Reading mode: Light Dark

News Reviews Articles Buying Guides Sample Images Videos Cameras Lenses Phones Printers Showcase Forums Galleries Challenges

When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.

Now reading: Photojournalists reveal their favorite publications to work with and what they pay 67 comments

Photojournalists reveal their favorite publications to work with and what they pay

Published May 1, 2017 | Allison Johnson

Photographer Genna Martin on assignment for Seattle PI.

Columbia Journalism Review recently surveyed a group of photojournalists on their favorite publications to work with based on several criteria, including arguably the biggest one – pay. As a result, they've published an article revealing the day rates for some top publications as well as some insight into other factors, such as balancing a lower day rate with exposure to a wider audience.

Comments

All (67)

You may enjoy www.nro.gov

Man in space was a marvel in systems engineering and bravery but produced as much science as an average high school science fair. The real payoff was in unmanned spacecraft.

May 2, 2017permalink

DonM999

I remember reading a book about early photo reconnaissance in which the author related a story about his "flash bulb" blowing out the bottom of the plane while he clung to the side for his life. I believe he went on to become a General.

May 3, 2017permalink

lightandaprayer

@james s. kennedy I'm not sure what point you are trying to make except that retired officers of the armed services enjoy excellent benefits paid for by taxpayers. (You also failed to mention the ancillary payments and benefits active duty personnel receive in addition to their base pay.)

But I can reply to your comment about those pay rates and benefits: Freelance photojournalists receive no benefits from their employers. The photographers must pay for health care, retirement, sick leave, vacations and the 15% self employment tax out of the proceeds of those days rates. They aren't so "generous" when you take that into account.

Unfortunately, doing what you love doesn't always pay the bills. . . Let's keep in mind that when PJs were receiving even lower day rates, newspapers were the most profitable companies in America. The families that owned papers were uniformly wealthy.

Like the military, journalism is one of the foundations of our democracy. Journalist pay should be better.

May 3, 2017permalink

jackspra

Fun to read the comment and the replies.Thanks.

May 4, 2017permalink

Dave Hachey

Glad I went to graduate school in STEM and not photography. Photographers today have a tough job and I hope they are able to plan for retirement. Many of the best are now leading workshops to exotic locations, which BTW, I enjoy. I spent many an evening in the university's student darkroom practicing techniques, but concluded I wasn't good enough to make a living at it. Now I'm able to travel the world going the likes of Art Wolfe and Frans Lanting doing what I enjoy.

May 4, 2017permalink

Ultan

$1000 today is the equivalent of
$120 in 1958 ($22 if you're buying MIT tuition, was $1100, now $50k)
$354 in 1980 (your $32K = $90K in 2017)

$1000 dollars in salary and benefits cost to an employer gives about $700 in gross pay to an employee, which after tax gives the employee about $540 in spendable money. Since photographers are self-employed, they basically get to spend only half of what they are paid. So a $600 day rate means $300 spending money, the equivalent of $36 in 1958 or $106 in 1980. That's without looking at direct expenses for equipment, travel and lodging. Also, this is the top tier of the profession, only a few million dollars per year is paid to photographers by all the top publications combined, there probably aren't more than a couple of thousand photographers in the world that gross over $100k in such day rates per year and they spend like someone who makes less than half that much, less than US GDP per capita.

May 6, 2017permalink

Ultan

I'd like to point up the implication that:
Today's $1000 pay for a self-employed person will buy the same amount of MIT education as $11 cash in hand would buy in 1958, which at the time one could net from less than 15 hours at the $1/hr. minimum wage. That gives the 1958 minimum wage the educational buying power of $67/hr. in 2017.

May 6, 2017permalink

cSalmon

Let me ask, the rates posted are for one time editorial publication? And expenses such as the assistant's fee, lighting kit, camera kit are not included in this rate but are paid (reimbursed)? Also how does this rate relate to the publication's space rate if an image is prominent on the page or used for the cover?

May 2, 2017permalink

gc film and images

In my experience a photographer only gets reimbursed for expenses if it's a cover shoot or prominent feature for a large publication, and it's still pretty tight so you need to be frugal or creative. The rates are reduced for regular back of the book sections featuring just an image or two. Those can range anywhere from $250-$650 depending on number of images and importance of the section.

May 2, 2017permalink

h2k

Sorry, i',m not in the country nor in that business. If i may ask:

Do these rates also cover the cost for international travel, accommodation, local travel, food and paying fixers/collaborators/informers/guides?

Or do the magazines pay an extra amount (flat? case-dependent?) for these costs?

Thanks!

PS.
I noted that one photographer in that article seemed to appreciate that a certain news outlet pays extra for travel etc. This sounded as if other media didn't pay for necessary expenses.

May 2, 2017*permalink

HeyItsJoel

Doubt it. Just as any independent contractor would tell you, medical/dental/vision/retirement is all your responsibility. You get some money back through write-offs but, still. Being a photographer means you kinda have to be a hustler.

May 3, 2017permalink

ZJ24

Interesting, so work your behind off for a day and you can afford an hour with your lawyer, or half a root canal.

May 2, 2017permalink

TheWintermute

Lawyers and doctors are way overpriced in americas. So what?

May 2, 2017permalink

mandm

CBS News 9.2013; The cost of becoming a doctor has soared, with higher education expenses leaving the average newly minted physician with $166,750 in medical school debt, while average salaries are declining. Nearly one-third of doctors -- 28 percent - saw a cut in pay last year, according to NerdWallet's research.
To be sure, pay is still high, with doctors accounting for the preponderance of six-figure positions in the country, according to government data. But it also takes between 11 and 14 years of higher education to become a physician. That means the typical doctor doesn't earn a full-time salary until 10 years after the typical college graduate starts making money.

May 2, 2017permalink

rsf3127

Feel free to apply for a complete medical education and than after all those years you can charge as much as medicare allows you to.

May 3, 2017permalink

TheWintermute

So the medical education system is also broken. This doesn't affect my point in any way.
There is a lot of countries where doctors study for just 6 years and they are every bit as competent as american doctors or even better.

May 7, 2017permalink

mxx

I did not see "USA" mentioned anywhere, but the article seem USA-centric, so the multitude of DPR members from the rest of the world should just ignore it, I assume.

For instance, the "top publications" you mention certainly are not the top publications for people living in other countries.

May 2, 2017*permalink

onlooker

Was this really hard to figure out from the article?

May 2, 2017permalink

Malikknows

Newsflash: DPreview is a Seattle, USA-based publication.

May 2, 2017permalink

LDunn1

with respect, I don't think where DPR are based is particularly relevant in this case, for two reasons:-

A) DPR are reporting a news worthy item of someone else's article. I.e. DPR are not responsible for the publications surveyed in the article

B) even if DPR where responsible for the survey, then they have a global audience, so should be thinking globally, not just to their 'local' market.

May 2, 2017permalink

h2k

"I did not see "USA" mentioned anywhere, but the article seem USA-centric, so the multitude of DPR members from the rest of the world should just ignore it, I assume.
For instance, the "top publications" you mention certainly are not the top publications for people living in other countries."
---
Relax.

May 2, 2017permalink

photo_rb

It would be interesting to see what the global makeup of DPR readers is. Also their advertisers.

May 2, 2017permalink

h2k

"onlooker, Malik, h2k, you just don't get it, do you."
---
I can only speak for me, and yes, I don't get it. Glad to have *you*.

May 2, 2017permalink

LDunn1

@photo_rb - I agree, that would be interesting, and DPR has the info on the global makeup of its readers within its database already.

I would still expect a heavy tilt in the favour of the US of course - you only need to glance down the 'for sale' ads forum to see that, but also the diverse member locations too.

