gallery sale $400, stock photo sale 30 cents. Why? because they can !

[puravida]

I just came home from my local gallery where a co-op of photographers run their own gallery. While I was there, I chatted with this week's exhibitor about her experience as an artist, and my own as a stock photographer. And the end of a long  and insightful exchange of our own experience, and our common aspiration ie. passion in photography, we were interrupted by a couple who asked the exhibitor if they could see her on one of her exhibits. As I was browsing around in the meantime, I overheard the couple arranging to buy one of her exhibits. Not the original one on the wall, but a copy . Priced - $400 .

As I left , I couldn't help asking the exhibitor why a buyer would pay her $400, while another buyer would pay us "stock photographer" 30 cents. Her insightful response was , "I suppose because they (the couple) know I won't be selling it for less than 400 dollars, and the buyer of your stock photos know that they can buy it for much less.".

This profound answer made me think about our "career" as stock photographers.
We have heard that during this recession, no one has the money to pay us the highest price of stock photography. Yet, someone just paid this lady $400 for her photograph. There is a recession here in my city as well, and the couple I am sure is not an alien who is immuned to the recession.
 
I suppose she is right. Why would anyone want NOT to pay $400 for our photograph? When they know we will sell it for 30 cents.

Something to think about, the next time we call ourselves proudly "stock photographers".
 

[Sean Locke Photography]

People in a storefront with one artist's wares in front of them are not the entire world with thousands of contributors concerned with themselves and millions of images at their fingertips.

[Adeptris]

I have read about several Artists and Photographers creating a gallery collection and for most it seems to be a loss leader, it actually costs more than they make.

Did you ask as a collective how many prints they have sold during the exhibition, what it cost to put on the show, how much each print cost to prepare as these type of prints can cost a couple of hundred each to supply for an exhibition.

Lets look at the $400 and say if the gallery was working on comission only then the gallery take 40% - 50%, you cannot knock these out on your InkJet they should be done by a specialist company that is part of the unique experience, so the cost of the Gicl�e Printing, mounting and delivery around $60 - $100 a print, so the Photographer might get 25% - 40% of the sale, remember that the photographer spent time and money perparing the original prints for the show and more time at the gallery, so overall likely lost money rather than made any.

The key to the business is return on investment, there is a big investment in gallery images for often a small return, just like stock.

Just as a guide a 20ins x 14ins (508mm x 356mm) Canvas Gicl�e Print on 45mm Stretchers (Image Gallery Wrapped) is �73 just over $100, if you were showing 5 prints then you have an initial cost of $500 plus any other charges to exhibit, at $400 a print with a gallery comission only show taking 50%, it would take 3 sales just to break even on basic material costs. 

David      

[Phil]

$400 isnt expensive for good print

australian landscape photog ken duncan's limited edition (usually 100-500 in a run) start at AU$1800 (about us $1400-$1500) for a framed print.  They sell out without a problem http://www.kenduncan.com/index.php/gallery. There are a few others I know of like him, for me my plan has always been use stock as a learning tool and build the income so that I can progress easier down this path

when you consider that the print is a lot less demanding on technical quality etc, my local shop had a special on 18 x 12" prints for $8 each so printed 20 or so.  Some of the stuff that isnt good stock comes out stunning, the shop asked to print another copy of one to hang in their shop, its a 6mp image cropped to 5mp, taken with a few hundred dollar pentax *ist ds and an old tamron adaptall lens blown up to 18x12" and it looks great (obvisously if youre a real technical person, you look at it close and see flaws, but most just look and say how nice it is .

not sure if true but got told the other day that looking at 24mp image at 100% is the same blowing up 35mm frame to 2m x 1m and almost putting your nose against it.
 
as far as I know until istock came along stock photos under $100 was very rare (although you could buy cds of subjects with 50-100 images for around a $1000) imo istock could have charged $10 rather than $1 and I think would have made more, but I believe their aim was to get cheap images not to make photogs money (could be wrong here).  Now people complain when a site puts the fees up and complain about the price of vetta midstock etc.   It is much like crestock subs, and the nanostock sites why offer more when people are greatful for the little you give them?
but then how many people give their images to newspapers / calendar companies etc for free happy just to see it published

