There used to be some form of separation between art expression and unbiased journalism. No more. What she did was wrong and truly unacceptable.
Brian Smith on his site made comment that, "The next photographer assigned to shoot McCain thanks you for hosing the credibility of all photographers...
I'm certain McCain's handlers will be more "sophisticated" on the next shoot and will demand complete control over every shoot thanks to you."I agree.
I think we just landed ourselves another set of paragraphs to add to our terms and conditions.
Also to make matters worse, one of my mentors has taken her side. Leslie Burns-Dell'Acqua has stated, "editorial rates are so lousy that if a photographer does NOT make her own image to get something more out of any project, that is just bad business."
I don't think that Jill Greenberg needed to be worrying about her lack of editorial income at the time the photo was taken. She will now!
Also for anybody to think shooting a STYLIZED portrait of someone for an editorial magazine is a representation of journalism or in any way the same as sitting for an interview they are an idiot.
Jill Greenberg is known for a certain type of shot. It is popular, iconic of her and highly sought after. For a magazine to hire her is like a person shopping toilet paper. There are slight variations in the style, but you are essentially getting the same thing for the same purpose. Anybody can quote me on that. And hey guess what? When I come out with my new series of portraits set to a certain style and it gets attention and I get hired FOR THAT STYLE. I will expect my client is trusting me to provide that style and stick to it.
Here are some links to read on this.
No comments:
Post a Comment