Who buy these nature photos?

For example, see <a

href="http://www.naturephotosonline.com/npo_sub_full_horiz.asp?

ID=2537&PID=62&txtSearchCriteria=&CON=&PLN=&PFN=&CAT=Insects&ORN=&RPP=

9&KEY=0&DP=3">this one</a>.

 

 

I'm just curious who could be potential buyers of such photos at

these prices.

I guess I have to wonder the same thing. I sell a reasonable number of prints of my nature photos, most of which can be seen in my folders here on photo.net, for $95 each. However, my archival prints (Epson 2200 on Watercolor paper) are sold conservation matted and framed behind regular glass. If he sells many prints like the example above, I think it's time I raised my prices and set up a website to start the money rolling in with much less effort on my part!

Geeze, if THAT stuff sells I'd better go thru all those old slides that are residing in boxes in the garage!! Yeah, who'd be dumb enough to pay money for photos like that?

It's an unremarkable photo at a remarkable price, and unless that's an extremely rare butterfly, I cannot imagine anyone buying it.

Remember that everybody can put up pictures for sale, even

if the chance of selling it is less than being struck by lighting.

I think that's right. An image is worth what you can actually get someone to pay for it, not the price the photographer is asking.

 

I could advertise my used but mint condition EOS-3 with attached booster for $1500. It doesn't mean anyone will pay it or that there are any potential buyers out there at that price (but if there are, please contact me!!!).

 

The other alternative is that the photographer is a "name" who is collected (not the case here). In that situation you can ask sky-high prices for mediocre work, and you can sometimes get it. Doesn't usually apply to nature photos though. Wildlife isn't "art" in the collectible sense. You stand a chance with landscapes if your name is Ansel Adams though...

I would not be optimistic on this one. Sorry I cannot be more encouraging.

 

The problem is that the image lacks the focus on the subject, and does not provide the rich, iridescent detail that a fine art print would demand in this case. Frankly, if there was much less sand, and much more butterfly, it might be different. But, as you can see, butterfly shots (see one of mine here) are a dime a dozen and you have to make it worth the buyer's while--compared to other options. But, don't get discouraged. Selling fine art prints is a SELL as much as ART and you can't do it without both in abundance. Sincerely, best of luck!<div></div>

Is that Velvia, Nathan? The saturation is fantastical!

Hi Andrew.

 

Yep. Vel-vee-ta! My favorite cheesy material.

 

:-)

Did any of you guys look at the whole site it's a collection of Photographers offering a lot of different photo's for sale go back and cut to the home page. It's not just this one soso butterfly photo.

I don't understand your question... why do you ask? What's the purpose? How will it help you with your photography? (that's why we have these discussions, isn't it?)

> why do you ask? -- Jeffrey Rodgers

 

Simply because I am curious to know exactly what kind of buyers would be willing to pay that kind of money for photos like this. Hope it is clear now.

 

Mark, yes -- that site has a number of photos up for sale for example some great work by Rod Plank. But there are quite a few photos which are mediocre to my eyes. All of them are priced at the same. Makes me wonder why.

Arnab, when you set up a large site to sell photos, you don't

price them individually. You just set a uniform price. On a large

site (<a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com">mine</a> is no

exception),

some photos are bound to be better than others. Doing

too much selection can be counterproductive because

tastes differ, although one should certainly have a minimum

standard.

Arnab,

 

When you give a specific example--which you did-- you get a specific response. Please, our time is meant to be helpful, but we don't want it wasted, either.

 

The question you now APPEAR to be asking is: who buys photos from a communal site? The answer is: those who have been specifically guided to it by the photographer.

 

In my speculation, few sales are made through unsolicited views through this type of vehicle. But don't blame the web site--it provides a DELIVERY mechanism and that's only as helpful as the marketing and sales effort--which the photographer should provide.

 

Thoreau's Walden has a wonderful allegory about the Indian who came to houses in Concord to sell his wonderful, hand made baskets. His expectation was that he had kept up his part by making them, and making them well. Now it was up to others to make the effort to buy them.

 

This is a common fantasy among artists.

 

If the world worked that way, Thomas Kincaide would be another sidewalk artist and Ansel Adams would be getting 2's and 3's on ratings on PN.

Nathan, I can guess there might be some difficulty in making the right interpretation of my question.

 

Asked bluntly: I am curious if there are any buyers at all for such mediocre pictures as the example posted (at that, or any, serious kind of price). If yes, I (and probably a number of other people) would throw away less slides as non-keepers, going forward.

Answered directly: IMO, there are two photos in the series shown which have commercial merit and may, accidentally, stumble on an occasional sale without marketing efforts. The remainder--especially the first one as shown--would not have any commercial value as fine art prints or stock images. Again, my opinion.

 

The barrier of entry in nature sales is very low from the point of view of high quality images. Less than high quality images don't make it. Most high quality ones never do either--because of a far higher entry barrier in sales and marketing.

 

People buy nature fine art prints based on marketing efforts (such as recognition through books; magazines; and lectures)and/or gallery store presentations. The so-called 'silent mentors' of Galen Rowell; Art Wolfe; David Muensch; and so on have huge marketing presence--which in the case of Rowell extends far beyond his tragic and untimely demise. These are great photographers, but we see this level of quality and higher, on a daily basis on PN.

 

Hope this helps. Cheers

Arnab, there is a lot of competition in the nature image market. I am sure most mediocre images won't sell all that well unless it happens to be a rare butterfly, rare bird, etc. or the photographer happens to be a celebrity. (E.g., if somehow Bob Atkins becomes famous, someone might indeed buy his used EOS 3 for $1500 just because it was used by Bob.) I can advertise any one of my images for $1000 too. Most likely I won't even sell one.

 

However, if you really want to know how well a particular image sells, you should check with the owner (usually the photographer) of that image. Whether you want to do that or not is another issue, but who else would know?

<em>I am curious if there are any buyers at all for such mediocre pictures as the example posted </em>

<p>

Sure. Out of 200 million people, you might get one or two, if they were in the right mood and happened to stuble on such work.

<p>

It's a bit like the lottery. You have to play to win. However your chances of winning are probably about the same in either case.

<p>

I've seen pretty poor work displayed in craft stores and on sale at craft fairs. Presumably, if there was NO chance of selling it, these people wouldn't waste their time. Few people go broke by underestimating the public's taste.

<p><i>If yes, I (and probably a number of other people) would throw away less

slides as non-keepers, going forward.</i></p>

<p>Arnab, much depends on what you're in it for. If you're a photographer purely

looking to make money and you'd be happy selling mediocre work, then by all means

keep those sub-standard shots that you ordinarily wouldn't keep.</p>

<p>Personally, as well as being something of a perfectionist in my everyday work

(web design) I'm a photographer for the love of the craft and the medium and I

couldn't stomach selling or marketing an image I felt was a mediocre or below the

standards I set myself.</p>

<p>Regarding the image you used for reference, it may be that the photographer

feels that this butterfly image <b>is</b> a great image. If being part of online photo

communities has taught me anything it is that there are an awful lot of people posting

incredibly ordinary images without knowing how far short of great photography they

are falling. It's all subjective so there is equal chance that such a photographer could

find someone willing to pay such a price for mediocrity.</p>

I'm with Lyndon.

 

I wouldn't have anything like that with my name next to it. looks

like this one either slipped through the photo editors review or

they just don't care too much about what they stock.

 

You can go through your old stuff and pull out your "B" shots, but

would you want them associated with your name? I don't think

so. I don't even show my "A" shots to anyone. It's "A+" or nothing.

I'm ruthless when it comes to rating photos, and double that

standard with my own.

 

When someone walks into my gallery I want them to be blown

away with every image. I never want to here, "Oh that ones OK,

you got any others?"

 

My gallery has been open for just three months and I have sold

the above image 6 times and have made over $4000 with it. All of

my other photo's are doing well too.

 

If the photo's attached to your name, it's gotta rock... or people

won't give your work the time of day.

 

Be ruthless, edit, edit, edit. Then only show your A+ work. Even if

you only get one a year. At least you know you won't be adding to

the glut of bad photos out there.

 

FYI... I'm averaging an A+ about every other month. About 6-8 a

year. I'm a creative director for my real job, so I'm very aware of

what I'm looking for in an image... and that's emotion. If it doesn't

have it, it won't sell.<div></div>

BTW, I throw away 90+ percent of slides, depending on the outcome of the shoot.(This really bothers the local photo stores when I use them, as I usually come in with a Shneider loupe; pick out the good ones, and give then the rest to bag out (LEAVE ONLY FOOTPRINTS!).

 

There are 'keepers'; there are 'basket cases'(as in waste basket); and there are 'maybes'. Maybes convert to one or the other remaining categories within one year. My keepers are scanned, and then put into archival slide boxes, followed by a safe deposit box.

 

I rate sessions as: 'dog meat'; 'copyright building'; and 'grand slams'. I get about 2 dog meats a year, 4-10 copyright builders, and a grand slam or two every 18 months or so. A recent trip to Arches was a copyright builder; one to Banff was one also; one to Glacier was a g.s. Any session with over 6 keepers is a g.s. My best g.s. was a snowy day at foliage peak, in Oct 2001. Probably send my kid to college on that one.

 

I no longer do sales of stock by providing slides. TIF's, TIF's TIF's.

 

Slides are quaint; they are raw data. They are no longer an end unto themselves. Be merciless in chucking them out save as a backup to your best work.

 

Or convert to a digicamera.

OK - well, here's a related question, and one maybe better for another one of photo.net's forums: WHo buys stock photography, and how do you start?