Photographer
udor
Posts: 25255
New York, New York, US
BCI Photo wrote:
Internet credits are bullshit unless it's with a reputable company and comes out in real world print. I've got such a credit:
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/eve … index.html
Scroll down or click on "Photographs", I have the credit (I got hired and paid to do the job and they linked to my website, too).
It's not in print, I still view that one as a valid internet publishing credit.
BTW, in the photo section, the gentleman to the right, with the "Comments and questions" caption is a professor from MIT, didn't catch his name tho.
Photographer
Visual E
Posts: 215
Wellington, Colorado, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Contained within that are at least three different notions: ...
Then there are a whole host of contained sub-ideas: ... Well spotted 99. This was precisely the intention. To try and bring together the various threads on these popular recent topics in order to expose the new opportunities for publishing. Isn't crediblity and acceptance by the population and industry at large at the heart of the notions you mention?
It was probably first porn being published on the internet that was quickly accepted by the public and a whole new industry flourished. But what other types of model photography on the internet are nearly so widely accepted and buoyant?
The question of this thread is not a personally held belief. It is however a recurring question and theme which is regular as clockwork on this site especially, perhaps because of the very nature of forums & open discussion and debate which occurs here.
Photographer
Chili
Posts: 5146
Brooklyn, New York, US
area291 wrote:
You would do well to not write about things you know nothing about. Triple A and to a great extent Double A is the farm system platform from where players rise to the Major League. Rarely does a player just land in the Major Leagues without "professional" Minor League experience. Even A level carries great credibility, A-Rod's first assignment was with the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers, a single A ballclub. As well, many that go on the DL do their rehab at that level before returning to the show.
Carry on... (thank you, for giving me credibilty about biesbol, because i played class A baseball for 2 years (good field/no bat) btw)
exactly how much was A-Rod payed when he played for the wisconsin timber rattlers? same as today?
my point was that internet publishing is more or less the "farm system" for the big show
AND there are 1000s of players who will have very looonnng careeeeeers in class AAA baseball and never be called up beyond spring training
now i wised up after only 2 seasons
Photographer
Archived
Posts: 13509
Phoenix, Arizona, US
i've seen my fair share of "online magazines" that are totally not legitimate.
i was kidding around with someone the other day that i should start an online magazine, just to get lots of paid work. think of some really official-sounding magazine name, do a quick logo, then watermark all my images with the logo, put em up on my "official magazine website," build a myspace profile for my magazine, and send out casting calls. no actual print version, of course. no advertisers, articles, no nothing... just a bunch of saucy photos. of course, the girls would be more than happy to drop a few hundred if they were guaranteed to be in my ridiculous fake mazagine! maybe i'd even make them girl of the month!
there are very legit and very shady online magazines. best advice, like always, is do your homework.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Visual E wrote:
The sole question of this post is whether the internet is yet such a credible media. Some have argued (so far in this thread) that commercial photos appearing in certain eMags such as ZooZoom are credible forms of being published, as are some lifestyle photos which appear in corporate web sites. Are there any other examples of credible forms of publishing on the internet? Dave Wright Photo wrote:
i've seen my fair share of "online magazines" that are totally not legitimate.
there are very legit and very shady online magazines. best advice, like always, is do your homework. IF we accept [and I am not sure that everyone does] that being able to call an image to a browser from an Internet published [web]page IS publishing, then...
Well yes, to echo Dave Wright, I would agree that there are a number of examples of high(er) inherent "value"... specific advertising websites corporate and non-corporate (e.g. retailing websites)]; news and current affairs websites; information websites [corporate and non-corporate]; websites dealing with overlapping forms of expression [writing+images] roughly like "editorial" use of images; arts exhibition and marketing websites [specifically for that purpose]... And perhaps some others as well.
Again, in MY judgement, it depends on how much the individual presentation is "valued" within it's genre and within the wider issues of legitimacy [the essence, perhaps, of the work being considered "real" work as opposed to "vanity" work]. There is a pecking order to these things... just as there is in the print world... just as there is in photography [and modelling] itself.
There is some inherent, but also somewhat woolly, difference between someone's images appearing on www.nakedteensscrewbanannas.com and www.playboy.com. Just what that difference might be is subjective and entirely in the eye of the beholder. If a photographer first shot for www.nakedteensscrewbanannas.com and then presented that work in a solicitation to shoot for www.playboy.com - I somehow don't think they wouldn't be doing themselves any favours. Reverse that and shoot for www.playboy.com first and then approach www.nakedteensscrewbanannas.com I think the preceding work might be better "valued" by the latter.
