Cover of Hotpress

thefly

Can I start this thread by stating that I dont read the rag.

However, I noticed this months issue on a shop shelf this afternoon.

Now I have seen some bad photos in my time but this one is up there. For what is supposed to be Irelands premier music/lifestlye magazine, their cover image is a disgrace.

The image is a blur, complety out of focus

Obviously you can allow for a slight lack of sharpness due to printing or what have you but this is just a terrible image.

Has anyone else seen it?

PCPhoto

havent seen it - but - some publications don't always like a clean/sharp image and often go for the "arty" blurred image which conveys the action/movement.

without trying to sound like a pr1ck - have you got better images of the same band/person ?

I totally agree with you that as Ireland's premier music magazine it should try to avoid the "arty" out of focus style images, but its horses for courses - some people are into it ...some aren't ...I'm not into it.

EDIT: is this the image http://www.hotpress.ie/photos/photo_st.php?id=8628469

thefly

PCPhoto wrote: »

havent seen it - but - some publications don't always like a clean/sharp image and often go for the "arty" blurred image which conveys the action/movement.

without trying to sound like a pr1ck - have you got better images of the same band/person ?

I totally agree with you that as Ireland's premier music magazine it should try to avoid the "arty" out of focus style images, but its horses for courses - some people are into it ...some aren't ...I'm not into it.

EDIT: is this the image http://www.hotpress.ie/photos/photo_st.php?id=8628469

No no no, this is a portrait of Sinead O'Connor and Olaf Tyaransen. There is no movement implied its just a $hit photo.

Do I have a better shot, no but its fooking Sinead O'Connor. She is probably one of Ireland most photographed musicians.

Could I do a better job than the original photographer, you better believe it. Miles better

PCPhoto

found the image (I think)

http://www.hotpress.ie/2893481.html (on the right hand side)

you say you can do better than the original photographer - why don't you contact Hotpress, offer your services and see if they are willing to send you to numerous events/gigs and out on jobs with (from what I'm told) very little or no money and no expenses.

I dont have any association with Hotpress - apart from once photographing Niall Stokes while he was at the sidelines of a football match I was covering - or did he get into the team photo - I cant remember, but its not important.
and I might occasionally encounter one of the Hotpress photographers at a gig - but its quite rare these days as I've slowed/stopped taking photos at gigs/concerts.

mehfesto

PCPhoto wrote: »

found the image (I think)

http://www.hotpress.ie/2893481.html (on the right hand side)

you say you can do better than the original photographer - why don't you contact Hotpress, offer your services and see if they are willing to send you to numerous events/gigs and out on jobs with (from what I'm told) very little or no money and no expenses.

It's a closed shop, is Hot Press. They have three photographers and thats all they want/need.

I've offered my services several times, or indeed offered nice, relevant photos (Morissey with local band Squarehead, the only press shots of a certain Irish band before being signed to a major UK label, headshots of all the Choice music award nominees, etc.) for paltry amounts, only to be shot down or asked if they could use the image for free. I don't think their images aren't too bad generally, but they go for a quantity over quality approach online, and use the same studio and set up for almost every shoot featured in the paper.

They couldve done with keeping interesting photographers like Naomi Neu and Enda Doran. They had a big interest in Irish music and gave great shots consistently. As far as I can tell, they refused to pay them anything decent and it's no surprise they left. Graham is the best live shooter there, but I feel it needs a good shake up otherwise. To keep people on their toes if nothing else - there's no shortage of great music photographers out there at the moment!

Anyway, here's a small res version of the fron cover this month:

Having seen the mag up close, I can confirm it is very soft.

thebaz

mehfesto wrote: »

It's a closed shop, is Hot Press. They have three photographers and thats all they want/need.

I've offered my services several times, or indeed offered nice, relevant photos (Morissey with local band Squarehead, the only press shots of a certain Irish band before being signed to a major UK label, headshots of all the Choice music award nominees, etc.) for paltry amounts, only to be shot down or asked if they could use the image for free. I don't think their images aren't too bad generally, but they go for a quantity over quality approach online, and use the same studio and set up for almost every shoot featured in the paper.

They couldve done with keeping interesting photographers like Naomi Neu and Enda Doran. They had a big interest in Irish music and gave great shots consistently. As far as I can tell, they refused to pay them anything decent and it's no surprise they left.

Heard that before, for a paper giving out such a social conscience it's amazing they pay there staff , certainly photographers , so poorly

magicbastarder

sure courtney love used to be a photographer there.

thefly

Here is one of their photographers. I hasten to add, I don't believe Mick shot this cover but he has done many covers for them. http://www.mqphoto.com/view_gallery.php?offset=9&gallery=Music#

Borderfox

For me having Sinead O'Connor on the cover is a bad start anyway without it even being soft

mehfesto

Seems that the photo was taken in the States, as Olaf had to fly there to interview her. Can't imagine they'd bring a photographer, so this genuinely could be a cameraphone snap, either that or they were recommended a dud photographer over there.

Mores to the point, is it normal practice to have your main interviewer on the front cover. Is he a selling point/recognizable face to most people?

magicbastarder

maybe they're going even more down the sunday independent route, where the interviewer is the celebrity.

twowheelsonly

Hot Press these days is a million miles away from it's original concept in any case. Still living on past glories IMO.

Mehfesto - at least they answered you!!

I emailed them repeatedly (and spoke to a few of their staff personally at gigs etc) regarding a red hot Cork band that are flying in America, Spain and here, outside of Dublin. Never did get a reply..

Then the same band win a European-wide competition, beating 450 other bands, and get the chance to play at the MTV Awards in Belfast supporting Jason Derulo and Snow Patrol.. Surprise, Surprise - Hot Press want to know all about them..

Back on topic, I saw that cover as well and thought the same. If it was a cameraphone then somebody needs a new phone!!

melekalikimaka

mick lectures occassionalli in Griffith in Business of Photography, very interesting to hear how things work from his side

Splinters

Just seen it this morning, wow that truly is a shockingly bad photo for a professional publication, let alone a cover. They must have been hell bent on putting Sinead O'Conner on the cover to sacrifice their standards so much for a shot like that.

thefly

melekalikimaka wrote: »

mick lectures occassionalli in Griffith in Business of Photography, very interesting to hear how things work from his side

I studied in Grtiffith and did my business module with Mick in 3rd year. Very informitive lectures. His studio is the sh!t.

I would love to own something similar one day, the dream!!!!!!

thefly

Splinters wrote: »

Just seen it this morning, wow that truly is a shockingly bad photo for a professional publication, let alone a cover. They must have been hell bent on putting Sinead O'Conner on the cover to sacrifice their standards so much for a shot like that.

It really is shocking!!!!!!


You know what, I'm going to email them. I would have done that shoot for free as would many young talanted photographers just for the exposure!!!!

DaireQuinlan

thefly wrote: »

I would have done that shoot for free as would many young talanted photographers just for the exposure!!!!

magicbastarder

do *not* let niall stokes see this thread. he'll start recruiting photographers for free from boards.

thefly

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Whats so funny?? I would have thought a simple shoot like that would take half a day. I would chagre about €400 for a half day shoot.

However, for someone like myself (a recent photgraphy graduate) a cover shot in a national publication like Hotpress would be far more valuable than €400 cash.

Great exposure and would look great in your portfolio.

The aformentioned Mick Quinn still uses his first Hotpress cover in his porfolio. That shoot was done in the early 90's as far as I know

I beleieve that sort of exposure far out weighs the measly sum of €400 that I'd probably just pay bills with.

magicbastarder

i can guess where this is going to go.

melekalikimaka

thefly wrote: »

I studied in Grtiffith and did my business module with Mick in 3rd year. Very informitive lectures. His studio is the sh!t.

I would love to own something similar one day, the dream!!!!!!

i studied with you, whoever you are

melekalikimaka

magicbastarder wrote: »

i can guess where this is going to go.

popcorn

magicbastarder

thefly wrote: »

Whats so funny?? I would have thought a simple shoot like that would take half a day. I would chagre about €400 for a half day shoot.

However, for someone like myself (a recent photgraphy graduate) a cover shot in a national publication like Hotpress would be far more valuable than €400 cash.

Great exposure and would look great in your portfolio.

I beleieve that sort of exposure far out weighs the measly sum of €400 that I'd probably just pay bills with.

no-one's biting, so i will.

you will not make a living out of a career by undermining the economic basis of the career you want to make your living out of.

unless you're an accountant, who often do work for free, for the exposure. or bankers. or shopkeepers.

anyway, i wonder if niall stokes would be generous enough to pay €400 for a photo.

thebaz

magicbastarder wrote: »

no-one's biting, so i will.


anyway, i wonder if niall stokes would be generous enough to pay €400 for a photo.

Somehow I doubt it, it's the opposite to Vanity Fair - HOt Press would want a lot more hard work for 400

thefly

magicbastarder wrote: »

no-one's biting, so i will.

you will not make a living out of a career by undermining the economic basis of the career you want to make your living out of.

unless you're an accountant, who often do work for free, for the exposure. or bankers. or shopkeepers.

anyway, i wonder if niall stokes would be generous enough to pay €400 for a photo.

You wont make a living if know one knows who you are. Its all about been proactive. Getting your name out there and developing your brand. I'm not in the game all to long and as I said, have only graduated from college last year.

Your little gripe is that, you are an established full time photographer and your worried some little up start like me could potentially take a job from you because I may do it for free.

At the minute I'm mixing it up. Trying to make money where I can, but if a decent opportunity arose that meant I could have a cover shot in a national publication, I would happily do it if there was no fee. I reckon a full page ad in Hotpress would cost the guts of 800-1000 euro. If you look at from that point of view, your quids in.

Don't get me wrong. If the Farmers Journal asked me to cover some harvesting event, I would charge them accordingly.

magicbastarder

thefly wrote: »

Your little gripe

aw, you make it sound so cute.

Logical Fallacy

thefly wrote: »

You wont make a living if know one knows who you are. Its all about been proactive. Getting your name out there and developing your brand. I'm not in the game all to long and as I said, have only graduated from college last year.

Your little gripe is that, you are an established full time photographer and your worried some little up start like me could potentially take a job from you because I may do it for free.

At the minute I'm mixing it up. Trying to make money where I can, but if a decent opportunity arose that meant I could have a cover shot in a national publication, I would happily do it if there was no fee. I reckon a full page ad in Hotpress would cost the guts of 800-1000 euro. If you look at from that point of view, your quids in.

Don't get me wrong. If the Farmers Journal asked me to cover some harvesting event, I would charge them accordingly.

The problem is that you will have gotten the job on your ability to do it for free, rather than your ability to do it.

The front cover of a Hotpress may not actually have any particular merit in the shot.

Hence the thread. As such, it's not really such a winner in a portfolio. There is also the question of business ethics, you would be implying to potential customers that you are worth paying based on the implication that you got paid by Hotpress.

thefly

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

The problem is that you will have gotten the job on your ability to do it for free, rather than your ability to do it.

The front cover of a Hotpress may not actually have any particular merit in the shot.

Hence the thread. As such, it's not really such a winner in a portfolio. There is also the question of business ethics, you would be implying to potential customers that you are worth paying based on the implication that you got paid by Hotpress.

A fair point.

Look I'm not some photography whore that goes around working for free and undercutting other phoptographers.

I take each job as it comes. If I feel I can get something (other than cash) out of a job, I will consider it. Not for ever mind you. Of course there will come a point where I will work for cash and cash only. The sooner that day comes the better. For now I have to worry about myself, keep adding to my porfolio, developing my brand and trying to get my name out there (at all costs)

For what its worth, a friend of mine did a shoot for Confetti Magazine last year. His image was used on the cover yet he didnt received a red cent for the shoot.

