best way to market pics ...
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Dudley Hanks on 28 Jun 2010 16:23 "bugbear" <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message news:-aGdne2InbndWrXRnZ2dnUVZ8oCunZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... > Dudley Hanks wrote: >> After all, someday, I'd love to be using one of >> the high-end cams instead of entry level ... :) > > What issues do you think a "high end cam" > would address for you? > > BugBear Two things in particular -- actually three: First, better and higher ISOspeeds, which would be indespensible given my situation. What vision I have works best in low-light environments, with a dark background and a contrasting subject. The reverse can work, but is not ideal. The better the cam can pick up low-light scenes, the more it would enable me to get the composition closer to how I want the final image. The high ISO of the Nikon D3 in particular really would help, ditto for the Canon 5D2... Second, larger sensor sizes would enable larger prints. And, of course, better lense quality would make those larger prints crisper still. Third, tougher build quality would help the cam survive the beating I put them through... There are other reasons, as well, but not quite as critical. Faster burst modes would help increase the number of keepers I shoot, especially in action situations. I'm no different than a sighted shooter in this respect. The more shots one can squeeze off in that heated moment when the puck's squirting around the net, the more likely one is to get just the right combination of elements. The better low-light performance would allow me to shoot in environments where I'd most likely be able to read enough of the cam's display to use it's light meter in manual mode, which would significantly add to the creative effects I could strive for. The better HDR performance would do a more consistent job of capturing the images I conceive. The more comprehensive EXIF data accompanying the images would give me more useable feedback about the images I've taken, which would make it easier for me to make future adjustments based on what does and does not work. etc... Take Care, Dudley
From: Dudley Hanks on 28 Jun 2010 16:33 "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message news:i0ash7$6ll$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu... > > "John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message > news:ejoh26llf52koifhnce18o521ka7ledshq(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:24:01 GMT, in <5g2Wn.7918$Z6.7376(a)edtnps82>, >> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >>>Just curious, do you think pics sell better signed or unsigned? > >> Signed if you're famous; unsigned if you're not. >> -- >> Best regards, >> John > > I think most purchasers of photographs intend them as art, and they > also may wish for the possibility of value appreciation (even if that is > unlikely for most photographs, and a poor reason for buying one...;-). > So, the answer is to sign the photographs you sell - it takes but a > moment to do and it may increase the value to buyers... > --DR > The reason I ask is because, back when I had enough sight to do freelance work, I was young and naive enough to work on a simple shoot and sell principle. I mainly shot news events and concerts, so I'd approach the promoter / publicist, and submit a proposal. If approved, I'd either shoot the event and pass over the negs, or shoot, develop the negs and prints requested, and hand everything over. It was all commercial, so nothing was ever signed, except the contract. Given I'm not likely to land that type of work, now, I'm looking at the more traditional amateur market, and I've only a limited understanding of what works in markets, galleries, etc. My first impression was summed up niceley by John, but that doesn't quite cover the whole story. There's still the matter of whether one signs the front, where it's always visible, or the back where it is there but doesn't detract from / interfere with the actual image. Of course, one could also sign the matt, if provided, which would be destroyed if the print is ever remounted. Signing the back might be a good way to go for the first few attempts. Take care, Dudley
From: Dudley Hanks on 28 Jun 2010 16:36 "Kyle Abhams" <where(a)what.net> wrote in message news:4tvh265g0776f6nh0re82uupammnkfjmv5(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:11:30 -0400, "David Ruether" > <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > >>But, several local photographers are fairly successful >>either maintaining a weekly booth at the Farmers Market for direct >>sales, or setting up booths at various events, like the yearly music >>festival, apple-harvest, chili-tasting, art-sale, etc. > > This would be his best bet. Those that felt pity for the "blind > photographer" sitting alongside his snapshots would buy his "art" out of > guilt. Making sure he is sitting there with dog and white-cane at all > times > to get that message across. Not one of his snapshots would sell on their > merits alone. A bit like buying a Parkinson's-afflicted scribbling from > someone in a wheelchair at the park who looks like he needs a meal. > Ah, more company for Jane, Jeff, and John ... LOL Take Care, Dudley
From: Dudley Hanks on 28 Jun 2010 16:39 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:201006281313106752-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-06-28 12:53:08 -0700, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> said: > >> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:17:58 -0400, in >> <i0ash7$6ll$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, "David Ruether" >> <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> "John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >>> news:ejoh26llf52koifhnce18o521ka7ledshq(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:24:01 GMT, in <5g2Wn.7918$Z6.7376(a)edtnps82>, >>>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >>> >>>>> Just curious, do you think pics sell better signed or unsigned? >>> >>>> Signed if you're famous; unsigned if you're not. >> >>> I think most purchasers of photographs intend them as art, and they >>> also may wish for the possibility of value appreciation (even if that is >>> unlikely for most photographs, and a poor reason for buying one...;-). >>> So, the answer is to sign the photographs you sell - it takes but a >>> moment to do and it may increase the value to buyers... >> >> Then why do you suppose most art photographs sold have no signature? >> Are they all missing a great opportunity? Sellers could sign them and >> the buyers wouldn't even know the difference. ;) > > My understanding regarding prints (photographs and other fine art prints), > and limited edition prints, is to number the matte "1 of 50" "10 of 60" > "35 of 100" or such, and initial, sign, or appropriately emboss the matte > next to the number. > > -- > Regards, > > Savageduck > Ah, that sounds like a good way to start... Take Care, Dudley
From: Kyle Abhams on 28 Jun 2010 16:54
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:23:16 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >"bugbear" <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message >news:-aGdne2InbndWrXRnZ2dnUVZ8oCunZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk... >> Dudley Hanks wrote: >>> After all, someday, I'd love to be using one of >>> the high-end cams instead of entry level ... :) >> >> What issues do you think a "high end cam" >> would address for you? >> >> BugBear > >Two things in particular -- actually three: > >First, better and higher ISOspeeds, which would be indespensible given my >situation. > >What vision I have works best in low-light environments, with a dark >background and a contrasting subject. The reverse can work, but is not >ideal. The better the cam can pick up low-light scenes, the more it would >enable me to get the composition closer to how I want the final image. The >high ISO of the Nikon D3 in particular really would help, ditto for the >Canon 5D2... How can you get the composition better when you can't even get any composition now with any camera? You won't have any brighter image in the viewfinder so that's not going to help. Unlike P&S cameras where dialing in a high ISO does increase the brightness in the viewfinder. > >Second, larger sensor sizes would enable larger prints. And, of course, >better lense quality would make those larger prints crisper still. A useless need. You need to be able to properly focus a camera before you can make larger prints with it. You might as well use any upsampling algorithm, even a crusty linear upsampling algorithm would suffice in your case. Because everything is blurry or so badly composed nobody would notice if it was upsampled anyway. A better camera and lens is NOT going to make YOUR images crisper. In fact, it will only make them worse. Better optics require even better focusing ability. Better optics will only reveal YOUR limitations even more than any cameras you have now. > >Third, tougher build quality would help the cam survive the beating I put >them through... Expensive doesn't mean more durable. Get a Fisher-Price "Tough Kids Cam" and see how that works out for you. > >There are other reasons, as well, but not quite as critical. > >Faster burst modes would help increase the number of keepers I shoot, >especially in action situations. I'm no different than a sighted shooter in >this respect. The more shots one can squeeze off in that heated moment when >the puck's squirting around the net, the more likely one is to get just the >right combination of elements. Great, so instead of 100 photos for someone else to have to pick through to find one that *might* be usable to any degree, now you're going to make them suffer through 10,000 random shots to find one for you. How nice of you. Just spread that desperation of yours around even more automatically, making others do all your photography work for you. If I was any of those people that you are manipulating into picking out photos from your random dreck, I'd do everything in my power to prevent you from getting a camera with a higher burst rate. It only means more time wasted and more work for everyone else. You do realize that other people's lives and what they do with their time are just as, if not more, important than your own life, don't you? You sure don't act like it. The rest isn't even worth commenting on. You'll never figure it out anyway. > >The better low-light performance would allow me to shoot in environments >where I'd most likely be able to read enough of the cam's display to use >it's light meter in manual mode, which would significantly add to the >creative effects I could strive for. > >The better HDR performance would do a more consistent job of capturing the >images I conceive. > >The more comprehensive EXIF data accompanying the images would give me more >useable feedback about the images I've taken, which would make it easier for >me to make future adjustments based on what does and does not work. > >etc... > >Take Care, >Dudley > |