Francisco Castro wrote:
Unless the magazine in question actually has a barcode, I don't really consider it "published". I have and know how to use Adobe InDesign. As long as I have the text and photos ready, I can layout a quick magazine in about 30 minutes. But that doesn't make me a publisher.

Dan Howell wrote:
Actually you can put a barcode on any home printed publication...

Once in awhile I come across one or two of those print on demand 'magazines' with a bar code on them.
The funny thing is that legitimate bar codes are registered (just like car license plates) so that the Filet Mignon you're buying at the supermarket doesn't ring up as a box of paper clips because another company is using the same bar code.

It drives me CRAZY because my day job involves creating bar codes for some of our products, then after a few days of being online we get orders for a completely different product because someone is using fake bar codes that match the number we're legitimately using.

With that being said, one of those 'magazine' barcodes that I mentioned traced to a store brand of butter, not a publication.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
Is anyone willing to name the magazines? I have no clue what you all are talking about, but I do wonder if some of the mailing lists I'm on count as these kind of publications (they are mailing lists for print editions)

You can find many of them on the printers websites:
Issuu
https://issuu.com/search?q=photography

Flipsnack:
https://www.flipsnack.com/categories/art-crafts

Peecho:
https://www.peecho.com/how-it-works/photographers/

Blurb:
https://www.blurb.com/bookstore

MagCloud:
https://www.magcloud.com/shop/category/photography

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
Is anyone willing to name the magazines? I have no clue what you all are talking about, but I do wonder if some of the mailing lists I'm on count as these kind of publications (they are mailing lists for print editions)

https://kavyar.com/home

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
You can find many of them on the printers websites:
Issuu
https://issuu.com/search?q=photography

Flipsnack:
https://www.flipsnack.com/categories/art-crafts

Peecho:
https://www.peecho.com/how-it-works/photographers/

Blurb:
https://www.blurb.com/bookstore

MagCloud:
https://www.magcloud.com/shop/category/photography

ahhhh, thanks, yes different than what I was worried about

okay, the only one I'm familiar with is Blurb and yeah I don't have a problem with self publishing a book and selling a few copies and saying thats published - or more so using that as a tool after someone else commissions you.

As far as a *signal*, I think there is limited utility but some. Like, what we are really looking for here is validation. For models - you are either signed with a big agency or you aren't. Internet freelance models are not. There is no validation except the credits from people that book freelancers. It's a different world and I'm glad it exists. Agencies can be tough to work with.

As a signal of seriousness and willingness to hone this craft, all forms of publishing broadcast that pretty well.

As far as a signal *legitimacy* it means nothing. I don't think any form of published makes someone safer than someone else. Self published, paid publishing, and a large publication begging that person to make work to publish in it all means *nothing*. All people are capable of taking advantage of others no matter of that kind of validation. Fortunately I don't think thats what this thread was discussing but I do think its factor (misplaced factor) in why anybody cares so I wanted to mention that.

Ultimately I'm in the camp that this doesn't bother me, for the above reasons. I don't find pure vanity to be a problem either. I am fine acknowledging that it dilutes the gravity of saying "published", I can also acknowledge that "published" is not nuanced enough to matter at all. Published in matters. Signed by matters. But the only thing I would use it for is to determine if this particular content creator was reliable at some point in time, and prioritized this craft, and whether that justifies their rates or lack thereof. For now it is still an okay signal for that as not many people do this for vanity and to then flake on everyone else.

Noah Russell wrote:
A couple months back I did a TFP fashion shoot with a model. It was 5 looks and I shot about 700 photos.  The model has submitted different sets to a bunch(I have no idea how many) of kayvar magazines. The shoot has been published in over 10 magazines. 0 retouching, I did use a colorchecker correction. Straight from lightroom export to magazine submission. LOL

Noah

I just found out that one of photos from this shoot will be used as an advertisement for Style Craze Magazine https://www.stylecraze.com/ and will be on the digital billboard above Forever 21 boutique in New York around Dec 11 2021. It will make a great backdrop for a photo of a rat eating pizza or a cigarette smoking cockroach.

Cheers,
Noah

Nogawd Photography wrote:
The term "published" has been a joke for many years now.  When I see someone claiming it, it's usually a newb.

That cliche phrase is overused as much as "Award Winning Photographer".
OK.... what award?  Pulitzer Prize or pet store promotion?

By the way, I just became an award winning photographer too!
It's kind of odd because I have never uploaded a single photo to the website (and I changed my user name to something more befitting of how I feel about the scamming spamming company)
======================================================================

Select Model Studios wrote:
The word publish means absolutely nothing these days.

The same can be said about 'experienced' and 'professional'. I still choose to use those words and published in my bio because it is true and there aren't better words to describe the results from 20+ years of working.

