You would refuse the opportunity to have your work seen by every major designer, advertiser, model, celebrity, stylist, fashion editor etc in the world because you wanted paid? Even the model isn't probably getting paid or has to chase £80 for a year through the courts. I was only fishing with the Vogue example and not expecting a bite but you all bit.
Image wanted for advertising
- Thread starter ynot
- Start date
You would refuse the opportunity to have your work seen by every major designer, advertiser, model, celebrity, stylist, fashion editor etc in the world because you wanted paid? Even the model isn't probably getting paid or has to chase £80 for a year through the courts. I was only fishing with the Vogue example and not expecting a bite but you all bit.
Stu Meech
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,906
- Name
- Stu
- Edit My Images
- No
I noticed you never answered my question of what do you do for a living, and would you like to be doing it for free?
Andrew Davies Photography
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 761
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
Not sure why you are not understanding but No Laudrup we would not accept our work being used for free because a company has become so big it thinks it can take advantage, and for what its worth i reckon Vogue DO pay their photographers and their models they have a well established business with a good reputation gathered over a number of years which is not normally gained by treating people like crap.
I also think your treading on thin ice accusing them of doing otherwise, keep this up and your silly fishing expedition could end up with you and your rod getting in far too deep and annoying some legal team somewhere. But do feel free to carry on ....
I also think your treading on thin ice accusing them of doing otherwise, keep this up and your silly fishing expedition could end up with you and your rod getting in far too deep and annoying some legal team somewhere. But do feel free to carry on ....
- Messages
- 21,370
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
I would refuse and I will explain why.
I don't for one moment think any of those people will look at a picture and say wow.. who took that.. lets hire them...more explanantion? If your taking pics all these people can see ..why would they presume your looking for work? Also because they all have photographers who can do equally as good a job.. they are not going to get rid of them and hire you. theres a lot more to hiring a photogrpaher.. they cant tell from a picture how reliable , flexible, good with people and many other things . OR to put short...Your working for free on a long shot.. a very long shot and you cant sustain a business like that..
At the end of the day the only people looking at photo credits are friends and family who are already impressed.. or other photographers who are last on your list of people to impress..
hope that helps
I'm a gigolo, so of course. I've also given photos away for different reasons and I probably always will.
You are clueless. Read this:
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2010/12/you-thought-conde-nast-was-only-cheap-to-photographers.html
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/14/conde-nast-settles-lawsuit-interns
Even this from 11 years ago you should read:
http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/218163/
Last edited:
Andrew Davies Photography
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 761
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
No thanks Laudrup , i would rather not spend my time reading links posted by a person without anything to say for themselves, with no experience, no photography to view - you seem to think you can talk the talk thats fine , please feel free to go and find a dark cupboard and a mirror and chat away, alternatively back your attitude up with some work or experience so we may all be enlightened by your views rather than posting links you have trawled up to try and make your nonsense make sense.
- Messages
- 5,607
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hasn't this thread now run its course? Laudrup believes anyone who won't give their work away for free to a large company who can well afford to pay is clueless and delusional; that photography requires no skill or experience; that because companies can pick up stock photography for free from those willing to give it away for vanities sake there's no future for any branch of photography to generate an income; and that no photographer actually is driven by principle (other than professionals who on principle tell amateurs what they should do). Hopefully that's a fair summary.
Given the old couplet "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" I don't think there's any future left in the discussion.
My first and last entry to the thread - which has had a lot of valuable information and stimulated some thought (in some quarters).
Given the old couplet "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" I don't think there's any future left in the discussion.
My first and last entry to the thread - which has had a lot of valuable information and stimulated some thought (in some quarters).
I'll give you the gist, they basically demolish all your points. Even an extremely unlikely example like you shooting for Vogue and you'd refuse without payment despite the link saying pros will even cover the costs to shoot editorials for exposure. No wonder given the opportunities and career launching ability a publication like that would have. As I said, myopic.
I think your only accurate bit was it being your first entry to the thread. I'd say not shooting a Vogue cover or editorial for free given the potential benefits is penny-wise and pound-foolish. I expected that to be the exception when I floated the idea, but nope.
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
DT01
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,292
- Name
- Drew
- Edit My Images
- No
That's bo11ocks. The 5 year old article you posted has virtually no specific information regarding photographers and the Guardian link is all about interns. The other, even older link, again says nothing specific about shooting editorials for free.
