# Do I stand a chance?



## elementgs

I know this is such a vague question but I really am kicking this around a lot lately and I'm just wondering, do I really stand a chance?

I want to make this a career more than anything and quite honestly I'm not worried about the difficulty I know I will face.  I know making money in landscape photography is really difficult, even if I was Ansel Adams, I'm just not worried about it... I spent my life up to age 29 in sales and the past 7 years in the military.  I can handle the difficulty... what I want to know is if I actually have the talent for it.

I'm 100% self taught at this point, no classes, no mentor... just one year, the Internet, a lot of passion, and 10,194 mistakes so far.

My 500px has all the pictures I've published and if you start from the bottom up you may notice a steady progression of knowledge gained... I'm still bouncing around a bit trying to decide on my personal style but I'm really getting a feeling for it.

I'm open to honest feedback and appreciate any and all comments.

Thanks!


----------



## amolitor

You might want to do a little research into the number of people who have in fact made a career out of landscape photography. I do not have any hard answers here, but would not be surprised to learn that the number of people who have managed to make even a modest living purely at landscape photography numbers less than 10.

It's a bit litle being a concert pianist, at best. Being excellent isn't enough.


----------



## Gavjenks

These are my 5 favorites. I assume you're okay with me posting them directly, since you're asking for critique and linked us already and everybody knows who took them:
1)

2)

3)

4)

5)



My choice of those 5 in and of itself probably says a lot about what things I like pattern-wise and which things I don't from that set, even if I can't explain it.
But in general, something like:
1) Strong large-scale shapes
2) Vivid but not unnatural looking colors
3) Plenty of well rendered detail to keep me in the photo once the strong shapes and contrast have pulled me in.


Nitpicks:
1) I think this would have been a lot stronger if the rocks were not centered.
2) The horizon looks a little crooked and maybe pan a little further right.
3) The new growth on the bush to the right is in the way. Moving in front of that would really help. And the office building in the back is terribly out of place. moving a bit to the left might fix that without changing the image much, assuming you can do that without falling into the creek (moving back and left with a longer lens in that case might work).
5) I don't actually like this image very much as is, but I think it had a lot of potential. Minus the flare, which isn't really helping much, and in softer light, this same angle and scene though could be brilliant.


As for overall can you hack it professionally, who on earth knows? Probably not, simply because almost nobody does. But could you make a decent side income? Quite possibly. I'm not sure this is a cash-money-right-now quality portfolio as it stands, but you definitely seem skilled enough to get where you want to be with practice and time. And I'm sure several of these would sell right now through the right channels.

Probably your skills in business and marketing are just as or more important than your photography, and I have no idea how good of a businessman you are. And you almost certainly would want to supplement your photography with PEOPLE shots if it's your only income. If you love good landscapes, then specialize in outdoor people shots with the people in the context of beautiful landscapes, if you want the best chances of making a real living doing something close to what you like.


----------



## Derrel

I spent a few minutes going through your 500px portfolio, and I will tell it to you straight: your landscape photographs are receiving low ratings because there is very little "engagement" with the landscape in them. A pretty scene, a pretty sunset sky, and so on are simply not enough. Your photos are simple recordings, made at pretty locations.Many of the photos lack a strong or compelling foreground, and are simply semi-wide-angle recordings of pretty locations. That is simply not enough to make the photos compelling. Yes, you might be growing into your style, or finding your style, but what I see is the same basic thing over and over. Pretty location, rich,vibrant,saturated color, but no real "engagement" with the landscapes before you. There's also very little focal length variety, and almost everything seems to be over the top, full on saturation sliders to the maximum.

The shorebird above, for example: the bird is located almost dead center in the frame, but the bird is looking to the right...that makes for a dull composition. The bird is highlighted by rim-lighting, but the shadowed side is all basically the same tone. The lighting there is tricky...nuanced...delicate, and yet brash, but the post-processing is not sophisticated enough to show any nuance. It's a beautiful scene, and a neat-looking bird, but the lenswork, and the photographic skill to elevate this scene to its full glory, are not present yet. You have a long way to go. In today's market, it's simply not enough to travel to pretty locations and take good recordings...the photos need to cause the viewer to "engage" with the scene shown...and the shots simply do not do that.


----------



## Gavjenks

I agree that many of the images suffer from too little going on in big patches.  I'm not sure it NEEDS to be a foreground object as Derrel is suggesting. That certainly is one good ironclad option that will almost always work (animals are always nice, or cool buildings, broken boats, you know, whatever).  You can get away without foreground stuff, too. But if so, you need "interesting stuff" across the frame, ideally a variety of it.

For example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_The_Tetons_and_the_Snake_River.jpg

This doesn't really have anything in the foreground per se. But instead, i t is divided up into a bunch of diverse and interesting section to explore that have shapes and things to look at. A peninsula, a river, trees, mountain, clouds make for 5 good solid regions balancing one another and leaving no huge dead spaces that don't contribute.

Which is almost always harder to do, I'd say, than just putting something cool in the foreground.


----------



## Derrel

Gavjenks said:


> I agree that many of the images suffer from too little going on in big patches.  I'm not sure it NEEDS to be a foreground object as Derrel is suggesting. That certainly is one good ironclad option that will almost always work (animals are always nice, or cool buildings, broken boats, you know, whatever).  You can get away without foreground stuff, too. But if so, you need "interesting stuff" across the frame, ideally a variety of it.
> 
> For example:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_The_Tetons_and_the_Snake_River.jpg
> 
> This doesn't really have anything in the foreground per se. But instead, i t is divided up into a bunch of diverse and interesting section to explore that have shapes and things to look at. A peninsula, a river, trees, mountain, clouds make for 5 good solid regions balancing one another and leaving no huge dead spaces that don't contribute.
> 
> Which is almost always harder to do, I'd say, than just putting something cool in the foreground.



WHAT the **** are you talking about?????????? The photo has an *incredibly compelling foreground.*

"Doah!" Surely you jest. It's the Snake River in the foreground, leading right into the image.

You must just be here for sport I suppose. My God. Talk about pedantic.


----------



## runnah

Don't quit your day job.


----------



## amolitor

Ansel Adams pictures always have gigantic amounts of design in them. The guy was a frustrated painter, as near as I can tell. The Snake River picture can be unpacked forever.


----------



## Devinhullphoto

Gavjenks said:


> These are my 5 favorites. I assume you're okay with me posting them directly, since you're asking for critique and linked us already and everybody knows who took them: 1) <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56557"/> 2) <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56558"/> 3) <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56559"/> 4) <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56560"/> 5) <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56561"/>  My choice of those 5 in and of itself probably says a lot about what things I like pattern-wise and which things I don't from that set, even if I can't explain it. But in general, something like: 1) Strong large-scale shapes 2) Vivid but not unnatural looking colors 3) Plenty of well rendered detail to keep me in the photo once the strong shapes and contrast have pulled me in.  Nitpicks: 1) I think this would have been a lot stronger if the rocks were not centered. 2) The horizon looks a little crooked and maybe pan a little further right. 3) The new growth on the bush to the right is in the way. Moving in front of that would really help. And the office building in the back is terribly out of place. moving a bit to the left might fix that without changing the image much, assuming you can do that without falling into the creek (moving back and left with a longer lens in that case might work). 5) I don't actually like this image very much as is, but I think it had a lot of potential. Minus the flare, which isn't really helping much, and in softer light, this same angle and scene though could be brilliant.  As for overall can you hack it professionally, who on earth knows? Probably not, simply because almost nobody does. But could you make a decent side income? Quite possibly. I'm not sure this is a cash-money-right-now quality portfolio as it stands, but you definitely seem skilled enough to get where you want to be with practice and time. And I'm sure several of these would sell right now through the right channels.  Probably your skills in business and marketing are just as or more important than your photography, and I have no idea how good of a businessman you are. And you almost certainly would want to supplement your photography with PEOPLE shots if it's your only income. If you love good landscapes, then specialize in outdoor people shots with the people in the context of beautiful landscapes, if you want the best chances of making a real living doing something close to what you like.



Dang! That sky on 4! Killer!


----------



## Devinhullphoto

Derrel said:


> WHAT the **** are you talking about?????????? The photo has an incredibly compelling foreground.  "Doah!" Surely you jest. It's the Snake River in the foreground, leading right into the image.  You must just be here for sport I suppose. My God. Talk about pedantic.



I think it's a great shot. I know loads of people require something in the scene other than nature but I love shots of pretty places. That's just me though.


----------



## Gavjenks

The nearest point to the photographer in snake river is like 200 meters away probably, no particular objects or shapes really stand out close up. The entire river itself takes up half the image and goes all the way out to half a mile away.

