Brian
Thank you and these are scheduled to go on display in March. I will have these printed 18x27 inches to exaggerate the size of these 5/8th inch tall figures. I only use the boardroom/office reference as an example since these images are based on hi-tech terms.
I think we are saying the same thing. Selling a piece through a stock site for postcards or greeting cards is one thing, but selling a full size JPG and having the buyer offer full size art prints at bargain basement prices will only hurt the photographer. So limiting the use in a license agreement would be important, but is it common practice?
And thanks for the advice on my site. I was planning on cleaning up before the showing. It was mainly a place to share images with family and friends, but now it's getting more serious.
Don
From: Brian Yarvin <brian@brianyarvin.com>
To: selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: Selling Stock Photography Re: The VALUE of images? Warning: Philosophical Rant
To: selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: Selling Stock Photography Re: The VALUE of images? Warning: Philosophical Rant
> So an image that might be both is a series I'm working on. It could have value in
> high tech but could also hang on a corporate wall.
> http://www.turriaga.com/Possibilities%20for%20March%202012%20Art%20Show%20-%20A%20
> Small%20Project/index.html
Don:
I don't know about a corporate wall, but certainly, a gallery wall. This is a very facinating set
of images! I'd love to know what sort of response you'd get at a fine art portfolio review event
with well-crafted prints of these. I can easily imagine the right execution commanding a
serious price in a New York gallery.
> Some lifestyle image might fit this as well, but it´s an exception and not the
> rule. Still I think you would want to avoid someone from paying $10 from a micro
> stock site to start selling prints of your work for a profit. Why would someone
> want to pay you a premium for an art print when they could it for pennies on the
> dollar?
I don't get this line of reasoning at all. Certainly, the world's most valuable works sell as
postcards for a dollar or two, it doesn't erode their value at all. If your circuit and plastic figure
prints sell for ten or fifteen grand each in a New York or London gallery, they will almost
certainly give postcards away for free and that won't affect price. Indeed, hi-res files of
valuable photos are easily available and it has no effect on value.
Being associated with stock photography could well look bad in the art world, but I doubt that
the price of individual sales will impact your image at all. From their point of view, commercial
is commercial.
> I´m going to avoid stock sites for now. I just don´t see the upside of going that
> direction at all. Angie sold an image for $1,500.00 and I´m sure that was not
> through a "micro stock site". So how many micro images in a year would it take to
> make that up in stock sales? Don
Don, your odds of making fifteen hundred dollar sales are very slim on any stock site, just as
the odds of you getting a big gallery show are, but with work like that, I'd do more exploring. I
really love those photos.
BTW...if you want to make an impression in either the art or stock world; get rid of all those
walk around travel shots that surround your still life/conceptual images, they're the kiss of
death in either case.
Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
> high tech but could also hang on a corporate wall.
> http://www.turriaga.com/Possibilities%20for%20March%202012%20Art%20Show%20-%20A%20
> Small%20Project/index.html
Don:
I don't know about a corporate wall, but certainly, a gallery wall. This is a very facinating set
of images! I'd love to know what sort of response you'd get at a fine art portfolio review event
with well-crafted prints of these. I can easily imagine the right execution commanding a
serious price in a New York gallery.
> Some lifestyle image might fit this as well, but it´s an exception and not the
> rule. Still I think you would want to avoid someone from paying $10 from a micro
> stock site to start selling prints of your work for a profit. Why would someone
> want to pay you a premium for an art print when they could it for pennies on the
> dollar?
I don't get this line of reasoning at all. Certainly, the world's most valuable works sell as
postcards for a dollar or two, it doesn't erode their value at all. If your circuit and plastic figure
prints sell for ten or fifteen grand each in a New York or London gallery, they will almost
certainly give postcards away for free and that won't affect price. Indeed, hi-res files of
valuable photos are easily available and it has no effect on value.
Being associated with stock photography could well look bad in the art world, but I doubt that
the price of individual sales will impact your image at all. From their point of view, commercial
is commercial.
> I´m going to avoid stock sites for now. I just don´t see the upside of going that
> direction at all. Angie sold an image for $1,500.00 and I´m sure that was not
> through a "micro stock site". So how many micro images in a year would it take to
> make that up in stock sales? Don
Don, your odds of making fifteen hundred dollar sales are very slim on any stock site, just as
the odds of you getting a big gallery show are, but with work like that, I'd do more exploring. I
really love those photos.
BTW...if you want to make an impression in either the art or stock world; get rid of all those
walk around travel shots that surround your still life/conceptual images, they're the kiss of
death in either case.
Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
0 comments:
Post a Comment