Introducing The Big Picture: Where Great Photographers and Great Agencies Connect

Convenient how the Springs is left out.

Come on, pal. You can play too.

I'm in. Let's do it.

I live in AULT. Are there agencies there? :-)

Isn't that what a portfolio is for?

This is a great idea. I'm going to see if the plumber who is on his way to my house, will repair my heat for free, and offer to consider him next time when I can pay for his services.

We were anticipating this reaction, Brian. No one's twisting your arm to participate. We've had 10 photographers contact us since the post went up who think there's value in this method of introduction. We're trying to help people out, not devalue their services. Let's agree photographers could need a little help right now.

Sounds like what happened with iStock.
A ton of photographers got in to Agencies that way right?

@Brian Bailey
We are talking about headshots, not an assignment to shoot for nike. I'm willing to trade some quick headshots in order to build a relationship with those at an agency.

And if you are fine with your marketing efforts right now, don't do it. But as for a young photographer who doesn't have $4000 to send out nice mailers to 1000 art directors, it nice that it will only cost me my time and equipment that I already own. That is a much more effective way of marketing myself then the latter.

Now if they wanted you to shoot an something they are using for a client then run away, but that is not what this is.

@Armando
1st: A portfolio isn't good if no one looks at it. And if you do something nice for someone they will be more likely to look at your portfolio.

2ns: You can't compare this to istock. This is effort is designed as a vehicle for agencies to connect with new photographers. Istock was never designed to get people into corbis or getty (even though it has in a few cases)

@Photographers
Photographers need to stop thinking that the world is out to get them and start thinking about how they can do to become better photographers and business men.

First off, who's to say this is a guarantee? Does the Egotist have deals with every agency in town to make this a reality?

Secondly, this is a big slap in the face to the shooters who do that work FOR PAY. Many agencies hire photographer's or use their in-house photogs to do this. This is now yet another avenue of revenue/work that's closed off.

This is basically another crowdsource attempt of getting mediocre photographers to do work for free (!) and be put into a list of photogs never to use again because they're not ready, aka - not professionals.

I'm sick and tired of the excuse that we need to help the small amateur with limited talented go straight into professional gigs. You need to pay your dues and be an AMAZING photographer. Just because you can afford a camera and have Photoshop, it doesn't make you a professional photographer (or even a good one).

Stuff like this is not good for the amateur, the agency, the client, or professional photographers who make a living doing this.

This is a destructive cycle that just needs to stop.

Giving away your work is not a way to be a better businessman. Our profession is in the toilet because, little by little, the value of photography is decreasing. And what happens on the bottom end, affects the top end and everything in between. That's all I'm saying. There are many tools available to photographers to get their work seen by agencies, some very inexpensive. And just remember, if you never get paid for your work, or you shoot for less, how will you ever profit enough to do that fancy promo? I'm still waiting for that assignment at the end of the rainbow that I was promised, when I did something for less. Nuff said!

Well said Brain.

Curious how many agencies?
So true that having a camera and knowing how to use Photoshop (does anyone truly know how to use everything in Photoshop?) doesn't make you a photographer, just as the same is true for graphic artists with Quark, Illustrator, InDesign etc. Used to feel sorry for them....

Too bad (some) users of photography don't see the difference between taking and making a photograph....and imagine that digital imaging means the artist's artfulness is no longer needed.

I've been in business in Denver since 1987, I signed up. Used to be lawyers, doctors, hospitals and drug companies didn't advertise, didn't give away free consultations, or samples. Times change buckos, think that's what last year just taught us, or tried to.

As an art buyer, I can tell you we receive every one of your mailers or promotional pieces. It's just that 95% of you aren't very good. Sorry for the harsh reality.

Things like this put photographers and myself in harm's way. I don't award jobs to those that don't take the profession for what it is (even underbidders are bad).

So you've bought a camera and can take a decent shot every once in a while. Doesn't make you a pro. You need to be able to deliver over and over across many variables, usually with a client present, and in a short amount of time. Only a handful of people can do this. IT'S A PROFESSION.

There's a feeling of obligitation and one of impatience with photogs nowadays. You're not owed anything. It's a saturated marketplace, but the right people are always being hired as they always have been; talent always wins.

Quit working for free, and work hard.

It's ideas like this that make me think the TDE is just an attention whore.

+1 Armando

+1 Brian

Piss off, jp.

Now let me get a few things straight. There is nothing wrong with a photographer having a few Creative and Art Directors over to there studio and shooting some fun portraits and having a good time. It builds relationships that you can't by sending mailers and promos. Now I would never agree to set up shop for a week at an agency like interger and take a photograph of ever single one of their hundreds of employees.

Sales and marketing is about relationships not about the product or service. When there are several good photographers bidding on the same job, who would a you choose? Most likely someone you already knew and liked. That is what this should be, a way for Art Directors and Art Buyers to build relationships with photographers.

Also in real life the cream doesn't always rise to the top. It's those that are willing to work hard and take risks that do. So this is a risk that I am willing to take.

P.S. Brian and Armando even though I don't agree with you, I checked out your work and you have some great stuff.

Does Baskin Robbins "devalue" its ice cream by giving away a free scoop once a year?

Does Hershey's "devalue" its newest candy bar when street teams give them away downtown?

Do lawyers "devalue" their services by giving away free consultations?

Of course not. So why is this different for photographers? Answer: It's not. It's not any different than any other business giving a free trial to see if you like the product.

We laughed out loud at the "Art Buyer" who chided everyone to "Quit working for free and work hard." We wonder if her own agency takes that advice when they work for free on new biz pitch after new biz pitch.

Get over yourselves. It's a way photographers can catch a break, build a relationship and see what happens. If you don't like it, don't do it.

"Devalue" ? How about one and done with that BR free scoop. Same with the Hershey bar. I had a real nice lawyer consult with me for free, but it was a specialized area of law and I could never use them for anything else.

Having hired photographers for projects and asked photographers to shoot for industry organizations, I can say that the turnover rate for that free job and sending them a paying job is small. There aren't enough budgets in a year (heck, two years) to pay them back. Plus, there are stylistic issues, as well. Do I want to hire someone that doesn't fit the project because I owe them a job? Worst decision ever.

On the surface the concept is interesting. Underneath, it has serious flaws. Brian, Armando, Feldman have said it best. TDE should go back to the concept room and rethink, reexamine, and retool this proposal. Keep trying.

I'm betting TDE did this with best of intentions. I doubt this is some sort of conspiracy against fellow creatives… but I'll take a pass on this, and here's why:

First, participating photographers are now "the free guy/gal" who had to put out for free to get seen. There's just more respect for someone who doesn't doesn't give it up on the first date. It was true in high school, and it's still true.

Second, I'd be pretty surprised if the principals of Denver's best agencies are ready to sit (stand? vogue?) for someone interested (hard up? beginning?) enough to bite for such a gig. Just a hunch.

This is NOT to say photogs (or other creatives) don't do favors for each other. Happens all the time. But I can say from personal experience that FREE just doesn't pay -- no pun intended. Folks tend to equate "free" with "no value" when it comes from an unknown. My clients get perks from me regularly. But that comes after establishing the fact that we both have value.

Let's turn it 'round and see how this would sound: Photographer has design work he needs done and is seeking free services from great agencies … you'll get to meet me if you do the job! (by all means contact me if interested: 970-330-4463). Unlikely. Tacky too.

Yes, the marketplace is changing and we all have to adapt. We've just got to figure out how to make a living at it. Love the idea of meeting folks in a way that's mutually beneficial; all for it. I do appreciate TDE making an honest effort, but if more professionals don't step forward, this may be why.

I have learned somewhere in the course of 20 years of shooting, that you must value yourself and set you own value. Nobody will do that for you.
Shooting freebies is part of NOT valuing yourself. Those that ask for free work are part of that devaluing.