Selling prints on e-bay and elsewhere

jovo said:

It would be interesting to hear some of you who sell your work offer some observations about the kind of work you do that actually does sell. I was looking at a NYC photographer's photoblog today in which he observed that only 5% of the work he was able to sell had people in it...that must be a helluva disappointment to street photogs.. almost no one was interested enough to pay for it. Likewise, the observation made earlier here that many look at photographs and elect not to buy them because either they themselves, or someone they're with has told them they could do just as well. Perhaps they say that because they're not seeing photographs that offer anything they haven't already seen...a lot!! I was also looking at some alt process sites today that displayed incredibly mediocre images printed with virtuoso skill in such processes. I hardly wanted to even look at them all let alone buy any.

Without meaning to exclude others here, Brian and Bill make photographs that I am absolutely certain the average viewer does NOT assume he could make himself. They're clearly and unequivically made with both technical AND unique artistic vision by professionals. I think that makes a HUGE difference!

Click to expand...

You bring up alot of good things here that are worthy of dicussion. First off, the question of what sells and what does not. That really depends on who your trying to market your images too. Clearly the guy that is mostly sellings his images with people in them is selling them for commercial use and not fine art. Personally, I tend to sell more of the "pretty pictures" and nudes over the abstracts, however I've had several fantastic abstracts that have been fantastic sellers. I'm selling my work as strickly fine art.

When you mentioned an alt process site that just had mediocre images, I feel that is because the photographer gets to caught up in the technical process over creating the actual image. I admire alot of the processes that some photographers use, but a processes is just a technique that one learns, where creating the image actually take an artist vision. I see tons of photographers on APUG that do very interesting processes, but their images are boring and lack any sense of creative vision. Your artist vision must come first, the technique afterwards to emphasis that vision.

I think both John and Ryan make excellent points.

John, makes reference to people perhaps not wanting to buy certain photographs because they look like they could do them just as well. I think there's a lot of truth in that. What's the joke? How many photographers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Answer: 50, 1 to screw in the bulb and 49 to say,"I could have done that".

With this understanding I attempt ( I hope I succeed) to make images that are special, that is images that may be of a special, or more uncommon moment. I think there are far too many landscapes shot in the tripod holes of those who came before, although it's getting harder to find places that have not been shot before. But I don't consider that to be a sin, what I consider a sin is that if you're going to shoot an overshot scene do something new with it, and not just print it on exotic watercolor paper using iridium. Be there when the light and atmospherics are extraordinary, that means waiting out the shot, going back there at the peak times of the day, day after day after day until you really get something. Do not roll out of the tour bus with 49 other daytrippers and expect that stunning image of Tunnel View at 1 pm. So much of the photography flooding the internet seems to be done this way.

After much cajoling from galleries I have started to produce much larger prints, prints 40" and up. I have done this for many reasons, mostly because the way my style is developing larger works better and many of my new images need the size to show certain details. But other reasons for the size are marketing. Larger prints are very competitive with paintings and many buyers want large art. Another factor is that your typical photographer or gallery shopper will see a big print, done with a larger camera than they use, printed better than they could print, and just plain huge. They know they can't do that.

Ryan mentions photographers that get too caught up in the technical process at the expense of the image itself. I see this all the time, impeccably alt printed images of the most boring subject matter.

I don't want to denigrate those that shoot with huge banquet cameras, but most of the work that I have seen done using a gigantic camera tends to be very static and have average lighting at best. Granted the technical image quality is astounding, but I think you go out to shoot with one foot in a bucket when you work ULF. How much film and film holders can you carry? How dead calm does the wind need to be when the camera uses a mainsail for a bellows? How far can you hike with a camera that requires a Class IV trailer hitch to tow? Now to each their own, and I understand that for many it's the process of photography that is the enjoyment. But I am speaking here from a results POV. I have found it critically important to wait out scenes because conditions always change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. That is why I have chosen to shoot panoramic MF. When I come to a scene and it looks pretty good, I'll shoot a few frames, and then I'll wait. If it gets better I'll shoot some more and then wait still. I'll keep doing this until it looks like there's no chance of getting anything better. I think that greatly improves the odds that I'll get that rainbow or God Light or whatever it is that makes a scene more unique. ULF with it's film quantity limitations you have to commit when you think the light is it's best, and that is very unpredictable. I think that the image quality of a 20x24" camera produced contact print is just startling, and that may lend itself to the " I couldn't do that" quality that helps sell a photograph, but if the image itself is not great the photograph itself becomes more a novelty than a means of expression.

Early Riser said:

I haven't found this to be a problem and I think my training and background has been a distinct advantage.

Click to expand...

Not to be Mr. Contrary, but I have found the exact opposite. Whereas my commercial experience has helped a great deal with the business aspects of being a "fine art" photographer, my credentials meant nothing as was pointed out by Private Dealer. In fact I was told early on by one of the better-known dealers out there that I should hide the fact that I was a commercial photographer and not use it to try to impress galleries. One went so far as to tell me I could not do both and expect to get anywhere. I argued tooth and nail over this but here 20 years later, I cannot agree more. Brian brings up several of the greats that easily made the crossover, however that is not the usual case. Those names were huge and not simply your average editorial or ad shooter. In today's world commercial shooters are a dime a dozen and very often looked upon by the "art" world with disdain.

Bill

If a picture is simply meant to show you what you could not have done, then to me the picture is about that, but nothing else. It is just as uninteresting as making a 20x24 pt/pd print with that size camera just for the sake of it. They are both saying to me, very loudly in fact, that "you cannot do this, but I can" . It is a power thing to me. At the point, I am moving onto a next image hoping that I will come across an unexpected surprise.

I am more interested in seeing and, hopefully, making images that give me an interesting and unique "visual experience." To me that is the most important factor. Not "visual information" of where and how it was taken and how it was processed.

A good photograph does not make me think of all the "technicalities" of how the image came about when I see one. Whether it is about the subject matter, the equipment, shooting condition, size of film, how it was printed, and its presentation. What I find is a simple joy of looking at it.

I do think it is a two completely different terrain of thought to think you have to go to the most uncharted part of the world in order to make a good image. You can make just as good images in your backyard in my opinion (speaking of the unseen and unique). I think Harry Callahan demonstrated that very well. He took very mundane and ordinary sceneries of Michigan. Why? He liked them and knew them very well. The personal connection to his subject matters meant a lot more to him than going to a place like, Yosemite. I always find the interaction between him and Ansel Adams quite amusing...

Early Riser said:

I think there are far too many landscapes shot in the tripod holes of those who came before, although it's getting harder to find places that have not been shot before.

Click to expand...

This is one of those things that amuses me in landscape photographers. The fact they feel they need to travel the globe in search of landscapes that have not been made. While I love to travel and shoot, my best images are made in my own backyard and it is these that sell the most. I mean no disrespect to the Michael Kennas, Rolfe Horns or Josef Hoflehners out there as their work is quite beautiful, but I think photographers like this have also become a dime a dozen group and I have a hard time getting excited about any of it anymore. So do collectors if sales are any indication. It has become painfully obvious. There are too many shooters looking at the Michael Kenna business model and thinking they too can do it. They aren't looking to make great work, they're looking to make a living... to be famous. To me that is all bull&%$#. I think people need to look inward rather than outward to make their images great.

As for listening to galleries about what to make at what sizes, this I have found to be useless as well. It's like making a painting to match a couch IMO. It is no longer your art when you listen to other's marketing desires. Hell... I know photographers that will get a "wish list" from their poster reps and actually go out in the world, spend tons of money and time to go to these places and shoot! This in my mind is commercial assignment photography, not art. More art light. Just as bad as being caught up in the technical process is getting caught up in the current landscape race. Learn to consistently pull great images in your own backyard and then you'll have something. Not that going to China, Japan (2 current hotspots I attribute to Kenna wannabes) OR Iceland, etc are not fun and rewarding places to make photographs, but they certainly are not going to make you good photographers.

Early Riser said:

I don't want to denigrate those that shoot with huge banquet cameras, but most of the work that I have seen done using a gigantic camera tends to be very static and have average lighting at best...

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is a petty, blanket statement IMO and I am sick of this argument no matter who brings it up. Just as much... even more crap is made with smaller cameras.

My advice to people is not to worry about what sells. Look inside... find yourself as a photographer and THEN worry about what sells. I have been at this a long time and my experience is like that baseball flick... "If you build it, they will come."

Bill

Shinnya said:

...think you have to go to the most uncharted part of the world in order to make a good image. You can make just as good images in your backyard in my opinion...

Click to expand...

Took the words from my mouth as I was writing them!

Bill

billschwab said:

Sure you work hard, travel 5 months a year, sleep in cheap hotels, etc, etc, etc.... you've said so many times here. No one could possibly accuse you of not working hard. We all do. But the way I see it, anytime someone can do what it is they love to do, it is a gift. As I said, there are a great number of photographers out there that are equally deserving. The fact you and I are where we are and they are where they are has as much to do with luck and a gainfully emplyed spouse as it does hard work. Take that away and we are in the back of B&W buying ads to self-promote with all the other want to be's.

Bill

Click to expand...

Hey... I'm in the back of B&W......

billschwab said:

Not to be Mr. Contrary, but I have found the exact opposite. Whereas my commercial experience has helped a great deal with the business aspects of being a "fine art" photographer, my credentials meant nothing as was pointed out by Private Dealer. In fact I was told early on by one of the better-known dealers out there that I should hide the fact that I was a commercial photographer and not use it to try to impress galleries. One went so far as to tell me I could not do both and expect to get anywhere. I argued tooth and nail over this but here 20 years later, I cannot agree more. Brian brings up several of the greats that easily made the crossover, however that is not the usual case. Those names were huge and not simply your average editorial or ad shooter. In today's world commercial shooters are a dime a dozen and very often looked upon by the "art" world with disdain.

Bill

Click to expand...

I don't use my background as ad/editorial photographer as a selling point for my work, I let my work do that. I do agree with Bill when he says that you can't do both and expect to succeed because they both require a huge commitment, this is why I closed my studio 4 years ago and only focus on my personal work.

I can't speak for others but my background as a commercial photographer has given me experience, technique and methodology far beyond just business skills. There is a professional attitude that comes with that background. When you shoot for art directors who also worked with Penn, Avedon, etc, photographers whom you may have also assisted in your youth, you do get instilled with a certain commitment to quality. Also working with top notch art directors, creative directors and graphic designers is also a great way to further your own knowledge of design, color theory and composition. Granted you don't have to have that kind of experience to do high quality work, but it sure helps.

Originally Posted by Early Riser:
I don't want to denigrate those that shoot with huge banquet cameras, but most of the work that I have seen done using a gigantic camera tends to be very static and have average lighting at best...

Posted by Bill:
Sorry, but this is a petty, blanket statement IMO and I am sick of this argument no matter who brings it up. Just as much... even more crap is made with smaller cameras.

Bill I agree that more crap is made by people with smaller cameras. There must be 10,000 people shooting 35mm, MF, or smaller LF for each person shooting ULF. However it is my opinion that the majority of work that i have seen with ULF is static and has at best average lighting. I'm not trying to be petty, that's just my opinion. I think that a huge, easily wind and precipitation affected, slow to set up, far less portable camera, using less available, less portable, vastly more expensive film is going to affect how one works. It's going to influence people into shooting in a more static way. How many ULF cameras do you see at sporting events or in the hands of photojournalists? Obviously the type of gear you choose will impact on your work. Why would my opinion of that be petty? With your logic then I could say that anyone who doesn't like my work is just being petty.

I do agree with you wholeheartedly when you tell people not to think about what sells and to do the work you want to do.

As for travel, I like to travel, I like seeing what's around the next corner. I haven't modeled by work philosophy after Michael Kenna or anyone, and I think my own methods are more unique to me. I am pissed though that Kenna went to China because my wife is from there and we were planning to go to Guilan, and to the village that her folks came from, now if I go there and shoot some might say that I was following Kenna. Then again when I first went to Iceland in early 2001, few went there. A year later it seems like everyone started going there. I don't think I started some trend, but the reality is that some places really lend themselves to photography and it is natural that photographers would go there as they have a higher probability of getting better images.

Early Riser said:

Originally Posted by Early Riser:
I don't want to denigrate those that shoot with huge banquet cameras, but most of the work that I have seen done using a gigantic camera tends to be very static and have average lighting at best...

Posted by Bill:
Sorry, but this is a petty, blanket statement IMO and I am sick of this argument no matter who brings it up. Just as much... even more crap is made with smaller cameras.

Bill I agree that more crap is made by people with smaller cameras. There must be 10,000 people shooting 35mm, MF, or smaller LF for each person shooting ULF. However it is my opinion that the majority of work that i have seen with ULF is static and has at best average lighting. I'm not trying to be petty, that's just my opinion. I think that a huge, easily wind and precipitation affected, slow to set up, far less portable camera, using less available, less portable, vastly more expensive film is going to affect how one works. It's going to influence people into shooting in a more static way. How many ULF cameras do you see at sporting events or in the hands of photojournalists? Obviously the type of gear you choose will impact on your work. Why would my opinion of that be petty? With your logic then I could say that anyone who doesn't like my work is just being petty.

I do agree with you wholeheartedly when you tell people not to think about what sells and to do the work you want to do.

As for travel, I like to travel, I like seeing what's around the next corner. I haven't modeled by work philosophy after Michael Kenna or anyone, and I think my own methods are more unique to me. I am pissed though that Kenna went to China because my wife is from there and we were planning to go to Guilan, and to the village that her folks came from, now if I go there and shoot some might say that I was following Kenna. Then again when I first went to Iceland in early 2001, few went there. A year later it seems like everyone started going there. I don't think I started some trend, but the reality is that some places really lend themselves to photography and it is natural that photographers would go there as they have a higher probability of getting better images.

Click to expand...

I feel you are correct about the ULF camera statement. Many photographers always end up shooting images with ULF cameras that are from the standing average height human level. I think that what makes a photograph interesting is how the photographer is viewing the subject matter. If that is from the exact same standpoint that everyone else views it from, I think that makes it less interesting. It's not really the camera that makes the images static, but the photographer who cannot handle that size of camera to really move it around and try something new with it. I was shooting 11x14 for awhile, and although I felt that I made some good images, they were not exciting me as much as the images done with the 8x10.

When looking at your work, I do notice some influence from Kenna, but thats okay. Nothing wrong with that. You are consistant with your image making and I get a sense of your style in your work. There is still tons of unique images to be made in Yosemite that could not be compared to Adams, so just because Kenna did work in China, does not mean you have to do the same thing. The hardest thing for you, will not to be looking for such subject matter that you may have seen in Kenna's images.

Here's a long one...

Early Riser said:

With your logic then I could say that anyone who doesn't like my work is just being petty.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you arrive at that, but it doesn't really matter. I'm afraid that you are not going to change my mind on the petty thing. I say this because of the stereotypes you include with your generalizations. You've used them several times in these forums and each did not sit well. “Static..”, “mediocre lighting”. I think of it more of a taste kind of thing and you say yourself that it is your opinion. You have made it quite clear before that you have a strong opinion of what “art” is. You must also know that others may not feel the same way. Not everyone needs the obligatory "God Light" to be wowed by an image.

Early Riser said:

As for travel, I like to travel… I like seeing what's around the next corner. I haven't modeled by work philosophy after Michael Kenna or anyone…

Click to expand...

Don’t be so sensitive Brian! I really wasn’t speaking of you and I am sorry if it appeared this way. There are many that do so however and that was my point. It seems that now more than ever, too many worry about the “business” of being a “fine art” photographer as well as following in the footsteps of those that have “made it.”. In my opinion they don’t spend as much time developing a vision as they do trying to copy someone else's. I speak from experience here, as I have been just as guilty in the past.

