Received: from  ([206.46.170.142])
 by fonix.org (wcSMTP v5.5.450.2)
 with SMTP id 1007700875; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 01:28:19 +0000
Received: from BobDial ([67.248.207.120]) by out004.verizon.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.20 201-253-122-126-120-20021101) with ESMTP
          id 
          for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:28:17 -0600
Message-ID: 
From: "Bob Dial" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: left field/Karen
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:17:33 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at
out004.verizon.net from [67.248.207.120] at Sun, 12 Jan 2003 19:28:15 -0600


----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: left fieldBobD


> -> > That's how I did newspaper work.  They gave me the film, and I only
ever
> -> > saw what they printed in the paper.
> ->
> -> Don't throw a snow ball at me, but that's what we used to call a
reporter
> -> with a camera! We discouraged the practice at every opportunity!
 
>
> Why?

Because we didn't have YOU here to do it right!  

Actually, it was because the reporters innocently did not know the sacred
cows nor the prior agreements that had been made with various authorities in
the circulation area.  It had caused problems at times in the past and for
that reason the city desk and other department heads generally preferred to
play it safe.  If pictures were submitted with copy from stringers or free
lancers then they stood on their own merits, as it should be.  It was the
staff reporters that were encouraged to make a photo assignment and not just
go taking the pictures they wanted on their own authority.  Let's just say
due to technical logistics.  

> Actually, I was more of a columnist with a camera at that point.  The
paper
> had a photographer, but he was not always available.

Understood.  Small publications or large, they all have to make do with
whatever they have to work with, and that might include writers doing their
own pictures.  We had to work with pre-ordained space allotments, column
width and inches in depth, meaning to compose to fit what advertising was
running for a particular edition.  Information of that sort came down from
the composing room, daily.  True breaking news, of course, was not
restricted.  It was alright to 'go in the red, profit wise' for front page
material.

>On one occasion, when
> some big event was happening here, three of us were issued film by
mistake.
> The publisher was not thrilled,

Sounds like his budget was tighter than a new pair of shoes!  Heck, film
bought in bulk should be quite inexpensive so two extra rolls wouldn't make
much of a spash.  

> ..but I was as I was thrilled to discover
> they printed more of my pictures than they did of those taken by the other
> two...official photographer included.  It was only after that that I
became
> more interested in photography than writing.

There are scads of semi-competent people holding down jobs of all sorts so
it isn't surprising that photogs are included, too!  

> I can't think of any reason why I would ever sell all rights.  I never did
> with my writing either.  I sold first rights.  I know you will come up
with
> a million instances when YOU would sell all rights, but we're talking
about
> me, and the sort of thing I do.

It's the sort of thing most of us also do, most of the time.

> Well..... maybe I'll take that back as that's seems to be
> what the local arts guild was after years ago..

Anyone might run into that and then, usually with sharpies who have tried to
squeeze the last penny out of every dollar that comes their way.  Just let
them know you're the seller and if they want your work it will be at your
prices.  Nothing is free--especially resale possibilities from file
negatives.  ;-)


> ->
> -> If you work through an ad agency you might be able to get a percentage
of
> -> use deal.
>
> Oh well, I have heard no more on this particular deal, so maybe it's gone
> out the window already.
>
> The last offer I told you folks about....playing assistant to a
> photographer who was supposed to shoot some particular business around
> here, also seems to have vanished.  I asked her about that recently and
she
> says she doesn't  know what happened.  She says the guy was satisfied with
> the quote she gave him but last time she saw him he was running around
with
> a camera himself.

If he's in that category of clients it's probably just as well you didn't
get involved.

> -> > Any hobby that suddenly becomes a job ceases to be fun.  I wish
people
> -> > would just let me play in peace!
> ->
> -> I've always enjoyed photography so much that the 'jobs' are mostly fun,
too!
> -> The few that aren't sorely try my soul..  O:-)
>
> Shooting what other people want has never been my idea of fun.

True, but it enables us to do a lot more of the kind of work we really want
to do, and still pay the rent plus eat regularly, too!  In truth, once we
get reasonably proficient, the challenge of bringing other people's ideas to
life can be rather rewarding in terms of pure satisfaction, perhaps to a
greater extent than the money involved.  It is not something everyone can do
well.

It's clear that your photography is a means to expression of something
inside you, and however you want to go about is sure fine with me, for pay
or otherwise!  

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5