May 2, 2017permalink

HowaboutRAW

That CJR article only mentions the Wall Street Journal covering expenses--those can be a lot higher than any nominal "day rate".

May 2, 2017permalink

Ebrahim Saadawi

These prices while seem high at first, are actually a lot less if you think about the annual salary of the photojournalist, mainly due to the fact that this is "mostly" not a daily full-time job, and due to the fact that you're looking at the absolute highest rate here, in most publications it's a LOT less. A very hard working journalist will do less than a hundred days a year, versus other 240-day full time jobs we have. That is not a high annual salary even at the world's highest day rates here. As a standard graduate young dentists, we make an average of 80 to 100K USD in the states (crossing the 150K barrier upon the still-very-young-30-year-old mark and more going on, endlessly) and I can tell you as someone who's performed both jobs, they're equally hard, if not photojournalism being harder physically and mentally (ironically true) yet a standard annual rate is almost half of my regular job. That's not a good enough life for me or my family especially if I have a house, a kid, so on.

All I am saying is I JUST think photographers, artists in general, should be rewarded to in order for them to flourish and continue practising their art, rather than leaving it sitting on the side whilst going for a boring, higher-income job working on a dental-unit chair 240-260 days a year.

Perhaps it's just supply and demand. A lot more people I know can get a hang of working photojournalists than those who can get a hang of designing an orthodontic brace...

I just think artists should be rewarded. Period. I see they are clearly not, everywhere I look. Even exceptional, phenomenal ones.

Ironically as much as art tools are affordable, most people just can't afford practising art.

I am afraid that... Art might just die or be left to only those who can afford it.

May 1, 2017permalink

splendic

"Art might just die or be left to only those who can afford it."

As you said yourself there has never been more easy access to the tools of creation... and as has been the case for millennia, the young and healthy will continue to take advantage of them, flooding the world with more art than it can manage to consume.

What's really to lament is that the voices of people who can't afford to eschew decent pay or benefits (the sick, the aging, the poor) will remain as underrepresented as ever.

May 1, 2017*permalink

PeteQuad

Jobs that people enjoy and are rewarding will always pay less. Otherwise why would anyone do the jobs that are meaningless and suck? Do you think anyone would work in a crappy soul stealing corporate job if they weren't paid more than something rewarding like photography? You should see what woodworkers get paid - almost impossible to make a living wage because it is rewarding and people do it for free on the side despite having a full time job.

Don't fear though. When learning algorithms get good and the AI computers take all our jobs, the artistic ones will be the last to go and the only thing in demand.

May 2, 2017permalink

BadScience

"I am afraid that... Art might just die or be left to only those who can afford it."

err...no

Art was one of modern human's first activities, and it will be one of our last.

As for the reward you think artists deserve....that's not really the point of art is it? If you want to be well paid, do a job that pays well....end of.

May 2, 2017*permalink

thubten

Where can I find a dentist that charges $40/hour? Its more like $2000 using a screwdriver on a bit of titanium for 15 minutes

May 2, 2017permalink

chrisfromalaska

@ebrahim saadawi - Are you still trolling on forums? Perhaps you can compare PJ rates to your experiences shooting with the multiple CaNikons your production company uses? From this thread you're just a student...

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20260-how-i-got-scammed-through-one-of-this-sites-highest-rated-accounts/?page=48#comment-155490

SMH

May 2, 2017permalink

The Name is Bond

There's also a skill/willingness/money trade-off here. Photojournalism (and photography more generally), while having its technical side, is not a high skill line of professional work in my view and it's also a crowded market. In the days of film a degree in photography really meant something, not so much now. It's not even a necessity since the world could get by without photojournalists. Whereas a dentist is a serious professional endeavour with a serious amount of training/learning required.

Further, If one thinks entirely in socialist terms of employment, as schooling is liable to these days, then you've got a point: everyone should earn the same amount per hours they work, even if it's useless, low-skilled work.

