Submitting Art for Publication/Production

[Lane Meyer]

A somewhat colorful discussion with GG and BB in another thread gave me the idea for starting another discussion thread for all the artsy, writing, photog, drawing-types out there to chime in about submitting creative media for publication or use in production in the ski industry.

While I've not been published to the extent that others have, I've had some stuff in some ski mags and some non-ski mags (and of course plenty o' nerdy geology journals). The majority of these submissions have been pro-bono favors to friends who needed pictures or maps. Only recently have I started to get paid for submitting things. How much of that is becausse I got my foot in the door by giving up the goods for free first to establish credibility?

I had a really interestinng conversation about this very topic with a National Geo staff photographer on an expedition I helped guide in Hawai`i two years ago. He (Frans Lanting) was of the opinion that editorial photography is in the process of being ruined by what he called the "retired dentist" demographic.

He was fuming mad (and I agreed) that the field of professional photography has been encroached unjustly of late by older folks with lots of cash to burn on high-end equipment whose sole objective was to see their name in print. Frans was lamenting the fact that these types were interfering with his efforts to get his work published for money in his quest to simply make a living.

In my limited understanding of the field of prefessional photography, I feel confident in asserting the fact that good art still needs a good artsist, and the top-level stuff could have been taken with a pinhole camera; the critically important ingredient is artistic vision, which thankfully can't be bought or sold.

Interestingly, the very same photographer I mentioned above makes a large portion of his income leading expensive and exclusive weekend workshops desgined to teach rich, retired dentists how to take better pictures.

So, what do the masses think? Is it ok to give it up for free at first? Or does doing so subvert the efforts of established pros?

[Tippster]

Heh. Franz is right. Ironic that he's part of the problem.

Due to high (and medium) end gear getting cheaper and better on almost a daily basis I DO believe that commercial stock photography has and will continue to suffer. Photojournalism is a different story, however, since it takes more than a good eye to tell a story visually. The National Geos, News Magazines, News Agencies, and Newspapers will always rely on Professional Photographers for their content. It's more cost effective to simply pay a known talent a fee (or a Retainer) than hiring a crew of Photo-Editors to weed through the piles of crap submitted by Amateurs to find that one good shot that may or may not fit their needs.

Give some of your work (not your best stuff!) away initially, but ALWAYS Copyright it and insist it's for THEIR USE ONLY. It may seem silly to write that © and your name, but the publishers do take it seriously, and it's the only recourse you have to get something if they in turn sell it to others.

[bklyn]

In my personal experience

Paying clients pay from the first, pay all the time on time, and tend to spread your name around leading to other paying clients....

Much More Often than...

Clients who got a first time freebie, are looking for 2nd, 3rd and 4th time freebies, and have promised to promote your great work to other clients...

who are also just looking for freebies or deep discounts!

Now freebies are only for good friends and those who can compensate in kind with other perks. Those folks in the end do not appreciate your investment in equipment and practicing/developing skill.

It's painful to say no, but I would advise it to anyone starting out. Put up a portfolio website and then promote the heck out of that. It works better than hoping some mag will pass your name along.

Yeah - and a board that retails for $400 and cost the mfg $75 to make is not compensation in kind, IMHO.

[mtbakerskier]

Every photographer / artist should be required to read this article:

By Rick Rickman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I've been noticeably silent the past few months in the Sports Shooter Newsletter because I've been trying to assess whether anything I do here is worth the time that I spend writing to the masses.

Quite honestly, most of the time I feel like the majority of photographers don't give a damn about the fact that in the past decade the value of their work has been eroded by people who shoot pictures but don't have a clue on how to charge for their work.

Let's face facts! Most of you guys and girls are economic dunces! Many have no desire to change that. As long as you can stand on the sidelines of some football game somewhere and feel like you are part of the photo ignoramus fraternity it doesn't matter to you that there is a 34% chance that you might not be able to continue your profession for another 2 years. Most of you are more interested in talking about the latest camera than you are interested in appropriate pricing.

I've come to the conclusion that because it's becoming easier and easier to be technically adequate and camera technology is making it easier and easier to capture interesting moments, the industry will continue on this devalued trend because more and more people with limited intellectual capacity will continue to take over the ranks of the photographic profession.

It's my opinion that this will be both a good thing and a bad thing. The bad thing is that there will continue to be a growing over abundance of usable images for publications to choose from.

The price and value of those images will continue to decline and eventually you will see a drastic falling away of interest in photojournalism. Pay for staff positions at newspapers will continue to stagnate and photographers will be looked at collectively as an easily renewable resource. The middle ranks of the industry will become a frustrated collection of malcontents struggling to make ends meet.

Universities will be struggling to find ways to keep the ranks of their graduates in line with the employment opportunities in the market place. We are already beginning to see the onset of this scenario in my opinion.

The good news is that under this scenario, truly talented photographers will be highly sought after because of their unique vision. True talent always rises to the top and unique vision will become even more recognized for it's quality. This is the exact reason why a person with quality vision will need to recognize the value of their images and be able to price them accordingly.

Recently, on the SportsShooter.com message board there has been a lot of discussion about the importance of maintaining ones copyright. Many photographers who have trouble seeing the bigger picture of this industry will tell you that signing rights away to your images is ok if, in their opinion, the value of the resale of the assignments may be limited.

First, its difficult to assess what may or may not be valuable in the future. Who's to say that a head shot of the mayor of some small berg in Nebraska may not end up as valuable when that person ends up the president of the United States in a decade or two.

A classic example of this scenario is a situation that a very good friend of mine found himself in. David was assigned to take a picture of a little know professor at Stanford University. She was the subject of a story for a small magazine and David did some nice portraits that were very well received by the client. David took those images and, as is his routine, filed them away in his library.

Fast forward to 12 years later and guess who is chosen by George W. Bush to be the Secretary of State? Condeleeza Rice, the same little known professor at Stanford. Needless to say, David began to make that little shoot pay off big time. In fact that little shoot has made a sizeable addition to his bank account.

Saying that it's "ok" to sign rights away to a publishing interest because the assignments you are likely to receive won't be worth the concern later is very much the embodiment of the Ostrich Theory.

Just a matter of a few days ago, someone wrote on the message board a question I found very interesting. I was going to reply to the question but I decided to relate to that question here instead. The question was something to the effect of: What has been your biggest business mistake?
It's always interesting to go back into one's career and take an analytical look at the motivating factors in your life and work. This "What has been your biggest business mistake," is one of those important points of transition for me.

In 1988, I was still employed by the Orange County Register, a newspaper in southern California. Hal Stoelzle, Brian Smith, and I had all been on the Olympic coverage team for that publication and we had been fortunate enough to be recipients of a Pulitzer Prize for our coverage of the 1984 Olympic summer games in LA. In 1988 we were all looking for a way to cover the summer games which were to be held in Seoul, Korea.

Our newspaper, The Orange County Register had decided that they really weren't going to send 3 photographers to Seoul and if they sent one it would be Hal Stoelzle.

Brian Smith and I wanted desperately to cover another Olympics to see if we could better our performances of LA. We both found a solution. We had contacted Maria Mann, Director of Photography for AFP, and she offered us the chance to cover the games with the AFP organization.

Brian Smith and I, were ecstatic. We were going to another Olympic games. We would be able to keep the streak alive. For a flat fee of $3000.00 we would be in Seoul covering the games. The only hitch we had to agree to is signing the rights to our images over to AFP. We both decided that was a fair trade off. After all, we would be there covering the games again. When I look back at how embarrassingly stupid I was for doing this I still to this day can't believe it.

Almost as a slap in the face and adding insult to injury both Brian and I captured some unique and exclusive images for AFP during the course of our coverage and of course AFP marketed those images to a tidy profit for the company.

Brian's image of Greg Lugainis hitting his head on the diving board made tens of thousands of dollars for AFP of which Brian saw and shared nothing of those profits.

