I’m the AD of a science/tech magazine (who doesn’t have a photo editor) and I commission a lot of photographers but don’t have the budget to fly someone from NY to LA for a shoot. Hell, sometimes I don’t like to send people from LA to SF. When you factor in assistants, hotel stays etc. it gets expensive. Luckily there’s usually plenty of talent that fits the bill in the cities I want but sometimes you have to get something shot in a smaller city or town where there’s no one good or fits the bill for miles around.

Having the right style for the job is still the most important consideration but then I have to look at where the photog is based and that can be a deal breaker. And I really wish some agent’s websites would actually say where their photogs actually ARE.

Somewhere in the recesses of my brain I recall a story of a fashion or portrait photographer sent to Iraq by Kathy Ryan for a genre-busting shoot. He thought is ended up being a bad idea — setting up lights in some no-go neighborhood calling unwanted attention to the subject. Anyone recall this?

Rest assured we shan’t be working together anytime soon… ;)

Is that really someone you want to work with?

5. Speed of answering an email enquiry.

No, I kid you not. Last week I walked in the studio and saw an email from a magazine photo-editor I’d never worked for before, asking me if I was interested in a portrait shoot that needed to be done *very quickly* – and could I get back to them asap.

I replied asking more about the job, budget, usage etc – the usual stuff exactly 48 minutes after I had received the email. Meanwhile I’m wondering if the shoot is tomorrow or the weekend and I’m mentally rearranging the diary to fit this urgent job in.

Four hours later there was no reply from the PE so thinking I’d landed in someone’s spam-trap I replied again.

Got a message back saying “Yes I got your mail but another photographer replied before your email”…..

So that was that. No thought to email the schmucks whose day the PE had just put in a spin. I may have worked this job for free…(only kidding) but the PE will never know because they based their hiring decision on which of the (lord knows how many) photographer’s they emailed were sitting glued to their monitor at the time and could hit reply fastest.

Unbelievable.

I hope the guy or girl that got the job was as good at photography as they were at typing fast.. ;)

I mean if the photog is a great guy, has a suitable portfolio with unique style and is located in the right spot geographically and budget wise, but flips burgers during the day, shoots with their dad’s old camera, and returns emails unless it’s a nice weather at the beach. Or sometimes turns up at a photo shoot a little tipsy. Or doesn’t turn up.

Albert Einstein

Would you not even consider the question of what is the story we are trying to tell? What about who are the subjects of the story?Who has the expertise to tell that story or bond with the subject?

If you were the PE of a business publication would you send the same photographer to shoot a story about a home foreclosure in Silicon Valley as you would a feature about Google?

Are there feature photographers and hard news photographers? I think that it is time to think about the ability to communicate the visual end of the story rather than the willingness to use the trendy ringlight, desaturated color look.

An off topic here.

I just saw the photo of the brazilian top model Isabeli Fontana, in an article about hookers, bondage and drug orgies in the british newspaper “News of the World” (link below):
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/2704_baron_hard_up.shtml

What is the problem with this newspaper that shows the image of a famous top model as if she were a prostitute ?

Here is Isabeli’s profile on Askmen :
http://www.askmen.com/women/models_150/181_isabeli_fontana.html

I think Helmut joked about being a gun for hire in the same way Warhol joked about everyone being famous for 15 minutes. Those were different times and I feel like they have both become true… Helmut was an original, he was a first, as was Andy.

Trailblazers are few and far between these days in both stills and live action. 20-30 years ago new styles were emerging from season to season and by new I don’t mean recycled, they were fresh ideas.

My worry with what you said is that you used the “gun for hire” thing as if to say this is a bad thing. X shots like Y. Y shoots like Z etc. Helmut shot like…… Helmut. He was for hire, but only ever with his own gun.

In the context you meant I think it is bad. But to take a quote from Helmut Newton and apply that to the mediocrity that I *think* you are talking about is a slur on Helmut.

Maybe I got you all wrong. But With Newton I would like to think that if someone had approached him and said “we want you to shoot a campaign in the style of Bill Brandt” he would have said “Fuck you – call Bill Brandt”

Your ad agency is a gun for hire. It looks like a pretty good gun from the site you have.

Helmut was a gun for hire, but he was is own gun, and what a gun he was….

Robert P

Having said that, any labelled style would be a niche… something specialized, not mainstream… and mainstream usually ends up getting the job… otherwise there would be no mainstream. Am I wrong?

Now more than ever photographers have become what Helmut Newton always called himself, a hired gun.

All the conversations where someone is looking to hire a photographer always start with them describing the style they want. Sometimes also in a specific location and sometimes budgetary constraints are added as well but it always starts with the style.

That’s called picking a generalist. Usually those people are local and aren’t too fussy.

I am assuming that it’s because style is the only thing that cannot (and should not) be “bent”, right? All the others can be. As in, you can always cross genres, fly people out, or pay them less/have them work for free.

In practice however, I wonder how often photographers “bend” their style? Considering all the other factors like, subject, art direction, budget, etc.

For some reason I get the sense that sometimes, some people may try to tamper with a photographer’s style, simply because the photographer meets the other requirements so well. For example, if one finds a really good photographer in the right location, charging the right amount, and shooting in the correct genre, that someone *might* try to get him/her to shoot in a style they may not normally shoot in. (different lighting, different film, different location conditions, etc.)

I’ve heard of this happening, which sounds a little like the opposite of choosing someone based on their style. Does it all depend on the photo editor’s working method?

Tighter budgets will make location more important then it is now but if you can compete with NYC and LA photographers it doesn’t matter where you live.

I’ve seen it trump the other four. ;)

Yes no doubt style is the most important factor. For me the answer at times could be any of the above labels. The nature of the business can lead an individual into a vacuum when it comes to judging ones photos. Most of my peers are extremely educated as to what is going on visually in a genre. I admire some styles and loathe others. We are individuals leading, following, pioneering, and some times unsure of our own path that we are carving out. In my opinion we need to be honest, smart, and perseverent with regards to our individual work and let someone else hang a label on it.

Most people who hire me say one of the reasons is that they love my use of color.

I feel my design background has helped me to “create” images rather than just “take” them. And I’m not referring to doing things in post, I mean the sets I build, the way I shoot.