eric_fredine

I think any sort of 'cost plus' rationale is doomed. People are either willing to pay your price for a photograph or not. You just have to live with it or pursue a different path (such as selling direct at much lower prices which might just end up being a lot more work for a comparable return).

Ah, the endless creativity of it all!

 

But it does make me realize how much I value this feature - I think the main reason I check in to photo.net is to see what (if anything) the people on my list are up to. Without it, I probably wouldn't bother.

I check in on these threads from time to time just for kicks. I always find it amazing that serious photographers get seriously bent about how they are being rated. It's just fun. You might meet a few people you enjoy interacting with. But do you really want to evaluate the 'success' of your work on the basis of what gets in to the TRP? It is simply a measure of 'popular appeal in the photo.net community' as calculated by some computer weenies (no offense Brian, I've been one myself :)). It's fun and curious but I doubt that it means much of anything.

 

cheers,

Eric

These discussions always seem to be about what people think other people *should* be doing or not doing. In terms of photographic tools we live in a golden age. We have many new tools and we still have access to many of the old tools. Just use whatever tools and workflow meets your personal needs and move on.

Well, I'm with David here - why not just go somewhere else? The world is full of beautiful things.

 

I often think that photographing 'well photographed' places can lead one to believe they are a better photographer than they really are (I certainly apply this to myself). The well photographed places tend to support 'can't miss' compositions. If you happen to get an unusual lighting event and you are a competent photographer you are almost certain to get a photograph that will make people go WOW.

 

cheers,

Eric