I wish I could say I’m joining this conversation late because I was working. Actually I was scanning some family portraits and reading a lot of emails from friends who had seen the New York Times article that started this thread.
You might think that photojournalism would be relatively immune to the downturn. After all, your neighbor who sets their digital to Program and takes outdoor portraits of children can’t get clearance to the White House or get embedded with troops.
Wrong. A quarter of a century ago, when things were a lot cheaper, I got anywhere from $300 to $1200 a day for editorial work, more for annual reports and similar work. I was reimbursed for all my expenses. Now, here’s the kicker. Time, Inc., which assigned and paid for much of my work, got first rights. But, after Time developed the film, someone from my agency was there, if the pictures were important, screaming for the editors to make their selects so the agency could sell the other pictures to other non competitive magazines outside the country. Future publications of the same pictures in Time, Inc. publications received additional pay. Time, Inc. also gave me an office and medical and camera insurance.
Compare that to the $250 a day for all rights that some major publications are now offering.
One major publication cut its day rate almost in half. I’m told that one of the business folk at the meeting that decided this said that the quality of the pictures would drop, but that the readers would get used to it. And once that happened, they could drop the rate even more.
I suppose I’m saying you get what you pay for. There are some excellent young photojournalists around. But, often, they can’t afford to stick around. They go into other areas of photography or leave it all together. I believe there are young photographers who are potentially as great as my heroes who simply will not continue their work as photojournalists.
I’ve got a lot more to say about this, but I’ve got to get back to the personal emails from other ex photojournalists.
