Remember a few years ago when Vanity Fair had Irving Penn shoot Nicole Kidman if I recall right. Made HUGE headlines and probably made the advertisers extremely happy. Not the most inspiring of photographs but they were nice. Sales of the magazine were through the roof.

So, is the allure and potential sales from using “big name” photographers better than interesting photos from “no name” photographers?

It works. They sold a ton of advertising at the last magazine I worked on as a direct result to the changes in photography.

I’m constantly thinking about the audience when I tap a shooter, but I’ve never actually consciously thought about the advertiser – that’s an interesting point and maybe it just shows my greener horns, but I’m going to start doing that.

Rob, I’m interested in the ‘competition’ third of your approach. I actually don’t look at any of my direct competition when it comes to photography, but I do look WAY up the status ladder to magazines 10 times larger than mine for talent. And I”ve been lucky to work with a few of them because they’re attracted to the content of my title. But, I know I’ve alienated some of my core audience because they don’t ‘get it.’ I don’t lose a wink of sleep over that, but what are some good ways to exploit my title’s work with these bigger names so that I can continue to push us into better markets, better advertisers, better readers, better better?

STONER

No matter how much Avedon or Ritts — arbitrary names that pop to mind — ranted about their exasperation with the supposedly one-dimensional editorial powers that be, their legacies tell another story; a story of fantastic creativity, of their best work, fostered and encouraged by dedicated, awestruck, infatuated and sometimes legendary editors. Their occasional and underwhelming pursuits outside of that supposedly genius-bankrupt system — when they weren’t laying back in the Hamptons (a GOOD thing) — are only a small part of how they will be remembered.

For those who approach shooting assignments as a big compromise, I say get out of town — go cure cancer, or tell it to Larry Gagosian — maybe you deserve to be rich for your art. When a magazine picture is mediocre, it is always the fault of the photographer. You can’t have it both ways — if a photographer (rightfully) deserves all the glory when things go well, why is it so difficult to take responsibility when a lazy art department and small budget are able to lull you into that depressed, day-job state-of-mind. The whole reason they hired you was to give them a jolt of electricity and remind them why they got in to this business in the first place. Hitting all the bullet points on the call sheet has to be a GIVEN.

Here’s the thing, at any moment, in every generation, there is always a handful of shooters who will elevate beyond belief in EVERY situation, whatever the cost, whatever the risk, and that energy enervates everyone in the loop. If your work isn’t original, or emotionally potent, or you’re not smart enough to make sure the catering is nice, even if it’s out-of-pocket, or you don’t have such incredibly beautiful eyes and a gentle spirit that everyone’s gonna fall in love with you no matter what you hand in and give you as many chances to blow a gig as you need until you get it right, I say find some other line of work.

Achieving lift-off, elevation, impact, within the constraints of a commercial enterprise — any commercial enterprise — is very sexy. When that happens, careers are made. Plan on doing what it takes, however unfair the paradigm. After rock star and movie star, then there’s photographer. The super-duper originals — the Helmut Newtons and Bruce Webers. The Moriyamas. These are aberrations. The business would’ve chugged along whether or not we were ever graced with their visions.

There was never enough work to go around and there never will be, so my sense is if you’re incredibly talented, that’s great, but the most important thing is that you really have to WANT it.

Energy spent blaming photo editors and art buyers for being … photo editors and art buyers …. would be far better spent blowing their minds with your talent, energy and unwillingness to show them — and shoot for them — anything less than something equal to the best picture you’re capable of taking.

This plays back to the pay for play post and it really only works for fashion and beauty. Its getting your personal work out there to reap the benefits of catalog and ad work. I’m not saying its right but in my real life it works.

As a photographer - as opposed to a DP/videographer for example - every image you take is yours. The idea that you have to sacrifice in order to produce good work is complete bs and I suspect it somehow has puritanical /religious roots.

I think personal and fine art projects should be the ones that cost a photographer money, not actual jobs - be it for an ad, or a magazine cover (BTW, how is a mag cover different from an ad?)

Rob, now that you are freelancing, I’d like to hear about your experiences with balancing getting the job done and doing something creative or gratifying.

Tony
http://www.tcphoto.org