xandx wrote:
The universal rule should be: NO SPEC!
It means you give them your time and effort on an idea and shoot, they use thier photog and team to re-create your idea and you get zilch for your efforts. If you need to get your name out, shoot WOW pics and they'll come to you. Send them links your web port and copyright your intellectual property.

I'm fure at one time or another this has happened. Basically working on spec is like doing a paid assignment......without the pay! If and when some editor decides to use it.....then you might get some money.

I've done a few times...never to make money because there was little of it involved but I needed the experience and exposure.

DuoStyles wrote:
Just wondering, I am always seeing this "term" related to submission pieces. And please feel free to drop ANY knowledge about submmision pieces.

It depends on who is saying it.

Serious professionals with a history of getting published say it and it means one thing.  Internet photographers who want to get models without paying for them say it and it means something else entirely.

DuoStyles wrote:
Just wondering, I am always seeing this "term" related to submission pieces. And please feel free to drop ANY knowledge about submmision pieces.

Take Care!

"On spec (speculation)." That is, you submit, let them sample your work without the promise to compensate you for it, meaning they'll consider it but there's no guarantee.

DuoStyles wrote:
Just wondering, I am always seeing this "term" related to submission pieces. And please feel free to drop ANY knowledge about submmision pieces.

in what context are you seeing this?  i've shot products, clothing, models, locations and lighting set-ups on spec for clients as samples without ever having a problem.  some resulted in work, some did not.  no worries.  some even paid for the process.

but there is also a submission element (often found on craig's list) such as gallery submissions and contests that require a fee to submit, and those are submissions i wouldn't even consider.

--face reality

DuoStyles wrote:
Just wondering, I am always seeing this "term" related to submission pieces. And please feel free to drop ANY knowledge about submmision pieces.

Take Care!

If you're shooting on spec for a magazine you can't get an assignment for, it means you're guessing they'll print your images once they see then. You're speculating that your concept and execution will be good enough to get you a tear sheet, and that you believe in your work strongly enough to create for free now in hopes of getting paid much more for future assigments because you've moved up the ladder. Some magazines operate almost entirely on submitted spec material, while others rarely accept work shot on spec. The biggest problem with shooting on spec for you as a stylist is that you don't have a letter of responsibility that will allow you free access to pull clothes from showrooms or even right out of stores.

I have no clue what xandx is referrig to. Shooting on spec is often the only way for new artists to get tear sheets.

Ched wrote:

If you're shooting on spec for a magazine you can't get an assignment for, it means you're guessing they'll print your images once they see then. You're speculating that your concept and execution will be good enough to get you a tear sheet, and that you believe in your work strongly enough to create for free no in hopes of getting paid much more for future assigments because you've moved up the ladder. Some magazines operate almost entirely on submitted spec material, while others rarely accept work shot on spec. The biggest problem with shooting on spec for you as a stylist is that you don't have a letter of responsibility that will allow you free access to pull clothes from showrooms or even right out of stores.

I have no clue what xandx is referrig to. Shooting on spec is often the only way for new artists to get tear sheets.

There you have it. Only took like 9 replies to get there.

DuoStyles wrote:
Wow! So in my words it is when you shoot a submission piece and hope it gets picked up!! That's what I thought, I worked on a submission piece for Oyster (had no business doing yet) but never heard the term Spec. How would you know if your submission got picked up? Also, what do you guys think when a photographer says, they have a great relationship with several magazines - but still have to shoot spec - should that throw up red flags, or is that just how things work. (As you can tell, only been styling for a few months

No, that doesn't necessarily throw up red flags. There are very, very few photographers in the fashion field that are regularly called in on assigment, and they're mostly the names that people know. There are, however, a number of good, published fashion shooters that are outside that elite circle, however. Someone might have some contact with the editorial office of a particular publication or publications, and that's when a spec story has the best chance of being picked up. Or he might be a bullshitter. Or, more likely, he has SOME contact, though not close contact with someone, and is exagerating his position a little bit (as a lot of people tend to do), and the story has a chance, but it's far from a sure thing.

I'll tell you what's mostly kept me from playing the spec game in the States and shooting mostly assignment editorial in Eastern Europe. It's the limitation that with spec I can't get the stylist a mag letter. Which means he/she has to use their own resources to come up with product to feature that a particular magazine really wants to print. If they don't have a line on something particular that's worth shooting and submitting an editorial (to the appropriate magazine), then the point is moot, and what we're really doing is a test that we're throwing up  a Hail Mary for and hoping it gets printed SOMEWHERE. The biggest limiting factor for me in the States, in other words, is the product that I can get a stylist to pull for me. Their talent (or mine) notwithstanding, if the product isn't something that a magazine isn't interested in publishing, they usually aren't interested in printing it.

The one good thing about this process though is that, as the authors of the story, without external oversight, the photographer and stylist can get a little bit creative and get something in print which expresses their style a bit more than whatever editorial they, as unpublished or only spottily published, are likely to get on assignment.

You have to think of spec as a really important test, basically, one that behooves you to go the extra mile for. Whether or not it's worth it to you to go the extra mile for it is a decision only you can make.

Someone above mentioned a dirty little trick that some magazines do pull. It's unethical, but it's not illegal, and it's happened before enough times. You and your photographer come up with a good concept, shoot it, submit it, the editors ooh-and-ahh it a little bit, then decide to reject it. Then a few months later you pick up an issue of the same magazine and you find their new editorial is based on your concept, shot by their team, with their fashion editor presiding, shot by their regulars to their specifications. No kiss and thank you from them. (Which like I said is not illegal. You can't copyright an idea, only a specific image.)

It's mean and it's dirty, but some people are just cutthroat like that. It's happened to me and to people I know. However... eventually if you stick around long enough, you and your photographer will be remembered, even if neither of you got credit for what should've rightfully been yours. This game is often a case of "last man left standing."

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
It's the limitation that with spec I can't get the stylist a mag letter.

it's this fact that makes me want to kill myself some days.  today is one.

Christopher Bush wrote:
it's this fact that makes me want to kill myself some days.  today is one.

The factors that form the "gates," that keep the pitchfork-carrying plebians out of Versailles are actually fewer than a lot of people realize.

This is one of them.

(C'mon, man, you know it ain't easy. If it was, everybody'd be doin' it.)

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
The factors that form the "gates," that keep the pitchfork-carrying plebians out of Versailles are actually fewer than a lot of people realize.

This is one of them.

(C'mon, man, you know it ain't easy. If it was, everybody'd be doin' it.)

i have my little workarounds

one of these days, one of them might actually work.

Christopher Bush wrote:

i have my little workarounds

one of these days, one of them might actually work.

Watch out,  get caught cheating and it will be remembered.

Color of Fashion wrote:

Watch out,  get caught cheating and it will be remembered.

cheating is not one of the workarounds

Karen Garlick wrote:
It means learning the market you intend to shoot spec with. Understand what and how they use images also why they use them. How many they use in each case. Do they also run the image on cover or centerfold? If so, shoot them a cover and or centerfold as well as the feature images. Shooting on spec is not unheard of in the magazine industry by a long shot. If you know what they want and how they want it shooting on spec is not a bad thing. It just has to be what they want when they want it and how they want it.

Perfect points made. Too many people submit the wrong type of images or at the wrong time of year. You really have to study the magazine you are going after to see the trend they are following. Study the details of the images they use to see if your work fits the bill. Shooting on spec is not a bad thing "if" you know what they want. Once you are in the loop you just keep feeding the work in. Once the editors know you and can trust what you send to be what they want its almost like a steady job. Even when they pay on publication its a matter of just keeping that work flowing in and eventually you are getting a check each month.