If ancient 30D is still good enough for National Geographic why upgrade your camera?

For outdoor pictures like this, I do believe the difference between 30D and 1D Mark IV is very minimal. But bring your 30D to work under harsh environment or low light environment without flash etc. I bet you will be desperate for an upgrade. Having a better body gives a user a better tool to get ready in various circumstances.

h14nha wrote in post #11224098
WOW, really
Well I certainly admire your principles but, surely having been published in NG, work would come rolling in Rather than render your images as worthless wouldnt that put you in demand instead
If you refused that offer, your images are either, WAY better than mine ( not hard at all ) or, you rely on them totally for your income ( which I dont ).

Not really, no. It doesn't work that way, although if word gets around that you give images away for nothing then you may get more offers ... to give your images away.

At one time, magazines expected to pay a fair price for any image they used, now they trawl through flickr etc., and ask to use them for nothing. This is just killing the freelancing business and if the image is good enough to be published, it is good enough to be paid for. As an amateur, back inthe 1980s, I would sell images to mags and it was a handy little earner. Now, apparently, it is just good to be 'published' and get the 'exposure' which at the end of the day is worth bugger all.

The sad thing is, many of the magazines that do this just ask if they can use the image and 80% of photographers jump at it and say yes, have the image for nothing. The other 20% know the image is worth something and ask to be paid, in most cases they will get paid. The magazine is willing to do so, but tries it on, knowing most will just give it away free. Those with the sense to negotiate get the money as well.

I too would love to know if the OP got paid, and if not, did they ask to be paid or just fold and hand it over. Simply asking could have netted them $500.

I work in (UK) local government and we are facing massive cutbacks with huge redundancies, it is likely I will be among them. If that happens, I intend to go back to selling images to earn a crust. That is becoming ever harder with amateurs who don't even bother to ask for money lowering magazines willingness to pay sensible money.

I understand the thrill of being published in NatGeo, so don't criticize the OP for that. I do hope that they at least tried to get paid though. For me, I don't care how prestigious the publication, no payment and they can use someone else's image. I see my work as having a value (particularly if a mag is asking to use it).

re: getting paid and the honor of it all...

Is there a difference in either the money that is the going rate or the prestige between being in the NG print magazine v being in their online blog?

nice!
lens > body always.

4 mp is 'nuff for me

Jon_Doh wrote in post #11219106
... Just goes to show size really doesn't matter when it comes to magazine work.

That's what she said...

Wow, congrats on the published Image!

sandpiper wrote in post #11224185
Not really, no. It doesn't work that way, although if word gets around that you give images away for nothing then you may get more offers ... to give your images away.

At one time, magazines expected to pay a fair price for any image they used, now they trawl through flickr etc., and ask to use them for nothing. This is just killing the freelancing business and if the image is good enough to be published, it is good enough to be paid for. As an amateur, back inthe 1980s, I would sell images to mags and it was a handy little earner. Now, apparently, it is just good to be 'published' and get the 'exposure' which at the end of the day is worth bugger all.

The sad thing is, many of the magazines that do this just ask if they can use the image and 80% of photographers jump at it and say yes, have the image for nothing. The other 20% know the image is worth something and ask to be paid, in most cases they will get paid. The magazine is willing to do so, but tries it on, knowing most will just give it away free. Those with the sense to negotiate get the money as well.

I too would love to know if the OP got paid, and if not, did they ask to be paid or just fold and hand it over. Simply asking could have netted them $500.

I work in (UK) local government and we are facing massive cutbacks with huge redundancies, it is likely I will be among them. If that happens, I intend to go back to selling images to earn a crust. That is becoming ever harder with amateurs who don't even bother to ask for money lowering magazines willingness to pay sensible money.

I understand the thrill of being published in NatGeo, so don't criticize the OP for that. I do hope that they at least tried to get paid though. For me, I don't care how prestigious the publication, no payment and they can use someone else's image. I see my work as having a value (particularly if a mag is asking to use it).