I guess one of the questions one might ask about web published work is "Would I have that in my portfolio?" - or - "Would I want my clients to see that?" If the answer is no then "value" is zero. From a client's point of view [maybe putting yourself for a moment in their shoes] if they were to ask "Why are you showing me that?"... then... to them the answer is a "value" of zero.
Studio36
Model
Victoria Elle
Posts: 688
New York, New York, US
>>Are there any other examples of credible forms of publishing on the internet?
Photographer
area291
Posts: 2525
Calabasas, California, US
Chili wrote:
exactly how much was A-Rod payed when he played for the wisconsin timber rattlers? same as today? Per MLB.com
On August 30, 1993 A-Rod agreed to a $1 million signing bonus and a three-year contract worth $1.3 million -- and the professional career of Alex Rodriguez had begun.
Within a year, Rodriguez made his Major League debut on July 8, 1994, one month shy of his 19th birthday. His first year salary was $442,334. This year he will earn (salary alone) $ 21,680,727
Oh, I have a Class A championship ring. I was not a baseball player.
Play ball!
Photographer
Visual E
Posts: 215
Wellington, Colorado, US
studio36uk wrote:
IF we accept [and I am not sure that everyone does] that being able to call an image to a browser from an Internet published [web]page IS publishing, then...
Well yes, to echo Dave Wright, I would agree that there are a number of examples of high(er) inherent "value"... specific advertising websites corporate and non-corporate (e.g. retailing websites)]; news and current affairs websites; information websites [corporate and non-corporate]; websites dealing with overlapping forms of expression [writing+images] roughly like "editorial" use of images; arts exhibition and marketing websites [specifically for that purpose]... And perhaps some others as well. You speak of higher valued publishing. That's it in a nutshell. Most internet publishing so far has been worthless, like liter on the streets. What we are looking for is more examples of high valued internet publishing. Higher valued to the models, photographer (and support team), to the advertisers or publishers, and to the public at large.
[I've never seen on MM any attempt to try and quantify the market for internet exclusively published commercial model photos. Excluding porn, how many paid internet model gigs are there a month across the board? Even just to an order of magnitude. Is it dozens, hundreds or thousands? Total value of what?
How much model stock is sold each month? Total value of what?]
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Visual E wrote:
You speak of higher valued publishing. That's it in a nutshell. Most internet publishing so far has been worthless. What we are looking for is more examples of high valued internet publishing. Higher valued to the models, photographer (and support team), to the advertisers or publishers, and to the public at large. Value, as I perceive it, on the internet is judged somewhat differently from value in print publishing. Some old values carry through - authorativeness; and journalistic as well as design quality; paid subscribers as opposed to non-subscribers... but some characteristics do not. Some magazines and the people that buy them see exclusivity as a value added element... this is just the opposite of the Internet publishing world where overall exposure to large numbers of readers is paramount.
On the web value is better judged like-for-like, between web publishers, and against other criteria such as unique hits/time and visibility to search engines. As for advertisers the likes of Google AdSense has penetrated the Internet advertising market AND the web publishing market as linked [dropped] adverts on websites and earns millions for both Google and the content providers. There is no direct comparison with print advertising... except to say that where a print advertiser pays full whack up front on a space basis the Internet advertiser pays on some other [e.g. per click] basis.
Studio36
Photographer
Ivan Aps
Posts: 4996
Miami, Florida, US
I have no issue with web-tearsheets as long as they don't fall into the following categories (which I have seen on tons of photographers and models pages):
1.) The website that tear sheet is from is not a "Create a Tear Sheet" web site.
2.) The photographers website.
3.) Tear sheet for a product that is made up and does not exist.
4.) Tear sheet for a company that is made up and does not exist.
5.) Tear sheet from a magazine that is made up and does not exist.
Otherwise, web advertising is the number one growing advertsing medium and man ad agencies now show that their clients are spending as much or more on ad campaigns that center on the internet as the primary ad space. So it would be accurate to say that a majority of what professional commercial photographers are being hired to do will be used on internet based ads. If this is so....why would internet tear sheets be exactly the same as magazine tear sheets?
My only issue is when they literally print it out on their $79 HP printer and stick it in their book. They have screen print programs that will literally print the webpage as a 600dpi jpg which can be brought to a pro-printer to have done for your book.
Photographer
northern clicker
Posts: 159
Anchorage, Alaska, US
"Getting published" used to be a metaphor for having your work accepted by the Filters and Gates, so to speak, of the industry. It meant you'd been called up to the big leagues, or at least to AAA ball, and were being accepted, and might hit the big time any minute now. It implied that your work was good.
