Selling photos online, any money to be made?

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by 135format

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]

... I still think it sounds pretentious myself

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

... 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]

.. 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]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

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]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

- 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]

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]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by FrankS

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]

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.

Originally Posted by PKR

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]

Originally Posted by PKR

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]

Originally Posted by PKR

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".

Originally Posted by PKR

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]

Originally Posted by I Love Film

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.

For sure .

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by photomoof

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. 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]

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.

Originally Posted by PKR

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]

Originally Posted by photomoof

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]

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]

Originally Posted by photomoof

"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]

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

[Araakii]

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]

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

[loquax ludens]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Bike Tourist

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]

Originally Posted by I Love Film

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

[I Love Film]

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.

Originally Posted by photomoof

"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.