Lessons from a Photography Exhibit

[esearing]

I had the opportunity to publicly display some of my work with my Photography Club in Big Canoe GA this past weekend. Since many of our members were traveling I worked the exhibit for both days. It was a mix of traditional B&W (Mine) , Digital , and Digital Photo-art. Here are some things learned from the show. We had about 200 people pass through and most of the attendees were over the age of 60.

-- Cheap and small sells. 5x7s on canvas sold well off the table - while 11x14 and larger did not sell, or anything over $100. Even over $50 only had a couple of sales.
-- Telling the story sells or at least provides the opportunity.
-- Local community shots even if not well done were the best sellers.
-- The general public can not distinguish between traditional prints and digital inkjet/pigment prints even those on metal .
-- One person thought that a heavily modified photo-art piece was AI generated and was very opinionated about it. The Photographer uses several layers in PS to create a painterly effect wiping out all background distractions.
-- The public seems to like over saturated scenics printed on canvas as long as its small or relevant to them.
-- Exotic animals, travel scenics, waterfalls, and abstracts did not sell nor have much interest from the public unless it was familiar to them. One artist had a series of water drops that were very colorful and most people did not even know what it was.
-- Older people have stopped accumulating decorative art. Most of the sales were to younger visitors.
-- There is no interests from the general public in gear or methods of how an image is made/captured. We had some great examples of still life and effects from specialty lenses that went un-commented.
-- The really large pieces were passed by the fastest. There was a 20x60 pano that most visitors ignored. I didn't care for it either because the colors were not correct, but its detail was incredible.
-- Relatively new photographers sold better than folks who have been doing it for a long while. You could visibly see a quality difference in post processing or printing but the public did not seem to be that discriminating.

[Alan Klein]

I had the opportunity to publicly display some of my work with my Photography Club in Big Canoe GA this past weekend. Since many of our members were traveling I worked the exhibit for both days. It was a mix of traditional B&W (Mine) , Digital , and Digital Photo-art. Here are some things learned from the show. We had about 200 people pass through and most of the attendees were over the age of 60.

-- Cheap and small sells. 5x7s on canvas sold well off the table - while 11x14 and larger did not sell, or anything over $100. Even over $50 only had a couple of sales.
-- Telling the story sells or at least provides the opportunity.
-- Local community shots even if not well done were the best sellers.
-- The general public can not distinguish between traditional prints and digital inkjet/pigment prints even those on metal .
-- One person thought that a heavily modified photo-art piece was AI generated and was very opinionated about it. The Photographer uses several layers in PS to create a painterly effect wiping out all background distractions.
-- The public seems to like over saturated scenics printed on canvas as long as its small or relevant to them.
-- Exotic animals, travel scenics, waterfalls, and abstracts did not sell nor have much interest from the public unless it was familiar to them. One artist had a series of water drops that were very colorful and most people did not even know what it was.
-- Older people have stopped accumulating decorative art. Most of the sales were to younger visitors.
-- There is no interests from the general public in gear or methods of how an image is made/captured. We had some great examples of still life and effects from specialty lenses that went un-commented.
-- The really large pieces were passed by the fastest. There was a 20x60 pano that most visitors ignored. I didn't care for it either because the colors were not correct, but its detail was incredible.
-- Relatively new photographers sold better than folks who have been doing it for a long while. You could visibly see a quality difference in post processing or printing but the public did not seem to be that discriminating.

Why?

Relatively new photographers sold better than folks who have been doing it for a long while.

[Pieter]

Why?

Relatively new photographers sold better than folks who have been doing it for a long while.

More contemporary or relatable subject matter and/or style?

[Ben Calwell]

I had the opportunity to publicly display some of my work with my Photography Club in Big Canoe GA this past weekend. Since many of our members were traveling I worked the exhibit for both days. It was a mix of traditional B&W (Mine) , Digital , and Digital Photo-art. Here are some things learned from the show. We had about 200 people pass through and most of the attendees were over the age of 60.