When people offer me exposure, I ask, 'did you see my picture of xxxxx (former England footballer) in the July edition of xxxxx' (mens magazine stocked in any newsagent you care to mention) and they say, 'no, I can't say I did'.
'How about the pics of xxxxx in xxxxxx?' 'No, I didn't even know that they (major drinks company) even had a magazine…'
So it's a good job the price for the use of the images was agreed beforehand because the 'exposure' that you (and others) speak of is mythical.
Andrew Davies Photography
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 761
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
Laudrup = ignore list , plenty of actual photographers and people with business experience on here I would rather converse with.
I would refuse and I will explain why.
I don't for one moment think any of those people will look at a picture and say wow.. who took that.. lets hire them...more explanantion? If your taking pics all these people can see ..why would they presume your looking for work? Also because they all have photographers who can do equally as good a job.. they are not going to get rid of them and hire you. theres a lot more to hiring a photogrpaher.. they cant tell from a picture how reliable , flexible, good with people and many other things . OR to put short...Your working for free on a long shot.. a very long shot and you cant sustain a business like that..
At the end of the day the only people looking at photo credits are friends and family who are already impressed.. or other photographers who are last on your list of people to impress..
hope that helps
The opportunities that would arise from shooting a cover of basically the fashion Bible would be pretty big though. Designers, models, advertisers all aware of your work and not to mention if nothing came of it and you did go back into weddings or portraits or whatever you could say you shot the cover of Vogue. I'd bet that more brides or clients would know and care what Vogue is and what it represents rather than LRPS BIPP SWPP and all the rest of the acronyms.
It's a potentially large opportunity to turn down.
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
He also said that you were saying that photography requires no skill or experience, which you effectively did say many times earlier in the thread.
DT01
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,292
- Name
- Drew
- Edit My Images
- No
Could it be a bit more vague? 'for very little' and 'will sometimes even cover the costs'. What is 'very little', say, in relation to Patrick Demarchelier's retainer)? How often is 'sometimes'?
It's still a crap analogy. It's like saying 'I know Wayne Rooney gets £300k a week but if you got asked to play for Man United for free, tell me you wouldn't do it!' It's never gonna happen.
Presently, on another part of the inter web, there is a small group of people celebrating the fact that their pictures were published in a weekly photography magazine. They were asked by the person who wrote the article to submit images for it. The only benefit to them is the opportunity to pat each other on the back.
If you are at a level as a photographer that you are shooting Vogue covers, it's highly unlikely that you're doing it, or anything else, for free.
It matters how free or close to free it is now, not how much skill or experience you have or don't have. More people want photos but they don't want to pay money for them but luckily technology is so good and there are so many photos and people giving them away it is a 'buyers' market. I can't see anything that will make it better, only worse.
DT01
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,292
- Name
- Drew
- Edit My Images
- No
You did use the term myopic and it's kind of fitting as your summary does tend to ignore a lot of stuff that you probably don't know, or care about.
In specialised markets, people can and do still charge a premium for what they do. This is principally because, even mainstream photographers, let alone people with iPhones, can't produce the same standard of results that the people who specialise do. It's all out there.
It was more Vogue than vague. The quote was from a guy that worked in that area so I don't have much reason to doubt him. The analogy is apt and it was supposed to show an exception to when you would work for free as there was something substantial to be gained from it. Obviously not to some people though, bizarrely.
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Just for the record, if Vogue want to use one of my pictures on their front cover, they are welcome to it for free. Just owning a copy would be enough for me. Equally, if Led Zeppelin want me to add some rockabilly guitar to their next album, they just have to call!
Steve.
Steve.
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So Vogue are putting crap photos on their cover because they're free?
Perhaps I should send my holiday snaps into National Geographic - as long as I don't charge they're bound to publish them.
Lindsay D
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
I wasn't going to come back to this thread but I think this is a relevant point and I get where you're coming from - but I also think you've gone off onto an extreme tangent in order to try and make your point. Before I say anything else I think it's important to remind any newcomers reading this that there is a massive distinction between working at Vogue magazine level and the rest of the photography industry (in other words, the kind of stuff we've been going over in this discussion). The top level of the fashion industry is pretty niche, probably more niche than any other area of photography - so it can't be used as a generalist example. I don't doubt for a moment that being chosen by the editors at Vogue to shoot a key editorial isn't a great achievement - of course it is. And I think it will be a very carefully considered venture on both sides with a few key agreements in place. If this is definitely going to get the photographer in front of the right stylists, and importantly the right fashion designers then I can perfectly understand how that could be beneficial - I think most of us could appreciate that.
