Ocean Realm Journal

[Marjo 8]

Hi Guys,

 

I just received an e-mail from Ocean Realm Journal. Hereunder is an excerpt from the mail. It came from Linda Marshall - Ocean Realm orjlinda@cox.net

 

Basically, I reacted to the fact that they are soliciting for material, but saying that extra copies of the magazine should do for payment. How do you guys feel about this?

 

IMHO, this is too much! There are actully people out there who are trying to make a living on travel writing and photograhy! To come out so bluntly to solicit for free material seems inappropriate. Or am I overreacting? I can understand that from time to time running material from some new photographer or writer who just want to see their photocredit or byline, but for the Magazine to actually send out a massmailing like this... especially as I thought the idea was that they will profile themselves as a "hi quality" glossy! The thousands in dollars spent on gear and insurance, all the money spent on travel to exotic locations, the hours spent researching, the hours spent editing images, writing articles... is "extra copies of the Journal for family distribution" sufficient compensation for that?

 

I wrote a reply to this email with my thoughts on the matter. If any of you guys feel like letting Ocean Realms know your feelings, the address I replied to was orjlinda@cox.net (Linda Marshall) <_<

 

 

 

Ocean Realm likes to promote new talent. If you are a photographer and think your pictures are publishable, send a sample to images@oceanrealmjournal.com and we will review them for future editions. The next edition will feature the following destinations -  so if you think you have pictures of Ocean Realm quality, of the following destinations, send us a sample.

 

Costa Rica

Malaysia

Palau/Yap

Wakatobi

Florida and the Keys

California

Vancouver

 

Contributions to Ocean Realm are gratis as we provide contributors extra copies of the Journal for family distribution.

[Ron Boyes 0]

Hi All,

Speaking as a non professional photographer, I am happy to give away my images as opposed to the images sitting on my hard drive that few people see.

I don't expect other people to pay for my pleasure.

 

Us amateur phtographers have always given away our images, it's just that with digital the line between amateur and professional has become very thin.

You can blame wetpixel for some of this, the members welcome the new and unskilled photographers and nurture them with not only technical information but composition as well.

The line is only going to get thinner........

 

Thanks to all for making me a better phtographer

 

regards

ron

[elbuzo 8]

 

Speaking as a non professional photographer, I am happy to give away my images as opposed to the images sitting on my hard drive that few people see.

I don't expect other people to pay for my pleasure.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hola Ron

 

I disagree with you mate .

 

I think that the action of Ocean Realm is a lack of respect for all the professional u/w photographers that must work very hard to make their livings from their profession.

 

Ocean Realm is making profit selling their magazines so his request for free images is an insult !

 

Do you think that if you send an e-mail to them asking for a free subscription they will send the magazines to you ?

 

Like you , i'm not making my living for u/w photography but you know how expensive is our hobby , why give our images for free to make someone , that we don't even know , richer ?

 

There is a lot of non profit organization that works for our oceans/reefs conservation that can use your images for a good cause .

 

I also highly appreciate all the info that i obtain in this forum but keep in mind that a lot of the people that makes this possible are pros , and you will make their lives harder if you give your images for free.

 

I will never buy an Ocean Realm magazine

 

Saludos

 

El buzo

[dhaas 32]

Marjo,

 

My opinion on this is practically unprintable......Somewhat along El Buzo's.......

 

While Ron's observations are true on the line getting thinner between amateur and PRO, people giving away photos to a magazine that likely charges THOUSANDS of dollars for advertising doens't make sense to me. Their refusal to pay a fair amount to the content providers (that would included writers and photographers) is an all out rip-off.

 

As far as showing your photos to the world as a amateur, what is the web for? Plenty of sharing mechanisms around.

 

Marjo, I'd send them an email asking when your free magazine subscription will start If they expect free images why don't they GIVE hte magazine away?

 

Bet you won't hear back!

 

Dave Haas

[3@5 0]

snip...

 

My opinion on this is practically unprintable......Somewhat along El Buzo's.......

...snip

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ditto - though the sad thing is they will probably get many shots that way

[Pedda 0]

I got a mail from Austrian Airlines about the same thing. They where doing a story about diving in the Red Sea and asked if they could use my picture. Free of charge of course... I said no even if it probably would have been good promotion for me.

 

A week later I gave away a picture to Greenpeace, but that's a different thing.

[LChan 0]

Well, there goes another magazine I won't be getting!

 

But, this brings up an interesting point.

 

What should we (or I as an amateur) be looking for to make sure we protect our rights? Digital is so easy these days to copy and paste. What are our copyrights? How do we protect ourselves from infringement.

 

There are so many photo contests out there. Without knowing any legal mumble jumble, what should we be looking for in the fine print to make sure we still retain the rights ( and possible compensation) to our pixs?

[pmooney 6]

I was pleased to suscribe to the new format " Ocean Realm " - I had fond memories of the old magazine, and the many evenings that I had spent lying around on boats ( pre digital ) flipping through the pages , enjoying the images and words of all.

 

There were many fine pieces written by a pot pourie of diving types, some very serious article's , some pretty damned funny ones and a lot of well photagraphed ones. All entertaining and all included on the merit of the piece for one and all to enjoy.

 

Having read the whole email from Ocean Realm I did not get the feeling that they were soliciting images.

 

My take on it was more that they were informing aspiring Photo journalist's that they were welcome to submit suitable images / articles for consideration and the type of renumeration that was available to them.

 

For some folk a great pile of magazines to share with the folk that were probally there, or in the pictures themselves - Bravo I say... encourage these people, help them become a "published " photographer or writer, give the Kudo's when deserved and let them have a pile of magazines to share with friends and family over & over.

 

I'm sure some will see me as out of order - I think not.

[james 0]

Hi Gang,

 

Well, if you're going to boycott OR because of this practice, you're going to have to boycott just about every magazine. I think it's standard practice for most editors to work this way.

 

1) See what free images you already have in-house

2) Solicit for free images and hope you can get some

3) Contact a pro photographer you work with and know he/she has the images (the quick way)

4) Buy them from a stock agency

 

I've only worked on one magazine, but isn't this how all magazine editors work? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Cheers

James

[diveh2o 0]

Im with Mooney on this one. A friend of mine had actually showed me that same email before I read this thread. Recognizing an opportunity to atleast get my name/website on some sort of a list that Ocean Realm probably has, I sent them 2 shots to see what they think.

 

I didn't feel that they were 'soliciting' images.... what is wrong with asking for a contribution. It probably means that they won't get the photographers who demand to be paid a lot, but at the same time they are, as they say, providing an opportunity for new talent.

 

This is certainly no reason to stop ordering this magazine... many photographers are willing to not be paid just to get their name out there a little... Ocean Realm is just looking for those photographers.

 

As El Buzo pointed out, many of the photographers on this site are pros, but some of the photographers here also are 'trying' to be pros. This is a competitive world, and at the risk of being booted from Wetpixel, id say that youve got to look out for yourself. If one photographer is willing to provide his photos for free, then that is his decision... and if he is trying to make it in the professional world, it simply makes him more of a competitor.

 

A photographer who is in a position where he is willing to offer his photos for free just for the publicity shouldn't not do this because it makes things difficult for more successful photographres who can demand payment.

 

Just lookin out for the little guy...

[davichin 18]

What would they think if I send them their modified letter :

 

David Barrio likes to promote new talent. If you are a mag owner and think your publications are sellable, send a sample to me and I will review it for future approval. David Barrio will like to dive for free in the following destinations, so if you think you have a magazine of David Barrio quality liking, with the following destinations, send me a sample year subscription.

 

Costa Rica

Malaysia

Palau/Yap

Wakatobi

Florida and the Keys

California

Vancouver

 

Contributions to David Barrio are gratis as I provide contributors extra copies of the approval sheet for family distribution.

[diveh2o 0]

You never know until you try. Id never criticize anyone for trying something... it just might work.

[bvanant 190]

First I think what folks decide to do with their pictures is their own business and if you want to try to get your stuff published for publicity or just to show your mom that teaching you to swim was not a bad idea that's great. Secondly, I think Ocean Realm is a very special case, mostly it is published for free via PDF and you only need to pay (and very little at that) to get access to a printed version and also discounts on gear if that makes any difference. The Ocean Realm society appears to be interested in conservation and other good things and the magazine itself appears to be not too heavily biased toward manufacturers.

 

Every day, I get asked to come to a conference, give a talk, teach a class, support some poor graduate student. In all of these requests, you need to balance day to day work with your responsibilities as a good citizen of the science community. I think you can make some of the same arguments about publishing UW visions even if you don't get paid. Introducing the world to something only you saw (in a special way) can be rewarding enough. Some of us dive as a hobby and to relax, sharing that hobby with others is a natural enough desire for some folks, getting paid for it shouldn't need to be part of the equation.

BVA

[davidrodkeller 0]

"First I think what folks decide to do with their pictures is their own business"

 

I believe that all of us, pro and amatuer alike, basically shoot the same shots. Not of consistently equal quality but the same shots nonetheless because those that came before us, those who really drove the expansion of the genre in the 80's, like Snyderman, Frink, Newbert, even resort pros like the McLaughlins to name but a few (who in turn learned from technique pioneers like Waterman, Church, Tzmoulis, Taylor, Niklin etc) were so generous with their knowledge.

 

So given the resulting shear number of like-photos available from a variety of sources, at cost or no cost, I don't see how some freebies infringe on anyone's domain----professional or otherwise. Or why any offense would be taken at the solicitation or submission of such images.

 

At it's heart, this is very much a "shared" avocation we indulge in anyway.

[Kelpfish 15]

Hi Gang,

 

Well, if you're going to boycott OR because of this practice, you're going to have to boycott just about every magazine.  I think it's standard practice for most editors to work this way. 

 

1) See what free images you already have in-house

2) Solicit for free images and hope you can get some

3) Contact a pro photographer you work with and know he/she has the images (the quick way)

4) Buy them from a stock agency

 

I've only worked on one magazine, but isn't this how all magazine editors work?  Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 

 

Cheers

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I don't totally agree with James, but in many respects he is spot on. If you are an established writer, you get paid way more than extra magazines. Now if they are trying to take advantage of new potential contributors who are drooling to get their work published no matter at what cost, that's a different story. The simple fact is that if you cave in and give your stuff away, it will cheapen the market so much that even pros who make a living at this will suffer because of your desparation to become published for free. I say f-it. Make them pay or nicely say thanks but no thanks if they won't pay the same as for other photographers. Magazines are creatively finding ways to get more pics for free or for real cheap by having the "final shot" or "dive spots around America" type of sections in their magazines. It's also important to note that due to digital there is a much larger pool of quality images for editors to select from, thus making it VERY difficult to make a living at underwater photography because high volume = lower prices.....economics 101 of supply and demand.

 

Joe

[artesub 0]

There is certainly a dicotomy here. On one side the pros loosing market, on the other newbies wanting a piece of it. However, if many give in to promote their work, the market gets diluted and everyone, but photobuyers, loose. As Joe (kelpfish) pointed out, this stems from a basic concept of supply of demand, which, of course, is not restricted to photography. So what do other professional classes do to keep their standard (and $)? ...some make unions, some impose regulations, etc...

However, this seems an almost impossible task with a professional practice that most often derives from hobby/vacation/fun to begin with.... and will likely result in pro UW photographers having to work even harder to make ends meet.

 

 

Andre

[Marjo 8]

My thoughts on the magazine : I doubt that they will be able to obtain pro quality images gratis. Hopefully thay will not be tempted to fill the magazine with low quality images. I would not boycott them for their attemts to get free images, but my future subscription does hinge on what quality magazine they will be putting out. I believe you cannot make a good quality publication on the cheap, you get what you pay for. The first few issues of this magazine will establish their reputation. It will be interesting to see what they come out with. Sink or swim...

 

 

As for giving images to good causes, non -profits... I agree, that is at least in my mind acceptable. However, I find nothing on the Ocean Realm Journal site that indicates that Ocean Realm Media, Inc is a non-profit or associated with a non-profit. I might be wrong though, maybe I missed something... I am not really clear on what the "Society" is about, is it a marketing thing or really a "do-good-club". I would not agree that you only need to pay "very little". I think $30 for 4 issues is just about right if it is a good quality mag.

 

As for personal/collective responibility:

In the end everyone does as they please, of course. However, here's a comparison: I work as an IT manager. My coworkers and friends see my fix computers, toil around systems. About once a week or so, someone will approach me and ask me to have a look at their non-working laptop/printer/pda/router/software/thingamahicky... I tell them, "Gee, wish I could. But why don't you take it to the computer shop next door, that's where I take my gear for repair". Well, often the reply is a horrified "but they CHARGE $75 an hour!!!'. At which point I explain that 1) I would feel really bad about taking away $75 an hour of their business, that would not be cool and 2) My time is valuable as well, and if you come to me expecting free work, we'll that tells me you don't think my time and efforts are worth much. Sure, I sometimes "trade services" or do things for friends and family, but that is a different situation. But I do think if you give away your work for free, be it photograhy, writing or anything else, you are digging a hole both for yourself and for others. I would hope that we would have some respect for our own and our peers work, and collectively go out and say "hey, what we do is pretty unique and valuable". There is afterall still just a a limited amount of UW photographers on this planet, there is NO NEED for us to sell ourselves short. If the inages are good, then there is a market. It's not like just any guy with a camera can go out there and make great images. You can send almost anyone to shoot a moose as long as they know that a moose is a big furry brown animal with antlers. However, try sending same "anyone" to shoot fish underwater... It does take specilized skills, practice and patience and a whole lot of gear.

