Getting published

There is a new magazine which is just a gallery for serious photographers to
display their photos.
Check it out at www.exposuremagazine.org (that's .ORG)

On 2-Apr-2004, (Thistlegroup) wrote:

There is a new magazine which is just a gallery for serious photographers
to
display their photos.
Check it out at www.exposuremagazine.org (that's .ORG)

It should be .COM, $8/issue and $100 a year for the right to submit your
photos. What a joke. Most magazines PAY THE PHOTOGRAPHER, not the other way
around. If the magazine is as amateurish as the web site no serious
photographer would want to be associated with it.

--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
do NOT send email to (it's reserved for spammers)

I've found the posts regarding this magazine quite interesting. It seems
to me perhaps a few folks haven't run due diligence here? There is a
payment schedule associated with the effort once one is published. I did
some fairly serious research and found that this is clearly a viable and
very honest start-up effort. While it may not fit exactly with the
"established" market paradigm, the effort never the less is a genuine one.

I believe that photographers who are embedded in (or attempting to break
into) the established major market tend to voice strong opinions regarding
any effort that might compete with their established market paradigm. The
established paradigm is changing RAPIDLY though, thus one sees new
alternative business models coming into the picture all the time. If one
attends major conferences of professional photographers (which I do) one
finds that the smarter pro's are recognizing and adjusting to the reality of
the RAPID changing market and have started to embrace alternative markets
with enthusiasm.

Interestingly, folks who are adjusting slowly to the changing paradigm are
usually their own worst enemies. I recently attended a major conference of
photographers in which an award was given to a major environmental
organization. The organization's Managing Photo Editor was there to accept
the award. Darned thing about it...the photo editor also participated in
portfolio reviews and suggested to some folks that they work and submit
photo's pro-bono as a way to "break into the industry".

Seemed real odd to me that this organization of "professional" photographers
gave an award to someone who was advocating breaking one of the cardinal
sins regarding their market and traditional business model.

I don't see anything wrong with exposuremagazine.org's web-site either.
Given this is a startup effort, the site is clean and clearly provides good
information for an interested party. I've sure seen worse from some of the
tier 1 pro's out there.

Regarding the $100 fee. I would suggest that perhaps anyone on this board
who has entered a juried contest and paid a fee has in essence paid the
exact same type of fee. I would also suggest that anyone who has paid for
their own drum scans, Lightjet 5000's, 8 ply mats and framing for a museum
exhibit have put out funds in the same manner. This fee in my mind is
nothing more than a marketing expense...tax deductible if your a "Real Pro".

Just my thoughts...

Richard Ellsbury
Bellevue, WA










It should be .COM, $8/issue and $100 a year for the right to submit your
photos. What a joke. Most magazines PAY THE PHOTOGRAPHER, not the other way
around. If the magazine is as amateurish as the web site no serious
photographer would want to be associated with it.

posted ...
"... Darned thing about it...the photo editor also participated in
portfolio reviews and suggested to some folks that they work and submit
photo's pro-bono as a way to "break into the industry".
...."

That's VERY "Self Serving" ... and BULL-SHEITE!








"nwnp" wrote in message
...

On 4/16/04 6:04 PM, in article ,
"nwnp" wrote:

I've found the posts regarding this magazine quite interesting. It seems
to me perhaps a few folks haven't run due diligence here? There is a
payment schedule associated with the effort once one is published. I did
some fairly serious research and found that this is clearly a viable and
very honest start-up effort. While it may not fit exactly with the
"established" market paradigm, the effort never the less is a genuine one.

PWW
Question: As a Magazine what is the circulation of the magazine?

What is the ratio of PAID subscribers (and free Subscriptions) to Newsstand
sales?

How many actual magazines are printed per issue?

How many issues have been printed to date?

Real Magazines have this type of data available. I know, I published a "real
magazine myself for a while.

Sure it is a "Start-Up", but what type of start-Up is the question. To me it
seems to be in business of taking money from wanna be photographers, and not
really a true magazine. The problem I see. Is that it seems act like a
magazine but be a photography "club".

I believe that photographers who are embedded in (or attempting to break
into) the established major market tend to voice strong opinions regarding
any effort that might compete with their established market paradigm. The
established paradigm is changing RAPIDLY though, thus one sees new
alternative business models coming into the picture all the time. If one
attends major conferences of professional photographers (which I do) one
finds that the smarter pro's are recognizing and adjusting to the reality of
the RAPID changing market and have started to embrace alternative markets
with enthusiasm.

PWW
Or professionals tend to voice strong opinions about business models which
seem to want to NOT promote the best interest of even emerging
photographers. Sorry but I can't believe pros would embrace and participate
in this "Type" of venture unless they had some financial interest in it
also. It clearly is way beyond "alternative market".

Interestingly, folks who are adjusting slowly to the changing paradigm are
usually their own worst enemies. I recently attended a major conference of
photographers in which an award was given to a major environmental
organization. The organization's Managing Photo Editor was there to accept
the award. Darned thing about it...the photo editor also participated in
portfolio reviews and suggested to some folks that they work and submit
photo's pro-bono as a way to "break into the industry".

Why not give some real info here? Tell us who and where and when? And sure
the "photo Editor" might (lets here who he really is) want to be able to
publish quality pictures for free. HE does work for a company using the
photos right!