The thrust of this thread is that there should be mutual benefit, and proving your worth at Vogue magazine might be a great way forward if you're a very talented fashion shooter (in fact it could even be part of Vogue's 'initiation process'). But it's Lala land compared to the kind of risk/benefit equation we've been discussing so far. Let's get back to reality for a second - and the reality is that there are too many profit-making businesses wanting to fleece photographers and being utterly unwilling and unprepared to offer anything in exchange, other than a 'credit' on a website or in a magazine which has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the snapper.
Now back to the theme of this reply - and the alleged value of high level publication. Many years ago I had exactly the same train of thought as you Laudrup. At that time my interests lay with design and I was working for a property developer. I allowed my home to be featured by a household name interiors magazine, because I believed it would be relevant exposure (these magazines don't pay to photograph people's houses). I thought that my handiwork would be seen by people relevant to the industry I was working in, and a six page feature in a prestigious interior design mag would be just the ticket. Well, to use the word that you have used recently, I was a bit delusional in thinking that. It brought me enquiries from people wanting to know where I had bought various bits and bobs, and loads of compliments, but it didn't bring me anything else. Fair enough I thought, it'll look good in my portfolio. But showing the tear sheets to prospects didn't make any difference either, they were hiring me for different reasons - because I'd been recommended, because I was known to be reliable and pleasant to work with, because I brought projects in on time - in fact all the things that Kipax mentioned earlier.
Fashion photographers at Vogue magazine might well be an exception (and you won't know that for sure unless you talk to the photographers concerned), but in my experience there aren't many scenarios when giving your pictures away to a commercial business for nothing can bring you any benefit whatsoever.
Lindsay D
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,677
- Name
- Lindsay
- Edit My Images
- No
Yep, I totally agree, that makes perfect sense. But that's not what you've been asserting anywhere else in this thread - in fact you've been lambasting anyone who upholds the view that there needs to be a fair reward, not to mention your unsolicited critique of some of our business practices. You've been suggesting that meekly handing over work to profit-making ventures is now the only way forward and that we are high-rolling elitists if we can't get that through our thick skulls. And strangely enough, after you have lost every possible argument, you put forth the very assertion we have been trying to hammer home in the last five pages. I rest my case.
Last edited:
Vogue can pick and choose, you need them more than they need you. But being better doesn't guarantee you anything. I was reading a thread earlier and saw this:
Be better and people will buy yours instead of freee????? hmmm
Blackpool fc may be poor on the pitch but they could afford a few quid for a pic in a news story?
This is what I took
http://www.kipax.com/gallery/index.php?action=view&album=FOOTBALL_WOM/3575&image=154
This is what they used
http://www.blackpoolfc.co.uk/news/article/blackpool-fc-under-9-girls-share-trophy-2417090.aspx
and yes.. thats me taking it ..
I rest my case
£6k worth of equipment and good photo and you get passed over because someone with a phone camera(?) gave it for free.
Box Brownie
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,645
- Edit My Images
- No
I have tried to keep up with this thread and the thing I find still unanswered is from what business experience & credentials does Laudrup "speak"??? He has been asked that on numerous occasions but without meaningful answer...... In the main his reply to that question has been ignored/declined/rejected but to me more noticeably obfuscated.
All other posters have declared their experience in both photography & running a business. All as far as I recall have agreed/admitted that the landscape of the business of photography has changed but although this is not the business sub fora it all started with a request for business related advice and that was given without judgement on the OP.
The only one passing judgement without qualification is indeed Laudrup and some of his responses remind me of the saying " those that can do, those that cannot teach" or in the case of Laudrup continue on in a manner to teach.
As for the mention of the publishers CN, well in the industry that I work I have customers supplying CN and they are the most hyper critical type of client. Oh, as for my customers if they and that supply chain did not get payment there would be no magazines on the shelves.
So as previously commented why should the photographer be the only one expected to work just for the prestige of being included in this magazine. No other supplier of services to the publisher would accept those terms.
