best way to market pics ...
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: David Ruether on 28 Jun 2010 18:40 "John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:p8vh26hgammk7imntf9sekrrvc051gorid(a)4ax.com... > 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. ;) > -- > Best regards, > John So far as I know (and have seen), most photos sold as "art" work are signed... --DR
From: J. Clarke on 28 Jun 2010 18:47 On 6/28/2010 4:36 PM, Dudley Hanks wrote: > "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 Far as I'm concerned there's nothing wrong with playing the market for all it will bear. A thread on another newsgroup told of panhandlers making 300 a day, and their disabilities were feigned, not real. Artistic merit and marketability are not always the same. One suspects that a painter of velvet Elvises makes more per year than your average fine artist who won't be "discovered" until 20 years after he's dead.
From: John McWilliams on 28 Jun 2010 19:11 David Ruether wrote: > "Kyle Abhams" <where(a)what.net> wrote in message > news:4tvh265g0776f6nh0re82uupammnkfjmv5(a)4ax.com... > > Hmmm.... Oh, yuh - now I remember what I was going to do! > <PLONK!> Public plonking of our pet produces for him pure pleasure, and propels him to pop into another nym. Best not reply - ever. -- John McWilliams
From: John Navas on 28 Jun 2010 19:47 On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:40:52 -0400, in <i0b8dk$ld9$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: >"John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:p8vh26hgammk7imntf9sekrrvc051gorid(a)4ax.com... >> 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. ;) >So far as I know (and have seen), most photos sold as "art" work >are signed... That depends on the definition of "art". I was referring to low end stuff. I'm guessing you're not. As I wrote back at the beginning, "signed if you're famous; unsigned if you're not". -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Peter on 28 Jun 2010 20:57
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:u0UVn.8082$z%6.7843(a)edtnps83... > While my pics aren't exactly masterpieces, and I've got a long way to go > till I'm happy with what I produce, I'm getting close to "technically" > acceptable shots. > > With that in mind, I'm starting to think about doing a shoot or two > specifically with sales in mind. > > Anybody out there with insight as to the most effective way to market / > sell semi-artistic prints, either locally or over the net... > > All info appreciated. > Hard work and an investment. Not being funny. You are unknown as a photographer. I would work at local craft fairs. Try to take shots of the area in which the fair is held, or of a theme generic to the fair. Have prints ready in different sizes and price them accordingly. You have to research the gong rate for prints at the show you will try. You will be pleasantly surprised to find that other photographers are very sharing and will be happy to give you great tips. -- Peter |