[willie]

$400 isnt expensive for good print

australian landscape photog ken duncan's limited edition (usually 100-500 in a run) start at AU$1800 (about us $1400-$1500) for a framed print.  They sell out without a problem http://www.kenduncan.com/index.php/gallery. There are a few others I know of like him, for me my plan has always been use stock as a learning tool and build the income so that I can progress easier down this path

when you consider that the print is a lot less demanding on technical quality etc, my local shop had a special on 18 x 12" prints for $8 each so printed 20 or so.  Some of the stuff that isnt good stock comes out stunning, the shop asked to print another copy of one to hang in their shop, its a 6mp image cropped to 5mp, taken with a few hundred dollar pentax *ist ds and an old tamron adaptall lens blown up to 18x12" and it looks great (obvisously if youre a real technical person, you look at it close and see flaws, but most just look and say how nice it is .

not sure if true but got told the other day that looking at 24mp image at 100% is the same blowing up 35mm frame to 2m x 1m and almost putting your nose against it.
 
as far as I know until istock came along stock photos under $100 was very rare (although you could buy cds of subjects with 50-100 images for around a $1000) imo istock could have charged $10 rather than $1 and I think would have made more, but I believe their aim was to get cheap images not to make photogs money (could be wrong here).  Now people complain when a site puts the fees up and complain about the price of vetta midstock etc.   It is much like crestock subs, and the nanostock sites why offer more when people are greatful for the little you give them?
but then how many people give their images to newspapers / calendar companies etc for free happy just to see it published

Lots of fine points here, phil, congratulations.

One thing I learn from being on both sides of the fence is that we assumed that buyers of gallery are checking out your gallery prints with a "fine tooth comb", expertly inspecting your work like atilla does with our stock submission. Ironically, it is not always the case.

I quote an associate, " many times, I spend hours eyeballing my work . and many times, my life partner  who is not a photographer nor a painter,etc... keeps telling me that whatver I am looking for , the buyer probably would not be checking out. Buying the prints simply because it looks great hanging in his new luxury condo, or office. They are not so concerned about CA, fringe, the slight noise,etc... as we have all been so obsessively cured to look for in our work"

I am always sitting on the fence with this afterthought. So, maybe perharps, I am a bit over obsessive with looking for the bandings, subtle fringe, CA, pincushion, barrel,etc..   When we pose that to the layman, they look at us strangely like... "what are you talking about? "

[puravida]

...

maybe perharps, I am a bit over obsessive with looking for the bandings, subtle fringe, CA, pincushion, barrel,etc..   When we pose that to the layman, they look at us strangely like... "what are you talking about? "

lol Perseus,
i did that one summer at a gallery exhibition ,actually! i casually stood behind a bunch of people with my free champagne and truffles (the main reason i attend them , ha!ha) and nonchalantly said, "my goodness, this would not be approved in the stock agencies i work for. look at the noise in the sky, and that edge vignette... , that... ,that... blah blah blah "
i got the reaction which mostly one gets if one walked into an "only smoking, please " function dressed in hawaiian (crazy foreigner) tshirt , straw-hat and flip flops.

P.S.
btw, good points all ! thanks for your responses ! always good to hear from y'all

[Perry]

I wouldn't compare stock to art photography, they are just two totally different markets.

[stockastic]

After a few months I've pretty much lost interest in microstock. Subcription sales are what did it.  I made plenty of sales, but at 30 cents, it's not worth the effort. Ironically, microstock showed me that plenty of people like my images and will pay for them - and this made the 30 cent commissions seem even more insulting.

I'm looking for other ways to sell photos. I guess I'd rather make a $20 sale once in a great while, than let these so-called "agencies" by loading my images into an automated vending machine and paying 20 percent commissions on sales for which they do nothing.

Yes, I know they paid a reviewer, and a web site programmer, and an ISP. At these volumes of sales, those costs are covered the first time they sell an image.  

I really got discouraged after SS and DT re-tuned their searches to stop promoting new images.  

So I 've stopped for now.  Maybe I'll get interested again later, but I don't expect anything to change on the big existing sites. They've finished their "race to the bottom" and they'll have to decide if they're satisified with what they already have, and with what continues to be submitted at this prices.

