Magazine changed my photos.

Is this common? Paid to take photos of band for magazine. Give photos to magazine. Magazine comes out and on one set of the photos there is this horrible "Instagram" filter look to it. Now I have heard a couple negative comments about it, and of course no one wants to have their name associated with something people think isn't good. Before I speak to anyone about this, I thought I should check here to make sure if this is normal or what. I don't want to look whiny or unprofessional speaking to the designer about this if it is a normal thing in the biz.

Thanks.

Was there anything in the contract about the magazine doing its own Post? Was part of the contact for you to do the PP?

Iscariotau wrote in post #17319695
Was there anything in the contract about the magazine doing its own Post? Was part of the contact for you to do the PP?

Thanks, for the reply. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the contract either way but I do it all. I get the name and contact info of the subject. I contact, arrange time and location of the shoot. I do all PP on photos and then dropbox them to editor. If that is something that is normally in a contract, then I will surely speak to the editor and amend that. To be honest I didn't even think of it and feel a little foolish now.

As long as there is nothing in a contract that gives the publisher rights to edit the photo, I would talk to them about it. I would never want my work altered for the worse...

It is common and assumed in commercial work for the client to crop or edit your photos to fit the article or page. You get paid because you add creative content to a retail product. If you don't like it, then will certainly find others who are easier to work with.

Having been on the other end of the transaction I agree with Scott. We bought the image and would be using it to fit our needs.

I had an AD to make the decisions, didn't need another.

Comes down to whether you sold the rights of the photos to the client or not, ie. you were a photographer for hire to get some shots to give to the magazine where they own the content produced during the time of the contract, or you were a photographer and graphic artist to deliver some end product for use in a magazine. I think the industry is headed more toward the former.

Once I gave to photo to the client I don't care what they do with it.
I shoot lots of fitness people and they all like this HDR/grundge look to their pictures and as soon as they get them they slap those Instagram filters on them and start posting all over the Facebook and Instagram.
Whatever floats their boat. Lol.

Thanks for the replies all. I knew I would get accurate information here. I just don't like having my name attached to something that's not my final product and having people hate the result.

Contracts, and understanding expectations up front. Charge accordingly.

"Take your stinkin' paws off my photo you damn dirty Art Director."


I think that's how the line went.

the flying moose wrote in post #17320927
Thanks for the replies all. I knew I would get accurate information here. I just don't like having my name attached to something that's not my final product and having people hate the result.

If there is anything I have learned, someone will always hate a photo, where the person immediately behind them loves it.