on prints
So, over the past few years, I’ve had a lot of people ask to buy prints of my photos. It’s incredibly flattering to know that people appreciate my photos enough to want to hang them on their walls at all, much less pay me for it. As such, I’ve always felt compelled to do my best to fulfill these requests, despite the fact that I know very little about the actual printing industry, much less matting, framing and decorating. To be honest, though, it’s become a hassle. The industry is changing daily due to the digital revolution, and the frequency of people asking me for prints is relatively rare. Thus, every time it happens, I have to re-evaluate the vendors, and then negotiate a price (read: pull one out of my ass), which always felt a bit disingenuous (more below). Plus, again, I’m often asked to provide expertise in an area (printing, framing and decoratin) that I know nothing about. I actually once had someone ask me which of my photos would work best in their living room, and gave me a rundown of the furniture and color scheme. At the end of the day, I’m a photographer, not an interior decorator.
To that end, I’ve decided to start offering prints for free. Of course, I don’t mind if people want to compensate me for them, naturally, but it’s easier for me to just handle that via donations. (Seriously, if you want to donate $2,000 or so, there’s this lens I could really use.) This gives people the flexibility to get whatever they want, and frees me to focus on what I do best: taking pictures. I’ve put up instructions and details, but I felt like some elaboration was necessary — hence this post:
Most photographers protect their images rigorously. They watermark them. They only upload smaller resolutions. They market their pictures as an exclusive or “fine art” product, and only offer prints in limited, expensive runs. Why don’t I do that?
Well, my demure response is that there’s never been any such demand for prints of my pictures, and I think it’s silly to try to artificially create it. This is my response to the modest demand for prints of my photos that I’ve seen. It’s not enough to make a living, and I don’t suspect it ever would be.
If you’d twist my arm a little, I might go on: A lot of photographers are stuck in a mindset that hasn’t yet caught up with the modern world we’re living in. Limited/numbered runs are a comically archaic way to distribute your photography. It made sense in an age when the material costs of the actual print-making process were a limiting factor. It’s ridiculous to expect that someone would pay a premium for a print of a photo because you only made 50 when they know perfectly well that you took the photo with a digital SLR and could very well make 50,000 if you wanted. Let’s not delude ourselves. Very few photographers are good enough that this sort of artificially generated demand will work. Nonetheless, every aspiring professional photographer on the planet attempts to frantically “protect” their images against barbarian hordes that simply don’t exist. You have to be a pretty amazing photographer for someone to still want a print of your photo when all they can see is a 500×500 watermarked thumbnail. And trust me, you’re not that good. I’m not that good.
Secondly, the process by which prices are negotiated in the market for art always left a bad taste in my mouth. When people asked me how much my photography cost, I was always forced to pull a number out of thin air. There are no physical constraints that would factor in my setting a price for the actual prints, and the attempts by some photographers to artificially create some (as mentioned above) struck me as dishonest, or at the least, overly-arbitrary. I think that’s why this solution feels so good: aside from the fact that it caters to my laziness, it’s also very honest.
I want people to see my photography. I’m vain, what can I say? And I want people to see my photography in a clear, unobstructed, large format. In a digital age, this means simple, large, unaltered, high-res digital images. Does this mean that, really, anyone with a lick of sense could snag a high-res copy of my photos and print them on their own? Absolutely. Am I worried about throngs of malicious people doing so in high volume without paying for it? Hardly. Most people that want to buy my photos are honest people that like my photography and want a modest print of it, and/or want to support my photography, which, again, they are most welcome to do:
Hrm. If I were even as modestly successful as you, I’d want to steganographically watermark my images so I could prove it if a website or someone ripped them off and started charging for them or something.
In the ‘is there any sort of legalese’, I’d recommend you pick a creative commons license that you’re okay with and list it there. This will clarify your position and provide details of the license you’re offering, if only by reference.
PJ
23 Nov 10 at 7:42 pm
As you probably know I watermark my pictures – not all of them, but the ones which would make their way onto other peoples’ websites/profiles/blogs etc. And the reason I do it isn’t from some sort of desire to protect my work but from a desire to advertise who did it. If someone likes something, they know how to find me. I try to do it in a non-obtrusive way.
However, I must point out – by offering everything for free, you wind up devaluing all the professionals out there who *do* rely on photography as their sole source of revenue. And you devalue your work, as well, by not defining how it is to be used (like PJ above suggests, a CC license would be smart).
KJ
23 Nov 10 at 11:02 pm
Yeah, the watermark as advertising is fine — I have no problem with that.
Regarding devaluing others’ work, respectfully, I disagree. The marketplace for prints of “artistic”/decorative/fine photography prints is governed by so many intangibles (taste, trends, marketing, artificial demand, subject matter, etc) that it bears no resemblance to any traditional commodity market. It’s not the same as the marketplace for “pro” hourly/daily labor, which I think is where your “devalued work” argument has its roots.
The fact that I’m offering my prints for free doesn’t devalue Jack Spencer’s (http://www.jackspencer.com/) prints, for example. Totally different content, marketing, audience, and quality. (also he actually knows what he’s doing with his printing process).
It is conceivable that releasing prints for free could compete with people that sell prints of similar subject matter, but that would only be true if, for example, a company chose to decorate their office with my pictures because they are free — and I’ve explicitly forebade that by only allowing for personal use.
I am familiar with the “devaluing others’ work” argument, though.. and while I don’t think it even applies here, I disagree that it’s a battle worth fighting, but that’s another story..
Regarding Creative Commons — I thought about that, but there’s no CC license that matches this particular scenario. But ultimately CC is just a convenience mechanism. I retain all rights on my pictures and grant only certain rights explicitly — the above personal use of prints being one of them.
Chris
23 Nov 10 at 11:32 pm
I think this is a great idea. I too have struggled with the printing thing. I hate making up prices and I hate the task of finding printers and frames, etc. And, I’ve gotten the, “Do you think this will look good in my living room?” type of questions. Gah!
So, I think you’re really on to something.
Grey Street Girl
24 Nov 10 at 10:47 am
I should also point out that I’m not forbidding companies from using my prints for non-personal use out of any deference or moral imperative to not “devalue the work” of competitors in that arena.
It’s merely that I think I could still actually make some not-insignificant money from that end of things (because I have in the past).
Chris Wage
24 Nov 10 at 11:02 am
Photography is already pretty much valued at $0 in almost all cases.
Go look at iStockphoto or any of the microstock sites. Better yet, submit some samples if you haven’t already. Bottom line is, they don’t have to accept bad work any more, and they don’t want to accept cheap work. Mostly, they want you to hire models, use a couple grand worth of gear, and spend at least an hour or so photoshopping your images (or 2 of the 3, or whatever — this is in general terms). This, for an image which, with low probability, you might hope to gross $50 over the next couple of years.
People will do this. Talented, skilled people. This is a fool’s game, obviously. If you’re moderately talented and moderately skilled and moderately lucky AND manage to hit some zeitgeist, you can make $1/hour at photography. Woo!
I predict Chris will make a LOT more money on his photography by asking nicely for donations than the all but a very high percentile “microstocker” and he’ll do it with far far less work.
So, who’s devaluing what again?
bob
24 Nov 10 at 11:07 am
Chris:
Your father Dennis sent me this link and this is my response to him.
••••••••••
Dennis:
This is great stuff and as someone who spent years working in film on an amateur basis i understand his angst. And he has a brilliant eye and a keen talent for composition and a good understanding of light and exposure.
However, Christopher disengages himself from the Ansel Adams process too early in his post. From the outset he’s setting himself up as someone who takes more time taking the picture and not pursuing the perfect print, frame style and presentation that would yield the most beneficial financial result. He even admits it in the first few paragraphs!
Ansel Adams’ greatest gift was his print development technique. And his presentations were second to none…you have to dress the bride just right to make everyone ooh and ahhh!
Make your work the most desirable, presentable and attractive that it can be. How many times have you played on a record and the rough mix of the track sounded so much better than the final result? That’s because the ‘back end’ production was not up to speed and dropped the ball. You can never drop the ball…ask me how I know?
My advice? (for what it’s worth) Advise Christopher to seek out the best framers and presenters he can find, cut them in on the loop, earnestly “pitch” his stuff or find someone who will, just like I do my songs, to the powers that be and see where that takes him.
Dennis, this sounds like ‘giving up’ to me because he doesn’t want to do the ‘back end’.
From another concerned father….
cheers and hope you’re doing well
J Fred
J Fred Knobloch
25 Nov 10 at 2:18 am
Chris:
And just to let you know I’m not sleeping….
Next time someone asks you what you want for a print of a photo of yours, add up what your bills are for a month and tell them that amount.
People who ask can afford whatever it is you’re asking. The old saying “If you have to ask you can’t afford it.” is not true. They just want to know how much to put in the check/amount line.
Believe me….
A big fan of your eye on the world…
J Fred Knobloch
J Fred Knobloch
25 Nov 10 at 2:23 am