Instantly, some overenthusiastic photographers worked valiantly to 'get published' instead of working to 'get good'... and so the new rule was "I'm published and THEREFORE I'm good..." which was never neccesarily true... but the discussion of what is good? wellll, you know how that one goes... and it happens in other artistic outlets, too..."Look! my band has a CD! We must be Stars!"
So what the OP was using was this "publish = quality" thing, in a loose, mixed way...
Nowadays, because of the Internet, the Filters and Gates are all messed up. Anyone can self-publish, or publish on a hack site, and claim the credit of 'publication.' This, of course, has nothing to do with quality... good or bad would merely be coincidence.
The unspoken loss to all of us is the loss of clear Filters and Gates (though they certainly had their negative sides!!). School, for example, gives grades and critiques... though not always fair, it was a way to measure your progress AGAINST others and against history and against SPECIFIC criteria of the assignment. An industry run by well-entrenched Art Directors and ruthless Managing Editors was also harsh and politicized, but at least you knew where you stood: IN or OUT. In order to 'get published,' or 'arrive' or 'make the grade' you had to get PAST all these people, through these requirements, jump these hurdles, battle the dogmatic, narrow-minded, TIME-TESTED mores of Industry and Academia and Bohemia.
Self-accreditation and egalitarianism is the new plague among artists. Yes, there are some individuals who ROCK, all alone... but there are thousands who SUCK and need to be slapped awake, flunked out, and given the favor of an honest assesment. Put a pin in that balloon, please.
But it ain't gonna happen, not anymore, not in the New World of Egalitarianism. EVERYBODY'S got a chip and a screen, they can make pictures. Humans are darn near BORN as GWC.
Here at MM, for example, we are all acting as 'equals,' though we know we are not, and we devise lots of clever threads that, underneath, IMHO, are trying to establish the differences between sandlot, AAA, and big league. The very freedom we now enjoy is making for a thick brown soup of participants in which it is difficult to tell what's a turd and what's a treat unless you click on the port and 'taste' it. Secretly we WISH there was a class distinction, a badge that told us Teacher, Senior or Freshman... or Special Ed.
jn
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Visual E wrote:
[I've never seen on MM any attempt to try and quantify the market for internet exclusively published commercial model photos. Excluding porn, how many paid internet model gigs are there a month across the board? Even just to an order of magnitude. Is it dozens, hundreds or thousands? Total value of what? I don't have enough data to hazard a firm estimate, but I do have enough experience with it to at least put a lower bound on the numbers.
(a) Paid Internet model gigs per month (excluding those that will be used both in print and on the web): in the hundreds, excluding "adult" or "porn", which would raise the numbers considerably.
(b) Total value (model's fees) of those gigs per month: At least tens of thousands of dollars, probably a good deal more.
Photographer
KoolGirlieStuff
Posts: 3560
Gainesville, Florida, US
Print magazines are a thing of the past...........just like real film photography has been stamped out, magazines were replaced by the flood of internet magazines and everything for being done for free (Penthouse magazine was one of the major victim`s of the internet mag bust!)
GWC`s, Digital Tog`s and TFP`ers have changed the whole face of photography and magazine publishing, there`s major (well known) magazine`s out there who don`t pay the photographer`s sqwat for work and people are dumb enough to give it away for a tear sheet.....I`ve been published in print magazines and (rarely) featured on websites online....I`d rather be paid well for my work then get a stupid free tear sheet, on the net or printed, that does`nt pay the damm bills and you can`t eat them
Photographer
Max V
Posts: 196
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Visual E wrote:
You are not a REAL model or photographer if you've only been "published" on the internet. Are you a real (!) photographer?
M.
Model
_Blip_
Posts: 6703
Tampa, Florida, US
Chili wrote:
to the extent that if you're only "published" on your own personal pay website, or if you are only "published" online in a "online presence only" magazine then chances are its not the real deal, but if you are published in the net versions of brick and mortar mags, companies, etc then its quasi real, MAYBE even real. Actually, just as an FYI... ZooZoom magazine is one of several very reputable online-only fashion magazines. They are not a brick and mortar company, and many publishing companies are starting to go the web-only route because the investment in a web-based publication is much lower than that of a print publication. The thing is, they are reputable and legitimate online 'glossies'.... not Joe Shmoe's blog on MySpace. And, amazingly enough, there are some blogs out there that receive over a million hits per month. That is significanly more than most newspapers in production! ;-)
And, of course, there is a plethora of online advertising (the commercial side of the business - where some of us do a lot of work) that is very legitimate. I worked in the ad agency business for years and I can tell you all personally, from experience, that many large companies are realizing the value of the internet as a commercial advertising medium that gets them far more visibility than any other form of advertising they've done in the past. The numbers are astounding. Any company that ignores the value of the internet when developing it's advertising budget is missing the boat.
