Some comments came up in my "Post Processing Poll," related to editors, and because some of those comments were so contrary to my own experience, I though it might be fun to compare our experiences. For me, this is a particularly interesting topic, because when I got sucked into the writing game, I was totally surprised by how much editors were unlike what others had lead me to expect. For over a decade now I've wondered how my own editors interact with their other contributors, and this is the first time I've ever felt that I had a chance to raise the topic in a group where there are more than one or two people who've actually had their work published (in print, as opposed to on the Web). My editors always make me feel as if I'm special, and what I really want to know is whether or not they make everyone feel that way, so how about sharing your thoughts and experiences with me. I'm really just curious, but think the topic might be pretty darn interesting. If it turns out to be a dud, we can ask the mods to pull the thread.

In my case, I can't say much about photo editors, because my experience primarly involved with writing, but right now I'm curious about the parallels and differences.

My experience has been that whether one is working on spec (speculation, which I don't do) or assignment, the first thing a new editor wants me to do is to read the magazine's guidelines. These tend to cover almost every aspect of the end product, from format, to grammar and style, and generally tell you everything that will be expected from you. In addition, unless you are writing on spec, you are also always given a word count or space allocation that you must fill, without overflowing, and a schedule that you are expected to meet. Read a few books on how to get published and you are apt to be told that without following all these rules, you'll never get published, and that may well be good advice, but in my own personal experience, all the "rules" are written in sand, and you're in the middle of a sandstorm.

Here's a typical scenario (not necessarly typical for everyone, but always the way it goes for me, and keep in mind that I'm talking about writing assignments). Generally it starts with an e-mail asking if I'd like to put together a certain type of article, giving me the target length and pay scale. The offer is usually about three times the rate they pay for work done on spec, so while the pay isn't that gereat, the work is almost too easy to refuse. I respectfully read the publishers guidelines (if I'm not already famililar with them), and then proceed to completely ignore them and write in the same way I always write. I figure that if that wasn't what they wanted, they'd have asked someone else to do the job. I always tell my editors that if it's not acceptable I'll redo it, but it always seems to be OK. Articles almost always have to include art work and photographs to go along with the text, and there is always a word and space limit. I provide NO artwork (because I have NO talent), and no photographs (because I can't generally make the kind of photos I need), and at the most I provide crude sketches or word-explinations to describe the kind of graphic or photo I want. Then I generally end up writing a piece that is from two to three times longer than what the editors want. My editors then assign others to take care of the art work I need, and they get together and either cut all my drivel down to a size they can manage, or leave out other articles to give me more room, or in at least one case, split the article into parts and run it as a series. I always feel like I'm being a PITA and loading them down with a lot of extra work, but since they keep coming back for more, they must not mind it too much. The oddest thing is that if I'm asked for 1,000 words at so much per word, and I write 2,000 words which they have to cut down to 1,000 words, they still pay me for all 2,000 words, including the ones they don't use. I've had one editor explain why they do this, but I don't think I want to repeat the explination in public.

In the Post Processing thread I mentioned earlier, it was asserted that all editors act in a certain way, and basically I'm trying to call without belittling anyone or starting an argument. I maintain that editors (and their writers, photographers, and artists) all vary widely, and contend that every such relationship is unique. So, let's compare notes, and see just how much we do vary in this kind of relationship. Whether you shoot photos or write for print publications, technical publications, or any other kind of publication, tell us a little about what your editors expect and how you interact with them. Others might pick up some good pointers, and I want to see if editors are as "all over the map" as some people would have us believe.

I know many of you don't deal with editors and will see this thread as wasteful, but there are others here who deal with editors and publishers either regularly or occasionally, and I'm hoping that this small group can have an enjoyable and informative exchange. If it bugs too may people, I'll personally as our forum moderator to dump the thread.

And guys, please lets try to avoid turning this into a bunch of little arguments. Stick to your expereience and your feelings about it, and you wont offend others. LOL unless of course you say something like, "My experience makes me feel like you're an idiot." I know we can do better than that, so let's do it, OK?