I have to say that my primary passion for landscape photography is to hike to remote location to shoot landscape that no one else has photographed before…preferably in dramatic lighting conditions. This is a passion of mine and I suspect lot of NPNers out there. These photographs often get high praise from the photographic community and those who produce consistent high quality work are wildly admired...sometimes a bit too much. “The Swirls” is an example of this.
Lately, Varina and I have been getting quite a few requests for our landscape images from book publishers, magazines and companies who wish to license our work. Overwhelming majority of these request are for images that involve “icon shots” or take under plain old “blue skies”. These photographs are often referred to as “snap shots” or solicit comments like: “nothing too fancy” and “usually scene”. The wave is an example of that.
"The Wave" was recently published in Viajes National Geographic magazine....and they ignored the much admired "Swirls" shot.
So, the question I have been asking myself lately is this…What does it take to succeed as a landscape photographer? Shoot more icons shots…or follow my passion to shoot pristine wilderness?
What do NPNers think?
Thanks for the responses in advance.
-Jay
Posted by Dan Borzynski on March 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM
" Shoot more icons shots…or follow my passion to take shoot pristine wilderness? "
Unfortunately, yes.
The icon shots are what is going to pay the bills. If I am editting a tourist book on Utah, I want the icon shots. Those are the ones that will sell the book to the masses. It is what a buyer is going to want when he goes looking for an image that matches a set group of words.
I've noticed that even in my print sales, people will buy because they recognize a place from having been there. Sometimes it is not the shot I would have picked to represent an area, but they are the ones paying for the print.
But at the same time, you can't just shoot icons. There are only so many of them, everyone has done them to death and unless you really want that to be your portfolio, you'll get bored and it will show in your work. Not a good thing...
My best advice, take it for what it might be worth, is to pursue the images that are important to you, but when the opportunity for an icon shot comes up, shoot the heck out of it.
So, the question I have been asking myself lately is this…What does it take to succeed as a landscape photographer?
Define "succeed" and you'll answer your own question, Jay. In the very first paragraph above you state:
"I have to say that my primary passion for landscape photography is to hike to remote location to shoot landscape that no one else has photographed before…preferably in dramatic lighting conditions."
In a sense, I think you've already answered your own question.
As to the matter of different kinds of images having different levels of appeal to different sorts of viewers...yup, that's often the case. As it pertains to the folks who frequent the ES&S gallery in particular, I think it's worth keeping in mind what a niche of a niche of a niche we're talking about here. My day job is as a public opinion/marketing research analyst so I'm hypersensitive to the notion of properly sampling a population in question. If the sample's out of whack, the conclusions drawn from that sample may be useless...or worse than useless.
To the extent that you're interested in selling your work, it's probably wise to take the personal opinions of your images as held by a bunch of other landscape photographers with a very large grain of salt because they surely don't represent your target audience.
Posted by Peter Carroll on March 24, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Good discussion topic Jay. I find landscape photographers wrestle with this issue more than others because of the gap between themselves and the client. A newspaper photographer gets feedback every day from the PE. A wedding photographer shoots a certain style and either word gets out and they get many gigs or the phone is silent. Corporate photographers get a laundry list sometimes from the client as to exactly what they want and they either play ball or never get hired again. Landscape photographers follow their passion for the outdoors and hope their product meets the needs to clients. It really is a backward way to sell a product. In business it's not so much a case of the client is always right - it's a case of if you want the client to buy what you are selling they are always right. Passion and business can go hand in hand but honestly more often than not passion prevents artists from meeting the needs of clients. If you want to express yourself artistically shoot for yourself and put it up on your wall. If you want to sell it you've got to listen to what the person buying is saying. Most landscape photographers I know who make a living from the camera have a side gig or two which pays the bills more consistently. It's funny too how those side gigs are more client need driven. If you want to sell it, shoot what they want, not what makes your heart go pitter patter. I believe you can balance both your own needs and those of the client without selling your soul in the process.