May 2, 2017*permalink

PeteQuad

Thanks for the heads up chrisfromalaska. Everyone should beware anything ebrahim says and check the link chris posted if you want to know why.

May 2, 2017permalink

apestorm

@chrisinalaska wow. Just spent on hour going through that link. Tsk tsk mr egyptian dentist.

May 2, 2017permalink

TheLoupe

I really appreciate articles like this, as it provides a wider perspective on the settings / context in which digital photography occurs. Reading the CJR article is worth it to understand when and under what circumstances higher day rates are paid to freelancers at certain publications. My sense is that quality and reliability (read: repeatability) have a price; I presume that the editors and staff at small and large organizations who pay the rates understand what they can afford and what they want to avoid (i.e. average/poor photos and/or going over budget). Am I missing something that is somehow particular to the world of journalism? I don't think it is true in all cases, as aluded in earlier comments, that anyone with a mobile can take pictures or that publications can 'get content for free'. Day-in-the-life or general interest stories, maybe, can be complemented by 'free photos'...but even here, I wonder if that is entirely true. There is a reason (many reasons) why some print or digital publications continue to enjoy stronger readership vs their competitors and peers; quality of art direction, editorial and photos have something to do with it.

May 1, 2017*permalink

nachos

Your national publications and well regarded regionals have standards. Vanity Fair is not going to hire some rando from an internet forum. As for the financial side, I wish it weren't true, but these days editorial work is a bit like charity work... You do it because it's interesting, you like the story and the people you're working with. It's weird though because a really well executed piece can boost the publisher's bottom line. That's not very charity like.

May 1, 2017permalink

nachos

Day rate is just the starting point. Nobody can make a living off these amounts because no photographer is working the majority of their days as billable. It's important to expense each and every thing to cover costs of overhead - equipment kit fees, processing, travel, etc. A major feature in a AAA publication may be billed in the thousands.

Some publications have been moving toward assignment flat rates that are all-inclusive - I dislike these because they encourage corner cutting, ultimately doing no-one a favor.

May 1, 2017permalink

fullstop

Publications should be able to get their photos for free all they have to do is set up challenges and competitions and the anyone who owns a digital device mob will do it just for a bit of fame .........forums do it

May 1, 2017permalink

Alain_Xupito

Yep, next time i need a plumber I'll run a competiton too. Who's the fool that invented that useless wage concept ?

May 1, 2017permalink

Hugh J

"Who's the fool that invented that useless wage concept ?"

The same "fool" who realized that most people do photography for fun, while almost nobody does plumbing for fun. It's a faulty analogy because of this critical difference.

May 2, 2017permalink

Alain_Xupito

While i'm pointing the moon, you're looking at my finger. Still. If you're ready to fulfill the needs of a publisher for free, or as you say, the fun, good for you.
Pro's tend to think otherwise, at least as long as fun doesn't make a living.

May 2, 2017permalink

Bambi24

I think these prices will start dropping, photography is something anyone can learn, cameras have become easier and easier to use, and smartphones are increasingly used in photojournalism. These prices are still high due to the way these specific papers seek people, and unchecked nepotism often influences who gets the job. Check the prices paid by smaller outlets that are more price conscious and you will see much lower rates.

May 1, 2017*permalink

Tim Gander

Many publications in the UK regions are already doing using readers' pics and reporters with iPhones and to some extent were doing it even before digital. Of course the content they publish is dreadful and is driving readership down faster than ever, taking ad revenue with it. It probably sounds like a good plan when really it isn't. Anyone can learn to use a camera, but to use it effectively in journalism is a whole different skill.

May 1, 2017permalink

TheLoupe

I agree. I don't think it is true, in all cases, that anyone with a mobile can take pictures or that publications can 'get content for free'. Day-in-the-life or general interest stories, maybe, can be complemented by 'free photos'...but even here, I wonder if that is entirely true. There is a reason (many reasons) why some print or digital publications continue to enjoy stronger readership vs their competitors and peers; quality of art direction, editorial and photos have something to do with it.

