 9:13 PM on 05.04.09 |
->> Let me get this straight. I received two inappropriates in this thread and a couple informatives. So I guess that shows the divide we have here on Sportsshooter.
I don't think it is inappropriate to ask how much a web image sale is to ESPN.com or other online site, or other publication.
I am sorry if I crossed the line in my frustration in not receiving any information - except from Karl.
But seriously, this isn't top secret info. How are we to improve ourselves, if we are always operating in the dark. |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
|
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 10:04 PM on 05.04.09 |
->> Inappropriate
Should be used only when something truly offensive has been said. Something rude, racist, or blatantly disrespectful. This is NOT used to disagree with a person's opinion. To disagree with an opinion you would POST YOUR OPINION as a message. This rating should be hardly ever used, since we can count on one hand how many times in the past year that it could have been used. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
