Do newspapers have photobudgets ;)

[MWHCVT]

I suspect this could be a fun thread but what the heck it's Monday so let's have a bit of a debate.

I have in the early hours of this morning taken a set of images of the fire service damping down a local building after the fire was out

Well I post a link to photos on the local papers facebook page for the status about the fire , and sure enough along comes the message can we have the files for possible use in tomorrows paper, so I have said yes for a small fee and sure enough I get the response, no budget and already have a few images

My thoughts are well yes you must have a budget, as you are a business that makes a profit, and do you really have a few images as if that was the case why were you so quick (less than a couple of minutes from posting the link) to express an interest in my mediocre images.

Link to images to show they're not brilliant, but then it was 2am so it was very dark
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mwhcvt/sets/72157626730684684/

Your thoughts please ladies and gents of TP

and I know the subject has been done to death

Matt
MWHCVT

 

[admirable]

To be honest if I was an editor I wouldn't pay for these images as you've missed all the action, not a flame in sight!

Sometimes picture desks use the 'no budget' excuse for this reason.

Sorry if I sound harsh.

 

[MWHCVT]

To be honest if I was an editor I wouldn't pay for these images as you've missed all the action, not a flame in sight!

Sometimes picture desks use the 'no budget' excuse for this reason.

Sorry if I sound harsh.

Your points are very much valid, but you will note in my post I was not saying i had brilliant photos or great action shots, I even said it was shot of damping down after the fire was out.

My point was do they have a budget or not?

Second to that you have said you would not pay for them, but suppose that was the only image of said incident would you still expect to not pay for it? What would you expect if you had pressed the shutter?

I should add I a fully aware that the images are far from even being good and did not take them with a view of sale they were taken partially for my own enjoyment and also to test myself and my camera

Matt

 

[Deleted member 34016]

I agree - although interesting Photos- the actual fire was missed :shrug:

Hence the "NO Budget" response you got

Les

 

[jamesb84]

E

 

[itsdavedotnet]

They do have a budget for the right photos.

Yours don't have flames, and wouldn't print at all well in a newspaper (awful rubbishy printing with poor blacks, on rubbishy paper - needs bright colourful images), so aren't the right photos

You see kate middelton going into waitrose however and they'll sure as hell have a budget

Another day

 

[MWHCVT]

I agree - although interesting Photos- the actual fire was missed :shrug:

Hence the "NO Budget" response you got

Les

Good point well made, the annoying thing is I when past there at 16:15 and apparently it was ablaze at 16:30 :bang: :bang:

Of course they have a budget...however, you need to have something they want!

They contacted you because they wanted some free shots rather than nothing. They're not worth paying for, but they're worth getting for free.

Besides, you already put them onto Facebook so they probably thought "oooh, well he's put them up on our site, we'll check with him before we use them"

That's in interesting stance and one that I have not come across on this site before

Maybe you have a point on the asking before use since they are online but just a clarification I posted a link on FB to flickr not the actual photos on FB

 

[jamesb84]

Good point well made, the annoying thing is I when past there at 16:15 and apparently it was ablaze at 16:30 :bang: :bang:

Ah-ha! In which case, even the very smallest of locals will have sent a staff snapper over there at 16:30. So they probably already had something they could've used...

That's in interesting stance and one that I have not come across on this site before

Maybe you have a point on the asking before use since they are online but just a clarification I posted a link on FB to flickr not the actual photos on FB

Part of the reason a lot of local papers have facebook pages and twitter feeds is that the public can "interact" and give them free news and pictures...the inference is that if you've put up something on their site, they're OK to use it! Facebook and Twitter aren't exactly discouraging that sort of thing either with their T&Cs.

Sorry, I thought you said you'd posted directly to FB...either way, they've looked and thought "we can use these as well as our staffer stuff - if they're free".

 

[admirable]

You're taking this too personally.

I never said your images were of poor quality, I was referring to the content.

You have to think like an editor, they don't want to pay you for the images due to the lack of content, 'not a flame in sight', but still ask you if they can use them if required.

Let's say at 7am this morning there was a missing person report in that area then things might change if you have the only images. They then they become valuable to the editor with the example caption ' Fire-fighters search property remains for missing person'.

Putting them on the WWW before getting in touch with the press is not a good idea.

And yes they do have a budget but not this time.

 

[MWHCVT]

Ah-ha! In which case, even the very smallest of locals will have sent a staff snapper over there at 16:30. So they probably already had something they could've used...

Part of the reason a lot of local papers have facebook pages and twitter feeds is that the public can "interact" and give them free news and pictures...the inference is that if you've put up something on their site, they're OK to use it! Facebook and Twitter aren't exactly discouraging that sort of thing either with their T&Cs.

Sorry, I thought you said you'd posted directly to FB...either way, they've looked and thought "we can use these as well as our staffer stuff - if they're free".

I have to be honest and say part of me is kicking myself as I really hope not to have burnt any potential bridges at the paper as would like to do a bit of freelance work for them in the future...

