Re: Interview questions-off topic sort of.

[Larry Kopitnik <kopitnil@mra-inc.com>]

ted grant wrote:

> An interesting thing missed by people who cast photographers aside as
> nobodies is that "how come we and our work are so important all the time to
> sell magazines, newspapers and you name everything for sale?"

> I haven't seen too many ads with only text to sell cameras, Mercedes,
> computers etc.

> In particular newspapers where the photographers most often are an add on
> after thought at the bottom of the pile in the newspapers grand scheme of
> things.

> hell if it weren't for the dynamic news photos on the front page in many
> cases, a great number of papers would still be in the boxes at the end of
> the day.

> Magazines for example know that the "right cover photo" will sell out an
> edition quicker than a mag with a lousy cover photo.

> In these days of reading illitracy the photograph is the most powerdul
> selling tool manufacturers & publishers have!

> ted

I agree with you completely, Ted.  And in advertising, I believe
photographers do get respect. At least they do where I work, a large Kansas
City area ad agency.

But with newspapers and, in particular, magazines, consider the types of
photos which sell many pubs.  When Princess Diana died, several news
stories noted that some of People magazine's best selling issues featured
her on the cover.  Likely paparrazzi shots.  Or that's how most consumers
will consider them.

Unquestionably, it's an undeserved reputation to slap on news and feature
photographers. But it's what the public knows because it's what they see
the most. Sadly, in the 1990s a magazine of celebrity photos will outsell -
and make more money for the publisher - a classic Life photo essay.

Larry