Selling photos online, any money to be made?

[dannybear]

Hey guys, I was wondering if theres actually any money to be made from selling prints online from sites like redbubble, 500px and others (I'm sure there are more I just dont know of them!) seems like you would need to have a large following to get any sales?

 

[135format]

yes there is if you know what you are doing online wise and your work is upto it. That's much easier said than done but there are a fair few people who are good at it. Most aren't or at least they are so clueless about websites they haven't got a snowballs chance even if their work is good. It's a lot of hard work to get it setup properly so that it works.

 

[loquax ludens]

135format, do you have any examples of some who are good at it? It might help others to study their methods, site layout, etc.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I sell my work off my website, and it makes me about half my income (the rest is from web design and commercial photo work). It is not easy to do, and I went for years with no sales before people began buying.

Most of my work sells to people looking for a photo of some specific thing, and they find my work using search engines like Google Image Search. Having a large collection of images online makes the site some up in searches more, and having the site set up to be search engine friendly is essential. That means:

- No flash sites. Individual images on flash sites are not searchable by Google.

- No flash for image presentation either.

- Avoid Javascript based slideshows and such, they make the images harder for search engines to index.

- If you use a template or content management system to build your site, make sure the one you choose allows you to enter an ALT TAG for each image. This is a description of the image that you type in, so that search engines can 'see' the photo and know what is in the picture. Without Alt Tags, your images are INVISIBLE to searches.

Here are some of my observations after doing this for many years:

- Street photography never, ever, sells. Ever.

- Portraits never sell unless the subject is famous.

- Landscape photos sell well, if they're something beautiful or interesting. Pictures of interesting places, buildings, historic sites also sell well.

- Black and white sells more prints, Color sells better for stock photos.

- Don't show just the photo, with no text the site visitor can read about the photo. This makes the pictures look more important to search engines, and telling a story encourages sales.

 

[back alley]

chris, does street photography ever sell?

kidding aside...are people mostly interested in 'pretty' pics?

 

[135format]

135format, do you have any examples of some who are good at it? It might help others to study their methods, site layout, etc.

http://www.terragalleria.com/

he runs the largeformat photography forum and over the years built up his portfolio and now its his full time living.
From scientist to photographer but he can do all his own website coding(PHP) which makes a big difference. Anyone who has to rely on someone else to do it will struggle because the cost is so high for a bespoke package and the off the shelf ones aren't always too good.

I think the following does OK too but maybe on a smaller scale. But he does make images of places people like a memento of.

http://www.darknessandlight.co.uk/

You could look at something www.clikpic.com which does it all for you, but ultimately the most sucessful are built by DIY coders who have a high degree of skill and know about search engine optimisation.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

chris, does street photography ever sell?

kidding aside...are people mostly interested in 'pretty' pics?

For the most part, yeah, pretty pics sell best. As stock photos, I have sold a lot of ugly ones because the buyer needed a photo of something ugly for their purpose. Like this one:

I licensed it to a Canadian company who wanted it for an advertising mailer a few yrs ago. They were selling electric heating systems, and the dirty oil tank was to remind their potential customers how dirty the fuel oil heaters they were hoping to get people to ditch are.

 

[135format]

An example of what an online image can do for you, if you get lucky...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...idated-beach-hut-real-thing-costs-12-000.html

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

An example of what an online image can do for you, if you get lucky...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...idated-beach-hut-real-thing-costs-12-000.html

Yep. I've never gotten near that much for an image, but I have gotten a couple thousand dollars each for several images over the years. I find it fascinating how many people will just give images to businesses who can and will pay if you give them a price.

 

[loquax ludens]

135format, thanks for the examples of successful photographers and their sites. I've followed QT Luong's work for many years.

Chistopher, that was some excellent practical advice you gave. Thank you.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Actually I am very ignorant of current internet technology, coding, search engines, any of that.... My last dot.com jobs were 7-8 years ago, and that prehistoric dinosaur technology and thinking has all been surpassed many times over.... Since January I have been using a customizable template served by "A Photo Folio" for my website and it is Flash, but they run a parallel html and iPad version for search engine visibility. It's not perfect but it seems the best of the services (and most expensive). If I had to do the same site from scratch then it would cost new car prices for its level of functionality. Bottom line is that it makes a good commercial presentation that photo editors, art buyers, and ad agencies are comfortable looking at - rather than the 6 year old Movable Type blog format I used prior.

Blogging (with tags) on Tumblr also works for me, I try to post 1 to 4 of my images per day (a mix of current and vintage work).

I cut back on my writing and also cleaned up as much of my online postings as possible because my big mouth and attitude could get me in trouble. I rather post pictures anyway. What wise-ass stuff I do write stays on Facebook for friends only so it doesn't haunt me years later. I cut back on showing as many nudes, drugs, bad behavior. Not that I shy away from it but now it's a smaller percentage.

Getting a lot of hits doesn't mean much unless you are Ken Rockwell, TOP, Luminous, etc (in which I would have to be a lousy photographer too!). My old blog site got over 1000 unique visits a day but 98-99% of those that were subhuman photo nerds looking for free pix of hot naked women.

I used to sell prints fairly inexpensively (under $100) but last year I raised the price to $500. My thinking was that if a real gallery ever represented me, then they wouldn't want me undercutting them with cheap, democratic prints made for the masses. Of course I sell fewer but still do a couple per month, completely random... for instance I sold three older portraits of men to a collector in Monaco of all places.

It's not enough to make a living by itself but if I keep doing it along with other self-promotion and marketing, over several or many years, I figure it will lead to something eventually. And I enjoy doing it regardless.

