135format
Established
No "Fine Art Photographer" ever made their name through having money. I can say that with 100% certainty. Why? because "Fine Art Photography" is such a new concept that they haven't had time.
The term "Fine Art Photographer" has come into usage since the advent of the web and really over the last ten years or so. No one was calling themselves a "Fine Art Photographer" 20 years ago. Most Fine Art Photographers are retirees who did photography as a hobby and metamorphose into being "Fine Art Photographers" the day after their final paycheck. They knock up a website having looked to see what others have on their website and like to copy the term "Fine Art Photographer" because it sounds cool and that is what everyone else is claiming to be.
It's no wonder they find it difficult to make any money out of it. Most serious artists spend a lifetime honing their skills full time working their nuts off before they are good enough to be taken seriously.
The term "Fine Art Photographer" has come into usage since the advent of the web and really over the last ten years or so. No one was calling themselves a "Fine Art Photographer" 20 years ago. Most Fine Art Photographers are retirees who did photography as a hobby and metamorphose into being "Fine Art Photographers" the day after their final paycheck. They knock up a website having looked to see what others have on their website and like to copy the term "Fine Art Photographer" because it sounds cool and that is what everyone else is claiming to be.
It's no wonder they find it difficult to make any money out of it. Most serious artists spend a lifetime honing their skills full time working their nuts off before they are good enough to be taken seriously.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You need to spend some time in the library studying your history.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Alfred Stieglitz, Paul Strand, Edward Weston, and Ansel Adams among many others called themselves artists nearly a century ago. Why do you have such a problem with fine artists who do photography calling themselves fine art photographers? It is, put simply in plain English, what they are. They're not wedding photographers, or family portrait photographers, or product photographers, or...etc.
Sparrow
Veteran
... I still think it sounds pretentious myself
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
In what way? It is what they are. When you got married, did you tell the wedding photographer you hired that he was 'pretentious' for calling himself a wedding photographer? Do you tell the photographer at your local newspaper that he's pretentious for calling himself a journalist? Of course not.
Sparrow
Veteran
.. perhaps it's the superfluous fine that does it, either way I'm not asking you to agree, it's just how I feel
135format
Established
I don't have a problem. I'm just saying it's a new thing to call oneself a "Fine Art Photographer". I'm not disputing that photographers have been calling their work Art since the beginings of photography or that they call themselves Artists.
What seems to have upset you is my suggestion that its a casual term that many photographers are calling themselves. But it's a fact that it's being used very casually by many hobbyist photographers setting up websites. It's not my fault they are doing that.
Personally I'd just call myself a Photographer and let people enquire if they want specifics about any piece of work. Your work should say it for you. Why pigeonhole yourself.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Oh really? I have to say Chris, that you are wrong here. You are only speaking from your experience. If you have a strong consistent vision, you can sell street work. The images must be from a series, a cohesive body of work, not one-offs.
Remember, your mileage may vary.
I Love Film
Well-known
I wonder if Chris or someone else would post their definition of "fine art".
That would clear a lot up.
Personally, I have a lot of trouble distinguishing "fine art" from "schlock", and I say that seriously. There is a great deal of overlap between the two.
That would clear a lot up.
Personally, I have a lot of trouble distinguishing "fine art" from "schlock", and I say that seriously. There is a great deal of overlap between the two.
FrankS
Registered User
Fine art is art that is not commercial art. It is made for its intrinsic value, not some extrinsic value, as for advertising or as for commission.
I Love Film
Well-known
On the other hand, over time, a lot of "commercial art" transcends its original intention and is collected for its intrinsic value.
Conversely, things created as "fine art" do not hold up over time, and are abandoned as pretentious and without substance.
Conversely, things created as "fine art" do not hold up over time, and are abandoned as pretentious and without substance.
I Love Film
Well-known
I Love Film
Well-known
FrankS
Registered User
I Love Film
Well-known
Bike Tourist
Well-known
To answer your original question, I believe there is only one practical avenue for generating income from the internet — stock photography and, if you are not established and well known, MICROstock photography.
If you just have a web site, you might make a sale every now and then. Depending on your format you might have to sweat payment and you might have to produce and ship a print. I know there are sites that handle all this for you but it's hard to conceive any real money being made. The limiting factor is how you get your work to come up on searches. I don't think you can compete with the big boys in that regard.
Microstock takes quite a bit of hard work and patience. First, your work must be accepted — not an easy thing. Then you must build your portfolio. I have been at it on my best site for six years. I shoot what I want and don't go in for isolations on white, the seeming bread and butter of these sites. Even so, out of about 335,000 photographers on that site I am at about 840th in quantity of approved images. I sell my photos all over the world and it's fun to see the map of where they are used.
I make about $3000 a year — enough to keep me in photo gear and help out my retirement. A very few dedicated microstock shooters make over $100,000 per year, but they are in the minority.
I hope this answers your question.
If you just have a web site, you might make a sale every now and then. Depending on your format you might have to sweat payment and you might have to produce and ship a print. I know there are sites that handle all this for you but it's hard to conceive any real money being made. The limiting factor is how you get your work to come up on searches. I don't think you can compete with the big boys in that regard.
Microstock takes quite a bit of hard work and patience. First, your work must be accepted — not an easy thing. Then you must build your portfolio. I have been at it on my best site for six years. I shoot what I want and don't go in for isolations on white, the seeming bread and butter of these sites. Even so, out of about 335,000 photographers on that site I am at about 840th in quantity of approved images. I sell my photos all over the world and it's fun to see the map of where they are used.
I make about $3000 a year — enough to keep me in photo gear and help out my retirement. A very few dedicated microstock shooters make over $100,000 per year, but they are in the minority.
I hope this answers your question.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
He drove into a wall at the Chateau Marmont, what a movie-like way to go....
Araakii
Well-known
I am fine with "fine art" as a label to describe the particular type of photography that it encompasses, but I always tell people not to read it literally and mistaken that it's a "finer" photography genre than some other type of photography, say street. As someone has said, there got to be a quick way to identify this particular type of photography and "fine art" seems to be a quick and dirty way.
Sparrow
Veteran
wouldn't the corollary of fine art be something like mean street?
loquax ludens
Well-known
I'm a fine art photographer. I don't have a web site and I haven't produced any thing resembling fine art yet. But I'm not any sort of professional photographer, and I don't like the sound of amateur or hobbyist or enthusiast photographer, or just plain photographer, so I decided I must be a fine art photographer. If I wasn't a fine art photographer, I'd just be a guy with a whole lot of cameras. Hmmm. Now that I think of it, that could be what I am. 