he's been shooting only 5 years and already sold more prints than St. Ansel
I'll bet most of it are the $20 8x10 and $40 11x14 at art shows.
he's been shooting only 5 years and already sold more prints than St. Ansel
I'll bet most of it are the $20 8x10 and $40 11x14 at art shows.
I saw this guy's work at the Uptown Art Fair in Minnepolis a few years back. As I recall, he had no unframed prints, all framed prints were quite large (at least 16x20, some were probably 40x50), and the prices were high (well over $1000 for the big stuff). He told me that he made over $100,000 per year on the art fair circuit alone. He does take some pretty pictures, but I've seen many landscape photographers with much better work. However, I only know of one who markets his work better: Thomas Mangelsen. I'm sure both of them are millionaires several times over by now.
Bull*hit makes the flowers grow!
QT, pardon me if I'm a bit slow on the uptake (it's been a long week), but is your post because you agree with him or is it sarcastic? Seems like you both have limited editions of your larger prints.
As for the artistry of his work, like Harley said, if he sells the stuff, great. He seems to do a good job marketing his work. (I own a few prints myself.) Bill characterized his work as "straight-forward calendar art." That's Bill's fair opinion, so I won't argue with it. I think QT's work falls into this category too. That's not a criticism; it's praise for doing some really nice work which, to some, simply falls into the category of "pretty pictures." I feel the same about much of Ansel Adams' work, but I still like those pretty pictures. To each his own.
Seems very hard to make "interesting pictures," as Jorge put it. I can't think of much landscape (or any) photography that can be characterized as interesting. Beautiful? Powerful? Moving? Sure. But not interesting in the sense of originality. I like landscape photography very much nevertheless, for very different reasons that I like other kinds photography.
Please understand that my next point is not meant to insult anyone, Jorge in particular, because I'm going to use his one statement to set up my question. Jorge said "it is depressing to think that here we are trying to make interesting pictures when we should be just taking the same ol tired shots and marketing the hell out of them. " So my question is this:
To those of you who do work that is very different from that which you know sells well, why do you seem surprised/upset/disappopinted when your work doesn't sell well or when people who do the "calendar art" do so well? The posting a while ago about Anne Geddes (greeting cards & calendars of cute sleeping babies) brought out similar comments those I see here. Shouldn't we all just make our bed and sleep in it and not worry about how others do it or, better yet, learn from it?
Respectfully, - Tony
It is undeniably true that someone, artist or otherwise, who devotes more resources to maketing than content will be far more financially successful than someone who strives for artistic expression and creative
excellence, but approaches self-promotion haphazardly.
Do I detect sour grapes? Don't fault him that he has a cohesive strategy for marketing. For everyone who thinks that they are unique in what they photograph and are somehow above "selling out" as it would compromise their vision, you should wake up and realize that it has all been done already. ALL of it.
Every exposure that you or anyone else does is just a variation on a pre-existing theme that you just haven't seen yet. Go ahead. Post an "original" shot and I'll quote you where I've seen something just like it.
So how is your canyon, sunset, macro shot, nude, pile of grapes, homeless guy, barn, old sign, sand dune, et al different than everyone else's. Well, you're the dude that took it. That's about it.
I am not making any judgement. I am just passing this write-up about limited editions because I thought that it was interesting, esp. in light of another thread where most agreed that limited editions were about marketing.
Several people in this thread thing that Rodney Lough is one of the best marketers around. I'd be interested to hear what makes them think so. For instance, Tony, what aspect of his marketing led you to buy his prints (besides the fact that you like the images, of course) ?
If I have one comment to make, it is that his edition strategy does not seem particularly well though of to me. He used to offer everything unlimited, until he realized that it was desirable to edition, instead of planning editions from the start. For a short period of time, I also used to edition through all sizes (incidently to 500, like he does) until a gallery owner educated me about the advantages of editioning by sizes.
Duane, you touched on something. I feel a sense of elitism (in the negative use of the word) in some people's comments. I don't want to go further than that because it's often hard to discern someone's attitude (joking vs. sarcastic) simply from their words. I'll simply say that I liked Harley's comment. Whether you like Rodney or his work, he's doing alright because he's found a market and works very hard to expand it. Give credit where credit's due.
QT, it wasn't marketing that made my buy my first print. In short, I liked what I saw, and at the time (~2 yrs ago), his work was ridiculously cheap. I bought a framed 16x20 Fuji Crystal Archive print (8-ply overmat and a very nice wood frame) for $430. I don't know much about marketing, but I think one thing Rodney has going for him is that he sells prints in every size and at every price point (8x10 open edition to 40x50 limited edition FCA prints). This way anyone can afford his work no matter what their budget is.
Like you alluded to above, QT, in sheer numbers, Rodney sells a lot of overmatted 8x10 and 11x14 open edition (ie. non-FCA) prints. But from what I know, I don't think that's what he was referring to on his site when he said he has sold more than some of Ansel's images. He started limiting the editions to 500 because he had sold far more FCA prints of a couple of his images than he thought he ever would. Good for him.
QT, would you tell us what the gallery owner told you about limiting editions by size?
"Go ahead. Post an "original" shot and I'll quote you where I've seen something just like it. So how is your canyon, sunset, macro shot, nude, pile of grapes, homeless guy, barn, old sign, sand dune, et al different than everyone else's."
Wow, you summed it up nicely. I'm glad I just shoot b&w peppers, and make them look like nudes. At least that hasn't been done before.
Great thread..
-Rob Skeoch
QT, I would guess that right now the most prolific of fine-art landscape photographers selling lots of original prints is Clyde Butcher. Despite the above coment that "its all been done already," his work is truly unique. Like St. Ansel his prime concerns are his art and conservation, but he is also commercially very successful, (selling his work from a gallery virtually in the middle of the Everglades swamp). May I suggest that you contact him for his views on Limited Editions.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
you should wake up and realize that it has all been done already.
I could swear I've heard and read that before.
Many times.
Someone's running around with a rubber stamp.
Is it a mantra for mediocrity?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks