As the thorn in this rosebush, I want to go on record in favor of photographers'
getting whatever the traffic will bear. Here's a novel idea: A writer agrees to
split the royalty 50-50 with photographic contributors to a book, each
photographer getting a proportionate share according to the number of photos,
size, or whatever. I did a quick calculation on the back of my last royalty
statement for "Southern Pacific's Blue Streak Merchandise" and concluded that
except for Parker Lamb, everybody who helped me out would have done better
getting the free book.
Funny, too, that on this project now in its last stages, nobody ASKED
for money! Lord, I'd have paid! In the Blue Streak thing, I forked over big $$$
for a priceless photo of Don Russell behaving autocratically, to a retired
commercial photographer who wasn't interested in railroad journalism but needed
money, and he got a lot because because I couldn't imagine letting the book be
born without it.
I also want to go on record as saying I don't write about railroads for
money. Yeah, there's dimes and quarters flying around but even if it were 100
times more than I get, it's the thrill of the hunt--the experience I have as a
reporter that I would never otherwise be able to enjoy--that pays me back.
Nothing else.
Fred Frailey
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: SPORRS: For The Fun Of It
Author: PC:[EMAIL PROTECTED] at INTERNET
Date: 10/17/97 12:16 PM
Someone wrote to me off-list that my recent SPORRS posts made it sound as
if I only shoot train photos for money, and that I had lost my
perspective by doing this. Untrue.
Anyone who knows me at all knows that my interest in railroading is in
history, old photos and steam power of the W&LE and NKP--not in the
contemporary railroad scene. I am not a railfan, but rather a rail
historian, a subtle yet important distinction. I never have photographed
diesels to project at the next railroad club slide show, and do not give
a hoot about some railroad's latest paint scheme change. The fact that I
could combine my interest in railroads with my profession makes my life a
lot easier, because if you have to work for a living you might as well do
something that you like.
So when I walk into a railroad yard on assignment I am focused on what
photos I have to shoot for my client, and am not distracted by that rare
diesel over there or by that old passenger car being used as an office.
I am a professional in all aspects, and act as such without a bunch of
"Oohing" and "Aawing" and drooling. I work hard to shoot to the client's
layout, and give them alternate angles and views for future,
unanticipated use of the photos ("Gee, I wish we had this horizontal shot
in a vertical composition for that magazine who wants to use it on their
cover.") I attempt to create something memorable so that my photos
stand out, and give my client my best effort.
I would hardly call such an approach to railroad photography as a lack of
perspective on my part. Unlike the amateur wandering around and shooting
train photos in a railroad yard for fun, I have to look at everything in
the photo before I trip the shutter. I pick up trash, move small objects
around for better composition, look for telephone poles and wires and
other distracting things in the background. I make sure that the
employees are not commiting safety violations and that pictured equipment
is free of FRA violations like bent grabirons. I do not show damage,
clutter, liquid spills, trash, rotten ties, rusty equipment, etc., things
that some attorney might take issue with. (And we all know what a
railroad yard really looks like!) I do not depict logos or reporting
marks from competing railroads in these photos, and they are always
there.
Sure, a lot of this can be taken out with Adobe Photoshop, but isn't it
better to do a little extra work up front and give them the best possible
photo under the conditions than to give them a trashy mess and tell them
that "the photo will clean up nicely in Adobe"? Besides, many clients do
not have in-house Adobe and must send their photos out to a third party
for electronic retouching, someone who knows even less about railroads
than the railroad's own less-than-knowledgeable p.r. department. You
cannot always trust the p.r. dept. to get the retouching right after the
photog has left railroad property.
Some woman in CSXT's p.r. department needed a funky artist's rendering of
a boxcar for some internal publication, and gave the artist an H-O
boxcar as the model. The painting was done and the image was reproduced
in the brochure and everything was fine until I pointed out the NMRA
horn-hook coupler in the painting! No one in the railroad's p.r.
department noticed this gaffe and they were embarrassed, so we pro
shooters do not let anything be taken for granted in our photos. We
check everything.
So, is my motive of getting paid for doing railroad photography any less
worthy than someone who is driven purely by the fun of it all? Has my
perspective been lost because I create a photo rather than to just take a
snapshot of whatever happens to be in front of the camera? How much fun
does one need to experience while taking train photos for the motive to
be "pure", and who cares if one's motives are pure?
For the record, back in 1957 during the production of the N&W sales
department booklet "Night Trick", O. Winston Link charged the N&W $50.00
apiece for his b&w 8x10 prints, a price which the N&W first balked at as
being too expensive. He shot the photos for free "on spec"
(speculation), but made money on their resale to the N&W, won a $10,000
prize in the 1957 Graflex photo contest, and now is getting rich on the
sale of his larger prints to museums and collectors. Were Link's motives
pure or not pure? Are motives only pure if no cash is involved? Who
cares if motives are pure?
If the N&W had treated Link the way that book publishers treat photo
contributors today by asking him to contibute free photos with the
promise of a free book upon its publication as his only payment, then
"Night Trick: never would have been published and we might not have ever
heard of the great O. Winston Link. He was a steam fan, but underneath
it all he was a businessman.
John B. Corns--Ain't capitalism great!
--> SPORRS: Serious Photographers of Railroad Related Subjects
--> SPORRS: Serious Photographers of Railroad Related Subjects
