PDA

View Full Version : The New WPBA Poster



07-04-2002, 03:13 PM
With a huge thread dedicated towards this poster I figured I would post a link to it.

http://www.wpba.com/proshop/catalog_form.htm

if you click on the poster this will enlarge the pic. Or you could do what I did, Download the poster and make it as big as you want it, to view.

Barbara
07-04-2002, 03:37 PM
I think Fran's right about this. From what I could tell, it's not the best picture of her. And Fran can really look good in a picture! You should see the one I have of her in 1979 in this calendar I got off ebay! Absolutely adorable!! My hubby did a double-take!!

Barbara

jjinfla
07-04-2002, 03:38 PM
Thanks for the poster. Gerda, Ewa, Loree, Vivian look pretty good. But the photographer sure messed up on the rest of them. And they are all individual pictures that were just combined so there shouldn't have been a problem getting decent pictures. Jake

stickman
07-04-2002, 05:01 PM
For the $50.00, Fran could have hired her own photographer, chose a portrait she liked, had several inexpensive 8x10s produced, autographed them, and sold them herself. As a matter of fact, all the girls could do this. I wonder what the WPBA would think of that? LOL

If you're going to play in their game though, you probably have to play by their rules. Perhaps the girls will have to do some politicking to get the rules changed.

HarryDC
07-04-2002, 05:11 PM
Barbara,

Is that not the poster Fran is is boycottting. The photos are very poor and I can't believe they made her pay fifety
bucks for that? Wow, what a rip-off. I won't buy it!

HarryDC

Barbara
07-04-2002, 05:42 PM
HarryDC, now THAT's an idea!!!

Barbara~~~gonna get the word out to the NEWT women....

07-04-2002, 05:51 PM
WOW!! That is truly hideous. I can't believe that Fran is the only one complaining! What was that photographer's last name? (Smacks of nepotism in here...) You go Barb! Consider me the first "on alert"!

Barbara
07-04-2002, 06:03 PM
Nepotism?? Ya think??

Barbara~~~wondering how much some persons got in a kickback...

HarryDC
07-04-2002, 06:39 PM
Barbara,

If I am correct Fran said she would not sign the poster because of the poor quality of her photo so I will spend my money on a Karen Corr poster when Karen gets her collectables ready. Fran should do her own poster as she lives in the Big Apple and is privey to all kinds of publishing luminaries.

HarryDC

07-04-2002, 06:43 PM
Harry,
Actually I believe Fran's issue is with the Gestapo tactics used to get the pics in the first place. The quality of the photos was a secondary issue, though, at least to my mind, of equal importance. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

Doctor_D
07-04-2002, 06:47 PM
Good evening:

Maybe now, more then a year later, the WPBA will provide me with the benefits package offered to those who supported the WPBA at the "Platinum Level".

Dr. D.

heater451
07-04-2002, 07:18 PM
I wonder if part of the $1600 ($50x32 players) was used towards the printing. . . .

Also, I've seen Fran's post about the makeup job 'they' did, and understand that to be a separate issue, but I also agree with stickman: ". . .This is also why most photographers take several photos, so that the consumer can choose the portrait that they feel flatters them the most. For a $50.00 setting fee, I would expect a choice, and the option of a retake."

I've worked photoshoots, and I've known several photographers. One thing that's common to a shoot, is that a LOT of film gets used.

I have two other things to add to the Poster Controversy:

1) At the very least, the models should have been informed of exactly what to expect for the shoot (makeup, background theme, etc.)

and

2) Since the models had to pay for the photos, are they not entitled to part of the sales profits (barring a waiver of rights, of course)?

07-05-2002, 12:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Barbara:</font><hr> From what I could tell, it's not the best picture of her. And Fran can really look good in a picture! You should see the one I have of her in 1979 ...