But then there was that monkey on my shoulder saying don't just give them to them for free..as I do believe that the whole idea of free images is devaluing the work of full time pro's and we have all seen the results of the "I let them have it for free" threads on here and other forums

I wonder would the have a staff photographer out on a Sunday afternoon for a smallish regional?, I suppose maybe if the had someone covering a sports match in the area they could have given them a call

Matt

 

[awp]

I'm surprised they want to use your pictures - they don't really tell the story and were taken well after the incident occured. Yes, they'll have a budget for the right pictures - but for this incident they may have nothing else and were hoping for a freebie. I get calls from my local paper when things like this happen if I can get to them faster than the staff photographer. Had an incident just last week in fact. Maybe next time - you should carry a camera with you all the time.

 

[MWHCVT]

You're taking this too personally.

I never said your images were of poor quality, I was referring to the content.

I apologise if I have come across that way as that was not my intention, TBH I don't think they are great images by any stretch of the imagination

I also agree wholeheartedly that the images are not print worthy, I will not post the email I sent but I worded it as I am happy to send but would want a small fee IF used

Maybe I should ask if I were to have a picture that they wanted what would be the going rate?

Matt

 

[PeteOC]

The "going rate" would depend on your photo, for example Prince Harry with his girlfriend wouldn't fetch as much as Prince Harry chasing the queens corgis round with a REMOVED

 

[Byker28i]

The "going rate" would depend on your photo, for example Prince Harry with his girlfriend wouldn't fetch as much as Prince Harry chasing the queens corgis round with a REMOVED

in a nazi uniform...

I had some of a fire in the local recently, but then I was lucky and was passing in daylight, on the day of the royal wedding, lots of smoke and hose action.

Don't expect much though from the local paper.

 

[shabba]

My local paper is a bit cheeky. I put up a few photos on FaceBook of my local Rugby team which I took when there watching a mate play, someone said I should contact the paper and see if they want to use them. So I emailed the paper and said check out the pics (fb link) and let me know if you want to use any and I'll email a high res version, free etc.

Anyway next thing I know 2 of my photos are in that weeks paper, ripped straight of FB so rather low res, no reply just to say thanks etc. Being shot with a cruddy cheap zoom and as I say ripped straight off FB they weren't the best quality, but I guess they did at least put my name there under the pic.

 

[awp]

Why offer them free when they'll pay if they want them???

 

[shabba]

Why offer them free when they'll pay if they want them???

Was not happy with the images really and also its a way in the door. If in future I have good images I can send them (with HUGE copyright watermark) and then ask a small fee.

 

[awp]

That is not the way to do it. Newspapers don't have time to contact you for files without watermarks!! Just send high res and state no publication without fee.

 

[petersmart]

The problem nowadays is that so many people have FB and Flickr accounts that papers are often spoilt for choice unless you have something really eye-catching or newsworthy.

But it can happen:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=3664772#post3664772

And if they're extraordinary pics, like those, sometimes the media will come to you !

.

 

[jon ryan]

Lots of regional papers now use `local correspondents` = people paid a pittance to write local stories.

This stems from the downturn in sales. Where even a small paper may have had a couple of offices in the area, now the ones that have survived tend to run a number of titles from a central office, and reporters rarely get out from in front of a screen. And there are far fewer reporters than there used to be - same for photographers. Some papers don't have any staff snappers now, and rely on freelancers and submitted stuff, along with what the reporters bring in from stories they actually do go out for.

Hence `local correspondents`. If you want to get into the papers, it's worth getting in touch; drop a line to the editor or chief reporter. If you can write and take a good photo, you have a fair chance of getting work. You won't get paid much, if anything, or not to begin with, but if you prove reliable you could find it a source of pocket money. Which could end without notice as soon as there is another cash crisis (say next Tuesday). And when things pick up a bit, there may be a vacancy...

Papers want news, oddly enough. Read your local rag from end to end to see the sort of thing that gets published. Shots of the sun going down won't be wanted, no matter how beautiful. Most papers get a dozen of that ilk every week and while they may run one, it won't be paid for. But a shot of Mrs Miggins celebrating her 100th birthday with her family will. be paid for. Maybe as much as a fiver to begin with. If you're lucky.

But as I say, who knows what it could lead to? Prove that you can do the job and they may start to use you on a regular basis, at which point they will start to pay a bit more and you can have cards made with `Freelance Photographer` on them without lying about it.

A lot of photographers got a start this way.

Me for one.

 

[SimonUK]

Why not put them out anyway? Just for the exposure you get.

 

[itsdavedotnet]

Why not put them out anyway? Just for the exposure you get.

*facepalm*

 

[zilly]

I wonder would the have a staff photographer out on a Sunday afternoon for a smallish regional?, I suppose maybe if the had someone covering a sports match in the area they could have given them a call

Matt

Sunday's are the busiest day of the week, a full weeks worth of sport to shoot, plus social activities. Could easily do 8-12jobs on a Sunday .

This stems from the downturn in sales. Where even a small paper may have had a couple of offices in the area, now the ones that have survived tend to run a number of titles from a central office, and reporters rarely get out from in front of a screen.