Brian, You said you have been at this 4 years… at least from the time you closed your studio… and that you just decided you were going to be an art photographer. We even had dinner once (about the time you were embarking on your new career) where you discussed your plan. You wanted to do everything you could in as quick a time possible because you didn’t think you’d be able to do it when you got old. You would make your money then off the work you do while still relatively young. I don’t know... although logical, I just saw that as naïve I guess because I don’t believe it works that way. It is not the type of career that you can just throw a bunch of money at and succeed. I’ve had gallery representation for nearly 15 years, have met many in the “business” and can honestly say I never met any like that who have made it as yet. There are a lot that have the means and do try, but they are not really making a living at it. You may do so and I wish you well as you have certainly made some beautiful work since beginning on your quest. But in general it isn’t going to happen for most. This is why I play the counterpoint to many of your posts. I am no expert, but I know the reality Brian. Fame does not match the bank account in most that I know. I know the numbers and I have spoken to you before about that. I know for a fact that they do not add up. If you can honestly say that in 4 years you make a comfortable living off your work, you should be teaching classes in it my friend because you are truly an oddity. Past accomplishments and monetary rewards in photography aside as I too had that and it goes away fast. You’ve got to sell a boatload of prints a year to even make a modest living. I just want people that are thinking of cashing it in and “becoming an artist” to have a balanced view to base their decisions upon. There is no real glory in dealing with many a gallery owner. On the contrary.. many dealings can be quite degrading. Especially when they are living off money they are holding back on paying you.

Now… back to the original thread. Another thing I notice about eBay and online selling via one’s own website (or a gallery with an active online presence) when compared to the traditional brick and mortar gallery world is depth of clientele. I’ve talked to many photographers that get a new gallery, sell like gangbusters at first only to have it dwindle to almost nothing in a very short period. They think they are the new star only to have it all go away overnight. This is because many galleries only have a select few collectors that bring business to them. Once the novelty of the new guy wears off, it is almost done for them there until they can muster a healthy amount of new work to get the cash flowing again. Online, you have an unlimited number of potential clients and it is my experience now that many more know of my work from the Internet and bookstores than do from galleries. There are of course many repeat buyers online as well, but there always seems to be many more new ones coming from this as opposed to the traditional gallery that serves a specific geographic region. Online sales also translate into rapid payment for the photographer whereas traditional galleries tend to be extremely slow in paying their artists, another sad fact about the glorious gallery world.

It has been fun contributing to this thread and I think it has been a great one so far. I thank all for your PMs as well. You are all very kind. As I said before, the book is still be written on this. I just try to be honest and call it as it appears to me. I may live to eat my words, but I think the gallery system is in for a serious shake-up that has already begun. They can no longer hide behind false facades as the rent is due every month and the trust funds are running out. They will continue to close or go exclusively online and can no longer hold photographers hostage in this exclusive world where all a photographer needs is a well developed eye and a good sense of business to promote themselves beyond the capapbility of many galleries. The good thing is that it will keep the ones that survive on their toes.

Bill

billschwab said:

I think the gallery system is in for a serious shake-up that has already begun.

Click to expand...

Bill! Early! Come up for air! Lol- just kidding. Good thread. Interesting to see things from the photographers side. Unfortunately Bill knows what he is talking about. I have contact with a lot of people who deal in photography. The grapevine says not all is well. Several galleries have let go staff and others have already closed or gone to private dealing. Not sure if online sales have anything to do with that but a lot of them do business on Ebay too. Two galleries here in Michigan have all but closed in the last couple of years. The Halsted Gallery was a mainstay for many years and they are now mostly private except for a couple special swhos they do in a rented frame shop. No more gallery. There was an upstart gallery in Grand Rapids that only seemed to exist for a couple of years. I hear they are still there, but I don't think they do showings any more. There were also a barrage of other upstarts around that same time taking on a lot of new, unknown photographers. I don't know if the galleruies are still there, but many of the hot new photographers seem to have vanished. Ken Rosenthal, Hiroshi Wantanabe, Ion Zupcu among others seemed hot at first, but I haven't heard much from them lately. It really is a dog eat dog world. I cant tell you that I know of any one except for the chosen few repping hot sellers that are making any real money. The galleries seem to come and go as fast as the hot new photographers. The real money or at least the sure money is with vintage photographs and not many of those photographers are still alive to enjoy! I bet Weston and Stieglitz would have had web sites! PD

Bill do I really have to justify my opinions about lighting to you? If I think that the lighting in a photograph is mediocre or a photo is static, that's my opinion. And if my opinion is valueless then no matter what I say it can easily be ignored. People are free to look at my work, or ask me my rationale, and see if my opinions are based on skill and experience or if I'm just being "petty".

What I find strange is that first you tell me that I'm being "petty" then you tell me not to be so "sensitive". I haven't said anything insulting to you, in fact I think I'm usually very complimentary to you. Are you having some sort of issue with me?

As for how easy or hard it is to make a living in the arts I can't vouch for the ease or difficulties of anyone but myself. To be honest I really can't complain about my degree or speed of success to date. I was able to get representation in NYC the first week I tried and have been represented by quite a few galleries. Some sell work more than others, some pay much faster than others. Some galleries succeed, some fail (9/11 hurt quite a few galleries in the Soho area of NY). That's just the way it is I guess. I don't know if it's been harder or easier for you or for anyone else but I would think that there is no specified success rate or path we all take, it all depends on us individually.

PD, yes there have been many closings of galleries, and many have gone into private dealership. Businesses change, the internet has affected many galleries. One of the galleries that I'm with claims 30 percent of their sales are from online, and this is a gallery that's been around for 30 years.

If one just looked at the profit/loss statement for GM and Ford they'd think that cars were gong to cease production sometime soon. Yet Toyota is expanding. Did anyone think 30 years ago that GM and Ford would be in the shape they're in now. Some businesses grow with economic changes, others perish. The internet has changed nearly all the marketplaces. More and more purchases are done on the internet, eventually some brick and mortar stores will close due to high overhead and internet competition. Some malls will have a hard time filling vacant stores, and if the mall wants to survive they may have to lower rents to help stores compete better with the internet. An economy adapts. Art will still get sold, granted it's a huge luxury, and nowadays people can easily print their own images to hang on their walls, but there will still be a market. Office buildings, hotels, luxury homes, they all use/buy art. The sky is not falling, it's just getting rearranged.

Early Riser said:

I haven't said anything insulting to you, in fact I think I'm usually very complimentary to you.

Click to expand...

You are correct. I am sorry Brian. I did not mean to insult or offend you. I'll leave it with that.

Private Dealer said:

Bill! Early! Come up for air!

Click to expand...

Again... I apologize.

You mention 2 galleries that represent me! As you can see, a lot has changed. Halsted is still doing quite well as a private dealer and still accounts for a large portion of my business... The Photography Room that you mention in GR is not very active. They still do the occasional corporate sale, but do not seek new photographers or regular exhibits. I feel bad about that as the owner is a good friend and I was very encouraging. I too have learned a lot since then and realize there just isn't the collector base here to support even 1 gallery in this state. Brian found it out the hard way, but not before giving it a good, college try. They are still open, but as you say are not doing any contracting with new photographers or regular shows. They now have a frame shop they rent space to and also use it as an office for his very successful architectural photo business. If you were ever there, you know what a fine space it was. Too bad the town didn't support it. They sure liked drinking the wine at the openings though!



Bill

PS. FYI - The Photography Room had all the photographers you mentioned as well. Ken I haven't spoken to in some time, Hiroshi is still going strong and Ion continues to do wonderful work and just had a museum show in his home town in Romania.

This has been a really entertaining read

Somewhere (lost in the recent move APUG made) in the Articles section, is a letter to the editor of mine that was printed in B&W Magazine several years ago, about how Internet sales from photographers personal websites could challenge established galleries. Basically I said that galleries call it a 50% commission, and I called it a 100% increase above what the artist got, and I questioned why wouldn't collectors want to buy straight from the artist's website and save BIG money. Maybe I'll re-post it. I think selling prints from your own website is a different world compared to e-bay, where I can't see myself selling.

Concerning photographing in your backyard, I consider the whole north coast of BC to be my backyard, and don't have a great desire to photograph anywhere else. It used to be officially known as "The North Coast Timber Supply Area", but was known locally as "the bush", "the inner coast", or "the outer coast". Now it's known globally as "The Great Bear Rainforest". How's that for a brilliant marketing plan

Of course...all I have to do is convert the garage into a darkroom this spring, get the prints up to snuff, build the website, and then the print orders will come avalanching in!

Murray

I think one essential aspect of selling on the internet is monitor calibration. There is no real standard for calibration and I would think the general public just uses factory settings or adjusts to their own comfort level. Where as do photographers and website developers calibrate to the same standard?

Video cards, crt vs lcd, older model pc's, size of jpeg files, will all effect how photographs are seen on a pc from the internet and influence whether or not they will buy. I have a monitor calibration page on my website and I see others have the same. But I wonder just how effectvie it is.

RAP said:

Video cards, crt vs lcd, older model pc's, size of jpeg files, will all effect how photographs are seen on a pc from the internet and influence whether or not they will buy. .

Click to expand...

I'm sure the above can indeed be a factor. It's also important to realize that web presentation equalizes ULF with Minox, platinum with inkjet, silver with piezograph etc. I've had occasion to see images at a NYC gallery, and then gone home to see more of the same photographers work online only to be bitterly disappointed. Not even close!!

Which makes me wonder if web presentation should include pictures of one's work actually hanging on a wall in a frame as well as straight-ahead scans. Pushing the potential buyer ever closer to purchasing probably needs the same kind of marketing imagery that furniture sellers use (think Crate and Barrel for instance), i.e. presentation in context. On an appropriately colored wall, a black and white photograph can look exceedingly good, and color photographs can use the same strategy they would use when choosing a colored mat for background wall.

But the bottom line, viz a viz my first paragraph, is that the work better be damn interesting because all the arcanery involved in making it just aint gonna be appreciated online!

RAP said:

Video cards, crt vs lcd, older model pc's, size of jpeg files, will all effect how photographs are seen on a pc from the internet and influence whether or not they will buy.

Click to expand...

Much the same thing can happen in a brick and mortar gallery, or as in my case, a gallery in a huge log cabin. As soon as you walk through the doors there are colourful photographs (not mine) of local bridges and historic buildings at sunset, and in a side room my prints were hung on either side of, and on top of a huge curtainless window. The light flooding through the window into the low light levels within the gallery blasted the life right out of my prints.

I sold very few prints in that gallery and I'm 100% positive, in this case, a website would have been better.

Murray

Selling work that has only been viewed by the buyer online is a hard sell. So much of the fineness of a print is lost on the screen. I think that the work for sale has to either be priced at a price low enough where the buyer feels that there's little to risk, or the work has to be sold by an established artist who can be googled to check their "credibility".

You have to put yourself in the place of the buyer. Whose work, or what work would you feel comfortable buying based solely on a jpeg? How much are you willing to risk in terms of a purchase price? Would you google the photographer and see if he/she is established?

I think that it would be a far easier internet sale if the buyer has seen the print in real life somewhere and is merely shopping for it online, or if the buyer has contacted a long established brick and mortar gallery that has an online store and a respected reputation to back it.

There's another aspect to buying art that you can't have on the internet and that's the buying experience itself. For many people going to a gallery, maybe with your spouse or someone significant to you, be given the ritual of a gallery presentation. The white gloves go on, the gallery director or associate talking in reverent tones about the significance of the work, the grouping of pieces together and seeing how they can work off each other as a grouping, the visualizing of the work hanging in your home and seeing under the changing light of the day.... there's a romance to buying art. I recall a purchase by a couple for their 25 th anniversary, they came to the gallery, he bought one for her, she bought one for him, they already had the spot picked out and wanted input from me about what would be a good grouping. I was honored that for something as special as their 25th they chose my work. But for them, buying the pieces together was as much a part of their gift experience as the work itself.

Also much art is sold during the opening of the show, which gives potential buyers the chance to meet the artist and talk about the work in general or a certain piece in particular, to hear the funny story about how the photo was done or the personal attachment that the artist has for that piece, it tends to humanize the work even more. From my personal experience, when I talk to someone about a piece of mine at an opening, they very often buy it. It's not some impersonal piece of paper with silver on it, it now has a life. Buying online is just not the same thing.

