Can I sell prints??
Ken Dellinger
I have a strong interest in nature/wildlife photography and I'd like to sell
stock in this area. While I build my files up to appropriate levels, would I
be hurting my chance for future stock sales if in the meantime I sell limited
edition prints (100 prints each)? I'd be interested in hearing responses from
photographers and agency reps please. Thanks.
Ken Dellinger
------------------------------------------------------------------
For Info on Professional Photography Organizations Worldwide
Visit The STOCKPHOTO Network Web Site => http://www.stockphoto.net
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBI...@aol.com
<<I have a strong interest in nature/wildlife photography and I'd like to sell
stock in this area. While I build my files up to appropriate levels, would I
be hurting my chance for future stock sales if in the meantime I sell limited
edition prints (100 prints each)?>>
If you sold to a local market you shouldn't have any trouble, especially if
you limited the prints to 100. If you had a national distributor you would
have a problem.
George Robinson
<A HREF="http://www.georgerobinson.com">http://www.georgerobinson.com</A>
John Fowler
>Can't see how sales of 100 prints would hurt your future stock markets.
There
>are very few calls for stock photos for prints in the "nature" area, so
>selling out a limited edition of prints (and thus not being able to sell
>rights for prints of the same sort) won't lose anything.
I know all the arguments in favour of "limited edition" photographs - but
still always found the idea something of a fraud. Unless you destroy the
negative/slide/whatever - but what's the point of that? Isn't the whole
point of photography that it be infinitely reproduceable? And wasn't it
Ansel Adams who refused to number prints prints for the above reasons? And
have I started another flame? (Gee, I hope not!)
John T. Fowler
Fine photography from Canada
http://www.magma.ca/~jfowler
Bpst...@aol.com
I only mentioned limited edition prints because the original question seemed
to indicate such with its "100." Actually, sales of photographic prints in
any conceivable quantity that might be produced by an artist should not do
anything to harm the future stock markets for the same images and might even
help spread the photos and photographer's name around for possible users to
see. If sales go beyond prints to paper products produced by the artist, then
artists are simply embarking on marketing their own stock.
Carl May
Biological Photo Service
Jeff Boucher
more than if you had sold the usage rights to another company in a stock sale
already. In fact, I believe it would have even less effect than that -
Cheers,
Jeff
Jeff Boucher Photography / Bonsai Studio and Design
bouche...@earthlink.net
* STOCK-STUDIO-ASSIGNMENT-DIGITAL*
------------------------------------------------------------------
For Info on Professional Photography Organizations Worldwide
Visit The STOCKPHOTO Network Web Site ÿhttp://www.stockphoto.net
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Fowler
>In a message dated 11/25/98 12:11:12 PM, KDell...@AOL.COM wrote:
>If you sold to a local market you shouldn't have any trouble, especially if
>you limited the prints to 100. If you had a national distributor you would
>have a problem.
>George Robinson
Why would there be a problem George?
John T. Fowler
Fine photography from Canada
http://www.magma.ca/~jfowler
------------------------------------------------------------------
For Info on Professional Photography Organizations Worldwide
Visit The STOCKPHOTO Network Web Site => http://www.stockphoto.net
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bpst...@aol.com
are very few calls for stock photos for prints in the "nature" area, so
selling out a limited edition of prints (and thus not being able to sell
rights for prints of the same sort) won't lose anything.
Copyright stays with the photographer; it is not diluted by sales of prints.
Carl May
Biological Photo Service
Todd A. Bannor
<<I only mentioned limited edition prints because the original question seemed
to indicate such with its "100." Actually, sales of photographic prints in
any conceivable quantity that might be produced by an artist should not do
anything to harm the future stock markets for the same images and might even
help spread the photos and photographer's name around for possible users to
see. If sales go beyond prints to paper products produced by the artist, then
artists are simply embarking on marketing their own stock>>
I agree with Carl that selling prints won't detract from an image's stock
value. However, I would like to relay an experience I had. A gallery owner
here in Chicago saw some of my work and was very interested in display prints.
However, she did not want to include anything that was already on file with
stock agencies.
I kind of see her point; a fine art photography collector might not be too
pleased to see a similar of a print they paid a fair sum for show up in an ad.
So, I imagine it's possible that stock usage might detract from the value of a
print. Any additional thoughts on this?
Todd Bannor
Fuji Medical Systems
Stock Photography represented by Custom Medical Stock Photo and COLEPhoto
Associates.
bruce byers
>print. Any additional thoughts on this?
>
I agree with this for stock uses the idea of the photo instead of the
viewing quality of the image. I would not collect images that were used
to make postcards unless those postcards or ads were fine art in quality.
I was thinking of putting some of my fine art into Ibid but wanted to check
out if the galleries would have a problem with it.
On the other hand if my images sold for good money for nice ads I feel that
it would help get my fine art know.
Fine art story. Someone wanted to use an images for 40 inserts in an ad in
a paper and they wanted to pay 400$ total. I said I could not do it. I
should have told them that the image sold for 800$ and up just to hang on
the wall but ..... His response was that its either you take the 400$ or
your image just sits on your shelf. Guess where it is??
I have used the image to get me high paying assignment work and I still
retain the fine art quality.
By the way it looks great on my wall too.
bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
Bruce Byers Photography
220 West 19th Street
NYC, NY 10011
212-242-5846
Web -- http://www.brucebyers.com
Studio- http://www.users.interport.net/~studios
E-mail -- by...@brucebyers.com
__________________________________________________________
Edward Meyers
Bruce Esbin
Photograph, etc. that somebody has written about in unreadable academic
terminology, and is displayed in a Museum, toney Art Gallery,
or Art magazine. It is also something that wealthy people buy to display
in their homes, or lend to Museums.
--
Bruce Esbin
Esbin-Anderson Photography
Rick Boden
Vincent van Gogh.
Rick
John Fowler
>I kind of see her point; a fine art photography collector might not be too
>pleased to see a similar of a print they paid a fair sum for show up in an
ad.
>
of a
>print. Any additional thoughts on this?
Seems quite reasonable to me, Todd, that an art dealer would not want to
see the same images in advertising (although it happens all the time, of
course). I think in every case it is incumbent on us to provide reasonable
"protection" to our clients, as in, for ex, not placing the same images on
rf disks that we would try to license for advertisng rates (an extreme
example perhaps, but an illustration).
John T. Fowler
Fine photography from Canada
http://www.magma.ca/~jfowler
John Fowler
two - and then hang it in the drawing room rather than the rec room. And
that's the difference, imo, between fine art and rec room art.
So far as photos for investment - buy land. They ain't making any more of
it.
At 04:26 PM 25-11-98 -0500, Edward Meyers wrote:
>what is fine art. Is it the same as Fine Art? And what is that? Ed
>
>
>
>
Roel
haughty galleries display. Fine art and especially photography is a
display of culture, can make changes to societies, can be criticism and
a lot of fun. Fine art will also still be there long after all of us are
gone, and will show future generation how we lived, loved and raped the
earth.
It is rather ignorant to dismiss fine art (photography) the way you did.
Suggest you visit a few good galleries and open your mind and heart!
Roel Loopers
Profile Photography
Fremantle. Western Australia
Bruce Esbin
Where is your sense of humor? I spend half my time in New York City,
and there we have access to many venues of Fine Art, which I make use
of. My posting wasn't meant to offend, I was just attempting to be
humourous.
--
Bruce Esbin
Esbin-Anderson Photography
cjelfont
CJ
Rick Boden wrote:
> Fine art is the stuff that won't sell....while you're alive. Just ask
> Vincent van Gogh.
>
> Rick
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> For Info on Professional Photography Organizations Worldwide
> Visit The STOCKPHOTO Network Web Site => http://www.stockphoto.net
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
CJ & Edna Elfont/Light Isolates Photography
Editorial Assignments and Photography
Magazines, Books, Assignments, and Whatever!
Salem, South Carolina
and
Midwest Photographic Workshops
Providing Quality Workshops For Over 20 Years
Farmington Hills, Michigan
Visit Our Web Site At - http://www.mpw.com
Bruce Esbin
reply, I figured why not give it a try.
I consider myself to be both a stock photographer and an artist. Both
require creativity.
In order to be successful in Stock, you must create and shoot what you
enjoy with an eye to what the commercial market is currently using and
more importantly future needs. It's a job that I love and enjoy doing
each day.
On the flip side of the coin is my art work. That I do for me! Yes,
it's wonderful when someone enjoys my work or wants to purchase the
same. But, that isn't why I do Fine Art. It's inside of me and has to
be released, even if no one ever lays eyes on it, even if it never gets
shown in a gallery or purchased.
So to all Doubting Thomas's, Bruce does know what is Fine Art.
Fortunately, he has a wild and outrageous sense of humor about
everything, including himself.
Ruth Anderson
Bruce Esbin
Esbin-Anderson Photography
Encinitas, Ca. and New York City
Ernesto Burciaga
any dealings with them? Good bussiness practices and honesty!
Ernesto Burciaga
ebur...@rt66.com
Bob Croxford
A painting was hung in a local public gallery which was a direct copy of one
of my postcard images. It is unlikely that my photographs would hang in the
same gallery because 'postcards' are not considered ART.
Bob Croxford
Cornwall UK
------------------------------------------------------------------
To Search through Archives of Past STOCKPHOTO Discussions
Bruce Esbin
This is Ruth, you know the "far side" of Esbin-Anderson. Hey guy, stop
letting someone else make art out of your postcards. Heat transfer the
image onto canvas, slap a little paint in appropriate places and sell
your own Fine Art. As Barbara Coxe wrote are we Wolves or domesticated
dogs....?Another idea, after you slap paint on the image, rollover on
the canvas and you'll make even more money. Just so nobody gets mad :-)
Ruth Anderson
Bruce Esbin
Esbin-Anderson Photography
Encinitas, Ca. & NYC
ROBI...@aol.com
<<>you limited the prints to 100. If you had a national distributor you would
>have a problem.
>George Robinson
Why would there be a problem George?>>
Larger exposure. I don't think the agent would like seeing a photo he or she
sold exclusive rights too showing up all over the country.
George Robinson
ROBI...@aol.com
<<I'm looking at F-Stop Pictures in Pennsylvania. Have any of you had
any dealings with them? Good bussiness practices and honesty!>>
I don't know about the new F-stop in PA. I was with the old F-stop before
john Wood retired. They sound professional. We will see.
Kevin Smith
the Jan/Feb 1997 issue of Photo Techniques. David Vestal's
column was about limited edition print runs and was pretty
interesting. He did a survey (he called it a private poll) and got 215
responses. His number crunching concluded that photographers
that print limited editions averaged 33 prints per edition and those
that printed what ever number they felt like averaged 7 per negative.
He broke it down more than that but those were his averages from
all the responses.
> At 01:26 PM 25-11-98 EST, Bpst...@aol.com wrote:
> >Can't see how sales of 100 prints would hurt your future stock markets.
> There
> >are very few calls for stock photos for prints in the "nature" area, so
> >selling out a limited edition of prints (and thus not being able to sell
> >rights for prints of the same sort) won't lose anything.
>
> I know all the arguments in favour of "limited edition" photographs - but
> still always found the idea something of a fraud. Unless you destroy the
> negative/slide/whatever - but what's the point of that? Isn't the whole
> point of photography that it be infinitely reproduceable? And wasn't it
> Ansel Adams who refused to number prints prints for the above reasons?
> And have I started another flame? (Gee, I hope not!)
Kevin Smith
Melrose Park, IL
kev...@interaccess.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like to help support The STOCKPHOTO Network, buy your
next book from The STOCKPHOTO Web Site => http://www.stockphoto.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------
bruce byers
Fine Art (fine art ) to me is a way to call images that I take that I
enjoyed taking and hope other will enjoy too but could care less if anyone
but myself enjoys them.
I am not creating them to sell them as stock. I create them to show people
the way I see through my images.
bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
Bruce Byers Photography
220 West 19th Street
NYC, NY 10011
212-242-5846
Web -- http://www.brucebyers.com
Studio- http://www.users.interport.net/~studios
E-mail -- by...@brucebyers.com
__________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------
For Information on Subscribing or Unsubscribing from this Listserv
Visit The STOCKPHOTO Network Web Site => http://www.stockphoto.net
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Fisher
I use a more rigid definition--images that an "art" museum like MOMA or The
Met would consider exhibiting. Whether you like these snobs or not is of no
consideration. However looking at what they do exhibit makes "fine art" fairly
definable in style, presentation, and posure. The most interesting development
of the past 10 years has been how much advertising photography has adopted the
moodiness, ambiguity, and other features common to much fine art. Also, many
shooters now operate in both realms, so there is cross polination.
MHO,
-- Gene
Eugene Fisher
Iglo...@aol.com
Los Angeles
------------------------------------------------------------------
For An A-Z Worldwide Listing of Stock Photography Agencies
D Barr
>>what is fine art. Is it the same as Fine Art? And what is that? Ed
>
>I use a more rigid definition--images that an "art" museum like MOMA or The
>Met would consider exhibiting. Whether you like these snobs or not is of no
>consideration. However looking at what they do exhibit makes "fine art" fairly
>definable in style
I have seen strange (IMHO) exhibits in a galleries being passed off as art.
Three items come to mind - one was a ball of chicken wire several feet in
diameter - another was a row of bricks about one hundred and thirty of them
- yet another was wooden reels used for electrical cable, these were about
five feet in diameter and painted white. When I touched one in the Ontario
Art Gallery I was immediately approached by security and told not to touch
the exhibits:-(
When I first began making money from photography it was by selling limited
edition numbered prints. It's a hard sell. For every person willing to
buy an art photograph there are thousands of buyers for commercial or stock
work.
I know that some people can do well in fine art sales. Most notably comes
to mind people selling prints of landscapes from large format negatives and
specialty work like hand coloured images.
While many of us will continue to produce "fine art" pictures it's my
opinion that this type of photography is done for oneself and selling these
images is of secondary importance.
David Barr
"Photobar" Agricultural Stock Photography
Please take a moment to visit our site.
http://www.photobar.com
Industrial page http://www.photobar.com/industry.html
Agricultural stock pictures. Location
and studio assignment photography.
519 846 8827 call or
email for information phot...@photobar.com
evp...@insync.net
TREV...@aol.com wrote:
> I've had an experience of what Fine Art is this week.
>
> A painting was hung in a local public gallery which was a direct copy of
> one of my postcard images. It is unlikely that my photographs would hang
> in the same gallery because 'postcards' are not considered ART.
>
> Bob Croxford
> Cornwall UK
>
Bob, What do they have the painting valued at? In the states, and probably
in the UK as well you could make a successful legal case for your
ownership of the artwork in question based on the copier's theft of your
intellectual property. No joke! Ask famous NY artist (I use the term
"artist" very loosely and with a high degree of sarcasm) Jeff Koons. Don't
roll over and take it. Ellis Vener Ellis Vener Photography
Eugene Fisher
<< I know that some people can do well in fine art sales. Most notably comes
to mind people selling prints of landscapes from large format negatives and
specialty work like hand coloured images.
While many of us will continue to produce "fine art" pictures it's my
opinion that this type of photography is done for oneself and selling these
images is of secondary importance.
David Barr >>
==================
Dear David,
Producing fine art prints for sale as one's sole, or nearly sole income source
is diligently pursued by perhaps 200 people in the US and Canada, with some
supplemental income from workshop teaching and book sales. They range from the
very famous (e.g. Paul Caponigro, and the late Brett Weston), to lesser known
individuals with a surprising volume of gallery sales (Christopher Burkett,
Clinton Smith).
It is a distinct market niche, but a tough one. And until you have at least
one outstanding monograph in print it's an even harder road. If you can make
it the personal rewards are enormous because you are liberated from the
market--it follows your vision, not vice-versa.
IMHO,
-- Gene
Eugene Fisher
Iglo...@aol.com
Los Angeles
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Rankin-Lowe
>
> Three items come to mind - one was a ball of chicken wire several feet in
> diameter - another was a row of bricks about one hundred and thirty of them
> - yet another was wooden reels used for electrical cable, these were about
> five feet in diameter and painted white. When I touched one in the Ontario
> Art Gallery I was immediately approached by security and told not to touch
> the exhibits:-(
A number of years ago, when I still belonged to the local camera club, one of the
speakers was a fine arts professor from the University of Western Ontario. She
bored me comatose with such statements as "Expirience and self-internalize the
totality of the veracity of the artist's expresion of his soul". It was so much
crap, I've remembered that line ever since. I think that unless and until fine art
photographers learn "art-speak", photography will still be considered an outsider
by many in the fine arts racket.
Who was it that said, "Don't tell me if it's good, tell me if you like it"?
Jeff Rankin-Lowe
bruce byers
Jeff Rankin-Lowe
Jeff,
Fine Art is just what it is Art. No one tells you to make images that you
enjoy taking and you most likely don't care if anyone likes them just as
long as the image you made makes you feel good.
As a photographer I have shot many different type of images. While
shooting the jobs I always found images along the way to shoot that had
nothing to do with the job but a had a great deal of fun shooting. After
editing those went into my files.
As of late I have been using my personal (Fine Art ) in my ads to get
assignment work. It worked. I got assignments and now I am starting to
get request for stock after they see my fine art.
It all comes down to the fact that great work (fine art ) gets work.
bruce ( show me empty white walls and I will fill them. )
________________________________________________________________________________
Bruce Byers Photography
220 West 19th Street
NYC, NY 10011
212-242-5846
Web -- http://www.brucebyers.com
Studio- http://www.users.interport.net/~studios
E-mail -- by...@brucebyers.com
__________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Rankin-Lowe
fine art. As to "who cares what I think", what I think is that you've over-reacted
to a perfectly reasonable post. I don't object to anything you post, nor do I
question you about "who cares what you think".
If you have any further complaints about what I posted, please send them to me via
e-mail, rather than waste the time of others in this group.
Jeff Rankin-Lowe
Donal Philby
Eugene Fisher wrote:
>
> It is a distinct market niche, but a tough one. And until you have at least
> one outstanding monograph in print it's an even harder road. If you can make
> it the personal rewards are enormous because you are liberated from the
> market--it follows your vision, not vice-versa.
Listening to Mary Swanson (Swanee) of Swanstock (during the recent ASMP
Biennial) and seeing examples of how "art" stock is used for both
editorial and advertising was very illuminating and very surprising.
Definitely a market following visions, not vice-versa.
donal
--
Donal Philby
San Diego
www.donalphilby.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To Find Over 100 Stock Photography Catalogs & Portfolios Online
Bill Guy
Art is not just some fellow's name.
> Gene wrote:
>
> >>what is fine art. Is it the same as Fine Art? And what is that? Ed
paul johnson
I'm not sure acceptance of photography AS fine art has done us all that
much good. Let's call it Fine Photography (FP):
Take limited editions, kind of an anti-photographic concession to
collectibility.
I see the market for FP ranging from the 1000"s of calendars at my local
bookstore all the way to MOMA.
The trend toward artful stock photography especially at the high end is
unmistakable, and I agree with Bruce that what we're talking about is
really FP.
Take art & craft shows - the quality (to me) of the FP varies, but the
prices are usually real low. Gallery prices for FP I'm sure seem extremely
high to many. I wish Gene would elaborate on those enjoying good sales who
are NOT well known.
My largest sales of FP have been mutiple print sales through a gallery to
corporate collections. Some would call that corporate decor. But my sales
from gallery shows and competitive exhibitions haven't added up as much.
When I get a FP print request due to publication like in Sierra Club or
from my web site and respond with what I think is a fair price, you don't
hear from them again. But I'm going to add a web page for FP prints with
prices.
You know, royalty-free came along and found a hole in the market to fill. I
get satisfaction selling FP for people to enjoy in their homes or
businesses. But at sustainable prices. Even at a profit that can be part of
the mix.
Fine Art may not be relevant to this list, Stock Photography, but I wonder
if the business we're in isn't (Stock) Fine Photograhy in all its many
guises.
Don't you find it interesting that Weegee's photography, recently a major
show at ICP in New York, will now also be licensed by Getty? And Ernst Haas
is "with" TSI!
evolutionary times,
paul
http://www.paulericjohnson.com
David Zanzinger
Professional photographers of california. the professional photo expo 99 in
Jan. has lectures on fine art, photo enhancement, lighting, posing etc.
There are print contests and awards leading to master of photography. Most
of the work i've seen thru the years is FP
they have a url: www.PPConline.com
I am in no way connected or have any interest in in the conference.
dave
www.alterstock.com
www.zanzinger.com
zanz...@alterstock.com
located on the "digital coast"
David Riecks
Here's another spin on FP (fine photography). The folks at Lenswork are
selling "Special Edition" Photographic prints that are silver gelatin
prints, but are actually high resolution halftone screens exposed onto photo
paper.
<http://www.lenswork.com/lws.htm>
According to their website, the prints are made in the darkroom on gelatin
silver paper to the photographer's specifications and approval, then toned
and processed to archival standards.
If you read a little deeper you find that they start with a scan from the
artist’s original fine art photograph with the resulting gelatin silver
print being "indistinguishable from the artist’s original — unless you
examine it with a strong magnifying glass." If I recall what I read in the
magazine a while back they are using ultra high frequency halftone screens
and contacting the neg directly onto the photographic paper.
They are selling them for $39 to $99 each! And you can get the first in the
series for $15.00 with a coupon for $15 that you can apply to the purchase
of another print.
FYI,
David
At 02:18 PM 12/1/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I'm not sure acceptance of photography AS fine art has done us all that
>much good. Let's call it Fine Photography (FP):
>
>Take limited editions, kind of an anti-photographic concession to
>collectibility.
>
David Riecks * rie...@prairienet.org
701 W. Washington St * or
Champaign, IL 61820 * rie...@compuserve.com
ph/fax 217-239-FOTO (3686) * Midwest/Chicago ASMP
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/riecks
------------------------------------------------------------------
For Information About Stock Photography Software
Visit The STOCKPHOTO Network Web Site ÿhttp://www.stockphoto.net
------------------------------------------------------------------