Even in the pre-digital print era, there were always different levels attributed to those words. Some things never change. Credential Inflation is one of them. It is rampant around here and has been since the site was founded. At the same time, it is always incumbent on the viewer/reader to dig beyond the surface or the word.

Jefferson Cole wrote:
Has the insightful Dan Howell vacated the premises?

I hope not. I find his contributions to be interesting and helpful.

Lallure Photographic wrote:
Actually it is just another form of scam, in my view. Everywhere you turn, there are scammers of one type or another.

I have mused over whether there is anything genuine, about this site, as I have yet to even get a reply from a model I send an inquiry to. Realize that you can't even make contact, without paying a fee, so there is no such thing, as a "free" page.

Rick

Are you checking to see when they last logged in??

SayCheeZ!  wrote:

Francisco Castro wrote:
Unless the magazine in question actually has a barcode, I don't really consider it "published". I have and know how to use Adobe InDesign. As long as I have the text and photos ready, I can layout a quick magazine in about 30 minutes. But that doesn't make me a publisher.

Dan Howell wrote:
Actually you can put a barcode on any home printed publication...

The thing is some specialised magazines don't put barcodes on because they don't want the public buying them anyway. Such as magic magazines for magicians they don't have barcodes because unless you are a magician you aren't supposed to be able to buy them because you would know how all their effects: tricks: are done.

amandawebster wrote:
Is anyone else annoyed by the cropping up of dozens of print on demand "magazines."

Why would I care?

amandawebster wrote:
Is this vanity?

Yes

amandawebster wrote:
Do some people get some kind of professional value from this?

No

Edit: I used to be perplexed when model profiles said that they would only pose if guaranteed publication. How could a photographer guarantee publication? Only if he intended to "publish on demand" aka "Vanity Press."

JSouthworth wrote:
Surely the important thing is the quality of the photography rather than the commercial basis on which it is published. Bob Guccione started Penthouse magazine by himself, featuring his own photography. Vanity or good business?

The difference is Penthouse was distributed to various retailers and sold to the public.  It was a real publication in the truest definition.  Penthouse also had REAL advertisements in it, many of the fake vanity press publications will illegally copy real advertisements and put them in their fake magazine to make the fake magazine appear legitimate.

Most people don't realize that that's also a form of copyright infringement.  From what I've seen it's highly unlikely that the company featured in the advertisement would want to be associated with the fake magazine, even if it was real.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
The difference is Penthouse was distributed to various retailers and sold to the public.  It was a real publication in the truest definition.  Penthouse also had REAL advertisements in it, many of the fake vanity press publications will illegally copy real advertisements and put them in their fake magazine to make the fake magazine appear legitimate.

Most people don't realize that that's also a form of copyright infringement.  From what I've seen it's highly unlikely that the company featured in the advertisement would want to be associated with the fake magazine, even if it was real.

Penthouse still exists and they have a special offer right now, you can download every online issue from 2006 to present for $39.00.

https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=41& … mp;PC=U531

In recent years the magazine has struggled to maintain it's circulation/readership. Part of the reason for this may be that the name, Penthouse will always be associated with the period when it had a high profile, in the 1970s which most people are now too young to remember.

Al_Vee Photography wrote:
*shrug*

It's not my place to judge how other people use their work. ... Sometimes it is gratifying for people ... That is a positive experience to some, and ... the experience carries value.

"Published" in general is a very diffuse term today, in various arts. ...

Being pretentious about it doesn't change the fact that self-publishing art, and self-producing music, is a key aspect to finding mainstream acknowledgement now, in many creative ventures.

Generously well said.
A favorite, now ridiculously well known prolific author, who in their early days self published, had a character put it very succinctly,  "The world has moved on".

Shot By Adam wrote:
My big issue with the fake magazines/magcloud mags is that everyone who gets in them jumps up and down and gets all excited because they have been "published" which is basically nothing more than a participation trophy

I'm a member of a local FB Model/Photography group or two and I find it so odd that when some low or no talent hack puts an ad up for TFP models to be 'published' in some 'non-existent but lets pretend it's a real" magazine, the 'models' come out of the woodwork and reply "interested".  I notice that it's usually the same set of 'wannabees" that respond to those ads every time.

When I post a REAL, LEGITIMATE gig (usually a paid one), I hear crickets because I don't guarantee or pretend it will be published, even in a fake magazine.  I guess I gotta change my method.... then again I wouldn't want to do a shoot with any of those 'wannabees' that I mentioned in the first place.

Shot By Adam wrote:
As someone who has actually been published several times in legitimate, mainstream publications I can tell you that the process is not an easy one. Your photos get scrutinized by an editor or editorial board, for example, so there is a rigorous screening process of what makes it in to the publication based on a set of standards they maintain. Any copy you provide is reviewed by an editor as well. So when you finally do get published, it's an actual accomplishment, and you know your work is being seen by people who actually want to pay to see it.