Northcliffe made 52 million profit end of last financial year, it's not sales that's the issue most local papers are doing no worse than 5 years ago, the issues with the bigger newspaper that are competing with online and tv media. What's the small papers have realised is that the can merge jobs cut staff still get the paper out and save more money .

The day we got a two year pay freeze was the same day the editor turned up in his new £65,000 ranger rover.

Papers want news, oddly enough.

no papers want nicely formed press releases that they get 7 days in advance that they can Chop around get a picture for ring a local for a comment and drop it into shell for it to be desked when it's relevant. Journo don't have time to do real investigative journalism they are just typing machines churning out what is given to them just so they can meet the 4 print deadlines a day.

Shots of the sun going down won't be wanted, no matter how beautiful. Most papers get a dozen of that ilk every week and while they may run one, it won't be paid for.

Papers love pretty prettys they fill the awkward spaces around ads that journos don't have time for.

But a shot of Mrs Miggins celebrating her 100th birthday with her family will. be paid for. Maybe as much as a fiver to begin with. If you're lucky.

Speaking from experience unless she's died from when you took the picture to ringing the desk chances are they'll find her and send a staff tog, I forget the number of times I got sent to reshoot submitted stuff, a) cause it's crap
B) cause it's cheaper to send a staffer than having to dip into the budget if some ones asking for payment .

Picture desks do have budgets ours for a medium regional daily was 10k a year , but out of that had to come kit for 4 togs, repairs, overtime , freelancers and pictures. Frankly it was half what was needed.

We had more issues with freelancers than they were worth, incorrect captions, Images too small, images late , images crap used to cause massive headaches

What we wouldn't use freelancers for, anything that could be scheduled if it was local and we could pick the time a staffer would do it.

What we would use freelancers for, events social evenings that sort of thing anything that we couldn't get to, a lot of Sunday league football and pub snooker that sort of thing, anything too far away, often quicker to hire a local freelancer than send a tog on a three hour jaunt across the country side.

Pics in general we wouldn't pay, pretty much everything we would need we could cover, including natural disasters, fires and so on, even if it was at four am . We'd just go shoot the human interest story in the aftermath during work hours.

Car crashes are the one exception, but chances of you having to pay for them is pretty much nil.

Go talk to your picture desk, see if they need any freelancers, sending pictures in and expecting to get paid isn't the way forward.

We used to pay £40 a job and you could probably do 3 jobs a day on a busy day.

*facepalm*

X2


Regards

Grumpy ex press snapper

 

[jon ryan]

I do quite a bit for Northcliffe weekly titles. The group here have no staffers. There is one guy - freelance- who does the bulk of the photography, and about four of us who pick up the balance.

I was a Senior Staffer with Archant for years. I got out when, similar to you perhaps, they announced a wage freeze and started `consolidating`local offices. After a few months of regular seven day shifts, I decided I would be better off freelancing; mentally if not financially. I now teach as much as I shoot, do travel stuff and some equestrian along with (mostly regional, occasional national) press and..well, anything but weddings and studio, I guess.

It was a slog, but it's running nicely now

 

[leftcurl]

thanks for the insight Dom and Jon... interesting reading all that

 

[Flash In The Pan]

The joys of citizen journalism! You only have to be watching the news when it snows to realise that everyone with a camera or cameraphone is now a photographer and most people are just thrilled to see their picture in the paper or on the tv.

The media companies realise this, so unless you have a unique picture (even Dave's example of Kate Middleton going into Waitrose would have little or no value if 20 other people also got the shot) of something newsworthy then the chances of getting paid, especially when budgets have been slashed to the bone, are zero....

 

[zilly]

I do quite a bit for Northcliffe weekly titles. The group here have no staffers. There is one guy - freelance- who does the bulk of the photography, and about four of us who pick up the balance.

I was a Senior Staffer with Archant for years. I got out when, similar to you perhaps, they announced a wage freeze and started `consolidating`local offices. After a few months of regular seven day shifts, I decided I would be better off freelancing; mentally if not financially. I now teach as much as I shoot, do travel stuff and some equestrian along with (mostly regional, occasional national) press and..well, anything but weddings and studio, I guess.

It was a slog, but it's running nicely now

Ah I used to work for Northcliffe media north, Interesting we they way they work in the north is the large regions produce the weekly titles to just the information is taken from the dailies re hashed and about 14 days out of date.

Seven day shifts sound familiar, that and doing 14 hour days 3 out of every 4. The final straw (on top of a catalogue of other issues) was when they refused to let me take my holiday in anything less than 2 week blocks.

My holiday form was thrown in the bin and it was replaced with a notice of resignation, 5 days later I left the paper, with no clue what I was going to do, that was 13 months ago and things seem to be going ok, touch wood.

When the going is good news photography is an epic buzz (apart from blasted cheque presentations), I do still miss the real mix of work. But the nature appears to be find any person with camera who will work for £15,000 (average wage for a trainee photographer) a year and work them into the ground and replace them the next in line.