How to start business selling large poster photos

[steven_keelan]

<p>Hello fellow hotops, I am putting together a business......taking pictures, printing the pictures on posters, and then selling them to different venues. I have done my rsearch, but know that more is better than me...so<br>

What business package would you put together for under $2000, Comprising of a camara, printer, and paper type. This is art to be possibly placed in galleries. Prints up to 20in x 30in. </p>

[western_isles]

<p>Can you clarify what experience you have on large format cameras? Large format are the ultimate in quality but difficult to get to grips with especially for someone just starting out or if you have limited or no experience of them. Or worse, if your only experience is digital, it will require a whole new mind set. </p>

<p>In the UK you could easily spend about £750 (approx $US 1,000) on a camera body. A printer could be the same and then you would have to factor in your other costs such as lens', travel expenses to location or studio costs, processing costs and availability.</p>

<p>I recently sold a medium format Mamiya 7 camera and standard lens for about $US 1,000 so that will give you a rough idea.</p>

<p>More information will help. </p>

 

[steven_keelan]

<p>it is very unfortunate that the only experience i have is with digital camaras, is there such a digital camara that can produce poster rich prints?</p>

[lwg]

<p>Steven, it sounds like you might be confusing the Large Format forum, which is for discussion about large format cameras (view cameras using sheet film), with a forum about printing large. Any 4x5 camera with a quality lens will easily make a 20x30 print of very high quality. But you will need to either get the film scanned on a decent scanner, or have them printed on an enlarger (hard to find the service locally in most places).</p>

<p>As far a digital camera to print 20x30, I think the D800 is the best option in an a reasonably priced DSLR, but it exceeds your budget by $1000 (and no lenses). I don't think you can get everything you want for $2000 and still have very high quality prints. Others here will disagree, but you will probably spend over $2K on a decent 24" printer alone. You could send the prints out. This may cost more in the long run, but would let you get up and running for less of an investment.</p>

<p>But before spending the money on a camera and printer, are you sure you can produce the images that people will want to buy at that size? </p>

[danny_o]

<p>When I was young, I had "mastered" the art of developing film (35mm) from my new Zenit camera, and I had taught myself to print and develop prints from these negatives.<br>

A poor boy from a factory town,<br>

I felt encouraged and honoured when, after having offered my services to his studio, I was rejected by Yousef Karsh. The master had, at least, answered.<br>

What is it that you want to accomplish?<br>

You remind me of my lost dreams, when, in a simpler time, there was a possibility. That time is long past, I believe, but I may be (and hope) I'm wrong.<br>

Don't put your faith on your equipment. Believe in your own vision.<br>

If you can see it happening, any camera will serve. If you didn't have a camera when it happened, write the picture, or draw it.</p>

 

[mike_earussi1]

<p>What you need is the highest resolution chip you can get for the money. This would be (AFAIK) the Nikon D3200 which has a 24 mp chip and runs around $600 with kit lens:<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-NIKKOR/dp/B007VGGFZU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1357478483&sr=8-2&keywords=nikon+3200%5C">http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-NIKKOR/dp/B007VGGFZU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1357478483&sr=8-2&keywords=nikon+3200%5C</a></p>

<p>I prefer to use the same chip but in a different body, so I own the NEX 7 as this body enables me to use all the old manual focus glass which is of very high quality and can be bought for very little money compared to modern AF lenses. But even used the NEX 7 can run around $700 so, for you, the Nikon D3200 might be better. But if you <em>can </em>afford the NEX 7 it will produce slightly sharper prints as it has a weaker AA filter than the Nikon D3200. But either of these cameras, coupled with the pano stitching I mentioned in your other post, will produce all the quality you'll need.</p>

<p>For printing, if you're in the U.S., then Costco is the best way to go, as they only charge $9 for a 20x30, far less than what you can produce on your own--and their quality is quite good. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>What you need is the highest resolution chip you can get for the money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

No, you just need a camera that produces a good output and a knowledge of how to prepare images for printing.. I do 20x30 prints for exhibition (three different exhibitions now with them) from an 11.3MP camera. They've been seen by lots of people, including photographers, and not one person has commented that there were quality problems.</p>