Just out of interest I looked at Laudrup's posts and looking back over something like 170 posts I could find no posted images for sharing or C&C so in regard to the quality of his image creation there is nothing at see.....so that is the same as my understanding of his business background I.e. absolutely nothing. Did spot that he had offered for sale lenses and a Sigma DP2, I would have welcomed finding some images from that camera!
All other posters have declared their experience in both photography & running a business. All as far as I recall have agreed/admitted that the landscape of the business of photography has changed but although this is not the business sub fora it all started with a request for business related advice and that was given without judgement on the OP.
The only one passing judgement without qualification is indeed Laudrup and some of his responses remind me of the saying " those that can do, those that cannot teach" or in the case of Laudrup continue on in a manner to teach.
As for the mention of the publishers CN, well in the industry that I work I have customers supplying CN and they are the most hyper critical type of client. Oh, as for my customers if they and that supply chain did not get payment there would be no magazines on the shelves.
So as previously commented why should the photographer be the only one expected to work just for the prestige of being included in this magazine. No other supplier of services to the publisher would accept those terms.
Just out of interest I looked at Laudrup's posts and looking back over something like 170 posts I could find no posted images for sharing or C&C so in regard to the quality of his image creation there is nothing at see.....so that is the same as my understanding of his business background I.e. absolutely nothing. Did spot that he had offered for sale lenses and a Sigma DP2, I would have welcomed finding some images from that camera!
yorkshirechap
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 205
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Blimey is this thread still going on?
Why such a big argument? If people want to give their work away for free, then let them. It does not mean we all have to and it also does not mean that our businesses ceases to exist because of it. The number of working professionals may reduce, but the end result is that the wheat is separated from the chaff.
Compare Microsoft Windows to Linux. Microsoft is commercial and proprietary. Linux is a totally free operating system for PC's. Both are capable of doing the same things in the right hands. Linux is less user friendly and not as pretty as Windows, although there are ways to make linux look similar to Windows. Millions of people use both. However, if there is one major reason why Linux does not have a larger market share amongst the general public, it is that it is free.
People, customers like you and I, do not generally trust "free". We suspect caveats, we suspect a poor quality product, we suspect a lack of ongoing support or customer service. With free comes compromise. Not everyone wants that compromise. Which is why Hermes exists, even though someone could probably pick up a perfectly functional handbag or whatever, from freecycle, for nothing.
Some of the comments here seem as though the truly skilled professional completely loses their USP if an amateur offers a free image of the same subject.....news flash. You don't.
Having been successful in business for almost 20 years in multiple industries, I can categorically say that the type of client who attempts to get everything for free, is exactly the type of client you want to push away with a very very long bargepole. Even if a fee IS negotiated, they wont pay for 120 days, if at all.
This just is not worth worrying about, at all. If you're good, you'll stay in business. Just like in every other industry out there.
Improvise, adapt, overcome. I stole those words from a rather good Clint Eastwood movie called Heartbreak Ridge. But, they communicate the essence of a successful business strategy.
Why such a big argument? If people want to give their work away for free, then let them. It does not mean we all have to and it also does not mean that our businesses ceases to exist because of it. The number of working professionals may reduce, but the end result is that the wheat is separated from the chaff.
Compare Microsoft Windows to Linux. Microsoft is commercial and proprietary. Linux is a totally free operating system for PC's. Both are capable of doing the same things in the right hands. Linux is less user friendly and not as pretty as Windows, although there are ways to make linux look similar to Windows. Millions of people use both. However, if there is one major reason why Linux does not have a larger market share amongst the general public, it is that it is free.
People, customers like you and I, do not generally trust "free". We suspect caveats, we suspect a poor quality product, we suspect a lack of ongoing support or customer service. With free comes compromise. Not everyone wants that compromise. Which is why Hermes exists, even though someone could probably pick up a perfectly functional handbag or whatever, from freecycle, for nothing.
Some of the comments here seem as though the truly skilled professional completely loses their USP if an amateur offers a free image of the same subject.....news flash. You don't.
Having been successful in business for almost 20 years in multiple industries, I can categorically say that the type of client who attempts to get everything for free, is exactly the type of client you want to push away with a very very long bargepole. Even if a fee IS negotiated, they wont pay for 120 days, if at all.
This just is not worth worrying about, at all. If you're good, you'll stay in business. Just like in every other industry out there.
Improvise, adapt, overcome. I stole those words from a rather good Clint Eastwood movie called Heartbreak Ridge. But, they communicate the essence of a successful business strategy.
Last edited:
Precisely this^ and this goes for most trades and not just photography. A good business wants reliable consistent results from a professional. They may well find a better image on flickr for free but they want a photographer who can work to a brief and come up with the results on a regular basis. In the same respect as if they employ a plumber, they could probably get somebody's mate to do it for free or a free lifetime subscription to the magazine, but most won't, they use a competent company who they can see has qualifications and experience and can get the results are reliable and do a good job. A professional photographer may have a website where a portfolio of images may be displayed, they may have a list of current and past clients and references, they may be a member of a professional body and have qualifications all which add up to building confidence which a client can rely on again and again.I don't think the photo editor for vogue will be looking through flickr or Facebook for the next cover photo.
I could be wrong though
Would I supply a free image to Vogue? Maybe this would be a special case because it is so high profile, but vogue would not want a free image they will want to work with professionals for the above reasons.
Some seem to miss the point that supplying free images where the audience is primarily photographers is not going to get them any exposure that will lead to sales. Its kind of like a manufacturer of cameras exhibiting their cameras where the audience is made up exclusively of other camera manufacturers, it makes no business sense.
Andrew Davies Photography
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 761
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
The thread has gone on a while ! but one point has come out of it which is agreed by the majority.
There is no financial gain to be had from giving away images for free. I haven't personally had any gain from giving away an image under pretences of mentions exposure etc. There are no doubt plenty of others on here who will tell you exactly the same from experience.
So if you want to give your work away for a pat on the back or because you want to see your work in print then feel free and no-one can have any issue with you doing that, but if someone comes to you and promises you anything other than a pat on the back ie your going to make money get new business etc then walk away.
If we can at least remove that notion from peoples minds and stop these marketing design sales and other companies massaging peoples egos in order to make themselves a profit then we have done some good. If not well we tried.
There is no financial gain to be had from giving away images for free. I haven't personally had any gain from giving away an image under pretences of mentions exposure etc. There are no doubt plenty of others on here who will tell you exactly the same from experience.
So if you want to give your work away for a pat on the back or because you want to see your work in print then feel free and no-one can have any issue with you doing that, but if someone comes to you and promises you anything other than a pat on the back ie your going to make money get new business etc then walk away.
If we can at least remove that notion from peoples minds and stop these marketing design sales and other companies massaging peoples egos in order to make themselves a profit then we have done some good. If not well we tried.
- Messages
- 8,852
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm sure Annie whatserfsce got on the front cover of Vogue by doing it all for free..
Jesus Christ what planet are some people on.. The worlds biggest magazine with one of the biggest editorial budgets and you'd give it to them for free? As long as people like that are around, companies will have a ready supply of images whilst they sit on thier vastly inflated bank balances having a chuckle.
Jesus Christ what planet are some people on.. The worlds biggest magazine with one of the biggest editorial budgets and you'd give it to them for free? As long as people like that are around, companies will have a ready supply of images whilst they sit on thier vastly inflated bank balances having a chuckle.
You could work with all the top models and dress them in the best fashions and be as creative as you can possibly be and let every top dog in the fashion and advertising industry see your best work on the cover and inside the fashion Bible and all you had to do was work for free, and you'd refuse? Talk about not being able to spot an opportunity.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,852
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And I suppose all the models, costume designers, dressers, makeup artists, editors, copywriters, tea ladies and cleaners are all working for free just for the ego boost of saying they've worked for vogue?
Some model was chasing French Vogue for a year through the courts for about £80. Then there is this:
From: http://nymag.com/thecut/2009/03/vogue_pays_its_models_basicall.html
Shooting a Vogue cover for free would be a no-brainer.
Last edited:
Box Brownie
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,645
- Edit My Images
- No
Laudrup
Your info is interesting but also shows the primary flaw in your argument.
Both your link and opening statement show that models have been and do get paid........badly but paid. Granted the article makes the point about the great potential for a very few models to, as a result of a Vogue cover, be used for other prestigious titles. And herein lies the flaw in your argument in regards to photographers and the outcome of working for Vogue for free. If ever should Vogue discover a tog who might offer them the sort of skill level they require to produce to their standard he is in effect a tradesman whereas the model is "the face of Vogue" albeit one cover and she can be sought out for such work. The tog on the other hand is about as likely to gain work from that one session as winning the Euro millions lotto.......unless of course he is already well established in which he would expect to he paid his dues or there is other collaborative advantage.
