I’m quite lucky in that most of my editors trust me to find and work with a photographer that I like, and because of this, I have some idea of how the assigning and selection process works.
I know some photographers who are amazing (both personally and professionally– as a policy, I don’t work with difficult people), and I keep a list handy. Whenever I have a new project for which I need photography, I just go through my list to see (a) who would be a perfect fit, (b) whether or not that person is available.
Invariably, I end up working with select photographers several times.
I’ve found that each photographer has their own specialty. There’s a photographer who works on a daily rate, and will produce the best images within hours. I’ve seen him at work (and heard from others) and everyone agrees that he just gets in there, gets the work done, and gets out. There is no ambiguity, no long discussion on how the pictures should look, no handholding. You tell him you need such-and-such pictures, you’re guaranteed amazing, incredible, well done such-and-such pictures. The last time I worked with him, he got me over a hundred incredible pictures in two days of work. My editor was floored. Because he works on a daily rate though, I can’t recommend him for long-term investigations.
There are a couple of photographers I know who are good for that. They don’t excel at the day-to-day assignments, and fail to produce ten good shots from a quick day of work. They’re good, sometimes great, photographers, but they can’t work quickly. Those are people who can be great for long-term projects, because they need time to come up with brilliant pictures (and hence can’t ask for a per-day rate).
There is a photographer I know who is completely unafraid to get into dangerous situations. He was smack dab in there with the Indian forces during the Mumbai attacks and has proven repeatedly the ridiculous lengths to which he’ll go to get a picture. There’s another who is fantastic at getting celeb shots (he can claw his way through almost anything).
I still prefer photographers who can speak a bit of Hindi, no matter their nationality. A British photographer I love to work with knows how to tell people to stand here, there, or over there. He can ask them to smile, not smile, sit or stand. He can explain quite effectively what he needs them to do, in a manner that makes them feel immediately comfortable with him. This makes my job easier because he’s not dependent on me to do the translation.
In certain stories, I will only use a Hindi-speaking photographer, because the story calls for it. I very rarely have time to interview someone and then sit down and explain to the photographer (I do most of my interviews in the local languages, and have no use for a paid translator). If I need the photographer to understand the story as we’re speaking so he can shoot accordingly, I’ll need someone who can understand the language.
Why am I telling you about photographers? Because that’s the way editors think about writers as well. So-and-so can do great human-interest stories, so-and-so has great business connections, so-and-so can’t write a word of English but can charm any politician, so-and-so is only interested in long-term investigative work.
A lot of people will advise you to generalize. I’m not one of them. When you tell editors that you’re available for “anything,” you’re not going to be top of mind when they have a specific need. You want them to think of you when they have projects that are right for you.
Being a good writer or photographer is necessary, but that’s the basic requirement. More than that, it’s about what you bring to the table.
What do YOU have that others don’t. What work makes you the happiest? It’s something worth thinking about.