 

Happy Bubbles,

 

Marjo

[bvanant 190]

I think what you are going to see is exactly what happened to the wedding market here in Southern California. Wedding photos are now in basically two classes, cheap as dirt and very expensive and artistic. 10 years ago we paid almost 4x what the same guy is charging for the same work pretty much except now the couple get to pick photos from a laptop/website rather than a proof book. If as Marjo is saying there is a limited supply of good underwater photos then the market will self-correct, and magazines will continue to pay for good pics. I think though that making a living at UW photography has always been tough and except for a very few folks it will only get tougher.

 

I think though that the discussion about non-professionals or wanna-be professionals submitting or not submitting is different. Historically the way to get into print has been to donate work be it poetry, short stories or whatever. This isn't so different, even the LA Times solicits picture contributions and no one talks about boycotting the paper (at least for that reason).

 

Bill

[John Bantin 101]

I learnt a long time ago that a picture that already existed was worth very little. I made my money from taking a brief and making the circumstances happen that I then photographed. I used to say I was paid for making it happen, not for recording it happening!

The world is awash with photographs. Underwater photographs are not in much demand. Thanks to the ease with which we can record underwater snaps (for that is mainly what they simply are) in a digital way has devalued them further, just as it has now destroyed the possibility of becoming immensely rich by being a pop musician (the recording business is dead!).

So get what you can. Do not kid yourself that if you give something away, it will gain value. As a New Yorker friend is fond of saying, "If it's free, it aint worth nothing!!!"

[rodriguezfelix 0]

I´m a newbie and for me is wrong to give images for free, as people say i´m not blaming them or critic them for try it. I think the concience of all newbies and amateurs is the target of this post. If is true that everyone wants a piece of the market eventually, you can´t give away your images for nothing. If you are a newbie and you´ll be happy with a year suscription to the magazine (wich for them cost maybe 10 bucks or less...) for a couple of images, so be it, but free is never the way to go... At the end, they are MAKING MONEY with your pics. And for the quality issue, I saw many amateurs pics never published that are a lot better that many published ones. As people say, not always the best ones are the ones that the client want or need... and here´s a thought, if you give this magazine 10 images for free, how you expect to ask for a fair money retribution in the future????

[Paul Kay 62]

Quote "the world is awash with photographs. Underwater photographs are not in much demand. Thanks to the ease with which we can record underwater snaps (for that is mainly what they simply are) in a digital way has devalued them further"

 

Hmmmm. Maybe the world is awash with photos but that doesn't seem to stop a lot of rubbish ones being published - digital or otherwise!

 

I have a friend who is a superb natural history photographer, but as an amateur he absolutely refuses to sell his images as he enjoys taking them for their own sake. A refreshing view I think.

[John Bantin 101]

It used to be said in the days of film that if you found nineteen good shots and just tucked any old shot to fill up the space on the twentieth slot in the viewing sleeve, that would be the shot the art editor chooses!

 

It never ceases to amaze me that art editors make the most odd choices. Today, if you send in a sheet of trannies and a CD with digital images, the art editor will inevitably choose from the trannies because he can see them immediately (by holding them up to the window), even though the digital images will make a lot less work for everone in the long term.

 

 

Everyone has a point-of-view and the POV of most art editors is that it is they that choose which pictures to print!

 

(Or have I already said that? !!!)

[Paul Kay 62]

All this technology negated by a window. Whatever next?

[John Bantin 101]

It was the same in the old days if I shot a picture on a 10x8 inch trannie and also on a 6x6cm trannie. The shot on the smaller one might actually be better but the agency always used the bigger shot because their people felt more comfortable going into a meeting with the bigger shot. They would then make a 15x11 dupe so the printer never knew the difference.

 

It is frustrating that people are emotional, pschycological, egotistical but not technological. If we could only get rid of (other) people from the decision-making process...

[davidrodkeller 0]

 

"... and here´s a thought, if you give this magazine 10 images for free, how you expect to ask for a fair money retribution in the future????"

 

If a editor's photo need can be met without cost, then you must consider that some people have placed an artificial value on their work. So, why do most magazines pay for photos? Because there is a reliable expectation the photographer or agency they buy from will have a number of photos to fit the situation as well as an ease by which the editor can access/acquire the image(s).

 

So what you have is payment for service rather than payment for art. It is how a photographer distances or separates themselves from all the other people with the same photographs in their portfolio, including those willing to give them away.

 

And if you and your service don't distinguish you from the guy who gives his work away you shouldn't blame that on him.

 

This applies to almost all of us regardless of our business. By the time your particular business segment matures you can always be undersold, and there will always be someone to match your quality of output. So you must distinguish yourself and build your value by other means.