|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/09/2011 12:35:58 AM · #1 |
"I was discussing sales with a gallery owner I know (not the one I use) and was alarmed by his negative outlook. A few tidbits from his email:
...Most buyers would prefer an inexpensive poster at this point in 'digital paper'. As an example, I have to sell prints at my retail shop at fire sale prices to get a sale...I do not intend to maintain my street front retail shop any longer than I am required to do so...I believe the retail sales of large premium priced framed prints is over.
Posters. Yes. Small gift shop prints. Yes. Sales through 'contacts' that value personal contact with a photographer. Yes."
Here in Eugene we have two galleries that I know of that sell photography (neither exclusively). I talked to one and while she was willing to hang my stuff, it sounded like a good month might get two or three sales on a framed medium sized print (i.e. smaller than 16x24). Profit for me? Literally in the ballpark of $25 a print. It's a bit discouraging, although I suppose someone like myself is the exact problem; someone for which photography is a serious hobby, has some talent, and can take advantage of less expensive equipment (as opposed to the age of medium format).
I just know my Autzen stadium picture could sell in this town, but it is a challenge to find a venue where it becomes worthwhile after licensing fees, gallery cuts, etc. It's a bit depressing and I guess I just needed to vent a bit. Can anybody commisserate? |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 12:45:38 AM · #2 |
There's nothing new in that. It's been that way for years. Is that commiseration? I'm not sure, but it's reality :-(
R. |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 01:00:26 AM · #3 |
| Starving artist is nothing new. |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 01:02:35 AM · #4 |
Someone told me point blank at a gallery, about one of my prints on display there, "Why would I buy your print if you can go and make 100 more of the same and sell them to someone else?" I've also had people think that some of my prints are watercolours and express interest in buying them, then, when they find out they're prints, totally dismiss them (right to my face). It's hard to take.
The thought is that if it is a watercolour or painting or whatever, it is "exclusive" and "unique". Photos are not. Photos also are not "art", they're, well, nobody seems to know what they are really.
In my experience, every person that finds out a work is a photo right away thinks that
(1) it wasn't hard work to make it (I just happened to press the shutter one day and voila, a beautiful picture came out! - not that something should be of value just because it was a lot of work to make it ... but it's sort of insulting for people to assume I don't work hard at my art/craft).
(2) anyone can do it (and then they go on to give me many pointers on how to use my camera/lenses/printer/whatever, they always know what I should do, even though they have no clue what they should do themselves with their camera).
On the other hand ... would I pay decent money for someone's print? Probably not. Why? Because I like my own better, I suppose, and because they seem expensive.
There are so many people out there making pictures! It all seems so totally meaningless after a while. And, often it's frustrating that it is all "name recognition". It's not a picture, or a painting, it's a "(insert Famous Artist's Name)". Lots of people out there making stuff and trying to sell it, and nobody seems to be very successful at it.
But the good side of all of this is that it is a very good thing that I am able to be an dedicated amateur, a "lover of photography", that I don't depend on photography for income. I can do what I want with my camera, to my heart's delight, without having to worry about making a living from it. I like that. That might be something good for you to keep in mind also.
Tonight's rambling thoughts .... :)
|
|
|
|
01/09/2011 01:16:45 AM · #5 |
Yes, ursula pretty much covers it. As well, I suspect that money for art is not money for art but money for art as an investment.
Interesting that the digiform, while apparently discouraging purchases, makes possible way greater exposure via the net. |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 02:00:48 AM · #6 |
| If they think that they are water colors, what you could do is print it out and frame it. Before you frame it you can put some sort of clear coating on it that makes it look like a painting. I forget what this is called. Is it gicle? |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 02:23:12 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by mgarsteck:
If they think that they are water colors, what you could do is print it out and frame it. Before you frame it you can put some sort of clear coating on it that makes it look like a painting. I forget what this is called. Is it gicle? |
I do frame (mat and frame) my pictures, and I often print them on watercolour paper. But that doesn't make them watercolours. |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 02:38:34 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by mgarsteck:
If they think that they are water colors, what you could do is print it out and frame it. Before you frame it you can put some sort of clear coating on it that makes it look like a painting. I forget what this is called. Is it gicle? |
No. "Giclee" is a fancy word for "inkjet print" because that doesn't sound artistic enough. It's kind of funny, because the art world, generally, didn't have a lot of trouble selling engravings, lithographs, stuff like that, and THOSE are "prints" just as much, but somehow photographs don't really count. Unless, as Ursula points out, you're famous, and (preferably) dead.
There was a point, as Ansel got older, when some artbiz people took his affairs in hand and told him he was making it too easy for people to acquire his work. They wanted him to make a final, limited print run of his classics then destroy the negatives ΓΆ€” this was by way of making his legacy worth something, financially. And that's what was done. The negatives weren't actually destroyed, but they were defaced so they couldn't be printed from any longer; holes punched in them? I'm not sure... But sort of weird...
R. |
|
|
|
01/09/2011 03:31:55 AM · #9 |
I sometimes ponder the questions if photography is really an art, like is psychology really a science?
Sure, for us we all say it is art, but what about the real world? I venture into thinking that photography is more a form of visual communication, much easier than drawing and painting. And only really paying as a form of communication.
The digital age where every person with a mobile phone became a photographer diluted the present and future value of photography as art worth investing in, in any event. It ceased being the world of the trained and equipped, it became the domain of every one who needs to catch the moment, make memories, have a Facebook moment (Sorry, Kodak!).....
Adams got wise advise, making his work absolutely exclusive. How many digital photographers can say the same, how many of us can say there is only one image like this or even only ten or only a hundred? How many of our images have been 'used', copied, stolen? And how many of us have, or will become rich by selling our work.
Looking at the future one can predict that digital photography will be a hobby or poorly paying, relatively, profession. But the ones who will make money are those like our own Joey Lawrence who shoots for COMMUNICATION, IE newspapers, magazines, posters, advertising, stills for movies and so forth. Then there are the clear signs of video clips becoming more the norm than the exception. Even the wedding photographer has to compromise nowadays, and in the future even more so, by adding video.
So, is it art? Yes, but is a print worth buying as art in the true sense of the word? How much are YOU willing to pay for a framed print? How will you know it will be an investment, a true one of a kind?
Sigh... Still love what I am doing, as long as I do not have to try and live of it or expecting to become famous from it.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 04:22:54 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 04:22:54 AM EDT.
|
