Working with publicists has always been tricky for photographers who make a living shooting celebrities. Crossing a publicist can get you removed from the list but too much sucking up can also put you out of favor too, so there’s a very fine line to walk in the business. From the magazine side I’ve had publicists turn down photographers, give me a list of their own or say nothing at all about the choices. It all depends on the client and the agenda. But, in general the publicists can easily exert control of a shoot and a story if they wish. So, what happens if we remove magazines from the equation?

I’ve long thought that some of the business photographers do now producing editorial photography for magazines will become producing editorial images for clients who then distribute the images to magazines and other online sources (advertorial in a sense). I’ve seen this for a long time with products. The products that come with great photography always get more coverage. Not only does a well done picture convince the editor that the product is great it makes it easy to drop into the magazine. Online, it’s obvious that shiny product photography can get you plenty of coverage (some of it just about how shiny the product is). Most savvy product manufacturers produce editorial friendly pictures to go along with press and product releases.

The problem with this of course is that the client has control over “editorial images,” but if you’ve ever worked at a magazine it’s very clear that product manufacturers have been exerting control over their coverage for quite some time. The only reason to leave an advertiser out of a product review is if their product sucked and even then you risk losing the advertising.

Now I’m seeing several instances where photographers are teeming up with celebrities and publicists and cutting magazines out of the equation. Art + Commerce is now “producing our own celebrity shoots independent of commissioning magazines and covering all production costs” (from an email they sent around to publicists after the jump). I have no idea if they’re getting any traction with this (they didn’t respond to an email I sent them) but their roster is impressive and I can’t imagine that publicists aren’t paying attention. One agent I spoke with felt like it would remove all the mid level photographers from the equation because “newer photographers rely on the magazines to put them in the mix for assignments to elevate their career and get them seen.” I also spoke with an Art Director who works on celebrity shoots quite a bit and really thought that taking the voice of the magazine out of the equation would result in some mediocre shoots. I’m not so sure. Certainly magazines that want to remain relevant will need to commission original shoots but there is so much middle ground to cover where the publications don’t care but the opportunity still exists to elevate the coverage with great photography.

I also noticed that photographer Kurt Iswarienko is repped by the mega talent agency ICM (here) and while I didn’t call him to see I’m assuming this gives ICM the opportunity to pair their photographer with their talent.

And, finally we have Madonna one of the most image conscious celebrities in the world releasing sepia toned handout pictures of herself with the child she hopes to adopt in Malawi (here). In the Guardian story Martin Parr says, “Choosing sepia is all to do with trying to make the image look romantic and idealistic. It’s sort of a soft version of propaganda. Remember when the colour supplements used to run black-and-white pictures of famine and hardship? Some still do”

In the end I think these are all positive developments for photographers looking to replace lost editorial magazine shoots. Who knows if it will be good for media.

Continue reading