Barbara <hr></blockquote>

1979 ?! /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

What woman doesn't want to look like she did 25 years ago?BS

cuechick
07-05-2002, 06:27 AM
Okay, I did not see the original thread but let me first say I am a professional photographer and have been working for 15 years. I have worked for almost every major magazine as well as a lot of advertising including Max Factor and Reebok.
Now 1st) 50.00 is nothing, not an outrageous amount of money to pay for a photo. 1 roll of film cost about 15-20.00 to purchase and process ( and that is with out mark up)
They also got a make up person (be it not a very good one...) I charge upwards of 800.00 to do a portrait or headshot. So the money issue to me is that they paid too little! You get what you pay for.
I do think the WPBA was sorely in need of an image upgrade; but they tried to do it on the cheap and the result looks cheap. Think about it, even if he shot 50 players at 50.00 each that is only 2500.00, at least 1000.00 or more goes to film (i am being conservative),youu have to pay the make up artist, the backdrop and any equipment rental (there is always some) an assistant if he had one, travel....even if he walked away with 1000.00 that is very little for a long day to photograph 50 women that are not use to being in front of a camera!! You also have to try and make each look different! I do not envy this guy at ALL!
One of the pros told me that since the photographers was being paid so little he used old film, hence some of the funky results.
I saw the pics at Valley Forge and was appaulled they are truley awlful. I do not blame any of the women for being disappointed.
I think the idea is a good one but as in anything it is all about the execution. Unfortantly the PR firm they are working with IMO has no taste and has done nothing for the WPBA to improve their image.
If I had done this job, I would probably have insisted we shoot it all in black &amp; white, everyone looks better in B&amp;W, and it just looks classier, that is, if it is done right..../ccboard/images/icons/wink.gif

9 Ball Girl
07-05-2002, 06:48 AM
I've seen your work. Good stuff!
(The pics you took of Tony)

stickman
07-05-2002, 09:16 AM
Okay, $50.00 isn't a great deal of money. I'll agree with that, but I sure wouldn't agree that this was all you could hope for in a $50.00 setting. I considered myself a pretty damn good photographer, and that's all I charged for a deluxe setting. (20 poses which included studio and outdoor environmental) $25.00 for a standard studio head and shoulders session-10 poses. I didn't consider the equipment rental, since any of my travel was within an area where I could take my own. My stuff was shot with an RB67 and photogenic lights, and sent to Miller's, probably the best professional lab in the country. That is about the going rate for a photo session here. I figured it covered my costs. I had to sell portraits before I made a profit. To suggest that you could expect nothing more, insults a lot of really fine photographers in this part of the country. OUCH! I have no doubt that the rates in NY are higher, but in the right part of the country $50.00 will buy you an excellent session. I never used a makeup artist, but if I did, I doubt it would be the same one this character used. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

heater451
07-05-2002, 09:35 AM
Cuechick,

I understand where you're coming from, when you say that $50 a person was cheap, but I actually have more of an issue with the fact that the players had to pay for it themselves.

Also, I have seen good and bad results, from 'cheap' and expensive shoots. I also know that, regardless of price, some photographers are simply better at their profession than others.

(Aside)
You're so right about black and white, not to mention the fact that it would avoid any possible clothing/color clashing issues. . . .

cuechick
07-05-2002, 10:10 AM
I am not sure why you have a problem with them paying for their own photos? Who should pay for it? This is an investment in their own careers, an important one. I believe they are free to use the photos now for self promotion so it is not like they would not get something from it. I do also agree that if there is a profit to be made later they should also recieve some benifit of that (as should the photographer).
I wonder had they been asked to pay more but had had better results if there would be a problem? In the past I have seen the photos range from mall 'glamour' shots to Sears quality photos. I think the overall tour definatley needs an up grade.
I am curious how it might work on other pro tours such as the Women's Golf. I do think the WPBA should put in money as well, as all the women pay dues...and of course it could be an option; but I could understand havining to exclude someone if they did not want to it?
How do we compete with other sports if we operate on a lower level....?


As for stickman, if you can get all that done for 50.00 and still see a profit? Wow, more power to you!
I have actually expieranced film being MORE expensive outside of NY, I went to Boston for a job and it was cheaper to have film fed exed to me than to buy it locally!
Also the way I work, I do not just send film to a lab, I walk it through, clip it (test it) and re clip it till it is perfect. I shoot polaroids as well durring the shoot, it is a process...I just know from my experiance that when you do not give a photographer seperate money for their expences they will cut corners, shoot less, use old stock, what ever it takes to insure a profit. No one is out there to work for free. I am not excusing the photographer, I don't think he did a very good job over all ( and I would bet anything he shot more film on the top 10 women than all the others combined!!) he should not have taken the job under those circumstances if he could not give it his best....I do not know enough about the situation though, he may have given them the amount it would take or whether they gave him a set budget?

I think the bigger question is how does the WPBA improve their image and get this tour to the next level (not with this poster that much is certain!)? There are so many talented hopefuls on the threshold ready to break in and add new life...but I wonder if the mother ship will stay a float?

07-05-2002, 11:48 AM
I think you brain surgeons are really on to something here!
All the players could go to Sears and get their pictures done, maybe they can get in right after photograph your pet week, then they could have them printed and bring them to every event and purchase a booth and sit there all day and sell them. That will really show the WPBA once and for all.
The WPBA will no longer have to worry about hiring a photographer, ( Jeanette will really appreciate that, as it was her photographer last year.) They won't have to worry about the booth or the merchandise, nothing! Sounds perfect! They wouldn't have to do a poster or a program or sell picture packs and if a sponsor happened by they could just give them a list of players to contact.
The players could keep all the money and the WPBA could just lower the purse back to say $400,000 per year rather than $420,000 per year, that would be fair, right?

stickman
07-05-2002, 03:26 PM
No brain surgeon here, but it doesn't take one to figure out most people wouldn't be pleased to pay $50.00 to have some photographer make them look bad, and then to know that the photos will be sold and widely distributed without your approval. At the end of my statement was a "LOL" indicating that the statement was in jest. I then offered that the girls may have to do some politicking to get the rules changed. Your sarcastic remarks don't offer much of a solution. What do you suggest, or are you one of those that helped setup this catastrophy? If so, I can understand your defensiveness.

PS: Sears would have done a better job. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

It's not as if I don't know anything about photography. I was a Certified Professional Photographer, certifed by the Professional Photographers of America in 1989. PPA Certified is the only nationally recognized credential for professional photographers. At the time there weren't that many of us nationwide. I owned and operated my own portrait studio for six years. I closed the business for reasons other than lack of business. I have people still today wishing I would go back into the business.

heater451
07-05-2002, 04:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: cuechick:</font><hr> I am not sure why you have a problem with them paying for their own photos? Who should pay for it? This is an investment in their own careers, an important one. I believe they are free to use the photos now for self promotion so it is not like they would not get something from it. I do also agree that if there is a profit to be made later they should also recieve some benifit of that (as should the photographer).<hr></blockquote>I agree with them paying, if they are receiving, say, 8x10s with which to promote themselves. With the poster, I might agree, if they received several copies--again, assumption on my part, that they don't. . . .

If the poster is being used more to forward the WPBA alone, I think the WPBA should swallow it--although, I'm sure you can argue that promoting the WPBA also promotes the individuals, indirectly--that's a hazy area for me.

I could find several different angles to approach this, and even argue for both sides to degrees, but I basically feel that the WPBA shouldn't be able to force the players to be on the poster, AND make them pay for it. (If anyone knows whether there is a waiver of rights, as part of WPBA membership, that puts the pro players under complete WPBA rule, I am curious about some of the details.)

SPetty
07-06-2002, 05:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: cuechick:</font><hr> I am not sure why you have a problem with them paying for their own photos? Who should pay for it? <hr></blockquote>If the purpose of the photo is to be part of a poster collage of photos for the WPBA to sell for fund-raising purposes, then the WPBA should pay for it. Don't the players pay WPBA dues each year? Wouldn't you think that the WPBA dues should cover this sort of thing?

cuechick
07-06-2002, 08:13 AM
The poster is just one of the purposes, there is also the tour book, and indivual stills. Which I believe they CAN order copies to distrubute to fans and friends as well.
I also DO believe that by promoting the WPBA they are promoting themselves. Afterall this is their livlihood, the bigger the sport the more they will benifit in the end. I know many of the women have given selflessly of their time and energies over the years to see this happen.
Their dues can only cover so much....aside from the photos being taken, the production of the poster includes a designer, seperations and printing cost! (Also factor in the cost in the printing of the tour book...) It is the WPBA flipping the bill for all of that. There is a cost to doing buissness, any buisness. Should the WPBA also provide all the women with new cues every year?

Being a professional athlete means more than just playing the game. Did anyone read the article about Sarah Ellerby in the new BD, she is working it! This is a woman who will go far because she is savvy and smart. She also says, "The more you do for the tour, the more it gives to you. It makes the tour more valuable."
I just believe 50.00 is not a lot to ask...I do believe the women should have had some say in which photo was used. If they had been told they had to pay 500.00, I could understand people being upset. (For that they could hire Herb Ritts, or at the very least me! /ccboard/images/icons/wink.gif)
Though I do not think the WPBA is doing the best job, they are operating on a shoestring, they do have a lot of expences. Website, PR Firm, office operations... to name a few.
I think what went wrong was they had the right idea but did it poorly. Now they need to go back to the drawing board but most likely this poor result will be around for a few years.

stickman
07-06-2002, 09:58 AM
[qoute Cuechick}As for stickman, if you can get all that done for 50.00 and still see a profit? Wow, more power to you!
I have actually expieranced film being MORE expensive outside of NY, I went to Boston for a job and it was cheaper to have film fed exed to me than to buy it locally!
Also the way I work, I do not just send film to a lab, I walk it through, clip it (test it) and re clip it till it is perfect. I shoot polaroids as well durring the shoot, it is a process...I just know from my experiance that when you do not give a photographer seperate money for their expences they will cut corners, shoot less, use old stock, what ever it takes to insure a profit. No one is out there to work for free. I am not excusing the photographer, I don't think he did a very good job over all.

LOL, I never said I could do that for a profit. If you read closely, I said I covered my costs, and I made a profit if I sold portraits. I actually made good money. My portrait prices were quite a bit higher than most of my competitors. Laugh if you will, but I found the higher my prices, the better customers I attracted. The film I used was Vericolor II professional portrait film, and it was always fresh. I didn't just send it to a lab, I sent it to the best professional color portrait lab in the country, Miller's Professional (not just my opinion, this is the opinion of many top professional portrait photographers around the country). This place was state of the art before anyone knew what that meant. Not everyone who wants an account there can get one. They do work only for professional portrait photographers. I had a darkroom and could develop color film and print it, but there is no way I could compete with the quality and efficiency of a modern computerized professional lab.

I suspect that the type of work you do and that I did are not nearly alike. (No less professional, just different) Since you do magazine work, among other things, I suspect you shoot a 35mm camera with slide film, and very likely vary your film for different types of assignments. I suspect you do a much more diverse range of work. (I'm just guessing, and certainly by no means intend any disrespect) I specialized in nothing but portrait work. I used only Vericolor portrait film, and used only my 6x7 camera. (Different tools for different work) A 35mm will do great portraits, and is ideal for advertising and magazine work. It's smaller size and lighter weight make it much easier to haul around. My business was selling large wall portraits. Since that's all I did, I chose a larger camera, with a larger negative.

Pricing structures are different for different types of work, but as you say, no one can work without expecting to make a profit somewhere. To do the sessions for $50.00, a person would have to have some expectation of selling some prints, or expect to sell the posters to them at a markup, or get a commision on the sale of the posters. You couldn't do the sessions for $50.00 and then just hand over the negatives and say "have fun" LOL.

It's obvious to me that the photographer is no portrait photographer. A clue was Fran's comment that the photographer told her to take a pose. Portrait photographers know how to pose their subjects. Looking at the photos shows a very flat one dimensional lighting effect, not typical of a portrait photographer. He or she certainly would not want to take these portraits to a photographer's convention and submit them for judging. LOL /ccboard/images/icons/shocked.gif

All this being said, I don't suspect that price was the major concern. Nobody likes to pay for something they're not pleased with, even if the price is right! Add to that, the women weren't afforded an opportunity to approve the images of themselves to be used. What's been done is done. My hope is that they can talk about this and come to a solution to prevent future hard feelings.

jjinfla
07-06-2002, 10:11 AM
Cuechick, A professional photograher gets paid for being able to pose the model, in the proper setting and light, and produce an attractive finished product. Right? The better she can do this the more highly sought after she becomes and the higher fee she can demand. I suspect in this case the girls were paying the fifty bucks more for the publicity they would receive being included in the poster with the top half dozen pros. I doubt that Lee or Fisher paid the fifty bucks. More likely they were paid to be in it. If not then they were being charitable to the WPBA becuse without them the poster would be nothing. But any member of the WPBA can ask the treasurer how much they paid the photographer and it should be revealed to them if they care. Since I highly doubt that the photographer picked out which pictures to use and how to arrange them in the poster I think if I was a member of the WPBA I would be interested to find out who that person was. But we know that there is at least one idiot out there who purchased a poster so maybe they will be able to sell a bunch of them. The poster may be so bad that it might become a desired collectible? LOL And why wan't Karen in the poster? Jake