How much does photojournalism pay?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul H." <pharris_online@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8-mdnSHYZq5NLfjfRVn-rA@ez2.net...
> I'd like to get into photojournalism as a career, but I hear the pay is
> lousy. Well how much worse can it be than the $1000 a month I'm earning
> now as a souvenir photographer? I'd love to hear from anybody who really
> knows, someone who has actually earned their living as a freelance news
> photographer, at least for a while.

A photojournalist would be someone who takes photos that go along with news
stories, either written by the photog or someone else. Most magazines pay
pretty well for photos that embellish a story. A full-time position with a
newspaper or news service would pay far more than you are making now, but
don't go shopping for Ferraris until you win a Pulitzer.

Unfortunately the real money is in following around movie stars and selling
photos to magazines like the Enquirer. That's were the big money is. One
good shot can net you very big bucks. Why do you think those photogs are
out there tripping all over each other.

I managed one shot that made the front page of every newspaper in the world.
The money was good, but it's really dog eat dog, with a lot of bribery
involved and payoffs to get what you need.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:bb-dnXmpCKSHIPjfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>
>
> A photojournalist would be someone who takes photos that go along with
news
> stories, either written by the photog or someone else. Most magazines pay
> pretty well for photos that embellish a story. A full-time position with
a
> newspaper or news service would pay far more than you are making now, but
> don't go shopping for Ferraris until you win a Pulitzer.
>
(snip)

> The money was good, but it's really dog eat dog, with a lot of bribery
> involved and payoffs to get what you need.
>
--------

There have been times that I wanted to "shoot" (but not with a camera - LOL)
the guy from Rex or BigPicture... I KNOW that unless I can get a more
unique, or some exclusive, image that I am not going to sell one. The
picture agencies can usually under-price the individual shooter on national
or international stories, AND, they have the marketing wherewithall in place
to leave everyone else in the dust.

Generally, when I see one of them on the scene I take a few shots (just in
case) but concentrate on doing and selling the written piece, and only hold
out a bit of hope that my own images will actually appear with it - except,
perhaps, in the case of breaking and evolving news when the event time line
is important and I am there early (fires; explosions; accidents; plane
crashes; and the like.) Then... I will do more pictures.

As for chasing the cleb brats I gave up on that years ago... getting too old
to play the "street" games. I often have better luck going for, and getting,
one-on-one exclusive interviews or attending the organised press calls, and
screw the pictures. I wind up with the "story" that Rex, BigPicture, et al,
don't have to sell but that I can place for syndication.

Journalist

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote
> Just find a dirty little war some where and start taking pictures.

Thanks, but actually I'm talking about working freelance for small
newspapers, town weeklies for instance. You know: pictures of kids at the
Lions Club pie eating contest, stuff like that. I'd love to hear from
anyone out there who has real experience in that kind of photography.

Right now I shoot weddings, business headshots and so forth. That doesn't
pay enough, so I do seasonal work as a Santa Claus photographer, Easter
Bunny photographer, souvenir photographer, etc. a couple of days a week.
I'd like to move away from that and toward journalism, which is what I got
my undergraduate degree in. I'm not looking to work for big regional
newspapers or magazines, just smaller, local publications.

Thanks to all for your suggestions.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote

> Don't sound like that would very interesting or would produce
> interesting photos. What you are describing sounds more like "filler"
> for a local paper than photojournalism.
>

My post is about how much it pays, not whether it is interesting. I'm not a
Pelton wannabe, just a practical guy trying to make a living at photography.
I've been shooting the three B's of photography: brides, babes and babies.
None of that is thrilling work, but it is better than my old
computer-chained, cubical job.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <q6-dnR3dgblS5_vfRVn-tw@ez2.net>, pharris_online@hotmail.com
says...
> My post is about how much it pays, not whether it is interesting. I'm not a
> Pelton wannabe, just a practical guy trying to make a living at photography.
> I've been shooting the three B's of photography: brides, babes and babies.
> None of that is thrilling work, but it is better than my old
> computer-chained, cubical job.
>


Youve got to look for more than "filler" shots.. Almost any paper can get
those for free.

Remember that "Human Interest" does NOT equall "filler" its just that a lot
of the "filler" you see happens to be "Human Interest".

You gotta' get into the paper, or a magazine with stuff that is higher
quality than average to get noticed .

Two pictures

1. A group of people bunched up and dressed for the cold, hunched over
walking into the wind on a city street, in a blizzard. It is demonstrative of
a nasty storm.

2. A picture of that same street, in the same storm, with a elderly man
alone, hunched against the cold, taking a break while shoveling snow, shovel
leaning on his shoulder, with his breath hanging in a cloud in front of him,
while he carefully winds dry rags around his hands to keep them warm.

Its out there, hunt for it.

You dont have to be a wannabe,, but to get the job you want takes work.

You're already taking pictures, hunt for it, shoot it, submit it.

What it pays is irrelavent, until you get the job.




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul H. wrote:
> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>
>>Don't sound like that would very interesting or would produce
>>interesting photos. What you are describing sounds more like "filler"
>>for a local paper than photojournalism.
>>
>
>
> My post is about how much it pays, not whether it is interesting. I'm not a
> Pelton wannabe, just a practical guy trying to make a living at photography.
> I've been shooting the three B's of photography: brides, babes and babies.
> None of that is thrilling work, but it is better than my old
> computer-chained, cubical job.
>
>
I have known folks who do this kind of work for local small newspapers.
It doesn't pay much at all. It is a minor supplement in income for them.

They make primary livelihood doing free-lance journalism. It is a
business. It takes a lot of work- business stuff. Actual photography
can become a small part of job. And, these folks are certainly not
getting rich- they do it 'cause they love the work and are their own
boss. They also do their own writing. Even though some of their work
is photo-essay stuff, it still takes writing.