It's almost like you are saying that printed magazines never published a shitty photograph. That was never true. I have legitimately had shitty photographs published in both Vogue and National Geographic. Not the fault of either magazine, purely mine. Both of which I cringe thinking about. Additionally there was always a hierarchy to the value and stature conveyed by different magazines and different levels of publication. The 'rigorous screening process' was not about absolute quality of photography. It was about how well the images fit into the mission of the publication. Possibly those to things were harmonious, but it is just flat wrong to make a blanket statement like yours.

I have loved working on magazines and other publications from hard bound books to direct mail catalogs, and I'll put my publication history up to yours any day. But those days are virtually over. While there was a more than decades long decline, the final dip was in 2015 with the consolidation of printed magazine distributors. My biggest magazine client closed in 2016. It was a great run. Now printed magazines are a shell of what they used to be. One of the few adult magazines that is still printed (though they probably make more from online subscriptions) is by its own definition amateur. A few others have limited printed editions but printed solely to support their online efforts.

What your response also suggests that there are never any rejections in vanity or POD publications which is also untrue. Are there lower standards, sure. But until you have a track record or getting 100% acceptance rate in a publication like Boudoir Inspirations (hint: they reject more submissions than they accept), you might want to refrain from making absolute emphatic statements about POD. Just like in the good old days of print, there are different levels of digital magazines which greatly differing levels of readership and quality.

(disclaimer: I am actively considering publishing a niche interest POD. Some might say that colors my impression of the value of POD or vanity publishing, but I would say my impression of the value of POD has colored my interest in making a publication myself.)

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
I'm a member of a local FB Model/Photography group or two and I find it so odd that when some low or no talent hack puts an ad up for TFP models to be 'published' in some 'non-existent but lets pretend it's a real" magazine, the 'models' come out of the woodwork and reply "interested".  I notice that it's usually the same set of 'wannabees" that respond to those ads every time.

I've seen this a zillion times too.

Here's the other side to that coin though. I think to a certain degree many of these photographers and many of these models know that as things are for them right now, they most likely wouldn't stand a chance getting actually published into something legitimate so they take whatever small win they can and celebrate it. I do find it funny though when I see some of the photographers like that though, who obviously have little to no skills or eye for photography claim "I've been published 11 times" because I know that none of those "publications" had an audience of more than a few dozen people.

When I post a REAL, LEGITIMATE gig (usually a paid one), I hear crickets because I don't guarantee or pretend it will be published, even in a fake magazine.  I guess I gotta change my method.... then again I wouldn't want to do a shoot with any of those 'wannabees' that I mentioned in the first place.

Yes and yes.

Dan Howell wrote:
It's almost like you are saying that printed magazines never published a shitty photograph.

You're obviously missing the point.

I have legitimately had shitty photographs published in both Vogue and National Geographic.

I'm very happy for you.

but it is just flat wrong to make a blanket statement like yours.

Wrong. There are always exceptions to everything but as a general rule I'm spot on.

and I'll put my publication history up to yours any day.

I wasn't aware this was a pissing contest. Again, very happy for you. I'm sure you're the most published photographer in history. Where do you want me to mail you your cookie?

What your response also suggests that there are never any rejections in vanity or POD publications

You're reading into this way more than you should. I'm not suggesting that there are never any rejections, but as a general rule, I know that most of these POD mags take a lot more in than they reject.

Are there lower standards, sure. But until you have a track record or getting 100% acceptance rate in a publication like Boudoir Inspirations (hint: they reject more submissions than they accept), you might want to refrain from making absolute emphatic statements about POD. Just like in the good old days of print, there are different levels of digital magazines which greatly differing levels of readership and quality.

LOL...OK. Sure.

(disclaimer: I am actively considering publishing a niche interest POD. Some might say that colors my impression of the value of POD or vanity publishing, but I would say my impression of the value of POD has colored my interest in making a publication myself.)

I highly encourage you to do this. I'm sure you'll make millions off of it. If anything, your ego will be a zillionaire.

Shot By Adam wrote:
LOL...OK. Sure.

Your response is absolutely everything I expected from you. Congrats for your consistency.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
Is anyone willing to name the magazines? I have no clue what you all are talking about, but I do wonder if some of the mailing lists I'm on count as these kind of publications (they are mailing lists for print editions)

I cant say I am familiar with the previous examples.

This is one of the publications many of my clients enjoy submitting our images to.
I ask them to get a me a hard copy when we get a cover.

You all can snicker all you want, I am always proud as punch when we get a cover. I got "I think" 6 submissions in the last couple months but only two recent covers. I have a few more before the year is out and I wont know if we bagged another cover unless it happens. There are all these fun pinup clubs that eat this stuff up and I am very happy to help them cook.

http://retrolovely.com/submission/

edited to add I forgot about the Halloween edition so make that 2