[willie]

After a few months I've pretty much lost interest in microstock. Subcription sales are what did it.  I made plenty of sales, but at 30 cents, it's not worth the effort. Ironically, microstock showed me that plenty of people like my images and will pay for them - and this made the 30 cent commissions seem even more insulting.

I'm looking for other ways to sell photos. I guess I'd rather make a $20 sale once in a great while, than let these so-called "agencies" by loading my images into an automated vending machine and paying 20 percent commissions on sales for which they do nothing.

Yes, I know they paid a reviewer, and a web site programmer, and an ISP. At these volumes of sales, those costs are covered the first time they sell an image. 

I really got discouraged after SS and DT re-tuned their searches to stop promoting new images. 

So I 've stopped for now.  Maybe I'll get interested again later, but I don't expect anything to change on the big existing sites. They've finished their "race to the bottom" and they'll have to decide if they're satisified with what they already have, and with what continues to be submitted at this prices.

My guess is this and it is only a guess, mind you !

At one time, many photographers shifted from selling prints (at gallery, rent a small space at tourist sites, whatnot) to stock photography (micro mostly), and made good money. Then with the digital media, they find themselves copied and cloned up to their noses by the dabblers and hobbyists . Then the death knell, with the sites all competing to be the lowest with the mostest. Literally giving away the store, in the greatest garage sell or flea mart of the micro world, with subscription .With that, the buyers have all but gathered all they could at the lowest possible cost. Much to the dismay of the contributors.
And finally, with the over saturation of images , we come to the bottom of the barrel.

What is there left to do? And lo and behold, we are finding that what was once an over saturated market (ie. print sales) is now the new thing , and micro is the over saturated market, in reverse.

Not surprisingly, people like yourself (stockastic) are finding it more attractive to go back into selling prints on your own. I am sure many of us are, or have already begun contemplating to move back in this direction, or split it both ways... hoping to see which way the road ahead will decide for us viz back to the old days of selling our prints locally (or globally), or stay on with micro.

Would be interesting to see what happens hereon. One thing is certain, micro won't die. Because there will always be thousands of photographers and vector artists who do not mind being paid 20 cents commission, simply because they see this as a golden rainbow to quitting their jobs working for a pain in the arse super anal-boss 9 to 5. The promise is the carrot, and the donkeys (me included heh!heh!) will always be lured.

Plus, we have thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) in China coming in with their newly acquired DSLR... with money earned from their newly found affluence 

[stockastic]

I have no illusions that I'll make a lot of money from prints either, but at least when I sell one I feel good about what I do. At 30 cents, I feel like a dope.   

If I tell a friend I'm making a few bucks from stock photography, the reaction is "Cool!" and they want to know more about it.  When I get to the 30 cent part, there's that embarrassed little pause - oops, I'm just a pathetic wannabe.  They change the subject...

[willie]

I have no illusions that I'll make a lot of money from prints either, but at least when I sell one I feel good about what I do. At 30 cents, I feel like a dope.   

If I tell a friend I'm making a few bucks from stock photography, the reaction is "Cool!" and they want to know more about it.  When I get to the 30 cent part, there's that embarrassed little pause - oops, I'm just a pathetic wannabe.  They change the subject...

    You're hilarious !
At least you 've retained your sense of humour to all this 

[tdoes]

I have read about several Artists and Photographers creating a gallery collection and for most it seems to be a loss leader, it actually costs more than they make.

Did you ask as a collective how many prints they have sold during the exhibition, what it cost to put on the show, how much each print cost to prepare as these type of prints can cost a couple of hundred each to supply for an exhibition.

Lets look at the $400 and say if the gallery was working on comission only then the gallery take 40% - 50%, you cannot knock these out on your InkJet they should be done by a specialist company that is part of the unique experience, so the cost of the Gicl�e Printing, mounting and delivery around $60 - $100 a print, so the Photographer might get 25% - 40% of the sale, remember that the photographer spent time and money perparing the original prints for the show and more time at the gallery, so overall likely lost money rather than made any.

