If I did some prints, would you buy one?

[BrianShaw]

Ash... consider the idea of a book, as others have mentioned. There are two themes of your photography that I like: the artist series, and the "Ash's girlfriends" series.

I tried the boxed portfolio idea for a "unique subject" and found that nobody was interested. When put between two covers into a book there was a little interest -- that means more than "nobody". I don't know how to explain that phenomenon but it seems consistent: book is more sellable than portfolio/prints... until one is either famous or deceased.

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

I wouldn't buy a print. I think the book idea is a good one. From the pictures you have posted here I see three possiblities: Colour Portraits, B&W Portraits and B&W Nudes. I would buy the nudes and I might buy the B&W portraits.

Edward

[Eric Rose]

Photographers would be the most difficult market to penetrate. Even on TOP when Mike tried to sell some of his own stuff it fell flat. Other print sales by photographers recognized by the readers have done "ok". Generally if photographers have some disposable income it will be put towards gear,materials,workshops and books.

[Jay DeFehr]

No, I wouldn't, but I've never bought a print from anyone else either, so don't take it as a reflection on your work. I seriously considered buying an Ellen Von Unwerth print once...

[r.e.]

I have purchased two prints from photographers that I learned about because they were participants on this forum. In both cases, the prints have given me a great deal of pleasure, and it doesn't hurt that they are by photographers for whom there is an international market, that the market for their work is reasonably liquid and that the prints are currently worth a good deal more than I paid for them.

[Duane Polcou]

I agree with Eric, in that very few photographers I know buy prints from other photographers, but regularly buy and even collect photography books. Perhaps this is because a photography book features so many images which can be viewed and studied over and over, and even a very high quality book does not break the bank.

A single print will most likely cost more than a fine book, and is either kept in storage or displayed. Most photographers that I know would definitely rather display their own work, unless it is a print from someone they specifically admire or were influenced by. I think you would be better off marketing to people who love collecting photographs, not people who create them.

[sully75]

Ashley,

regardless of the prints, can you please take the watermark off the pictures on your website? It's like I can't even see pictures that are watermarked. It looks really amateur, because only amateurs do it. Most likely no one is going to steal your pictures, and if they do, they do.

I think a lot of your pictures are pretty strong, some aren't. I'd get rid of the aren't ones. As far as selling prints, why do you want to sell them? To make some money? You'd be better off spending your time trying to hone your photography and find a market for a part of photography you do well, and get someone to pay you to do that thing.

[Michael Alpert]

If I were you, Ash, I would let things develop organically and let people ask you for prints. Make it obvious that they are available and see what sells. I sell a few and it happened that way. However I no longer sell them dirt cheap like I was, I raised my prices and sell fewer but it's really nicer for all that way - the buyer actually treasures them, the freebies you do are worth more, etc.

Ash,

I think Frank's advice is excellent. In the art-world's mainstream, gallery owners sell original prints and publishers publish books. The do-it-yourself approach has its limitations. Makers and promoters do quite different tasks.

Buddhist monks (and Frank) often counsel patience. Artists would do well to listen.

[r.e.]

Ash,

I think Frank's advice is excellent. In the art-world's mainstream, gallery owners sell original prints and publishers publish books. The do-it-yourself approach has its limitations. Makers and promoters do quite different tasks.

Buddhist monks (and Frank) often counsel patience. Artists would do well to listen.

Michael, as much as I have respected your views over the years, I don't agree on this occasion.

I think that someone who wants to sell his or her art has to be aggressive about it and that the internet is having a huge impact on traditional marketing and traditional distribution. I think that your statement "In the art-world's mainstream, gallery owners sell original prints and publishers publish books" is no longer true.

I also disagree with Frank's dim view, which he has expressed on several occasions, of social media. To take Twitter as an example, it is at this point being used by what appears to be an extremely high percentage of people who influence opinion, and it is growing day by day. A few hours ago, I received a tweet from Salmon Rushdie saying, correctly as it turns out, that Rupert Murdoch, of all people, is now using the platform. The idea that Twitter is just a platform for teenagers to talk about Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga is simply uninformed.

I agree with you that historically "makers and promoters do different tasks", but the current reality is that makers are using social media to promote their own work, in some cases highly effectively, that promoters are increasingly essentially hired guns and that traditional publishers won't survive unless they can offer greater efficiency and more than a hard copy distribution channel. I think that we are seeing, as we did in sports and more recently music, a change in the balance between the power of makers, on one hand, and the power of publishers/packagers/distributors, on the other. And I think that a lot of this change is being driven by the direct access that makers have, via social media, to people who might buy their work, and by the fact that it is now possible to bypass traditional distribution channels.

If one wants to know where this is going, one could do worse than reading about Louis CK's latest video: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/22/tech...source=cnn_bin

[Frank Petronio]

Ah but the people who embrace social media may not be very good print collectors. Instead they'll just reblog their favorite images on their Tumblrs for free.

The whole modern ethos of internet sharing and appropriating works against individual artists hoping to sell physical objects and retain copyright and control over their works. Retweeting and reblogging only reinforces this behavior, with the net result being less art sales.

Imagine what happens once I can hang a large, nicely framed $200 organic LED display on the wall dedicated to showing my - or yours, or Louis CK's - picture feeds. At that point buying prints for display becomes something even more rarified and, in most situations where the artist isn't well-known, an act of charity.

Poor Ash can Tweet, Tumble, Facebook, and Google with the best of them, get 100,000 followers, be respected by his peers. So whats he getting in return? Anything at all?

At least Vice magazine might give him $200 and a nice tearsheet for the girlfriend photos.