Posted by Gary Crabbe on March 24, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Success will be as YOU define it. Period. Now, if you're talking success measured in dollars returned in exchange for supplying images for publication, then the best answer for most photographers will be "Both".
If you look at Japanese stock photo clients & what is marketed to them in agency catalogs, you see huge bright colors, like mid-day blues, greens, yellows, and reds. Think about the mass visual jungle this culture must face every day. Images must be bright to fight for your attention amidst the ocean of other images and visual media.
Most foreign publications want the US icons, because that is what draws interest and readership, as well as bringing tourist dollars to the US. In the US, these places are better known, and as a society we've become a bit sedate with the oft-seen icon. Editors will usually want to see things and places that haven't appeared in every other publication since Guttenberg.
Of course, your passions may not be in line with providing the other half of that equation. When we look at our own Marc Adamus' shots, he obviously has no interest in spending a day photographing Fisherman Wharf, but the same mag that wants scenics of the redwoods may want SF tourist images as well. Marc makes the choice, and works hard to achieve his success by keeping his focus, and marketing his work in that area. The same holds true for photographers like the Muench's, and Tom Till, but in addition to the wilderness areas they each cover so well, they're out there nailing the icons to satisfy that segment of the market. Art Wolfe, Tom Mangleson, and Frans Lanting; Each does wildlife. Tom exclusively. Art adds global culture and scenics to bolster his original focus on animals. Frans as added his focus on Natural History to further his original market of African and South American wildlife.
I know for my own work, while I'd sure as heck be running around in forests and mountains, I've made the choice to work for those images that the market needs. When I head to California's North Coast on a book project, it's 10 days of fun, even though I may be working hard. Conversely, when I head to the Southern California Coast for 10 days, it feels like it's all work, even though I may have moments of fun. That is the difference for me between working with the passion, and working for the (image) market.
My 2 cent opinion; 3-cent rebates available on request.
Most photo buyers want images of landscape icons the way tourists see the places or wish to see the places. This means lovely weather (e.g. blue skies) and standard views. A good deal of money can be made taking post cards of iconic landscape. Also the more you include people in the shot, the more likely it will sell. Often the most successful landscape photographers (in terms of income) have the least inspiring work (to other photographers).
I played the game for years, trying to produce images that were marketable, but it was a hollow victory. It become a 'job' and one that paid less than most jobs! I moved back to shooting was inspired me. I figured if the photos would not sell, then it was still a rewarding hobby. Interestingly, the more I shot for me and what motivated me, the better my sales became. I say follow your heart and a market will reward with for your passion and vision.
You can be a business man and make inages of what the market wants and put food on the table. Or you can be a 'visionary' andshoot from your soul. Sometimes, this latter choice makes you feel like a starving artist, but if you are smart at marketing you can get your images out there and seen and have a career that is more meaningful. Darwin
Posted by Larry Puckett on March 24, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I think that at some point you have to make a decision as to whether you want to make a career of photography or do you want to make a career of something else and have photography as a hobby. If you make the second choice then you can pay the bills and still have the creative outlet and do it as you please. If you are real good, and get real lucky, and have a good mind for the business you might succeed with photography as a career but it often requires making compromises. Many fine art photographers also do weddings and commercial work to pay the bills so they can also do the creative stuff. A long time ago I made the choice to be a research scientist (which allows me to be creative in a slightly different way) and now that I am ready to retire I am going back to the photography. Life is all about choices--Larry
Posted by Mel Ladewig on March 24, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Jay,
If you want to be published in Nat Geo Traveler and Backpacker and Sunset, the majority of their scenic photos from what I've seen are taken under pretty bland conditions and will probably include people in the frame.
Quite frankly, I think that NPN is doing a disservice to those who may wish to enter the stock nature/landscape markets. Almost everything that I've seen written on the topic says that dramatic lighting is not a mandatory requirement and that the images will sell better if they include people or man made features under conditions that people are likely to experience. NPN on the other hand has chosen to segregate the ES&S and M&N categories and the M&N category provides next to no feedback. I personally think these categories should be merged into a unified landscape gallery.
And then there is another side to all of this. Does the world need another Peter Lik?
About a year ago, I was walking through the local flea market and happened upon a first edition of Eliot Porter's "In Wildness is the Preservation of the World". I knew of the importance of the book but was not familiar with his photography. I bought it. I opened it when I got home and thought most of the images looked like a mess. I put it on the shelf and left it there for about a year. Then I sat down and decided to take another look at it. With time I've come to really love that book. I've bought several other out of print Porter books and have one more of his books very high on my wish list, but out of my price range. It has changed the way in which I see photographs and the way in which I wish to take them. The point here is that Eliot Porter was successful with photography in his lifetime, is well regarded and has left a strong legacy. He did this without supplementing his income with commercial photography. He made prints and books, mostly books. But he made the transition to full time photographer a bit later in his life after a career as a teacher at Harvard. It didn't hurt that he had Ansel Adams and Alfred Steiglitz for friends and mentors. There are many styles that can lead to financial independence in landscape and nature photography. Grand landscape in the Galen Rowell tradition is only one avenue.
I don't think it is particularly well known that Ansel Adams made his living on commercial photography for most of his life. He did portraits and product shots often in color. He worked on contract for the government at times. He did not consider the commercial photography as part of his artistic portfolio. He basically had two separate careers, although he was a photographer in both of them. It was not until later in his life that he was able to live primarily off the sale of art prints. I was aware of these facts, but recently was reminded of them after reading the book Ansel Adams in Color (which was assembled and written after his death).
As Kerry has indicated, the pool here at NPN and especially ESS is focused so heavily on a certain style of photo that I'm not sure they are a good place to sample for feedback. Its so heavily weighted towards that style, that I think they would blast an Ansel Adams or Edward Weston image if it were anonymously posted and not well known. That's not to say that some fantastic work with strong design isn't flourishing here.
In the end, you will need to make a choice for yourself. Do you wish to live solely on income derived from photography? If so, then a couple conditions should feed your decision process.
1) Have you won the lotto, are you independently wealthy or do you have a stout trust fund? If yes, then proceed however you'd like. As they say, the way to make a small fortune in the art market is to start with a large fortune.
2) If no to the above, then you'll need to make a decision. Do you want to live the starving artists life? The equipment for photography is rather expensive, so this probably will not work well in the long run.
3) If no to the above, then you'll need to make some compromises to provide a basis of income. You'll probably need to beat the dead horse some more and shoot the icons, even in bland light and possibly with people in the view. Or you'll need to take up some other form of commercial photography whether it is weddings or portraits or product. In your spare time, you can chase the images you want to make for yourself.
And to add insult to injury, from what I've seen, landscape photography is very much not in vogue within the "art" market right now. What you're, what we're photographing... is not filling the pages of aperture or blind spot, nor is it placing in the general "fine art" photography calls for entry. Artist driven competitions (in my opinion) are fixated on decay (both urban and natural), moral depravity, war, hardship, the blandness of the common and to a certain extent with digital manipulation.
That's my overly simplified view of this market.
Posted by Gary Crabbe on March 24, 2009 at 2:24 PM
As Kerry has indicated, the pool here at NPN and especially ESS is focused so heavily on a certain style of photo that I'm not sure they are a good place to sample for feedback. Its so heavily weighted towards that style, that I think they would blast an Ansel Adams or Edward Weston image if it were anonymously posted and not well known. That's not to say that some fantastic work with strong design isn't flourishing here.
I think Mel & Kerry make extremely valid points here. Many, if not most editors specifically say they DON'T want to see dark moody sunrise / sunset shots. Obvioulsy there are exceptions esp. in the calendar and outdoor market, but the vast majority want light. bright, and appealing. In fact if you look back into the Sunset Mags of the late 1990's & early 2000's you'll see more classic 'velvia' style travel images, that was the favorite style of the then photo editor. Flash fwd 2003-4, a new photo editor comes in, the whole mage re-vamps the look of it's photo selections, and now practically everything is very high key-soft color, and a world away from many of the 'ideal' dramatic landscapes that many of us strive to get for our own personal reward.
First thanks for the responses....I think there are some great points about how you define success. What drive me to succeed in landscape photography market is the shear challenge of it. If it was easy, I would most likely be bored and find something more challenging. :-))
Jay, I love your last answer, probably because I'm in it for the same reason. I remember being told on several occasions that it was nearly impossible to make one's living from landscape photography and was told that the town I was in was too saturated to even break-in. The very challenge of it, was part of what inspired me as well. Sometimes I'm worried that if I am successful that I'll have to find something else to do.
Excellent question about what is landscape photography market.
One of the reasons I joined the NPN is that this site is full of landscape photographers. I was hoping to learn from the forum and more so from the posting as to what constituted a landscape market. But, it seems that the posting are geared towards pursuing one's passion rather then being marketable. That that extend I do believe that NPN is NOT a very effective place to learn about landscape photography market...and earlier comments reflect this notion.
However, if I was to expand my definition of landscape photography market just a bit, then I can claim that NPN itselt is a landscape photography market...and perhaps a good way to make money is to start rival NPN site (Dont worry Jim, I have no plans on doing so anytime soon). My landscape market include everything that has to do with landscape photography...Artwork, Magazine Publication, Calenders, Posters, Greeting cards, Workshops, Seminars...even private tutoring. Each one of these has its own challenges and rewards.
Hope this answers your question...atleast partially. Definition of success is something that I have not yet settled on.
Thanks.
-Jay
Posted by Jack Graham on March 24, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Jay,
As an ex musician I had to play a lot of club dates and pretty average junk in order to support myself and family, pay the bills etc and also enable me to ( luckily) play on quite a few occasions great jazz gigs. The same goes for photography... same goes for what we all would like to do. You can do both.
JG
Posted by Jesse Speer on March 24, 2009 at 9:47 PM
"What does it take to succeed as a landscape photographer? Shoot more icon shots…or follow my passion to shoot pristine wilderness?"
Boy is that a subjective can o worms. My take is this - bring home good photography and it doesn't really matter what you're shooting. There's a market for pristine wilderness in dramatic light, just like there's a market for people in business suits. Like Darwin said, the key is marketing - recognizing your audience and working your rear end off - if you hope to achieve the type of commercial success you noted. Regardless of the end result, doing it your way will bring a lifetime of satisfaction ... a personal level of success that transcends financial reward. Or so I believe, as I look forward to many years of shooting.
Unlike the common path of the landscape photographer, the formula for doing your own thing (as a visionary, artist or whatever) isn't laid out the landscape photographer's "how to" book. But it sounds like you already have a good grasp of where you're headed ... your photography is good ... and time will give you a better sense of what people are actually buying.
And more importantly, you'll see how all of this (success, as defined by those who affect your bottom line) usually has very little to do with the typical critique you get in online communities composed of other photographers. That usually has more to do with personal vision or aesthetics.
But certainly the safest option is to do a bit of everything. Shoot the icons. Shoot the wilderness. Diversify. But in the end - no matter what path you choose - answer is "HARD WORK" ... in my opinion.
Jay, not to be facetious but even if I never made another cent from my photography I would still consider myself a successful landscape photographer. It is immensely satisfying to me in its own right.
My suggestion is to think of your job and your passion as two separate things. Sure, they may overlap in some areas but there's no rule that says they should. Do your job to pay the bills and pursue your passions because they makes life worth living. The vast majority of us can't have one without the other so make room in your life for both.
Jay, you cannot control what each buyer wants. By pure chance you have to have a picture that strikes a chord with the one person who has a passion for that subject, or in the case of an editor the "need" for that image. Many times I am amazed at what sold versus what I consider to be my best work. As far as icons go, only the very few get to go into the backwoods to shoot unusual places (so consider yourself extremely lucky)... most buyers want to say "I've been there" and therefore can be reminded of their good memories by viewing the image.
If you don't have responsibilities and/or the money to travel extensively you shoot what is available in your world and most likely in the world of most buyers. If you do an art show, the shots of local iconic places sell best.
In sum, we would all like to see the world without the boundaries most endure, but the fact is that most photographers and buyers are enclosed in that world and enjoy seeing it viewed in a different light.
Jay, I don't consider myself a "successful" landscape photographer yet, but my answer will be very different as I am not a full-time pro. I have decided not to ever become a full-time pro - primarily because of the reasons you mentioned. Photography is my passion and I want to go to remote wild places and take unique photos - I dont like taking icon shots at all. I dont think that I can do that if I am a pro - as I have to think of what the market wants if I have to sell.
So I have reserved "selling my soul" in my day job (which I love by the way as it is intellectually and monetarily satisfying) - but I can probably never trade my two passions - Mountaineering and Photography - for commercial aspects. They won't be passion then..I dont think that you can have it both ways
Just a different viewpoint from a part time photographer
There is always a constant fear that Landscape photography at some point will become work that I would not want to do it. But for now I do consider myself lucky that I am able to travel and do things I love...I have the means, motivation and health to get to remote place without much effort. But the best part is that I get to do that with Varina!! Well that is until her shots turn out better then mine...Just kidding!
Once again thanks for all opinions....You opinion are very insightful and valuable. I bet that a gallery or a post to see the highest sellers or most published work from all the great photographer on NPN would make for an interesting collection.
I think it's what you make of it.... and don't forget that 70% of it is marketing...maybe 80%
Great topic
Posted by Richard Wong on March 27, 2009 at 3:01 AM
This is a big topic that probably deserves a long article, but success as a landscape photographer is really in the eye of the beholder. Galen Rowell for example spent most of his career licensing adventure photos and on assignment that really had nothing to do with landscape photography. It was on those trips though that gave him opportunities to shoot landscapes when the opportunity presented itself. I would venture to guess that the majority of the landscapes that we are familiar with were his assignment outtakes.
As for myself, travel photos make up the majority of my sales, yet most people that have seen my work associate me as a landscape photographer. That is perfectly fine with me. Selling photos is a business. Shooting photos is where the fun is.
Discussion
21 repliesThe Swirls: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=116934&CGISESSID=a4146dc3454a9940fc1df10451847129&u=8883
The Wave: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=118111&CGISESSID=a4146dc3454a9940fc1df10451847129&u=3127
I have to say that my primary passion for landscape photography is to hike to remote location to shoot landscape that no one else has photographed before…preferably in dramatic lighting conditions. This is a passion of mine and I suspect lot of NPNers out there. These photographs often get high praise from the photographic community and those who produce consistent high quality work are wildly admired...sometimes a bit too much. “The Swirls” is an example of this.
Lately, Varina and I have been getting quite a few requests for our landscape images from book publishers, magazines and companies who wish to license our work. Overwhelming majority of these request are for images that involve “icon shots” or take under plain old “blue skies”. These photographs are often referred to as “snap shots” or solicit comments like: “nothing too fancy” and “usually scene”. The wave is an example of that.
"The Wave" was recently published in Viajes National Geographic magazine....and they ignored the much admired "Swirls" shot.
So, the question I have been asking myself lately is this…What does it take to succeed as a landscape photographer? Shoot more icons shots…or follow my passion to shoot pristine wilderness?
What do NPNers think?
Thanks for the responses in advance.
-Jay
Unfortunately, yes.
The icon shots are what is going to pay the bills. If I am editting a tourist book on Utah, I want the icon shots. Those are the ones that will sell the book to the masses. It is what a buyer is going to want when he goes looking for an image that matches a set group of words.
I've noticed that even in my print sales, people will buy because they recognize a place from having been there. Sometimes it is not the shot I would have picked to represent an area, but they are the ones paying for the print.
But at the same time, you can't just shoot icons. There are only so many of them, everyone has done them to death and unless you really want that to be your portfolio, you'll get bored and it will show in your work. Not a good thing...
My best advice, take it for what it might be worth, is to pursue the images that are important to you, but when the opportunity for an icon shot comes up, shoot the heck out of it.
Define "succeed" and you'll answer your own question, Jay. In the very first paragraph above you state:
"I have to say that my primary passion for landscape photography is to hike to remote location to shoot landscape that no one else has photographed before…preferably in dramatic lighting conditions."
In a sense, I think you've already answered your own question.
As to the matter of different kinds of images having different levels of appeal to different sorts of viewers...yup, that's often the case. As it pertains to the folks who frequent the ES&S gallery in particular, I think it's worth keeping in mind what a niche of a niche of a niche we're talking about here. My day job is as a public opinion/marketing research analyst so I'm hypersensitive to the notion of properly sampling a population in question. If the sample's out of whack, the conclusions drawn from that sample may be useless...or worse than useless.
To the extent that you're interested in selling your work, it's probably wise to take the personal opinions of your images as held by a bunch of other landscape photographers with a very large grain of salt because they surely don't represent your target audience.
If you look at Japanese stock photo clients & what is marketed to them in agency catalogs, you see huge bright colors, like mid-day blues, greens, yellows, and reds. Think about the mass visual jungle this culture must face every day. Images must be bright to fight for your attention amidst the ocean of other images and visual media.
Most foreign publications want the US icons, because that is what draws interest and readership, as well as bringing tourist dollars to the US. In the US, these places are better known, and as a society we've become a bit sedate with the oft-seen icon. Editors will usually want to see things and places that haven't appeared in every other publication since Guttenberg.
Of course, your passions may not be in line with providing the other half of that equation. When we look at our own Marc Adamus' shots, he obviously has no interest in spending a day photographing Fisherman Wharf, but the same mag that wants scenics of the redwoods may want SF tourist images as well. Marc makes the choice, and works hard to achieve his success by keeping his focus, and marketing his work in that area. The same holds true for photographers like the Muench's, and Tom Till, but in addition to the wilderness areas they each cover so well, they're out there nailing the icons to satisfy that segment of the market. Art Wolfe, Tom Mangleson, and Frans Lanting; Each does wildlife. Tom exclusively. Art adds global culture and scenics to bolster his original focus on animals. Frans as added his focus on Natural History to further his original market of African and South American wildlife.
I know for my own work, while I'd sure as heck be running around in forests and mountains, I've made the choice to work for those images that the market needs. When I head to California's North Coast on a book project, it's 10 days of fun, even though I may be working hard. Conversely, when I head to the Southern California Coast for 10 days, it feels like it's all work, even though I may have moments of fun. That is the difference for me between working with the passion, and working for the (image) market.
My 2 cent opinion; 3-cent rebates available on request.
I played the game for years, trying to produce images that were marketable, but it was a hollow victory. It become a 'job' and one that paid less than most jobs! I moved back to shooting was inspired me. I figured if the photos would not sell, then it was still a rewarding hobby. Interestingly, the more I shot for me and what motivated me, the better my sales became. I say follow your heart and a market will reward with for your passion and vision.
You can be a business man and make inages of what the market wants and put food on the table. Or you can be a 'visionary' andshoot from your soul. Sometimes, this latter choice makes you feel like a starving artist, but if you are smart at marketing you can get your images out there and seen and have a career that is more meaningful. Darwin
If you want to be published in Nat Geo Traveler and Backpacker and Sunset, the majority of their scenic photos from what I've seen are taken under pretty bland conditions and will probably include people in the frame.