-- Cheap and small sells. 5x7s on canvas sold well off the table - while 11x14 and larger did not sell, or anything over $100. Even over $50 only had a couple of sales.
-- Telling the story sells or at least provides the opportunity.
-- Local community shots even if not well done were the best sellers.
-- The general public can not distinguish between traditional prints and digital inkjet/pigment prints even those on metal .
-- One person thought that a heavily modified photo-art piece was AI generated and was very opinionated about it. The Photographer uses several layers in PS to create a painterly effect wiping out all background distractions.
-- The public seems to like over saturated scenics printed on canvas as long as its small or relevant to them.
-- Exotic animals, travel scenics, waterfalls, and abstracts did not sell nor have much interest from the public unless it was familiar to them. One artist had a series of water drops that were very colorful and most people did not even know what it was.
-- Older people have stopped accumulating decorative art. Most of the sales were to younger visitors.
-- There is no interests from the general public in gear or methods of how an image is made/captured. We had some great examples of still life and effects from specialty lenses that went un-commented.
-- The really large pieces were passed by the fastest. There was a 20x60 pano that most visitors ignored. I didn't care for it either because the colors were not correct, but its detail was incredible.
-- Relatively new photographers sold better than folks who have been doing it for a long while. You could visibly see a quality difference in post processing or printing but the public did not seem to be that discriminating.



Thanks for posting this. I’ve often wondered if traditional darkroom prints, “handmade,” so to speak, held any special cachet among photography buyers. Based on your observations, it appears that buyers, at least in your sample, couldn’t care less if a print was sweated over in a darkroom or spit out of a printer at the push of a button. When I tell people that I produce silver gelatin black-and-white prints in a darkroom, I get a small polite smile followed by silence, except for the sound of crickets.

[Alan Klein]

More contemporary or relatable subject matter and/or style?

Can you give more details of what their content and style include?

[Pieter]

Can you give more details of what their content and style include?

How the hell would I know. It is speculation based on the OP’s observations.

[Corran]

Eric, sorry I wasn't able to visit the show. I know I've seen some of your prints in your DR but it would be nice to see them "finished" as well.

Every show seems to have its own quirks. For example, I personally have found that local scenes don't sell well for me, but sounds like you saw the opposite. I think a lot of what you mention is indicative of the age demographic - I've seen the same many times. If I had $1 for every time I was told by an older person "my walls are already full" I would've made more money than on most shows. On the flipside, many younger folks don't have a house or much disposable income to be able to buy art.

I think the interest in canvas is also an older demographic thing. I've seen that waning in the more upscale shows, and metal prints (not metallic paper) are all the rage. I dislike both, but "traditional" matted prints are not favored by most buyers, in my experience.

Overall I think photography sells really poorly these days, at least as far as I've seen myself and in talking with a multitude of other photographers doing shows. A few niches do okay. In a show of all photography, smallish b&w prints get lost in the noise for sure. And, the price bracket is really hard - materials for DR prints simply cost a lot more than your bog-standard inkjet stuff, so the same size print at 5-10x the price is a tough sell, regardless of the subject matter, quality, etc. Heck, I've seen dozens if not hundreds of photographers selling 13x19 prints matted to 18x24 for $35-40 at shows all across the southeast. As far as I'm concerned, even for inkjet materials, it's not even worth the trouble of pushing print to get that kind of money for that size print. Maybe $20-25 profit margin each and if 25% of your inventory doesn't sell you barely break even. Why bother? Yet every show around here, there's at least 2-3 photographers selling the same oversaturated mountain color images at around those same prices. Many disappear after a show or two.

I'll give you a call or text soon - I have to come by BC soon and meet MJC about some festival gear.

[Vaughn]

I was in a cooperative gallery for twenty years...taking my turn behind the counter once or twice a month. We had multiple media, including one other photographer besides myself...he did digital work and printed himself. Mostly local landscapes, but some from travels. But it was interesting to see how people looked at and reacted to the work as they wandered around...what caught their eye, what was ignored (often my B&W prints), how they made their way through the gallery -- the clock-wise people, the I-want-to-engage people (and their opposites), and so forth. All types of people...local college kids, summer climate refugees from the Central Valley, artists passing through, locals who drop by every month or so to see what's new, and even a few people who buy something because it is great art, it caught their eye and heart, and it ain't Carmel, SF, Marin or Napa Counties prices.