The key to the business is return on investment, there is a big investment in gallery images for often a small return, just like stock.

Just as a guide a 20ins x 14ins (508mm x 356mm) Canvas Gicl�e Print on 45mm Stretchers (Image Gallery Wrapped) is �73 just over $100, if you were showing 5 prints then you have an initial cost of $500 plus any other charges to exhibit, at $400 a print with a gallery comission only show taking 50%, it would take 3 sales just to break even on basic material costs. 

David      

You summed it up nicely!

[Adeptris]

As the Saying Goes "Horses for Courses", as many are posting here there is no need to be singular in which model you support, micro style shots to the microsites, selected higher production commercial and niche market images to microstock collections like Vetta, midstock or macrostock agencies.

Local interest and more arty shots to online prints sales or a local gallery, you will not sell an image of a smiling customer services person in a gallery, but you might sell a print with a limited run and a local interest.

@puravida
As a matter of interest what was the $400 print size, mounting and image content?

David        

[puravida]

@puravida
As a matter of interest what was the $400 print size, mounting and image content?

David       

the latest gallery prints are filled with variety . everything from architectural with emphasis on texture and design, people from travels, arctic scenery,etc..
not very different from the "artistic" side of micro.
lately too, the local reviews, tabloids, niche papers,etc.. have been coming with reprints of $5, $10, $20 each of "events photographs" that would be considered "snapshots" and poor ones too , for all that matters. beauty to it all, no MR or IPR whatsoever , even though one would think most of those "editorials" are now considered commercial when you charge for reprints.

the point being, people will pay if they don't know where else they could get better images for less.
on the other side of the coin, our new micro sites' are having marketing departments are neglecting the other side, ie. there is a section of the public who will pay more. only they just don't know where to look for these images that micro sites possess.

somewhere between the two extremes, i think is the solution to giving contributors the credit they are due, long overdue. we have some sites with a great vision, but poor marketing to tap an untapped source of buyers. simply because they have been looking at the wrong section of the economy. ie. the same traditional section that usually buy stock photos, which now no longer intends to pay for anything that fulfills the contributors' expectation to get just and fair commissions. it's time the marketing dept of these new sites with sincere vision of a win win solution with mutual interest to look elsewhere ie. the market that looks to buy gallery prints and is willing to pay for them.
The proverbial well has run dry. They have to look elsewhere with their divining rod to dig for a new well.
and hopefully, when these new sites are successful in tapping this new "old market", they don't turn around and throw us a curve ball with another version of subs, and over saturate this new untapped old marketplace.

[stockastic]

I'm thinking that subscription plans are like opium to corporate employers.  They're pitched on how "their people" will be able to select from 8 gazillion images, for pennies each.  For most people in management, that would be "end of discussion" and good luck convincing them they won't get what they need - at those prices, the "need" will be adjusted.  If the actual designers complain about having to search 37 pages to find something remotely acceptable - well they're just whining because it cuts into their Facebook time.

[PixelBytes]

If I tell a friend I'm making a few bucks from stock photography, the reaction is "Cool!" and they want to know more about it.  When I get to the 30 cent part, there's that embarrassed little pause - oops, I'm just a pathetic wannabe.  They change the subject...

I do the same thing - downplay what I make in stock photography to people.  I don't feel like a pathetic wannabe though. 

I emphasize the low per sale price on purpose for two reasons - to prospective photographers it convinces them it isn't worth bothering to submit, and to prospective models it explains why I "can't afford" to pay them (of course I pay the ones who are repeat models and actually make me money, but not first timers no matter who they are).

Last thing I want anyone knowing is that there is real money to be made in this racket. 

I will still happily take the total of my monthly micro earnings over the sporadic $400 sale any day.

[stockastic]

PixelBytes, go for it.

I don't know any other stock photographers I could discourage, or any good-looking young people I could mislead.  So to me, 30 cents is still just 30 cents.  Whoops it just went to 25 cents.

[willie]

I do the same thing - downplay what I make in stock photography to people.  I don't feel like a pathetic wannabe though. 

I emphasize the low per sale price on purpose for two reasons - to prospective photographers it convinces them it isn't worth bothering to submit, and to prospective models it explains why I "can't afford" to pay them (of course I pay the ones who are repeat models and actually make me money, but not first timers no matter who they are).

Last thing I want anyone knowing is that there is real money to be made in this racket. 

I will still happily take the total of my monthly micro earnings over the sporadic $400 sale any day.

But that's just it, isn't it?  We assume that the gallery sales is sporadic, as we know the attraction of stable earning from micro.
Could also be the same with the gallery photographer trying to discourage prospective gallery photographers by telling "wannabees" that the earnings on selling gallery prints is in fact "sporadic".

PixelBytes, go for it.

I don't know any other stock photographers I could discourage, or any good-looking young people I could mislead.  So to me, 30 cents is still just 30 cents.  Whoops it just went to 25 cents.

Yes, that's just it ! The more we convince ourselves that there is no other way to make money,
the happier the stock sites are going to be. They know not too many of us will actually take the chance to leave . So the commissions get lower and lower every single day.

It's much like the indian story of the little elephant, you know? How it was tied to a chain when it was tiny . It was conditioned to believe it won't be set free. By the time this tiny elephant becomes a giant adult, the chain is replaced by a rope . This giant still believes it cannot be free and the indigenous owner has the elephant to use at his own expense all day long pulling logs . The elephant is satisfied and grateful to the master for a few feeds of bananas.

Sounds familiar? Doesn't it?

[NitorPhoto]

If I had to choose between those 400USDs every second Christmas and my daily income from stock... well what do think?

[stockastic]

well what do think?

I'd like to think that a reasonable price could be found somewhere between $400 and 30 cents, and it would be not very close to either.   

[Phil]

I do the same thing - downplay what I make in stock photography to people.  I don't feel like a pathetic wannabe though. 

I emphasize the low per sale price on purpose for two reasons - to prospective photographers it convinces them it isn't worth bothering to submit, and to prospective models it explains why I "can't afford" to pay them (of course I pay the ones who are repeat models and actually make me money, but not first timers no matter who they are).

Last thing I want anyone knowing is that there is real money to be made in this racket. 

I will still happily take the total of my monthly micro earnings over the sporadic $400 sale any day.

But that's just it, isn't it?  We assume that the gallery sales is sporadic, as we know the attraction of stable earning from micro.
Could also be the same with the gallery photographer trying to discourage prospective gallery photographers by telling "wannabees" that the earnings on selling gallery prints is in fact "sporadic".

PixelBytes, go for it.

I don't know any other stock photographers I could discourage, or any good-looking young people I could mislead.  So to me, 30 cents is still just 30 cents.  Whoops it just went to 25 cents.

Yes, that's just it ! The more we convince ourselves that there is no other way to make money,
the happier the stock sites are going to be. They know not too many of us will actually take the chance to leave . So the commissions get lower and lower every single day.

It's much like the indian story of the little elephant, you know? How it was tied to a chain when it was tiny . It was conditioned to believe it won't be set free. By the time this tiny elephant becomes a giant adult, the chain is replaced by a rope . This giant still believes it cannot be free and the indigenous owner has the elephant to use at his own expense all day long pulling logs . The elephant is satisfied and grateful to the master for a few feeds of bananas.

Sounds familiar? Doesn't it?

nice analogy

[Phil]

I spoke to a guy selling prints at the markets. he sold framed and unframed ranging from about $100 for small up to about $500.

Chatting for a few minutes told me he doesnt sell much and has cost of the stall, printing etc so really doesn't make much but it's only a sideline and it gets him out and he likes talking to people

Chatted a fair while longer and it comes out that I live in interstate etc (and obvisously wouldnt in competition) and it comes out that he sells 2-3 large prints a week and a range of small ones. He also gets his printing done in bulk when it is on special and most of the frames come from discount stores and clearances basically he's making a minimum $1000 a week and does it full time not what he said to start with

he also said what sells is local stuff to local people, the local historic buildings, local beach etc. Basically what the postcards for the area show. He had some images from popular tourist spots that sold occassionally with the persons story of what they did while they were there  

[stockastic]

Phil, interesting post.  Yes I believe that "think local" is part of the answer.  There is always a market for high quality shots of local landmarks, if done with a bit of imagination or a new twist.

[puravida]

hey, cool, and so awesome to see this discussion growing more and more insightful.
i realise that there is a sector of  closed minds as well as the other that sees this as an option.
we can debate all we want until the cows come home, and neither side will change their opinions. which is all fine with me, as discussion is healthy.
touching base on the side of the gallery photographers. here' s another part which came about with , like phil, chatting with them. 

we discussed the promise of stock photography. i even exclaim how a good stock photographer would be able to make $135K a year. and at level best, at least 25K annually.
naturally , it would profit me (ulterior motives, yes), to get some of these photographers to join stock as my affliates.

now, here's the irony. not one , to date, has taken on this "bait and switch".
yes, they have heard about SS, IS, DT, etc.. but no, they are not interested in trying out micro stock.
"even if you could end up making lots more than selling prints locally?", i asked.
"even if I could end up making lots more than selling prints locally. " was the answer i got.

conclusion:
not everyone thinks there's a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow.

hey, thx all for the participaction. so wonderful to hear from all of you.

 

[travelstock]

I'm traveling the world on my $0.38 downloads... I wouldn't be able to do that by selling gallery prints The key is that the downloads add up to a regular source of income. 

[Adeptris]

Is this one selling method against the other, what about both, where you market an image can differ, if you have the time to research the local image market to see what sells as prints.

To setup your own exhibition or gallery is not cheap, some galleries will act as the agent display and sell for you, talking to local galleries would be a starting point, but with a realistic outlook as you would need to build your brand, the return would be lower to start.

If there is no interest or no local galleries and you feel the area has sales potential, then you may find other local businesses like street cafe bars might display a few 'signed limited edition' prints, on a sale or return commision only, this can be sold to the owners as adding an interest for their customers and a dynamic decor.   

Subjects as well as the images of local landmarks, I often see 'Arty' landscapes, still life and night shots of city centres.

It is a matter of the investment of money and time, if you have both spare then it could be another avenue to increase your overall sales, rather than looking to a replacement for an existing revenue stream.

David   

[willie]

I so agree, David.
To choose one or the other seems rather destructive to me.
One can still play both sides to their benefit.

The way I am planning is to take advantage of this current attractive niche market opportunity at this moment with gallery print sales. It also allows me to separate myself from micro and go with the artsy side of things .
Naturally, I make sure the gallery prints will never get into my micro portfolio, as that would make your buyers pretty irate when they find that your prints are going at sub prices as well.

There is no reason why a photographer cannot apply themselves to make generic images for micro, and at the same time still enjoy the gallery custom images market.

And if one goes better than expected, well, then you shift your attention and priority in that direction.
Furthermore, you free yourself from the stranglehold of micro and subs, and you're not going to be in a panic mode every single day wondering which site is going to pull stunt to do a * up your behind (to quote m@m, lol).

[graficallyminded]

This thread just inspired a blog post - thanks guys!  I have a hard time thinking up what to write about sometimes.  http://tinyurl.com/raknve

[Adeptris]

This thread just inspired a blog post - thanks guys!  I have a hard time thinking up what to write about sometimes.  http://tinyurl.com/raknve

There is a blogs section here, post a new topic there, an older topic may not get read as much as some viewers would have read this topic already and think it has run it's course.

Good Luck

David.

[Fran]

Naturally, I make sure the gallery prints will never get into my micro portfolio, as that would make your buyers pretty irate when they find that your prints are going at sub prices as well.

I see the point but I don't fully agree with it, since you are really selling a different product at different price point cause you are providing a different value.
In the first case you are selling a physical object, where you put your expertise into making a fine print, and this object is "unique" (let me use this term improperly) and can be hung on the wall to decorate a house, for example.
In the second case you are selling a digital file, that cannot be printed at high quality, and has very limited usage rights granted, thus the lower price.

I don't see any problem in selling the image in both places, since you are effectively selling a wildly different product. Surely, perception can be damaged though.

