Comments for Reflections

Comment on Artistic License by Myer Bornstein

Myer Bornstein — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:41:18 +0000

Great article There has been to much posted that photography just should show everything just how it came out of the camera. I am going to ad a reference to tour article when ever this subject arises

Comment on Artistic License by Dave Byrne

Dave Byrne — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:07:36 +0000

this article really does represent where I come from on this subject, my landscapes are 50% in field and 50% PP, I don’t try to record a scene but evoke the feeling it gives me, I have had as many people think my photos are brilliant as say they are over processed. This reaction makes total sense though as different people have different views on art.

Comment on Artistic License by ken stec

ken stec — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:33:34 +0000

Yes!

Great essay. Manipulation is always at the base of a photograph. We have more tools then ever before to bring our vision to an audience, or simply see it physically manifest. This has always been photography. Manipulation is at the base of the form, beginning with angle, crop and point of view.

Thanks, Alan, for the stimulating piece.

Comment on Artistic License by Jose Dominguez

Jose Dominguez — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:16:33 +0000

Very informative article and generous too, for not all photographers give this type of substance in their newsletters.
I do agree that when it comes to Fine Art Photography you have lots of room in the post production of your images
to achive the visualization at the time of pressing the shutter.
If manipulation of the image is done without phoney “copy and paste” techniques, then I find it o.k. to tastefully use
the tools available in digital programs to fine tune your art.

Comment on Artistic License by Mark R Friedman

Mark R Friedman — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:59:54 +0000

Well said. And, of course, well written.

The definitions are changing with the technology. Wikipedia has changed the definition of photography so it no longer excludes media other than film.

I think there’s a line that separates photographer from digital artist, but I can’t figure out where it should be drawn. Aside from pure photojournalism (where you’re documenting real events without bias – hopefully- ), all that matters is the print; not how you got to the point of producing it.

But maybe I’m wrong.

Comment on Artistic License by Rob

Rob — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:36:11 +0000

I would just say: Yes!

It is time that people realize tat there are many forms of nature photography.

Comment on Artistic License by Carol

Carol — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 00:03:23 +0000

Excellent important article! Most people readily accept that a painter can take artistic license and paint a picture of a subject that does not exist. at least not as it is painted. Look at Picasso or even Van Gogh. But many people believe an artistic photograph must be an exact image of the subject. Fine art photography should have the same rights as other types of artistic genres. How is “manipulating” a photo any less acceptable than when Picasso put one eye on the left side of a person’s forehead and the other eye below their mouth?

Comment on Artistic License by Valérie Bergmann

Valérie Bergmann — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 19:25:06 +0000

I’m in love front of all of your pictures. Their Colors are so spécial! Thank you!

Valérie fromage France

Comment on Marketing Photo question – answer by Alain Briot

Alain Briot — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 06:00:35 +0000

Adam,

Wholesale is always half of retail. So if you sell your work for $150 retail price (going with your example), the wholesale price will be $75. It’s your responsibility to set the price so that you make a profit. To do so you may have to increase the price.

Some products don’t work for wholesale and need to be sold direct to the public. This may be one of them. It’s hard to say without knowing more. Pricing is a complex issue.

Have you read my book “Marketing Fine Art photography?” I have an entire chapter on pricing in it. Here’s the link to the book:

http://beautiful-landscape.com/Ebooks-Books-1-2-3.html

Alain

Comment on Marketing Photo question – answer by Adam Zappia

Adam Zappia — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 02:34:22 +0000

Great info Alain

I am also in a situation I am not sure of, a bit different than the person asking the original question. I shoot people fishing in the landscape (amongst other things). I have a fishing tackle shop that would like to stock some of my work, but they wanted to take half of the sales price. That would leave me with little after costs, so I have not yet got any work for sale there. I have no experience in selling through a retailer, so am unsure how to go about a fair deal. If I sell a 8×10 print in a larger mat size, unframed for say (as an example) $225, and my cost is around $75 (cost of doing the shoot, printing and matting) then there is $150 profit per print, obviously the retailer would take a cut, but how much do you think is reasonable given this example? I would prefer for them to buy some stock from me, and then they can sell them for whatever they like, but due to the nature of the subject and shop, I don’t think they would sell enough volume to consider this option. Would it be reasonable for me to offer them a set commission amount per sale, independent of print size and cost? Sorry for all the questions, but once I started typing they just kept coming.