For the corporate or interior design sales though art is merely a commodity to some extent, it's a furnishing, however those buyers still want to see it for real, they want a presentation from an art consultant. And a smart art consultant is not going to the trouble of making a presentation with only one artist's work. They have a vastly increased chance of sales if they bring a variety of artists' work, and it's easiest for them to get that from a gallery.

Early Riser said:

Selling work that has only been viewed by the buyer online is a hard sell. So much of the fineness of a print is lost on the screen. I think that the work for sale has to either be priced at a price low enough where the buyer feels that there's little to risk, or the work has to be sold by an established artist who can be googled to check their "credibility".

You have to put yourself in the place of the buyer. Whose work, or what work would you feel comfortable buying based solely on a jpeg? How much are you willing to risk in terms of a purchase price? Would you google the photographer and see if he/she is established?

Click to expand...

I think this may be the crux of the matter. Although the internet provides the widest exposure possible, the very process that enables that exposure also requires reducing the print to somthing that is far removed from its actual beauty. The result is that an exquisite silver gelatin print that should sell for several hundred dollars looks just like the $12.99 inkjet print.

jovo said:

But the bottom line, viz a viz my first paragraph, is that the work better be damn interesting because all the arcanery involved in making it just aint gonna be appreciated online!

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. If the visual impact does not come through online, then chances are there is nothing there in the original print to begin with. Still, for non gallery represented photographers, the internet is probably the best place or the only place to reach people. Galleries are limited in their reach but also in the number of artists they can represent. There is only so many prints they can market and try to maintain the highest prices possible. Since the split is usually 50/50, that is essential for both artist and director.

But for the size of jpeg files, with the spread of DSL and cable, the size of files can be increased so that detail is enhanced and loading speed maintained. I know The After Image gallery has increased the sizes of their files over the years. They also represent Brian. (a little plug ER?) Why not look around and right click some of the images and look at the properties for file sizes. That will give you a good idea.

But I like your idea of having framed prints hanging on the wall on a website. You just may have given me a project for the rest of the holiday.

Internet sales is still in its infancy, but www.apug-gallery.com has a fairly workable solution to get actual prints into the hands of buyers at little risk to the buyer. The website gallery recieves the money from the buyer, holds it, and notifies the photographer of the purchase. The photographer sends the print to the buyer, who if after seeing the print agrees to purchase it will contact the gallery, who then releases the money to the photographer. If the buyer doesn't accept the print, they send it back to the photographer who then notifies the gallery when the print returns, and the buyer gets their money back. They are only out postage...far less than one nights stay at a hotel close to a big city gallery.

Some people though do need their hands held, or get the 'stamp of approval' from a commission driven sales person, or be able to say, "Well, I'll have you know I puchased the print at XYZ Gallery". To be fair though, there's a long history of supportive gallery owners who don't look at their artists like the owner of a feedlot looks at beef.

Still, a 50% commission is a 100% increase over what the artist gets. An artist who chooses Internet sales also wouldn't have to invest all that time and money of continually stocking several galleries with new prints...at their own expense.

Murray

I keep really good track of the where, who and how of all my print sales for my edition book. Last night I sat down and ran numbers for the year. I was very suprised to find that over 50% of the "how's" I have record of originated online. December was a freak this year with over 30... only 4 came from actual face to face sales. It is looking more to me as if online is going to be the way to go whether through eBay, an active online dealer or a well crafted personal website and promotion. As for the screen viewing quality getting in the way, I think most collecting and buying online realize that work is going to be far better "in the flesh". I really don't see that as a problem.

Bill

PS. Murray, I love your "backyard". When I use the term, I too mean my environs. It has always been my feeling that this is what an artist does.

For those who are experienced with photography, prints, graphics, internet, etc yes I would agree. But just how large of a market is that? To increase fine art photography sales requires a broadening education and expansion of the buying public. Monitor calibration is essentially the initial aspect, just to draw and hold interest to a website and images.

The marketing and selling of prints is the next step and the biggest.