Seemed real odd to me that this organization of "professional" photographers
gave an award to someone who was advocating breaking one of the cardinal
sins regarding their market and traditional business model.

PWW
Again, give us some real info on who you are talking about. I could be that
your statement about what he said is taken out of context.

Even, take the statement as true, I can understand that. To do some photos
to get published. BUT and it is a big but, published by a recognized, valid,
real, well known publication. All of which this "magazine is not. Plus I, do
not believe that "photo Editor would have suggested that photographers pay
$100 th have a chance to get published ina questionable publication.

I don't see anything wrong with exposuremagazine.org's web-site either.
Given this is a startup effort, the site is clean and clearly provides good
information for an interested party. I've sure seen worse from some of the
tier 1 pro's out there.

PWW
Really. I beg to differ. To me it seems to be all geared to part the wanna
be photographers from their money. And no real infor about the publication,
like I asked for in my first paragraph. And you are judging apples and
oranges. Try judging that "Exposuremagazine Magazine", against other
publications like, National Wildlife, Birders World, Birdwatchers digest. I
thought it was supposed to be a magazine.

Regarding the $100 fee. I would suggest that perhaps anyone on this board
who has entered a juried contest and paid a fee has in essence paid the
exact same type of fee. I would also suggest that anyone who has paid for
their own drum scans, Lightjet 5000's, 8 ply mats and framing for a museum
exhibit have put out funds in the same manner. This fee in my mind is
nothing more than a marketing expense...tax deductible if your a "Real Pro".

PWW
Again more apple and oranges. First $100 is excessive for a jury contest
and second a photographer would only pay such a fee in a reconized sacioned
and real contest. Plus I know of no pro photographer would pay such a fee.

All you other points are where the photographer gets something of value back
for their money. Framed prints have value. A unknown "alternative market"
that promotes itself as a magazine but does not really meet the model of a
magazine and wants $100 up front is the problem, as I see it.


Just my thoughts...

Richard Ellsbury
Bellevue, WA

The comment

"... To me it seems to be all geared to part the wanna
be photographers from their money. ..."

seems to sum it up quite well.'




"PWW" wrote in message
...

In Line thoughts...

"nwnp" wrote:

I've found the posts regarding this magazine quite interesting. It seems
to me perhaps a few folks haven't run due diligence here? There is a
payment schedule associated with the effort once one is published. I did
some fairly serious research and found that this is clearly a viable and
very honest start-up effort. While it may not fit exactly with the
"established" market paradigm, the effort never the less is a genuine one.

PWW
Question: As a Magazine what is the circulation of the magazine?

What is the ratio of PAID subscribers (and free Subscriptions) to Newsstand
sales?

How many actual magazines are printed per issue?

How many issues have been printed to date?

Real Magazines have this type of data available. I know, I published a "real
magazine myself for a while.

RWE: Seems to me like given this is a startup effort one would realize
only time will tell on this. What I did receive was honest information
when I talked with the folks. Did you take the time to talk to them? If
not I think perhaps you should do so.

Sure it is a "Start-Up", but what type of start-Up is the question. To me it
seems to be in business of taking money from wanna be photographers, and not
really a true magazine. The problem I see. Is that it seems act like a
magazine but be a photography "club".

RWE: Well then...shame on any professional photographer who has made money
from Sierra CLUB, Seattle Mountaineers, National Geographic Society or
Audobon Society. All are clubs...albeit mature ones, but clubs that never
the less started as very small, radical ideas in the equivalent of someone's
garage, parlor or basement many many years ago in a land far away.


I believe that photographers who are embedded in (or attempting to break
into) the established major market tend to voice strong opinions regarding
any effort that might compete with their established market paradigm. The
established paradigm is changing RAPIDLY though, thus one sees new
alternative business models coming into the picture all the time. If one
attends major conferences of professional photographers (which I do) one
finds that the smarter pro's are recognizing and adjusting to the reality of
the RAPID changing market and have started to embrace alternative markets
with enthusiasm.

PWW
Or professionals tend to voice strong opinions about business models which
seem to want to NOT promote the best interest of even emerging
photographers. Sorry but I can't believe pros would embrace and participate
in this "Type" of venture unless they had some financial interest in it
also. It clearly is way beyond "alternative market".


RWE: You seem to have said it all...To quote you:

"I can't believe pros would embrace and participate in this "Type" of
venture unless they had some financial interest in it also."

By your way of thinking, it is okay for such a venture to exist so long as
only an established pro realizes the financial benefit.

Interestingly, folks who are adjusting slowly to the changing paradigm are
usually their own worst enemies. I recently attended a major conference of
photographers in which an award was given to a major environmental
organization. The organization's Managing Photo Editor was there to accept
the award. Darned thing about it...the photo editor also participated in
portfolio reviews and suggested to some folks that they work and submit
photo's pro-bono as a way to "break into the industry".

Why not give some real info here? Tell us who and where and when? And sure
the "photo Editor" might (lets here who he really is) want to be able to
publish quality pictures for free. HE does work for a company using the
photos right!

RWE: This was meant as an illustration regarding the real type of issues
that professional photographers are confronted with. My way of dealing
with this was to discuss it with the organizations officers so they were
aware of this type of thing going on. Other wise the organization and
individual's name are not relevant.

Here we have an organization that is a major source of revenue in fact
almost stabbing the professional photographers in the back...yet these same
photographers are willing to ignore this type of thing as long as they are
still selling into the organization. They go after the new startup such as
we are discussing, but don't confront the real forces at play that are
eroding their market.

Seemed real odd to me that this organization of "professional" photographers
gave an award to someone who was advocating breaking one of the cardinal
sins regarding their market and traditional business model.

PWW
Again, give us some real info on who you are talking about. I could be that
your statement about what he said is taken out of context.

RWE: The statement was not taken out of context. I was "reviewing the
reviewers" and went through sessions with 8 reviewers to assess their
effectiveness and methodology. So...the comments were made directly to me
personally. Otherwise, same answer as the above...there's no valid reason
to mention the reviewer's name or the organizations name.

Even, take the statement as true, I can understand that. To do some photos
to get published. BUT and it is a big but, published by a recognized, valid,
real, well known publication. All of which this "magazine is not. Plus I, do
not believe that "photo Editor would have suggested that photographers pay
$100 th have a chance to get published ina questionable publication.

RWE: No...the photo editor just suggested working for free. With the
model we are discussing, one essentially agrees to support the initial
effort...with payments rendered if publication occurs. Really the same
concept as those organizations in the midwest with grain silo's that say
COOP on them. Or that consortium of farmers called Darigold. I for one
have absolutely not problem with this business model. It is a normal model
and has been around since the beginning of time. Those who join know the
risks up front with this type of effort. If the model and risks weren't so
clearly spelled out, THEN I would have a problem with the effort.

I don't see anything wrong with exposuremagazine.org's web-site either.
Given this is a startup effort, the site is clean and clearly provides good
information for an interested party. I've sure seen worse from some of the
tier 1 pro's out there.

PWW
Really. I beg to differ. To me it seems to be all geared to part the wanna
be photographers from their money. And no real infor about the publication,
like I asked for in my first paragraph. And you are judging apples and
oranges. Try judging that "Exposuremagazine Magazine", against other
publications like, National Wildlife, Birders World, Birdwatchers digest. I
thought it was supposed to be a magazine.

RWE: Time will tell on this one. You may be right, you may be wrong. It's
a startup with what seems to be a very clear representation of what they are
doing, without false representation of the model. Interestingly these
"real" magazines sure seem to be doing a lot more damage to the pro's than
this simple start-up could ever conceivably do. I'd suggest you research a
bit regarding the litigation that is going on with National Geographic.
THIS is the type of thing pro's should really worry about big time. One of
the issues is that the pro's have failed to consolidate the many
professional organizations under one umbrella to establish an effective
lobby in Washington DC.

Regarding the $100 fee. I would suggest that perhaps anyone on this board
who has entered a juried contest and paid a fee has in essence paid the
exact same type of fee. I would also suggest that anyone who has paid for
their own drum scans, Lightjet 5000's, 8 ply mats and framing for a museum
exhibit have put out funds in the same manner. This fee in my mind is
nothing more than a marketing expense...tax deductible if your a "Real Pro".

PWW
Again more apple and oranges. First $100 is excessive for a jury contest
and second a photographer would only pay such a fee in a reconized sacioned
and real contest. Plus I know of no pro photographer would pay such a fee.

RWE: Nearly every pro out there has paid contest fees at one time or
another to further their career. Usually early on in their careers.
Today, pro's pay fees for whatever they feel will further their business
interests. Sure I'm mixing apples and oranges, but they all fit into that
bushel basket with the label "Potential Marketing or Sales Possibility".

All you other points are where the photographer gets something of value back
for their money. Framed prints have value. A unknown "alternative market"
that promotes itself as a magazine but does not really meet the model of a
magazine and wants $100 up front is the problem, as I see it.

RWE: I just find it real interesting that no one up here has read the
payment schedule upon publication. The risk is very clear up front,
yes...but there IS a clear payment formula listed. You might not see a
dime out of the effort. But bottom line is that they are very up front
with what they are doing. This is sure more than I can say for some of
the major publications who can forever fail to pay for images they have
used, quite often intentionally and permanently...

I'm sure I will see further responses...

Regards,

Rick Ellsbury
Bellevue, WA

Mine too, inline that is. And let me apologize for my spelling, I have just
changed to a new G5 Dually and the keyboard is different, so I am getting
many missed keystrokes.

OOOOO. One thing I just checked this Address and found is a UPS Store (which
bought Mail Boxes Etc), and not a real business address where one could go
and meet them.
http://www.ups.com/dropoff/director/935739

THE UPS STORE
1414 GOLDEN SPRINGS RD
ANNISTON,*AL* 36207

So this is basically just a PO Box drop box. Wow. I guess they were up front
about that huh! Funny they did not mention that. And there is no business in
Anniston with the name "exposuremagazine." At least any I could find. Did
they tell you that when you called and talked to them?

Do you realize on Post Office boxes (USPS) you have to say PO Box, but with
UPS and Mailboxes Ect, you don't have to. Huh. Interesting.

In Line thoughts...

"nwnp" wrote:

I've found the posts regarding this magazine quite interesting. It seems
to me perhaps a few folks haven't run due diligence here? There is a
payment schedule associated with the effort once one is published. I did
some fairly serious research and found that this is clearly a viable and
very honest start-up effort. While it may not fit exactly with the
"established" market paradigm, the effort never the less is a genuine one.

