I’m looking for a new hobby, and I’m interested in getting started in photography.
My main question is how do you approach magazines and newspapers for freelance work? Primarily, I’m interested in taking photos of football games, but I would need some sort of credentials to get the best shots from on the field.
I would really love to have my photos in sports illustrated, but I’m sure I would have to start small with the local newspapers. What’s the general protocol for contacting them?
Sorry if this is blunt, but…
Short answer is… you can’t. Anymore than you can walk into the New York Times and get commissioned for a column. Photographers are trained, experienced professionals with contacts and qualifications. You’re an amateur. And sports photography is one of the most competitive branches of the field there is. It’s not a hobby.
Long answer… you’d need to go to college and get some proper qualifications, even a degree. You’d then need to build up a portfolio, at the same time getting hands on experience by working as a photographer’s assistant on pitiful pay. Eventually, you might convince a photographer’s agent to put you on their books, and they will tout your name around. Otherwise, you’ll be doorstepping potential clients with your portfolio. This could take years.
By all means follow your hobby. But asking if you can do it as a freelance photographer is like asking if your dress making hobby can get you a catwalk show at London fashion week.
I agree with pretty much everything SanVito says except for the college part. A college degree isn’t necessary. Nor are college courses in photography. Editors really don’t give a damn as long as you take good pictures. For example, my university did not offer photography classes, yet has yielded several very talented photographer alumni, including one Pulitzer prize winner. The World Press Photo winner for 2006 (Finbarr O’Reilly) took up photography in 2005. (!)
Getting proper qualifications by way of your portfolio and experience is a must, though. And shooting sports well is difficult. You would need a minimum of $10,000 worth of equipment for a standard sports set-up, unless you’re renting. I would expect a good sports photographer to have at least two professional bodies (capable of 5 fps and higher), a 70-200 f/2.8, a 400mm f/2.8, an 18-35mm f/2.8. That 400 alone is going to set you back about seven grand. Now, you could take great sports photos with less equipment, but this is pretty much standard gear for, say, an AP/Getty/Allsport/etc guy shooting a football game. There might also be a 300mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4 thrown in the mix. As a hobby, sports photography is not exactly cost-effective. And taking good sports photos is difficult. It takes a lot of practice and dedication.
Anyhow, to answer your question, what you would need to approach newspapers and magazines is experience and a portfolio. That’s really all you need. Photographer’s agents aren’t really used for PJ work, and photo assisting really doesn’t happen in photojournalism, either. The way I got freelance work when I was doing magazine/newspaper work was to introduce myself, send my portfolio to the editor (20 single images and a photo story), and follow-up. That’s it. But you need that portfolio.
I’m not thinking about getting to the top tier right away, but just hanging out at games and events that aren’t likely to be covered, e.g. State High School Chess Tournament, Division II Football tournament, etc. My local newspaper is horrible in terms of photography. Just about the only usable photos of local sports they have are the school photos of athletes. Most of the photos they have appear to be taken from the stands without a zoom lens.
In that case, contact the photo editors at the papers and have a chat with them. A portfolio of some sort really helps but, if the pictures are as awful as your describe, who knows, maybe that won’t be necessary. A half-ass portfolio is not going to fly in the Chicago market (where I’m at) but, if we’re talking some tiny community newspaper, you might be able to get away with less than the traditional 20 singles and a photo story approach. It never hurts to call and ask.
Also, if you just want to hang out and photograph minor sports events, you may be able to do them just for yourself. When I was starting out, while I had access to Big Ten games because of my college affiliation, I would occasionally shoot high school games for practice. Low profile sporting events often only require a phone call to their media relations department. I would just say I’m a freelancer working on spec and most of the time, that’s enough to get me credentials.
I mean, if you’re in a small town where the sports pictures are so shitty that they look like they were taken by a random spectator in the stands, it doesn’t take much effort to go approach either the newspaper or the sports team themselves and state your case for photographing the event.
I recall back during the last summer Olympics reading Vincent Laforet’s blog and being absolutely blown away at the amount of dedication required to work at that level. And of course, the sheer quantity of equipment, as well. Really, I can take a nice picture from time to time, but this sort of thing is very humbling.
Yep. Vince is a bit of a gear-head and loves being on the cutting edge of technology, but that’s a pretty fair representation of what sports photographers do at the highest level. And you will see comparable amounts of gear from your Sports Illustrated shooters and the like. For your basic everyday wire stuff, though, the equipment I mentioned upthread is typical. The only additional equipment that you might have is lights to light an arena (high schools have notoriously bad lighting) and radio transmitters (usu “Pocket Wizards”) to set off the lights or even trigger a remotely mounted camera (for example, behind the backboard.)
