NFL Vests - What's Your Backside REALLY Worth?

I recently spent some time doing some research on this vests issue to post over at Sportsshooter here, but I thought I'd tweak it a bit for you to read here, as well. So, to those who are not concerned because "the logo is small/on-the-front", I say to you that they will incrementally take your "ad space".

It's one thing to require a bright vest for security purposes, but, in reality, having been on the field at the All-Star game and World Series, there are so many non-vested people, that policing that is really a joke. PDN has an article where they show the actual vest, so check that out too.

You need only look so far as the FunPix section of the Sportsshooter website:

What it should/could be: http://www.sportsshooter.com/funpix_view.html?id=6213 and what is was a few months ago, at Pimlico, and WILL BE at all other venues soon: http://www.sportsshooter.com/funpix_view.html?id=6725. Note there, that that NIKON logo is atleast 3 inches tall and spans the entire bib!. Nice how this funpix shows both the front and back.

Would you like to see how your backside will be used by the NFL - a la Preakness style -- soon?

Here's a nice Getty Images shot showing the NFL logo - imagine that being YOU and the NFL logo saying something else, and here's another. (Note, if you've never been to the Getty site, choose your country/language, and you'll get there. If not, search for image # 73204093 or #73203983 for the photos).

When someone sees that bright BLANK space down on the field, they see dollar-signs - as ad revenue.

Consider this:

The Bedford Group has a Sports Marketing white paper here Which posits:

Q: What is the cost of the stadium billboard (per 1,000 potential viewers) vs. that of similar outdoor boards? What's the premium for being in the stadium with a captive audience?

A: Note, it is generally accepted that a sign in a sports venue can be more valuable than a billboard because: (1) The audience is fixed for several hours at a time vs. simply passing by in a car (2) the sign can be shown on television during matches, thus gaining a wider audience.

For televised games, what is the value of the Company logo (from the stadium sign) appearing occasionally during each broadcast? Take a guess and determine that, for example, it will get 30 seconds of airtime
during each broadcast game, then give the sign additional value (getting a 30 second TV spot free).

NOW, what is your backside worth? IF ALL of the photographers are wearing a corporate logo in their backside, which is being seen by fans time and time again - DURING the game on tv AND from the stands by 60k+, it's easy to figure out.

So, let's do some math:

Clear Channel has a rate calculator - available here.

Now, going through that calculator - SF Bay Area, 8-sheet poster, general market, they will charge a mid-range price of $40,000 for four weeks, or $10,000 a week, and this presupposes that the four week "circulation" is approximately 57,000 people. For this, an 8 sheet poster is 5'x11', or 55 square feet. Your back is approximately 18" x 18" of usable space, or 2.25 square feet. $10k at 55 sq ft equates to $182 per sq ft. For your backside, that'd be $409, per person, for one stadium with 50,000+.

Imagine this conversation:

"We credential 40 photographers per game, and all are fieldside, that's 40 times 2.25 sq ft per person, or 90 square feet. Clear Channel charges about $16,000 to reach 50,000 people or so at that size. You are reaching not just that audience, but our research, in reviewing broadcast tapes of games from the last 24 months, show that those blank-slate bibs appear for a combined total of 16 seconds a game - during the game, when fans are more likely to be paying attention. NFL division playoff games have a rate of $600,000 per 30-second spot. Since, in those ads, you are designing the presentation, it makes sense. In this case, we're showcasing your logo fieldside, but only for 16 seconds. To start things off, we'll cut the per-second cost that 16 seconds would be - $320,000 down to $160,000, for the one game. But you have to commit to an entire season."

Source: Data360.org

So, you're worth $409 as a static billboard, per game, and $4,000 as a portion of the tv ad (40 backsides at $160,000 per game), or, $4,409 - per game. Now, how many games are there?