To keep making your supposition without proof that your statement has indeed worked for any tog is nothing more than by blind faith based your own singular world view of a subject about which I ask again ~ what are your credentials?
Your info is interesting but also shows the primary flaw in your argument.
Both your link and opening statement show that models have been and do get paid........badly but paid. Granted the article makes the point about the great potential for a very few models to, as a result of a Vogue cover, be used for other prestigious titles. And herein lies the flaw in your argument in regards to photographers and the outcome of working for Vogue for free. If ever should Vogue discover a tog who might offer them the sort of skill level they require to produce to their standard he is in effect a tradesman whereas the model is "the face of Vogue" albeit one cover and she can be sought out for such work. The tog on the other hand is about as likely to gain work from that one session as winning the Euro millions lotto.......unless of course he is already well established in which he would expect to he paid his dues or there is other collaborative advantage.
To keep making your supposition without proof that your statement has indeed worked for any tog is nothing more than by blind faith based your own singular world view of a subject about which I ask again ~ what are your credentials?
If you think shooting a Vogue cover for exposure has the same chance of getting you more work as a 116 million to 1 shot then we are so far apart that nothing I can really say would convince you. I can only say what I said before. You could launch a career off the back of it, meet and network with the top people in the industry, showcase your creative ability to advertisers, celebrities and the fashion elite in every corner of the world or even if you went back home with nothing your business could be differentiated as you shot a cover for Vogue. See how many brides or clients know what Vogue is and what an LRPS is and how much more they would pay.
Box Brownie
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,645
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, we are far apart in the view of the situation you describe because as per your worthy link about the model fees or lack of I only see your proposal of any of the possible positive outcomes for the tog as speculation of a supposition.
Why do I say that? To have the outcome you speculate about presupposes that the tog whether amateur/semi-pro/pro will have some sort of control over the process......in all your researches on this have you found the terms that the tog,MUA or any others in the production team are 'employed' under? How likely is that the tog keeps copyright or shared copyright, do the team members have to sign an NDA if perhaps the model is big name?
Of course I am also speculating on a supposition because without knowing how what you say could even happen to the non well known/respected tog let alone the terms under which he would contracted for the job.
Can you point me to a list of togs who have worked for Vogue and which ones are one time only and as such on their website or social media show that Vogue work and indeed when did even the well knowns do that first job.
Last edited:
Box Brownie
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,645
- Edit My Images
- No
I found this site. http://www.condenaststore.com/-st/Photography-Prints_c147390_.htm
And a quick look shows that all the images are available for licensing and looks the licensor is CN and the most recent one I could find is from 1969 so nothing on a quick look of any recent works?
Now without checking the biography of all the now well known togs I wonder when in their career the Vogue job featured and as such were they paid for the job? And if they never worked for Vogue would they have been as 'famous'? Alas more speculative and possibly unanswerable questions.
Edit - the site has more info but the newest covers are from the 1990's. Here. http://www.condenaststore.com/-st/1990-s-Vogue-Covers-Prints_c146193_.htm
And of note that tog did a few that year!
And a quick look shows that all the images are available for licensing and looks the licensor is CN and the most recent one I could find is from 1969 so nothing on a quick look of any recent works?
Now without checking the biography of all the now well known togs I wonder when in their career the Vogue job featured and as such were they paid for the job? And if they never worked for Vogue would they have been as 'famous'? Alas more speculative and possibly unanswerable questions.
Edit - the site has more info but the newest covers are from the 1990's. Here. http://www.condenaststore.com/-st/1990-s-Vogue-Covers-Prints_c146193_.htm
And of note that tog did a few that year!
Last edited:
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
In 2015 vogue cover models have included Sienna Miller, Dakota Johnson and Cara Delevinge. All people who need exposure and work for free. Obviously. Oh wait. I'm sure they all work all the time with people who want 'exposure' too.
You seem to have missed that Vogue will expect delivery onetime, overtime. Of course they will (and happily do) pay for that.
Last edited:
Andrew Davies Photography
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 761
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
This reminds me of user somewhat similarly named 'Lucian' on another large photo forum who would also come along with floored and inexperienced arguments and take an opposing view just to see what reaction could be gathered, He would also ignore any requests to look at his work or any back up of his experience, when eventually uncovered it became obvious why ..