Sell your photos at art and crafts shows?
Patrick L.
Has anyone tried doing this?
I was at a Harvest festival, and a vendor there, a photographer, had
literally a couple of thousand beautiful (mostly European and Asian
architectural stuff) photographs, framed, etc, and he seemed to be doing
quite well. The requirement of such shows is that the art or crafts you
are selling is created by you, and in the case of photography, you must do
your own development, as well, afaik.
Patrick
Jim
photographer that was doing it and she was lossing money. The problem
the the huge stock that you have to carry. As you noted, he had a
couple of thousand photographs. Asuuming the estimate is correct, I
would guess that he would have to sell 600 or more just to cover the
materials cost. Clearly not a money maker for an occassional show. If
he's doing it 8-10 times then he migh be able to get enough volume to
turn a profit, but this would require a lot of labor.
Just my $.02 I haven't actually ever done it.
Jim
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
* Check-out my web site at: http://SwensonStudio.com *
* landscape and travel photographs, featuring gorgeous sunsets *
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
"Patrick L." <nice...@ifyoucangetit.com> wrote in message news:<i%2qa.39435$ey1.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Colyn
The problem with this is you never make money..
Consider the cost to produce the quantity, travel expenses, etc.
I have talked to these people before and was told there is no money to
be made..
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
Colyn Goodson
Ft. Worth, Texas
Leica/Minolta camera/lens information
http://www.colyngoodson.com
For Sale
http://www.colyngoodson.com/sale.htm
675/625 mercury battery solution
http://www.colyngoodson.com/minolta.htm
http://www.colyngoodson.com/cameras.htm
Camera manuals
http://www.colyngoodson.com/manuals.htm
The greatest undeveloped territory in the world lies under your hat.
ROBMURR
but making no money...probably told
you this so you would not compete.
Those art shows are very lucrative...
Lewis Lang
>From: "Patrick L." nice...@ifyoucangetit.com
>Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2003 4:40 AM
>Message-id: <i%2qa.39435$ey1.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Hi Patrick:
Well, speaking as one who has actually done this, and not just in my local area
but all over the country from Hendersonville, Nevada to Deerfield Beach and
Boca Raton, FL to Palm Springs (or Palm Desert, I forget which since its been
awhile), California to Tempe, Arizona, Terre Haute (or thereabouts) Illinois
(Or Indiana (I forget which its been so long) and on up to even a Harvest
Festival and "Saturday Market" in Portland, Oregon I think I have a unique,
credible, if not biased insight into this "market".
This is the e-mail I wish I had someone send me from 10 years or more in the
future (even though I wouldn't even have a computer till '94 to receive it or
internet access till 1998) to tell me not only the things to do, but all the
things I shouldn't do when trying to break into this market. It cost me years
of my life to learn all this, and much wasted money, but for you its free :-)
Let me offer you some tips...
Subject matter
- First what not to do, anything surreal? How do I know this, because that's
exactly what I did. People give you complements, are intrigued by your work,
but don't buy (much like this newsgroup ;-)). It may say "Arts and Crafts Show"
on a brochure but what "Arts" translates into is, really, if you read beneath
the lines, "anything that will cover the hole in my living room and won't clash
with the color of my couch." These types of events are strictly decor, their
purpose is to showcase pictures/etc. for decorations. To give you a hint, the
people who sell peanut brittle and dried flowers and zither music on CD usually
(but not always) do better financially than those who sell "artwork" (whatever
the kind/medium of artwork and whatever kind of subjectmatter). I not only
speak from personal experience but I used to do some of these festivals with a
friend whose wife airbrushed planets, galaxies, whatever or photographs of
Portland and local travel spots and rephotographed these on 6x7 Impresa (and
Ektar 25?) for the highest quality final image and sold (extremely high
quality) copy prints (this was before the age of Photoshop). They were well
done technically and aesthetically, They didn't do so hot, the only one who did
worse was me as I do my work to express my own ideas/convictions, not to have 5
reddish/orange Hitlers carrying different consumer products from steer maneur
to paper towels match the color of someone's couch. (Though I did manage to
sell a b&w print of "Neotony" for several hundred dollars at "Saturday Market"
which at least hepled to provide for my travel home that year). I should have
known better that _for my type of surreal work_ what was a taste of things to
come when somebody asked me if I "had a photograph in a different dog" <Shudder
and Blecch!/>. I was the most popular botth at Artquake, a local city wide
event in Portland Oregon, where, supposedly, hundreds of thousands people were
attending, most of whom past through my booth and loved my work but couldn't
get up either the will power or the mitochondria to power the muscles of their
hands to reach for anything in their wallets (though one almost did by pulling
out a $20 bill, but, like a weight lifter who'd met his match, it was too heavy
for him and back it went/fell). That is not to say I never made any money at
these events, just that the money never covered travel and other expenses
(hotel, gas, more gas, the snickers bars I used to eat as meals when I slept
upright in my tiny red '87 Toyota Celica when it was either have enough money
for gas/food and sleep in my car or go to the cheapest Motel 6 I could find). I
rarely made over a hundred dollars _gross_ at a show (before expeses), and
usually made much less. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out
that, do this enough times and you dig yourself into a deeper and deeper
financial hole - but I was "art smart and business stupid"back then (most of
the '90's) and determined to keep on doing these shows till they "caught" on...
but it was not to be... :-) (smiley emoticon instead of sad emoticon, because I
find it a relief financially and physically that this "excitingly romantic"
(well at least financially romantic as I usually had more hope than gas money
or food ;-) part of my life, though wasted, was over). I learned from all my
heartache/financial loss that even though you may believe in your art (and
still do), that you can't force people to buy what they like very much but have
no intention of really buying, no matter how long you persevere and no matter
how good your work is, but you can sell anybody (actually, let themselves sell
themselves on it) anything they _do_ really want to buy...
- So what does sell? Subject matter! People buy the most the subject matter
they like the most first (...last and in between), and every other attribute of
an "art" photograph is secondary to them (composition, lighting, etc.). You are
not selling to experienced people on this newsgroup (don't make me laugh! ;-)
:-)), or art critics, but to people who buy on subject matter and the emotion
(and the emotional pleasure) it gives them. So while all the things you may
prize, like aesthetics (composition, lighting, etc.), technical quality, etc.,
may be and still are important, they are long long way down down down on the
list of reasons why people really do or want to buy your work. And its not,
despite what others might say/inimate, the price that counts, people who really
love your work's subject matter, will lfind a way to buy something whether they
can afford it no or later - just think of it as being similar to the lens you
want to own, nothing will stop you if your heart is set on it, well, for them,
its the emotional subject matter rather than that 50mm f/1.2 or that 300mm
f/2.8 or 16-35mm f/2.8L zoom that they "lust" for... (or it could be that their
living room couches are controlling all their thought waves/buying decisions
which I find more likely than a pair of multifimensional telepathic rat beings
from the 12th dimension ;-)).
In rough order from what sells best to what sells least...
*Landscapes
*Landscapes
*Landscapes
And by the way, did I mention "Landscapes"? Good! Large format rules but many
do OK w/ medium format as here, more than anywhere, technical quality sells as
much as aesthetic quality. Color is the norm, but some do well with archival
black and white fiber based prints (just more work, though exquisite results).
Subject matter (in the Portland. Oregon area, anyways) was Multnomah falls,
various bridges over water and city lights at Portland in dusk and anything
else in the area that was green and beautiful that made a good landscape.
Rodney Lough, a local photographer, now with his own website and also selling
his well done 4x5" Velvia (it seems that this is the main film for landscape
"artists" though some have gotten excellent results off of color negative
through various processes) landscape work, seems to have done spectacularly
well, not just in Portland, but has a cross country circuit he does. But he has
the right subject matter and his "Grand Tetons" shot at sunrise/set? (one of
his best selling shots I'm assuming from memory) is a well done classic - he
has shot all over, in national parks/etc., not just locally and this makes both
the range and depth of his work more spectacular than just the average typical
landscape/scenic shots you'd see of Portland by other Portland, Oregon area
photographers. On the flip side of this, I have seen spectacular (both in
technical/aesthetic values) scenics done with Olympus prime fixed focal
length/prime lenses with Ektar 25 blown up to around 20x30" (if memory serves)
that at the very least looked like excellent medium format work - I'm not sure
exactly how well he did financially, but he certainly did better than me as he
had both the right subject matter and excellent
aesthetics/techniues/presentation.
* Wild life (anything fuzzy and furry that either matches the couch, just
kidding, hmmm, let me think about that, maybe I'm not kidding, I'll have to get
back to you on that one ;-)...).
*Scenics and architectural (beautuful buildings/street scenes from Spain, Italy
or any other place w/ sceneic buildings)
*Ethnographic National Geographic/documentary type people shots (may be tied
with above for saleability, maybe not...)
*Flowers (usually macro flower shots done large/close up). This is what my
friend who did surreal scenic shots of Portland switched to as subject matter.
It made a small _net_ profit for him at Portland's regularly recurring each
week's Saturday Market (local for him, but there are still booth fees and gas
to figure in even if you do bring food with you), but it takes many months
before people who see you around start to buy and you can build it into a real
"business", unfortunately, his wife (who helped with both framing and other
aspects as well as running the booth with him) died of cervical/Ovarian cancer,
and he didn't have the heart or will to run a one man booth by himself.
*Abstracts (light painting and other "creative" non-subject matter work).
*Surrealism (see way above why it doesn't sell).
There are some exceptions... while portraits usually don't sell ("why would I
want to buy a picture of somebody else I don't know" goes the
mindset/mentality, most likely, of why people don't buy these) there is one
fellow who seemed to do quite well off by doing an abstract variation on people
shots (I can't say its really portraiture as the mood is emphasized and you
can't really tell about the physicall attributes nor the personality of the
sitter from this kind of iconic shots) of shooting into some kind of
mirror?distorter which fractured the image which was less a portrait than
generic shots of women in pretty dresses (or nude, too?, can't remember, its
been awhile...).
Sizes
It depends, but 8x10" _prints_ and smaller (usually in a larger sized white
window mattes - 2 ply w/ a 4 ply backboard (I forget which is which ply as its
been a while, so this my best memory/guess) - either use pre-stick archival
corners for smaller prints (11x14" is maximum size you may want to do this with
and make sure there are sufficient white borders on your prints so the corners
don't intrude into the image area) and do a "T" shaped hinge (or hinges if
really large) to attach the prints to the backs of your window mattes, hinge
your window mattes to their backboards also with archival tape (look in a
United Framer's or Light Impressions catalogues for these types of supplies)),
tend to sell best (unless your Rodney Lough and have beatiful 20x24" Fujichrome
Super Glossy prints to sell of the Grand Tetons/etc., that people will actually
buy). It is hard to judge which of your images will sell best, or at all, until
people actually start buying them, so, you might want to start small and have
5-10 made up of each print you think likely to sell. I would start off w/ a
range of at least 15 or more (though this number is not set in stone)
distinctly different images (not variations on the same image but distinctly
different images). Blow up some of your best images to at least 16x20" prints
(though 11x14" prints will do in a pinch) and have them matted and framed
yourself or professionally. Shrink wrapping and/or bagging prints (w/ or w/o
mattes) loose in cardboard backboards will get you by, but prints in larger
sizes work better to have them in white mattes w/ a backboard. But framed
matted prints gives you more of a "display" and sets your images off better and
will give your booth a classier "air" - not to mention that large framed prints
are your best form of "advertising". Of course, having all your large images,
or even most of your best large images in mattes and frames would most likely
bankrupt you so choose wisely which images get the "full" matted/framed
treatment.
You also might want to consider having some of your best images as photo note
cards (w/ matching envelopes) you can sel in the $1-3 range (haven't checked
prices on this recently) for people w/ "snack money" who can't afford your
larger work.
Other assundries...
I used to use/print color prints myself at U-Develop, a color rental darkroom,
in Portland, Oregon, when I lived in that area in order to save bundles over
having labs print my work (mondo expensive!). Later I also used a friend's Jobo
which was a pain in the ass as I had to mix all the chemicals, watch and wait
while the thing did its spin cycle, pour out the chemicals, pour in water,
replenish chemicals, etc. - you don;t know what boredom is until the high point
of your day is flipping out snails that have crawled under your door (Oregon's
"state bird") and spent hours doing tests trying to colro balnce/process these
test yourself. A stack of toilet paer served as a ballast wall to keep the
giant Jobo processing drum (for larger prints), that looked like a black Saturn
V rocket, from having it knock a hole in the wall when the cap exploded off of
it (I used a bicycle-type foot pump to compress the air in the drum enough for
it to force open the cap, er, space capsule ;-)). Humidity in the basement, set
off into the side of a hill, averaged around a 110% (some of the moisture must
have been held in subspace too!) which made it hard even w/ tape and a glass
carrier to get my negs flat enough for some larger sized prints. Large trays in
a bath tub served as a "print washer" for larger sized prints. Take it form me,
though its more expensive than having your own darkroom, you'll definitely want
to do your own developing (still cheaper than having a lab do it w/o the mind
numbing time/frustration of having to set up/operate your own darkroom).
Perhaps the only thing more expensive than printing costs are framing costs -
so I tried to save here too. I usually used black Nielson frames that I
bought/had cut to the sizes of the outer mattes by the local frame shop/art
supply shop in Portland (it might have been called Framer's Wharehouse or
something, I forget, its been awhile...), as well as had glass cut. I did my
own framing. My friend's wife used to cut the window mattes for me (paid her to
do so) but she was a first class framer/matte cutter and I was more than happy
to at least have her handle the matte cutting part of the job!
Greg Lawler (correct spelling?) has/had a list rating the best art/photo shows
across the country - you might find out about his list/more details by typing
his name or "art shows" or photography shows" into a search engine like Yahoo!
There is also a magazine (I forget the exact name, I think it was called
"Creative Crafts" or something like it) which did/might? also list shows in it
(its been awhile, so my memory is not so hot on this stuff anymore).
You'll also need a booth sign, booth walls (especially for some of the outdoor
shows - I used a grid walls that fit on a Thule (spelling?) ski type rack on
top of my car (which I'm sure would send it back to 1888? like in Back To The
Future III if lightning ever struck it and overloaded the flux capacitor ;-).
And legs/screws to attach the grid walls to. All this cost me about $150-200 (I
can't remember exactly, this is only a guess) back in 1991 when I started, I
have no idea what this or other set ups might cost right now. My friend who did
the surreal sceneic landscapes/flowers, being handy, designed and made his own
booth with materials he bought and I believe saved some money. There are many
solutions to this same problem, depends on how much effort you are willing to
put into it/how much you're willing to spend.
Hotels are expensive but you can usually find a Motel 6 and/or cheaper-type
motel not too far from your destination. I find it helpful to get not only a
booklet of the hotel chains (for each chain I'm interested in) around the
country but also a booklet that lists ATMs around the country (especially
useful if you don't have/use/bring a credit card). In a pinch you might be able
to sleep in your car if large (mine wasn't) or a larger vehicle/truck/etc.
There might be some deals on hotles you can check out at various sites on the
web. Always confirm and reconfirm your reservations, "leave nothing to chance."
Some people get an over hang (a kind of roof umbrella) if they do a lot of
outdoor shows to provide shade (spots w/ shade are at a premium at some shows)
so your "audience" as well as your prints don't (alomst) melt in the hot summer
sun (don't think I'm kidding here as some frames become too hot too touch when
out in the hot blazing sun for hours).
Lots of different sized baggies, both for people to carry your owrk away in as
shopping bags and/or as/instead of shrink wrap. There is a clear plastic
envelope that some people use instead of shrink wrap but I forgwet its name. I
ususally included a loose business card of mine on the back of the sealed
matte.
Buy/bring/make your own food when you can (whether local or far away) to save
on eating expenses. In a pinch a Snicker's bar makes a good temporary "meal". A
lunchbox/cooler (keep it away from your prints/etc.) and/or a canteen/thermos
sems like agood idea - food at shows can be expensive and quite literally
"_eat_ into your profits".
You'll need, with some shows, anyways, not only slides of your work but slides
of your booth to enter.
Entry fees will vary from about $5-15 (for extremely small local park/etc.
shows) up to hundreds of dollars, depends on the show...
Buy new maps, don't rely on Mapquest or the locals for directions.
A watch or portable alarm clock for waking up in time to set up your booth and
eat, if your lucky, before a show begins.
At some shows where you have to set up your own booth... hooks (for hanging),
various tools (hammer, a powered screw driver helps w/ booth set up, etc.),
bungie cords for tieing boxes of your framed/other prints onto your luggage
carrier (or whatever they call that thingy). I paid some printer/sign maker to
make up a sign that said "Lewis Lang Photography" (or you can have them put up
whatever name you decide your business to be) for a professional booth touch.
Folding tables and folding chairs (preferrably w/ your own names written w/ a
Sharpie TM on them as they sometimes tend to "walk". Table cloths and smaller
baskets and/or boxes or some other devices/holders so people can rifle through
your work like in the old record shops. You can attach your prices on small
signs to the boxes via (double stick) tape on the backs of the mini signs or
have a separate price list. Some bring along a portfolio w/ more examples of
their work in it. Some bring a list of shows they'll be attending, PR articles
done on them (sometimes included in the portfolio of extra work) as well as
business cards (which tend to go like candy since they are free so bring alot
of them).
And last but not least, you'll need several more things... a buying public in a
good/buying mood, a good economy, and good weather (no down pours or blazing
hot sun, mild overcast or shade is best when you can get it, a booth awning is
best when you can't get it), hope, stamina and a good back (it helps to have a
wife or friend or partner who will take turns w/ you watching your booth when
you either want to stretch your legs or eat or walk around the show and see
what's up).
Boxes (to hold your framed and unframed prints) and tarps!!! In Tempe, Arizona
there was a sudden down pour that was so hard the rain not only came down
diagonally but bounced up into my nostrils and mouth. I felt like I was Forrest
Gump in which he tells of all the different kinds of rain and/or (shrimp?) he
encountered when he was in Viet Nam. Rain is a great way to ruin all that time
and money and blood, sweat and tears you've put into making your work.
So in an Almond Joy™ nut shell:
*Don't expect to get rich overnight, or ever ;-), but it is possible you might
make some extra money if you start small/local and possibly a living off of it
if yous pend many years at shows building up your stock of new and existing
images. Start small, have between 10 and 20 larger (at the very least 11x14"
for the photo not the frame size, though 16x20" and larger works even better -
the purpose is to draw people in!!!) pictures in frames to hang up at your
booth as "advertising" for you smaller prints that are more likely to sell
either due to price and/or their limited wall space.
*Subject matter! Subject matter! Subject matter!
*Visit more art shows and talk to the vendors. Jot down their subject matter
and prices for each size to give you an idea of price ranges. Note which
booths/subject matter seems to sell better than other subject matter and/or
booths. There are usually a few hot selling images that sell regularly over and
over w/ others images selling less often.
*Buy something you really like from other photo "art" booth sellers if/when you
can -- "Man can not live on peanut brittle at Harvest festivals alone" ;-) :-)
*Ask booth owners also, which are their best selling images (and how many of
these they've sold, if they'll tell you) and which shows they think are their
most lucrative shows and why. Save yourself a lot of pain and trouble, while no
past information or present information can predict the future, forewarned is
forearmed, and its best to know now which shows are good and which shows are
jokes at your expense.
*If all else fails, and you still want to make a profit, sell either T-shirts
or peanut brittle with your photos engraved onto them. People want things that
are tangible, that they can either hold or eat. Don't think I'm kidding here,
the most money I made net when I once watched a T-shirt booth for someone else
and got paid to do it! (Sad, but true - I've made more money by selling my work
at local New Jersey galleries than in any art show anywhere, regardless of
travel expenses).
I wish you success and happiness, but if you don't have either, I wish you good
(but not too much ;-)) peanut brittle and some earplugs (stay away from the
repeating zither music as it is responsible for turning Gandhi into Jack the
Ripper (or vice versa, if somebody in an insane asylum already believes they
_are_ Jack The Ripper) when taken in too large of a dose ;-)).
Regards and best wishes,
Lewis Lang
This post © 2003 by Lewis Lang
All Rights Reserved
This will most likely appear on my website as a small section of it if/when I
do my update of it - or whenever anybody buys a Leiwsvision print, whichever
comes first ;-).
Anyone who violates my copyright and I'll have the Attorney General force feed
you bad peanut brittle while you are forced to listen to a CD of K-Tel's 100
greatest Zither Hits over and over again until your ears turn into peanut
briittle... and don't think I'm kidding!!!
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
Eugene
> So in an Almond JoyT nut shell:
> This post Š 2003 by Lewis Lang
Al Denelsbeck
for taking the considerable time to type that out. I've archived that one
into my newsgroup notes of useful stuff.
And now I think I owe you and should be buying a print... ;-).
Anyone want to buy anything of mine, so I can afford to pay Lewis?
- Al.
--
Remove 'block' for direct reply.
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030425190813...@mb-m18.aol.com...
Lewis Lang
>From: "Eugene" nospam...@nospamthanks.com
>Date: Sat, Apr 26, 2003 12:47 AM
>Message-id: <GBkqa.2721$e8.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au>
>
>That was a very useful, informative post, thanks.
MONUMENTAL BIG GULP SIZED SNIP OF MY OWN WORDS/POST
You're welcome, Eugene, just wish I didn't have to live through it to be able
to give it you you ;-)
Regards,
Lewis
Lewis Lang
>From: "Al Denelsbeck" blo...@wading-in.net
>Date: Sat, Apr 26, 2003 1:04 AM
>Message-id: <ZWkqa.2345$sn6....@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>
> THAT, was a damned good post, with a lot of useful info!
Thanks.
Thanks, Lewis,
>for taking the considerable time to type that out.
You're welcome from my fingers and I (or me, whatever).
I've archived that one
>into my newsgroup notes of useful stuff.
>
:-)
> And now I think I owe you and should be buying a print... ;-).
>
I should live to see the day ;-) :-)
> Anyone want to buy anything of mine, so I can afford to pay Lewis?
>
> - Al.
Are you kidding? This is rec.playsw/equipmentdoesn't buysphotos newsgroup, you
knew that, didn't you ;-) :-)
Hey I just realised that together we're Al Lewis (grandpa on The Munsters and
one of the ploiceman on "Car 54 Where Are You?", which I've heard a lot about
but never saw either before or after I started using 35mm equipment...
Regards,
(Not Al) Lewis
Lewis Lang
>From: "Eugene" nospam...@nospamthanks.com
>Date: Sat, Apr 26, 2003 12:47 AM
>Message-id: <GBkqa.2721$e8.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au>
>
You're welcome, Eugene :-)
Regards,
Lewis
zilun
news:20030425190813...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> on a brochure but what "Arts" translates into is, really, if you read
beneath
> the lines, "anything that will cover the hole in my living room and won't
clash
> with the color of my couch."
Annika Wins!!!
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sat, Apr 26, 2003 1:45 AM
>Message-id: <Lwlqa.1297$m73.43...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
Annika loses!!! Much of his stuff is not worthy enough to cover the holes in
the couch, let alone the living room walls above it. Don't bring up his/her/its
name again on this thread please, not even as a joke. Thanks :-). He/she/it is
in my kill files where it/he/she/it belongs along w/ the zither music.
Patrick L.
too.
Patrick
Lewis Lang <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030425190813...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> So in an Almond JoyT nut shell:
> This post Š 2003 by Lewis Lang
Alan Justice
I've recently been considering this route myself. I started selling to
magazines 2 years ago, and selling prints through local galleries and park
visitor centers less than a year ago. I'm nowhere close to being able to
earn a living at it, although it's a full-time job. I know things will
slowly pick up, but it's too slow.
Is it possible to begin to see how the shows go by just trying a few, or do
you have to commit to it for the long term? Building a reputation would
only be for local shows done often. I know there's inventory to invest in
(much of which I have for local sales and temporary shows) and the booth.
But accepting VISA is also a long-term commitment. Can one do art fairs
without accepting VISA?
I do 35 mm nature. I rarely print larger than 11x17, so MF just isn't
necessary. You seem to think that's large enough for shows.
I've seen photogs selling double-matted, custom framed shots for as much as
I sell single-mat only. Are there a lot of folks out there who just like to
see their stuff sell, and aren't trying to make a living? I know this is
true for magazine sales, which makes it harder on the rest of us.
--
- Alan Justice
alanjustice earthlink net
@. .
Lewis Lang
>From: "Patrick L." nice...@ifyoucangetit.com
>Date: Sat, Apr 26, 2003 11:01 AM
>Message-id: <UFtqa.41274$ey1.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>Thank you so much for this in depth response, and thanks to every one else,
>too.
>
>Patrick
You're very welcome :-)
Regards,
Lewis
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sat, Apr 26, 2003 10:21 PM
>Message-id: <aEDqa.41875$ey1.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>Thanks Lewis. Great post.
>
You're welcome and thanks for the complement :-)
>I've recently been considering this route myself. I started selling to
>magazines 2 years ago, and selling prints through local galleries and park
>visitor centers less than a year ago. I'm nowhere close to being able to
>earn a living at it, although it's a full-time job. I know things will
>slowly pick up, but it's too slow.
>
>Is it possible to begin to see how the shows go by just trying a few, or
>do
>you have to commit to it for the long term?
I would try the smaller venues near your area and then try one or two bigger
shows to see how those go and see if there's a real _buying_ market for your
kind of work.
Building a reputation would
>only be for local shows done often. I know there's inventory to invest
>in
>(much of which I have for local sales and temporary shows) and the booth.
>But accepting VISA is also a long-term commitment. Can one do art fairs
>without accepting VISA?
>
I did, it was only a problem one or two times for me as the people who would
have wanted to buy my prints usually bought smaller ones (8x10" and smaller)
and rarely didn't have the money. But if you can get a merchants account or
some other means to accept VISA/etc. then I'm sure at the very least "it
couldn't hoit" :-).
>I do 35 mm nature. I rarely print larger than 11x17, so MF just isn't
>necessary. You seem to think that's large enough for shows.
>
Do you mean that the 35mm format or the 11x17" prints (or both) are large
enough for shows? In both cases you'd be right, but, wild life (which usually
uses longer lenses to capture animals in their natural habitat) is usually done
in 35mm format anyways, larger formats only need come into play for more
static/shorter lensed subjects like landscapes. 11x17" is an inkjet (and
xerox/copier) size... Unless you are using archival inks I'd shy away from the
inkjets, not necessarily for quality reasons but for their archival longevity
(non-archival inkjets have been know to either fade or metamorize (change
color/appearance under different types of illumination) in a few years).
Regular photographic color prints are best not only for quality but also for
archival purposes.
>I've seen photogs selling double-matted, custom framed shots for as much
>as
>I sell single-mat only. Are there a lot of folks out there who just like
>to
>see their stuff sell, and aren't trying to make a living?
I've seen people virtually give away their prints (charge a fraction of what
they should have) but this depends both upon the seller and how low they are
willing to go just to sell a print and the market (what they charge in Oregon
is just a fraction of the same print sold in the Northeast). You can under
price and you can overprice yourself out of business and you have to ask
yourself if you are running a charity or a business. You can cheap yourself out
of business or price yourself out of the market. While double matts give a
spiffier image to your work, you should be duly compensated for the
time/expense, unless all you care about is matching or undercutting the next
fellow. You have to do what's right for you and your audience. If you think
your style and/or subject matter is worth more and your buyers are willing to
pay more for it (or at least the same price as something more elaborately
matted) then go for it. You have to test the waters, talk to your customers,
and ask them if any of the factors you think are important actually _are_
important in their buying decision - how many mattes a piece has may be the
last or the first thing on their mind. Know thy customer. Obviously, only you
can make the final decision as the money you do make or don't make off of a
print is up to you/what you charge, not what others charge ultimately. Sorry to
be so ambiguous but there are no quick/easy answers here, just what works and
what doesn't for your work and your buyers/market.
I know this is
>true for magazine sales, which makes it harder on the rest of us.
>
Compete on your own financial/competence level - there will always be someone
who will be willing to do it for cheap/cheaper... or for free even.
>--
>- Alan Justice
>
>alanjustice earthlink net
> @. .
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Lewis
This post is...
Š 2003 Lewis Lang
All Rights Reserved
And blah, blah blah... ;-) :-)
T. P.
>Just my $.02 I haven't actually ever done it.
And boy! does it show!
T. P.
>This is the e-mail I wish I had someone send me from 10 years or more in the
>future
<very big snip>
One to treasure, Lewis. Great content.
(If it wasn't so long I might have it framed.)
;-)
David Littlewood
<cont...@aol.comnospam> writes
Lewis,
[Breaking my normal practice to top post over your very long test,
otherwise no-one would see what I wrote!]
Very interesting post, thank you. I had some similar experiences myself
in the 90s, though I lacked your staying power. I had just voluntarily
left a job with a big multinational that was relocating to somewhere I
didn't want to live (and I was sick of working for hypocrites!). I was
making a lot of 12x16 Ilfochrome prints - that size is popular over here
but seems for some reason non-existent in your country - and some b&w.
Most were landscapes - a lot of the USA, some of the UK and Europe -
plus a few other subjects, mostly from 4x5 or 120 transparencies. They
were admired by most who saw them, so I started selling them. I went to
a craft fair with a large pile of framed prints and sat there for the
whole day and sold precisely none! I think it was perhaps the wrong kind
of show. I had more success selling by word of mouth and managed to
shift quite a few, plus a few shots used by travel book publishers and
a bit from stock libraries.
But, like I say, I lacked your staying power. I discovered I could make
many times more as a business consultant. I still make some sales and do
some stock work, but ironically enough most of my (rather limited)
professional photography now is taking site photos and the like for
clients.
One of the problems I soon identified was that most people have very
little conception of what is a reasonable price to pay for a good
quality original photographic print. I was paying £15-20 for the
(16x20) frames, and sold the prints for £40-45 matted but unframed, or
£65 framed. Galleries in London were selling prints for 3 times that
price in the "art" market, but that was hard to break into, but the
reaction of many people in the "real" world seemed to be along the lines
of "I can buy a frame for £20 with a free nasty machine-printed
chocolate box picture in it, why should I pay £65 for what you tell me
is an original work - it'll only get thrown out next year when the kids
knock it off the wall anyway". Well, I never actually heard anyone *say*
that, but it seemed to be a distillation of their thoughts.
I suspect that the price you ask is important: if you ask a very high
price, and the chutzpa to carry it off, people - at least, enough people
to keep you in a reasonable degree of comfort - may believe the
propaganda and think they are buying something special. If you just ask
a fair craftsman's wage for the time spent, they look on it as a
commodity and expect it to be available for a mass-produced price. The
hole in the middle does not seem to work in the marketplace, but to do
the work of taking photos, printing, and cutting mats and framing just
does not work (here) at less than £65 - probably should be £75 now.
So, I don't have your detailed insight into the art and craft market,
but enough to sympathise. From the pictures I have seen on your website,
your photography is driven by internal creative thoughts much more than
mine - which is more as a recorder of what I see - and I just wasn't
prepared to spend too much time offering nature's pearls to
unappreciative swine (pause to give an appreciative vote of thanks, and
an assurance of exemption from the above comment, to anyone who ever
actually *bought* anything from me - or anyone else in the same boat).
One lesson which many people trying to make money from photography have
found, of course, is that photography and marketing are two entirely
different skills, and that of the two, marketing matters more if you
want to make much money.
It sounds as if you have now found better outlets for your work; I
certainly hope so. Whatever it is, I wish you well.
--
David Littlewood
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Apr 27, 2003 1:00 PM
>Message-id: <q1lnav4rqktp80a61...@4ax.com>
Thanks for the complements Tony :-)
Regards,
Lewis
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sun, Apr 27, 2003 6:21 PM
>Message-id: <01OXjJAd...@dlittlewood.demon.co.uk>
>
>In article <20030425190813...@mb-m18.aol.com>, Lewis Lang
><cont...@aol.comnospam> writes
>
>Lewis,
>
Yes? :-)
Hi David.
>[Breaking my normal practice to top post over your very long test,
>otherwise no-one would see what I wrote!]
>
Rules are meant to be broken, particularly the speed of light or netiquette
when "required". :-)
>Very interesting post, thank you. I had some similar experiences myself
>
>in the 90s, though I lacked your staying power.
My own stupid, naive belief in the value of my own work was my "Viagra" (stil
is) ;-)
I had just voluntarily
>left a job with a big multinational that was relocating to somewhere I
>didn't want to live
New Jersey? Old Jersey?
(and I was sick of working for hypocrites!).
"Yes, but we love you the consumer, our styrofoam has a half-life of only 17
years, that's only half as much as the next guy's stryofoam, so wel ove you
(and your money) twwiiccee as much" ;-)
I was
>making a lot of 12x16 Ilfochrome prints - that size is popular over here
>
Sound's like a good one. 16x20" can be too large ati times (especially when
framed) and sometimes an 11x14" print doesn't have the weight/impact of a
slightly largerprint...
>but seems for some reason non-existent in your country
Yup, dat's de way ting iz heyah ;-)
- and some b&w.
>Most were landscapes - a lot of the USA, some of the UK and Europe -
>plus a few other subjects, mostly from 4x5 or 120 transparencies. They
>were admired by most who saw them, so I started selling them. I went to
>
>a craft fair with a large pile of framed prints and sat there for the
>whole day and sold precisely none!
Been there done that/"I feel your pain" (said w/ a Clintonesque accent ;-)).
I think it was perhaps the wrong kind
>
>of show.
For me, the wrong show was every show, LOL ;-)
I had more success selling by word of mouth
Away from shows? Sold to friends, at galleries, former co-workers?
and managed to
>shift quite a few, plus a few shots used by travel book publishers and
>
>a bit from stock libraries.
>
I was with a stock agency which did nada for me, so you beat me there ;-)
>But, like I say, I lacked your staying power. I discovered I could make
>
>many times more as a business consultant. I still make some sales and do
>
>some stock work, but ironically enough most of my (rather limited)
>professional photography now is taking site photos and the like for
>clients.
>
At least its bringing you money, but not in the way you'd prefer...
>One of the problems I soon identified was that most people have very
>little conception of what is a reasonable price to pay for a good
>quality original photographic print. I was paying £15-20 for the
>(16x20) frames, and sold the prints for £40-45 matted but unframed, or
>
>£65 framed.
Damned cheap!!! Tooooooo cheap!!!! :-)
Galleries in London were selling prints for 3 times that
>price in the "art" market, but that was hard to break into, but the
>reaction of many people in the "real" world seemed to be along the lines
>
>of "I can buy a frame for £20 with a free nasty machine-printed
>chocolate box picture in it, why should I pay £65 for what you tell me
>
>is an original work - it'll only get thrown out next year when the kids
>
>knock it off the wall anyway".
Perhaps you would have had better luck selling in the pacific Northwest (U.S.),
they lap up that kind of stuff there (or at least used to when I was there a
few years back...)
Well, I never actually heard anyone *say*
>
>that, but it seemed to be a distillation of their thoughts.
>
Sometimes you don't have to be a mind reader to read thoughts like that. For
the price I was charging (gallery prices on the large works) someone, I
believe, if memory serves, asked me if the negative was included too for that
price - that's their mentality. Everything should cost $5 or at most, under $10
;-) - regardless of how much it cost you to make it.
>I suspect that the price you ask is important: if you ask a very high
>price, and the chutzpa to carry it off, people - at least, enough people
>
>to keep you in a reasonable degree of comfort - may believe the
>propaganda and think they are buying something special. If you just ask
>
>a fair craftsman's wage for the time spent, they look on it as a
>commodity and expect it to be available for a mass-produced price. The
>hole in the middle does not seem to work in the marketplace, but to do
>the work of taking photos, printing, and cutting mats and framing just
>does not work (here) at less than £65 - probably should be £75 now.
>
>So, I don't have your detailed insight into the art and craft market,
>but enough to sympathise. From the pictures I have seen on your website,
>
which has brought me in zip, nada, nil denero...
>your photography is driven by internal creative thoughts
...that plus Snicker's bars... ;-)
much more than
>
>mine - which is more as a recorder of what I see - and I just wasn't
>prepared to spend too much time offering nature's pearls to
>unappreciative swine (pause to give an appreciative vote of thanks, and
>
>an assurance of exemption from the above comment, to anyone who ever
>actually *bought* anything from me - or anyone else in the same boat).
>
"Pearls before swine... its not just a job, its an adventure..." ;-)
>One lesson which many people trying to make money from photography have
>
>found, of course, is that photography and marketing are two entirely
>different skills, and that of the two, marketing matters more if you
>want to make much money.
>
>It sounds as if you have now found better outlets for your work; I
>certainly hope so. Whatever it is, I wish you well.
>>
Thanks, the same to you, though most of the outlets I have found seem to be
wall electrical outlets at the moment ;-)
Regards,
Lewis
T. P.
>
>16x20" can be too large ati times (especially when
>framed) and sometimes an 11x14" print doesn't have the weight/impact of a
>slightly larger print...
And neither of them even *approach* the 3:2 aspect ratio of 35mm film.
;-)
Bandicoot
news:po3qavghrl2up9u2k...@4ax.com...
Uh huh, 16x12 does come closer, but it still isn't 3:2. No one I know of
_regularly_ makes 18x12s or 16x10 2/3s...
That said though, I like the 4:3 proportions of 16x12, perhaps more than I
like 3:2. And yet 6x8, with this proportion, is the least supported of the
MF formats - so maybe I'm a bit odd. (They like it for portraits in Japan,
I'm told...)
Peter
David Littlewood
<insert_ha...@techemail.com> writes
use sheet film as well, it's different again. The only (doubtless
accidental) coincidences I can remember* are: 35mm film and 6x9 have the
same ratio (but too elongated); 5x4 matches 10x8 paper and 20x16 paper
(but is *much* too square for my taste); and 6x8 matches 12x16 paper
(which is, as you say, a satisfactory aspect ratio) but is, as a film
size, almost completely unsupported commercially. I don't even know of
any 6x8 insert rollfilm backs for 4x5 cameras - I use a 6x9 on mine
instead.
A4 and other standard paper sizes match none of them :-(
*I'm sure someone will think of another one.
--
David Littlewood
Lewis Lang
>Date: Mon, Apr 28, 2003 11:24 AM
>Message-id: <po3qavghrl2up9u2k...@4ax.com>
I always print full frame w/ borders regardless of paper format, and even
though I know you were joking, its a shame 12x18" isn't a popular size here (I
don't even know if it exists here in the U.S.). Though some Frontier prints are
10x15" which is at least a step in the right direction. 12x18" would be the
next logical step, and, not too much different in size from a full 35mm format
frame printed w/ borders on a 16x20" sheet of paper...
Lewis Lang
>Date: Mon, Apr 28, 2003 5:21 PM
>Message-id: <XS5vaMBC...@dlittlewood.demon.co.uk>
645 format, though it may not match other film formats or paper sizes in ratio,
to me, is the best compromise between the elongated 35mm format (which I happen
to like both horizontally and vertically) and the more rectangular/"squat" 4x5"
format. I just wished there was a _real_ Super 35mm format w/ 35mm-like
cartridges, perhaps somewhere in dimensions of 36mmx45mm or so which would
still enable a compact camera design, at least more compact than 645, and
easier to (auto) load. 645 seems like a great idea, but I hardly find it as
portable as 35mm gear. An SLR a bit smaller than an F5 or Maxxum 9 but still
able to use this larger format would be great! At the smaller end they did
something (vaguely) similar with APS (except the film wound into a cheap
plastic cartridge which were not great ideas), I don't thinkit would take any
great amount of technical stretching for any of the 35mm format SLR makers to
come up w/ Super 35mm versions of their cameras. The cameras and lenses could
be more affordable than some medium format gear and they'd have a whole new
market of bodies/lenses to sell. Buyers would probably be top end 35mm users
and serious amatures and medium format users (and/or future users) that want
something more portable. Add IS and interchangeable backs on the pro models and
your cooking. But in a digital age (w/ a less than booming economy) any new
film formats, no matter how well reasoned out or how much of a market there
might be for them, seem less and less likely...
Anyway, that's my Santa's wish list for late April... ;-)
Ralf R. Radermacher
> I just wished there was a _real_ Super 35mm format w/ 35mm-like
> cartridges, perhaps somewhere in dimensions of 36mmx45mm or so which would
> still enable a compact camera design, at least more compact than 645, and
> easier to (auto) load. 645 seems like a great idea, but I hardly find it as
> portable as 35mm gear. An SLR a bit smaller than an F5 or Maxxum 9 but still
> able to use this larger format would be great!
Nothing wron with a little dreaming, but...
The lenses would still be only marginally smaller than those for 645.
And whoever made the body would have to come up with at least some
minimum choice of say three or four lenses which would then be totally
incompatible with everything else on this planet. Not to mention the
processing side.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Apr. 11, 2003
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Lisa Horton
Lewis Lang wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Sell your photos at art and crafts shows?
> >From: T. P. t...@noemailthanks.com
> >Date: Mon, Apr 28, 2003 11:24 AM
> >Message-id: <po3qavghrl2up9u2k...@4ax.com>
> >
> >cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote:
> >>
> >>16x20" can be too large ati times (especially when
> >>framed) and sometimes an 11x14" print doesn't have the weight/impact of
> >a
> >>slightly larger print...
> >
> >
> >And neither of them even *approach* the 3:2 aspect ratio of 35mm film.
> >
> >
> >;-)
>
> I always print full frame w/ borders regardless of paper format, and even
> though I know you were joking, its a shame 12x18" isn't a popular size here (I
> don't even know if it exists here in the U.S.). Though some Frontier prints are
> 10x15" which is at least a step in the right direction. 12x18" would be the
> next logical step, and, not too much different in size from a full 35mm format
> frame printed w/ borders on a 16x20" sheet of paper...
>
I'd love to see the 12x18" size become more popular, it's a good
size. The popular "tabloid size" photo inkjet printers can print
11x16.5, pretty close. That's a good size as well, apart from needing
custom mats and frames.
Like you Lewis, I find the elongated format of 35mm creatively
interesting, and like it for that reason.
Lisa
Hank Scorpio
"Lisa Horton" <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:3EADB18F...@lisahorton.net...
My lab will do 12" x 18" and I usually get 8" x 12"s. When I fill the frame
in the camera, I like to see it on the print as well :-) I could probably
find a better price, but their quality is quite good.
HS
Bandicoot
news:qCira.1617$NX1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...[SNIP]
> >
> > Like you Lewis, I find the elongated format of 35mm creatively
> > interesting, and like it for that reason.
> >
> > Lisa
Sometimes I find 35mm is 'right' - but for my eye I often want a slightly
squarer aspect ratio _or_ something that is really long, which is why I
like the X-Pan format so much I suppose. 3:2 always seems a bit neither one
thing nor the other to me - not bad, just not really there. Maybe what I
really want is a golden rectangle...
>
> My lab will do 12" x 18" and I usually get 8" x 12"s. When I fill the
frame
> in the camera, I like to see it on the print as well :-) I could probably
> find a better price, but their quality is quite good.
>
> HS
>
>
I do agree I often find myself composing with the viewfinder and then
wanting to print full frame - and it is annoying if I can't. But given time
to step back and think, often my compositions are not restricted to being
3:2 just because the finder is, and then I usually end up making something
that _to me_ is a bit more pleasing. Not that the 4:5 ratio of 8x10 etc.
really pleases me either, so there just isn't really a standard paper size
I'm totally happy with.
Good thing the Epson 2100 takes paper rolls!
Peter
T. P.
>
>Uh huh, 16x12 does come closer, but it still isn't 3:2. No one I know of
>_regularly_ makes 18x12s or 16x10 2/3s...
>
>That said though, I like the 4:3 proportions of 16x12, perhaps more than I
>like 3:2. And yet 6x8, with this proportion, is the least supported of the
>MF formats - so maybe I'm a bit odd. (They like it for portraits in Japan,
>I'm told...)
I just find it odd that the very same people who cast doubt upon the
wisdom of "wasting film" when printing square negatives onto oblong
paper are among the first to admit that they print 35mm negatives onto
paper with aspect ratios other than 3:2.
(No specific names here, and certainly not yours, Peter.)
;-)
T. P.
>
>I always print full frame w/ borders regardless of paper format, and even
>though I know you were joking, its a shame 12x18" isn't a popular size here (I
>don't even know if it exists here in the U.S.). Though some Frontier prints are
>10x15" which is at least a step in the right direction. 12x18" would be the
>next logical step, and, not too much different in size from a full 35mm format
>frame printed w/ borders on a 16x20" sheet of paper...
Yes, I was smiling as I made the observation, but there was also a
point I wished to make. I'm glad you agree.
T. P.
>645 format, though it may not match other film formats or paper sizes in ratio,
>to me, is the best compromise between the elongated 35mm format (which I happen
>to like both horizontally and vertically) and the more rectangular/"squat" 4x5"
>format. I just wished there was a _real_ Super 35mm format w/ 35mm-like
>cartridges, perhaps somewhere in dimensions of 36mmx45mm or so which would
>still enable a compact camera design, at least more compact than 645, and
>easier to (auto) load.
I am sad that the Baby Rolleiflex format of 4x4cm on 127 film is so
rare, presumably because of the "difficulty" of loading roll film.
In my opinion the (grey) Baby Rolleiflex was the sweetest Rollei TLR
of all. It fitted the hands beautifully and the taking lens offered
very high quality. Using reversal film, it produced slides in the
"SuperSlide" format which could be projected using many 35mm
projectors, using 50mm x 50mm mounts.
Sigh. :-(
The Dave©
> The requirement of such shows is that ... in the case
> of photography, you must do your own development,
> as well, afaik.
This begs two questions. First, how would they know? Second, what business
is it of theirs? The seller either owns the rights, or they don't.
Rudy Garcia
T. P. <t...@noemailthanks.com> wrote:
You print on oblong paper TP? Isn't rectangular paper a lot cheaper?
--
Rudy Garcia
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <4gmsavsb2rkugeu2l...@4ax.com>
I believe I've seen those before, also, possibly (if memory serves), a
variation on it that combined some aspect of a 35mm SLR design, but the memory
is foggy on it so I could be wrong...
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <59msavk845rjlbtt6...@4ax.com>
It would seem a ready-made market... too bad sometimes even usefulobious ideas
don't catch on, I guess the labs and/or paper makers figure why rock the boat
when everybody uses/buys 16x20" sizes anyways. My guess is that 16x20" paper
has been around for ages, so once something is entrenched, whether it fits a
need precisely or not, it sort of becomes a defacto standard...
Lewis Lang
>Date: Tue, Apr 29, 2003 10:10 PM
>Message-id: <9ea41610307bcae6f368e9e5ca7ce868@TeraNews>
I don't know about the required do your own development part, but at least some
shows might require you to do your own printing, possibly (its been awhile
since I've done this)... I believe the whole point about this is that they
don't want posters or mass produced crap, ahem, "art" to turn their, ahem, art
shows into art flea markets. :-)
T. P.
>
>You print on oblong paper TP? Isn't rectangular paper a lot cheaper?
Perhaps you are confusing the word with "obtuse" or "obtuseness", a
characteristic of yours that appears strongly to the fore.
;-)
T. P.
>
>It would seem a ready-made market... too bad sometimes even usefulobious ideas
>don't catch on, I guess the labs and/or paper makers figure why rock the boat
>when everybody uses/buys 16x20" sizes anyways. My guess is that 16x20" paper
>has been around for ages, so once something is entrenched, whether it fits a
>need precisely or not, it sort of becomes a defacto standard...
The problem is that these bizarre sizes are exactly suited to almost
all the ready-made picture frames that you can buy at the mall, so it
will be very difficult to change. ;-)
Of course digital users outside North America use international A3,
A4, A5 or A6 papers in their inkjets and lasers, and they get the
benefit of a 1.414:1 ratio that suits 35mm quite well, but 4:3 digital
cameras less so. Go figure!
;-)
T. P.
>
>I believe I've seen those before, also, possibly (if memory serves), a
>variation on it that combined some aspect of a 35mm SLR design, but the memory
>is foggy on it so I could be wrong...
No, you're right, but they were two slightly different things. The
Baby Rolleiflex TLR was effectively a working 2/3 scale model of a
6x6cm Rolleiflex. Most of them were supplied in an exquisite grey
finish which made for a very elegant appearance. They accepted 127
roll film and gave a 4x4cm image.
The 35mm camera was the Rollei 2000, which was a 35mm version of a
6x6cm SLR. It had interchangeable film backs and viewfinders plus a
range of Carl Zeiss Oberkochen-designed lenses made under licence by
Rollei in Singapore with HFT coating.
The lenses, which may (?) also have fitted the dreadful SL35, were not
well made and Zeiss withdrew the licence for a time. Rollei then
introduced the Rolleiflex 3003 with much better quality and some
truly outstanding optics that Zeiss were very happy with. I have a
friend in Germany who uses a 3003 outfit and gets excellent results.
Once you get used to the handling, the system is a joy to use.
;-)
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Apr 30, 2003 11:11 PM
>Message-id: <kpl0bvs33fcvk187f...@4ax.com>
Well, at least it makes the people who scan 35mm and print their own inkjets
happy ;-)
Rudy Garcia
T. P. <t...@noemailthanks.com> wrote:
I thought I went right to the point. You said:
>...
> I just find it odd that the very same people who cast doubt upon the
> wisdom of "wasting film" when printing square negatives onto oblong
> paper are among the first to admit that they print 35mm negatives onto
> paper with aspect ratios other than 3:2.
Now, if I had wanted to be obtuse, I would have suggested that an oblong
mask may be a better method.
Hey, what you gain on the swing, you lose on the roundabout. :-)
--
Rudy Garcia
T. P.
>Well, at least it makes the people who scan 35mm and print their own inkjets
>happy ;-)
True ... having spent most of the last 3 weeks scanning slides for
submission to a calendar publisher, including cropping and/or
manipulating them, I need *something* to keep me happy!
;-)
Bandicoot
You've been lucky to find a calendar publisher who'll take 35mm - most of
them seem to have a fetish about 4x5 and only grudgingly take medium format,
even though with modern films the reproduction scales they use don't really
need it. I'd love to ask who the publisher is - but I guess it would be bad
business from your point of view to tell me!
Of course, you could let us know which calendars have your images in them so
we can go and have a look when they appear in the shops - and then I'd find
out who the publisher is anyway... ;-)
Cheers,
Peter
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <pu12bv81bsh7jj5bu...@4ax.com>
You poor thing ;-) ;-) Hope you sell alot of them. Too bad digital isn't as
high quality as film, at least then you could avoid the scanning part and do
some kind of color/density corrections on a mass scale instead of one by one
(is there a program that would handle such a thing?). Why scan them instead of
send them dupes (or even some in camera dupes/"originals")? Are you sending
them thumbnails, 72 ppi at 640x480 ( pixels-or whatever "web size"/low
resolution, or doing full size scans at whatever document size at about 72ppi?
Regards,
Lewis
T. P.
>
>You've been lucky to find a calendar publisher who'll take 35mm - most of
>them seem to have a fetish about 4x5 and only grudgingly take medium format,
>even though with modern films the reproduction scales they use don't really
>need it. I'd love to ask who the publisher is - but I guess it would be bad
>business from your point of view to tell me!
It would, wouldn't it! I know them very well and I am the only
photographer they use who shoots any 35mm. Until I beat a path to
their door, they insisted on 6x6cm on 120 film or larger, including
6x17cm on 120. I had a slight advantage in that their late picture
editor was a good friend.
>Of course, you could let us know which calendars have your images in them so
>we can go and have a look when they appear in the shops - and then I'd find
>out who the publisher is anyway... ;-)
Don't worry, I thought of that too!
;-)
T. P.
>You poor thing ;-) ;-) Hope you sell alot of them. Too bad digital isn't as
>high quality as film, at least then you could avoid the scanning part and do
>some kind of color/density corrections on a mass scale instead of one by one
>(is there a program that would handle such a thing?). Why scan them instead of
>send them dupes (or even some in camera dupes/"originals")? Are you sending
>them thumbnails, 72 ppi at 640x480 ( pixels-or whatever "web size"/low
>resolution, or doing full size scans at whatever document size at about 72ppi?
So many questions!
I send them scans (at 2700 dpi) of the cropped area of the slide.
They choose from this selection on-screen (using Apple LCD monitors)
and I then mail them the original slides. So far they have asked me
to send twice as many as last year, and they have only seen half of my
submissions for this year.
Ironically, most of the shots I'm scanning were taken in May/June
2002, but the deadline is fixed and it means that my shots have to
wait nearly a year before I submit them.
When I finish scanning I will be back on the road again shooting for
the May 2004 deadline for 2005 calendars. It's hard work, but as long
as I get a reasonable number accepted, it pays well.
The scanning is the easy bit, with my favourite coffee only an arm's
length away from the PC.
;-)
Bandicoot
Lewis Lang
Creamy stuff inthe middle of the cookie (my comments are between the lines)...
>Subject: Re: Sell your photos at art and crafts shows?
>From: T. P. t...@noemailthanks.com
>Date: Fri, May 2, 2003 12:31 AM
>Message-id: <1me3bv4ohl4dhu2ps...@4ax.com>
>
>cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote:
>
>>You poor thing ;-) ;-) Hope you sell alot of them. Too bad digital isn't
>as
>>high quality as film, at least then you could avoid the scanning part and
>do
>>some kind of color/density corrections on a mass scale instead of one by
>one
>>(is there a program that would handle such a thing?). Why scan them instead
>of
>>send them dupes (or even some in camera dupes/"originals")? Are you sending
>>them thumbnails, 72 ppi at 640x480 ( pixels-or whatever "web size"/low
>>resolution, or doing full size scans at whatever document size at about
>72ppi?
>
>
>So many questions!
>
Of course! :-)
>I send them scans (at 2700 dpi) of the cropped area of the slide.
Are you referring to the area that the slide mask crops out or are you doing
some extra cropping to a squarer 4:3 or less ratio to match the ratio of the
medium/larger formats?
>They choose from this selection on-screen (using Apple LCD monitors)
>and I then mail them the original slides. So far they have asked me
>to send twice as many as last year, and they have only seen half of my
>submissions for this year.
>
Good for you :-)
>Ironically, most of the shots I'm scanning were taken in May/June
>2002, but the deadline is fixed and it means that my shots have to
>wait nearly a year before I submit them.
>
:-(
>When I finish scanning I will be back on the road again shooting for
>the May 2004 deadline for 2005 calendars. It's hard work, but as long
>as I get a reasonable number accepted, it pays well.
>
Do they give you a shot list or do you already know their preferences and
choose locations/compositions and subject matte/scenes you think they'd like or
are you just shooting whatever you love to shoot/choose as a location/subject
and letting the chips fall where they may as to whether they get accepted or
not?
>The scanning is the easy bit, with my favourite coffee only an arm's
>length away from the PC.
>
>;-)
Ouch! That sets up an electrifying image in my mind... Can you say "short
circuit"? ;-) Hope your PC is coffee proof ;-)
zilun
Never heard a Mac user calling their machine PC, even though the Mac is
still a personal computer. That was a first.
T. P.
>Never heard a Mac user calling their machine PC, even though the Mac is
>still a personal computer. That was a first.
My PC is a Compaq. This particular customer's PCs are Mac G4s, G4
Powerbooks and iMacs.
You should try reading a posting before replying, then you might be
able to make some intelligent comments. That would be a first.
zilun
LOL! Oh, I see, my fault, I should not have assumed that you bothered to
keep the profile of your images consistent. You have a very forgiving
client. Lucky you.
T. P.
>LOL! Oh, I see, my fault
Sense at last! If only you'd had the sense to stop there ...
You get more pathetic with every post, zilun. Curb your bile, and you
might actually have something useful to say. Until then, you're just
wasting bandwidth.
Of course, the rest of your nonsense is the usual ignorant crap. My
client scans all my 35mm slides on a drum scanner. My own scans are
used merely for proofing purposes, for the client's picture editor to
decide which of my shots to buy.
zilun
I have yet to hear ayone who has the guts to purchase images without knowing
the actual colors that they can get out of it in the end result. If what you
say is really happening, look at your client's LaCie with calibrator ( or
whatever they use ), then look at your proof from your PC. Actually, look at
your proof from your PC, and think about the care and consideration you took
for the shoots. Do the colors look like what you were trying to do? If the
proof on the screen ( the scan ) does, does your proofing print? If you
don't print but sent the thumbnails scans electronically, look at the proof
you sent on their screen, does it look like what you've carefully scanned?
Anyone who had went through those frastration of being unable to show his
client a close rendition of what he intended, would have bought himnself a
Mac. It's dirt cheap. And you've probably heard them nag and nag to have you
get a Mac a thousand times everytime you bring your proof and slides over,
it's also for their convenience at seeing images that is closer to what they
know they can get out of it in terms of color.
T. P.
>
>I have yet to hear ayone who has the guts to purchase images without knowing
>the actual colors that they can get out of it in the end result.
You learn something new every day.
At least I do, I'm not sure about you.
;-)
zilun
> "zilun" <zi...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >I have yet to hear ayone who has the guts to purchase images without
knowing
> >the actual colors that they can get out of it in the end result.
>
>
> You learn something new every day.
>
I did. I already said " You have a very forgiving client. Lucky you. "