photosmaximus

This is the part that no one reads, but actually is pretty important for the artist. First of all, thanks for visiting this site; now if I could only get you to buy something...

Many years ago, while I was still teaching, I told my classes that the internet was the salvation of photographers, since every photographer could have his own virtual gallery and sell works from the comfort of his living room. Well, I was wrong. What happened, instead, is that two things have virtually killed photography as a money-making profession - terrific little digital cameras and the internet. Now, an unprecedented proliferation of photo web sites, by everybody from master photograhers to your favorite partially-blind aunt, has created such a glut that very few can make a substantial dent in the process of selling. It's now possible to buy photos from mass photo web sites for republication for less than a dollar. So, under this system, in order to make a decent living, a serious photographer would have to sell, as a bare minimum, over 4000 images per month. I've read comments from those who contribute to these sites, "well, I sold 353 images from this site and 75 from that and made a whole $245 last month." You know that most of the stuff sold is crap, because there's not a photographer alive that can produce hundreds of really good to great images per month. Edward Weston, for instance, was happy to get several images that met his standards per year. Of course, he damn near starved to death in the process, but he kept true to himself and his ideals.

Which brings this around to me, since this is my web site.
The greatest compliment I was paid was from my kids, at an exhibition of Adam's & Weston's works when they both agreed that you could stick some of my photos on the walls and no-one would know the difference. And they were serious.

So that makes for a dilemma. Try to sell to the mass market, which is what my former Home Gallery Portfolios was attempting to do, or stick to my ideals and publish and sell only those images that present my works at the highest level. Color photos usually don't have the psychological impact of black & white works because people often look at them as "just" pretty pictures of such and such, while the b/w photos cause a more visceral and personal reaction. I've noticed the same with my own works, as people remark often remark about a color photo, "Oh, that's a great picture of whatever," while the same or similar shot in b/w will get, "Oh, that's a great photo." Subject is immaterial; they appreciate the work for what it is - a photograph - a work of art of and by itself - and not what it was in reality.

Therefore, somehow I'm going to try to reconcile the difference between the media, but my emphasis will be turned back to b/w, as that's where my heart really lies. Color is OK, and I think I do a decent job with it; "Oh, that looks just like a watercolor!" But it's still being referenced as an image of some particular thing - not as an image important of and by itself. (This difference may be difficult for most people to realize, but it's there and takes some thought.)

And so, as I slowly fade away into the forgotten dust specks of history, I will stubbornly continue to sell prints on the internet - and in person. They will be printed to the highest standards on my digital Epson equipment and will be offered in the best possible size - and for one common price for all.

That's all I can do; the internet and digital revolution is here, for good or ill and we'll have to wait to see what happens.

Piczo