Photographers are rarely coming up with the story idea and pitching it. They also don’t have the deal with the burly revision process that writers face.

Often, without a story, there is no need to hire a photographer’s services.

Photographers are often paid a day rate or a story rate. If writers calculated their day rates for the same story, it almost always comes to less than $300-400/day (roughly a floor for a photographers day rate, if I’m not mistaken.)

AFAIK, One publisher pays the photographer about $1k more if the story makes the cover of the magazine. Has it ever occurred to them that it might be the quality of the story that lands it on the cover, not the value of the photograph?

Also AFAIK, one publisher paid 2x more for photos than I was paid for the story — which wouldn’t have existed had I not pitched it.

If you’re someone in a decision making position reading this and realizing how things are all backwards and want to come up with ways do fix it, let’s talk. My DMs are open.

Oh also often the same publisher will allow the photographer to license their photos to the publisher. This means the photographer can retain their rights and resell their photos. Meanwhile, often times the same publisher will hand the writer a contract with a full rights grab.

Also writers, next time you work with a photographer on a story, ask how much they’re getting paid.