PWW
Question: As a Magazine what is the circulation of the magazine?

What is the ratio of PAID subscribers (and free Subscriptions) to Newsstand
sales?

How many actual magazines are printed per issue?

How many issues have been printed to date?

Real Magazines have this type of data available. I know, I published a "real
magazine myself for a while.

RWE: Seems to me like given this is a startup effort one would realize
only time will tell on this. What I did receive was honest information
when I talked with the folks. Did you take the time to talk to them? If
not I think perhaps you should do so.

PWW
No, I did not talk to them. I learned enough from reading their web-site
that I would not be interested in anything like this. If they would post
some of the information about the publication, ie actual magazines printed
per issue, subscribers and they other info I asked for than one could really
judge then as a REAL publication. Isn't this information extremely important
if they are trying to sell (basically) publication credits.

Sure it is a "Start-Up", but what type of start-Up is the question. To me it
seems to be in business of taking money from wanna be photographers, and not
really a true magazine. The problem I see. Is that it seems act like a
magazine but be a photography "club".

RWE: Well then...shame on any professional photographer who has made money
from Sierra CLUB, Seattle Mountaineers, National Geographic Society or
Audobon Society. All are clubs...albeit mature ones, but clubs that never
the less started as very small, radical ideas in the equivalent of someone's
garage, parlor or basement many many years ago in a land far away.

PWW
Clubs was not the point. It is the type of clubs. (Even though the ones you
mention are not clubs.) "Exposuremagazine" is geared more as a CAMERA club
for the sole purpose of engaging photographers, all the other publications
of the associations you mentioned are geared towards other venues. They use
photography on their publications to illustrate, engage and entertain their
readers. I do not believe any other the ones you mentioned started they way
you say. My point is that "Exposuremagazine" is not a real magazine. And
thusly cannot provide photographers with "real publication credits that
would be worthwhile for ones photographic career.

I believe that photographers who are embedded in (or attempting to break
into) the established major market tend to voice strong opinions regarding
any effort that might compete with their established market paradigm. The
established paradigm is changing RAPIDLY though, thus one sees new
alternative business models coming into the picture all the time. If one
attends major conferences of professional photographers (which I do) one
finds that the smarter pro's are recognizing and adjusting to the reality of
the RAPID changing market and have started to embrace alternative markets
with enthusiasm.

PWW
Or professionals tend to voice strong opinions about business models which
seem to want to NOT promote the best interest of even emerging
photographers. Sorry but I can't believe pros would embrace and participate
in this "Type" of venture unless they had some financial interest in it
also. It clearly is way beyond "alternative market".


RWE: You seem to have said it all...To quote you:

"I can't believe pros would embrace and participate in this "Type" of
venture unless they had some financial interest in it also."

By your way of thinking, it is okay for such a venture to exist so long as
only an established pro realizes the financial benefit.

PWW
I think you missed the point. I would never say that such a company should
exist to (what I believe) take advantage of wannabe photographers. I speak
out against many companies, cities, counties and other for Rip-off contests
photo contests all the time. I was trying to say, that if a Pro was involved
in this type of venture, and that participation was being used to validate
this venture, then one would have to think if said Pro was being compensated
in some way, either with money or an interest in the venture.

Interestingly, folks who are adjusting slowly to the changing paradigm are
usually their own worst enemies. I recently attended a major conference of
photographers in which an award was given to a major environmental
organization. The organization's Managing Photo Editor was there to accept
the award. Darned thing about it...the photo editor also participated in
portfolio reviews and suggested to some folks that they work and submit
photo's pro-bono as a way to "break into the industry".

Why not give some real info here? Tell us who and where and when? And sure
the "photo Editor" might (lets here who he really is) want to be able to
publish quality pictures for free. HE does work for a company using the
photos right!

RWE: This was meant as an illustration regarding the real type of issues
that professional photographers are confronted with. My way of dealing
with this was to discuss it with the organizations officers so they were
aware of this type of thing going on. Other wise the organization and
individual's name are not relevant.

PWW
Disagree. If you are using this as a example I can only judge the worthiness
of such example if I knew the source of the example.

Here we have an organization that is a major source of revenue in fact
almost stabbing the professional photographers in the back...yet these same
photographers are willing to ignore this type of thing as long as they are
still selling into the organization. They go after the new startup such as
we are discussing, but don't confront the real forces at play that are
eroding their market.

PWW
I just don't see this. What "organization" are you talking about? Let me try
and use you example for you. Birders World Magazine, pays Pro Photographers
all the time. But they do have "gallery" (or something like that) that they
publish photographs sent to them and they state they pay nothing for such
publication of the photos. Pro Photographers don't see a "bad" problem with
this. Why. 1: It is a limited amount of space in the magazine; 2: Pros
Realize that can't dictate what a company is going to do anyway. As long as
they get paid for their photos, they are happy, that is what concerns them;
3: They would not allow use of their own Photographs without some sort of
compensation; 4: Birders World Does not charge $100 dollars for the right to
be published; 5: Birders World is an established reconized publication so
publication in said magazine could benefit some wannabe photographers.

If the value of publication credits is not important, I would startup
hundreds of small publications, like "PWW Nature Magazine", "Florida Nature
Magazine", "Sunset Pics Magazine" and so on and so forth. Sure the
circulation might be only 10 people but I could state hundreds of
publication credits on my resume. It is the value of the credits that is
important. As in getting published in "Natures Best" has much more clout
that being published in "Birders World". And I say being published in
"Exposuremagazine" would be basically the bottom of the list.

Seemed real odd to me that this organization of "professional" photographers
gave an award to someone who was advocating breaking one of the cardinal
sins regarding their market and traditional business model.

PWW
Again, give us some real info on who you are talking about. I could be that
your statement about what he said is taken out of context.

RWE: The statement was not taken out of context. I was "reviewing the
reviewers" and went through sessions with 8 reviewers to assess their
effectiveness and methodology. So...the comments were made directly to me
personally. Otherwise, same answer as the above...there's no valid reason
to mention the reviewer's name or the organizations name.

PWW
You were "Reviewing the Reviewers" interesting. What were you assessing them
for? For what purpose? Were they telling you what you might want to do with
your photographs? How maybe you could help your career? I doubt any said to
you you should pay $100 (upfront) to get published by an unknown and unseen
publication.

Again, Yes I see it as important to know who said what and in what context.

Even, take the statement as true, I can understand that. To do some photos
to get published. BUT and it is a big but, published by a recognized, valid,
real, well known publication. All of which this "magazine is not. Plus I, do
not believe that "photo Editor would have suggested that photographers pay
$100 th have a chance to get published ina questionable publication.

RWE: No...the photo editor just suggested working for free. With the
model we are discussing, one essentially agrees to support the initial
effort...with payments rendered if publication occurs. Really the same
concept as those organizations in the midwest with grain silo's that say
COOP on them. Or that consortium of farmers called Darigold. I for one
have absolutely not problem with this business model. It is a normal model
and has been around since the beginning of time. Those who join know the
risks up front with this type of effort. If the model and risks weren't so
clearly spelled out, THEN I would have a problem with the effort.

PWW
No, no, no! Working for free, "if publication occurs". Woooeeee. Most
startup businesses I know use their own money or get a loan through the SBA
or bank. They don't put up a web-site (which doesn't even have page titles
other then "Untitled Page" and then try and solicit $100 for nothing. The
risks are not spelled out, "if publication occurs" wow. Lets see let me put
a web-site doing the same sort of thing. All my upfront costs are $8 for a
domain name, 100 a year for a hosting site, a few hours making a limited
amount of html pages, collect $100 from 100 wannabe photographers and then
never publish because of some reason. Gee whiz for a little over $100 bucks
of my own money, I just pulled in $10,000 dollars. Just think if I could get
1,000 wannabes, then I could get $100,000 dollars. Boy it sounds like a
great chain letter.

Again you mix apples and oranges. A Grain CoOp pays farmers for the grain
the deliver. They don't require a farmer to pay them upfront and then say We
" Might" pay you back when you deliver grain to us. It is no way the same.
You did not have to be a member of Farm Bureau to take and sell grain to the
Farm Bureau.

I don't see anything wrong with exposuremagazine.org's web-site either.
Given this is a startup effort, the site is clean and clearly provides good
information for an interested party. I've sure seen worse from some of the
tier 1 pro's out there.

PWW
Really. I beg to differ. To me it seems to be all geared to part the wanna
be photographers from their money. And no real infor about the publication,
like I asked for in my first paragraph. And you are judging apples and
oranges. Try judging that "Exposuremagazine Magazine", against other
publications like, National Wildlife, Birders World, Birdwatchers digest. I
thought it was supposed to be a magazine.

RWE: Time will tell on this one. You may be right, you may be wrong. It's
a startup with what seems to be a very clear representation of what they are
doing, without false representation of the model. Interestingly these
"real" magazines sure seem to be doing a lot more damage to the pro's than
this simple start-up could ever conceivably do. I'd suggest you research a
bit regarding the litigation that is going on with National Geographic.
THIS is the type of thing pro's should really worry about big time. One of
the issues is that the pro's have failed to consolidate the many
professional organizations under one umbrella to establish an effective
lobby in Washington DC.

PWW
It is not a clear representation of what they are doing.

I just don't understand you logic here. National Geographic does has some
issues concerning CD's, but ask any Pro if they want to to get published and
paid for being published by NG and every single one would say yes, in a
heartbeat. Even with some of the problems. Which by the way are being worked
out, one way or the other. And not reverent to today's sales. I am not
worried about the pros, I am worried about the wannabe's who have stars in
their eyes and believe anything they are told. And I not worried about the
photography field. Not in the slightest. It will go on. And there are many
valid, important Pro Photo organizations fighting for photographers rights
all the time, EP, ASMP, PPA, to name a few. And they are doing a good job.

Regarding the $100 fee. I would suggest that perhaps anyone on this board
who has entered a juried contest and paid a fee has in essence paid the
exact same type of fee. I would also suggest that anyone who has paid for
their own drum scans, Lightjet 5000's, 8 ply mats and framing for a museum
exhibit have put out funds in the same manner. This fee in my mind is
nothing more than a marketing expense...tax deductible if your a "Real Pro".

PWW
Again more apple and oranges. First $100 is excessive for a jury contest
and second a photographer would only pay such a fee in a reconized sacioned
and real contest. Plus I know of no pro photographer would pay such a fee.

