Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Photographs are actually MUCH cheaper. Look at the rates in the contributor's guidelines-- $80 for a whole page photo and per-word rates of $0.10/word. A page uses up 1000 words, or $100.00. Scanning costs about $25 per photo at current rates. The printer doesn't care at all; no savings there. But layout, design, and editorial costs are much cheaper for a photo than to edit all that text. That's why simple, low-budget, low-overhead magazines use lots of photos. Not enough photos for your taste? Your tastes may or may not match the marketplace. Clearly, Trains with 110,000 paid readers (last postal statement) is finding a very large number of readers who like it enough to pay for it. CTC Board and Railroad Explorer, which are photo-heavy, have 7000 and 1000 paid readers respectively, I believe. What does that tell you? Photos are easy and fun -- I sure love seeing great photos! -- but they're not lasting. How long do you typically spend looking at a photo? Five, ten seconds tops? And how long does it take you to read a page of text? Ten minutes? If you flip through an entire magazine in 10 minutes because it's all photos, was it worth $4.95? How about if it takes you three hours to read it and you can go back to it later to reread it? Which is more valuable to you? Do you remember a great Photo Section from the May 1997 issue? Or, do you remember a great article from the same issue? I've never met anyone who can recall a great Photo Section! Maybe one or two photos here or there. But every rail enthusiast I've ever met can list 10 articles they loved. I see you're also a contributor. My friend, do not confuse what readers with contributors. Readers PAY money for a magazine; they're buyers. Contributors GET money for a magazine (or ego strokes, or both); they're vendors. To be a successful contributor, think like a contributor, not like a reader. Magazines need readers, they pay the bills, and all editors are trying to do is please readers. If they don't please readers, they're soon a former editor. Editors don't "need" contributors any more than you "need" the jerk on the phone trying to sell you long-distance service. There's an infinite supply of contributors, just as there's an infinite supply of anyone who wants to sell you something. If what you're looking for is to get published, whether a magazine prints 70 photos each month or 75 isn't going to change your odds much. What will change your odds is sending lots of photos, news photos, different photos, quality photos, creative photos, and not asking for them all back 30 days later. There's enormous competition for publication (I've been a published contributor to almost all of the railroad magazines since 1982), and each month your photo is fighting with at least 200-300 other photos. I've known most of the heavy contributors for years, and they all do the same thing: -- send lots of photos -- leave them at the magazine indefinitely -- respond immediately when the editor asks if they have something -- take excellent photos -- be nice, considerate, and helpful Most important is that good stuff ALWAYS rises to the top, immediately. Again, editors want to sell magazines. Have you tried e-mailing the editor and asking them what they want? Have you taken an unvarnished, serious look at what you're doing vs. what you're seeing in the magazines and decided which is better? If you're not your own worst critic, I think you'll have trouble succeeding. Good luck! Charlie Steen
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag