QT, this is one of my secrets that I have not been forth coming about in my conversations here. I am not willing to talk much about this, but it is not small by any means. My market research in Colorado, and I suspect else where, shows there is a hue demand for very high-quality landscape photographs, but the gallery infustructure in Colorado, and most likely else where, has not recognizing that demand nor is it providing products to serve that demand.Originally Posted by QT Luong
Stephen - the limitation of venues has always been the primary problem for those
hoping to sell prints. Some people get by with street fairs and so forth, but that's not
a lifestyle which appeals to everyone -certainly not me. The unfortunate fact of life is
that the gallery business is very risky. And certainly some of those "high-end" galleries you speak of are essentially tax write-offs or hobbies for very wealthy people. In other words, they aren't actually making money. Although we have all taken our jabs
at Fatali, as a businessman he does have one thing right ... location, location, location.
But ideal locations mean high leases, unless you've got the ability to buy property
outright and then endure the overhead costs to run the establishment. I personally
think outside the box, and won't prematurely let the cat out of the bag in terms of my own impending market model. I do expect some speed bumps and hurdles over the next
couple of years as the logistical details get worked out. But what works for me might
not be appropriate for someone else. Glad to see you're stuggling with possibility,
however. There have been several times in my own experience when a particular
gallery venue proved an impediment rather than help to sales. That's why I've largely dropped out of that scene and look forward to the next phase.
Steve,
I certainly don't glorify my use of Photoshop, but I not ashamed to say I use it. It's simply a way of getting my image on film to the paper. Look, I'm not a marketing expert (I've stated this in previous post.) I have made a living the past two years solely doing art fairs. No, it's not a glamorous life, but it lets me do the one thing I love and that's photograph. I work from May through mid Septemeber. When I met you, I was in the midst of a 5 week trip. Now, I certainly am not getting rich, matter of fact, I get my bills paid with enough left over to travel. But I wouldn't trade it for anything else.
There is actually a pretty good market in the art fair business selling color landscape photos. Some shows are great, others don't cut it. My experience is that customers buy what they like and of those that buy, they never ask about the printing methodology. I am not talking about a fine art market, and again, that's a term I have never used nor try to use.
Drew keeps bringing up a "fine art" market. You keep mentioning "art patrons." I guess I just sell to people that enjoy my images. I take glorified postcard landscape shots according to Drew. So what? My only contention in this discussion keeps getting missed, and that is content overrides methodolgy. Both you and Drew never respond to this. I do talk about my images with my customers, but from a content point of view.
Please note, I'm not trying to persuade anyone that my way is the right way, it's just one way. Everyone should do it their own way, I only think that putting other methods down isn't an effective tool. That has been my contention. Jim
Jim - I wasn't critisizing street fairs. I admire that you can make a living doing what you like. I've seen some pretty good work at street fairs. It's just not a lifestyle
realistic for me. And there's nothing wrong with digital; for many photographers it's
the more practical route. Doing digital does not mean one is automatically excluded from the "fine-art" market either. It all depends. Of course, every gallery around
calls itself a fine-art establishment. But let me use an illustration from my own
experience. When I once did gallery gigs down in Carmel - a town with a handful of
really good photography galleries and a lot of really awful painters - all my own sales were to local residents, including photographers, who had familiarity with a
tradition of excellence and could collect whomever they wanted. I recently received
word that a couple of my prints have resurfaced in another collection down there;
so its nice to know they were well cared for. These people could afford a vintage
Weston or Adams print; and a few of the famous photographers still alive took the
trouble to contact me and chat about my relatively youthful work. (I had only been
printing for about six months, doing strictly color. Didn't even try black and white
until a lean spell a decade later, when I was trying to save money!) The shows were arranged by an individual with an career in museum collections, who took a temporary job in a commercial gallery as a change in pace. You either resonate with
these kinds of people of you don't, if you're lucky enough to bump into them. Hanging a sign on the window which says, "fine art" won't make any difference. It's
just a cliche. And I get the feeling that at least a few individuals on this thread haven't been doing their homework. You won't learn that much just by surfing the web. Take some time in the better museums, look at some of the past masters of
the medium long and hard, and ask yourself why they were chosen instead of
someone else. I'm not suggesting that the "experts" are routinely right or should
mould your own vision, but that there is indeed a kind of perceptual chemistry involved. And it's certainly not my way or the highway! I have plenty of good friends
whose photography I hate, and sometimes even go on outings with them. But I'd
never discourage them. But some of them are just as annoyed as I am at the liberties certain individuals have taken to doctor up scenes - especially after they
attended a workshop in which the nature photo guru told them that they had to
dramatically enhance the colors if they want to sell a images! But why does an audience appreciate one species of creativity, or even manipulation, and not another? Well, I'm not going to digress into the esthetic question itself - but for practical purposes, you need to know who your audience potentially is. As they say, one man's medicine is another man's poison.
Jim, I am for anyone who can sell a photograph. Its an uphill battle to sell photography as art, and your efforts are just as noble as Burkett. In a way, I hope we are all in this together, instead of everyman for himself.