Very different from pop-up shows...different people, different vibe. I sold several prints a year, even with the low 20% commission I cannot say I paid myself very well. I sold little 2.25" square platinum prints for $80, for example, and once sold an 11x14 carbon print for $1500...and they got a steal. But more likely 5x7 to 8x10 platinum/palladium prints or occasionally a carbon print of mine were sold. However it got to be not so fun, but still a nice looking gallery.

[Hugo Zhang]

Generally speaking, I agree with Eric's observations from my own experiences.

I participated in our local Art Festivals last and this year. It is a one day juried show with about 260-280 painters, sculptors and photographers. You pay $50 to have two pieces of work on the show for about 4-5 hours. Open air with live music and drinks.

Among 50-60 photographic works, almost all of them are digital stuff and my 8x10 contact prints were the smallest size among them in last year's show. Few people would stop to look at them and ask me what silver gelatin was if the blue First Prize ribbon was not placed in front of one of them. Just for fun, I submitted two contact prints, 5x7 and 4x5 inches each this year. Again they were the smallest and people had to put their noses up to the glass for a closer look. This year's juror liked my 4x5 contact print and gave it a purple ribbon Juror's Award and a blue ribbon First Prize. I consider my experience pure luck, but I like to tell people how I enjoyed using wooden cameras with darkcloth.

The price range of all art works are from $150 to $25,000 and nothing over $3,000 was sold. About 20-30 pieces of work were sold at each show.

[Willie]

Corran wrote: " I've seen dozens if not hundreds of photographers selling 13x19 prints matted to 18x24 for $35-40 at shows all across the southeast. As far as I'm concerned, even for inkjet materials, it's not even worth the trouble of pushing print to get that kind of money for that size print. Maybe $20-25 profit margin each and if 25% of your inventory doesn't sell you barely break even. Why bother?"

It is not possible to actually make a Profit selling prints at that price.

Factor in what it actually cost and you will find you are losing money in nearly every case.

Travel, fuel, time, gear and other costs mean almost everyone spends more to get a finished image than this price can cover.

[Corran]

Yeah, that was my point. But that's what I see pricewise for the most part. Maybe sometimes at a bigger show I'll see those size prints at $60-75 but not usually.

For reference, my usual price for a darkroom print that size starts at $200.

[esearing]

Why did the new photographer sell better than the others? he had the cheap oversaturated prints on canvas boards in 5x7 at $20 of scenics mostly in the local area. Big Canoe is a gated mountain golf/tennis/hiking/lake community made up mainly of retirees but has a lot of younger 2nd home/weekend residents like me and a strong rental history.

At the lower price points for images you are just offsetting costs, forget profits. Its why I rarely try to sell my work and just try to enjoy it as a hobby.

[Alan Klein]

Better have a day job.

[Thad Gerheim]

After closing down my resort town gallery in Stanley Idaho 2 years ago a local gallery in a small town asked me to be their artist for the month of August. I had small to large framed digital prints, 50% color and 50% black and white, from drum scanned large format film and a couple Platinum prints. Only sold 3 large color framed photos 4 smaller color framed photos and around 15 small matted (11x14s) and (16x20s) photos. This was about a tenth of what I would have sold in my own gallery, yet the gallery said that this was one of their better shows. My take after doing this for more than 20 years is that election years have aways been a little harder, although I see no shortage of new 20 some foot long recreational vehicles cruising around. I do think that everyone running around with their AI generated saturated and contrasty photos from there cell phone plays some roll in the value of photography too.

[Alan Klein]

After closing down my resort town gallery in Stanley Idaho 2 years ago a local gallery in a small town asked me to be their artist for the month of August. I had small to large framed digital prints, 50% color and 50% black and white, from drum scanned large format film and a couple Platinum prints. Only sold 3 large color framed photos 4 smaller color framed photos and around 15 small matted (11x14s) and (16x20s) photos. This was about a tenth of what I would have sold in my own gallery, yet the gallery said that this was one of their better shows. My take after doing this for more than 20 years is that election years have aways been a little harder, although I see no shortage of new 20 some foot long recreational vehicles cruising around. I do think that everyone running around with their AI generated saturated and contrasty photos from there cell phone plays some roll in the value of photography too.

