Part 2

Statues Blacksmith-shops Farm light-plants Sheep Landscapes Paintings Girls' heads Farm-buildings New inventions New achievements Live game Birds in flight Industrial arts Fields of grain Desert-views Domestic animals Poultry Harbors Garage-methods Railroading Concrete-construction Flowers Electrical appliances Live-stock prize-winners Art-museums Motorboats Musical work Shoe-factories Prize-dogs Yachts Farm-scenes Mural decorations Seascapes Gardening operations Interior decorations Designs Camping-scenes Trapped wild animals Freaks Cattle Orchards Time-saving plans Social progress Fashions Wharves Paint-departments Mills New banks Large estates Factory-equipment Show-window displays Store-fronts Motorcycles Economic interest Good and bad roads Spraying-methods Counter-displays Blasting Landscape-gardening Sports

If you live in a large city you have the additional opportunities to obtain photographs such as are published in the _Mid-Week Pictorial_ and the _Illustrated Review_, and also in some of the large national magazines and in the rotogravure-sections of the leading Sunday newspapers. Although the large city offers more opportunities for photographs of celebrities and such, there is much competition. The photographer in an average-size city may not have frequent opportunities for photographs of renowned persons; but he has many other chances for salable photographs, which evens up things.

Sometimes, a notable person does come to town; but I would no more presume to tell you here to camp on his trail than I would dare to remark to a duck-hunter: "Pardon me, old man, but you'd better pull your trigger. There's a bird right where you've pointed your gun."

IV

WHAT NOT TO PHOTOGRAPH

Knowing _what_ to photograph is no more important than knowing _what not_ to photograph. I cannot show you so easily by example the kind of photographs editors will not buy; for a search of any number of magazines will fail to unearth such examples.

Experience is an expensive school; but, sometimes, the others are closed because of lack of patronage. It would seem that when you learn _what_ to photograph you should learn automatically _what not_ to photograph; and, indeed, you should; but you don't. However, there is another way. After sending a photograph to a score of publications, and after the photograph is returned from the same score of publications, you may truthfully say: "Well, I've discovered one thing that those editors don't want."

Editors have very clear reasons why they don't buy certain kinds of photographs. The editor is there to produce a live, newsy, unusual publication. He buys only live, newsy, unusual photographs. What could be simpler?

Publications do not want photographs which are similar to other photographs that they have already printed. The reason is obvious. To take an example from my own early days: a shoe-dealer, for an advertisement, placed a huge pair of shoes, size 35, in his window. I grasped the opportunity to make a salable photograph. It did sell; but not to _Popular Mechanics_, for the editor wrote that he was unable to use it because he had printed, several months before, a picture of a huge pair of shoes made for a circus sideshow worker. Consequently, the subject of your photograph may be just the thing the editor would want if he hadn't had his requirements already satisfied. Therefore, study those photographs which have been printed, and make newer and better ones.

When the King of England comes to town, it may be all very well to command him to stand still, to look serious or to smile, for a picture of him so posed may be literally "eaten up" by the local newspapers; but a national weekly, such as _Collier's_, demands something different. Posed photographs are at a discount. They are too plainly "pictures of men having their pictures made." What is wanted are life and action. It isn't necessary to ask the King to stand on his head. Ask him to shake hands with the Chief-of-Police; or let him do something else which shows he has the power of action.

On an invaluable rejection-slip prepared by a national magazine, examples are given of "What we want and don't want." Under a photograph of Senator Johnson with upraised fist, as if he were driving home a point in his speech, is printed: "Here the upraised fist does the business--makes action, life--and transforms what would otherwise be just an ordinary likeness of Senator Johnson into a striking and arresting picture."

But if a photograph is sufficiently unusual it may be without life and yet may sell, although it gains materially by a show of action. Under a photograph of a floating submarine, the rejection-slip notes: "No action here; but it is safe to say that few of the readers of this magazine skipped this one when it appeared. Submarines are common today; but not the kind that carry huge twelve-inch guns." Similarly under a photograph of three men standing in a row and looking with a "where's-the-birdie?" expression at the camera, the caption is: "A posed picture and, as is usual in such circumstances, a dead one. We used it because a story centering around these men was a singularly interesting one appealing to a large audience in America." But no matter how extraordinary a photograph is, it gains a hundred-fold by exhibiting signs of _life_.

True, a "dead" picture may sell; but a live one will sell more quickly, and the photographer's work will be more in demand, and the resulting cheque will be larger--much larger.

If you make a photograph of a building--even for instance, a new arsenal--you will never sell it to such a publication as the New York _Times_ roto-section. The rejection-slip says, under such a picture: "There isn't even a human being in it to relieve the severity of the building's hard lines and the flat expanse of water. We do not care for such pictures." True, a photograph of a building--and of a building only--may sell for a few dollars to an architectural magazine; but more dollars and a bigger future come from putting life into photographs and in getting your work into the national weeklies as a result.

Again, no magazine wishes to buy a photograph of something not new. A monument, if photographed a moment after the unveiling and with the crowd around it, is a likely seller; but if the photographer waits several years, a print of the monument is unsalable. And that is not strange: you prefer fresh to cold-storage eggs.

The big secret of the successful press-photographer is the introduction of human beings into his photographs of inanimate objects. Human beings have a deep interest in each other. When one is introduced into a picture, human-interest is introduced at the same time; and, if the human being is pictured in the act of doing something, the interest is even higher. For no one ever outgrows the question, "What ya doin', mister?"

_Popular Science Monthly_ says: "We want good, clear photographs of a human being doing something of a mechanical nature. The subjects must be new." If a new invention is pictured alone, it is lifeless and meaningless. But let a human being operate it and a photograph of it gains in value.

One has only to apply his common sense to the matter. If a murder is committed in the city, the newspapers will not demand photographs of the corpse; it will do very well to obtain a photograph of the "arrow-points-to-the-scene-of-the-crime" variety.

One has to depend wholly on his "nose for news" and this sometimes proves treacherous. "A human-interest photograph sometimes slips past the trained nose of a photographer of twenty years' experience and is picked up by a beginner," to paraphrase Charles Phelps Cushing. And, on the other hand, the old-timer may snap away confidently at a subject which the beginner has scorned, and then find he has an unsalable print on his hands. Sometimes, so to say, "noses for news" contract colds and are unable to scent a subject's salability. But colds may be cured and the scents picked up once more. The best remedy is to stop, to think, and to sniff again.

There is a market somewhere for every good print. There is no market anywhere for a print that is not good.

The best part of the whole business is this: no one--not even old Nick himself--can induce an editor to buy a photograph he does not want; and if, on the other hand, he knows he can use it, he will buy it at once, be it offered by Donald Thompson, who is a world-famed press-photographer, or by John Brown of Smithville, whose first attempt it may be.

V

SIZE, SHAPE AND FORM

Aspiring fictionists learn at some stage of their budding genius that one long stride toward editorial favor lies in the proper preparation of the manuscript. Just so, a photograph which is not prepared in accordance with editorial standards suffers a handicap.

Some editors specify the size of photograph they prefer. Thus, _Collier's_ prefers 4 x 5 prints; but it will use prints larger, and a few smaller than that size. In the same way, _Garden Magazine_ reports that it prefers 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 prints, and the Thompson Art Company says it prefers the 5 x 7 or 8 x 10 size.

Other magazines make no mention of size. _Popular Mechanics_ reports: "The size of the print is not so important as clearness and gloss." Indeed, the greater number of magazines do not specify a preferable size because by so doing they discourage contributors of prints which are desirable, but not of the size specified.

If a magazine insists on having prints of one certain size the photographer should not be discouraged because his camera does not make photographs of those dimensions. The making of enlargements is now no more difficult than the making of contact-prints; if the negative is sharply focused and the lens of the enlarging-machine is good, an enlargement will not differ much in quality from a small print.

To me, it seems that the ideal camera makes photographs of 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 inches. This is very slightly smaller than 4 x 5, and a less costly "film-eater." Negatives of that size are sufficiently large to make salable prints without enlarging them, and if a larger print is desired, they are of good proportions for the operation of enlarging. Prints of the 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 size are too small to offer to magazines unless the subjects are all-commanding; however, the size is a very good one, and not too small for the making of excellent enlargements if the lens of the camera is good. I have heard of one photographer who uses exclusively a vest-pocket camera equipped with a fast anastigmat lens: he never attempts to market any of the small prints, whose size is 1-5/8 x 2-1/2, but enlarges the prints to about 4 x 6. There are many advantages possessed by the small camera over the large camera; but 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 is the happy medium. I have never had a print of that size returned because it was too small.

There is no need to limit one's self to the production of prints of only standard dimensions. In the cases of magazines desiring artistic prints, the prints gain materially by trimming them so as to produce a compositional balance of masses. Also, some buyers specify prints of a certain shape for use as covers and headings, to fit frame-cuts and such. These buyers state their specifications, as "prints size 4 x 6, with the long edges horizontal," or the opposite. It is not necessary to produce prints trimmed to the exact size of the cover, either; all that is necessary is to make the print of the same _proportions_ as the cover, and the engraver will enlarge or reduce it to the correct size.

There is one best finish for prints intended for publication: that is, black-and-white--_never sepia_--and glossy, burnished. Glossy prints are not much more difficult to make than dull-surfaced prints, the only necessary additional effort being the use of a squeegee plate, or ferrotype plate. The preference for glossy prints results from the fact that their surfaces are absolutely smooth and without grain. This enables the engraver to make a clearer halftone, for a print with a grained surface reproduces surface and all in the cut.

Glossy paper, when dried in the ordinary way, has a surface which is perfectly smooth, yet half-dull. When glossy prints are dried in contact with a ferrotype plate the surfaces are highly polished, and this gives the prints more brilliancy. Prints so prepared are ideal for reproduction-purposes.

Newspapers, as well as some moderate-priced magazines printed on news-print paper, and printed at high speed, require coarse-screened cuts; in these, fancy lighting is detrimental, and fine details are lost; what is wanted are broad masses of light and shade.

Some editors prefer prints which are untrimmed and printed to the very edges of the negative. Such prints give the editor opportunities to trim the prints as he pleases. And in the case of simple news-photographs and ones which have no claim to artistic consideration, it seems to be the preferable method of submission. Certainly, editors will not object to such prints, and they may welcome them in preference to trimmed ones.

Single-weight paper is always preferable to double-weight, even in the larger sizes.

Prints must be sharply focused and distinct--not "fuzzy."

A contrasty print is sometimes recommended as the best to offer; but that is a mistake. The photo-engraver wants prints with plenty of detail in the shadows, and with a tendency to softness; but with not a vestige of flatness. "In the making of the screen-negative and in the various steps of etching, he--the engraver--can introduce highlights into a rather soft subject; but he cannot produce detail in harsh lights and shadows," declares _Photo-Era Magazine_. The process of halftone-making has developed so that the reproduction can be made almost indistinguishable from the original. In any event, make the best print possible--a normal and truthful representation.

Having produced your print, add your name and address to the back of it, and then write, in pencil and on a hard surface, the caption that should be placed under the photograph when it is printed.

Some editors decry the practice of writing the caption on the back of the print; for the print goes to the engraver and the copy for the caption goes to the printer. The alternative is to write the caption on a slip of paper which should be pasted by one end to the back of the print. In any case the photographer's name and address should be stamped on the back.

An ideal print for reproduction and publication, then, should be:

Not smaller than 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 inches; on single-weight glossy paper, burnished; very sharp; not contrasty or flat; correct proportions if necessary; untrimmed, if preferred; name and address on back; caption plainly written on back, or on an attached slip.

Prints passing this examination are ready to be shipped to market.

VI

WHERE TO SELL

Once upon a time a publisher had a remarkable inspiration. He would publish a perfect book. He went about the task with painful care. Months were consumed in the making of a book which would be perfect from every viewpoint. After the publisher had corrected every typographical error, had made every possible improvement, and was unable to detect even one flaw in it, he made proof-copies of it and sent them to men on the faculties of universities, to leading printers, to book-making experts, to authorities in English, and to leaders in every other branch of work from which it was possible to view critically the making of the book. He asked them to examine the proofs minutely and to tell him of any flaw, however small, that they might find. Each one of the critics returned his proof with the statement that he had not found the slightest imperfection. Thereupon the beaming bookmaker published his perfect book and offered a large sum to any one who could find a single flaw in it. And many months passed.

Then, one day, he received a letter that pointed out an error in the book. Another letter followed; then another; and at the end of a year, he had received a half dozen letters, each pointing out a different mistake--and each was very noticeably a mistake. And that is the story of the perfect book.

It is with that book in mind that I have decided not to give here the usual list of buyers of photographs. Such a list may be complete and correct when compiled; but by the time it could be put into print and published, lo! some of the magazines would have suspended publication, other new ones would have sprung up, other buyers would have changed their requirements; so that after a year, the entire list would be useless.

I do not add even a list of non-buyers who were once buyers, for the reason that some of them may become buyers again at any moment. Consequently, in my opinion, to place a list of photograph-buyers in this article would be to waste much space, and with the possibility of inconveniencing any photographers who might attempt to use the list after a year or so of its publication.

Furthermore, there are magazines and other books issued yearly which are devoted almost exclusively to listing markets for manuscripts and photographs; these are in a position to make changes, additions and withdrawals with each subsequent issue, and so to keep the lists up-to-date and of value.

One such book is, "Where and How to Sell Manuscripts." This book classifies photographic markets separately; and also lists elsewhere many buyers of photographs. In addition, lists are given of newspapers, postcard-and-calendar-makers, and lists of magazines devoted to the household, agriculture, gardening, juveniles, sports, outdoors, the drama, music, art, the trades, etc., all of which magazines use photographs. The book is published by the Home Correspondence School, Myrick Building, Springfield, Massachusetts.