From my limited experience with art fairs, the emphasis is on SMALLER prints matted and sleeved in a plastic rap at an affordable price rather then bigger stuff with a bigger price tag. People do not buy smaller prints as an investment, but rather as something nice to put on the office wall that makes one feel good. A lot of people who are hubris will refer to your market as DECORITIVE or TRINKET art which is a condescending term that places you at the bottom of the heap. Pay no attention to such terms.
The minute you take the same smaller photograph and make it BIGGER, frame it in a real nice frame, put a bigger price tag on it, and place it in a gallery, then it becomes a fine-art print. At that point the buyer goes from being a shopper to fine-art patron and becomes more discriminating about their purchase. The photograph now becomes not only an investment, but also serves as bragging rights. The fine-art patron will place that bigger expensive beautifully framed print in a very prominent place in their home, and they want everyone to know that they can afford to take ownership of a photograph that was created by a gifted artist and NOT a gifted Photoshop geek.
Now let me tell you about my marketing strategy which echoes the progression I just outlined. If you buy one of my prints that is 11x14 or smaller, then I will sell it to you as an "unsigned photographic reproduction" which is just a less offensive term for decorative art. It is not intended to be sold as an investment. If you buy the same print 16x20 or larger, then it is sold as "signed limited edition fine-art print", and for $195 you can purchase the print matted and framed in a nice black metal frame on my website. All of these terms are outlined on my website. If you attend the two different gallery shows my work will be exhibited on the opening night of Dec 5th, then the same print will now be framed in a real nice cherry wood frame and cost you $450. Of course, if I commanded more regional recognition, then it could be sold for $1000, but at this time, I lack such fame and stature.
The minute you market your work as a investment, make it bigger, and more expensive, then the seven marketing axioms I noted on page 11 of this thread must now be enforced because that is what the art patron wants. Those upscale galleries that are very successful are very very very good at pitching the seven axioms. The successful artist is also very very very good at pitching the seven axioms. If you are breaching the optical reality to produce photographic prints for art festivals, then you cannot migrate those prints to high-end markets. If you do, then you will eventually get caught and be shamed. The standards of behavior and quality of work is much higher at the fine-art level.
Some people call this stuff a game, but it is not a game. There is lots of money, livelihoods, and reputations at stake, and it is the dead serious Business of Modern Day Nature Photography.
Jim, I hope this makes things a little bit clearer for you.
Last edited by Stephen Willard; 20-Nov-2008 at 23:04. Reason: grammar fix
Drew, I would love to hear what you are up to, but I understand. When you get there let us know. I am always on the look out for new ideas and fresh approaches. Please use the private messaging system to inform me when you are willing to talk about it so that I do not miss any threads you may post. Good luck.
Jim, I am for anyone who can sell a photograph. Its an uphill battle to sell photography as art, and your efforts are just as noble as Burkett. In a way, I hope we are all in this together, instead of everyman for himself.
From my limited experience with art fairs, the emphasis is on SMALLER prints matted and sleeved in a plastic rap at an affordable price rather then bigger stuff with a bigger price tag. People do not buy smaller prints as an investment, but rather as something nice to put on the office wall that makes one feel good. A lot of people who are hubris will refer to your market as DECORITIVE or TRINKET art which is a condescending term that places you at the bottom of the heap. Pay no attention to such terms.
The minute you take the same smaller photograph and make it BIGGER, frame it in a real nice frame, put a bigger price tag on it, and place it in a gallery, then it becomes a fine-art print. At that point the buyer goes from being a shopper to fine-art patron and becomes more discriminating about their purchase. The photograph now becomes not only an investment, but also serves as bragging rights. The fine-art patron will place that bigger expensive beautifully framed print in a very prominent place in their home, and they want everyone to know that they can afford to take ownership of a photograph that was created by a gifted artist and NOT a gifted Photoshop geek.
Now let me tell you about my marketing strategy which echoes the progression I just outlined. If you buy one of my prints that is 11x14 or smaller, then I will sell it to you as an "unsigned photographic reproduction" which is just a less offensive term for decorative art. It is not intended to be sold as an investment. If you buy the same print 16x20 or larger, then it is sold as "signed limited edition fine-art print", and for $195 you can purchase the print matted and framed in a nice black metal frame on my website. All of these terms are outlined on my website. If you attend the two different gallery shows my work will be exhibited on the opening night of Dec 5th, then the same print will now be framed in a real nice cherry wood frame and cost you $450. Of course, if I commanded more regional recognition, then it could be sold for $1000, but at this time, I lack such fame and stature.
The minute you market your work as a investment, make it bigger, and more expensive, then the seven marketing axioms I noted on page 11 of this thread must now be enforced because that is what the art patron wants. Those upscale galleries that are very successful are very very very good at pitching the seven axioms. The successful artist is also very very very good at pitching the seven axioms. If you are breaching the optical reality to produce photographic prints for art festivals, then you cannot migrate those prints to high-end markets. If you do, then you will eventually get caught and be shamed. The standards of behavior and quality of work is much higher at the fine-art level.
