Photography help!

carlos840 · #1 11-29-2011, 11:53 AM

Hi all,

So i have a question about photography...

Not long ago i started to walk around with a camera and really got into the whole "street photography" thing!

Today out of nowhere someone contacted me and asked me to print and sell them a couple of my pictures!
Those would not be advertised or commercialized, it is a private owner!

Legally i know there isnt a problem as i dont need a release form since this is considered art and not commercial work!

My main issue is that i have no idea how much i should charge for my work! The prints will cost me around £35 a piece.

I do not want to sell myself to cheap, but i do not know what a fair price would be!

Does any body have any experience in that domain?

Here are my pics:

Flickr: Carlos840's Photostream

carlos840 · #2 11-30-2011, 08:32 AM

None of the photographers sell any work?

Febs · #3 11-30-2011, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlos840

None of the photographers sell any work?

There is an ongoing TB photography thread that is fairly active. You might try posting in that thread.

**Pacman** · #4 11-30-2011, 10:00 AM

Only you can price your work. Consider your time, effort, costs, etc. Go from there.

i_got_a_mohawk · #5 11-30-2011, 10:16 AM

Have to agree with Pac on that one, only you can really judge what is a fair price here.

Canvas prints, if they are that price?

(you could also see what other local photographers etc sell shots for if you are really struggling)

**Vorago** · #6 11-30-2011, 12:26 PM

The times I sold prints I considered

The price of the film, developer, prints, etc.

+

The time invested. This included the trip to the set, taking the pictures, developing, etc. I then decided on an hour wage for myself (something like 10 euro/hour) and added it all up.

carlos840 · #7 11-30-2011, 01:28 PM

Well, thats the thing, the time i cannot count as i do that as a hobby, i just go for a walk with my camera and take pictures! I cant count my time in an hourly wage.

The expenses are just film, developing and printing, which i get done at a lab!

Altogether a 12"*10" print will probably cost me £40...

Whatever i charge on top of that is just an estimate of how much i think my work is worth artistically!

My issue is that since street photography doesnt really sell anymore i dont have anything to compare it to!
I know you can get some original Garry winogrand prints for as little as 700$ (£450), you can also find some prints worth 40000$ but his less famous prints are sub $1000!
He is famous, im not!

If it was something like a photo shoot, or an advert it would be pretty easy to price, the fact that this is "art" makes it hard for me to estimate.
I dont want to ask for to little and diminish my work and i dont want to ask for to much and make something hard to sell completely unsellable...

This is hard!

**Vorago** · #8 11-30-2011, 01:35 PM

Why not take in account your time? If these pictures were the result of a 2 hour walk, charge two hours.

Something to keep in mind as well is that people are often very willing to pay a descent amount of money for your art.

Here's a message board that will probably contain some good advice on this:

Photography Business forum from Photo.net

carlos840 · #9 11-30-2011, 01:53 PM

Well i think that hourly rate doesnt really apply to art!

No one cares how long it took to paint the Mona Lisa or some modern monochrome that took 5 minutes, its the result that is important!

I was thinking about asking for 250€ for a print (12"by10" silver gelatin hand print) but i dont know if that is a decent price!

PrietoBass · #10 11-30-2011, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlos840

Legally i know there isnt a problem as i dont need a release form since this is considered art and not commercial work!

Not so fast.... If the photos you are selling are of something not your property, and it is recognizable, you may still need a release, since the moment you sell it it ceases to be strictly "art"; you are making a profit. If there are people in the photo, even more cause to ensure you are legit... best to consult an attorney.

The right price depends on how much you value your work, what your market will bear, and the intended use of the photo(s), among other criteria.

Do your research locally.

Good luck.

carlos840 · #11 11-30-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrietoBass

Not so fast.... If the photos you are selling are of something not your property, and it is recognizable, you may still need a release, since the moment you sell it it ceases to be strictly "art"; you are making a profit. If there are people in the photo, even more cause to ensure you are legit... best to consult an attorney.

The right price depends on how much you value your work, what your market will bear, and the intended use of the photo(s), among other criteria.

Do your research locally.

Good luck.

I did all the research and you do not need a release form even if you have recognisable people on the pictures!

This is the law in the US:

Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the UK (and most of europe):

It is completely legal to take pictures of anyone in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy in the United Kingdom. You do not require a model release to take images of any kind, they are counted as contracts in UK Law and therefore can be completely disregarded by a judge.

It is legal to sell and display the images in the United Kingdom and abroad, other countries laws may differ in that they require model releases for publication and so that will effect where you can publish and sell images, some states in the USA have these laws.

Libel and slander laws effect how images can be used. If you publish an image which is knowingly untrue and defames and damages someone's character, you are liable to civil action (being sued). There is also the Human Rights Act which grants everyone the right to a private life, this means you cannot take images of people where they reasonably expect privacy.

Once you step in a public area you loose your right to privacy!

What you cannot do though is take someones picture and use it on a Viagra advert without his consent! This is where a picture becomes "commercial" and you need a release form...

Stumbo · #12 11-30-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlos840

I did all the research and you do not need a release form even if you have recognisable people on the pictures!

This is the law in the US:

Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FWIW, it's not a law. A law is passed by the government.

You could still be sued in a state other than New York. You may win but you'll spend a lot of money defending yourself.

carlos840 · #13 11-30-2011, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stumbo

FWIW, it's not a law. A law is passed by the government.

You could still be sued in a state other than New York. You may win but you'll spend a lot of money defending yourself.

I know what you mean...
I just wanted to point out that the case already happened and that even without a model release the photographer "won"

"It ruled that the defendants' uses of Nussenzweig's likeness were not "commercial," but rather were forms of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment"

MatticusMania · #14 11-30-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlos840

No one cares how long it took to paint the Mona Lisa or some modern monochrome that took 5 minutes, its the result that is important!

I disagree. While the result is surely important, the time it takes to create that result matters a whole hell of a lot. Id certainly charge more for a painting that took me 3 years, and less for something I was able to knock out in a weekend.

i_got_a_mohawk · #15 11-30-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

I disagree. While the result is surely important, the time it takes to create that result matters a whole hell of a lot. Id certainly charge more for a painting that took me 3 years, and less for something I was able to knock out in a weekend.

The most expensive painting ever sold is "No. 5, 1948" by Jackson Pollock.

I refuse to accept that that took a great deal of time of skill!

However, when it comes to art, the "rarity" is probably one of the biggest selling points, at least with any known artist. What's the saying about artists only earning once they're no more!

MatticusMania · #16 11-30-2011, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

I refuse to accept that that took a great deal of time of skill!

I dont know how long it may have taken him, but I wouldnt be surprised if it took longer than you or I might think.

PrietoBass · #17 11-30-2011, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stumbo

You could still be sued in a state other than New York. You may win but you'll spend a lot of money defending yourself.

Hey Carlos, it looks like you've done your homework then.

I'm quoting Stumbo because that fits what my instructors taught me (I took some credit hours in college and a few courses here and there). It's not about being right, it's avoiding the legal costs of litigation where OTOH a release can come in handy. So the word was, "always get a release", just to be on the safe side.

However, it's been a while, and this was here in the US, so things may have changed. More power to you and best of luck with your sale.