Day 64: Amateurs

Day 64: Amateurs

Monday, March 5, 2018

When a magazine miscredits or otherwise somehow misappropriates a photo, there are a few usual suspects:

  • the picture editor who got the details wrong;
  • the sub-editor who didn’t fact-check properly;
  • the writer who was lazy with the details when obtaining the image;
  • the designer who carelessly left details from the previous issue in the page template

Not every magazine is so well resourced, but it’s ultimately the editor who must wear the mistake.

Anyway, that’s how it works in theory.

Today, I went straight to the editor of a publication that misappropriated one of my photos. As a 20+ year veteran of the media, I have never seen such a breath-taking amount of buck-passing from an organisation that claims to take pride in fostering the future of Australian journalism (a claim I’ve always chuckled at, to be honest).

As a professional courtesy, I’m not going to name these people – which is far more than the courtesy they showed me.

About today’s photo: This style of lighting might be incredibly common to the photos I take, but don’t ever make the mistake of thinking it comes cheaply. I know it doesn’t seem like much, but every photo does, in fact, require some time and effort to take.

3 thoughts on “Day 64: Amateurs

  1. I’ve always been curious, I often analyse your pictures, trying to work out how it was lit, where from… and how you get the damn focus so sharp when you’re not even behind the camera!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.