I’ve been going though an old backup that is being put “offline” and I’ve been noticing how many good shots are tossed aside when you shoot for a magazine. That’s one of the drawbacks of shooting for print publications – you can have a ton of great shots, but the person writing the story often needs a specific photo to illustrate the text. Here are a few examples, each from a different magazine, reaching back from well over a year.

In many ways, I’ve been lucky with this type of work. For example, I’ve never had any type of artistic limitation on what I can and cannot shoot. In fact, in the past, I’ve had wedding clients impose such restrictions more often than publishers. Ah, the weddings – I’ll get into that later.

Print can be difficult for a few other reasons. I’m accustom to quick results. If I get a good shot, I can post it online – never takes more than a few days from shutter to screen. Even when I shoot for a full eight or ten hours, the client has proofs within weeks. When you shoot for printed publications, it can take months before you see how your stuff was used… and perhaps even longer ’till you’re paid.

Worse than all that though is when someone totally bastardizes a photo and then promptly puts your name on it.

Tags: people at work, Print photography