[steven_keelan]

<p>Thank you guys for your responses.... i have compiled your thoughts on the camara type, and i will make a decision. But, with the prints.......i have seen an HP printer around $3K to print these posters i have proposed printing my pictures on. The comment about a $9 print at costco... ah.....that seems a little high to pass the cost on to a patrion......yes it can be calculated, but the lower the cost the better for distribution, thats why i thought purchasing a printer my self might be the way to go. beside a gallery, i think i may distribute atleast a thousand priced at $20 per</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Oh, if only it was all as easy as Steven seems to think it is, to make money from photography...</p>

[steven_keelan]

<p>Keith, thank you ..... How easy it is to hear the word of God when you stand next to Christ.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Keith may have said it in a way that seems brutal, but it's on-target, based on what you've said here and on the other thread you started. I would recommend starting slow, spending your money on a camera and seeing what commercial interest there is in it. Otherwise, it sounds like money down the drain as far as a business goes.</p>

[Wayne Melia]

<p>Strikes me that a printer capable of making poster size prints may not be a wise investment in comparison to farming out the printing. BUT I have no experience in making posters.<br>

If people who do have experience, such as Jeff Spirer, above, (who consistently provides good advise in these forums), would chime in on this aspect, it would be valuable indeed. In particular, I would be suspect of inkjet printers which leave the pigments on the surface and subject damage from a multitude of sources.<br>

At some volume point I would think that offset printing would become much more cost effective? comments?</p>

 

[steven_keelan]

<p>Thanks Jeff, Wayne. and all others. ive considered writing a blog but have come to the conclusion that i can say more thru a picture and even say more in a conversation with the viewer in a forum. my pictures have meaning in the sense i am trying to teach knowledge.and question yourself. although this topic is subjective, i will surely not forget any one that has helped me in my labor and i hope to share my pictures with you all. i have a obtainable market and look forward to getting my pictures seen. thank you all.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Keith may have said it in a way that seems brutal</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It really wasn't meant to be brutal (and for the record, I don't think it was), but it was meant to make a very important point in a frank, albeit deliberately rather glib, way.</p>

<p>As most of us know, it's <em>not </em>simply a case of buying a few toys and the world falling at our feet; and it is just a little bit dismissive of (and dare I say it? insulting to) those photographers who have learned their trade and put the put in the leg work to build a viable business, for someone simply to rock up to a forum and imply that all he needs is the right camera and everything will come together, especially when it's so obvious from his questions that all that he's going to get <em>unless we're honest about his chances </em>is a great deal of expensive disappointment.</p>

<p>It's a bit like those (as you folk on the other side of the Atlantic call 'em) "<strong><a href="http://youarenotaphotographer.com/mwac-attack/">MWAC</a>s</strong>" who post on occasion: you know -"<em>I like babies and weddings so I'm going to start a photography business. What camera do I need?</em>" which posts are again <em>really </em>insulting to pros who have paid their dues.</p>

<p>The link above is a joke, but it's close to the truth of the thing.<br /> <br /> I also like the name<strong> "</strong><strong><a href="http://www.takeoffyourmommygoggles.com/consumers/what-is-a-fauxtographer-2/">Fauxtographer</a></strong><strong>":</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fauxtographers seem to think that all of the wisdom of the photographic universe was bestowed upon them when they opened up their DSLR on Christmas morning.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Steven, you say above that:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i can say more thru a picture and even say more in a conversation with the viewer in a forum. my pictures have meaning in the sense i am trying to teach knowledge. and question yourself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really do hope I'm wrong, but I <em>seriously</em> doubt that you can: everything you've written thus far suggests that you're <em>nowhere near</em> the skill level that you need to have acquired in order for these fine words to be true, and - sorry - there's a damn' sight more to provocative, communicative photography than vague aspirations and a high personal opinion of your work's worth.</p>

<p>Now I'm <em>not</em> a pro, and my subject matter isn't intended to "provoke" and "communicate" (unless seeing pictures of <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/rugby_blyth/hard_tackle_2.jpg">rugby players knocking lumps out of each other</a> does it for you - it's a crappy picture, but the guy in the green shirt likes it enough that he's asked for a print) but the point is I am a pretty competent photographer, and although I make the odd sale (some of my <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/gannet_bempton_c17_1400_2.jpg">bird</a> and <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/grey_seal_farnes_PN_1400_3.jpg">wildlife</a> images elicit a bit of interest now and again, and I've branched out into <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/caterham_croft_PN_1400_1a.jpg">motor sport</a>) I'm under no illusions whatsoever about the possibility that I could ever go pro.</p>

<p>It takes more than being able to take a half-decent picture, and even with what seems - note, <em>to others - </em>to be a pretty good portfolio of work, and at least a degree of respect for my efforts from pro photographers I look up to like <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nigelblake">Nigel Blake</a> and <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoff_simpson/">Geoff Simpson</a>, I know that being able to wave a camera around reasonably competently is only a tiny part of the business of "the business".</p>

<p>No offence (honestly. Call it "tough love"), but I'm not convinced by anything you've written so far that you can even say that about yourself: self praise is no recommendation I'm afraid, and I sincerely believe that you're deluding yourself about the viability of your "business plan".</p>

<p>Take this in the spirit it's intended, and feel free to prove me wrong.</p>

[steven_keelan]

<p>Kieth, iam glad to seethat you have come in to existence through photography. my intentions in posting my questions were very simple and that was to see which way the wind was blowing. my pictures are intended to be teaching aids in christian churches much like the skeleton in anatomyclass. i totally get what you are implying in my nievism in photogrpahy and my intentions to share my photos with my specific market. but i am more intrigued in the passion involved with your returns to me, thank you. you will be the first to recieve a picture aid. Thank you. i amvery aware of failure, but i am very capable of walking away after defeat. </p>

[ObiWon]

<p>Steve K<br>

I wish you well but I feel that printing your own could be the wrong move at this stage. My wife is a degree qualified designer, I was trained in photography way back when and we sell design prints that we create in A4 and A3 sizes. We have both an A4 and A3 high quality Epson Printers. Anything larger than A3 we farm out to a local print house. (Local for us is Swindon in the West Country of the UK) We also get volumes larger than around 20 prints of one Image printed by the same print house, along with more exotic prints like on canvass or triptych prints printed by them.<br>

So my advice is as follows. You can sell your images by showing them on a laptop or on the web. If you need to create big images then create them bit by bit and merge them with something like Hugin. We create some wall sized images for clients using just a standard Sony or Nikon SLR of around 12MP. A large image may take 30 or more discrete photos and I often use HDR techniques to extend the dynamic range. But you can do it. But beware it could take you several years and lots of grief before you can truly be a success.<br>

Jim</p>

[steven_keelan]

<p>Thank you , Jim. i am looking in to sub - ing out the printing right now matter of fact, so i appreciate your response and respect your opinion.</p>

[rmyers]

<p>If you want to print 20" x 30" prints, you need a printer that will print at least 20" wide. It is that simple. Epson makes one. Canon makes one. HP might make one. However, you might want one that prints wider in case you later discover that you want your posters to be bigger so they can be seen better from further away in which case you might want to look at the wider capacity printers from the same manufacturers. <br>

<br />Any modern, and many not so modern, DSLR cameras will work to make a poster of this size. If it's a teaching aid, resolution may not even be that important. Sounds like the viewing distance is going to be pretty far away from the print. The further the viewing distance, the less important resolution is.</p>

<p>Procuring a new large format printer with 20" minimum capacity plus a new digital camera for less than $2K is not likely. Look for used equipment, maybe? </p>

 

[steven_keelan]

<p>Thanks Russell, i am re thinking my approach each day. I have materials needed in transit to me now. at the next stage I am thinking of borrowing a digital camera from family then using my own memory for the prints. as of now i like the epson printer series, and may just start with 13x19in.</p>

[ian_campbell1]

<p>Just so you know, I used to do 20x30 portraits off 35mm print film, run down to my local pro lab in Boston, where they cost me $5, and I sold them for .... a disgustingly large amount more. The fact is, run through a large scale c41 system, you can get good results from 6-8mp. The larger the file size doesn't actually translate to a better print, because the reality is, half the processors can't use the extra info provided.</p>