I understand what your saying, perhaps the low cost of digital images these days ( I only mean the cost versus developing film ) has lowered the threshold of what amateur photographers like me will sell images for, and magazines are fully aware of this. Hey if I could make some pocket money from my hobby I would love it.
Saying that, I was approached, again through Flickr, to sell one of my images. I had absolutely no idea what to charge the 'customer' ( professional photographers please now plug your ears ) so I gave it away instead What can I do ? I wouldnt want to rip anyone off by charging too much so I was happy that something I created put a smile on someones face.
Good luck with your job by the way.....

Here's a timely article titled "Surviving the Death of Stock Photography":

http://blogs.photopren​eur.com …eath-of-stock-photography

Here's a excerpt:

"It’s Enthusiasts’ Fault

Larry Ulrich places the blame elsewhere, on new photographers who are more interested in seeing their names in print than in receiving payment for their talent. Major stock companies, he argues, offer small percentages because of the increased supply of low-priced images from photographers who don’t consider the cost of production or the need to make ends meet."

Johnny V wrote in post #11224876
Here's a timely article titled "Surviving the Death of Stock Photography":

http://blogs.photopren​eur.com …eath-of-stock-photography

Here's a excerpt:

"It’s Enthusiasts’ Fault

Larry Ulrich places the blame elsewhere, on new photographers who are more interested in seeing their names in print than in receiving payment for their talent. Major stock companies, he argues, offer small percentages because of the increased supply of low-priced images from photographers who don’t consider the cost of production or the need to make ends meet."

I see where your coming from and I feel bad now for treading on 'real' photographers toes. That is exactly what I did, I was chuffed to be chosen from the shortlist
But, unfortunately there's nowhere that someone like me can go to to place a financial value on a picture so I dont undermine people who make a living from photography.:o

What's wrong with you people? Do you insult your elderly relatives at family get- togethers? Enough talk about the 30D being ancient! Mine might hear you, and decide to stop working!

Just kidding-- That is a cool image. Congratulations on being published.

I think National Geographic would have been more interested in obtaining the right image rather than bothering about what camera it was taken with.

David

h14nha wrote in post #11225140
I see where your coming from and I feel bad now for treading on 'real' photographers toes. That is exactly what I did, I was chuffed to be chosen from the shortlist
But, unfortunately there's nowhere that someone like me can go to to place a financial value on a picture so I dont undermine people who make a living from photography.:o

You can look up guidelines on the net. The NUJ publish rates for such prices, based on size of image (eighth page, quarter page, full page etc) and the circulation of the magazine, usage etc. Those are British based of course.

There are other sites which also offer guidelines, just google photography publication rates (or similar) and you should get a few such sites. Then you can get a rough idea and pitch accordingly. It never hurts to ask, and most often the mag will pay it or haggle you down a bit. Either way, you still get published and hopefully get paid to boot.

And Bloggers are killing the magazine industry, too...

Johnny V wrote in post #11224876
Here's a timely article titled "Surviving the Death of Stock Photography":

http://blogs.photopren​eur.com …eath-of-stock-photography

Here's a excerpt:

"It’s Enthusiasts’ Fault

Larry Ulrich places the blame elsewhere, on new photographers who are more interested in seeing their names in print than in receiving payment for their talent. Major stock companies, he argues, offer small percentages because of the increased supply of low-priced images from photographers who don’t consider the cost of production or the need to make ends meet."

Congratulations to the OP....well done.

I once told a company CFO, I'm glad you like my work.. I really do but how can I be sure it's because you might just think that's enough to make me happy. If you are truly happy for the work I have done, you can show that in $$$$. Talk is cheap. He smiled and I got a big raise

I don't give any images away. If someone likes one, then their willingness to pay for it, is the true measure of how intensly they like or value it. I like a lot of things I would not otherwise buy, if they come for free.

If the best costs a bit of cash, or good enough costs nothing, more than less will go for the latter.

Congrats!