Even running a single commercial ONCE on a Network television ROS (run of schedule, mostly non-prime), costs significantly more than running two commercials on the internet for an entire month. Does that make the web-based commercial any less legitimate? No! A McDonald's commercial, or Acura print ad, produced specifically for the web is NO less legitimate than those that run on television or in print. And, because the cost of running an ad, or commercial, on the net is so significantly lower, there is often more budget available for actual talent and production.
Mind you, I am not talking about Stan's Barn-Mart... that wants to you photograph their piggie patties for $10 a picture and think they're giving you a killer deal! lol. I am talking about true online glossies, catalogs, and reasonable company web sites that
run legitimate ad campaigns, and, in the case of glossies, editorials. Those who are cognizant of traditional advertising and the benefits of web advertising over traditional media are a step ahead of the game. Being online does not water down their value in any way!
Keep in mind that there are major advertising agencies out there who do nothing but interactive advertising. They do no traditional advertising at all! Yet, when hundreds of millions of dollars go on the campaigns they handle every year, which they do, it seems silly to think that all of that significant budget is only legitimate if it is incidental to a brick and mortar advertising venue. Times, and media of expression, have changed. Rather than debate it's legitimacy folks, wouldn't it make more sense to take advantage of the opportunity?
Photographer
Visual E
Posts: 215
Wellington, Colorado, US
Photographer
Visual E
Posts: 215
Wellington, Colorado, US
TXPhotog wrote:
I don't have enough data to hazard a firm estimate, but I do have enough experience with it to at least put a lower bound on the numbers.
(a) Paid Internet model gigs per month (excluding those that will be used both in print and on the web): in the hundreds, excluding "adult" or "porn", which would raise the numbers considerably.
(b) Total value (model's fees) of those gigs per month: At least tens of thousands of dollars, probably a good deal more. Can anyone enumerate the non-porn eMagazines and other sites which feature commercial models? I've been looking for a "links" page to all the major fashion/lifestyle/beauty/glamour/etc eMags, to try and count the numbers of model images appearing. Any suggestions? Here's one page of (73) links:
http://www.lankalinksystems.com/directo … azines.htm
I've also been looking through the eCatalogs of clothing retailers, such as Victoria Secret, and clothing manufacturers. There are dozens, each updating their catalogs regularly. There are the top tier brands, and then many more of the second tier brands. And high-volume off-the-shelf brands and specialty boutique brands.
Photographer
Hamza
Posts: 7791
New York, New York, US
DigitalCMH wrote:
I prefer to say, "You're not a REAL model or photographer if your images suck." You don't have to take good pictures to be a "REAL" photographer, all you need is any camera and the ability to trigger it...that makes you a "REAL" photographer.
Photographer
Gold Rush Studio
Posts: 384
Sacramento, California, US
Visual E wrote:
You are not a REAL model or photographer if you've only been "published" on the internet.
Hey. What's the 3 letter acronym for gals who like being shot by GWCs? What a putz. There's no shortage of online models who earn more money than the vast majority of fasion and runway models out there.
Photographer
Gold Rush Studio
Posts: 384
Sacramento, California, US
BCI Photo wrote:
Internet credits are bullshit unless it's with a reputable company and comes out in real world print. LOL!!!!!
I hope you can pay your bills with all of that bullshit of yours! With rare exceptions these 'reputable' companies routinely screw photographers out of royalties and they routinely play bidding games with the photogs who kiss their boots for table scraps.
While some of my work goes in print my bread and butter is almost always the online work.
Say what you want about my online clientele I've never once been screwed by them. Granted, I've had a few slow-pays but I've never had a one of them default on me.
I can't say the same for a long list of your so-called 'reputable' companies.
I much prefer working with people who pay me when I deliver as opposed to some Madison Ave. collection of fucktards who impose payables policies of net 120 and essentially make you their banker for an interest-free loan.
Do you think they'd let you take four months to pay them if you owed THEM money?
You haven't lived until you've fronted $20k for the shoot of a lifetime, hand deliver the copy *and the negatives* and then have some bitch in accounts payable do you over with purchase order games and then once you get the PO figured out then they kick in the net 120 BS.
Screw that. I'd rather have a lot of small clients I can trust and work with than to go into bankruptcy working with your "reputable" firms.
|