RWE: Nearly every pro out there has paid contest fees at one time or
another to further their career. Usually early on in their careers.
Today, pro's pay fees for whatever they feel will further their business
interests. Sure I'm mixing apples and oranges, but they all fit into that
bushel basket with the label "Potential Marketing or Sales Possibility".

PWW
Really, I am not so sure about that. And sure it is legitimate to pay fess
for "Potential Marketing or Sales Possibility" but here is the point, it is
the Value a photographer will receive for such fees that makes it worthwhile
or not. And I just don't see any value whatsoever in spending $100 on this.
How about you send me $100, and I will give you some publication credits, I
can think up some good names, and maybe, if I publish one of you photos. I
might pay you back ( a little bit), but I will still want to charge you
advertisments. And by the way don't worry about how many magazines I am
going to print and distrubute. I will be waiting on your check.


All you other points are where the photographer gets something of value back
for their money. Framed prints have value. A unknown "alternative market"
that promotes itself as a magazine but does not really meet the model of a
magazine and wants $100 up front is the problem, as I see it.

RWE: I just find it real interesting that no one up here has read the
payment schedule upon publication. The risk is very clear up front,
yes...but there IS a clear payment formula listed. You might not see a
dime out of the effort. But bottom line is that they are very up front
with what they are doing. This is sure more than I can say for some of
the major publications who can forever fail to pay for images they have
used, quite often intentionally and permanently...

PWW
The risk IS NOT CLEAR. This place has not even printed one issue. Not one.
Yes, you might not see a dime but what is worse you might give away 1,000
dimes for the privilege. Please name these Major Publications who fail to
pay? That is what Copyright Registration is for to go after legitimate
publications.

I'm sure I will see further responses...

PWW
You betcha. ;-)

Regards,

Rick Ellsbury
Bellevue, WA

PWW
--
PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com

Time to drop this thread as I have other things the I need to do.

My original thread served it's purpose anyway, established a bit of
discussion to allow some due diligence given the prior threads.

RWE



On 4/17/04 4:54 AM, in article ,
"PWW" wrote:

Mine too, inline that is. And let me apologize for my spelling, I have just
changed to a new G5 Dually and the keyboard is different, so I am getting
many missed keystrokes.

OOOOO. One thing I just checked this Address and found is a UPS Store (which
bought Mail Boxes Etc), and not a real business address where one could go
and meet them.
http://www.ups.com/dropoff/director/935739

THE UPS STORE
1414 GOLDEN SPRINGS RD
ANNISTON,*AL* 36207

So this is basically just a PO Box drop box. Wow. I guess they were up front
about that huh! Funny they did not mention that. And there is no business in
Anniston with the name "exposuremagazine." At least any I could find. Did
they tell you that when you called and talked to them?

Do you realize on Post Office boxes (USPS) you have to say PO Box, but with
UPS and Mailboxes Ect, you don't have to. Huh. Interesting.

In Line thoughts...

"nwnp" wrote:

I've found the posts regarding this magazine quite interesting. It seems
to me perhaps a few folks haven't run due diligence here? There is a
payment schedule associated with the effort once one is published. I did
some fairly serious research and found that this is clearly a viable and
very honest start-up effort. While it may not fit exactly with the
"established" market paradigm, the effort never the less is a genuine one.

PWW
Question: As a Magazine what is the circulation of the magazine?

What is the ratio of PAID subscribers (and free Subscriptions) to Newsstand
sales?

How many actual magazines are printed per issue?

How many issues have been printed to date?

Real Magazines have this type of data available. I know, I published a "real
magazine myself for a while.

RWE: Seems to me like given this is a startup effort one would realize
only time will tell on this. What I did receive was honest information
when I talked with the folks. Did you take the time to talk to them? If
not I think perhaps you should do so.

PWW
No, I did not talk to them. I learned enough from reading their web-site
that I would not be interested in anything like this. If they would post
some of the information about the publication, ie actual magazines printed
per issue, subscribers and they other info I asked for than one could really
judge then as a REAL publication. Isn't this information extremely important
if they are trying to sell (basically) publication credits.

Sure it is a "Start-Up", but what type of start-Up is the question. To me it
seems to be in business of taking money from wanna be photographers, and not
really a true magazine. The problem I see. Is that it seems act like a
magazine but be a photography "club".

RWE: Well then...shame on any professional photographer who has made money
from Sierra CLUB, Seattle Mountaineers, National Geographic Society or
Audobon Society. All are clubs...albeit mature ones, but clubs that never
the less started as very small, radical ideas in the equivalent of someone's
garage, parlor or basement many many years ago in a land far away.

PWW
Clubs was not the point. It is the type of clubs. (Even though the ones you
mention are not clubs.) "Exposuremagazine" is geared more as a CAMERA club
for the sole purpose of engaging photographers, all the other publications
of the associations you mentioned are geared towards other venues. They use
photography on their publications to illustrate, engage and entertain their
readers. I do not believe any other the ones you mentioned started they way
you say. My point is that "Exposuremagazine" is not a real magazine. And
thusly cannot provide photographers with "real publication credits that
would be worthwhile for ones photographic career.

I believe that photographers who are embedded in (or attempting to break
into) the established major market tend to voice strong opinions regarding
any effort that might compete with their established market paradigm. The
established paradigm is changing RAPIDLY though, thus one sees new
alternative business models coming into the picture all the time. If one
attends major conferences of professional photographers (which I do) one
finds that the smarter pro's are recognizing and adjusting to the reality
of
the RAPID changing market and have started to embrace alternative markets
with enthusiasm.

PWW
Or professionals tend to voice strong opinions about business models which
seem to want to NOT promote the best interest of even emerging
photographers. Sorry but I can't believe pros would embrace and participate
in this "Type" of venture unless they had some financial interest in it
also. It clearly is way beyond "alternative market".


RWE: You seem to have said it all...To quote you:

"I can't believe pros would embrace and participate in this "Type" of
venture unless they had some financial interest in it also."

By your way of thinking, it is okay for such a venture to exist so long as
only an established pro realizes the financial benefit.

PWW
I think you missed the point. I would never say that such a company should
exist to (what I believe) take advantage of wannabe photographers. I speak
out against many companies, cities, counties and other for Rip-off contests
photo contests all the time. I was trying to say, that if a Pro was involved
in this type of venture, and that participation was being used to validate
this venture, then one would have to think if said Pro was being compensated
in some way, either with money or an interest in the venture.

Interestingly, folks who are adjusting slowly to the changing paradigm are
usually their own worst enemies. I recently attended a major conference of
photographers in which an award was given to a major environmental
organization. The organization's Managing Photo Editor was there to
accept
the award. Darned thing about it...the photo editor also participated in
portfolio reviews and suggested to some folks that they work and submit
photo's pro-bono as a way to "break into the industry".

Why not give some real info here? Tell us who and where and when? And sure
the "photo Editor" might (lets here who he really is) want to be able to
publish quality pictures for free. HE does work for a company using the
photos right!

RWE: This was meant as an illustration regarding the real type of issues
that professional photographers are confronted with. My way of dealing
with this was to discuss it with the organizations officers so they were
aware of this type of thing going on. Other wise the organization and
individual's name are not relevant.

PWW
Disagree. If you are using this as a example I can only judge the worthiness
of such example if I knew the source of the example.

Here we have an organization that is a major source of revenue in fact
almost stabbing the professional photographers in the back...yet these same
photographers are willing to ignore this type of thing as long as they are
still selling into the organization. They go after the new startup such as
we are discussing, but don't confront the real forces at play that are
eroding their market.

PWW
I just don't see this. What "organization" are you talking about? Let me try
and use you example for you. Birders World Magazine, pays Pro Photographers
all the time. But they do have "gallery" (or something like that) that they
publish photographs sent to them and they state they pay nothing for such
publication of the photos. Pro Photographers don't see a "bad" problem with
this. Why. 1: It is a limited amount of space in the magazine; 2: Pros
Realize that can't dictate what a company is going to do anyway. As long as
they get paid for their photos, they are happy, that is what concerns them;
3: They would not allow use of their own Photographs without some sort of
compensation; 4: Birders World Does not charge $100 dollars for the right to
be published; 5: Birders World is an established reconized publication so
publication in said magazine could benefit some wannabe photographers.

If the value of publication credits is not important, I would startup
hundreds of small publications, like "PWW Nature Magazine", "Florida Nature
Magazine", "Sunset Pics Magazine" and so on and so forth. Sure the
circulation might be only 10 people but I could state hundreds of
publication credits on my resume. It is the value of the credits that is
important. As in getting published in "Natures Best" has much more clout
that being published in "Birders World". And I say being published in
"Exposuremagazine" would be basically the bottom of the list.

Seemed real odd to me that this organization of "professional"
photographers
gave an award to someone who was advocating breaking one of the cardinal
sins regarding their market and traditional business model.

PWW
Again, give us some real info on who you are talking about. I could be that
your statement about what he said is taken out of context.

RWE: The statement was not taken out of context. I was "reviewing the
reviewers" and went through sessions with 8 reviewers to assess their
effectiveness and methodology. So...the comments were made directly to me
personally. Otherwise, same answer as the above...there's no valid reason
to mention the reviewer's name or the organizations name.

PWW
You were "Reviewing the Reviewers" interesting. What were you assessing them
for? For what purpose? Were they telling you what you might want to do with
your photographs? How maybe you could help your career? I doubt any said to
you you should pay $100 (upfront) to get published by an unknown and unseen
publication.

Again, Yes I see it as important to know who said what and in what context.

Even, take the statement as true, I can understand that. To do some photos
to get published. BUT and it is a big but, published by a recognized, valid,
real, well known publication. All of which this "magazine is not. Plus I, do
not believe that "photo Editor would have suggested that photographers pay
$100 th have a chance to get published ina questionable publication.

RWE: No...the photo editor just suggested working for free. With the
model we are discussing, one essentially agrees to support the initial
effort...with payments rendered if publication occurs. Really the same
concept as those organizations in the midwest with grain silo's that say
COOP on them. Or that consortium of farmers called Darigold. I for one
have absolutely not problem with this business model. It is a normal model
and has been around since the beginning of time. Those who join know the
risks up front with this type of effort. If the model and risks weren't so
clearly spelled out, THEN I would have a problem with the effort.