Another such book, which is very similar and which contains such lists, is "1001 Places to Sell Manuscripts," published by James Knapp Reeve, at Franklin, Ohio. These are the only two market-books which are enabled to keep their lists up-to-date and correct.

Writer-craft magazines, which maintain literary-market news-columns, list markets for photographs; these supplement the market-books.

_The Editor_, published weekly at Book Hill, Highland Falls, New York, publishes perhaps more market-notes than any other.

_The Writer's Digest_, 15-27 West Sixth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, is a monthly writer-craft magazine which conducts a very good department of market-notes.

_The Writer's Monthly_ is the name of another magazine that lists such markets. It is published monthly. Its market-news, upon publication, is rather older I have found, than that printed in _The Editor_. The longer time necessary to print the magazine may account for that. This magazine is published by the Home Correspondence School, Springfield, Massachusetts.

_The Student Writer_, 1835 Champa Street, Denver, Colorado, published monthly, maintains an excellent market-list. Their notes are many, varied, and reliable.

Photographic magazines sometimes list markets for photographs, although not frequently.

_American Photography_, 428 Newbury Street, Boston, Massachusetts, sometimes publishes market-notices in its "The Market-Place" department, but they are scanty.

_Photo-Era Magazine_ lists, when available, market-notes. Book-publishers wishing prints of special character have used this magazine as an advertising-medium.

Besides the magazines noted, other writer-craft and photographic publications may publish market-notes from time to time.

It is by no means necessary to buy both books and to subscribe for all the magazines; but if you can do so without financial discomfort, it cannot be otherwise than to your advantage. By all means, obtain one of the market-books and subscribe for one of the writer-craft magazines; and if you can add a photographic publication, so much the better. Even a market-book alone is a great aid; indeed, it is a necessity. Obtain one or both and you will be amazed at the number of times each can say, "Open Sesame" without stuttering.

The best salesman in the world could not induce a sane blacksmith to put in a stock of groceries. If the salesman has groceries to sell, he goes to a grocer and talks. Similarly, a photographer cannot hope to sell the most remarkable photograph in the world, unless he sends it to the right market.

Each magazine has its own particular needs; but the needs of different ones overlap so far, and are sometimes so similar, that a print offered to one and rejected by it may be very desirable to another; this applies to _classes_ of magazines as well as _individual_ publications. As an instance: _Popular Mechanics_, or _Illustrated World_, although requiring unusual photographs, rarely buy photographs of human freaks--but nevertheless the _Saturday Blade_ (Chicago) uses just that sort of thing.

A few blocks from here stands the largest writing-tablet factory in the world: a photograph of it would not be acceptable to the rotogravure-sections nor to _Popular Mechanics_, _Illustrated World_, nor to _Popular Science_; yet such a photograph would be useful to an architectural magazine, a stationers' publication, or a local newspaper. When a photograph may be viewed from several industrial angles, as well as from a new-achievement or from a human-interest standpoint, the more likely are markets to open for it. _The press-photographer should not stop until he has tried every possible market._

After one or two rejections, the photographer is apt to form the opinion that editors are prejudiced against his work because he is a beginner; but nothing could be further from the fact. One national magazine says; "Should we return what you submit, do not be discouraged. Sooner or later, if you study our needs carefully, you will succeed in finding what we are after." The same thing is true of every other magazine. There is not one of them but is eager to buy your wares if you offer them the kind of goods they want.

A rejection is not a rebuke. It is a challenge. It means that your "nose for news" has failed you--has played you false; or that you have tried to sell groceries to a blacksmith. Rest assured that no editor will willfully refuse to accept, pay for and print any photograph which possesses enough merit to warrant acceptance. The editor holds his chair only so long as he produces the kind and quality of magazine its owners want him to produce; and he can do that only by co-operation with contributors. Without contributors he is at sea in a tub. The editor is the best friend the press-photographer can have.

It matters not how much "pull" you have with an editor, or how near a relative you are, or how good a friend, you can't sell a photograph to him unless you "deliver the goods."

Elliot Walker observes: "The way to sell is to give editors what they want and in the way they want it." If you do that you can't fail if you try.

Nor will any editor reject your photographs because of his personal feelings. "The magazine-editor, in the first place, keeps his personal feelings tied up; in the second place, he would be foolish, indeed, to allow them to influence his decisions; and, in the third place, the editor 'ain't got no' personal feelings when it comes to buying material for his magazine."