Get your work out there at DVinfo.net

Josh Swan · July 2nd, 2010, 08:41 AM

So in the world of wedding vendors, Photography in particular, it seems as if they can get their pictures out in the public eye, a bit easier than us videographers can get our work recognized. Is this the case in your experiences? A lot of the well known wedding photographers I work with, can get a few pictures featured here and there, and you hear of them winning a photo contest, but do you ever hear of videos being featured on blogs and in contests and such? If so, my question is, how do you go about getting your work out there and known, as being "featured" in something?

Philip Howells · July 2nd, 2010, 05:07 PM

Josh may I offer a few thoughts?

Firstly, if we think we have it tough competing with Uncle Joe and his new HD single chip camera with a built-in microphone, believe me photographers have an even more difficult time - the days when the pro was the one with the Hasselblad are long gone - how many non-afficionados can tell the difference between a D90 with a cheap lump of own-brand glass and a D3 with a Nikon lens costing more than the body?

Secondly, print space and access to it is getting to be like hen's teeth. Here in the UK two newspapers owned by the infamous and detestable Murdoch organisation (Fox News etc) have just started charging £1 per day subscription to look at their online editions. The vast majority of bridal pictures in the main mags are advertorials - you get your name and your pictures published if you buy space, ie pay for the privilege of supplying the media with its raw material. One magazine which also organises wedding fairs won't let anyone but magazine advertisers buy stands at their fairs - and they still charge exorbitant prices.

So, I think I'd question the basic premise behind your question that photographers have it easier than us.

On the positive side we all have the Internet available to us. Certain sections are crowded but as long as the search engines do their job impartially it's up to you to develop your site so that it is viewed more often by more people. I understand Facebook is gaining ground as a means of trade, notwithstanding the organisation's stand against companies creating identities on it.

Where we are at a disadvantage compared to photographers is that our productions are multi-media and the sound element often contains stuff which, if broadcast (and un-passworded items on the Internet are broadcasting) can either get you into trouble or cost you a lot of money.

The answer is to make "broadcastable" versions which contain music you can broadcast without charge but that's more work, but the opportunities are there.

Finally, on the positive side, if we want to distribute the finest examples of our work it costs us considerably less (the price of a DVD, case etc) than it would cost a photographer to do the equivalent - eg give away albums.

July 2nd, 2010, 08:41 AM	#1
Josh Swan Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scarborough Me Posts: 186	Get your work out there So in the world of wedding vendors, Photography in particular, it seems as if they can get their pictures out in the public eye, a bit easier than us videographers can get our work recognized. Is this the case in your experiences? A lot of the well known wedding photographers I work with, can get a few pictures featured here and there, and you hear of them winning a photo contest, but do you ever hear of videos being featured on blogs and in contests and such? If so, my question is, how do you go about getting your work out there and known, as being "featured" in something?

July 2nd, 2010, 05:07 PM	#2
Philip Howells Trustee Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 1,212	Josh may I offer a few thoughts? Firstly, if we think we have it tough competing with Uncle Joe and his new HD single chip camera with a built-in microphone, believe me photographers have an even more difficult time - the days when the pro was the one with the Hasselblad are long gone - how many non-afficionados can tell the difference between a D90 with a cheap lump of own-brand glass and a D3 with a Nikon lens costing more than the body? Secondly, print space and access to it is getting to be like hen's teeth. Here in the UK two newspapers owned by the infamous and detestable Murdoch organisation (Fox News etc) have just started charging £1 per day subscription to look at their online editions. The vast majority of bridal pictures in the main mags are advertorials - you get your name and your pictures published if you buy space, ie pay for the privilege of supplying the media with its raw material. One magazine which also organises wedding fairs won't let anyone but magazine advertisers buy stands at their fairs - and they still charge exorbitant prices. So, I think I'd question the basic premise behind your question that photographers have it easier than us. On the positive side we all have the Internet available to us. Certain sections are crowded but as long as the search engines do their job impartially it's up to you to develop your site so that it is viewed more often by more people. I understand Facebook is gaining ground as a means of trade, notwithstanding the organisation's stand against companies creating identities on it. Where we are at a disadvantage compared to photographers is that our productions are multi-media and the sound element often contains stuff which, if broadcast (and un-passworded items on the Internet are broadcasting) can either get you into trouble or cost you a lot of money. The answer is to make "broadcastable" versions which contain music you can broadcast without charge but that's more work, but the opportunities are there. Finally, on the positive side, if we want to distribute the finest examples of our work it costs us considerably less (the price of a DVD, case etc) than it would cost a photographer to do the equivalent - eg give away albums.