Generally speaking, in an art career you need to have multiple revenue streams and you may change course dramatically several times over the years. Just like the real world. Except with an art career, it really helps to start out with a lot of money upfront!!!

To the OP... make it part of your lifestyle, concentrate on shooting more than monetizing pictures until you have something unique and special, then approach it like a job and go for it 110%.

Also don't get suckered into Getty via Flickr, selling $15 prints on Etsy, Micro-stock, MagCloud magazines, photo contests, etc.... they all exist to make money from photographers - not for photographers.

 

[Araakii]

Actually I use "A Photo Folio" for my website and it is Flash, but they run a parallel html and iPad version for search engine visibility. Blogging (with tags) on Tumblr also works for me, I try to post 1 to 4 of my images per day (a mix of current and vintage work).

I used to sell prints fairly inexpensively (under $100) but last year I raised the price to $500. My thinking was that if a real gallery ever represented me, then they wouldn't want people coming around for cheap, democratic prints made for the masses. Of course I sell fewer but still do a couple per month, completely random... for instance I sold three older portraits of men to a collector in Monaco of all places.

It's not enough to make a living by itself but by but if I keep doing it along with other self-promotion and marketing, over several or many years, I figure it will lead to something eventually. And I enjoy doing it regardless.

Generally speaking, in an art career you need to have multiple revenue streams and you may change course dramatically several times over the years. Just like the real world. Except with an art career, it really helps to start out with a lot of money upfront!!!

Man, if someone like you can only sell a couple a month, a lot of others have pretty much no hope 🙂

By the way, to start out, how much is a lot of money upfront?

 

[135format]

By the way, to start out, how much is a lot of money upfront?

Just remember the old saying:

"If you want to make a small fortune, then start with a big one".

You can't go far wrong if you stick to that principal.

 

[Frank Petronio]

At least $3 million, not counting inflation and war. If you shepard it wisely and are lucky it will give you a Middle Class lifestyle and last you until the final shutter click.

That sounds nuts but there have been people who have gone to Wall Street (or Silicon Valley) and done just that. Some of those guys are done and out at 30... just be smart. Look at that Greenspun guy who started photo.net for example - he's spent the last twenty years traveling and trying to get laid.

Baring that, a skilled trade like plumbing is the next best option for being a successful photographer. You can work three days on, four days off.

The thing you absolutely should not do is to fall into the trap of borrowing money for some silly institutional or college photo school.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Frank is right, a lot of famous photographers...A LOT...Were born into wealth. The fine art photo world is designed to make everyone but the artist rich, really making money with it, even enough to just live, is very hard. I've been so poor that i've gone days at a time without a meal. I can live off it now only because I live in one of the cheapest big cities in North America. My very nice apartment in a middle class part of Fort Wayne, Indiana only costs me $570 a month. Everything else here is cheap too. Except gas. For some damned reason its always 20 cents a gallon less in Indianapolis than it is in Fort Wayne. Always. Aside from that, its cheap to live here, and I live on an income that most of you would find shockingly low, but I do eat good food every day and support my son, so I am happy.

 

[Araakii]

I always knew that money can buy success in the photo world. But it's still good to know how to achieve that with as little money as possible, haha.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Frank's 3 Million dollars, invested in a conservative portfolio and withdrawn at a rate of 2% (with annual inflation adjustments) could provide the middle class income needed to avoid having a job while building your photography career. I'm not sure if that's buying your way in or just covering your living expenses while putting in the road work.

I don't think 'buying your way in' involves money trading hands. Its more of a situation where simply being perceived as wealthy opens doors because most art buyers are wealthy, and wealthy people do not buy things from poor people. Not expensive things, at least. Many galleries that are successful in actually selling art won't even talk to artists anymore unless the artist is well connected, and that requires money...because if you have money, you know the right people.

 

[135format]

$3 million is way over the top.

I rekon $1 million will do it. With that amount of money you should be able to buy a retail premises with accomodation. That retail premises then becomes a small gallery with photo printing, photo framing, possibly camera sales, film and accessory sales like albums. And kiosk printing setup (now cheap). It also serves as your photographers shop for hiring your photography skills out whether that is for weddings, portraits and / or commercial jobs. It sets you apart from the web only operators in a big way. People can instantly see you are a genuine photography business as opposed to someone trying their luck online. And the big thing is that its not spent money because its a property investment which can be sold to get your money back. So then you just need enough to live for 12 months whilst getting it up and running. You could possibly do it with less.

The best thing is that means you ain't paying rent and you ain't paying a gallery commission fees. All you need to be really sure of is where its located. i.e. somewhere there is strong possibility of people coming in and spending money. Forget it if you are living in the sticks, you need people with money to burn. But you are serving the local community and the tourist trade. maybe you only need to open 3 or 4 days a week. The rest of the time you can be out making images of what you want to hang your gallery or for clients. And when you are in the shop/gallery you can be printing and framing and serving customers. If you get it setup right you may not even need to employ staff unless there is enough demand for it to be open every day of the week. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. All I gotta do is find the money and make the commitment.

Ansel Adams didn't make it until he set up shop in Yosemite and sold pictures of Yosemite to tourists. Before that he was a jobbing photographer like thousands of others.

 

[135format]

this is all sounding like you need $3 million to get started in a photography business which is plainly BS.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

this is all sounding like you need $3 million to get started in a photography business which is plainly BS.

That's not what Frank was saying. He's saying its so hard to make money as a fine art photographer that you need to have so much money that you can live the rest of your life without an income. In other words, you need to be rich to be a fine art photographer. That's an exaggeration, but there's a lot of truth in it. A very large percentage of the famous fine art photographers throughout the history of photography were born into wealth; few really made much money off photography, but they had the money to allow them to do their photography, and in the end it made them famous.