people who have done magazine shoots
Discussion
did you hand over unedited images?
been offered a cover car feature but the editor wants me to hand over unedited pics. TBH I'm not happy about this as my name will be associated with the pics printed. I'm not saying the pics are bad but they are not my style of editing. When I went for a chat with the mag they said they wanted different styles etc so I don;t really know why they would want unedited pics lol
been offered a cover car feature but the editor wants me to hand over unedited pics. TBH I'm not happy about this as my name will be associated with the pics printed. I'm not saying the pics are bad but they are not my style of editing. When I went for a chat with the mag they said they wanted different styles etc so I don;t really know why they would want unedited pics lol
This is a very good point, they do want the undedited images most of the time and it does pee me off too. The CA cover/article does not really resemble what I had in mind at all, with a couple of exceptions the photos they have used are not ones that I would have used. I guess it all hangs on the Art Ediors personal choice. When I start to think about this I realise that I'd probably be better suited as an art editor than a photographer as it's oftern the post processing I enjoy most and feel I could present photos/copy in an eye catching and interesting way. Unfortunatley it's not normally freelanced in the same way as photography and even worse paid.
Having said all that you have a simple choice, always have your photos presented the way you want and get less magazine work, or hand over some creative resposability and have a magazine cover credit and cheque to your name.
Having said all that you have a simple choice, always have your photos presented the way you want and get less magazine work, or hand over some creative resposability and have a magazine cover credit and cheque to your name.
Just to add, sometimes I think I'd prefer to do the magazine work uncredited. One magazine feature left me feeling hugley disappointed after the way my shots had all been cropped in a way that broke all my composition dynamics which as Matt points out is probably the best thing about my photos 
This is another thing about the microstock submission who knows how your images are being mutilated once they have been bought but at least your names not on them.
This is another thing about the microstock submission who knows how your images are being mutilated once they have been bought but at least your names not on them.
Just give them the raws/tiffs and let them get on with it... if you shoot a feature and get paid for a day why spend another day farting about in photoshop when someone else can do it?
Sure you may be disappointed the ultimate result (I got pissed off by this loads of times) but ultimately its their magazine not yours and your idea for the shoot may not be the same as the art directors. Congrats on the cover.
Matt
Sure you may be disappointed the ultimate result (I got pissed off by this loads of times) but ultimately its their magazine not yours and your idea for the shoot may not be the same as the art directors. Congrats on the cover.
Matt
I have been published several times, and in the main I have been happy with the outcome, although there was one time where it was of a car crash at Silverstone, there was a trail of fire behind the car, they had edited the photo in such a way that the flames looked false, and they even had me checking the originals to check to see if they had added some.
Tough ask though, almost a catch 22 situation.
Tough ask though, almost a catch 22 situation.
I prefer to do all the post production myself as I am a fussy devil. Only given unedited files to two mags. Am generally disappointed with results of other's work but final results have much to do with quality of paper and ink. As far as repro goes, always best left to the printer.
You cannot be precious about your work when doing editorial photography. It's their magazine. You can never have ultimate control. Pictures need to work on a page, with text and within remits of layout and space given over to the feature.
You cannot be precious about your work when doing editorial photography. It's their magazine. You can never have ultimate control. Pictures need to work on a page, with text and within remits of layout and space given over to the feature.
Edited by EmmaP on Tuesday 14th November 13:01
i've got some stuff going into a mag soon. i post produced them and also said that they couldn't be changed or significantly crop any images without my consent. they agreed to send me a pdf of the final layout.
it's all gone very quiet since they acknowledged having got them three weeks ago.
if they insist on having straight files ask to approve what they are doing with them before it goes to print, i'd say.
it's all gone very quiet since they acknowledged having got them three weeks ago.
if they insist on having straight files ask to approve what they are doing with them before it goes to print, i'd say.
lol. i know. i'm not arsed to be honest. i was very polite about it.
i shot them for myself which gave me total creative control, this in mind i want that leaving intact.
had they paid me to shoot them for them they could do whatever they want to them - apart from stop colour, obviously. i'd draw a line very, very clearly under that.
i shot them for myself which gave me total creative control, this in mind i want that leaving intact.
had they paid me to shoot them for them they could do whatever they want to them - apart from stop colour, obviously. i'd draw a line very, very clearly under that.
I think this is where the engagement of semi-pros is not clear and magazines don't have a defined strategy. Most shoots are done without a commission and are therefore very much the idea of the photographer, which is probably what we want as it's a creative outlet to contrast our days jobs. But then you hand it over to the mag for them to do with as they wish. It's not like being a staff photographer who is told what type of shots to get and what the artilce is intending to convey and therefore is working under direction. I think this is another change to the way photogrpahy is developing.
badbeachbuggy said:
Most [magazine] shoots are done without a commission and are therefore very much the idea of the photographer...
i think this is the crux of the matter and all the more reason to keep your artistic integrity and original vision - if that is important to you.
edit to add, my piece is about the photographs themselves. i wouldn't have been precious if it was about the subject. i'd be happy for them to knockselves out with whatever they wanted - apart from spot colour, obviously.
Edited by doodah on Tuesday 14th November 16:18
there is a good chance i won't already i reckon!
i'm art directed all the time in the work i do for a living. i'll do what i can to get what they want, i'm lucky in that almost all of my clients are design agencies, but these i did for myself.
i don't want something like this
to end up like this!
or worse spot coloured!
i'm art directed all the time in the work i do for a living. i'll do what i can to get what they want, i'm lucky in that almost all of my clients are design agencies, but these i did for myself.
i don't want something like this
to end up like this!
or worse spot coloured!
Edited by doodah on Tuesday 14th November 16:49
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff