I'm considering contacting some magazines and book publishers with an image of mine that has some scientific interest. Obviously, I would like to receive payment for the publication of this image. However, I do know there's always the chance that your image may end up getting published for free. For example, there is an Australian science magazine that accepts content without payment. And once I submitted an article and photo of mine to a newspaper and I was under the assumption that I would get paid (if the work got published.) I never got a reply from the paper but they did publish my work without payment.

As such, I'm a little reluctant about submitting my image upon my first / initial contact with the publication. So what would be the best approach here? Give a description of the photograph (and explain what makes it special) in the initial e-mail and state that I would be happy to negotiate on a price when I send the image? Or alternatively, send a low resolution image complete with watermark in the first e-mail, negotiate a price and then send the full res image later on? Or should I simply send the full res image straight away and say I'm happy to negotiate a price?

By the way, there was a very small magazine that I used to submit articles and photos to a number of years ago. They only paid for the articles (and a very small amount too.)

Do some market research. Does the magazine you intend to submit your pic to actually publish pix by themselves without articles to go with them?

From what Ive observed, science magazines generally have articles accompanying the photographs.

Editors are usually interested in articles first, and pictures second.

Yea that was my assumption. In most cases with the science magazines Ive looked at, the photos merely illustrate the articles. In such cases, the images are indeed secondary. However, a number of times Ive also noticed instances where the photo is the main feature and the article is basically written about the photo.

They look for pix to illustrate articles. Of course, you might be lucky ... your picture might fit an article that the editor has commissioned.

Yea I had the plan to submit this image on it's own to a bunch of science magazines (minus an article) in the hope that it might be relevant to an article they are putting together in the near future. I know my chances are pretty slim.

Actually, I have written a very brief article about the science that goes on in my photograph but there's a reason why I won't submit it to the majority of science magazines. Because both the image (and the article) demonstrate an aspect of physics that is very basic science - more like stuff that school students would learn. Incidentally, the type of image that I have doesn't seem to be very common - I haven't seen too many other images that demonstrate the same principle in quite the same way (certainly none in SS, DT or the Science Photo Library stock agencies.) Though regardless of that, it is still very basic science.

Ive been reading through various articles in random science magazines and it seems pretty clear that they are not interested in basic or general science. They seem to prefer articles that focus on some new breakthrough or an exciting development in science or technology. So I was hoping that there could be a chance that my image (even though it demonstrates basic science) might somehow be related to the kinds of topics that tend to cover (again very slim chance of that happening, I admit.)

I think more realistically, it would be better to submit the image and article to science magazines that are targeted specifically towards kids and young people. The kinds of publications that have articles along the lines of 'how things work.' In other words - basic / general science. Though there doesn't seem to be many such magazines in circulation.

Alternatively, would textbooks be more interested in images without accompanying text?

But be careful: increasingly magazines assume that by paying you they get copyright of the image.

Oh yea I'm very wary of that. I would be specific in stating that this image would be for one time use or rights managed etc.

If your image is so extraordinary, why put it on a Rights Managed website like Alamy?

That way you can sell it again and again.

I thought I'd give the direct approach a go first. If I'm not successful, I'll put it on Alamy.

So, no specialist agency was interested in taking this one image then?

To be honest the amount of time you've spent thinking about what to do with that image has probably negated your profit from it.

My plan has remained unchanged. 1st - try direct sell, if that doesn't work - try Alamy, if Alamy doesn't do any good, try micro.

So, no specialist agency was interested in taking this one image then?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I haven't submitted this image to any agencies.

This isn't about your surface tension image that we had the whole big long thread about?

Yea that's the one. I started this thread to get a few tips on how to sell direct.

Alamy licenses a lot of images for textbooks. If it shows a basic science principle that might be just the place for it. A lot less work for you and more chance of it selling multiple times.

I'm considering contacting some magazines and book publishers with an image of mine that has some scientific interest. Obviously, I would like to receive payment for the publication of this image. However, I do know there's always the chance that your image may end up getting published for free. For example, there is an Australian science magazine that accepts content without payment. And once I submitted an article and photo of mine to a newspaper and I was under the assumption that I would get paid (if the work got published.) I never got a reply from the paper but they did publish my work without payment.

As such, I'm a little reluctant about submitting my image upon my first / initial contact with the publication. So what would be the best approach here? Give a description of the photograph (and explain what makes it special) in the initial e-mail and state that I would be happy to negotiate on a price when I send the image? Or alternatively, send a low resolution image complete with watermark in the first e-mail, negotiate a price and then send the full res image later on? Or should I simply send the full res image straight away and say I'm happy to negotiate a price?

By the way, there was a very small magazine that I used to submit articles and photos to a number of years ago. They only paid for the articles (and a very small amount too.)

I wouldn't expect much compensation especially from newspapers with a lot of content submissions from readers/locals, if they've got a "letters to the editor" don't expect anything. I would definitely get an article and supporting photographs together, and then contact the editor or publisher with your idea and explain what you want to be compensated. If you just send it to them they'll just publish it with COURTOUSY/YOUR NAME.

I still send my photos to the local paper and get a few in per year. I used to work there though, so that might help.

I got a recent offer from an UK based magazine.

"Our standard rate of pay for usage is �120 per double page spread, �60 for full page, �30 for half page, etc. Money is paid via bank transfer. Once the magazine goes to press, someone will contact you within 30 days for your payment details, etc. We'll also send you out a copy of the magazine once it's printed."

Maybe it helps.

I think you're flogging a dead horse slightly. I mean, it's a picture of a straw in a glass of water if I'm not mistaken? I'm sure it's wonderful, but I'm also pretty sure it's not going to set the stock photography world alight, or cause mass hysteria in the scientific community.

The only time waster who likes attention is you. You're clearly a troll. I started this thread specifically to get some tips from people on how to submit images directly to publications. You're only purpose is to derail this thread and use it to announce your own personal agenda.

1) Look at my first two responses to you.
2) Why did you start a second thread on the same subject?
3) And what agenda is that?

Namussi, I'm sorry. Without even checking your name, I didn't even realise that you were the same person who made the first reply and the last reply. I found your initial reply very helpful. And your insight is definitely valuable with your past experience as a magazine editor. I just assumed that your second reply was from a different individual. Sorry, I should have checked the name. Ive re-edited my post.

on the same note. I'm about to take a piss, and I notice that the bowl has a pool of water in it. While my urine falls into there it breaks the hydrogen bond and creates somewhat of a splitter and a splash. I should video that in slow motion.

Been shooting Saturn all week. I've got about ... 300 terrible shots of that ... I should call up National Geographic.

Better than shooting Uranus.