UKC

Just canvasing opinion really regarding this . Was chatting to an editor of a UK based climbing mag who feels that if a pic has been seen on UKC then its not for publishing as its not 'fresh' . As many photographers put some of their best work on here is there a case for saying 'Its too good for the web' and only putting up shots that have no intention of being published or do serious photographers avoid putting any stuff on UKC to avoid overexposure of the images ?

But a German climbing magazine has contacted me to publish 2 photos on a page and a half spread from my UKC gallery and 'Rock and Ice' are also publishing a photo in the 2013 photo issue so i guess whats old hat in the UK may be seen as 'fresh' outside our shores .

Any thoughts ?

In reply to Nadir khan: In reply to Nadir khan: It might do but it can also help.

My first publication in a book for Sandy Hill (formerly Pitman) was found on here and as a result, was on the back over and inside her book alongside many famous photographers. I was of course happy as owt. It wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for UKC.

However, the thing over Orphan images etc Is making me more nervous and along with the many instances of copyright infringement I am seeing of late, I am considering adding a simple watermark to images. I don't really want to but if I don't, it makes all the effort one tightening image security on my website a bit pointless.

I would say it is the copyright infringement that is more likely to impact on the commercial value as gaining an exclusive licence would be very hard if many free copies are kicking around on the internet.

Just a thought anyway

In reply to Nadir khan:

I think that there are some powerful organisations who are trying to destroy the value of content from photographers and other small creative types generally, and you will have to fight tooth and nail to stay in business whether the current "orphan works" nonsense passes or not.

No matter how good you are it is hard to compete with free, and so long as people are willing to let their work be used for nothing more than the warm glow of recognition then there is a problem.

In reply to Duncan_Andison: Any photos i post now on UKC will be watermarked but it would be easy just to crop the watermark off if someone really wanted to use the low res pic.

I have bought prints from people whose images i've seen on UKC so the exposure can work financially .

In reply to davidbeynon: If someone is asking for photos for something that they charge money for then they should expect to pay for a photographers time , creativity etc . If the photos are for a cause for which no moneys will be charged then thats a different matter . but the more people who offer to give photography for free just for the recognition then the more its devalued .

In reply to davidbeynon: Very true.... To many people feeding micro stock agencies who sell your work for nothing and give you even less. Its best to use rights managed for specialised images or promote yourself. Takes longer but better returns.

In reply to Nadir khan: I think I'll do the same then, need to take more care with images and control them better. I have seen one of my images with a cropped watermark but only once. I try to position the watermark to make it harder to get away with. Make it faint enough to not spoil it to much but obvious enough to know its there.

Back to the original question. I think if you have an image that has very good commercial potential then it may be wise to hold it back for a while until you have had the chance to market it directly.

Surely if you're serious about making money, you'd only be posting 'B' shots here, with an occasional stunner in low res to generate wider interest??

Obvious watermark signatures make even the best pictures look amateurish though!

In reply to Nadir khan:

'Not Fresh' that's a bit rich coming from a UK based Climbing Mag.

Not having bought a commercial UK climbing Mag for two years i thought ,as i had 2 hours on the train, i'd buy a Mag. to read.

'Virtually' everything in it was out dated by virtue of the fact that UKC, ,BMC & UKB web sites had reported most things on their sites, i felt quite peeved that I'd wasted my money on something I'd read already and the only thing new had lots of glossy pics but no info. on it.

As usual i got the info on the pics from the Web/UKB and UKC.

As for the image comment i suppose most glossy mags know that they are on the death throes before their demise to purely web based publishing and are , quite rightly, clinging onto the last gasp of paper publishing.

In reply to Nadir khan:

I can't comment specifically on photos, but from a writing perspective publishing material online first definitely decreases its commercial potential. I'd suggest that photography may be the same. Something else to bear in mind is that both the major UK mags are run by people who have made their names as photographers, so their opinion has to carry some weight. However, as UKC is a British site with huge exposure, I would think that publishing a photo on here would reduce its desirability for UK mags (they have to try hard to compete with UKC) but will have less effect abroad as foreign readers are less likely to have seen the image before. It sounds like your experience supports this view.

In reply to Jon Read: I think B shots it is then , but that also begs the question , well why bother putting anything up for comment /ridicule etc.

Most professionals I know add a watermark to their photos , most non proffesionals dont .

In reply to Nadir khan:

Just put shots that have already been published - then you're OK.

In reply to Nadir khan:

Community.

In reply to Nadir khan:


Maybe it's a culture thing. Colin Prior, Joe Cornish, John Beatty and Charlie Waite seem to survive without them, but then I notice Andy Rouse does. Certainly I've not seen any at BJP (www.bjp-online.com)

In reply to Nadir khan: Hi Nadir.I dont post a lot of my work on here but Ive had a few published in UK climbing mags and guidebooks as a result of my images being in the gallery, so its catch 22 I guess, UKC can be a great showcase for your work as we are dealing in a niche market, but flip side of that is the pic editor lookinfg for 'exclusive' use.I'm with them on that, once its posted on the web for all to see for free then it perhaps loses value both commercially and otherwise.For newsworthy images then this is definitely the case, but Im more interested in the thoughts about 'feature'/'essay' images and how they lose value..
Interesting topic mate, looking forward to more replies and insight..

In reply to alex: I have seen shots on the front cover of Summit that i had seen before on UKC and I don't have an issue with that as they're stunning images rather than fairly ordinary but not seen before. Does this mean that you take a different stance on the 'fresh' image debate ? Or is it because there is no remuneration for Summit publications ?

In reply to Nadir khan: I've twice been asked to write feature articles for Climb because Ian has seen my pics here or on facebook and wanted an article based around those shots - so it has sort of worked for me. But then I'm very far from a pro-photographer and its the article I'm selling as a package, rather than just a photo a photos sake.

In reply to Nadir khan: Many of the proshooters on the mountain bike scene operate on a 'B roll' only basis for blogs and web exposure. After a shoot they'll typically fire out the best images to their regular roster of mags, then paying sites and then keep hold of them for client submissions.

In term of exposure and community, it's often covered with a BTS (behind the scenes) blog post with a couple of b shots and a "the best have gone to client" comment.

I'd thInk climbing and riding industry is similar.

In reply to Nadir khan: One other point, most shooters don't post on community sites.... After a certain point. Pinkbike.com is the ukc equivalent for riding and it seems there are three stages shooters go through:

Establishing - any exposure is good exposure and they develop a 'fan base' by regular posting and being 'on the scene' with great images
Making it - the commercial value of their work is recognised, they distribute most of the output to client and work on commission. Generally posting on the site pretty much stops other than critique and discussion
Made it - they are invited to perform a role for the site or are 'sponsored' by the site. (I think his is more likely to the be the case in riding through association of RedBull media house etc than climbing)

As to your OP, I think it depends which of these stages you would consider yourself to be in.