Some people call this stuff a game, but it is not a game. There is lots of money, livelihoods, and reputations at stake, and it is the dead serious Business of Modern Day Nature Photography.
Jim, I hope this makes things a little bit clearer for you.
Steve,
We differ on many accounts. First and foremost, I will NEVER sell a photo/print with the intention that it is an investment. There is so little work out there that qualifies as an investment. It's bought because it's enjoyed. Let me give you an example of my buying of photos. Seeing that I have my color work at home, when I buy a photo it happens to be black and white. I don't do b&w, but I do like it. I own about 20 to 25 b&w photos - inkjets, platinum, silver, gravures, etc. Their purchase price ranges from a whopping $20 up to $500. Many are by unknowns, but a three are by well knowns - primarily Roman Loranc. Not once in my buying process did I ever think about investment value. I fortunately own one of his "Two Hearted Oaks." When I bought it at the Ansel Adams Gallery a vew years ago, I didn't know who Roman Loranc was. There was no sales pitch "buy it, it's a good investment." I simply bought it because it was (at least to me) a stunning image. Roman Loranc starts his sizes at 8X10. Now I might consider his work fine art. I learned a long time ago, that at least for me, enjoyment trumps investment. I also owned a gallery and frame shop for nearly 16 years. This was back in the days when "limited edition" prints were a hot commodity (I saw prints go from $150 to $5000.) Mind you, limited edition prints are basically "glorified" posters. I had great success with my business, but never, not once, did I ever use the "investment angle" as a sales pitch; yet that was very common with this type of product. It was very simple, buy it because you like it.
Next point, I sell my work at sizes that range from 8x10 up to 40x50. Somehow the idea that bigger qualifies it as fine art or invest is silly (at least to me.) My framing is excellent, matter of fact, in terms of quality, nobody does it better. Mind you, I use the best materials, mats, etc. Again, framing doesn't make it fine art in my book. I don't care it someone wants to call my work decorative. I simply want people to buy it because it's enjoyable.
Steve, you don't follow "optical reality" and you don't have the defining statment on it by any stretch of the imagination. Please define it without using AA, and who becomes the arbiter. I'll tell you why you should leave AA out of it. I went to Barnes and Noble and pulled out his book - Examples - Then Making of Forty Photographs. It's eye opening what he does all in the name of getting his image on paper. He states at the beginning that content and vision are of foremost importance. In "Winter Sunset" he does the equivilant of "cloning" out rocks on a hillside because it didn't go with his vision of the scene. All that being said, I have no qualms with my work, I probably do less adjusting than you do (from what I have seen on your website) even though I use Photoshop. Again, I don't care.
You're convinced that your marketing hype is extremely important, I simply don't see it that way. I simply see it as hype. For all your anecdotal evidence, there's just as much evidence to the contrary. Jim Becia
Drew,
I think you have taken my statements wrong. I personally do not care about a fine art market. That's a term I'll leave to others like yourself and Steve. I'm not sure what you mean by "doctored up scenes." I am simply saying that there is hype in both marketing camps. You talk about "digital hype" and I guess I'll call what a Burkett or Fatali does as "Ilfochrome hype." And you know what, I like their work in general. But I would never demean or put it down simply because of methodology or because it's "not real" (whatever real is in photography). Enough said. Jim
Jim, I make no claims that I am correct other than being correct for myself and providing something for others to think about. I have never sold a print as big as a 40x50 as it appears you have. All of my conclusions are based on informal means of collecting data and are probable NOT statistically viable.
About the only thing I can say with a reasonable level of confidence is that all the commercial buildings such as banks and doctors offices always seem to have paintings on the walls rather then photographs. Now I am sure you could sight a bank that has some photographs on display in their lobby that would contradict this generalization, but all generalizations have exceptions.
This will be my last posting for this thread because I am pooped and cannot talk about this anymore. If anyone directs a question or challenge directly to me I will not respond, not because I do not think you are important, but rather I cannot talk about this anymore.
Over and out!
Maybe buyers of photography are asking if the image has been digitally processed because they think-something we photographers have been grappling with for some time-that perhaps photographers have gone too far with photoshop-type processing of their images.
How far is too far? Well that's a tough one. To come up with a single standard for this would be impossible, but I feel I can empathize with that previous poster's intentions.
For any one who owns early and late books by Galen Rowell or David Muench, as examples, it is not difficult to see an "evolution" in their images. The saturation in the colors became more intense over the years. One might after a little research even be able to locate a dramatic change in color saturation levels over time for the same image.
I do not sell photography, but I have noticed even in my own digital printing that I now use the cloning tool, for example, much more than I ever would have just a few years ago. I do not do documentary photography so I have rationalized that it is OK to add a few colorful leaves to distant tree branches to help hide a pale bright sky, or to take out that distracting blurry blade of grass in the foreground, but sometimes I feel like I am engaged in a process that is not quite "photographic" anymore.
In fact,after reading this thread, I am thinking it might be time to get out some black and white film and let my analog lab do the processing for a while.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks