Selling photos online, any money to be made? [Archive]

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-15-2012, 20:29

I sell my work off my website, and it makes me about half my income (the rest is from web design and commercial photo work). It is not easy to do, and I went for years with no sales before people began buying.

Most of my work sells to people looking for a photo of some specific thing, and they find my work using search engines like Google Image Search. Having a large collection of images online makes the site some up in searches more, and having the site set up to be search engine friendly is essential. That means:

- No flash sites. Individual images on flash sites are not searchable by Google.

- No flash for image presentation either.

- Avoid Javascript based slideshows and such, they make the images harder for search engines to index.

- If you use a template or content management system to build your site, make sure the one you choose allows you to enter an ALT TAG for each image. This is a description of the image that you type in, so that search engines can 'see' the photo and know what is in the picture. Without Alt Tags, your images are INVISIBLE to searches.

Here are some of my observations after doing this for many years:

- Street photography never, ever, sells. Ever.

- Portraits never sell unless the subject is famous.

- Landscape photos sell well, if they're something beautiful or interesting. Pictures of interesting places, buildings, historic sites also sell well.

- Black and white sells more prints, Color sells better for stock photos.

- Don't show just the photo, with no text the site visitor can read about the photo. This makes the pictures look more important to search engines, and telling a story encourages sales.

back alley

05-15-2012, 20:49

chris, does street photography ever sell?

kidding aside...are people mostly interested in 'pretty' pics?

135format

05-15-2012, 20:50

135format, do you have any examples of some who are good at it? It might help others to study their methods, site layout, etc.

http://www.terragalleria.com/

he runs the largeformat photography forum and over the years built up his portfolio and now its his full time living.
From scientist to photographer but he can do all his own website coding(PHP) which makes a big difference. Anyone who has to rely on someone else to do it will struggle because the cost is so high for a bespoke package and the off the shelf ones aren't always too good.

I think the following does OK too but maybe on a smaller scale. But he does make images of places people like a memento of.

http://www.darknessandlight.co.uk/

You could look at something www.clikpic.com which does it all for you, but ultimately the most sucessful are built by DIY coders who have a high degree of skill and know about search engine optimisation.

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-15-2012, 21:23

chris, does street photography ever sell?

kidding aside...are people mostly interested in 'pretty' pics?

For the most part, yeah, pretty pics sell best. As stock photos, I have sold a lot of ugly ones because the buyer needed a photo of something ugly for their purpose. Like this one:

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/cw3/assets/product_full/tank.jpg

I licensed it to a Canadian company who wanted it for an advertising mailer a few yrs ago. They were selling electric heating systems, and the dirty oil tank was to remind their potential customers how dirty the fuel oil heaters they were hoping to get people to ditch are.

135format

05-15-2012, 21:30

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-15-2012, 21:45

An example of what an online image can do for you, if you get lucky...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132057/Businessman-pays-50-000-PHOTO-dilapidated-beach-hut-real-thing-costs-12-000.html

Yep. I've never gotten near that much for an image, but I have gotten a couple thousand dollars each for several images over the years. I find it fascinating how many people will just give images to businesses who can and will pay if you give them a price.

loquax ludens

05-17-2012, 06:12

135format, thanks for the examples of successful photographers and their sites. I've followed QT Luong's work for many years.

Chistopher, that was some excellent practical advice you gave. Thank you.

Frank Version Two

05-17-2012, 22:06

Actually I am very ignorant of current internet technology, coding, search engines, any of that.... My last dot.com jobs were 7-8 years ago, and that prehistoric dinosaur technology and thinking has all been surpassed many times over.... Since January I have been using a customizable template served by "A Photo Folio" for my website and it is Flash, but they run a parallel html and iPad version for search engine visibility. It's not perfect but it seems the best of the services (and most expensive). If I had to do the same site from scratch then it would cost new car prices for its level of functionality. Bottom line is that it makes a good commercial presentation that photo editors, art buyers, and ad agencies are comfortable looking at - rather than the 6 year old Movable Type blog format I used prior.

Blogging (with tags) on Tumblr also works for me, I try to post 1 to 4 of my images per day (a mix of current and vintage work).

I cut back on my writing and also cleaned up as much of my online postings as possible because my big mouth and attitude could get me in trouble. I rather post pictures anyway. What wise-ass stuff I do write stays on Facebook for friends only so it doesn't haunt me years later. I cut back on showing as many nudes, drugs, bad behavior. Not that I shy away from it but now it's a smaller percentage.

Getting a lot of hits doesn't mean much unless you are Ken Rockwell, TOP, Luminous, etc (in which I would have to be a lousy photographer too!). My old blog site got over 1000 unique visits a day but 98-99% of those that were subhuman photo nerds looking for free pix of hot naked women.

I used to sell prints fairly inexpensively (under $100) but last year I raised the price to $500. My thinking was that if a real gallery ever represented me, then they wouldn't want me undercutting them with cheap, democratic prints made for the masses. Of course I sell fewer but still do a couple per month, completely random... for instance I sold three older portraits of men to a collector in Monaco of all places.

It's not enough to make a living by itself but if I keep doing it along with other self-promotion and marketing, over several or many years, I figure it will lead to something eventually. And I enjoy doing it regardless.

Generally speaking, in an art career you need to have multiple revenue streams and you may change course dramatically several times over the years. Just like the real world. Except with an art career, it really helps to start out with a lot of money upfront!!!

To the OP... make it part of your lifestyle, concentrate on shooting more than monetizing pictures until you have something unique and special, then approach it like a job and go for it 110%.

Also don't get suckered into Getty via Flickr, selling $15 prints on Etsy, Micro-stock, MagCloud magazines, photo contests, etc.... they all exist to make money from photographers - not for photographers.

Araakii

05-17-2012, 22:13

Actually I use "A Photo Folio" for my website and it is Flash, but they run a parallel html and iPad version for search engine visibility. Blogging (with tags) on Tumblr also works for me, I try to post 1 to 4 of my images per day (a mix of current and vintage work).

I used to sell prints fairly inexpensively (under $100) but last year I raised the price to $500. My thinking was that if a real gallery ever represented me, then they wouldn't want people coming around for cheap, democratic prints made for the masses. Of course I sell fewer but still do a couple per month, completely random... for instance I sold three older portraits of men to a collector in Monaco of all places.

It's not enough to make a living by itself but by but if I keep doing it along with other self-promotion and marketing, over several or many years, I figure it will lead to something eventually. And I enjoy doing it regardless.

Generally speaking, in an art career you need to have multiple revenue streams and you may change course dramatically several times over the years. Just like the real world. Except with an art career, it really helps to start out with a lot of money upfront!!!

Man, if someone like you can only sell a couple a month, a lot of others have pretty much no hope :-)

By the way, to start out, how much is a lot of money upfront?

135format

05-17-2012, 22:29

By the way, to start out, how much is a lot of money upfront?

Just remember the old saying:

"If you want to make a small fortune, then start with a big one".

You can't go far wrong if you stick to that principal.

Frank Version Two

05-17-2012, 22:43

At least $3 million, not counting inflation and war. If you shepard it wisely and are lucky it will give you a Middle Class lifestyle and last you until the final shutter click.

That sounds nuts but there have been people who have gone to Wall Street (or Silicon Valley) and done just that. Some of those guys are done and out at 30... just be smart. Look at that Greenspun guy who started photo.net for example - he's spent the last twenty years traveling and trying to get laid.

Baring that, a skilled trade like plumbing is the next best option for being a successful photographer. You can work three days on, four days off.

The thing you absolutely should not do is to fall into the trap of borrowing money for some silly institutional or college photo school.

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-17-2012, 22:55

Frank is right, a lot of famous photographers...A LOT...Were born into wealth. The fine art photo world is designed to make everyone but the artist rich, really making money with it, even enough to just live, is very hard. I've been so poor that i've gone days at a time without a meal. I can live off it now only because I live in one of the cheapest big cities in North America. My very nice apartment in a middle class part of Fort Wayne, Indiana only costs me $570 a month. Everything else here is cheap too. Except gas. For some damned reason its always 20 cents a gallon less in Indianapolis than it is in Fort Wayne. Always. Aside from that, its cheap to live here, and I live on an income that most of you would find shockingly low, but I do eat good food every day and support my son, so I am happy.

Araakii

05-17-2012, 23:23

I always knew that money can buy success in the photo world. But it's still good to know how to achieve that with as little money as possible, haha.

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-18-2012, 00:51

Frank's 3 Million dollars, invested in a conservative portfolio and withdrawn at a rate of 2% (with annual inflation adjustments) could provide the middle class income needed to avoid having a job while building your photography career. I'm not sure if that's buying your way in or just covering your living expenses while putting in the road work.

I don't think 'buying your way in' involves money trading hands. Its more of a situation where simply being perceived as wealthy opens doors because most art buyers are wealthy, and wealthy people do not buy things from poor people. Not expensive things, at least. Many galleries that are successful in actually selling art won't even talk to artists anymore unless the artist is well connected, and that requires money...because if you have money, you know the right people.

135format

05-18-2012, 01:45

$3 million is way over the top.

I rekon $1 million will do it. With that amount of money you should be able to buy a retail premises with accomodation. That retail premises then becomes a small gallery with photo printing, photo framing, possibly camera sales, film and accessory sales like albums. And kiosk printing setup (now cheap). It also serves as your photographers shop for hiring your photography skills out whether that is for weddings, portraits and / or commercial jobs. It sets you apart from the web only operators in a big way. People can instantly see you are a genuine photography business as opposed to someone trying their luck online. And the big thing is that its not spent money because its a property investment which can be sold to get your money back. So then you just need enough to live for 12 months whilst getting it up and running. You could possibly do it with less.

The best thing is that means you ain't paying rent and you ain't paying a gallery commission fees. All you need to be really sure of is where its located. i.e. somewhere there is strong possibility of people coming in and spending money. Forget it if you are living in the sticks, you need people with money to burn. But you are serving the local community and the tourist trade. maybe you only need to open 3 or 4 days a week. The rest of the time you can be out making images of what you want to hang your gallery or for clients. And when you are in the shop/gallery you can be printing and framing and serving customers. If you get it setup right you may not even need to employ staff unless there is enough demand for it to be open every day of the week. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. All I gotta do is find the money and make the commitment.

Ansel Adams didn't make it until he set up shop in Yosemite and sold pictures of Yosemite to tourists. Before that he was a jobbing photographer like thousands of others.

135format

05-18-2012, 02:45

this is all sounding like you need $3 million to get started in a photography business which is plainly BS.

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-18-2012, 03:01

this is all sounding like you need $3 million to get started in a photography business which is plainly BS.

That's not what Frank was saying. He's saying its so hard to make money as a fine art photographer that you need to have so much money that you can live the rest of your life without an income. In other words, you need to be rich to be a fine art photographer. That's an exaggeration, but there's a lot of truth in it. A very large percentage of the famous fine art photographers throughout the history of photography were born into wealth; few really made much money off photography, but they had the money to allow them to do their photography, and in the end it made them famous.

135format

05-18-2012, 03:24

No "Fine Art Photographer" ever made their name through having money. I can say that with 100% certainty. Why? because "Fine Art Photography" is such a new concept that they haven't had time.
The term "Fine Art Photographer" has come into usage since the advent of the web and really over the last ten years or so. No one was calling themselves a "Fine Art Photographer" 20 years ago. Most Fine Art Photographers are retirees who did photography as a hobby and metamorphose into being "Fine Art Photographers" the day after their final paycheck. They knock up a website having looked to see what others have on their website and like to copy the term "Fine Art Photographer" because it sounds cool and that is what everyone else is claiming to be.

It's no wonder they find it difficult to make any money out of it. Most serious artists spend a lifetime honing their skills full time working their nuts off before they are good enough to be taken seriously.

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-18-2012, 03:36

135format

05-18-2012, 03:39

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-18-2012, 03:42

Alfred Stieglitz promoted the idea of photography as gallery fine art. While I have never heard any of my friends use the term "fine art photographer" to describe themselves, the concept certainly dates from the shows and work promoted by Stieglitz.

Yep, almost a century ago! It amazes me how little knowledge of the history of photography some photographers have when they spout off about photography's history.

Digressing from history, I'm curious about those friends you're talking about. ARE they fine art photographers, or are they something else (like wedding photographers). If they are primarily artists, what label do they use to distinguish themselves from other types of photographers. Wedding photographers call themselves wedding photographers. Newspaper photographers call themselves photojournalists or news photographers.

Why do your friends have such reluctance to admit what they are, when other professional photographers are not at all shy about telling people what kind of photographer they are? Its just business, really. If I were a wedding photographer, I'd shout it from the rooftops so that engaged couples would know that I am the guy they need, not the guy who shoots products, or the guy who does wildlife photography, or the guy who does architectural photography.

135format

05-18-2012, 04:01

Sorry -- but you are just talking about your "general" usage, not the rest of us.

The term was already being widely used when the curators at MoMA began collecting in the '30s.

"The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) began collecting modern photography in 1930 and established the department in 1940. The Museum's holdings of more than 25,000 works constitute one of the most important collections of modern and contemporary photography in the world." www.moma.org

I'm talking about photographers calling themseves "Fine Art Photographer" not what art galleries call anything. And not whether photographers called their work art. The term "Fine Art Photographer" has only recently been adopted by photographers as the thing to call temselves.

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-18-2012, 04:06

I'm talking about photographers calling themseves "Fine Art Photographer" not what art galleries call anything.

Alfred Stieglitz, Paul Strand, Edward Weston, and Ansel Adams among many others called themselves artists nearly a century ago. Why do you have such a problem with fine artists who do photography calling themselves fine art photographers? It is, put simply in plain English, what they are. They're not wedding photographers, or family portrait photographers, or product photographers, or...etc.

Sparrow

05-18-2012, 04:07

... I still think it sounds pretentious myself

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-18-2012, 04:09

... I still think it sounds pretentious myself

In what way? It is what they are. When you got married, did you tell the wedding photographer you hired that he was 'pretentious' for calling himself a wedding photographer? Do you tell the photographer at your local newspaper that he's pretentious for calling himself a journalist? Of course not.

Sparrow

05-18-2012, 04:13

.. perhaps it's the superfluous fine that does it, either way I'm not asking you to agree, it's just how I feel

135format

05-18-2012, 04:38

Alfred Stieglitz, Paul Strand, Edward Weston, and Ansel Adams among many others called themselves artists nearly a century ago. Why do you have such a problem with fine artists who do photography calling themselves fine art photographers? It is, put simply in plain English, what they are. They're not wedding photographers, or family portrait photographers, or product photographers, or...etc.

I don't have a problem. I'm just saying it's a new thing to call oneself a "Fine Art Photographer". I'm not disputing that photographers have been calling their work Art since the beginings of photography or that they call themselves Artists.
What seems to have upset you is my suggestion that its a casual term that many photographers are calling themselves. But it's a fact that it's being used very casually by many hobbyist photographers setting up websites. It's not my fault they are doing that.

Personally I'd just call myself a Photographer and let people enquire if they want specifics about any piece of work. Your work should say it for you. Why pigeonhole yourself.

kbg32

05-18-2012, 05:01

- Street photography never, ever, sells. Ever.

Oh really? I have to say Chris, that you are wrong here. You are only speaking from your experience. If you have a strong consistent vision, you can sell street work. The images must be from a series, a cohesive body of work, not one-offs.

Remember, your mileage may vary.

I Love Film

05-18-2012, 05:41

I wonder if Chris or someone else would post their definition of "fine art".

That would clear a lot up.

Personally, I have a lot of trouble distinguishing "fine art" from "schlock", and I say that seriously. There is a great deal of overlap between the two.

FrankS

05-18-2012, 05:44

Fine art is art that is not commercial art. It is made for its intrinsic value, not some extrinsic value, as for advertising or as for commission.

I Love Film

05-18-2012, 05:58

On the other hand, over time, a lot of "commercial art" transcends its original intention and is collected for its intrinsic value.

Conversely, things created as "fine art" do not hold up over time, and are abandoned as pretentious and without substance.

Fine art is art that is not commercial art. It is made for its intrinsic value, not some extrinsic value, as for advertising or as for commission.

I Love Film

05-18-2012, 06:06

Others might say that "pictorialism" was a bowdlerization of a prior form of painting, and, as such, not representative of photography in its pure, unadulterated essence.

Our old Photo Pal, Al Steiglietz and his magazine "Camera Work" along with his gallery "Gallery 291" were likely responsible for bringing photography into the "Art" world. Al's buddy, Ed Steichen (both painters turned photographers) promoted photographers along with painters at 291.

They both worked to bring photography into the Art world and promote it as a Fine Art..

I Love Film

05-18-2012, 06:13

The work of both Penn and Avedon are common examples.

Absolutely. Helmut Newton did almost all his work for hire. In fact, I commissione some of it myself in the 1980's.

There is no question of its intrinsic value, yet he never once uttered the words "fine art".

I Love Film

05-18-2012, 06:14

I'm not up to arguing about Art or Photography. I have a very limited knowledge of Art History.. So, you will need to find someone more knowledgeable for an exchange ideas on pictorialism.

But you just made this post commenting on "art". Did it all come from a fast Google search? One would assume you were intimate with Stieglitz and his "pals".

Our old Photo Pal, Al Steiglietz and his magazine "Camera Work" along with his gallery "Gallery 291" were likely responsible for bringing photography into the "Art World". Al's buddy, Ed Steichen (both painters turned photographers) promoted photographers along with painters at 291.

They both worked to bring photography into the Art World and promote it as a Fine Art..

from wiki.."Stieglitz used this space to introduce to the United States some of the most avant-garde European artists of the time, including Henri Matisse, Auguste Rodin, Henri Rousseau, Paul Cézanne, Pablo Picasso, Constantin Brâncuşi, Francis Picabia and Marcel Duchamp".

These daze, every camera owner on Flickr is a "fine art photographer".. Just as posting to a web site is publishing. In the past, publishing indicated a prinred work that was circulated or gallery show open to the public.

Maybe Fred, AKA photomoof, can expand on my limited knowledge of these two "Fine Art" photo pioneers?

FrankS

05-18-2012, 06:15

Sparrow

05-18-2012, 06:20

If you mean there are tens of thousands of Flickr-ite amateurs who have put up "fine arts photographer" web sites -- sure that may be recent, but irrelevant to the discussion.

Well it is kind of the last refuge of explanation when talking to the dumb, so in that sense it can sound pretentious. :rolleyes: Normally just the term "artist" is enough to tell someone in conversation that one's photography is not used for dental records.

... well, if I'm honest that sounds pretentious too, I'm afraid

I Love Film

05-18-2012, 06:29

I really don't mean this to be nasty, but why post at all? If you don't have a more informed command of the subject, why say anything at all? You simply add to the almost infinite amount of misinformation online.

I had several photo classes along with some Art History in school. My post was a simple reply to your question. I'm no intellectual, and can't offer any further info.

I didn't see your post as "trolling" for an exchange on the topic. You need to carry on with someone more interested and more lnowledgeable than I am.

kbg32

05-18-2012, 06:45

I think Chris is indeed referring to online stock.

I sell some street work as stock. Very much depends on the subject of course.

Bike Tourist

05-18-2012, 08:36

To answer your original question, I believe there is only one practical avenue for generating income from the internet — stock photography and, if you are not established and well known, MICROstock photography.

If you just have a web site, you might make a sale every now and then. Depending on your format you might have to sweat payment and you might have to produce and ship a print. I know there are sites that handle all this for you but it's hard to conceive any real money being made. The limiting factor is how you get your work to come up on searches. I don't think you can compete with the big boys in that regard.

Microstock takes quite a bit of hard work and patience. First, your work must be accepted — not an easy thing. Then you must build your portfolio. I have been at it on my best site for six years. I shoot what I want and don't go in for isolations on white, the seeming bread and butter of these sites. Even so, out of about 335,000 photographers on that site I am at about 840th in quantity of approved images. I sell my photos all over the world and it's fun to see the map of where they are used.

I make about $3000 a year — enough to keep me in photo gear and help out my retirement. A very few dedicated microstock shooters make over $100,000 per year, but they are in the minority.

I hope this answers your question.

135format

05-18-2012, 09:08

"On may 31st 2007, one of the famous, larger than life prints from the big nudes series (big nude iii) was sold by christie's of london for us$ 378.816. this is the highest price ever paid for a helmut newton print."
http://www.helmut-newton.com/news/big_nude_iii/

I have not listened to all of his interviews -- but clearly he knows that he is showing in a fine art environment. Saying it's not "fine art" would be at best posing.

His highest price of course is not even close to the likes of artists such as Sherman, but still quite high for what has been seen as fashion work.

Clearly you didn't know he died in 2004 so HE wasn't selling anything in 2007 Fine art or otherwise, not unless he was death posing of course. Go away and dream up another argument.

Coincidentally on the day of his death I was trying to buy some Michael Kenna images from Kennas London agent who was also Newtons London agent. I was told that they were snowed under with people buying his work (before he was stiff) to make money on them. I rekon the agent had a field day. So the moral of the story is, die if you want to fetch high prices.

Frank Version Two

05-18-2012, 09:17

He drove into a wall at the Chateau Marmont, what a movie-like way to go....

Araakii

05-18-2012, 12:05

I am fine with "fine art" as a label to describe the particular type of photography that it encompasses, but I always tell people not to read it literally and mistaken that it's a "finer" photography genre than some other type of photography, say street. As someone has said, there got to be a quick way to identify this particular type of photography and "fine art" seems to be a quick and dirty way.

Sparrow

05-18-2012, 12:39

wouldn't the corollary of fine art be something like mean street?

loquax ludens

05-18-2012, 13:59

I'm a fine art photographer. I don't have a web site and I haven't produced any thing resembling fine art yet. But I'm not any sort of professional photographer, and I don't like the sound of amateur or hobbyist or enthusiast photographer, or just plain photographer, so I decided I must be a fine art photographer. If I wasn't a fine art photographer, I'd just be a guy with a whole lot of cameras. Hmmm. Now that I think of it, that could be what I am. :)

I Love Film

05-18-2012, 16:04

I personally could not mount such an intense effort for $3000.

If this is something that gives you pleasure and earns you some spending money, more power to you, but this would not be my cup of tea. It sounds nightmarish.

To answer your original question, I believe there is only one practical avenue for generating income from the internet — stock photography and, if you are not established and well known, MICROstock photography.

If you just have a web site, you might make a sale every now and then. Depending on your format you might have to sweat payment and you might have to produce and ship a print. I know there are sites that handle all this for you but it's hard to conceive any real money being made. The limiting factor is how you get your work to come up on searches. I don't think you can compete with the big boys in that regard.

Microstock takes quite a bit of hard work and patience. First, your work must be accepted — not an easy thing. Then you must build your portfolio. I have been at it on my best site for six years. I shoot what I want and don't go in for isolations on white, the seeming bread and butter of these sites. Even so, out of about 335,000 photographers on that site I am at about 840th in quantity of approved images. I sell my photos all over the world and it's fun to see the map of where they are used.

I make about $3000 a year — enough to keep me in photo gear and help out my retirement. A very few dedicated microstock shooters make over $100,000 per year, but they are in the minority.

I hope this answers your question.

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-18-2012, 16:14

I personally could not mount such an intense effort for $3000.

If this is something that gives you pleasure and earns you some spending money, more power to you, but this would not be my cup of tea. It sounds nightmarish.

I agree with you here. I can think of a lot of easier ways to raise $3000. Hell a part time job at Walmart would make the money faster and with less work than these guys put in to micrstock :bang:

I Love Film

05-18-2012, 16:18

I was not saying that he was not aware that his work might be considered "art" or that he was unaware of the possible future value of his work, BUT, and this is from direct personal experience, the man was all about making money.

He did not shoot on "spec". He wanted a contract, an advance, expenses, and a clear assignment detailing what he was expected to deliver.

His shooting was first and foremost a business arrangement.

PS: I'm sure Fred knows that Helmut Newton is not alive. "135format" needs some better reading comprehension practice.

"On may 31st 2007, one of the famous, larger than life prints from the big nudes series (big nude iii) was sold by christie's of london for us$ 378.816. this is the highest price ever paid for a helmut newton print."
http://www.helmut-newton.com/news/big_nude_iii/

I have not listened to all of his interviews -- but clearly he knows that he is showing in a fine art environment. Saying it's not "fine art" would be at best posing.

His highest price of course is not even close to the likes of artists such as Sherman, but still quite high for what has been seen as fashion work.

Araakii

05-18-2012, 16:47

Fred;

I've been on another photo forum a fair amount. The dynamic is very different there. Generally, very bright folks - Polite, etc. The level of technical knowlegde is extremely high and most of those folks have some knowledge of photo history. It's a much smaller community, maybe that's the difference - people know each other. Any AHs are just ignored. Though, I haven't seen but one or two - and they just go away.

pkr

I don't know which forum you were referring to but I like the atmosphere here. People come from diverse backgrounds, and because they don't know each other personally, they say whatever they want without any hold-back. And because people have different knowledges, even if the information might be incorrect, at least you find some new angles and perspectives of looking at things. A closely knit small community usually become just a melting pot with one singular voice or opinion.

Bike Tourist

05-19-2012, 11:18

I agree with you here. I can think of a lot of easier ways to raise $3000. Hell a part time job at Walmart would make the money faster and with less work than these guys put in to micrstock :bang:

I will defer to you on Walmart, Chris. I don't think I would like it. I was trying to answer the Original Poster's Original Question by way of a real life example. It is possible to make money with photography on the internet, but most people are not going to sell anything or, at most, make a few bucks, by presenting themselves on their own web site.

As to hard work, for me it's not. It is true that the microstocks have arbitrary and strict standards but I don't follow the standard prescription. I photograph what I like when I like. If what I want to shoot goes against their standards, which happens quite often, then I don't submit to them. There is a trend to repping more editorial and journalistic images, which I like.

One other thing worth mentioning. Once your images are up and online they stay there. They just keep selling and reselling for life.

Say "Hi" to the folks at Walmart! :)

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-19-2012, 11:35

I will defer to you on Walmart, Chris. I don't think I would like it. I was trying to answer the Original Poster's Original Question by way of a real life example. It is possible to make money with photography on the internet, but most people are not going to sell anything or, at most, make a few bucks, by presenting themselves on their own web site.

As to hard work, for me it's not. It is true that the microstocks have arbitrary and strict standards but I don't follow the standard prescription. I photograph what I like when I like. If what I want to shoot goes against their standards, which happens quite often, then I don't submit to them. There is a trend to repping more editorial and journalistic images, which I like.

One other thing worth mentioning. Once your images are up and online they stay there. They just keep selling and reselling for life.

Say "Hi" to the folks at Walmart! :)

I've never worked at Walmart. I stand by what I said though. Selling on microstock is about the most idiotic thing a photographer can do, short of just giving the photos away. Why should I sell a photo for $1 when I can sell it for a few hundred, or sometimes even more? Why should I settle for $3000 a year in earnings, when I need that much a month just to survive?

Bike Tourist

05-19-2012, 12:01

I've never worked at Walmart. I stand by what I said though. Selling on microstock is about the most idiotic thing a photographer can do, short of just giving the photos away. Why should I sell a photo for $1 when I can sell it for a few hundred, or sometimes even more? Why should I settle for $3000 a year in earnings, when I need that much a month just to survive?

Your experience seems atypical, Chris. Your one of the few who are making a great living from photography only. You obviously should not sell your images for a pitance when you can sell your images for "hundreds". I do it as a hobby. It pays for my equipment and then some. My images have been used world-wide about 25,000 times. It does not appear "idiotic" to me.

(I believe in civil discourse, rare on the net, more common here. I hope you do too.)

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-19-2012, 12:41

Your experience seems atypical, Chris. Your one of the few who are making a great living from photography only. You obviously should not sell your images for a pitance when you can sell your images for "hundreds". I do it as a hobby. It pays for my equipment and then some. My images have been used world-wide about 25,000 times. It does not appear "idiotic" to me.