May 1, 2017permalink

splendic

I think these outlets and their pay-scale are the ones being reported because shooting for them is as close as anyone's going to get working as a full-time photojournalist.

So you could include the "much, much lower" rates of small newspapers / blogs / zines, but obviously nobody could live off that as their sole income.

May 1, 2017permalink

Tim Gander

People need to remember tat very few freelancers get regular work from these titles. If you're lucky it's a few assignments a year, but of course it depends on your location and relationship to the publication. I see other comments where people think these rates are incredible and that photographers earning them will be swanning around in chauffeur-driven yacht cars, but my take is these rates should also reflect the frequency of work any individual photographer might realistically expect to get, which as I say is often very occasional.

May 2, 2017permalink

tkbslc

It seems like the most relevant and newsworthy footage is coming from bystanders with a phone anymore. We get nice quality photos from government media events, but when something serious happens, it's over before the PJ can get there anyway.

May 2, 2017permalink

Tim Gander

Not always, I cite the assassination of the Russian Ambassador to Turkey and the terror attack on Westminster Bridge and Parliament. On both occasions a trained professional photojournalist was present and in both cases captured stunning and appalling (in what they conveyed) eyewitness images. The public didn't even come close.

May 2, 2017permalink

obsolescence

What is the rationale for lowering the day rate based on "exposure to a wider audience"? Seems to me the rate should be higher because increased subscription and advertising sales bring in more revenue to the pub.

May 1, 2017*permalink

splendic

Your logic is sound, but landing a photo on the front page of the NY Times makes it easier to get other jobs, demand a higher rate, and potentially sell prints and rights to other photos elsewhere. Obviously, photogs seem to value the trade off.

May 1, 2017permalink

Tim Gander

I'm not sure getting a NYT cover is going to make it so much easier to get other work, and you certainly won't be able to command higher rates from other publications on the strength of it unless you're already a big name photographer. I always feel the trade-off of fee against exposure is a poor one because there's always someone willing to work for the same free or less banging on the door behind you.

The photographers who might find the exposure useful are more likely to be those who already have some kind of profile, as I said above, and they probably got established 30 years ago when the industry was in a more solid position and people got hired on merit rather than whether they were willing to exchange their work for a small fee and a byline.

May 2, 2017permalink

tkbslc

How many days does a photographer get paid for in a year, though?

May 1, 2017permalink

capanikon

I worked as a full-time photojournalist at a weekly newspaper in Montana from 1998-2002. I made $24,000/year then. Later I worked at a small daily newspaper in Washington State as a full-time news photographer. That job paid $32,000/year. You will not get rich doing this work, and the number of job openings seems to be dropping. Newspapers and news websites have so much competition for the advertising dollar from the millions of other websites that they must cut their personnel costs, and PJ's are, sadly, among the easiest to cut.

May 1, 2017permalink

GrantBFoto

I spent over 15 years as a photojournalist. Most of that time I worked as a staff shooter in small to medium papers. I have shot for some of the outlets mentioned in the post, particularly the NYT. As a staffer, my first salary was $18,000 a year in 1999. When I left newspapers I was making $37,000 a year. The first time I shot for the NYT in 2000, the day rate was $500. Last time I shot for them it was $250. That was a few years ago. I'm glad they got a little more real with their day rate. Long story short, I don't know anyone who makes their living solely on editorial photojournalism work. Lots of photographic side hustles are necessary.

May 1, 2017permalink

Jon555

If you're doing short jobs it's brave, in any field, to assume you'll do paid work more than 100 days year. (IMHO, plus other sources.)

May 1, 2017*permalink

tkbslc

That's what I assumed. $500-600 a day is a great salary, but only if you can do it for the standard 240 work days per year that the regular 9-to-5 people get paid for.

May 1, 2017*permalink

capanikon

News reporter-photographer jobs are vastly easier to get than photographer-only jobs. But reporting is a lot more work than photojournalism, and as a reporter-photographer, the photography aspect necessarily takes a back seat.

May 1, 2017permalink

RayVagh

Here in Indonesia, the minimum wage is $2.8K/year, a senior photojournalist who work for a newspaper/weekly magazine usually gets $22.5K/year (Netto) almost the same as other professionals.

May 2, 2017permalink

Tim Gander

@tkbslc If you were working "full-time" on that day rate, chances are the paper would take you on as staff and pay a salary. The "high" day rate reflects the occasional and unsteady nature of the work as well as the fact these photographers are buying all their own kit, car, insurance, software, sick pay, holiday pay etc. You don't make very much per hour on $600/day by the time all your costs are factored in.

I used to shift for a national in the UK. The rate then (late 1990s) was £145 plus mileage and expenses (parking, maybe lunch etc). I'd sometimes get £25 wire fee on top, but a shift could easily stretch to 12 hours and for me often included around 6 hours round-trip not covered in my shift fee. Hardly a route to untold riches.

May 2, 2017permalink

filmamigo

All freelance photo work is an underpaid, hard slog. Even at the top of your game it's hard to string together enough day rates to make a reasonable living.

While this may seem like a new development (and may actually be worse now than in the past) reading the biography “Diane Arbus: Portrait of a Photographer,” by Arthur Lubow proved to me how it has always been this way ... that even busy freelancers experience uncertainty at best, and often grinding poverty.

May 2, 2017permalink

Hugh J

"But reporting is a lot more work than photojournalism"

As someone who has done both, this couldn't be further from the truth. It's just different, and one can be much harder than the other depending on the specific situation. In a war zone, a reporter who is just writing a story can do it away from the most dangerous areas. They can get the information they need from their sources by email, text, or phone. But a photojournalist has to be in the middle of it in order to get the pictures.

May 2, 2017permalink

capanikon

I've done both news reporting and news photography professionally in U.S. cities, never war zones. (Think city council and school board meetings for reporting.) I find reporting to be much more difficult because the meetings are often dull and complex and then you have to write about. Whereas shooting a sports photo or feature photo is way easier and more fun.

May 3, 2017permalink

Latest sample galleries

Lomography LomoChrome Color '92 sample gallery

iPhone 15 Plus sample gallery

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 DG DN sample gallery

iPhone 15 Pro sample gallery

See more galleries »

Latest in-depth reviews

Sony a7CR review: high resolution in a small package

The Sony a7CR is a high-resolution addition to the company's compact full-frame a7C series. So what did we make of it and where does it leave the a7 IV that it sits just above?

Party like it's 1992: Lomography LomoChrome '92 film review

Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain.

LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor BP 24L AW III backpack review: A great pack for hikers who dabble in photography

The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.

Sony a7C II review: small camera, little compromise

The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.

Peak Design Everyday Backpack v2 review: A backpack you'll really use every day

Why is the Peak Design Everyday Backpack so widely used? A snazzy design? Exceptional utility? A combination of both? After testing one, it's clear why this bag deserves every accolade it's received.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.

Check out more buying guides »


Slideshow: Agora's #Photojournalism2020 winner and finalists Feb 6, 2020	Photojournalists won't be allowed to capture the handing over of the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump Jan 15, 2020	The gear that changed my (photographic) life: reader responses Apr 16, 2020	Nine things working photographers can do for their business during isolation Apr 13, 2020


PA020047.Bald Eagle Approach.2 by Hornsbee from BIF	The king of the mountain by Dan Paris from Landscape with Wildlife	Couples' oh No moment! by mythshri from Seated Couples	Big eyes by Minas_Eye from Eye - macro/close-up	Bon appetit! by valenttin from Van een mug een olifant maken	THREE BOWLER HATS by FINEART4YPvK from Men Wearing Hats

Photojournalists reveal their favorite publications to work with and what they pay

Comments

You may also like

Latest sample galleries

Latest in-depth reviews

Latest buying guides