Re: photographers

**Saxon Holt s*@saxonholt.com**

> I'm writing some gardening articles for a slick, but tight-fisted, magazine
> that has never run this sort of story before. The editor is unsure what to
> do about art. My experience with stock houses (for non-gardening photos)
> has not been great--they always seem generic to me, plus often you have to
> pay heavy research fees. Also, my feeling is that it's best to illustrate a
> story with the work of just one person. I'm wondering if the photographers
> on this list sell your old stuff directly to publications. Do you have web
> sites that show your style?  Since you're all gardeners, I'm wondering if
> it's possible for an editor to say, for instance, that she's doing a story
> on shade gardening, and ask for five photos that illustrate five specific
> points.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nancy Stedman, NYC

Nancy -

 First, don't apologize for a tight-fisted editor, there is no other kind -
through no fault of their own <g>.

Second, the big stock houses are generic by definition. But there are many
narrowly focused stock libraries of niche subjects whether it be gardens,
birds, weather, historic sites of Europe, etc.  Many may have photos on
their site to look at but will have the bulk of their coverage in the
library, which they will research for you.  Yes, they may charge a research
fee but it is generally applied against the sale. This saves them from
frivolous searches.

For example I will use my own stock library.  I have more than 200,000
images and less than 200 on my site http://www.saxonholt.com
While I do intend to upgrade with many more photos one day, I can never put
everything on line.  I depend on editors to contact me with specific
requests and we then prepare a specific submission in hopes they will buy
something.  I only charge research fees for the first time I do business
with someone.  If they like my work and we do business together, the fee is
unnecessary.

I would take some exception to wanting to use the same photographer to
illustrate a story.  This does have many advantages, in that it is easier
for the editor to deal with only one source, and if it is a reputable
photographer one can assume all the material will have consistent quality,
but it is NOT always the best for the story.  If the story is a garden
profile then, of course, you want a consistent style and orientation to the
garden that one photographer can bring, but if you are doing a theme story
on shade gardens you may very well want many styles and points of view.  I
find myself increasingly concentrating on gardens of California as I become
more and more passionate about why they are so different.  See some pretty
photos here - http://www.saxonholt.com/californiaplants.html

<<  This brings up a wonderful subject for some sort of symposium on garden
publishing.  There is way too much generic garden photography.  Too many
overfertilized, new gardens get too much attention.   And the only mature
gardens we see are English.  Delightful eye candy but a big lie to most
American gardeners.  Regional and web publishing will be an increasingly
important source for authentic garden information. >>

Ahem, back to your questions ....  Don't assume it is photographers "old
stuff" that gets sent out to publishers wanting stock photography.  That is
certainly true for some, but a good number of garden photographers shoot
primarily for stock, and are doing their best to keep up with new trends and
plants so that they have great NEW stuff when publishers on tight deadlines
are ready for it.

And finally, all garden photographers are not gardeners - nor do they need
to be.  It certainly helps when it comes to interpreting gardens and
captioning photos, but it is more important to have a good eye and
appreciation for the subject.  An architectural photographer does not have
to be an architect or builder.  For those of us who are gardeners, yes, we
often work with editors who give us a story and expect us to provide photos
to cover the points of the story.  We get a reputation for knowing what's
what and the value we add to our photos with accurate, informed captions can
make the difference between a saleable, useful photo and a generic pretty
one.

While I take a fair amount of pride in my work, I am honest enough to know
it is information I am selling not just images.  I sometimes don't think of
myself as a photographer at all, but a gardener with a camera.  I try to be
a garden communicator.  If my photos are pretty and informative enough to
some tight-fisted editor that they will free up a little money for my photos
then I count myself lucky.

Saxon Holt

Saxon Holt Photography
Gardens and Ornamental Horticulture
415-898-8880
http://www.saxonholt.com

_______________________________________________
gardenwriters mailing list
gardenwriters@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/gardenwriters

GWL has searchable archives at:
http://www.hort.net/lists/gardenwriters

Send photos for GWL to gwlphotos@hort.net to be posted
at: http://www.hort.net/lists/gwlphotos

Post gardening questions/threads to
"Organic-Gardening" <organic-gardening@lists.ibiblio.org>

For GWL website and Wiki, go to
http://www.ibiblio.org/gardenwriters