File :-(, x, )
Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
Arrived today
>> Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
     File :-(, x)
>> Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
For those of you with short term memory problems like me, I submitted photos to a newspaper in my area after seeing an accident on my way home last week.
Anyway, here they are.

On a side note, I asked them if I would be getting paid for them (bear in mind this paper is owned by News Limited, a big media conglomerate) and they said it wasn't their policy to pay people for contributions - "the publication itself is payment"

Go figure
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
You can at least add it to your portfolio.
>> Anonymous
>


quote
>> Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
>>83136
Yeah, I wasn't really into it for the money, but everyone I told was like "ask them for money" or "how much they pay you"
>> Anonymous
Hi Steven Popelis - there's no point to blacking out your name from the internet.
>> Anonymous
hume? GET OUT OF MY DISTRICT
>> des
working for free is not good for The Business(tm) in the long run. If you plan to submit something more than once, you really should talk to them about terms for payment.
The paper won't think twice about selling prints of things they've printed, by the way.
>> Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
>>83144
How ya doin :p

Well, it was a long shot, but I didn't think anyone would actually care enough to go to the website and check the digital article.

>>83148
Kind of sad they have to penny pinch so much
>> Cancer that is killing /g/ !zkraGArAss
>>83149
Also, if you want to see the real money, go take shitty photos of shittier celebrities.
>> Anonymous
>>83149
I only visited the site because I was too lazy to walk to the letterbox and get my copy of the paper - Normally I just trash the thing unless I'm low on toilet paper
>> Anonymous
>>83161
does not compute
>> Anonymous
>>83134
lol spec work
>> Anonymous
>>83134
I think you can ask for money before you hand over the hard copy, its too late once they got their hands on the copies.
>> Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
>>83169
Well I had to email them pictures in the first place for them to evaluate them.
I'm really not fussed about the money. I only started to give a damn when all my friends kept asking about it. I'm happy that I have something great to put in my portfolio for the future.
>> Anonymous
????´?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>83134

publications are tricky. if it's a bigger newspaper- them damn right they should pay you. If it's owned by a company with multiple newspapers-- they should have paid y ou and the people who told y ou the "publication is payment" is full of BS.

If it's a smaller, 1-er paper, then yeah.. they probably can't afford it. Either way, they did rip you off (but then again, you aren't an employee)

Also: if you just randomly send in useable electronic files/photos as submissions, they WILL take it and use it without paying you. No questions asked- you submitted it to them printing quality and it's all said and done. If you run into another situation- send them a letter say you got pictures of said event (insert sample picture- but not one big enough to scan) and ask them if they are interested in buying it. Send out multiple letters to multiple papers and you're good to go.
>> Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
>>83173
From the editor:
"Our policy is that we don't pay contributors for photos. We accept them
and publish them and acknowledge where they come from.
This is seen as payment, for an aspiring photographer this is a good
start to the folio.
Good luck Steven and thankyou again for your images. Any queries
regarding future photos I am happy for you to meet with me in my office.
Once again thankyou for your photos.
George"

It was a tricky situation because I felt I could only really submit it to the local papers (which this one was the major) because I was shooting on film. The local paper comes out once a week and of course to submit it to a daily city one would be impossible due to the time involved in developing.
Had I been using digital, I might have been able to email them that night to the major city ones and see what they had to say. Only time I wish I had used a digital really.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>83176

I'm a strictly film photographer too- I know how you feel- but I still love it. Do you develop yourself, or turn it into a lab? Most can get everything back to you within an hour, hour and a half with scanning.
>> Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
>>83180
I would have liked to do it myself - I've been learning at uni - but as time was of the essence and I had to email them, it was a better option to take it to the local kodak store and have them digitize the photos onto a cd for me, nice and easy.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>83182

scanners are your friend :D seriously. I love my Nikon scanner so much.
>> Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
>>83186
I assume you're talking about film scanners? You can see the crappy quality of my flatbed here:>>83133

I have been looking for a Coolscan one online, but as yet I haven't found any for sale in Ausfailia. Not too sure about buying one from merry old england and waiting for 6 weeks to see if it arrives.

I've asked a few places here if they sell them, and the general reply is to just blink and look puzzled.

"No no no! You feed film into it and it scans it for you!"

I get the same response when I look for hot shoe adapters
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>83188

lol, I take it they know absolutely nothing, then ? Coolscan is defin. the way to go- I absolutely adore mine. It's my best friend-- and it also saves money. Once you only have to get the film developed and not printed, the cost of the developing goes wayyyyyy down.
>> Anonymous
>>83134

You got raped. "Not their policy" is bullshit. If someone has a photo they want and is needed for a story, they will pay for it if they can't convince them to hand it over for free. Guaranteed.

They just use that crap about non-payment to get free work from people who don't know any better or who are too timid to hold their ground. A big company like that can easily afford to pay for the photo. It's chump change to them.
>> Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
>>83984
I know, but the thought of payment did come as an afterthought. If I ever submit anything to them in the future it will be on my terms, but for now my name underneath the photo is payment enough.


I'll regret this when I don't have enough money for cigarettes next week.
>> Anonymous
>>83988

Ouch, but you learn fast and you did manage to get your picture in the paper, so well done on that.

Now they've had their freebie out of you they can pay for the rest.
>> Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
>>83989
Well without being too modest, they did write the story solely around my pictures. My interview (I guess you could call it that) after I emailed the pics formed the basis of the article.

It was just an interesting situation. Anyone with a decent camera could have done the same.
>> Anonymous
fucking huge watermarks are the way forward, my son :D
>> Anonymous
>>84004

I laughed. Very true though if the trust isn't there.
>> Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
     File :-(, x)
>>84004
am I doing it right?

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:10:16 00:33:50Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height687
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
not necessarily that obvious, but a huge semi-transparent (C) symbol across the whole image will make it unprintable whilst allowing the editor to see what the pic is of and consider paying for it.

See pic for example :)
>> Anonymous
But obiviously, you keep a copy without the watermark so that you can deliver on your end of the bargain (good quality, printable pictures) if he comes up with his.
>> Anonymous
While I'm on the subject, what do you guys suggest as a good price for pics?

Does it depend on the quality, size, target's desperation to print etc? Or can I just say a tenner each?
>> Anonymous
>>84032
depends on what they will pay.
>> Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
>>84030
Spectacular
>> Thumper !VFtk2VroH6
>>84035
Oh wait, I just read your post again. You were serious.
>> Anonymous
>>84030
Target locked.