[jacob g]

Phil,

That’s priceless.

[jacob g]

Mike,

That image was shot on a spring creek about an hour south of St. Paul, MN.

Ironically enough, it was shot on April 1 – the MN trout opener. We generally go camp the night before every year (or used to, anyway), and that night was a late-Mach snowfall – the big wet heavy shit that sticks to the trees. When I got up in the morning, I knew we needed to go shoot before we went fishing as that sort of snow doesn’t last, so I made my buddy gear up and go jump in the water at a few select locations. Sure enough, the trees were bare by 9:30 am, but I got the shot I had in mind.

[jacob g]

Thanks for the shout ouuut (said like a Canadian), Tim.

[jacob g]

If you really want to have fun, go shoot some medium format for the day. Razor thin depth of field with beautiful bokeh.

[jacob g]

I think that’s what remains fun about film. You have to be able to evaluate the situation and roll with it!

Here’s one from this summer. Sorry for the garbage scan.

[jacob g]

You’re just jealous you can’t fit in my waders.

[jacob g]

Come on Zach – don’t go Wal*Mart on us! It’s worth it to spend the money to keep your equipment in good working order!

[jacob g]

Roy

No, because I value a multicoated filter that decreases flare, adds contrast, etc. While I’m shooting with it on, I want to know that I have the best possible glass to compliment my lens.

I’ll add a bit more to what I wrote before – if I’m shooting in the studio, etc, I’ll still remove the filter to shoot. But the bulk of my work is done in far harsher environs, and although I’m careful with my equipment, I’m also using it without fear of hurting it. It’s those cases where a high quality filter makes a difference. I’ve replaced the filter twice on my 85L – once because the camera swung around me and banged lens first into an oar lock and cracked it. The second time was during an orchestrated shoot on a gravel road, and the truck happened to pick up a rock and fling it right into the lens. Took a ding out of the filter, but the lens was fine. For an $1800 chunk of glass, replacing a $100 BW filter (twice) was a far better option.

[jacob g]

UV Filters are on all my lenses, mainly for protection (it’s paid off – over time I’ve smashed 4 UV filters with no ill effects to the lens).

To Kurt’s point, I also buy the filter to match the glass – ie, I don’t buy a $30 filter to put on a $1500 lens. If you spent the money on the lens, spend the money on the filter too.

[jacob g]

Good discussion on the black and whites. As a young curmudgeon, I’m stuck on film (I shoot lots of digital, just haven’t given up on film yet) as I’ve yet to find a black and white conversion in PS that I like – and to Zach’s point, it’s not so much the difference you see on the computer screen, but the difference you see once it’s printed.

I’m fortunate enough to have a lab in Minneapolis that processes black and white. And although I don’t have a darkroom any longer, I’ll still process much of it myself, as I can do everything in daylight (aside from rolling my film, obviously). The chemicals don’t take up much space, and the laundry room sink works perfect.

I attended the wedding of a friend this summer and relegated myself to shooting solely film just for the fun of it (I was not the hired photographer). The end result turned out fairly well, and it’s fun to limit the medium sometimes. It forces you to find your light creatively, because once that ISO 100 is in, you’re not going to be able to bump it to 1600 to get your next shot!

[jacob g]

I like the grizzled old fishing hands (reminds me of the “fishing hands” piece in the recent Drake)

[jacob g]

Don’t tell the hipsters that. They’ll be seriously disappointed.

[jacob g]

Brian…I’ve admired your images for some time now.  I think I am going to ask for a Holga for Christmas.  Anything I need to know?  Where to purchase?  Accessories?  Etc.?

There’s not much to know about a Holga. You can pick ’em up online for pretty cheap, your choice of a 35 or 110.

Or if you want a brand spanking new one, get one from Urban Outfitters for $80 (seriously). You know, because all the hipsters only shoot Holgas…

[jacob g]

You can pick up a gently-used Nikon D700 for right around $2k these days too. And if/when Nikon releases a D700s with video, that price will be driven even further down.

It’s a hell of a workhorse for the price, nearly on par with the D3. Although you can get a gently-used D3 for $3500 too, so those prices are also dropping like mad.

[jacob g]

David –

Not to argue with you, but when I read this my first thought was, hmm, that’s twice the rate any fly fishing magazine pays for its cover.  I think Orvis could get away with this for a lot cheaper offer and probably still get some decent photos.

Zach

One other quick thing – what editorial pays and what corporations pay are two different worlds.

Jacob

[jacob g]

I know this discussion has happened over and over and over again, but I do feel the need to weigh in. Bob and Jon have hit the nail on the head.

So many business’ are leveraging the general consumer for photography, and they are definitely not paying what it’s worth. Mostly because the general consumer is a.) excited to see anything they did in print, and b.) has NO idea what it’s worth.

One of the big ones who is doing this is REI – the ask members to submit photos (with the convenient “they own the world” clause) – and they using those for their 5×8 style postcard mailers. In the past, based on volume, a photo like that would likely be licensed for anywhere between $1k-$5k.

Catalog images are paid a few ways. One way is a day rate – you shoot for the day, and they own licensing rights to those images for a fixed period of time. Day rates vary, but usually start at a minimum of $2-3k.

[jacob g]

Hey guys,

I don’t post much either, but I’d like to weigh in here. I feel that Tosh is right on.

Digital has changed the world, and brought many, many more players in. It has increased the sheer number of images available for anything imaginable. And as with many things, volume can drive the price down. But it doesn’t need to.

This topic has been beaten to death in other forums all over the internet, but you wouldn’t go to a new auto shop in your city and ask them to do free work for you because they just opened. Why should it be any different for a photographer? The magazine staff is getting paid. The editors are getting paid. Why shouldn’t you? If you have an image they want, then it’s worth something, and regardless of your experience, it should be worth the same thing as a working pro gets paid. No excuses. Whether you have one or one thousand images in your portfolio, if they want it, the value should not change based on your experience.

Photography may not be my main source of income, but I’m not going to let that affect my pricing model. I use both the ASMP guidelines and Fotoquote to preset current market rates to any client I work with.

As was said before in this thread – often times, when you give work away, you are labeled as the free option. You’ll always be the free option, and they will go somewhere else when they are ready to spend money on images. I’ve seen it enough times with colleagues to know it happens. Get paid for your work. End of story. I’m not going to say there is no place for pro bono work, but those situations need to be evaluated carefully.

It’s becoming an unfortunate reality that charity work is changing the photography model. Until those companies who are using your “free” images are purchasing your camera gear, paying for your gas and car insurance, and helping you make your mortgage payment, why give them anything?

Jacob

[jacob g]

I’m new to the board, but I thought I’d comment on the film aspect. I enjoy shooting film, and still shoot it quite often (about 70% of the time). And I shoot digital – I truly believe both mediums have their distinct advantages. Digital has pushed the learning curve for me in certain situations (especially complex studio lighting), but nothing can replace a well exposed transparency.

Fuji took their Velvia off the market for a bit which bummed me out, but they brought it back and I think it’s even better than before. And from the digital aspect, a good digital scan of a 35mm transparency is effective to about 20 megapixels.

Shooting film is getting cheaper. I just picked up an backup Canon 1n body, with a grip, for $125. So while you may have to pay for film and processing, keep in mind the up-front costs of keeping up with digital (although I think this is slowing down a bit as the megapixel and ISO wars plateau). Canon Mark iii or Nikon D700? It’ll set you back some.

Anyway, just my take on things. Film is still a great medium. I prefer it in the studio so i don’t have art directors constantly gawking over my shoulder. It allows art to continue to be art. But digital is awfully damn convenient, not to mention extremely capable.

If you haven’t shot film for a long time, go grab a roll, and go shoot. You’ll find you slow down and think about things more. You compose and wait for your shot. You savor it. It’s just something a little bit different.

Jacob

[jacob g]

Winter on the Mississippi…

[jacob g]

Last one….

Jacob
http://www.jacobgibb.com

[Author]

Posts