(I believe in civil discourse, rare on the net, more common here. I hope you do too.)

I'm sorry to offend you, but for you to have let your work be used 25,000 times for such a pittance really is dumb. There just isn't a nice way to say it. It needs to be said though, regardless of politeness. To conceal that truth from you would be far less civil, for knowing a truth that can help someone, and hiding that truth, is a violation of my moral code. I am telling you this to help you, not to be rude.

Consider this: If you had charged merely $100 each, you would have made $250,000! I realize you probably wouldn't have made 25,000 sales at $100 each, since the fact that you charged mere pennies was/is a factor in sales to many potential buyers, but even if you sold just 100 times, you would have made $10,000.

jpa66

05-20-2012, 04:40

I tend to agree with Chris here. I feel that selling your photos ( or any type of art or work for that matter ) at such cheap prices is not a good idea. I see it all as a race to the bottom.

Sejanus.Aelianus

05-20-2012, 04:50

A race to the bottom isn't always a bad thing, if it achieves what you want. Not everyone marches to the same drum and I say "good luck" to those who find that microstock works for them.

Araakii

05-20-2012, 09:45

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-20-2012, 09:54

A lot of people are willing to give their work away for free because all they care is that their photos are used in some way. i.e their photos have a useful purpose. You can view it as "volunteering". I don't think you would consider those who volunteer as "dumb".

If they're volunteering for a profit-making businesses corporation, then yes, they're drooling imbeciles. Volunteering is something you do for charities and other NON-PROFIT organizations whose cause you support. It is NOT something you do for businesses.

DominikDUK

05-20-2012, 09:57

Arakii neither "the volunteers" nor Bike tourist are dumb but they do cause a huge problem for professional photographers I don't know if Bike tourist has another source of income meaning a day job and does microstock for fun and/or to gain some recognition (ego). But the microstock market effectively killed a lot of photographers and quality agencies. Causing unemployment etc...
Chris seems to live from his photography so its understandable that he doesn't really care for microstock neither do I.

Dominik

Sejanus.Aelianus

05-20-2012, 09:58

That's a view, certainly. Many people, though, have different values and calling them "drooling imbeciles" seems rather unkind, if not downright rude, to me.

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-20-2012, 10:03

That's a view, certainly. Many people, though, have different values and calling them "drooling imbeciles" seems rather unkind, if not downright rude, to me.

The truth is often unkind. Too bad, its still the truth. Anyone who volunteers for a business is stupid. They are. There is just no nice way to say it. Businesses are there to earn profits, and they do. That means they pay their employees and suppliers, because they are not charities. It really isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Tell you what: put up or shut up. Tell your employer you want to work for free. Oh wait, you won't do that, will you? That would be stupid, wouldn't it?

135format

05-20-2012, 10:08

Someone want to tell me how the Intern system works in the US? Are they all imbeciles?

Sejanus.Aelianus

05-20-2012, 10:11

The truth is often unkind. Too bad, its still the truth.

I'm a little surprised by such an attitude. It seems to me that someone in business on their own account would show more restraint. Still, this is the internet.

I do hope that none of your potential clients perform the, now common, web search before employing you. They might find such a lack of moderation not to their taste.

Frank Version Two

05-20-2012, 10:13

Pointing out something that is clearly wrong is not immoderate. Taking assignments from or selling stock to Getty or Corbis is wrong. The only reason someone would do it is desperation, greed, pride... there is no positive to it, other than a short term gain.

I don't think most of the microstock shooters have ill intent but they are ignorantly and/or selfishly contributing to the decline of the industry. But more so, we should direct our wrath at Getty and Corbis for being the mechanism of destruction. They do have ill intent and are truly evil.

Anytime you have a chance to disrupt a Getty sale, do it. The people working for them are sell-outs and should be ashamed, we should call them out and embarrass them.

Thomas Hawk or some other a-hole like that walks by - spit in their face, break their camera, humiliate and stomp them.

135format

05-20-2012, 10:17

I wonder how much commssioned work is generated by 25,000 cheap sales? Anyone have a clue?

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-20-2012, 10:22

I'm a little surprised by such an attitude. It seems to me that someone in business on their own account would show more restraint. Still, this is the internet.

I do hope that none of your potential clients perform the, now common, web search before employing you. They might find such a lack of moderation not to their taste.

No one in business cares about any aspect of my attitude other than my willingness to provide them with the image they need, at the quality they need, on time. That's it. Really.

In fact, I have asked clients what they think of photographers who offer work for free, and the clients always laugh at the stupidity of these fools. Sure, they'll take your free photo, but they won't respect you for it. They're in business, and understand that they cannot give their product away and stay in business. They look on people willing to work for free as chumps. Idiots. Fools. Businesspeople literally laugh all the way to the bank when they encounter someone willing to provide photos for free or ultra-cheap. Some of the stuff I've been told by clients is FAR nastier than anything I'm saying about these photographers.

CameraQuest

05-20-2012, 10:23

The truth is often unkind. Too bad, its still the truth. Anyone who volunteers for a business is stupid. They are. There is just no nice way to say it. Businesses are there to earn profits, and they do. That means they pay their employees and suppliers, because they are not charities. It really isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Tell you what: put up or shut up. Tell your employer you want to work for free. Oh wait, you won't do that, will you? That would be stupid, wouldn't it?

Chris,

you have a habit of lambasting others as if your opinion is somehow better or more accurate than other members views. Enough.

RFF to Chris Crawford: your views are just your views, nothing more - and NOT better or more accurate than other RFF members. Get over trying to be right.

Strong belief in for your views is not an excuse for bad behavior. From here it looks like you could benefit from a lot less anger and lot more effort to learn from other members viewpoints.

Stephen

DominikDUK

05-20-2012, 10:39

I wonder how much commssioned work is generated by 25,000 cheap sales? Anyone have a clue?

I don't know but I believe pretty much none for photographers. I resently had a discussion with an agency owner. His agency is pretty sucessful and a few years ago the made most sales with images for book covers. So he started another agency specialising in images for book covers, he used well known, and less well known photographers payed them a good fee etc... so fast forward to 2011 the year he had to close the special agency because the publishing houses were not willing to pay his already low fees. They reason quote "microstock is so much cheaper"
And here we are not only talking small publishers but big ones as well.
He also said that he doesn't believe that the agency market aside from Getty, Corbis will survive and that most photographers should look for another profession. Because a photographer with his own studio or company can't compete with an amateur who is willing to work for next to nothing or even free because his name is written in the byline (ego).

Dominik

Araakii

05-20-2012, 10:46

The way the human society system works most of the time is that everyone really only cares about their own well being, with not much regard to the other members of the society, unless their own action also threatens their own survival in the short term.

So in the long run, you can call the "volunteers" short-sighted, stupid, whatever. But their goal is not to generate profits for themselves or the industry as a whole. Their short term goal is just to get their stuff used by others in a "meaningful" way. They might be laughed at by others but they definitely get what they want, and that's all it matters. From that perspective, their behavior is very rational.

DominikDUK

05-20-2012, 10:52

Bike Tourist

05-20-2012, 11:04

Consider this: If you had charged merely $100 each, you would have made $250,000! I realize you probably wouldn't have made 25,000 sales at $100 each, since the fact that you charged mere pennies was/is a factor in sales to many potential buyers, but even if you sold just 100 times, you would have made $10,000.

Okay, Chris, one more once and I'll let it be. Gee, who can remember the original poster's question, which is what I was trying to answer? The most I've ever sold one image for was $400 and that was back in the days of conventional stock agencies repping your transparencies. It didn't happen too frequently. You example of 100 sales at $100 each sounds great as an exercise. But in the real world where do these 100 free spenders come from?

I used to emphatically agree with you and the other "race to the bottom" people. I insisted on my minimum standards for local assignment photography and so forth. But, that was way back in the 20th Century. I fear you're speaking about what "should" be (and I totally agree with you on that) and what really "is" in the present. the problem is not confined to our narrow sector but manifests in all creative media, including music and motion pictures. The new paradigm seems to be that art should cost very little or be free, never mind compensation to the orginator. My heroes, the photojournalists, are being undercut by by all those citizens with cell phones. There are so many, there are bound to be a few in the right place at the right time making bad images considered better than no image.

So Chris, since you consider me "dumb" just two things:

1. Please expand your use of adjectives to include some less offensive terms for those who don't agree with you.

2. Since I've laid it all out there, give us some real-world examples of how you are supporting yourself or a family with your fine art. I'm willing to be convinced.

Bike Tourist

05-20-2012, 11:07

I wonder how much commssioned work is generated by 25,000 cheap sales? Anyone have a clue?

FYI, Shutterstock is issuing an IPO and going public. To do that they had to release some financials. Do a search for the Shutterstock IPO and you can read all about it.

Araakii

05-20-2012, 11:10

Araakii according to the agency guy I talked to and some observation it is more ego driven than getting the stuff used in meanigful way. Although I don't doubt that many volunteers have a higher goal. They are definetely not stupid since they get something call it ego strocking for some and the knowledge of having done something good for others.

Dominik

And also, the professional photographers are also businesses themselves. So, they could also be prime targets for the other photographers who are not professionals. So that's another reason why they want to "destroy" them. Some professionals have an obnoxious attitude towards amateurs and this can probably be seen as a revenge for some of them.

DominikDUK

05-20-2012, 11:19

To the OP if you want to sell your images via a stock agency (micro or other) look trough magazines, the lady holding a phone for example is a classic example of stock photography and look a the website of the stockagencies.

