Well, this is both timely and interesting. As part of a general push to market my images, I’ve been preparing for a round of spring art shows. I mostly have the logistics down — which print sizes to offer, how to display them, where to source the materials etc. (I’m planning to cut, mat, and frame the prints myself.) The real challenge is deciding which images to sell. Just as I was pondering that question, I read today’s post on The Online Photographer:
Selling prints is really a lot different than exhibiting photographs. Also than discussing photographs. The end-use of a print for sale—at least when there’s no personal connection between the subject and the buyer—is presumably for it to be displayed. That is, it will be used as decor. And a picture most people will put up for display can be very different from a picture they’ll enjoy looking at online or in a book. (Again, assuming the photographs or the photographers aren’t recognizable or famous.) They’re actually relatively specialized pictures.
Interesting. And yet another peril in self-editing one’s photography. Not only is there the ever-present risk of picking photos that have special meaning to the photographer, but are otherwise not very good. There’s the additional challenge of picking photos that are both good and that someone would hang on their wall. I’ve made some strong images, that I wouldn’t hang on my walls — and I shot them! (See exhibit No. 1 above.) I’ll have the bear this in mind as I make my selects for the art shows. If you have ideas about photos that I should include, please leave a comment. Once I’ve narrowed down the field, I’ll post a gallery here for comment.
One of my favorite images, Sunrise With Snow Geese (above) was selected for 500px.com’s daily livejournal of notable images. Not coincidentally, the image is currently included in 500px’s collection of popular photos. I feel a tad sheepish for being excited about winning a popularity contest. I’m supposed to photograph for myself, create a body of cohesive work instead of one-hit-wonders, etc. But I am exited. It’s great to have others enjoy my work, and I don’t know where else I can get so much exposure so easily. Even aspiring “artists” have egos.
Speaking of 500px, I’ve been spending far too much time there lately, enjoying the awesome photography on display, exchanging comments with other photographers, and tracking the reaction to my images. Fortunately, a few of my photos have been popular. It’s more than just ego stroking, however. It’s refreshing to escape from the rigid formulas for images that dominate some nature photography websites. Critique forums sometimes elevate technical details or formulaic rules over aesthetic success. There are beautiful images that are not tack sharp, and plenty of uninspired, but technically perfect images. Ditto for the compositional rules. As a photographer, it is critically important to learn the “rules.” Sharp images that are well-composed have a leg up over everything else. But following the rules is neither necessary or sufficient to make a good image.
The less specialized audience on 500px selects images based on whether they’re pleasing, not whether they follow the rules. Of course, it’s not perfect. Over saturated kitten images are overrepresented. Plus, people pick images to view based on small, square thumbnails. Some excellent, but subtle images, won’t ever be picked out by that system. But all in all, its delightful to participate in a new photographic community. (I should also note, purely as a factual matter, that most nature photography sites don’t include boudoir photography.)
A hard lesson to learn, and one that I forget all too often:
Some photographers (poor souls) never learn the essential trick of photography, which is that photographs are about light—not about their subject, not about your equipment, not about colors or “sharpness” or proving you’ve been to the Statue of Liberty or Disneyland or what Uncle Fred looked like. Well, all of that, too. But mainly light. Light is the essential ingredient of a photograph. It can ennoble virtually any subject. More than that, it creates subjects. It structures the things we see. A photograph that doesn’t depend on the light it was taken in has a lot of extra work to do to amount to anything.
From The Season of Light at the Online Photographer. Well worth a read.
Intentionally blurred images certain are in vogue this year. Master landscape photographer Alain Briot has posted a lovely portfolio of intentionally blurred images on his website. Though the technique is largely the same, it is interesting to note just how different Alain’s images are from William Neil’s images that I blogged about previously.
While I am on the subject of Alain Briot, I must say just how depressing (and motivating) it is to view his work (and to read his essays). Every time I think I’m getting better at photography, I view his portfolios or read his essays on the Luminious Landscape and realize just how much further I can progress as a photographer. Not to copy Briot’s images or his style, but rather to have the technical control and aesthetic sense to make images that reflect my style and vison as effectively as he does.
The following from the Online Photographer review of the new Nikon D700 got me thinking:
You digital people are so lucky. And what do I mean by “digital people”? Michael Reichmann mentioned, in the course of his new Panasonic G1 review, that he encounters photographers these days who never shot film. So do I. It’s an amazing if inevitable development in the hobby. Anyway, I often don’t think you digital people have any idea how lucky you are.
I am one of the people Mike is talking about. The only film camera I ever owned was a Kodak 110 Instamatic, and the last time I exposed some silver halide was in my father’s Minolta SLR. When I was eight. And I definitely feel lucky to have come to photography during the golden age of digital. But I wonder, what might I have missed?
Continue reading Thoughts on Being “A Digital Person”
|
|