Oh. My. God. I can’t decide weather to be jealous or grateful.
No, wait. Yeah… definitely jealous.
Yes, I think I’m much more interested in the historical value of a picture over its technical brilliance.
What does that mean exactly? The two aren’t mutually exclusive. A good photograph (in news terms) should capture an important moment or be otherwise newsworthy and be technically and artistically/compositionally solid. You strive for all three as a photojournalist.
It means I’d rather be in the right place at the right time rather than having the right equipment.
There’s an important follow-up question that needs to be asked: do successful freelance photographers prefer viewfinders over LCD viewscreens? 
duplicate
Philosophically, I would say you want to be in the right place at the right time with the right equipment. It’s not a question of one or the other. It’s no good if you’re in the right place, right time, and have the wrong lens on your body. Unfortunately, sports photography requires a certain minimum of equipment to do a job that a newspaper or wire service expects. Granted, it sounds like where you’re at is lacking in professional sports photography, but that’s the truth in the bigger freelance markets where there’s competition. So, if you want to practice your photography, just call the athletic director or media relations at some high schools, and I’m willing to bet they’ll give you sideline access. Explain to them what you’re doing, offer them some pictures if necessary, etc.
Edit: I am not saying you need anything more than a camera and a single lens to take a great photo. Photographers have made careers with very simple set-ups like that. But that is “the right equipment” for them.
I had a previous career as a photojournalist specialising in Music photography. As with sports photography, you have to be in the moment, and know your equipment well as an extension of your senses to be prepared to catch the right shot. I learned back in the day, doing my own darkroom work, so, there was a time lag between knowing exactly what you’d got…you really had to know the fundamentals of photography and your camera in order to do good work at all.
Luckily, now you have a bit easier time of it seeing your images as they are made, all to the better for a quicker learning curve , no problem with that. (Love that all those chemicals in film processing dumped down the drain are a thing of the past.) Still, it takes a lot of experience, countless photos taken, and intimately knowing your subject, to get yourself honed to being in the Zone of a professional freelancer.
Not being negative here —thats a now quaint photog pun— just start taking photos, get them together and show them to the people you want to help you gain access to the areas you want, and practice,practice, practice. Even if photos are instantly made now, it still takes time to learn to frame and anticipate the moment. Look at as many great photographer’s photos you admire as you can, and analyze them.
Pulykamell (excellent photographer, btw) has great advice here. Including that you don’t have to have a college degree to get to a good level. I didn’t, just learned it after years of practice, found good teachers, and worked passionately at it.
One thing I am curious about, since back in the film days you HAD to work at getting an image: Do young photographers think it’s all easy and snap snap, nothing to it, how hard can it be ? Does that create an impatience with process and learning , which is necessary in any art?
Personally, I have never taken photography seriously other than being aware of where the sun is, possible shadows on faces, getting everybody’s head in the shot, etc. One of the big reasons I never got into it was the cost of developing negatives. So yes, I’m only thinking about getting into it now because it’s less work and less cost, but probably I’m not speaking for everyone.
Well, the fact that you are paying attention to light already puts you ahead of a lot of hobbyists/amateurs. 
You’d be surprised at how many people completely miss this fundamental principle of photography (ironic, as the word means “light writing.”)
I think digital photography is the greatest development to come for any budding photographer. You can experiment to your heart’s content, you can preview your images, review your lighting set-up and ratios, etc., with no additional cost. You can immediately see what the difference is between f/2.8 and f/8 in a photograph, how slower and faster shutter speeds affect the image, and so on. Gone are the days of experimenting with film, carefully measuring out lighting ratios with flash meters, and expensive Polaroid backs (if you’re working medium-format studio stuff.)
At the same time, what elelle mentions is true. There is an element of “anyone can do this” that comes with the new technology. With film, since the cost of experimenting wasn’t free, I believe there was a little more thought put into every frame, into every experiment, and perhaps the lessons were learned a bit more strongly because of the cost and time involved. It’s easy to take a thousand frames without really thinking about your settings/framing/etc. these days. I know I fall into the habit from time to time, myself. Make sure you take the time to look over and think about your images after you’ve taken them, and think about how to make them better. I’ve taken well over a million frames at this point, and after every shoot I try to think what I could have seen or done better. There is never a point where you stop improving.