Other ways of making money > Print on Demand Forum
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 Giclée 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 Giclée 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:
--- Quote from: Phil on July 27, 2009, 00:19 ---$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
--- End quote ---
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? "
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version