PWW
No, no, no! Working for free, "if publication occurs". Woooeeee. Most
startup businesses I know use their own money or get a loan through the SBA
or bank. They don't put up a web-site (which doesn't even have page titles
other then "Untitled Page" and then try and solicit $100 for nothing. The
risks are not spelled out, "if publication occurs" wow. Lets see let me put
a web-site doing the same sort of thing. All my upfront costs are $8 for a
domain name, 100 a year for a hosting site, a few hours making a limited
amount of html pages, collect $100 from 100 wannabe photographers and then
never publish because of some reason. Gee whiz for a little over $100 bucks
of my own money, I just pulled in $10,000 dollars. Just think if I could get
1,000 wannabes, then I could get $100,000 dollars. Boy it sounds like a
great chain letter.

Again you mix apples and oranges. A Grain CoOp pays farmers for the grain
the deliver. They don't require a farmer to pay them upfront and then say We
" Might" pay you back when you deliver grain to us. It is no way the same.
You did not have to be a member of Farm Bureau to take and sell grain to the
Farm Bureau.

I don't see anything wrong with exposuremagazine.org's web-site either.
Given this is a startup effort, the site is clean and clearly provides good
information for an interested party. I've sure seen worse from some of the
tier 1 pro's out there.

PWW
Really. I beg to differ. To me it seems to be all geared to part the wanna
be photographers from their money. And no real infor about the publication,
like I asked for in my first paragraph. And you are judging apples and
oranges. Try judging that "Exposuremagazine Magazine", against other
publications like, National Wildlife, Birders World, Birdwatchers digest. I
thought it was supposed to be a magazine.

RWE: Time will tell on this one. You may be right, you may be wrong. It's
a startup with what seems to be a very clear representation of what they are
doing, without false representation of the model. Interestingly these
"real" magazines sure seem to be doing a lot more damage to the pro's than
this simple start-up could ever conceivably do. I'd suggest you research a
bit regarding the litigation that is going on with National Geographic.
THIS is the type of thing pro's should really worry about big time. One of
the issues is that the pro's have failed to consolidate the many
professional organizations under one umbrella to establish an effective
lobby in Washington DC.

PWW
It is not a clear representation of what they are doing.

I just don't understand you logic here. National Geographic does has some
issues concerning CD's, but ask any Pro if they want to to get published and
paid for being published by NG and every single one would say yes, in a
heartbeat. Even with some of the problems. Which by the way are being worked
out, one way or the other. And not reverent to today's sales. I am not
worried about the pros, I am worried about the wannabe's who have stars in
their eyes and believe anything they are told. And I not worried about the
photography field. Not in the slightest. It will go on. And there are many
valid, important Pro Photo organizations fighting for photographers rights
all the time, EP, ASMP, PPA, to name a few. And they are doing a good job.

Regarding the $100 fee. I would suggest that perhaps anyone on this board
who has entered a juried contest and paid a fee has in essence paid the
exact same type of fee. I would also suggest that anyone who has paid for
their own drum scans, Lightjet 5000's, 8 ply mats and framing for a museum
exhibit have put out funds in the same manner. This fee in my mind is
nothing more than a marketing expense...tax deductible if your a "Real
Pro".

PWW
Again more apple and oranges. First $100 is excessive for a jury contest
and second a photographer would only pay such a fee in a reconized sacioned
and real contest. Plus I know of no pro photographer would pay such a fee.

RWE: Nearly every pro out there has paid contest fees at one time or
another to further their career. Usually early on in their careers.
Today, pro's pay fees for whatever they feel will further their business
interests. Sure I'm mixing apples and oranges, but they all fit into that
bushel basket with the label "Potential Marketing or Sales Possibility".

PWW
Really, I am not so sure about that. And sure it is legitimate to pay fess
for "Potential Marketing or Sales Possibility" but here is the point, it is
the Value a photographer will receive for such fees that makes it worthwhile
or not. And I just don't see any value whatsoever in spending $100 on this.
How about you send me $100, and I will give you some publication credits, I
can think up some good names, and maybe, if I publish one of you photos. I
might pay you back ( a little bit), but I will still want to charge you
advertisments. And by the way don't worry about how many magazines I am
going to print and distrubute. I will be waiting on your check.


All you other points are where the photographer gets something of value back
for their money. Framed prints have value. A unknown "alternative market"
that promotes itself as a magazine but does not really meet the model of a
magazine and wants $100 up front is the problem, as I see it.

RWE: I just find it real interesting that no one up here has read the
payment schedule upon publication. The risk is very clear up front,
yes...but there IS a clear payment formula listed. You might not see a
dime out of the effort. But bottom line is that they are very up front
with what they are doing. This is sure more than I can say for some of
the major publications who can forever fail to pay for images they have
used, quite often intentionally and permanently...

PWW
The risk IS NOT CLEAR. This place has not even printed one issue. Not one.
Yes, you might not see a dime but what is worse you might give away 1,000
dimes for the privilege. Please name these Major Publications who fail to
pay? That is what Copyright Registration is for to go after legitimate
publications.

I'm sure I will see further responses...

PWW
You betcha. ;-)

Regards,

Rick Ellsbury
Bellevue, WA

PWW

Time to drop this thread. I think this horse has been flogged quite
thoroughly.

Besides, I need to complete work for an article I need to submit by Monday.



snip