As payment he was given a half page ad. From that one ad he has got 12 weddings booked. If you take the average price as been about 2k a wedding, he is suddendkly up 24 k all from doing one shoot for free!

magicbastarder

there's a big difference between doing something for free (as was originally suggested) and doing it in exchange for something which has a definite price attached, though.

thefly

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's a big difference between doing something for free (as was originally suggested) and doing it in exchange for something which has a definite price attached, though.

And like I say, I would value a cover shot in Hotpress more than the fee itself. (And from what I am reading on here that fee is likely to be miniscule)

You and me wont agree on this matter as I think we are at two very different junctures in our careers. At this very early stage of my career, money is not my only motive

magicbastarder

just to clear up any confusion; i'm not a professional photographer.

thefly

magicbastarder wrote: »

just to clear up any confusion; i'm not a professional photographer.

But you never work for free?

magicbastarder

i've never done work for free for the benefit of a commercial operation, no.

thefly

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've never done work for free for the benefit of a commercial operation, no.

Fook sake man. We're 3 pages in, and you only drop this bombshell now. Bloody hell!!!!


And don’t kid yourself. Just because you don’t do work for free for a commercial operation doesn’t mean you’re not undermining the economic basis of photography.

you only have to do one portrait session for free or a mates wedding for free for that statement to be true.

Pot kettle and all that

DaireQuinlan

thefly wrote: »

Fook sake man. We're 3 pages in, and you only drop this bombshell now. Bloody hell!!!!


And don’t kid yourself. Just because you don’t do work for free for a commercial operation doesn’t mean you’re not undermining the economic basis of photography.

you only have to do one portrait session for free or a mates wedding for free for that statement to be true.

Pot kettle and all that

There's a crucial difference though, I (for example) don't give a fig about the 'economic basis of photography' whereas you're actually trying to make a career on that very basis. You're undermining the basis of the very industry that you intend to rely on to pay the bills.

Snowie

thefly wrote: »

Fook sake man. We're 3 pages in, and you only drop this bombshell now. Bloody hell!!!!


And don’t kid yourself. Just because you don’t do work for free for a commercial operation doesn’t mean you’re not undermining the economic basis of photography.

you only have to do one portrait session for free or a mates wedding for free for that statement to be true.

Pot kettle and all that

so can i just say you said you'd spend half a day taking pictures of a celebrity.. Just humor me how many celebrities have you gotten hold of for 4 hours ?

magicbastarder

thefly wrote: »

Fook sake man. We're 3 pages in, and you only drop this bombshell now. Bloody hell!!!!


And don’t kid yourself. Just because you don’t do work for free for a commercial operation doesn’t mean you’re not undermining the economic basis of photography.

you only have to do one portrait session for free or a mates wedding for free for that statement to be true.

Pot kettle and all that

i have done two weddings; both as wedding presents for the couples involved, and will be doing a third later this year for my sister. and i see no contradiction in my stance.

my friends (let's call them ann and barry) are not a commercial operation, for a start. offering to do their wedding for them is not a commercial venture in any way. no more than offering to wash my neighbour's car for him would be a commercial venture, preventing a garage from earning money for providing the same service.

you're offering to let niall stokes earn money from your work, while you earn none.

thefly

Snowie wrote: »

so can i just say you said you'd spend half a day taking pictures of a celebrity.. Just humor me how many celebrities have you gotten hold of for 4 hours ?

I don’t just charge for physically taking the pic

What about travel time, setting up the shot, and post production ect ect. I reckon I'd be 2 hours in before I even start shooting!!!

Maybe 30 minutes of shooting and 2-3 hours PP


4 hours easy!!!!!!

Snowie

thefly wrote: »

I don’t just charge for physically taking the pic

What about travel time, setting up the shot, and post production ect ect. I reckon I'd be 2 hours in before I even start shooting!!!

Maybe 30 minutes of shooting and 2-3 hours PP


4 hours easy!!!!!!

Thats what i was wondering...