Stock agencies need illustrative photos (forgettable images). Photographs that stand for say an emotion the laughing girl, or industry a factory.

I wish you luck with your endeavoor

Dominik

DominikDUK

05-20-2012, 11:21

Araakii I don't doubt this can be a driving force for some.

Dominik

135format

05-20-2012, 11:33

FYI, Shutterstock is issuing an IPO and going public. To do that they had to release some financials. Do a search for the Shutterstock IPO and you can read all about it.

I think I'm going to setup an online stock photography website:D

Mr. Fizzlesticks

05-20-2012, 12:25

Whenever I read these arguments about cheap images and amateurs that do it for their ego I think about the Time magazine cover a few years ago. If I remember the story correctly, they found the image on Flickr and only paid the guy $50 for it when a cover on Time typically went for around $5000. He was happy as a clam in mud since his picture was on the cover of Time and Time had $4950 more in its pocket. There are many designers and agencies that use idiots (sorry that is the only way to describe them) for their cheap images. Often these images are charged to the client at far many multiples higher than the amateur received. It is a nice profit item for them. There is no way around this unfortunately because there are a lot of idiots in the world who have a fantasy about being a photographer.

I am with Chris and Frank on this one.

Sparrow

05-20-2012, 12:57

Sejanus.Aelianus

05-20-2012, 13:07

perhaps the answer is to take better photos than the idiot amateurs, do you think?

Always an excellent plan but sometimes easier to say than to do. :D

DominikDUK

05-20-2012, 13:10

Can we please stop using the word idiots to describe people who sell their images at low prices or give them away for free. And Mr. Fizzlesticks as you said yourself the guy was extremely happy about his pictures being used as coverimage for Time magazine so he did get his payment, his ego was stroked and he probably bought a thousand issues of the magazine.

Sparrow the the images of amateurs in microstock agencies are often not the best but the cheapest and that what counts in bean counters mind. Not Quality price.

I am of mostly with Chris on this one but I wished that he had used a different language.

Dominik

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-20-2012, 13:50

So what you get from my statement above is that amateurs can take better photos than me? Interesting. I don't compete with amateurs and amateurs can't compete with me. If someone wants to sell an image for $50 I say have at it. If that is all your image is worth then it means there is nothing special about it or you are too ignorant to know what it could be worth.

I love how people attack on the internet when they read something that affects their ego. If you look up the word idiot in the dictionary you will see that its derivation is from Latin idiota meaning an ignorant person. An ignorant person would sell an image for $50 when he could have sold it for $5000. He was ignorant of the difference. Designers or agencies like ignorant people. They can take advantage of them and make a decent amount of money off of their work at the same time. I hope that clears it up.

Even $50 is a lot by Microstock standards. On sites like iStockPhoto, photos sell for as little as a dollar or two, and are often used by multinational corporations that would have paid thousands for an image if the photographer had demanded it.

Keith

05-20-2012, 14:15

Chris,

you have a habit of lambasting others as if your opinion is somehow better or more accurate than other members views. Enough.

RFF to Chris Crawford: your views are just your views, nothing more - and NOT better or more accurate than other RFF members. Get over trying to be right.

Strong belief in for your views is not an excuse for bad behavior. From here it looks like you could benefit from a lot less anger and lot more effort to learn from other members viewpoints.

Stephen

I can handle Chris's opinions because that's all they are ... opinions and we can all decide whether to accept them or reject them and it is the internet after all! On that basis he's no different to the rest of us!

My issue is more with the language of humiliation involved in driving these opinions home:

'dumb' ... 'drooling imbecile' ... 'stupid' ... 'idiot' ... and so on!

That ... I am totally over!

135format

05-20-2012, 14:45

Pointing out something that is clearly wrong is not immoderate. Taking assignments from or selling stock to Getty or Corbis is wrong. The only reason someone would do it is desperation, greed, pride... there is no positive to it, other than a short term gain.

I don't think most of the microstock shooters have ill intent but they are ignorantly and/or selfishly contributing to the decline of the industry. But more so, we should direct our wrath at Getty and Corbis for being the mechanism of destruction. They do have ill intent and are truly evil.

Well I wonder how many people use free software such as facebook, tumblr, wordpress because they are too tight fisted to pay a web developer. That has driven down what web developers can expect to get paid for creating a photography web portfolio site. Those same people decrying the microstock companies are using free software. A lot of them anyway and I know you pay for some of your web hosting but it's the pot calling the kettle black. What's the saying about casting the first stone...

Araakii

05-20-2012, 15:15

Now I am glad that there are so many "idiots" out there driving down the prices of photos. As Mr. Fizzlesticks said, professionals like him are not in the same playing field as amateurs who sell their stuff for $50. So why get mad over someone playing in a school league when you are in a major league? Just do your own thing and how much others want to sell their stuff for is their own business.

Frank Version Two

05-20-2012, 15:19

Ha that's a stretch of an example since Facebook, Tumblr, etc. are not replacing any serious person's bonafide need for a website, they serve a different social and marketing purpose. If I want a custom website then I'll pay an ~onshore~ developer their usual rates for quality work. As it is, paying APF $1000-plus is hardly cheaping out.

But yes, developers have gotten screwed by off-shoring, typographers have disappeared thanks to desktop publishing and Fontographer, etc. I fear that photography is going the same way and ultimately, Getty and the microstock industry will win. But I don't have to like it.

I'm not stopping anyone from giving their photos away or selling them for pennies. Go for it. Just don't expect me to like it, or to go out of my way for their benefit based on those actions. I'm not going to be all chummy with someone like that.

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-20-2012, 15:20

Well I wonder how many people use free software such as facebook, tumblr, wordpress because they are too tight fisted to pay a web developer. That has driven down what web developers can expect to get paid for creating a photography web portfolio site. Those same people decrying the microstock companies are using free software. A lot of them anyway and I know you pay for some of your web hosting but it's the pot calling the kettle black. What's the saying about casting the first stone...

Not me. I designed my own site, built it in Dreamweaver (which was expensive software!), and the shopping cart software I use (Cartweaver (http://www.cartweaver.com)) is about $300, which I paid because it is very good and the license allowed me to modify/rewrite it as I please (I did to add some features specific to selling photos) and build sites for others with it (which I have done).

I do have a Facebook fan page for my work, which has been a good marketing tool. Sold a lot of prints to people who found my work on Facebook, but its not my main website, just a tool to drive traffic to my own site.

Rob-F

05-20-2012, 17:15

Chris,

you have a habit of lambasting others as if your opinion is somehow better or more accurate than other members views. Enough.

RFF to Chris Crawford: your views are just your views, nothing more - and NOT better or more accurate than other RFF members. Get over trying to be right.

Strong belief in for your views is not an excuse for bad behavior. From here it looks like you could benefit from a lot less anger and lot more effort to learn from other members viewpoints.

Stephen

Bad behavior? Seems overstated to me. Chris's arguments made sense to me.

So. Back to the OP's question: Selling photos online, any money to be made?

kbg32

05-20-2012, 18:11

Photographers had the chance 12 years ago to do something about the way the industry was headed. Getty was the first to lower the commission rate on stock sales at that time by 10%. Corbis and others had to do so to compete. The photographers in the industry lost their chance to band together and go on "strike" against the industry's business practices. Getty threatened to terminate all contracts against those that refused to sign the new agreements. There were and are many young photographers out there who are itching at the chance to produce work to garner them income. Getty and other agencies paid them a day rate to produce imagery that in the end would be wholly owned by the agencies themselves, thusly cutting off any future income for the photographer that those images would produce. These "younger" photographers, just getting into the business, and not understanding or aware of past industry history, gladly signed these agreements. They got their $500-$1000, whatever, per day, and that is all they were concerned with. Not knowing that these images probably over the next couple of years, netted 2-3 times or more.

Microstock? Shutterstock? Stupid? By no means no. Like it or not, smart industry practice by the way things are going, and the way things are.

Do I like Getty selling my RM images for $1, of which I get 30-40%? Of course not. I have a family. I need to make a living.

Can money be made? In a word yes. But you have to understand where the market/industry are, and where it's going. You can't go in blindly. The industry is extremely oversaturated with imagery. Do something different that hasn't been done. Develop your own style/vision. Get it out there. The world will find you.

Isn't there an old saying, "Change or die"?.

kbg32

05-20-2012, 19:39

PKR,

Who do you think owns Corbis?

kbg32

05-20-2012, 20:03

Corbis is a Microsoft company - all owned by Gates.

kbg32

05-20-2012, 20:07

Gates was making a lot of bids for media and the rights thereof back then.

Araakii

05-20-2012, 20:37

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/03intern.html?pagewanted=all

also

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/us/18immig.html?pagewanted=all

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-20-2012, 20:47

Someone want to tell me how the Intern system works in the US? Are they all imbeciles?

Unpaid internships are designed to keep out people from middle class or poor backgrounds, because only rich kids can afford to work for free to get in the door for a paying job. The system is evil, not because it exploits the interns (they're rich and don't feel exploited, just as many microstock photogs don't feel exploited because they have good jobs in other fields), but because it sets a glass ceiling based on class rather than merit under many good jobs in todays economy.

Sejanus.Aelianus

05-20-2012, 23:14

Clients willing to pay reasonable rates could care less. They contract based on reputation and referral -- not Google.Wouldn't that refer to the small group of specialists, such as Advertising Agencies and Publishing Houses? Wouldn't this small group be seeing a constant stream of new potential suppliers? In effect, then, won't this market be shrinking, from the existing photographer's point of view?