Nice. A stringer makes $200 Work-for-hire from the wire service, who earns that back with just one image sale, and the team makes $4,000+ off your backside.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

NY Posty Notes

The race is on! Apparently, tryouts for the NY Post are underway this week. Daryl Lang reports over at PDNPulse "...photogs continue to feel insulted at the very idea...someone logs the serial numbers of their camera equipment. This is to make sure they have their own pro gear and aren't just borrowing it from other freelancers..." (yeah, right, and I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge to boot), and you, among other things listed in the article have to "Photograph a piece of artwork (as if capturing a family photo or other document out in the field)" - nice. Didn't anyone tell them that photographing a school portrait of a child when covering an accident or tragedy, while common practice, is in fact a copyright violation?!? I spoke to one photographer who's attitude was "heck, at least he's paying you a day-rate to come in to do this." My response - "this is a freelance market. If you don't like what you've been getting from your freelancers, just simply stop using them and use someone else."

On another note, The NY Post is reporting that there were a few colorful words uttered at a "well-lubricated" office party at the Times by a top editor.

It seems that the word used to define a bundle of sticks but has more inappropriate uses to refer to male homosexuals was uttered. A combination of Gawker.com and the NY Post report that "an insider told Page Six the editor in question is Michele McNally, the director of photography listed on the Times masthead as an assistant managing editor" and that "McNally allegedly directed the hateful epithet at one of the male photo editors in her department." which resulted in ""An investigation was launched," said our source. "Her two best friends on the staff told investigators it wasn't true."

The Times Spokeswoman, according to the Post "told Page Six: "It's our practice not to comment on personnel matters. I can tell you the matter is closed." Hmmm, why then, did Wednesday's in-house newsletter reprint the company's harassment guidelines, and last week why did the paper establish a "Diversity Council" that sent out a missive which detailed it's initiatives in political correctness?

Honestly, while I've never met, nor worked for Michele, her reputation does precede her, and it may well be that she never said that, or, if that word passed her lips, it was meant in jest or good fun, and not in a derogatory fashion. The party was, as it was reported, "well lubricated", and further descibed as a "raucious farewell". Either way, let's get some perspective, give her the benefit of the doubt, and let's move on here, people, nothing to see here.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Sweet Jezebel!

Back in January, I wrote about the art of the retoucher, and now it's come up again, as Jezebel.com reports that "That Faith Hill Photo Wasn't Actually A Photo, 'Redbook' Editor Explains", as shown on NBC's Today show, that the untouched photo was uncovered by jezelbel.com. "Our goal in every cover is to create an incredibly beautiful image that people want to pick up, and peek inside" said Stacey Morrison, Editor in Chief. Morrison went on further to say what they did, in retouching Faith Hill so severely, was just industry standard.

Watching the video, you see that they thinned out her arm, her face, and her waist.

Of course it's industry standard...in fact, it's the industry's dirty little secret. This is why magazines will happily submit a list of photographers to celebrities who will then choose who will be the photographer for the cover assignment, and then, in turn, the celebrity requires they approve of the photo before it goes on the cover. Further, many celebrities require publications to use the "celebrity-approved" retoucher, who, of course, knows how to ensure that celebrity's flaws are minimized or eliminated. here's an example of massive retouching, to the point of "photo illustration" by an advertiser, and we're to expect that advertising is, in some small way, an acceptable arena for retouching. Who doesn't realize that 100% of the reason that a magazine has anything visual on the cover is to appeal to the newsstand buyer?!? The subscriber already has committed to the publication and paid for it. The cover is marketing and advertising for single-copy sales.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Oh, C'mon with this!

At the Kodak Professional's ProPass website, the article is titled "Vicki Taufer ~ Lessons Learned. Techniques Perfected.", and the article begins: "Six years ago, newlyweds Vicki and Jed Taufer looked at each other and said, “What the heck, let’s do it.”.

WTF?

While the article then goes on to say is "The ‘it’ they were referring to was turning Vicki’s hobby into her career." Ok, that's not making anything clearer.

Yes, yes, I know she wanted to pursue photography, but come on, what possessed Vicki and Jed to pose for a photo like the one above on the right, that they then distributed to promote themselves via an e-mail from their partner in this endeavor, Marathon Press, especially for a seminar they are/were doing? (See the e-mail online here, or via PDF here. ) Even if that image didn't accompany the ProPass article, it's kinda like this site which shows the sad juxtaposition of promotional pieces with other placements, or just life in general.

These people are, no doubt, excellent story-tellers with their images. A review of their website reveals that they sure can make stunning images of all sorts of things - they know how to communicate with an image. So, why on earn tell a story like the one that they are using to market themselves? I just can't figure it out, and I can't wait to read your comments!

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

The Power of the Upsell

"Would you like some fries with that?"

Everyone I know, certainly almost everyone in the civilized world has been upsold on something. From fries, to dessert at the end of a meal that you didn't plan on having. Heck, "would you like bottled water, or tap?" is such a profit center for restaurants, NPR did a piece on it.

Just how, then, can you upsell? Photo Packaging for Professional Photographers did a nice piece on the benefits of proper packaging/presentation, writing:

“That photograph would look absolutely lovely in a frame. Shall I show you our framing options? I can offer you a reduced price on the frame since you have already decided to buy from us.”

Ok though, if you're not in the retail photo business, what can you upsell as editorial or corporate/commercial photographers?

ANSWER: Retouching, e-mails, additional CD's, rush turnarounds, on-site printing, a second photographer, make-up services, and so on.

Retouching is integral to many portraits we do, and many a client has expressed concern about bags under their eyes, pimples, facial blemishes, and wrinkles. While we include a nominal/baseline amount of retouching for portraits we do for clients, extensive retouching, like the removal of double/triple-chins, tie changes, and so forth, are upsell options, and clients welcome this flexibility.

E-mails may well be one of the many services that photographers simply give away. When we conclude an assignment, our work on behalf of that client ends, until we sit down to do their post production over the next 48 hours (our delivery commitment is that the post will be done in 2 business days). However, many clients need immediate access to one to five images, meaning that our work for the client does not end when the camera is put away. We need to make time to immediately process the best images from the event, and e-mail them. That additional work carries an additional charge - $65 each to be exact - and many a client is more than happy to pay that. We often counsel the client to only request one or two, because that's all they really need, however, I have had clients request as many as 27. You do the math.

Speaking of rush services, that too is a service we offer. We put the images in our queue, and process images in the order they were shot. As you all know, post-production takes time, even with the fastest computers. If you want to hop to the front of that line, that'll be a rush charge. For commercial/PR events, with a normal turnaround of two business days, if you want it turned around in 1 business day, add 100% to that. For same day/ASAP turnaround, add 200%.

Extra CD's? No problem. Heck, design departments ad ad agencies and design firms charge their clients $100 to make a copy of a CD. I charge comparably - 50% of whathever the charge was for the first CD. So, if CD output of an assignment incurred a $75 charge, then it's $37.50 for a second. If the CD charge was $175, then it's $87.50. Just three days ago, a client ordered two additional copies of a CD. No problem, we say.

For on-site printing, which is a staple of many an event photographer, we do it only upon request. It's not something I regularily do or offer, however, we have the capability, and do it upon request, more than as an upsell. It can be cost prohobitive for the client, but if it's needed, we'll do it.

Sometimes, an event is so large, that one photographer can't do it alone. Rather than have the client search and shop around for a second, we offer to provide it ourselves. There are many more reasons to handle it ourselves than the upsell, and that deserves it's own blog entry, or you could read about it on page 179 of the book.

Make-up often is a critical component of an assignment, so it's not always seen as an upsell. If we're responsible for paying the makeup person, it's getting a nominal markup for our handling of it.

Lastly, is the extended rights package. If the client is asking for one time use, but you feel they'll want to use it for other projects, offering that to them - upfront - can generate additional assignment revenue, and increase the benefit and usefulness of your images to the client in the long run.

There are many ways to increase your revenue on any given assignment. This increase is, of course, beneficial to you, however, in the end, the client truly sees the value in what you're offering, or they wouldn't choose to make the added expense. It just doesn't hurt to ask!

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Introducing Photoshelter

Please join me in welcoming Photoshelter as my first advertiser on Photo Business News & Forum.

Back in April, their services were a part of the review I did, comparing online sales features and functionality here.

Photoshelter is the backstop for many of the world's top photographers, Cameron Davidson was profiled by them as a Photoshelter user, and other high profile photographers such as Ami Vitale, Brad Mangin, and Vincent Laforet's archive rely on Photoshelter. They offer off-site archiving via the web, integrated e-commerce, automated sales transactions and much more. Oh, and did I also mention that they designed and power the Eddie Adams Barmstorm workshop (currently in it's 20th year), and, the legendary Contact Press Images chose PhotoShelter as their online image archive and distribution system?