Your gonna see **** images all your life in all sorts of publications, due to the micro online stock agencies. So maybe the harsh reality is don't get worked up over it... Maybe take some time to realize that you can't control that aspect of the industry. But you can your own work and maybe you should worry more about your own and less about others.

Because at the end of the day is about you and you career, not about the other 5000 photographers gunning for that job...

Knocking other peoples work won't get you the job its just makes a potential client think your arrogant and you like the sound of your own voice....

How ever if the photographer is good i don't think there any excuse for poorly cropped work or slanty horizons... Which i thinks perfectly except able...

Effects

thefly wrote: »

if a decent opportunity arose that meant I could have a cover shot in a national publication, I would happily do it if there was no fee. I reckon a full page ad in Hotpress would cost the guts of 800-1000 euro. If you look at from that point of view, you are quids in.

Don't get me wrong. If the Farmers Journal asked me to cover some harvesting event, I would charge them accordingly.

Why would you charge the farmers journal? A full page of advertising with them night only be half what it is with Hot Press so just charge them half what you would charge HP.

Stripey Cat

Is Niall Stokes still editing Hot Press? How old is he now? He must be over a hundred...

thefly

Effects wrote: »

Why would you charge the farmers journal? A full page of advertising with them night only be half what it is with Hot Press so just charge them half what you would charge HP.

Right lets be clear here. People seem to think that I offer my services for free all the time. I made one suggestion that I would do one particualr shoot for free as I feel (wrongly or rightly) that it would benifit my career. Or at least look good in my portfolio.


The reason I would do HP over the FJ is, I believe my potential future customers would be be more familar with HotPress. I belive I could be more creative and put my own slant on an image if shooting for Hotpress. I perfer to work in a studio enviroment and I think with HP I'd have a better chance of that. And, if I were to "get in" with one of the 2 publications, it would certainly perfer it to be HP

thefly

Snowie wrote: »

Thats what i was wondering...

Your gonna see **** images all your life in all sorts of publications, due to the micro online stock agencies. So maybe the harsh reality is don't get worked up over it... Maybe take some time to realize that you can't control that aspect of the industry. But you can your own work and maybe you should worry more about your own and less about others.

Because at the end of the day is about you and you career, not about the other 5000 photographers gunning for that job...

Knocking other peoples work won't get you the job its just makes a potential client think your arrogant and you like the sound of your own voice....

How ever if the photographer is good i don't think there any excuse for poorly cropped work or slanty horizons... Which i thinks perfectly except able...

Forgive me for starting a photography related thread on a photography forum

Granted I knocked someone else’s work but I post under pseudonym so I doubt any potential client would know who I am.

thefly

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have done two weddings; both as wedding presents for the couples involved, and will be doing a third later this year for my sister. and i see no contradiction in my stance.

my friends (let's call them ann and barry) are not a commercial operation, for a start. offering to do their wedding for them is not a commercial venture in any way. no more than offering to wash my neighbour's car for him would be a commercial venture, preventing a garage from earning money for providing the same service.

you're offering to let niall stokes earn money from your work, while you earn none.

That’s all fine but please don't be pontificating to me if you yourself are working for free. Whether or not you intend to have a career in photography you are still undermining the economic basis of photography.

Borderfox

If you want to discuss the altruistic virtues of photographing for free or not, you can start a new thread

magicbastarder

thefly wrote: »

That’s all fine but please don't be pontificating to me if you yourself are working for free. Whether or not you intend to have a career in photography you are still undermining the economic basis of photography.

i don't think you understand. photography is a hobby as well as a profession. the logical conclusion of what you are saying is that i should not let any of my friends have any portraits i have taken of them - candid or posed - without them paying for them.

my friends' wedding was not a commercial venture. they will not make money selling my photographs. i am not providing my services for free for someone else to profit from. i did it as a wedding present, so you could argue the 'price' they paid was the present foregone, if i had bought them a 'traditional' wedding present instead.

i was only half joking when i cautioned against niall stokes seeing this thread. at 26 issues a year, hot press could probably coast quite easily on recently graduated photographers offering their work for free for the cover.

Borderfox

This stops now