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

[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?