Quite frankly, I think that NPN is doing a disservice to those who may wish to enter the stock nature/landscape markets. Almost everything that I've seen written on the topic says that dramatic lighting is not a mandatory requirement and that the images will sell better if they include people or man made features under conditions that people are likely to experience. NPN on the other hand has chosen to segregate the ES&S and M&N categories and the M&N category provides next to no feedback. I personally think these categories should be merged into a unified landscape gallery.
And then there is another side to all of this. Does the world need another Peter Lik?
About a year ago, I was walking through the local flea market and happened upon a first edition of Eliot Porter's "In Wildness is the Preservation of the World". I knew of the importance of the book but was not familiar with his photography. I bought it. I opened it when I got home and thought most of the images looked like a mess. I put it on the shelf and left it there for about a year. Then I sat down and decided to take another look at it. With time I've come to really love that book. I've bought several other out of print Porter books and have one more of his books very high on my wish list, but out of my price range. It has changed the way in which I see photographs and the way in which I wish to take them. The point here is that Eliot Porter was successful with photography in his lifetime, is well regarded and has left a strong legacy. He did this without supplementing his income with commercial photography. He made prints and books, mostly books. But he made the transition to full time photographer a bit later in his life after a career as a teacher at Harvard. It didn't hurt that he had Ansel Adams and Alfred Steiglitz for friends and mentors. There are many styles that can lead to financial independence in landscape and nature photography. Grand landscape in the Galen Rowell tradition is only one avenue.
I don't think it is particularly well known that Ansel Adams made his living on commercial photography for most of his life. He did portraits and product shots often in color. He worked on contract for the government at times. He did not consider the commercial photography as part of his artistic portfolio. He basically had two separate careers, although he was a photographer in both of them. It was not until later in his life that he was able to live primarily off the sale of art prints. I was aware of these facts, but recently was reminded of them after reading the book Ansel Adams in Color (which was assembled and written after his death).
As Kerry has indicated, the pool here at NPN and especially ESS is focused so heavily on a certain style of photo that I'm not sure they are a good place to sample for feedback. Its so heavily weighted towards that style, that I think they would blast an Ansel Adams or Edward Weston image if it were anonymously posted and not well known. That's not to say that some fantastic work with strong design isn't flourishing here.
In the end, you will need to make a choice for yourself. Do you wish to live solely on income derived from photography? If so, then a couple conditions should feed your decision process.
1) Have you won the lotto, are you independently wealthy or do you have a stout trust fund? If yes, then proceed however you'd like. As they say, the way to make a small fortune in the art market is to start with a large fortune.
2) If no to the above, then you'll need to make a decision. Do you want to live the starving artists life? The equipment for photography is rather expensive, so this probably will not work well in the long run.
3) If no to the above, then you'll need to make some compromises to provide a basis of income. You'll probably need to beat the dead horse some more and shoot the icons, even in bland light and possibly with people in the view. Or you'll need to take up some other form of commercial photography whether it is weddings or portraits or product. In your spare time, you can chase the images you want to make for yourself.
And to add insult to injury, from what I've seen, landscape photography is very much not in vogue within the "art" market right now. What you're, what we're photographing... is not filling the pages of aperture or blind spot, nor is it placing in the general "fine art" photography calls for entry. Artist driven competitions (in my opinion) are fixated on decay (both urban and natural), moral depravity, war, hardship, the blandness of the common and to a certain extent with digital manipulation.
That's my overly simplified view of this market.
I think Mel & Kerry make extremely valid points here. Many, if not most editors specifically say they DON'T want to see dark moody sunrise / sunset shots. Obvioulsy there are exceptions esp. in the calendar and outdoor market, but the vast majority want light. bright, and appealing. In fact if you look back into the Sunset Mags of the late 1990's & early 2000's you'll see more classic 'velvia' style travel images, that was the favorite style of the then photo editor. Flash fwd 2003-4, a new photo editor comes in, the whole mage re-vamps the look of it's photo selections, and now practically everything is very high key-soft color, and a world away from many of the 'ideal' dramatic landscapes that many of us strive to get for our own personal reward.
-Jay
You mention success in the landscape photography market. What is the landscape photography market? What is your definition of success in that market?
Excellent question about what is landscape photography market.
One of the reasons I joined the NPN is that this site is full of landscape photographers. I was hoping to learn from the forum and more so from the posting as to what constituted a landscape market. But, it seems that the posting are geared towards pursuing one's passion rather then being marketable. That that extend I do believe that NPN is NOT a very effective place to learn about landscape photography market...and earlier comments reflect this notion.
However, if I was to expand my definition of landscape photography market just a bit, then I can claim that NPN itselt is a landscape photography market...and perhaps a good way to make money is to start rival NPN site (Dont worry Jim, I have no plans on doing so anytime soon). My landscape market include everything that has to do with landscape photography...Artwork, Magazine Publication, Calenders, Posters, Greeting cards, Workshops, Seminars...even private tutoring. Each one of these has its own challenges and rewards.
Hope this answers your question...atleast partially. Definition of success is something that I have not yet settled on.
Thanks.
-Jay
As an ex musician I had to play a lot of club dates and pretty average junk in order to support myself and family, pay the bills etc and also enable me to ( luckily) play on quite a few occasions great jazz gigs. The same goes for photography... same goes for what we all would like to do. You can do both.
JG
Boy is that a subjective can o worms. My take is this - bring home good photography and it doesn't really matter what you're shooting. There's a market for pristine wilderness in dramatic light, just like there's a market for people in business suits. Like Darwin said, the key is marketing - recognizing your audience and working your rear end off - if you hope to achieve the type of commercial success you noted. Regardless of the end result, doing it your way will bring a lifetime of satisfaction ... a personal level of success that transcends financial reward. Or so I believe, as I look forward to many years of shooting.
Unlike the common path of the landscape photographer, the formula for doing your own thing (as a visionary, artist or whatever) isn't laid out the landscape photographer's "how to" book. But it sounds like you already have a good grasp of where you're headed ... your photography is good ... and time will give you a better sense of what people are actually buying.
And more importantly, you'll see how all of this (success, as defined by those who affect your bottom line) usually has very little to do with the typical critique you get in online communities composed of other photographers. That usually has more to do with personal vision or aesthetics.
But certainly the safest option is to do a bit of everything. Shoot the icons. Shoot the wilderness. Diversify. But in the end - no matter what path you choose - answer is "HARD WORK" ... in my opinion.
My suggestion is to think of your job and your passion as two separate things. Sure, they may overlap in some areas but there's no rule that says they should. Do your job to pay the bills and pursue your passions because they makes life worth living. The vast majority of us can't have one without the other so make room in your life for both.
Guy
If you don't have responsibilities and/or the money to travel extensively you shoot what is available in your world and most likely in the world of most buyers. If you do an art show, the shots of local iconic places sell best.
In sum, we would all like to see the world without the boundaries most endure, but the fact is that most photographers and buyers are enclosed in that world and enjoy seeing it viewed in a different light.
So I have reserved "selling my soul" in my day job (which I love by the way as it is intellectually and monetarily satisfying) - but I can probably never trade my two passions - Mountaineering and Photography - for commercial aspects. They won't be passion then..I dont think that you can have it both ways
Just a different viewpoint from a part time photographer
Once again thanks for all opinions....You opinion are very insightful and valuable. I bet that a gallery or a post to see the highest sellers or most published work from all the great photographer on NPN would make for an interesting collection.
Thanks.
-Jay
Great topic
As for myself, travel photos make up the majority of my sales, yet most people that have seen my work associate me as a landscape photographer. That is perfectly fine with me. Selling photos is a business. Shooting photos is where the fun is.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/ja0900-1.html