[mtbakerskier]

Article Continued:
My image of Ben Johnson beating the pants off Carl Lewis and looking back at him with glee did very well as well and I also saw nothing from the sales of that image.

After the conclusion of those summer games Brian and I spoke extensively about how stupid we felt for making such a horrible deal and we both vowed never to make that kind of mistake again. I think it's safe to say that we have made every effort not repeat that kind of mistake.

I can say that this was one of my biggest mistakes and the one that put me on the path to becoming knowledgeable in a business sense to the variables of this market place.

In a rapidly changing photographic world when jobs are tight and work is scarce, it's difficult to analyze how best to keep yourself afloat.

Keeping the rights to your work is in fact one of the most important. Knowing the market value of your work and pricing those images appropriately is every bit as important and is the one thing that will add longevity to your career.

In another recent and interesting event another dear friend of mine gave me a call in a bit of distress because a company wanted to use 6 of his images in an athletic setting. Of course the ad agency called him last minute and wanted him to come up with a price for the work immediately. He had the common sense to take a deep breath and tell them that he would have to get back to them in a short while.

The Ad Agency involved had quoted my friend a ridiculously low usage price as is always the case and when my friend told me the offer I couldn't help but laugh. We talked about what the client wanted and how the images would be used then we came up with 3 different scenarios. One that the client had mentioned for a buy out of the images. That figured came out to be in the neighborhood of $65,000.00.

We came up with a figure for a five year usage and that figure was in the neighborhood of $35,000 for non-exclusive rights and finally we came up with a figure for one year use with an option of rights of renewal. This came to the neighborhood of $20,000.00.

My friend went back to the client and after a little more negotiation they settled on a fair price for one years use at about $18,000.00

He has since renewed the contract for use every year now for 3 years running and his total income for those 6 pictures is over $40,000.00. My friend would never have been able to make that deal if, first he didn't own the rights to his pictures and second hadn't taken the time to find out appropriate pricing for the images.

In an incident which occurred with another friend while I was in Athens this past month an interesting situation developed. One of the agents for a very important American athlete came to my friend who I will refer to as Michael, (not his real name) and asked Michael to shoot some lifestyle and portrait images of this guy for the agency to be used in advertising and promotion. Michael came to me about 1:00 AM in the morning and told me the situation.

The agent for this athlete had asked Michael how much he would charge for this arrangement.
Michael, to his credit told the agent he would get back to him in the morning because he was just too tired at that very moment to think straight. (Great way of delaying making and important decision.)

Anyway, Michael asked me if I thought $1500.00 a day for a potential multiple day shoot was enough. One important thing to remember is Michael is a newspaper photographer and he isn't used to this kind of work. He was however doing things well in asking all the right questions and delaying a decision on price until he had done a little research.

I told Michael that there was no way on earth that this assignment should be considered for anything less than a minimum of $10,000.00 a day considering the agent was looking for a buy out of those images. I could tell by the look on Michael's face that he was terrified of those numbers and he really didn't believe he would get the job if he asked for that much.

All his body language indicated that he was afraid to ask for that kind of money. He kept saying to me that he really wanted this to work out and that he was hoping for more work from this guy in the future.

After more than 2 hours of discussion and strong assurances from me that this agent is used to these kinds of number Michael had resolved in his own mind I think that he would take a chance at charging appropriately for this work. I left the Main Press Center wondering if it would be too much for him to do so.

The next day I was with Michael at Track and Field and could tell from the look on his face that things had gone well. He told me he had asked for $10,000.00 per day for the shoot and that the agent hadn't even blinked at that number.

I personally had hoped that Michael would have started much higher and I mentioned this to him reminding Michael that the $10,000.00 figure had been the minimum amount. I mentioned to him that I was sure that he could have asked for $20,000.00 and gotten that price as well.

Michael told me that he had some misgivings about asking for that much because those were numbers he was totally unfamiliar with. I told him that he had done well and I was glad to see him have faith in his value as a photographer.

The most interesting thing in this for me was the fact that had this agent contacted another photographer who wasn't insightful enough to do a little research into pricing appropriately the job would have been done for 1/10 of what the work was worth.

