We hired photographer Boogie, my kind of photojournalist, to go to Tijuana with comedian George Lopez’ ‘51 Chevy to find out what an “TJ upholstery job” was really all about.

After two stops by the local corrupt cops and finally being arrested, Boogie wasn’t phased a bit (former Serbian soldier and all) and came back with some amazing imagery. We didn’t have a ton of money to pay, but we took care of his expenses, paid him a fee and even framed the expense sheet featuring the line item, “Fucking Cops.” And Boogie only shoots real film (GASP!), so we took care of that, too – like a good little magazine should.

My point is, maybe it’s only the smaller titles that appreciate and pay as much as possible for great photojournalism – danger and all, but there are alot of us out there. As a former advertising AD, I’ve been trained to take care of my vendors above all else and I apply that to my title.

And now, we’ll be featuring Boogie’s work in our first gallery exhibit in San Francisco dedicated to the art of the magazine. I think that’s a success story!

Regarding Simon’s comment, the thing is that what was the “editorial framework” at the time of Abbot is today’s “commercial realm” – the press (and portraiture, as well as advertising) WAS the commercial realm for her and other artists… An example of this would be Charles Sheeler being hired by Steichen at Vogue – “Early in 1926, Edward Steichen recruited him to produce fashion and celebrity photographs for Vogue and Vanity Fair, and he continued to take pictures for those magazines until the spring of 1929. Although he described the job as “a daily trip to jail” and grumbled that it left him little time for anything else, it provided him with an extremely comfortable income.”

The position therefore shouldn’t be the declarative “photojournalists (…) are operating much in the same way that artists did” (extremely astute as it is, the boom in the workshop business being an interesting parallel to the educational jobs that paid Abbott and Smith’s bills), but the interrogative “why must photojournalists operate in the same way that artists did ?” part of the answer to which is that while there is no question it was possible to make “huge” amounts within the press (which it certainly was – while exceptional and at an editorial level, Steichen at Condé Nast would be a good example of this), it is questionable wether it’s even possible to make a “fair” amount at this point, let alone one in line with the level of specialisation, education and risks involved, from the ground level.

To take an example out of Leroy’s book, David Douglas Duncan’s starting salary at Life was 9′000 dollars a year in the late 40’s. Depending on how you do your math, it’d be equivalent to something between $83′500 and $500′000 now, not including the all-expenses paid lifestyle when on the road. By 1954, he was able to afford a Mercedes 300 SL Gullwing – a $6′900 (in Germany) car at the time… Not a “huge” sum, sure – but I’m still waiting for Stanley Greene’s first Lamborghini.

Leroy is entirely correct to criticise, but I suspect he’s pissing in the wind. The problem with Visa is that it’s become a ghetto – the last place you can go that makes you feel photojournalism is still alive and kicking, despite all evidence to the contrary (in terms of sustainable infrastructure).

So, ultimately I agree with you, in the sense that photojournalism is still relevant, but needs to seek new audiences who will find their work outside the mainstream media – and, as ever, needs to continually refresh its language to continue to question and engage.

Regarding earnings, we should remember that outside the commercial realm, photographers earning huge sums for their work is a relatively recent phenomena. I met Lynn Davis last year, and she reminded me of this, telling me how one of her first teachers (I think she was talking about Bernice Abbott) was broke and used to sleep in her darkroom with her chemicals, and eventually died of respiratory illnesses.

Some of the best photojournalists we know of are earning buttons, but they’re operating much the same as artists did – and still do – rather than within an editorial framework.

I’m not necessarily championing that, but magazine policy isn’t going to change that.

I have to say that, despite going to lots of festivals, I’ve never had a burning desire to go to Visa. Everyone I know who’s been going for years feels duty bound to return, but say it’s long past its prime. What I hear is that it’s one man’s vision – and has become somewhat miopic as a result. In it’s 20th year, it’s probably time to address that.

I’ve talked my way round to your point of view, in that a proper web strategy could engage a politicised audience, not just preach to the converted (the photo crowd). But I’d like to see those people come to the festival rather than watch remotely from afar.

There’s no doubt that the mass of war, disaster and conflict based journalism sadly is a turn off for the majority. Hopefully, as APE wrote, the public will get sick of looking at football (soccer) players with their latest Lamborghini.

I can think of plenty of happy photojournalist stories, but can’t think of a way to make them pay…

Neill

Now, I may be missing some of the content, but looking at the site leads me to believe that Visa is dedicated to photojournalism, yes, but I got twitchy just looking at the exhibit names from this year’s event.

Does modern photojournalism have to be exclusively dedicated to war, strife, human struggle and pain? Is Colby Buzzell not a photojournalist for making images of his quest for the perfect hot tamale in the Southern U.S. for Esquire?

Speaking selfishly for a moment, I think we’ve got room for some great photojournalism that we could sell the shit out of. And it ain’t conflict-based. And if we sell the shit out of it, we can then pay well for it. If we can pay well for it, then photojournalism starts to become a well-paying career move.

The reason People magazine dictates the newsstand is because people buy the shit out of it. They want to see Brangelina’s babies because they need a quick break from their busy, sometimes crappy lives. A little escape from the world’s real problems. And People can pay BIG money for that shot.

My magazine has room for some inspiring, interesting, uplifting, irreverent, beautiful photojournalism. But is my magazine important enough to photojournalists?

“everything that happens in Perpignan stays in Perpignan”
This is not entirely true. All one has to do is follow a couple of the right blogs and news from the front inevitably arrive – as they should, with spontaneity and by the hands of the enthusiasts, not as (e-)business.

The press is still full of celebritards.

I just recently went to the Eddie Adams Photo show at Monroe Gallery in Santa Fe. Saw what people were paying for his images. Could make a living.

But that was then, here the reason that no one is paying for this, This is My opinion and only concerns my thinking here in the U.S.A., is that there is no worry for people under 44 for getting drafted.

I was a USAF contract photographer and I saw these kids, volunteers all, looking for a way to pay for school, maybe get a good job as a mechanic, never in their wildest dreams did they think they were going to do LS for U.S. Army convoys or drive around in a Hum Vee with a machine gun waiting to get blown up by an IED. An all volunteer military. No worries. No war and No bills for college tuition.

Not having a draft threat puts your priorities in a different arena. Frivolous entertainment means you do not have to think outside of your borders.( borders, here means not only geographical, but your comfort zone which at times may not be one and the same) Therefore, content providers are just giving what the people want. And raw, unfiltered war photos are not what the U.S. of A. public wants. So we are told.

However, there is this http://www.propublica.org/

maybe this could be a start of a new distribution model.

Apologize for the rant.

I guess in the end it boils down to the reader dumbing down. Who cares about a genocide happening in Sudan, BRITNEY FARTED!!!

Very sad, but counting many many good war photographers as friends, I can attest to them living on less than most starbucks employees earn.

Now if only picture editors would read this and think about the poor starving war photographers :)