[nehbitski]

at least a venue to pay my information debt back to the people  

I held an exhibition in an art gallery and sold my photos in a foreign country upon invitation. It was for a cancer charity (the place was theirs, I  donated %50 of the income I made from selling prints) and held for a week. Photos were printed on A3 glossy paper and bound to "photo blocks" (which are a sheet of polypropilene to make it stay longer) and their expected lifetime is 1 to 2 years. I had approximately 30 photos on sale, which I sold 8 of them for a price between $150 and $200, total sum of first three days was $1400. That's really nice, because people knew that they are not going to last long. If I were to frame them and printed on fine art grade paper, I'd price accordingly. And they still would pay. There's no reason that you're not doing this. In the end the charity made $700 in three days and I did the same too. It was profitable for them, It was profitable for me too. If you can risk printing costs, It's a good thing to be an art photographer. though I'll admit fifteen minutes of fame at the opening is fun too   but you should know that "art"-more conservatively-"things pleasing to the eye" is very different from microstock.  I know there's an artsy side of microstock which you can bend the limits a little, I'm not talking about that. this is really a different scheme of mind. have a look at world's most expensive images. you'll be surprised. one of the photos which sold for $4.000.000+ is photo of a supermarket price tags which I really doubt if that could pass iphoto's selection. If you are to try this side of photography, do it with a little relaxed and untechnical attitude. when you are trying to nail the focus to the eye, usually you lose it. a blurry photo is no worse than a crystal sharp photo in the "art" world, may even be more valuable. I invite you to try it, it's so much more fun when you're not thinking about focus and cheaply smiling models   For me it's how I started photography and what I love most. be also aware that some galleries are really picky about what they exhibit, it's really ordinary to get a rejection. these gallery managers are here because they have different tastes than most. don't get insulted, it's just a little bald idiot nodding for myself I have occasionally have problems to get into a galleries(though, in fact I didn't get any exhibition in the near past, I was overloaded with schoolwork) and I am a 19 year old photographer which held an exhibition abroad, with 8 years of photography experience. they're truly, honestly, asses.

that's what I had to say.

burak

[TonyD]

I just came home from my local gallery where a co-op of photographers run their own gallery. While I was there, I chatted with this week's exhibitor about her experience as an artist, and my own as a stock photographer. And the end of a long  and insightful exchange of our own experience, and our common aspiration ie. passion in photography, we were interrupted by a couple who asked the exhibitor if they could see her on one of her exhibits. As I was browsing around in the meantime, I overheard the couple arranging to buy one of her exhibits. Not the original one on the wall, but a copy . Priced - $400 .

As I left , I couldn't help asking the exhibitor why a buyer would pay her $400, while another buyer would pay us "stock photographer" 30 cents. Her insightful response was , "I suppose because they (the couple) know I won't be selling it for less than 400 dollars, and the buyer of your stock photos know that they can buy it for much less.".

This profound answer made me think about our "career" as stock photographers.
We have heard that during this recession, no one has the money to pay us the highest price of stock photography. Yet, someone just paid this lady $400 for her photograph. There is a recession here in my city as well, and the couple I am sure is not an alien who is immuned to the recession.
 
I suppose she is right. Why would anyone want NOT to pay $400 for our photograph? When they know we will sell it for 30 cents.

Something to think about, the next time we call ourselves proudly "stock photographers".

[Noedelhap]

This thread is so ancient, $400 then is worth $575 now.

(And 30 cents then is now worth 10 cents on SS.)

[blvdone]

2 totally different animals and business models.  Art photos would do poorly as stock photos while stock photos making over $10,000 would do poorly as art photos.  Nobody wants to frame a popular stock photo and hang on a wall while art photos have very little use as stock photos. Art photos are for passion/hobby.  Stock photos are for money.  Just found out this original post was from 2009.  I hear stock photographers back then were making 10x money than now at least. 

[DiscreetDuck]

Andreas Gursky, sold for : 4 338 500 dollars
My walls are so happy that I'm not a billionaire   

[StockCreator]

This thread is so ancient, $400 then is worth $575 now.

(And 30 cents then is now worth 10 cents on SS.)

I think it's more like the regulation of each platforms (I wonder if it applies with digital products) and other factors that changes the value of the stock photos. T
he number of users that generates the content may also included on those price factors?

But the $175 increase on the gallery photos is quite slow huh?