They use, as the back end for their pricing, FotoQuote, and if you'd like to learn more about the special they have for you to get your very own FotoQuote for your own desktop/laptop, click here.

Lastly, if you're an advertiser that wants to reach the thousands of photographers that visited the Photo Business News & Forum site over 25,000 times last month, you can learn more about it here.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Unvarnished Reality

For awhile now, many of you have written in the comments, and to me privately, about just how "photojournalism is dead", or some variation thereof. In many cases, you're right. However, for those who set their own terms, specify what they are (and are not) willing to accept for any given assignment, and otherwise chart their own editorial course, work can be highly satisfying and lucrative.

In a departure from my normal musings, I am presenting, with permission, highly regarded attorney and friend of many a photographer, Ed Greenberg's thoughts on this subject, and I commend it to you for serious consideration. Ed uses, for example, the recent events of New York where a steampipe burst, but the news outlets thought (and rightly so) that it just might be a terrorist incident, and as such, turned to "citizen journalists" for coverage. As a part of the discourse, where Ed's commentary and criticism of these activities by news outlets appears, I've presented the evidence of those points, and penned the sidebar commentary on this "new world order", created by (among others) Reuters, who has adopted the citizen journalist model.

---

Wednesday, July 18, 2007, ought to go down as the date that traditional bread and butter, editorial photojournalism manifested to anyone who chooses to see, that the profession is on life support. For years my mantra has been, “You can’t compete against free.” The traditional employers and clients of photojournalists have been newspapers, magazines and television who, I have argued, have been phasing you out of your livelihood.

For articulating that point of view, with a considerable amount of vigor, I have been vilified and attacked professionally and personally. Many well intentioned shooters have suggested that photographers ought “partner” with their traditional clients in order to assure their existence in the new media economy. That position is in my view naïve and tantamount to economic suicide.

So now a massive steam explosion occurs in Gotham’s midtown, super busy district during the middle of a work day some 75 yards from my former office. The resulting 400 degree steam geyser rising hundreds of feet into the air, just one block from Grand Central Station and literally on top of several subway lines, results in city blocks being closed off, subways turned off, a cacophony of emergency sirens continuing through today, one death, thirty injuries and of course thousands of photo opportunities.

Within seconds to minutes of the explosion the local television channels were actively soliciting video tape, cell phone footage, still imagery and equivalents from the public for the expressed purpose of reportage. Websites, particularly gothamist.com featured “live coverage” employing un-credited “live” footage of the steam geyser. The publisher was on NPR this morning expounding with great clarity how she was effectively able to beat out the coverage of the New York network affiliates by using images freely sent to her. The images were and are more than adequate (take a look). The site paid zilch, zero, nada for the footage.

The local Fox affiliate virtually begged on air for free images and gave instructions how to download or otherwise get the images to Fox for broadcast. Fox was not alone in the media world. We are unable to ascertain the number of images which ran in the NY Post, Daily News and NY Times which were shot by the many “civilian” employees who were evacuated from their offices and hit the streets with cellular phones held high over their heads in camera mode.

Those print photo credits which do appear may be misleading as one or more agencies no doubt purchased images from unsuspecting amateurs outright. This practice pre-dates the oldest reader of this post. We do note that of the nine photos which appear in the tabloid NY Post of Thursday, July 19, 2007, not a single one bears a NY Post photo credit nor indicates that the shooter has any staff affiliation with The Post.

My confidential and unimpeachable photo source at the NY Post just told me that:
1. No staff photography (of the 9 subject images) was used;
2. Most images were "civilian", others were civilian purchased/acquired by agents/agencies;
3. Citizen shooters and journalists are now considered part of the newsgathering process and especially when lots of images from different sources flood the newsroom, little to no fact checking takes place. I inquired about how the use of particular lenses could “accurately” distort a news event and when it’s an amateur photo - how would the publication know? He/she laughed and laughed and laughed. "Hey Greenberg, are you f**king kidding me?"

Client Adrienne DeArmas, working for Time Magazine on the Virginia Tech massacre story, was unable to procure/arrange for the creation of images that could compete with the Myspace and Facebook images of the students killed, their friends, families and teachers. The cover of TIME that week was a grid of said photos, with not one professionally shot image among them.

The days when a significant number of skilled, staff editorial photographers were needed by newsgathering publications are over. Those of you who still believe that you can “partner” with your clients/enemies in order to assure your continued business existence are, with all due respect, hopeless. With no intention to disrespect any of the fine photojournalists who still work staff – many of whom we represent – the days of being able to support you and your family by hitting the streets and covering stories for newspapers are over.

Your clients beat you at your own game. You willingly cede your intellectual property rights to your clients who, simultaneously and with great calculation, enlisted the willing support of civilians who “charge” free. They have effectively rendered you obsolete.

Ironically, it is the news outlets and not the photographers who have truly mastered the art of digital photography. They have effectively rendered you obsolete.

You need to establish alternative and creative income streams. You need to bring something to the editorial table that Bernie the dentist who shoots for fun can’t. You need to treat this business as a business. You can’t let yourself be bullied into giving up your rights in a pointless effort to compete with “free”. You must be a business person first and an artist second. The handwriting has been on the wall for years. This episode is reflective of yet another battle lost in a war against photographers that was won by your friendly “clients” years ago.

I will be pleased to appear at any legitimate venue to discuss or debate any teacher, professor, photographer or photo professional who trains and represents that there is an economic future in photojournalism. Will some truly great photojournalists survive? Absolutely. No doubt. Does it however, make any economic sense to represent to any student or newbie that he has a realistic chance of being able to support a family at a middle class life style now and in the future by shooting traditional photojournalism? No way.

I am pleased to consider rational opposing views.

Very truly yours,

EDWARD C. GREENBERG

Edward C. Greenberg, PC
570 Lexington Ave.
17th Floor
NYC NY 10022
212 697-8777
ecglaw@aol.com

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Whoring You Out - On Your Frontside and Backside To Boot!

Your backside is no longer your own. You must do with it what your new pimp tells you to do...that is...if you wish to work the turf that the National Football League owns. You wanna turn a trick on the sidelines of a game? You gotta give your due to your overlord.

Even The Wall Street Journal refers to them as "overlords" in their latest article from yesterday, Sports Leagues Impose More Rules on Coverage, starting the article "The overlords of big-time sports and reporters have battled for nearly as long as they've needed each other. In 1938, baseball's Pittsburgh Pirates successfully sued a radio station that placed staffers outside Forbes Field to peek in and broadcast an unauthorized play-by-play of a game. For all the tension, the two sides had a symbiotic relationship. Publicity sold tickets and access sold papers and boosted ratings."

The article goes on to report "But some of the NFL's other actions have horrified Alex Marvez, president of the Pro Football Writers Association and a South Florida Sun-Sentinel reporter. He winces at the new rule requiring photographers to wear red vests with small Canon and Reebok logos. Mr. Marvez calls the idea of using working press members as advertising vehicles "really alarming." Neither company is paying a specific fee for the vests, but Canon Inc. is an official sponsor of the league (it pays a rights fee to be associated with the NFL) and Reebok International Ltd., owned by Adidas AG, is a league licensee (it makes merchandise with NFL logos, including jerseys, pants and photo vests)." (as shown above left).

While it may be that - for now - most sideline photographers are Canon photographers, and were I a Nikon photographer that had a sponsorship deal with Nikon (and those photographers do exist) I'd be all but certain that their deal precludes them from using or wearing competitors' logos. Nikon honored George Tiedemann, and they also honored Dave Black a few years ago, both highly regarded and respected sports photographers. While I don't know if they have deals, there are definitively esteemed sports photographers that shoot Nikon.

To the left is the sidelines at a recent MLB game that I made. Aside from seeing the horrible yellow, what I see is where sports marketing person could say, during the game when touring a potential sponsor - "See all those blank yellow vests down there. That blank space could be instead have your logo, we make them wear those....". Well, now, sections of the vest have sponsor logos. Soon, each vest could well look like a NASCAR car, with major and minor logos. I see atleast two photographers with Nikon gear, just on this side of the field.

