Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanCapture
Magazines were the shit back in your day Paul. But when I got into the biz, they were declining quite a bit. I worked for Hicks back in 2001 and we'd have production meetings every Monday. Hicks shot for quite a few magazines and we were constantly discussing how the magazines were losing readership to the net, how the budgets were dwindling and how long it was taking to get paid. When I finally felt comfortable enough with my skills to go out on my own, magazines were the last people on earth that I wanted to work for. And so, I never pursued magazines.
I have shot for a few magazines over the years (that reached out to me) but had issues of some kind or another with them all. Mostly chasing my money but with Penthouse, trying to get photo credit for my published work. I have one magazine that I shoot for now who has treated us better than any magazine we've ever worked with. They pay us a nice fee for our work, give us photo credit and we get paid within 2 weeks of them getting our invoice. If more magazines were like this, we'd be happy to shoot for them. Unfortunately, they're not....
|
In 2001 we were producing over 20 sets a month for magazines. Plus the "readers Wives" content, we increased that number. There were still many magazines to sell to. Major publishing houses like Hustler, Score, Mavety, Crescent, Swank, PRO, Galaxy, N&S and more in the UK and US alone. We were earning $3,000 a set. Steve I expected sold his work for a lot more.
If you want to sell to magazines for the money online pays they would pay you withing 2 weeks, most magazines give credit to the shooter which you must know as someone involved with Steve. his name was always on his sets.
Magazines never reached out, especially at the top end. They had a load of shooters submitting to them to give work to first. Steve, Suze, Viv, Micheal, Hank, Jack and many many more. They used shooters who were regular suppliers and not people who would do the occasional set. The idea that they reached out to anyone is absurd.
As is the idea that they were bad at paying. The money arrived on publication. Good sets accepted by an editor for consideration were used fast, and payment came within 3-6 months. Bad sets were often left in the pile. Once the set was in the mock up, the invoice went to the payments dept. Then the check or wore was sent.
Your post would make sense if Steve was now shooting for online sites. He's not, so if they were such a bad lot to work for, why didn't he? Like every other magazine shooter. Where are they now?
I've seen your sets in Twistys, you repeat the same shot over and over again. You set the exposure on some sets at such a wide aperture they had a poor depth of focus, you did this so you could get the lights in the building to show as lit on the image. This made the full size image useless.
Many of your poses were wrong, you missed poses. The vast majority of the poses were portrait framed, with a medium of landscape screens that's simply wrong. The work of yours I saw wasn't up to the standard that was required for magazines that take that niche.
Your video work is far better than your stills work. All this shocked me as I had seen single shots of your that are good. In fact very good. Your videos are far better than your stills work.
Sorry to have a go at you, but you posted a lot of mis information.