Photoshop shot photography and AI may kill it.

[Ulophot]

"Photoshop shot photography and AI may kill it."

I wouldn't necessarily be too quick to make that judgement, even with your provisional "may". In my view, there is a small but growing rejection of the trite and glitzy. Time will tell.

[Pieter]

After closing down my resort town gallery in Stanley Idaho 2 years ago a local gallery in a small town asked me to be their artist for the month of August. I had small to large framed digital prints, 50% color and 50% black and white, from drum scanned large format film and a couple Platinum prints. Only sold 3 large color framed photos 4 smaller color framed photos and around 15 small matted (11x14s) and (16x20s) photos. This was about a tenth of what I would have sold in my own gallery, yet the gallery said that this was one of their better shows. My take after doing this for more than 20 years is that election years have aways been a little harder, although I see no shortage of new 20 some foot long recreational vehicles cruising around. I do think that everyone running around with their AI generated saturated and contrasty photos from there cell phone plays some roll in the value of photography too.

You know the old saw, "my kid could do that" when seeing contemporary art in a museum...well, everyone thinks "I could do that" when in a photo gallery, especially one with landscapes and cliché photos. And selling photos for $20 only devalues everyone's work, as if non-collectors value photographs much at all. Joe & Jane Blow would just as well decorate their homes with framed art from Ikea, Walmart or at the high end, Pottery Barn. One trend I hate is people putting blank frames on their walls, as if it is the frame that makes the art. Blank walls might be better.

[Alan Klein]

"Photoshop shot photography and AI may kill it."

I wouldn't necessarily be too quick to make that judgement, even with your provisional "may". In my view, there is a small but growing rejection of the trite and glitzy. Time will tell.

It's not the trite and glitzy. It's the phoniness of it. Photoshop started it with cloning and AI will finish the job. Nothing will be assumed real. Why bother taking pictures?

[Pieter]

It's not the trite and glitzy. It's the phoniness of it. Photoshop started it with cloning and AI will finish the job. Nothing will be assumed real. Why bother taking pictures?

Should anything ever have been assumed real?

Richard Avedon once said that his father would take their annual family picture with a borrowed dog, next to someone else's car in front of a house they did not live in. Photographers have long moved around objects, set up scenes to make better pictures. Retouching has been around since the early days of photography. People wore uniforms or garb that reflected a different status than their own. People were routinely removed from photos. Skies and entire backgrounds have long been replaced. All before Photoshop. So why blame Photoshop?

[Dugan]

My opinion is that the 'democratization' (NOT a political term) of photography due to advancements in technology have brought about the devaluation of photography to the masses.
Auto Exposure
Auto Focus
Program Mode
TTL flash metering
Royalty-Free stock CD's
Photoshop
Cell phone cameras
AI

Photography used to be a craft...but no longer (except for us folks).
But the masses don't value it.

[Mark Sampson]

I doubt that the painters have it any better. Few gallery or tent show visitors know anything about art (of any sort) or have space to put up anything new (I already have something hanging on that wall!).
Add in the "$100 discretionary limit", unchanged for probably 40 years, and there's your recipe for non-sales. So it goes.
There was a long thread here a few years back about the economics of selling at art fairs and festivals, started by someone with a lot of experience, worth looking up if you are thinking of showing at such venues.

[Pieter]

Good art costs good money (bad art does, too). I will broadly generalize here. There are only a few types who spend money on art: collectors and rubes with a little extra money who get taken in by slick salesmanship. Occasionally, well-informed speculators. Well-heeled collectors can be sub-divided into serious art-lovers and those who enjoy art but see it just as much as a status symbol.

[Ben Calwell]

My opinion is that the 'democratization' (NOT a political term) of photography due to advancements in technology have brought about the devaluation of photography to the masses.
Auto Exposure
Auto Focus
Program Mode
TTL flash metering
Royalty-Free stock CD's
Photoshop
Cell phone cameras
AI

Photography used to be a craft...but no longer (except for us folks).
But the masses don't value it.