Our friends over a Sportshooter are chiming in, as has the NPPA.. If you thought you, as a sports photographer, were not a part of the money making machine, and somehow immune from it, or otherwise a dignified member of the news media, think again. Next it will be sheer pantyhose and daisy-dukes to take your respect down a notch.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

SUBJECT: As We Discussed

• This is what you wanted
• As per our conversation
• RE:
• For you John
• Fwd:
• Hello
• My details
• Thanks!
• One more question

The above are REAL subject lines that I recieved from real clients, friends, and other folks e-mailing me - not spammers. Those e-mails have variations of medication names, offers for expensive watches, and so forth. Instead, the above e-mails contained:

• This is what you wanted - included details on the room # of an assignment
• As per our conversation - This is from a vendor with details about some equipment I wanted to order
• RE: - This was from a client about where she wanted the CD delivered
• For you John - This was from a friend about a restaurant I was looking into
• Fwd: - This was from a client who had a shot list I needed for an assignment in two days
• Hello - This from someone who wanted me to send them an estimate
• My details - An assistant sent me her contact information for an upcoming assignment
• Thanks! - A client wanted to express their appreciation for a job well done
• One more question - a client had...yes...one more question about a negotiation we were close to closing

Instead, try these:

• ASSIGNMENT DETAILS for: Tuesday, July 17
• Need a photographer on 7.26
• Quote Request for ...
• Photo Estimate for: Friday, July 13
• In Reference to photos from the President's ...
• Photo Assignment Status request for: Monday, July 25
• JHarrington Photo - Invoice status inquiry
• JHarrington Photo - Invoice for ...
• John Harrington W-9 Form

All of the above are succinct, descriptive, and useful. They are all exact e-mail subject lines we either sent, or recieved recently. The use of them increases peoples interest and willingness to preview, read, act, or forward on to the necessary party regarding the contents.

Next time you send an e-mail, think about your subject lines!

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

The Wasington Post(.com) - Cross Sharing

"Nah, the dot-com-ers won't get any play in the paper..." was what I heard more than one Washington Post photographer and reporter say. "We're seperate companies anyway, we share content with them, but they're not filling our pages with art."

Sorry, think again.

The article in question is Geek Pride Blooms Into a Real-World Subculture, from Sunday's paper, which played on the front page (A1). Someone knowledgable about DC photojournalists would know that the photographer...err...videographer credited is Travis Fox. An award winning journalist who is deservedly well liked all around. Fox is definately a good guy. I can't, however, recall ever seeing credits play as his have in the Post, and as a harbinger of things to come, this is worth dissecting, not just for DC journalists, but also other papers who look up to TWP as how "the big guns" do it.

On A1 (that would be the front page), the following photo appears:
And it looks fine. I've reduced it downwards to make it look as close to identical to how it appeared on the page. If you'd like to see how it appears as scanned showing the paper's halftone pattern, click here. If you do take a look, you'll see little image degradation. A critical look will reveal some issues, but overall, it looks really good.

However, below you will see the image from their website, (a 425 pixel-wide 100% portion of that image) note that it's severely degraded, and definately looks like it came from video. Clearly, they had to do a fair amount of work on the image for it to appear on the front page.
To see the full 608 pixel wide image as it appeared on the website, visit the link above, or click here.

What is also interesting is the inconsistency of the photo credits. The Washington Post has previously ran credits from TV stations on their front page, where the credit looked like: "AP via WABC-TV" or something similar. This time, however, and specifically on the front page, they've omitted the reference to it being from video, but they did attribute it to their sister company. See below:
However, after the jump, the credit style changes to:
. Interestingly enough, that photo, which I've also reduced downwards to make it look as close to identical to how it appeared on the page (from a clarity standpoint) looks fine.
If you'd like to see how it appears as scanned showing the paper's halftone pattern, click here. This continues to be an example of how the multimedia conglomerates (remember, The Washington Post Co also owns Newsweek, Post-Newsweek Interactive, Kaplan, and so on) will be cross-utlizing their assets wherever possible.

That's something to remember when you think about the work you're doing for your clients.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]