It seems to me that any business needs to maintain a steady flow of new customers, just to stay at the same level and these customers will largely be new businesses. I would expect those new businesses to be very skilled with the tools of the Internet and to use those skills as part of their decision making process. I know, from my day job, that it is now common to do web searches on both potential employees and potential suppliers and that the people doing those searches are generally looking for brickbats rather than bouquets.

I don't think it's sensible to harm your potential sales for the short lived pleasure of being nasty about other people. Remember, once it's on the net, it's there indefinitely.

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-20-2012, 23:34

Wouldn't that refer to the small group of specialists, such as Advertising Agencies and Publishing Houses? Wouldn't this small group be seeing a constant stream of new potential suppliers? In effect, then, won't this market be shrinking, from the existing photographer's point of view?

It seems to me that any business needs to maintain a steady flow of new customers, just to stay at the same level and these customers will largely be new businesses. I would expect those new businesses to be very skilled with the tools of the Internet and to use those skills as part of their decision making process. I know, from my day job, that it is now common to do web searches on both potential employees and potential suppliers and that the people doing those searches are generally looking for brickbats rather than bouquets.

I don't think it's sensible to harm your potential sales for the short lived pleasure of being nasty about other people. Remember, once it's on the net, it's there indefinitely.

Absolutely untrue. I sell images all the time to small businesses who want something in an ad or on their website. The market in publishers is indeed shrinking, so I've been willing to sell images to others who want them. Plus, I sell a lot of prints to people who like my work as art, rather than as commercially useful work. I'm not anyone's employee, they don't have to deal with me once they pay me and get the image, so no one gives a damn if I tell some amateur photographer that he's dumb to give his work away. In fact, most of them would agree with me. I've discussed this with a couple of longer term clients in the past, and like I said, they laugh at photographers who will sell stuff cheap. They respect those who have the brains to charge enough to support themselves. They're happy to take the free/cheap stuff, but they think those people are dumb to do it because they, as businesses, wouldn't dream of working free or cheap.

Also, I'm nice to my customers. That's all they care about. Besides, these guys don't have the time to waste looking online to see if someone they're buying a stock photo from is a dick to people who are not his customers. They have businesses to run and work to do.

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-20-2012, 23:52

Chris, life is inherently unfair. You should get over it. Worry about yourself and try to have a positive attitude. Negativity just repels people.

If everyone had that attitude, the world would be an even worse place than it is now. We'd still have Negro slavery, child labor, 80 hour work weeks, debtors prisons, and segregation. Women, blacks, and the poor would not have the right to vote. Homosexuality would still be a crime. Education would be a privilege of the wealthy, not a basic right....

So, no, I won't "get over it". I'm going to fight you, and those who stand with you, to my last breath, to make the world a better place. I will do so secure in the knowledge that I have done the right thing for myself, my family, my community, and the world.

A positive attitude is warranted in positive circumstance. I am happy that my son is living with me and growing to be an intelligent, thoughtful, educated man. I am positive about him. I cannot, however, be positive when I see so many good friends literally going hungry because the only jobs they can find pay half the most minimal cost of living. I am one of the truly fortunate. Though I am not wealthy (I am the seventh person in my family's history to graduate from high school!), I am making enough to survive, and doing it through work that I love doing.

DominikDUK

05-21-2012, 00:11

Chris please calm down, you do have a point but I doubt that Mr. Fizzlestick is the enemy

Dominik

Sparrow

05-21-2012, 00:24

So what you get from my statement above is that amateurs can take better photos than me? Interesting. I don't compete with amateurs and amateurs can't compete with me. If someone wants to sell an image for $50 I say have at it. If that is all your image is worth then it means there is nothing special about it or you are too ignorant to know what it could be worth.

I love how people attack on the internet when they read something that affects their ego. If you look up the word idiot in the dictionary you will see that its derivation is from Latin idiota meaning an ignorant person. An ignorant person would sell an image for $50 when he could have sold it for $5000. He was ignorant of the difference. Designers or agencies like ignorant people. They can take advantage of them and make a decent amount of money off of their work at the same time. I hope that clears it up.

Well, if "amateurs can't compete with you" where is the problem? Designers will clearly choose your work over theirs ... sadly we don't have any examples to see just how superia your photos are, but I'm sure you're correct.

Bollocks also has a Latin etymology but it would be inappropriate to use it here as an adjective and expect an idiot to believe it wasn't intended as a noun ...

135format

05-21-2012, 00:35

The interweb is an evil thing. Is Tim Berners-Lee the devil incarnate? :D

Sejanus.Aelianus

05-21-2012, 02:00

Tim Berners-Lee a fallen angel? Now there's a scary thought! :D

I Love Film

05-21-2012, 02:52

I posted something similar to what I will post now, but I will post it again.

In the past, photography was a "black art". Up until the 1980's or so, it was not easy to do well. In the 1920's, it was even harder, and before that, even more difficult. In the 1800's, pre-Kodak, it was near impossible (and dangerous) indeed.

One had to learn developing, exposure techniques, master lighting, chemistry, optical theory, etc etc etc. Cameras were VERY expensive and hard to use, A good photographer was VERY RARE. In the late 19th Century, a common member of the public could buy a Kodak and take snapshots, but it was potluck if the photo would "come out", and amateur photos were obvious.

Even more rare was a photographer who was a good technician who could produce good prints, AND who had a good eye for composition and subject matter.

The world population was smaller too. There was only two or three billion people on earth, and only a tiny fraction of them were excellent photographers. The good photographer could make a very good living.

Magazines and businesses could not get away with paying nothing for photos, because there were not too many good photos around, and a lot of the market was controlled by agencies.

Fast forward to today. There are close to 7 billion people on earth. ANYONE can pick up a modern camera and make a technically excellent image. With digital cameras, it costs nothing to post your image online. You do not have to pay for film, chemistry etc. You can get a used digital camera that makes technically perfect images for $50.

TRILLIONS of excellent images are being produced and put into a form available to everyone every year. People raised in a visual environment have a "good eye", tens of millions of people can create gorgeous, artistic, technically perfect images, and they do.

There is no more "black art". Plumbers can easily make a lot more money than most photographers. Not everyone can fix a boiler, but everyone can make a picture. Photos are a commodity, and commodities are sold by the pound to the lowest bidder.

If I want a photo of a dog for my book cover, in 30 seconds I can find one million photos of a dog. I don't have to hire anyone, don't need to pay a lot of money. I can get perfect photos of dogs for free or for a penny. I would be insane to pay $5000 for a photo of a dog when I can probably find a beautiful one for nothing

There is no injustice here. The world has changed. Reality has changed. Entrenched artisans always wail and gnash their teeth when the world changes, but the smart people adapt, the people who can't adapt cry and die out. That's why Neanderthals are gone and we are here.

So you, as a photographer, have to do something different. Prices are not going to remain high because you want them to.

I can't tell you what to do, you have to invent it yourself. Hundreds of thousands are adapting and thriving as we speak. Leave the penny a pound stuff to the microstocks and the commodity brokers. It is asinine to get angry about them. It is not a matter of "right" or "wrong". It is what it is.

The analogy to slavery, women's rights, etc, is not valid because this has nothing to do with injustice, this is just a sea change of technology. Every sea change completely destroys the old, but the new brings more opportunities.

If everyone had that attitude, the world would be an even worse place than it is now. We'd still have Negro slavery, child labor, 80 hour work weeks, debtors prisons, and segregation. Women, blacks, and the poor would not have the right to vote. Homosexuality would still be a crime. Education would be a privilege of the wealthy, not a basic right....

So, no, I won't "get over it". I'm going to fight you, and those who stand with you, to my last breath, to make the world a better place. I will do so secure in the knowledge that I have done the right thing for myself, my family, my community, and the world.

A positive attitude is warranted in positive circumstance. I am happy that my son is living with me and growing to be an intelligent, thoughtful, educated man. I am positive about him. I cannot, however, be positive when I see so many good friends literally going hungry because the only jobs they can find pay half the most minimal cost of living. I am one of the truly fortunate. Though I am not wealthy (I am the seventh person in my family's history to graduate from high school!), I am making enough to survive, and doing it through work that I love doing.

surfer dude

05-21-2012, 03:10

Bollocks also has a Latin entomology but it would be inappropriate to use it here as an adjective and expect an idiot to believe it wasn't intended as a noun ...

Ah, yes of course! The study of the testicles of Southern European insects, a fine and noble quest indeed!

Sparrow

05-21-2012, 03:19

whoops ... that'll teach em not to type etymology before the second coffee

Frank Version Two

05-21-2012, 03:42

This thread is a great illustration of American individuality versus European passivity. The Euros care more about getting long and readily accept loss, at least as long as it doesn't affect them.

If I want a photo of a dog for my book cover, in 30 seconds I can find one million photos of a dog. I don't have to hire anyone, don't need to pay a lot of money. I can get perfect photos of dogs for free or for a penny. I would be insane to pay $5000 for a photo of a dog when I can probably find a beautiful one for nothing

This is not true in the real world, unless your standards are very low. While the print industry is shrinking, ask any of the thousands of remaining art directors, buyers, and editors how difficult it is to find a good dog photo that is unique and not available to a competing title or ad?

People made plenty of bad photos, book covers, and ads back in the pre digital age too, and there were plenty of cheap and sleazy practitioners (sorry to offend anyone with such graphic language!)

What is happening now is that Getty is actually holding back and withdrawing images, shrinking the pool, so they can sell more higher priced rights managed images. They can do this because they now dominate the industry, having put most of the individuals out of business. This was a case of our Justice Department failing to act against an evil monopoly.

DominikDUK

05-21-2012, 03:50

Sorry Frank 2.0 but I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say with this sentence "This thread is a great illustration of American individuality versus European passivity. The Euros care more about getting long and readily accept loss, at least as long as it doesn't affect them." :confused:

If you think that europeans think more in long term profits against short term profits than I disagree with you we Euros have been completely Wallstreetarised :)

Dominik

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-21-2012, 04:06

For a very long time I blamed the Walmarts for ruining the wage level in the US, then I blamed China, or other locations in Asia, for taking the wages in the US to the bottom. But frankly it appears to be a Global economy that allows me to eat berries from 3000 mile from my home. That same speed that delivers the berries also delivers socks and electronics. But you are right we can to a degree, insist at least personally, that everyone be paid decent wages.

However...

The point is you are not selling stock, and as you note, you are not competing with the "I sell myself for a dollar" crowd. When I shift thorough those I know who support themselves using a camera, they cover a wide spectrum of economic success. It is not now, and has never been easy to make money as a creative.

Fact remains... to make money one has to have something to sell that is valuable. Value is hard to legislate -- it seldom works.

I'm not saying the government should legislate a 'minimum wage' for self-employed people like me. I'm basically a small businessman, so its up to me to earn my living. What I'm talking about, as injustice, are the businesses that have employees paying them half the cost of living, and the use of unpaid internships, which keeps out people who cannot afford to live without an income while working for free, as a means of recruiting people for good jobs that do exist. It just perpetuates a cycle of poverty that is very hard for many to escape, even if they do positive things like acquiring an education.

Sejanus.Aelianus

05-21-2012, 04:08

There is no injustice here. The world has changed. Reality has changed. Entrenched artisans always wail and gnash their teeth when the world changes, but the smart people adapt, the people who can't adapt cry and die out. That's why Neanderthals are gone and we are here.

So you, as a photographer, have to do something different. Prices are not going to remain high because you want them to.

I can't tell you what to do, you have to invent it yourself. Hundreds of thousands are adapting and thriving as we speak. Leave the penny a pound stuff to the microstocks and the commodity brokers. It is asinine to get angry about them. It is not a matter of "right" or "wrong". It is what it is.
That seems to me to be a succinct analysis of the current position. I think that there will always be room for those with a flair for self promotion, regardless of their technical competence and I also believe that a few excellent technicians will find it possible to carve out a niche, serving markets which require that service.

I Love Film

05-21-2012, 04:33

Frank, I'll flatter you by stating (truthfully) that you are one of the better photographers posting here. Your photos of women (and the occasional "dog") are highly unique and generally excellent. I can instantly pick out a "Petronio" photo when it appears in the gallery, just as I was able to pick out a Helmut Newton or Suzy Randall chrome on the light table. If I were still producing magazines, I would assign you shoots (at a good rate scale) without any question.

HOWEVER, you are wrong about the "dog" photo, in at least 90% of situations. Suppose I am a mediocre AD, and I am doing a mediocre paperback cover of a reprint book. I will find and buy the $1 dog photo for it, and it will be pretty good.

If I am the AD of "Vanity Fair", then I will pay the high price for a "Petronio". It will be worth it.

(or if I am not the AD of "Vanity Fair", I can pay someone to do a "Petronio" for me, or an "Avedon" much cheaper. Or find one for $1. It is entirely possible. It's just economics. Someone can do a pretty good job of imitating you. Not great, not a masterpiece, but a creditable job. He can find a tattooed trailer park girl, and mimic your shots.)

It is a matter of supply and demand. But the talented people with the unique vision still have the niche to fill, and they will continue to be paid highly.

We are talking apples and oranges.

This thread is a great illustration of American individuality versus European passivity. The Euros care more about getting long and readily accept loss, at least as long as it doesn't affect them.

This is not true in the real world, unless your standards are very low. While the print industry is shrinking, ask any of the thousands of remaining art directors, buyers, and editors how difficult it is to find a good dog photo that is unique and not available to a competing title or ad?

People made plenty of bad photos, book covers, and ads back in the pre digital age too, and there were plenty of cheap and sleazy practitioners (sorry to offend anyone with such graphic language!)

What is happening now is that Getty is actually holding back and withdrawing images, shrinking the pool, so they can sell more higher priced rights managed images. They can do this because they now dominate the industry, having put most of the individuals out of business. This was a case of our Justice Department failing to act against an evil monopoly.

135format

05-21-2012, 05:21

I wonder if the OP has slit his wrists yet? He's been very quiet since posting.

DominikDUK

05-21-2012, 05:31

Frank can't agree more Getty and Corbis are pure evil and together unfortunately own most of the famous historical images (Hutton Archives and others), they also killed pretty much the entire market. Getty and Corbis also own quiet a few microstock agencies. I wonder what the EU and US monopoly control/ justice dept./Sec/etc... were thinking when they allowed the evil twins to acquire one agency after another. The two own I believe a lot more than 70% of the picture market.

Dominik

Keith

05-21-2012, 05:38

I wonder if the OP has slit his wrists yet? He's been very quiet since posting.

Joined a monastery several days ago I heard! :D

DominikDUK

05-21-2012, 05:44

And what's the Vatican's/Monks main topic of conversation, "how to make money with images from the monestary".
So the OP will probably soon return to the RFF fold. :)

Dominik

I Love Film

05-21-2012, 07:56

But sometimes, it's tremendous fun to take advantage of a dunce or an ignoramus, and really gyp him good. Pay him a dollar.....ha ha ha ha!!

Originally Posted by Mr. Fizzlesticks http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/themes/graphite/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1886103#post1886103)
In the example I gave with Time magazine, the guy should have been paid the $5000 because that was what the usage was worth.

I Love Film

05-21-2012, 08:33

You're really a piece of work..

OK, come on now. How many people here have made boastful posts about finding some rare camera and buying it for five dollars?

Who has ever gone back to a seller and said "I found out your camera was worth $1000, not $5. Here's another $900 for you."

Sejanus.Aelianus

05-21-2012, 08:44

Who has ever gone back to a seller and said "I found out your camera was worth $1000, not $5. Here's another $900 for you."

Well, I once did something similar. I was in a camera shop and a young girl was selling a Leica M2. This was in the 'eighties and prices were pretty low in the UK. The dealer made a very low offer and the girl was obviously unhappy. So I asked the dealer (who I knew) if I could make an offer and he told me to go ahead. I offered her half-way between the dealer's offer and what I thought it would sell for in London, which was a lot more.

The long and the short of it is that she got a decent price, the dealer got the satisfaction of not buying a camera he didn't want and I got a nice Leica plus I got some nice pictures of the girl's mother for a project I was doing on older women.

It doesn't make me a good person or a bad person but three people were happy that day. :D

I Love Film

05-21-2012, 08:46

That's very generous of you but not quite the same scenario.

Well, I once did something similar. I was in a camera shop and a young girl was selling a Leica M2. This was in the 'eighties and prices were pretty low in the UK. The dealer made a very low offer and the girl was obviously unhappy. So I asked the dealer (who I knew) if I could make an offer and he told me to go ahead. I offered her half-way between the dealer's offer and what I thought it would sell for in London, which was a lot more.

The long and the short of it is that she got a decent price, the dealer got the satisfaction of not buying a camera he didn't want and I got a nice Leica plus I got some nice pictures of the girl's mother for a project I was doing on older women.

It doesn't make me a good person or a bad person but three people were happy that day. :D

kbg32

05-21-2012, 10:24

Getty and Corbis didn't kill the industry, though they helped speed up what was inevitably going to happen. What killed the industry was technology and the downturn of the economy as well. I am just speaking about the photo stock industry here. There were also quite a few over bloated, self hyped photographers in this mix as well.

Tony Stone, remember them, was one of the first agencies to start buying up smaller ones in the early '90s. This is how they set foot here with a large office and grabbed a fare share of the US market. Bill Gates had an interest in media. Corbis/Microsoft started out by buying/licensing the rights to images of museum collections. Wasn't it him who said, "If one controls the media, one controls the world."? Getty started out pretty soon after by a chance meeting of Mark Getty and Jonathan Klein on an airline flight. On that flight they hatched the motion of Getty Images. Some small agencies joined forces to hold off the inevitable. These small agencies didn't have the money or backing to survive, knowing what they had to do in the face of burgeoning digital technology.

History was set in place.

Tina Manley

05-21-2012, 10:42

I make my living leasing stock photos online. The stock industry has changed drastically in the past 10 years and not for the better. I use to get 10 to 100 x what I now get for the same usage. I blame microstock and the devaluing of photography in general. It is still possible to make a living leasing stock but it's much, much harder than it used to be.

Tina

Steve M.

05-21-2012, 11:47

I think what Tina said is really true. Images have been devalued, but that's the technology that did that. Digital cameras, the internet, multi media, etc have produced so many images that it's impossible to keep up w/ them. When I was younger, getting a Life or Look magazine was a big thing. Where else could you see such great photographic images?

Now, modern society moves at a break neck pace (we don't notice it because we're used to it), and images are slammed at us constantly, everywhere and anywhere. I can't even go to a post office in a big city, or stroll down a grocery store isle w/o being bombarded w/ images and sounds that are trying to get me to buy something. If I go to a fast food joint, there's usually a TV blaring and displaying all manner of strange stuff. Driving or walking down a street puts you smack in the middle of store front ads and images, along w/ huge signs on poles and large billboards.

Something is generally not worth much if it's everywhere and free. If I didn't have a computer connection my idea of images would be totally different than what it is now. There would be time to spend w/ an image, not be prodded along to see the next one w/ just a mouse click. Besides, I say Never Mind the Bollocks!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziyEZ_Pg560

celluloidprop

05-21-2012, 11:56

Photography was once a specialized skill - getting an image that would print in a magazine or catalogue required a certain level of knowledge that wasn't supremely common. It also required skill and care to make slow-ISOs and expensive film work.

Today, digital is free - once you've bought the Rebel, anyone can use it in the office to make an image that will likely be usable. Some companies require great images, even many. But a lot of them are perfectly happy with good. We can gnash our teeth all we want about devaluation, but if you're not working with special skills or knowledge, your work won't be as valuable as once upon a time.

kbg32

05-21-2012, 15:41

10-100x? 100x for sure! My income is barely a quarter of what it was 3-3 1/2 years ago.

Araakii

05-21-2012, 15:56

How about ANY skill or knowledge..

I saw a "notice" in an announcement for one of Bill Allard's workshops. The notice stated that anyone wanting to attend the workshop must submit a portfolio and be comfortable using their digital camera in manual mode. He said that he regretted having to add the notice to the fee schedule, but he wanted to be sure his students would be able to keep up (my words) with the course work. He went on to say that many recent workshop students weren't at a proficiency level necessary to benefit from the workshop. He hadn't had this problem in the past years (again my words).

Is the workshop business nowadays better than before? It seems like a lot more people would need to go to those.

mrrobleyleica

05-22-2012, 11:20

Selling photos online, any money to be made?

I've had a quick look through this thread, obviously some strong views. Some points have not made sense, here's my bit.

Internet based stock photos / image selling has transformed the economics of certain areas of photography and illustration (my area of work, trained and worked as a graphic designer, now an illustrator).
It's fairly simple. Most designs are made to a tight budget, if that's small (which it can be now in a recession) so is the fee for an image. If some image can be found that fits the brief for $1 that's great for the designer, his fee may be fixed so cost cutting like this is his/her profit.
Some people never understand how much to charge for using their work, any number of reasons for that. Some simply don't care because they can live on peanuts, or because they like to undercut to get an advantage, very irritating. I say some undercharge because their work is below par and are rich dilettantes.

For a massive fashion based multi million pound ad campaign, an ad agency won't use stock images. A photographer or illustrator who can sell a $1 image 250,000 times has been lucky. If it was more they may not sell any, because there's another one just as 'good' for $1 somewhere i the world, that's the internet for you.

Internship (how did that crop up?) sounds crazy to me. It's usually in the 'professions' not on the factory floor. If it's a short term foot in the door and is a good experience, well, that's their choice, might be good. It could be a good way of deciding if that job is for them, not easy. If it takes away a real job that already exists, that should be outlawed, if it were possible.
It's not slavery as nobody is forcing them. If they are forced to get the coffee and dry cleaning, it's a poor boss in charge and a waste of everyones time, that's all and that may be an education for some.

In the film and TV industry there are huge numbers of interns. In PR there were always loads of rich kids, they used to be called 'friends of the boss' and were young inexperienced relatives of a somebody who was loaded and could do a few things around an office. They would usually end up licking envelopes if they were rubbish. The best got a job, in TV.
Most of these modern interns don't have a mortgage, a family. It's their life choice and as long as it doesn't affect the job market for experienced workers it shouldn't be an issue. I don't know if it has, yet?

I bet half the entourage behind the top fashion shooters are unpaid dilettantes. If they were paid well, the job wouldn't exist, who wins there? I was lucky, when I left college nobody worked for nothing, and few could get work - it was the last big recession. Now, there are much bigger numbers of students leaving college and no jobs, how did that happen? Crazy!

Thousands want to be TV cooks, film makers, TV researchers, work for fashion labels or magazines. If it's not fixed term or under contract I suppose it's a fact of the economic situation the mad bankers have got us all in. I don't see unpaid nurses doctors or engineers though. Underpaid maybe - it's seems to be okay for some - not others. In the ideal world we would all get paid a fair wage for the hours we work, unfortunately it's not fair all the time, will it ever be? I live with it, do my best and hope it's better in the future for my kid, that's all I can do. Deep.

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-22-2012, 19:41

I read this a couple of times.. Do you now sell tens times aa many photos? Sounds tough...

She meant she was able to charge 10 times as much for a usage, and sometimes 100 times as much, as she can today. In other words, prices today are 1/10 to 1/100 what they were when she was younger.

Chriscrawfordphoto

05-22-2012, 21:17

Yep that is what she said...

So that would mean at minimum, assuming the same number of sales, 1/10 the revenue from sales. e.g. if one was making 50k a year selling stock in the past, then one would now be making 5k a year, selling the same amount of photos.

Seems impossible to make a living unless the number of photos sold is now 10 times as many, which might be possible with wider internet exposure? Have sales increased as prices per sale dropped?

That was my point obviously.

Oh ok, I don't know if Tina's sales have increased. I'm too young to know about the pre-internet days. I can say that the net does bring me all my sales, since I live in a place where there is no market for my work, so for me the net has been a godsend. Tina's a lot older than I am, and has decades of photojournalism experience and a much larger library of images, plus her long work experience that gives her contacts I do not have, so her situation is different.

Tina Manley

05-28-2012, 14:36

Sorry! I've been working and haven't checked the forum. I did mean that I'm getting about 1/10 as much for each photo lease and, while it's true that sales have increased considerably, they are not 10X so I'm making less. I would much rather lease one photo for $100 than 10 photos for $10 each but that is the way the market is going. Photography has been greatly devalued and I blame microstock and royalty free leasing.

Chris, yes, the internet has made sales much easier. I sell stock all over the world now when before I was mostly limited to the USA. However, the internet has also made millions of photos available to the same buyers. Some people are willing to let their photos be used for credit only. They aren't making their living with photography. The only way to get around this is to be sure that your photos are better than any that are available for free!! It's a really difficult way to make a living these days!

Robert147

06-17-2012, 11:55

I might be a newbie here but I can assure you there is money to be made from selling photos. It can't replace my day time job but I'm doing fine.

Bike Tourist

06-21-2012, 04:53

There is a realignment in all the arts going on, especially those classified as "commercial". The writer is confronted with ereaders. The musician deals with all kinds of electronic piracy and devaluation. This is the paradigm for the 21st Century and photography is no different. People can sell their work cheaply or give it away, as has always been the case.

I'm happy to sell for what the realistic market will bear while paying for my equipment, supplementing my retirement income, boosting my ego with usage world-wide and having fun in the bargain!

.... _

06-22-2012, 03:50

there is some enlightening reading and stats to be found at the following link ( no 5 of 6 ). All six are worth reading.

http://www.terragalleria.com/blog/2011/11/02/my-internet-based-photography-business/

Bill Clark

06-22-2012, 04:09

I don't sell photographs on line.

The photographs I make are of people.

They sell from my studio.

.... _

06-22-2012, 04:35

An artist friend of mine told me of a little artist shop he uses for supplies which usually has a few paintings by local artists hanging on the walls for sale. Chatting to the owner one day about a painting which had been on sale for over two years for £150 with no interest, my friend suggested he put the price upto £1000. He did and it sold within a week. Says a lot about the mentality of art buyers.

Bill Clark

06-23-2012, 05:23

Here are a couple of ideas that may help sell some prints.

Go to various offices and offer to hang prints up on their walls and provide business cards in a holder to those who may be interested purchasing. You could make some nice cards with pricing and contact info. for each print. Offer to change them out every 3 to 4 months so as people who frequent see different items. You could pay the office or owner a commission on your sales. Drs. offices, dentist, stock brocker offices, auto dealers, libraries are some that come to mind. When I was in sales full time, a "no" meant to me a future "yes" because I was determined to figure out a way to achieve my goal.

Another idea is to get a business owner to sign a letter that gives you kudos on your photography. Some businesses mail out monthly statements; you could create something to put in as a stuffer. You have two chances to get sales, one from your stuffer material and the other from the person who is willing to say, "I endorse this persons work."

Hope this helps some of you.

kuzano

06-23-2012, 11:19

There is some truth to the concept -- it the photographer/artist thinks their work is worthless, why would anyone else value it?

However buyers must like the work they are buying unless it is an investment, $1000 is not investment leve, so it was just chance that brought in a buyer.

The concept is called the "Law of Perceived Value". Art buyers and collectors usually have both money and arrogance. Put succinctly, they don't buy "Cheap krap" art. They often have a lot of art, or they have a special place that needs something to fill a space.

"Perceived Value" is a common concept that's been around for a long time. In the automobile market, Porsches and Ferrari's are in no way "better" cars than most of the market for cars, but the perception of value sells merchandise.

Being both an avid car buff and having spent 40 plus years in Marketing and Advertising, I've seen this law play out over and over.

I mentioned this to one of the posters on another forum (about pricing) and he responded that it did not fit his personal philosophy to overprice his work.

I say SCREW THAT!....

Become a philanthropist AFTER you become wealthy. True philanthropy comes from sharing the wealth AFTER you have made set your own life and have the money to give. How are you ever going to retire if you give away all your effort and product.

Art is simply a product, which is why it is in the eye of the beholder. The beholder has the money to buy the stuff he/she really likes.