As we move forward into this next century, things will continue to change and what technology brings to the table will be fascinating to see. One thing that will not change however is the importance of photographers ability to maintain the rights to their work and the need for those same talented people to become aware of how to price those images appropriately.

I hope that as we see this industry continue to change, one change that I desperately hope to see as well is a genuine interest on the part of all photographers to become knowledgeable as to the true value of their work and how to research effectively the pricing for great images.

Now get out there and work on creating a valuable place for yourself by developing a unique and valuable eye and sense of vision.

[Core Shot]

We talked about what the client wanted and how the images would be used then we came up with 3 different scenarios. One that the client had mentioned for a buy out of the images. That figured came out to be in the neighborhood of $65,000.00.

We came up with a figure for a five year usage and that figure was in the neighborhood of $35,000 for non-exclusive rights and finally we came up with a figure for one year use with an option of rights of renewal. This came to the neighborhood of $20,000.00.

My friend went back to the client and after a little more negotiation they settled on a fair price for one years use at about $18,000.00

He has since renewed the contract for use every year now for 3 years running and his total income for those 6 pictures is over $40,000.00.

. . . .
Anyway, Michael asked me if I thought $1500.00 a day for a potential multiple day shoot was enough.
I told Michael that there was no way on earth that this assignment should be considered for anything less than a minimum of $10,000.00 a day considering the agent was looking for a buy out of those images.

He told me he had asked for $10,000.00 per day for the shoot and that the agent hadn't even blinked at that number.

I personally had hoped that Michael would have started much higher and I mentioned this to him reminding Michael that the $10,000.00 figure had been the minimum amount. I mentioned to him that I was sure that he could have asked for $20,000.00 and gotten that price as well.

I had no fucking idea.
Wow. Whatta racket

[mtbakerskier]

Would a lawyer give work away at the sart of there carrear? Would a Dentisit? Would an engineer? Then why should artists and photographers?
Not only does giving your work away / under valuing it hurt your self in the long run, it also undermines the entire industry. The same can be said for writers and any other profession that requires aquired skills.

Every company, (especially the sporting goods industry) is always looking for a free meal. They WILL LIE to you an say that they cant afford to pay. There in bussiness to make money, yes make money off of the services that YOU provide them. They CAN AFFORD to pay and SHOULD PAY for hte services they use. They wouldnt ask there lawyer to work for free now would they?

Everytime you license an image for free or less than the industry rate you are loosing a potential further client, and elimintating that client as a paying client ot the entire industry. Trust me, everytime you give an image away, IT WILL COST YOU in the long run.

Remeber free gear doenst pay the bills. It wont pay your rent, your film costs, the depreciation on a digital camera, your computer equipment, artists supies, etc. Let alone your time!

Is photography getting easier? The answer is YES digital makes it easier for an amature to get lucky and ocassionaly get a good shot, wich is great, but they ahould also get paid for that shot if it is publiahsed to not only pay htem for there time and efforts, but even as an award for there effort. Will amatures ever replace pros??? Probally not, while it is easy to ocassionally get lucky and get a great shot, a pro has the experiance, the knowledge and the track record to ensure that they will return with the best possible shot from the assingment, no matter what the conditions. True it is a very hard industry to break into, but giving free work away will not help you improve, it wont let you to break into the industry quicker, and it will screw you in the long run.

[Core Shot]

You should get paid. And noobs should stop giving shit away.

My comment was about the magnitude of the dollars these guys get for a fucking photograph!!
try earning those dollars for an oil painting or a sculpture!

$10,000 or $20,000 per day to shoot photos, when the subject is provided to you??
Fuck, man, thats crazy money!

[powderpyg]

Most established magazines have a pay scale that they pay on publication, prices will vary, but they pay. One might have to wait longer for a cheque from some. In the case of European mags fill out tax exempt forms and send a reminder e-mail, but you will be paid.

