Getting Into The Business - Selling Photographs

[ejb190]

I started doing newspaper photography with a little weekly, small town paper at the age of 14 with a Kodak VR35 K10 and a few rolls of B&W film. Got some of my work published and got an offer to apprentice with a photographer from a larger, daily paper (and a renowned photographer in his own right). I had to turn him down at that time and he died a couple of years later. Would have been an awesome "in" into the newspaper photography business.

 

[Mechcozmo]

I actually think you should get an SLR. The faster you get it, the earlier you can start practicing with it. I just got a D50 3 weeks ago and after shooting what I think are some nice shots, even I can now point out some major flaws, an out-of-focus subject being one of them. ****, that always happens (see EXAMPLE 1). I'm probably around the same level as you, but you know what? I'll probably progress faster because I have something to play with that is CAPABLE of taking the photographs that I want. Now, even when I have complete control over the camera, I still don't always take the photo that I want, and I can work on "Why not?"

Some photos I'm happy with right now, but i still want to find a flaw anyway, because I'm sure I made one somewhere, even if I don't know what it is yet (see EXAMPLE 2). A DSLR allows me to make minor adjustments that I can't make otherwise.

I disagree with you. Picture 1 is interesting at least. It may require some work, but it isn't ugly. Kinda cool actually, the different focus field. (did you focus manually?) Picture 2 is boring, uninteresting, and 'flat'. There is no foreground. Just subject and a kinda lousy background. Is it in focus? Yes. Is the lighting right? Yes. Does it hold my attention? Not really.

Photography is more about what you can capture, not how you capture it. I've seen picture taken on cell-phone cameras (~1 megapixel) that look better than morons with $2000 DSLRs take. If you don't have the skill, you can't get a decent picture. The skill can be improved upon, but usually if you start out simple (KISS method) you are able to expand easier. Just my take on it.

 

[Abstract]

I think my first photo would have been a LOT nicer if the flower was sharp throughout. However, I'm learning. I didn't even think this was a bad thing until I stared at it and thought about it for awhile. I also have trouble getting nice sharp photos. At last my subject should be sharp, IMO.

And the "portrait" was cool for me because I didn't realize that she was well lit until AFTER I saw the photo on my computer screen. I didn't even realize that lighting like in my 2nd photo would make such a big difference. I thought it was all about narrowing the focal range and softening everything in the background when that's clearly not the case (IMO). I think I learned something from my OWN photo that I'll take with me for awhile (I don't know anything about lighting, otherwise), which is why I like this one so much. The background is lousy though.

 

[Nutter]

My opinion:

You should get an SLR. There are so many things about photography you just can't learn on a P&S.

BUT, don't buy an expensive camera! There's no point, because the quality you can get from the cheapest digital SLRs from Canon and Nikon is already excellent, and they're improving at such a rate that it's better to upgrade in a few years than to spend a fortune on the best camera money can buy today.

Your money is much better spent on good glass, which will last you many many more years than the camera.

Even so, I would recommend you start with prime lens (not a zoom), as these force you to develop good technique. Incidentally, they're very cheap and optically superior to all but the most expensive zoom lenses. Don't bother with the D50's kit lens, you won't learn as much from it and it won't take pictures as good as a prime lens.

The Nikon D50 and a Nikkor 50mm AF f1.8D lens would be an excellent start. This is the kit I'm considering as my first digital SLR, and I've been taking photographs with a 35mm SLR for quite a few years now.

Spending more money WON'T get you better pictures when you're starting out, I can guarantee it.

 

[kiwi-in-uk]

I agree with Mechosmo.
Learn as much as you can using your point & shoot. Practise, practise, practise, learn, learn, learn. Until you KNOW why the camera is holding you back (focus & lighting are not good reasons - all point & shoot cameras can focus, and you can control the lighting).
Learn what makes a good shot (the equipment simply captures the situation you have seen, foreseen, or created). Read the books. Talk to people who pay their mortgages & feed their kids by taking photos. Listen and learn.
Good luck.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Glenn,
All I keep seeing is how you should learn your point and shoot. If you were at all serious then you would replace the words "point and shoot" with the words SLR. I am a purist, I do things in a darkroom that you'll never be able to do. Mostly because life is all digital these days. However, you need to learn how to work with an SLR. Put that stupid P&S down. You don't need a super fancy SLR, but you need one. You need to understand things such as focal length and proper exposure. You don't need to learn the zone system, but you need to understand the reasons why it is there.

I noticed that you also said you were a writer. I hope you have an editor because your spelled and grammar sucks. Then again, I think you're more self-proclaimed...we're all famous in our bedrooms behind our computers!

I think you're totally looking in the wrong direction. I think you see photography as an easy thing to get into, when in fact it is not. I know because I've been there. I swore I'd never do a wedding, but when I wasn't able to get any commercial gigs, I had to do weddings. Lucky for me I was always provided top rate equipment at no cost to me. However, sometimes I did have to do what I didn't love so much in order to keep doing what I did love.

I just think you're in way over your head and that your ego is getting in the way of what is really possible. I think you can do this, but you won't know for another 5-10 years. For now, spend the next year learning on an SLR and see what happens. You may end up with 1000 awesome photos and you may sell 900 of them. But you will still find yourself learning, even after that year. Listen to some of the people here kiddo.

 

[Mechcozmo]

And the "portrait" was cool for me because I didn't realize that she was well lit until AFTER I saw the photo on my computer screen. I didn't even realize that lighting like in my 2nd photo would make such a big difference.

And this is where my point comes into "focus". By coming through the ranks slowly you learn what the picture will look like before you take it, not after. I can take pictures and know they will look fine without needing to review them just based on the shutter speed and f-stop that the camera chooses and the lighting outside. If need be, I also know what shutter speed to lock down at, and then I'll shoot and adjust. It is alright to have to play with the settings a bit, because eventually you learn what settings to learn at what times based on your prior usage. A point and shoot will let you do that. An SLR means you start to blame the camera, the lens, the fact you didn't know about an obscure option... the P&S means you have to learn and adapt.

I started my journey with a 35mm camera that had a 3x zoom and a flash. I started also with "If you're shooing from the light into shadow, use the flash." I've learned quite a bit since then, but the few times I forgot I was presented with a bad picture. You learn slowly and move up.

Oh, and sorry about the pun. It just flashed into my head as I was writing this post and I couldn't not put it in.

 

[Clix Pix]

Jessica's post reminded me of something. Anyone here remember the classic "student camera," the Pentax K1000? Totally manual, reasonably-priced, the camera that many PHT 101 students brought to class and learned on through the semester and beyond. That's the kind of camera Glenn should get for his first SLR, and he should take a class or two, learn darkroom techniques and all of that, work with developing his own film, developing and printing his own images....and only after that move on to a digital SLR.

I don't imagine that the K1000 is available these days except on eBay, and there really isn't a digital SLR that is quite its equivalent as far as I can see. However, there's always the option of buying an inexpensive DSLR and then using it in strictly all manual mode so that it truly serves as a learning tool.

Working in the darkroom has a magic and a mystique that working in Photoshop just can't match...

 

[Kilchzimmer]

what's important vrs. marketing hype.

why buy a camera that won't last too long and won't do everything i want too in the next year or two, I will get something good that will last.

When buying a DSLR you need to remind yourself that you are not buying a camera as much as investing in a "system" (lenses, flash system, etc.). Meaning.... No matter which digital camera you get, it (the camera body) will become outdated. Being Nikon, though, you can use any Nikon lens on the latest camera body. With an older lens, you may sacrifice (with work around solutions) a few minor features where the camera communicates with the lens.

I am using a Nikon D70s and it works great for my work as a photograper. True, the D200 feels much more solid but is heavier and much pricier. I wouldn't mind having it for my rugged photo projects to 3rd world countries! The D70 with a Nikon lens will give you the sharpness and quality needed. I suggest to go with the D70(s) and spend the money saved, on simple studio lighting or a good external flash (Nikon SB800). Lighting is VERY important!
In this business, aesthetics, composition, subject matter, etc. are of no value without a technically well executed photo (and vise versa).
Don't fall into the "megapixel myth" marketing hype! That 6mp camera (D70s) is far superior to many 8+megapixel cameras (especially those high-end P&S - waste of money...having owned one).

One place to "break into" selling your photos is iStock photo (http://www.istockphoto.com). BEFORE you submit photos to them for acceptance, look how the photos are taken on the site. For stock photos, you need to know how the photos will be used by designers (room for text, etc.), which is different than a photo hanging on a wall.

"Many of the photographers labled as talented by the world are those who survived the period in their life where they were untalented". If you have the talent, get the training to bring it out. There are no short cuts.
When it comes to practice, I still have to remind myself that it doesn't cost me a cent to click away (coming from the period where I had to cut out meals in college to buy film for my photo courses).

I could go on, but will stop there...

 

[Lau]

Jessica's post reminded me of something. Anyone here remember the classic "student camera," the Pentax K1000? Totally manual, reasonably-priced, the camera that many PHT 101 students brought to class and learned on through the semester and beyond. That's the kind of camera Glenn should get for his first SLR, and he should take a class or two, learn darkroom techniques and all of that, work with developing his own film, developing and printing his own images....and only after that move on to a digital SLR.

I don't imagine that the K1000 is available these days except on eBay, and there really isn't a digital SLR that is quite its equivalent as far as I can see. However, there's always the option of buying an inexpensive DSLR and then using it in strictly all manual mode so that it truly serves as a learning tool.

Working in the darkroom has a magic and a mystique that working in Photoshop just can't match...

Heh - that's my camera! I love it to bits. I learnt on a Praktica SLR made in 1971 (lasted me from when I was 14 till when I was 22 or so), and when it died I upgraded to the Pentax. £50 from eBay, and the best learning experience ever.

If you really want to be a good photographer, this is the way to start. I believe I may have said something similar in another thread of yours.

 

[Tel]

I hope you have an editor because your spelled and grammar sucks.

Ironic really.

 

[Sdashiki]

Jessica's post reminded me of something. Anyone here remember the classic "student camera," the Pentax K1000? Totally manual, reasonably-priced, the camera that many PHT 101 students brought to class and learned on through the semester and beyond. That's the kind of camera Glenn should get for his first SLR, and he should take a class or two, learn darkroom techniques and all of that, work with developing his own film, developing and printing his own images....and only after that move on to a digital SLR.

Working in the darkroom has a magic and a mystique that working in Photoshop just can't match...

and the ability to get into a darkroom is very hard unless you are in college or at a good high school.

in any case, it is a damn good assumption to understand the analog aspects of photography.

digital is all well and good, but if you are willing to become a "professional" a 35mm SLR is a better buy than any fancy camera.

Learning how light makes an image through different f-stops and shutter speeds with a dial and not a button and LCD menu, is so much a better teacher than point click "do I like?" "no" erase.

With 35mm you get 24-36 shots and at least 1hr to see what you did.

"Professionals" go through HUNDREDS of rolls to get even ONE decent marketable shot. Photoshop brought this number down some, and digital photography dropped the costs again without the need to develop all those rolls.

But in the end, i wont flame you for being in way over your head.

I will say that you MUST get a 35mm, a decent wide angle lens, a zoom lens, flash and a tripod. When you switch to digital later, if you buy a major brand (Nikon, Canon etc) the lenses will be most likely useable on your new equipment.

pick up a Canon AE-1 those are THE SHIZZLE MY NIZZLE, ask any photographer. if you can, pick up one with the Auto (AE-1 Program) feature. But I can say this about them, mine is about 30 yrs old I believe and still runs great, just eats about a battery a year.

Photography is in of itself an analog venture. The capturing of photons in one state forever. You can digitize light all you want, but if you dont know HOW it does it, how can you say you know what you are doing?

 

[Glenn Wolsey]

Ironic really.

Because my spelled sucks? I think you need the editor.

 

[ChrisA]

I would also recommend attending all the seminars/school/classes you can.

And NOT just photo classes. The (yes "THE") number one reason for bussinesses not working is not that the owner doesn't know the technical end of it. For example resterants don't go broke because the chef can't cook they go broke because the owner has spent years learning to cook but zero time learning how to run a bussines. The second reason they fail is under capitalization - they run out of money before they can build a customer base. Every bussines plan involves loosing money at the beginning

Anyone can start a photography bussines and lose money but to make money requires "people skills", sales skills and managment skils

I would think that a good market might be to sell to web designers. They always need images and many use stock images because they are cheap and available. If you could combine photography with a graphic arts and web design service and keep the costs down you might do well. Your potflio would be on-line. Fresh, custom photography can make a web site stand out You will have to develope a style that peole want to buy