Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime

Words and pictures

edited November 2013 in Writing
I'm beginning to wonder if writing is becoming a second citizen. Most articles I write are on topics where I can also supply photos and many magazines simply pay a single package for that - so much per page for example. (I've certainly found there has been a greater acceptance rate where I can supply both words and pictures.) However, two recent payments have separated out the payments for words and pictures and in one case the total payment for the pictures is almost double that for the words. The words have taken me time to research, write, edit, redraft and so on and take x hours, the photos have often taken little more than a considered point and shoot as I tend to use my camera in auto mode. Is this the experience of others?

Comments

  • I've heard other writers say they get as much for photos as the articles.

    And make sure you don't forget to do your DACS form filling (when applicable).
  • I get more for the words - but I'm surprised how much I can get for images that were just taken for research but submitted in case they were of interest.

    DACS and ALCS help bump it all up.
  • Picture books are notoriously more lucrative for illustrators than the writer, even though it will be the writer's idea in the first place. That's why it's best to be a writer/illustrator. They are sold mainly on the artwork - but that would be nothing without the words.
  • [quote=Carol]And make sure you don't forget to do your DACS form filling (when applicable).[/quote]

    I have added the pics to my list for DACS but can only submit them August to October each year. Thanks for the reminder.

    [quote=Liz]Picture books are notoriously more lucrative for illustrators than the writer[/quote]

    I suppose with an illustrator the time taken on the work could be of equal length or even longer than that spent by the writer. Being able to do both would be a real bonus there! For photographs I might have to travel (but I tend to only take pics when I am going somewhere anyway) but in many cases I have been able to take pics in my own home with little time or effort required. When I wrote an article on using quinces for example I simply took photos at each stage of recipes and they were used. Secret is definitely never to be without a camera as well as a notebook it seems. I've asked other writers of non-fiction and they seem to find this is a common occurence so I can only conclude it is more trouble for magazines to source illustrations than it is to get people to write for them!
  • I've never written an article without supplying photos - but I think editors expect freelance travel writers to be handy with a camera. I've never been paid separately for the prose and the pics.

    [quote=Wordy]The words have taken me time to research, write, edit, redraft and so on and take x hours, the photos have often taken little more than a considered point and shoot as I tend to use my camera in auto mode. Is this the experience of others?[/quote]

    Again, because I write travel articles in the main, the photos I take for an article are very much part of my submission. I probably do spend more time on the words, but if I have to go out specifically to take photos for a feature, that can be time consuming. Sometimes, I have to get up very early to be on location just as dawn breaks, for example. :)
  • I think you are right about travel pieces, Claudia, as they really need photos to support them and if the contributor doesn't supply them they could be difficult or expensive for the editor to source. Not all articles need pictures but increasingly I find editors respond to a pitch asking if I have images and explaining that their title is a "very visual" one.
    I think only about twenty percent of the titles I have contributed to have paid for the words and pictures separately but it certainly gives an insight into how words and pictures are valued.
  • LizLiz
    edited November 2013
    [quote=Wordy]I suppose with an illustrator the time taken on the work could be of equal length or even longer than that spent by the writer. [/quote]

    I don't think so - equal maybe, but- I don't think so. Picture books are fiendish to write.

    I took 5 years to write my book. A long time I know! but once all the info was in place, my illustrator took 3 days to do the B&W illustrations (about 20) and 2 days to paint the cover.

    Oh, and edit to say, she got paid 3 times what i did.
  • Point taken, Liz. I know I spend ages researching and writing pieces but I can hope with non- fiction to use it in more than one way, too. If I compare the time I spend writing to taking photos I know the latter is a piece of cake by comparison but family members are artists, albeit amateurs, and a piece of art work can take them equally as long. It was on that basis that I suggested there might be a difference between photographs and art work for illustrations. I still wonder at illustrations of any sort attracting a higher fee unless it is simply for the convenience of the editor who would probably find illustrations harder to source than words. On the other hand I suppose most of us find a page broken up by illustrations more attractive than a page of text.
  • I think it is indicative of the way writers are viewed - anyone can write, not anyone can draw, so writing skills are not rated as highly.
Sign In or Register to comment.