Do people buy photographs?

[milkplus-mesto]

I'm quite new to photography in general, about a year of work now, but I don't really know where I am. I think I'm starting to realise what makes a photograph, and what doesn't, but I don't quite know what sort of quality my pictures are at.

I was talking to my parents about photography in general, and I said about wanting to sell prints one day, and they basically said that people don't buy photographs, and seemed to find the idea strange that people might be interested in my photographs.

So, do people buy photographs? And what sort of quality are my pictures at? Would people ever buy my pictures?

My gallery (Just a quick dump of my most recent photography) is here.

I'm in the middle of uploading a load of new photos, so there'll be a few minutes (or 16.1mb) before it's finished.

thanks

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, people buy photos. I have known some of my friends to sell their photos in the range of $1,000 - $15,000. But, they are exceptional and experienced professional photographers and they produce exceptional photographs. Sometimes, they sell books of their photos.

PE

 

[Robert Brummitt]

People do buy and the range of subject matters is as wide as the sky.
Prices of course varies.

 

[Jerry Basierbe]

Yes they do. I would be one of them.

Jerry

 

[Jon Shiu]

I have heard there is a difference between the UK and US markets in selling prints. Anyone know anything about it?

Jon

 

[Richjsn1]

Its interesting what sells. I am in St Louis and visit studio's as well as the art shows that are given in the surrounding area. Prices vary and I have seen some excellent work go for very little say in the $200 -$400 range. Then I have seen some not so good stuff sell for twice as much. I think the key to selling art is exposure. Don't just focus on one theme but offer variety.

 

[Sportera]

As a fine art photographer, I can say that yes they do, but it has to speak to them and, at least in my place, its very difficult to make a living at it these days.

You must supplement Art with commercial or other forms of photography, or as in my case have another means to put bread on the table if you wish to photograph Art alone.

With that said I know many successful photographers, who earn a living on their photos alone. They are very eager and any one of them will tell its not an easy job at all.

I do not wish to put you off on photography as a career, but knowing the facts helps.

Research photographic careers and make your mind based on that. It is done by many, but the digital age has brought more competition than ever before.

 

[mabman]

There have been a few similar threads on this recently. One current trend (by-and-large, it may vary where you are) seems to be that people are buying large colour prints - 16"x20" or larger.

Locally, I have seen a few photographers in galleries advertising black and white "gelatin-silver prints" (eg, standard B&W, usually optically printed), not sure if they're selling at all, though.

 

[milkplus-mesto]

thanks, it's interesting to know. I just felt that I knew people did buy them, but having been told that nobody would ever buy my photos, i've been pleasantly suprised.

 

[JBrunner]

Yes, people buy photographs all the time. In looking at most of yours, I would suggest that they would do better as stock, than prints for walls, but who knows.

"Nobody buys photographs" is a bit provincial. No offense intended to your folks.

 

[Photo Engineer]

A very profitable area to explore is making "period" photos dressing a family for the 1900s and then taking their picture on a wet plate or dry plate, then printing on an albumen paper. This is just one example. Another is to do Daugerrotypes of a family in period costume and background.

The whole thing can command a very princely fee if the quality of the work merits it.

I have a friend with a studio to do both of the above.

PE

 

[mono]

Unfortunately seldom here in Germany ;-(
Photography is not much appreciated as art, so far!

 

[JosephineIsJosephine]

Photography is not much appreciated as art, so far!

I'd say, whether people are buying prints and to what degree photography is accepted/appreciated as art is not directly related (it is, indirectly).

slightly OT: I don't know in which part of Germany you live, but around here there are at least some (methinks) cool exhibitions. and hey, this is where Gursky learned ...

(Okay, I have to admit that I can't compare with anywhere else on the planet, since I have no idea about what's going on there, speaking of photography. anyway, this is my impression.)

 

[Stephen Frizza]

I buy photographs but only if it is from a limited run and only if it is created solely through analog techniques.

 

[mono]

Exhibitions are often well visited,
but it is not such a big market here for selling photographs like in the US or in France.
Though I am very happy that I sold some!

 

[markbb]

I don't know anyone in the UK who buys photographs, and that includes professional photographers. I don't know anyone who buys any 'art' as such (ignoring posters etc), it just doesn't seem to part of popular culture.

 

[Doubrovsky]

The question "Do people buy photographs?" itself already mens there is a doubt in the whole venture.

If you try to analyse attractiveness of photography as an industry the way corporations analyse markets, you may find that:
- rivalry between competitors is extremely high
- bargaining power of suppliers is moderate - means your costs are relatively stable which is good
- bargaining power of customers is very high - you are constantly forced to sell cheaper and cheaper
- barriers to entry very low - means it is easy to get into the business. Sounds good for you, but it's a catch, as it is also easy for competitors to get into
- danger of substitutions - differs from one market segment to another (almost no substitutes to fasion or news photography, can be easily substituted in art)

All together it is a very inattractive industry. If you add to this the fact that the industry itself is based on disruptive technologies (technologies that provide less and less quality in exchange to ease of use and lower price) that replace one another with growing pace (photography itself was a disruptive technology to artistic illustration techniques like etching, silver gelatine was disruptive to albumen and other, rollfilm - to sheet film, 35mm - to medium format, polaroid - to 35mm snapshots, digital - to all above) you'll see that you'd better not take it if you have other alternatives in your life.

If you are interested in photography as art form, you'd better still stay away of taking it as a profession. Otherwise it will become mundane everyday routine and will lose its attractiveness very soon. Or you have to be a real artist who just cannot live any different life and prepared to endure hardships for his art.

 

[rorye]

Actually as a profession it's probably the least mundane one I can think of. I wake up most days excited to go to work.

 

[Jim Jones]

I do sell B&W prints in an unsophisticated rural area. Doing all printing, mounting, matting, and framing myself keeps prices low to match the local economy. It's taken years to build a reputation and a base of repeat customers. Perhaps one could make a living at it by agressively seeking upscale venues, but retirement is too sweet to ruin by hustling.

 

[DanielOB]

Photography today has only one field where it can operate. It is art photography.
If one is sure he is good enough to produce work of art photography can be revarding. The problem is that work of art is something many photographers do not get at all.

To make long short, to run photography as living today, it is ULTIMATE to have good art Academy in background, to be top student at the same, to be really good artist, to be able to convince someone it is really work of art, and be able to operate within and some other art mediums, e.g. sculpture. Without that photographer will very soon get spider-net on his ass.

And yes people buy (art) photographs, they are also ready to pay $1000 (or more) for 8x10 B&W Silver print, and people do not buy it just because it is a photograph. Also people do not buy a color photograph unles it is cheap and is able to cover the hole on their wall. Color photograph just cannot be work of art for many technical reasons that are also reflected back on aesthetics too.

If you do not have above qualifications you better to do something else, or try to get it.

Good luck

 

[scootermm]

The below comment is all a joke right?

Photography today has only one field where it can operate. It is art photography.
If one is sure he is good enough to produce work of art photography can be revarding. The problem is that work of art is something many photographers do not get at all.

To make long short, to run photography as living today, it is ULTIMATE to have good art Academy in background, to be top student at the same, to be really good artist, to be able to convince someone it is really work of art, and be able to operate within and some other art mediums, e.g. sculpture. Without that photographer will very soon get spider-net on his ass.

And yes people buy (art) photographs, they are also ready to pay $1000 (or more) for 8x10 B&W Silver print, and people do not buy it just because it is a photograph. Also people do not buy a color photograph unles it is cheap and is able to cover the hole on their wall. Color photograph just cannot be work of art for many technical reasons that are also reflected back on aesthetics too.

If you do not have above qualifications you better to do something else, or try to get it.

Good luck

I really hope its a joke.
If its not a joke, hows the view for you? I imagine you are looking directly at your colon and/or prostate.

 

[JBrunner]

Photography today has only one field where it can operate. It is art photography.
If one is sure he is good enough to produce work of art photography can be revarding. The problem is that work of art is something many photographers do not get at all.

To make long short, to run photography as living today, it is ULTIMATE to have good art Academy in background, to be top student at the same, to be really good artist, to be able to convince someone it is really work of art, and be able to operate within and some other art mediums, e.g. sculpture. Without that photographer will very soon get spider-net on his ass.

And yes people buy (art) photographs, they are also ready to pay $1000 (or more) for 8x10 B&W Silver print, and people do not buy it just because it is a photograph. Also people do not buy a color photograph unles it is cheap and is able to cover the hole on their wall. Color photograph just cannot be work of art for many technical reasons that are also reflected back on aesthetics too.

If you do not have above qualifications you better to do something else, or try to get it.

Good luck

Are you making only one print, too boot? Can't be art for technical reasons?

Anything can be art. (but not all imagery is a photograph.)

 

[RobC]

The next time you go into a town(you may already be in one), spend the day counting the number of photographs you see. That means in every shop window, on every piece of advertising, on every magazine in every shop, on every piece of packaging, on every piece of signage, on every bus advertising space, in every newspaper. Then ask yourself, if photography does not sell, then how many people are giving it away?

 

[Paul Goutiere]

Yes, people buy art.
Where I live there are some who at least supplement their income with sales of photographs. I have sold a few pieces of my own.

We have purchased at least 5 superb B&W photographs and these are hanging in our home.

We have a few galleries here where I live that sell a fair amount of photographs.

I do not really know what sells photographs, or the nature of the photograph that sells. The is a lot of hard work involved to be sure.

The idea of a successful artist having to have a academic background, may have importance to a few, but I'd say that an image has to stand on it's own. This is "qualifications".

 

[RobC]

For the original poster:
A studio photographer who is capable of delivering a product shot in colours and lighting according to a brief and possibly working with an art director, is just as much an art photographer as those who call themselves "fine art photographers". And he or she probably earns a lot more money than your average hobbyist playing at being a "fine art photographer".
So yes photographs sell, and for those who are good enough, who can deliver the highest quality imaging with imagination, creativity and flair, there is a lot of money to be made from photographs. But the road to achieving that is a long and hard one to follow.