Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tim: >Can you think of one >really compelling image that came out of the 'war" in Afghanistan? I've seen several. Here's a site that somebody else directed me to, and I've had bookmarked ever since: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/photo/ There's usually some gems in there. Not all the time. But often. >virtually no publication will pay >photographers for quality images. Rather, on the whole, you get a large >flock of young, eager photographers willing to work for peanuts - and in the >process, generally producing mediocre images. But here's the bigger question... Can you express in dollars the gains a newspaper would see in increased circulation if the images aren't just acceptable but instead are worthy of hanging in galleries? Does a magazine or newspaper's circulation really vary with image quality, once a certain level has been reached? If you're interested in selling your work to a business--shouldn't matter what your work is or what that business is--if the business can't increase their revenues by much more than what they pay for your services, why should they buy what you're selling? If they can get the same value to them by buying pictures from inexperienced photographers who are willing to work for peanuts, then why should they hire experienced photographers who cost more? Which brings me back to my original point. Why would you choose to compete on price? If photojournalism has become nothing more than an easily traded commodity, then why continue to pursue it? If enough photojournalists leave to do something else, the market will eventually swing back. Supply and demand and all that. Eric - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html