I have had issue with one mag here in Canada, that pays way less than others and seems to not want to pay like they once did...they no longer get my photos! It also seems that other photogs have had the same problem and have done the same, as their look has gone downhill and what once had good images is just shyte. You can only go around so long sk ru wing, before it catches up with you, I believe.

Most people I have problems wanting to pay for images, are generally local to my area. Tourism people being the worst, they all want something for nothing. I always ask them if they're being paid a wage to do they're job? When they say, yes, I then ask them if they think film, equipment and time grow on trees? I have always charged far less to locals, than others, and if they can't pay the nominal fee, then they can get the images from someone else. The only exception I make is to ventures I believe in and know have limited funds. As was said by BKLYNTRAYC once you give one for free, chances are they are going to come back looking for more freebies.

That being said, I know that a lot of these guys will go around me, by going to for example, the local ski area I supply images to for a fee and get the images free from them. Not, much I can do about that, as I'm being paid by the ski area and if they want to give out freebies, that's they're choice. I do make sure that any image they give out has my photo credit, no matter how small.

[cj001f]

Would a lawyer give work away at the sart of there carrear? Would a Dentisit? Would an engineer? Then why should artists and photographers?

All of the professions you mentioned give away work. Unless you are a "premium" provider and command a good price for your work you are a commodity. Get used to it.

How much did Carolyn Davidson (a graphics design student) get paid for the Swoosh? $35. Tell me that isn't a massive entry on the resume.

[mtbakerskier]

That being said, I know that a lot of these guys will go around me, by going to for example, the local ski area I supply images to for a fee and get the images free from them. Not, much I can do about that, as I'm being paid by the ski area and if they want to give out freebies, that's they're choice. I do make sure that any image they give out has my photo credit, no matter how small.

You should re-write that contract for next year! Your providing them with images for there own marketing. You should not be providing them with royalty free images to start an inhouse stock agency.

[LegoSkier]

Yes, noobs who give stuff away mess up the economics but photography is no different than any other industry in what producers of final product(magazines) are looking for. I have said it before and I will say it again. Every single one of the photographers I have worked with who actually made enough money to support themselves and their familys sold packages and services, not photographs. I am talking about writing, design, layout, etc. Just shooting and selling a photograph is not enough to pay the rent anymore. What the rise of the "retired dentist" shooter has done is turn the actual image into a commodity product. And in this way the industry reacts no different than any other.
Think about that MP3 player you listen to. Chances are some engineer somewhere did a year of hard work to design the decoding/processing algorithms and another one did a bunch of work to produce the chips etc. Those things are considered commodity and are practically given away. Where their company makes their money (and how they get paid) is probably by being a system integrator who provide a complete system design (including parts) to an Original Equiptment Manufacturer who then builds and rebrands it for Sony, Creative, etc. The result of the craft of any single engineer is given away. What is not is the service of integrating it into the complete system.
Editorial photographers are not artists. If you want to be an artist go to New York and sell prints in galleries. Editorial photographers are craftsmen. And like other craftsmen these days they make money by being their own system integrators and selling packages to their OEMs (publishers).

[mtbakerskier]

Do you wake up in the morning and say to your self that you will go to work, and work for free today?

Then why should a photographer.

[mtbakerskier]

Yes, noobs who give stuff away mess up the economics but photography is no different than any other industry in what producers of final product(magazines) are looking for. I have said it before and I will say it again. Every single one of the photographers I have worked with who actually made enough money to support themselves and their familys sold packages and services, not photographs. I am talking about writing, design, layout, etc. Just shooting and selling a photograph is not enough to pay the rent anymore. What the rise of the "retired dentist" shooter has done is turn the actual image into a commodity product. And in this way the industry reacts no different than any other.
Think about that MP3 player you listen to. Chances are some engineer somewhere did a year of hard work to design the decoding/processing algorithms and another one did a bunch of work to produce the chips etc. Those things are considered commodity and are practically given away. Where their company makes their money (and how they get paid) is probably by being a system integrator who provide a complete system design (including parts) to an Original Equiptment Manufacturer who then builds and rebrands it for Sony, Creative, etc. The result of the craft of any single engineer is given away. What is not is the service of integrating it into the complete system.
Editorial photographers are not artists. If you want to be an artist go to New York and sell prints in galleries. Editorial photographers are craftsmen. And like other craftsmen these days they make money by being their own system integrators and selling packages to their OEMs (publishers).

The technology developed by the engineers isnt the product. The actual good that that technology allows them to produce is the goods being sold. With photography, you are not just selling the image (Product) But you are also selling the knowledge and skill required to produce the product on assignment.

[lemon boy]

Oh boy, here it comes....

Q for the ski photog's who think that people should always charge for their work:

I trust then that you offer to pay all of the athletes you photograph then, right?

[cj001f]

The technology developed by the engineers isnt the product. The actual good that that technology allows them to produce is the goods being sold. With photography, you are not just selling the image (Product) But you are also selling the knowledge and skill required to produce the product on assignment.

Bullshit. There are a number of engineering companies/consultancies that only sell IP (the technology they developed). For most US hightech companies IP is their biggest asset.

Photography is a market with a low startup cost and a bunch of people interested in being photographers. It's basic economics that the price per image will decline.

[meatdrink9]

Lately I've had photogs bitching like crazy about stock photography taking away a ton of their biz and income, but at the same time they're selling stock. It's crazy. IMHO photography can be ridiculously overpriced. We blew 100 grand for a 5 day shoot in Miami once. Unless you've got a serious name you're not going to be getting the dollars Gunder quoted. I'm thinking you'd be shooting commercial or very high-end editorial (covers of major mags) to be demanding those type of fees.

But on the whole I agree with Gunder about people giving way too much away. I can't even begin to tell the number of requests I get weekly from friends, maggots, etc asking for free design work. I don't mind helping out occasionally but in how many other fields does that fly? I don't go ask someone for free stocks, to sell my house for free, for free construction work. It's really a case by case basis regarding the motives of those asking, but I know that when I give away design work I undercut the lower budget kids at art school or kinkos or whatever that would normally get the work people are requesting for free. On the whole I don't mind helping out friends if they are grateful and recognize the work or are willing to help me out with something down the line.

[Schmear]

If a publisher operates a business and stands to make money in any way from the photograph, then he/she should always pay the photographer, and the photographer should always demand payment. I don't think there's any way around that one. That's just the law of exchange.

If you value your work, then you must assign it a value. And the funny thing is, very often when you attach what seems like an outrageous price to your work, and hold to it, you will often get it. It's when you hem and haw and try to be a "good guy" that you lose. That's something a lot of freelancers don't understand. (Of course, it also depends on the caliber of publication you're working for.)

Grant and Doug and others have graciously allowed me to use some of their images for free, but I don't operate a business. Hopefully we've all gotten artistic leverage out of the deal. But If AJ ever turned a dime, I would be duty bound to pay its contributors.

Even the ones who take pictures of zebras.

[mtbakerskier]

Bullshit. There are a number of engineering companies/consultancies that only sell IP (the technology they developed). For most US hightech companies IP is their biggest asset.

Photography is a market with a low startup cost and a bunch of people interested in being photographers. It's basic economics that the price per image will decline.

Your a fucking idiot to think that that work doesnt get paid for. No engineering firm would do the work if they where not going to be compensated in some form? Do you get paid a sallery for your work? a bonus? If so thant sit down and STFU!

[mtbakerskier]

Oh boy, here it comes....

Q for the ski photog's who think that people should always charge for their work:

I trust then that you offer to pay all of the athletes you photograph then, right?

Yes! You wana know how this game works?

If a photog sells an image to the athletes sponsor, the athlete should be compenstated by that sponsor, since they are effectively working for that company. If a photog sells a shot to a mag of said athlete, than the athlete's sponosrs should be paying them a photo incentive (this is ussaually more than what the photog makes). If a photog sells the image to some othr entanty than the athelte should recieve payment from the photog.

[mtbakerskier]

OK listen up, I am going to let you in on the secret to succesfully becoming established in this industry. Follow these steps and you will become establsihed, if you have the tallent.

1. Shoot because you love it, and shoot a shit load, this is the only way to improve.

2. Only show your best work.

3. Always work in a professional matter. (this means always have your paper work inorder, leagal froms and most importantly Invoices)

4. Always demand payment for your services, the #1 way to spot an amature that is unsure of there tallent / that doesnt have the nessecary talent is one that gives there work away for free or that undermines the competition.

5. By Photoqoute the industry wide standard for pricing photography.

[cj001f]

Your a fucking idiot to think that that work doesnt get paid for. No engineering firm would do the work if they where not going to be compensated in some form? Do you get paid a sallery for your work? a bonus? If so thant sit down and STFU!

Ever heard of Mozilla? How about Linux? The authors aren't getting compensated directly for those products. Yes my company has done work for less than cost or free if we think the future business we'll get from it is worth the short term loss. That's no different than people giving away their photos to get their foot in the door. That's the way business works.

[bklyn]

Ever heard of Mozilla? How about Linux? The authors aren't getting compensated directly for those products.

Yes, but consider that more in line with pro bono work "Done without compensation for the public good". I do this type of stuff a few times a year with children, taking them out for educational photo outings as part of various arts enrichment programs.

Yes - I'm not charging them my normal fees for that time, but they're not making money off my work either.

I know some of you may balk at the compensation rates some photographers get, but it's a small part of the profit the companies make off the images.

Great article Mt Baker, I will pass it on to my friends. So true - always retain rights. Artists in other media should also think carefully about selling original works.

[powderpyg]

Photography is a market with a low startup cost and a bunch of people interested in being photographers. It's basic economics that the price per image will decline.

??????????Low startup cost? You must be one of the Hilton's if that's your take on it.

A good camera body(no lenses) runs at least two to three grand(Canon EOS 1V+PB-E2(HS KIT) 3,249.00), good lenses(f2.8 thru full length) start at about $1,500 and go to well over $9,000 (Canon400mmf2.8L $9,395.00) and one lens won't do the trick. Tripods, backbacks, flashes, lense filters,remote flashes, the list will just go on once you start. Then there's film that's cheap... right? Not when your shooting slide film at around $15.00 dollars a roll of 36. It doesn't take long for a power winder to mow down a roll of that @10 frames a second. And if your gunna get good the only way to get there is to shoot and shoot some more.

Going Digi, that'll be cheaper right? Good camera bodies, SLR (Canon 1Ds body $9,999.00), lenses are the same, as they would be interchangeable. Maybe this is cheap to you, somehow I don't see the same picture.

[LegoSkier]

??????????Low startup cost? You must be one of the Hilton's if that's your take on it.

So, you've maybe spent about $25k here right. Then lets say you drop another 5k on a good image editing computer with a decent slide scanner. Another 5k after that on office filing stuff. Maybe you even drop 10k to hire someone to do a relatively simple static web site for you. You're still under 50k. In the world of businesses you can start up, thats dirt cheap. Photojournalism is about the cheapest type of photography you can get into also. Think about a studio photog. They need all of the above plus a studio and another 50k in lighting and backdrops.

With photography, you are not just selling the image (Product) But you are also selling the knowledge and skill required to produce the product on assignment.

Of course thats true. My point is that this low barrier to entry (at least for retired dentists) combined by the digital revolution has changed the economics for this industry. I'm not talking soley about assignment photojournalism. That never made anybody a lot of money. In the past people like Lanting and Shaw and Rowell shot on assignment for some of their income then got the rest from stock sales (using Shaws old adage that you need 1 publishable frame for every dollar income you expect to make). But now you have Gates (Corbis) and Getty who went around and bought every major stock house on the planet and put it all online so now editors who need an image can browse a collection of a quarter billion images in one place and pay $50 for royalty free rights for the one they want and do it all online without any human interaction. So that effectively took away that part of the business forcing photogs to make their income by teaching workshops or offering whole story packages or even self publishing their own books. They were forced to react to this market and figure out what they could do to save their customers money, and that was offer a more complete product that was more ready for publication.