I agree. Not to veer into the tiring film vs. digital debate, but I still cling to view camera film/darkroom photography because it makes me feel that I’ve honestly crafted an image and not ceded control to a computer with a lens attached to it. It’s just me, a light meter, a light-tight box with a lens attached and my (aging) brain trying to figure out zone placements and film development schemes.

[jnantz]

@esearing
sorry your work didn't sell as much as you would have liked, I hope you had a nice time at least!

the reality of it all is regular people don't understand the effort put out to make things when we live in the age of close to effortless image making.
im in a place where there is an open studio event every handful of months: it's usually beach chairs with surf, sunsets and small that sells photography speaking
and it's gotta be inexpensive stuff. pastel mats, small frames ... you've got to learn to put all your effort into the pre-production phase, get a printer and some nice paper, and/or a relationship with a lab and make inexpensive reproductions, and price accordingly. we can thanks George and Alfred for the public's perception of "I can do that with my phone" ... I've had great luck selling 18x24 coloring book pages on newsprint and post / note cards ;)

[Michael R]

Like anything else sometimes it’s right place/right time.

I’m not sure technology has really “devalued” the craft of darkroom output. Photography as an artform (and print quality) has always been a hard sell, relatively speaking.

[Alan Klein]

No one bought VanGogh when he was alive either. You're in good company. Just wait until you die. You'll be happier then.

[Pieter]

No one bought VanGogh when he was alive either. You're in good company. Just wait until you die. You'll be happier then.
We all will be.

[Vaughn]

Sales of cards, smaller prints and inexpensive reproductions can also lead to the sale of larger originals. And displaying higher priced pieces improves the sale of cards and cheaper reproductions.

Our gallery did well during the pandemic. The community was still buying art. "Staycations" helped...people buying something for the home since they could not travel on vacations, but had the money in the budget.

I have always had a part time 'day job' to support me, my family, and my art (wife worked also). I never bought into the concept that success as an artist is tied to creating enough income from just one's art to be self-sufficient. How life and art interact is the more important aspect to me. It help that my day job supported and furthered my art. I might have a different POV if I hated my jobs.

[Ben Calwell]

No one bought VanGogh when he was alive either. You're in good company. Just wait until you die. You'll be happier then.

I just hope that maybe be after I’m dead, my photos might show up years later on Antiques Roadshow garnering four-figure appraisals and words of reverence from experts. I know — delusions of grandeur.

[jnantz]

Like anything else sometimes it’s right place/right time.

I’m not sure technology has really “devalued” the craft of darkroom output. Photography as an artform (and print quality) has always been a hard sell, relatively speaking.

IDK Michael...if you look at the history of the medium, it all seemed to go downhill at about 1900 ...

[ic-racer]

Photoshop shot photography and AI may kill it.

It [photography] deserves it...for killing painting. Who has a painted portrait after 1900?

[ic-racer]

I'm very happy with my photography, even if most of the prints are in boxes. Sure no one else may see it, but same holds true for Ansel Adams, Stephen Shore, Joel Sternfeld, etc. By the time any of their images could possibly be transmitted and seen by anyone 'else' the Earth will probably be gone.

254126

[linhofbiker]

It [photography] deserves it...for killing painting. Who has a painted portrait after 1900?

Photography and portrait painting did co-exist. For about 40 years my wife used my photographic knowledge and her painting skill to create about 1000 water color portraits of children. Starting with a 35 film images and lastly digital images were the basis of her paintings. However her ability to capture the facial images, particularly the eyes, with her meticulous notes of the subject, made the painting come alive. I made copies of the final image using 4x5 Tungsten Film ( Fuji RTP or 64T).

[Pieter]

It [photography] deserves it...for killing painting. Who has a painted portrait after 1900?

Let's see, royals, and other wealthy folks, people with large egos and a sense of self-importance, pretty much the same sorts who had their portraits painted since the Renaissance.

[Ironage]

I sold pictures when I was a teen at a local art show. I learned early that cat pictures sell. I love them too, and back when I did social media my facebook wall was filled with crazy cat memes. I sold a few other small pictures of local scenes, but I think some bought because they expected the artist to become famous someday. So far they are probably disappointed.