I wouldn't call that a "foreground."  I would say that if there are no particularly nearby shapes or objects to the camera at all, it simply doesn't have a foreground. Otherwise the term is fairly meaningless, because if you define "foreground" as just whatever the nearest interesting objects are, then by definition, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to take a photo with a non-interesting foreground, because it just wouldn't be the foreground yet...




But whatever, it doesn't really matter.  The point remains the same that you want to have a good distribution of interesting regions throughout your landscape, with no huge areas of dead space that don't contribute.  Whatever terms you use, that will still translate to the same basic architecture of an image. The advice to the OP boils down to the same thing.

I merely wanted to clarify that there doesn't necessarily have to be an actual shape or object up close to you to make an interesting landscape (like a moose, or a cabin, or a particularly compelling tree or whatever). If the OP already understands that from his definition of "foreground" being the same as Derrel's, then great. mission accomplished. If not, then now he does.  Either way *shrug*


----------



## amolitor

There are lots of Ansel Adams pictures that aren't built around a near/far relationship, but I'm with Derrel here, the Snake River picture ain't one of 'em.


----------



## Derrel

*fore·ground*

 [fawr-ground, fohr-]  Show IPA
*noun**1.*the ground or parts situated, or represented as situated, in the front; the portion of a scene nearest to the viewer (opposed to background ).

*2.*a prominent or important position; forefront.

*Origin: *
1685&#8211;95; fore- + ground

Again, the definition of "foreground" is well-understood by people of normal intelligence. 

The OP's photos lack engaging entry into almost all images. Basic compositional skills are missing. Pretty scenes are 19 to 39 cents per download in today's stock photo market. Yes..nineteen CENTS to thirty-nine CENTS, per file, on basic for-the-record landscape snaps.


----------



## tirediron

Okay folks, let's try and keep this relevant; the OP isn't asking for critique on 'Snake River'!


----------



## amolitor

The OP actually strikes me as having a moderate grasp of near/far, but not consistently. The bigger problems are putting stuff into the frame in a balanced and pleasing way. There are a few hits, quite a bit of stuff simply jammed in the middle of the frame, and a fair number of near misses, where the elements are trying but are not quite pulling together to make a pleasing design.

On the other hand, Peter Lik and a couple other guys doing pretty much the same thing seem to be making a living selling stuff that's only a modest notch better. Lik's photos look similar, but Lik's worst frames are about as good as the OP's best/luckiest compositions, to my eye. But Peter Lik and his colleagues are largely about marketing, not about photography.

The OP could probably work away at it and build a deep enough portfolio to pull a decent small portfolio of quite decent work out without much trouble. The problem them becomes turning pictures into money, and that's a very very big problem in a genre like this.

Seriously, how many successful landscape photographers can you name? How many people are making a living in the genre right now? I think more living men have been ON THE MOON than are making a living selling landscape photographs.


----------



## Designer

elementgs said:


> I can handle the difficulty... what I want to know is if I actually have the talent for it.



Talent is one thing, and kind of hard to evaluate, practice, and build.  

The rest of it is marketing, marketing, and marketing.

One of the most successful landscape photographers goes places most people never go.  He travels the world seeking special places.  He times his visits to (hopefully) catch the best light.  He makes pictures that people want to buy.  

I say; go for it, jump in and get your feet wet, try it for a few years and see how it goes.


----------



## Derrel

The OP needs some honest assessment of his work, in TODAY'S stock-oriented market. Images like his 500px portfolio are available everywhere. The OP's images show a serious lack of sound landscape compositional strategies. Off-topic efforts to introduce an Ansel Adams image to the discussion and state that it "has no foreground per se" are off-based, and unhelpful. As amolitor points out, the OP's images need assistance and improvement in putting things into the frame in "balanced and pleasing" ways. 

The question was, "Do I stand a chance?". The answer based on the 500px portfolio is, "No, not until you become a good landscape photographer." A photographer who can compete in a crowded marketplace, against people who are *really good*, and whose landscape images *engage* viewers, using any number of well-proven compositional methods and practices--only one of which is to bring the viewer into a scene with a foreground that has at least something of interest to the average viewer. Snapshots; postcards;landscapes--all are different things. In today's image market, there are millions, as in literally millions, of quality landscape images; tens of millions of postcard images; and probably billions of snapshots and simple for-the-record photos.

http://www.google.com/search?q=phot...gH12oDoDg&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1556&bih=905&dpr=1


----------



## runnah

I think the better question is why?


----------



## ShaneF

anyone call sell a photo no matter how good or bad it is, you just have to fond someone willing to buy it. Its all about marketing, the more people who can see your work the better chance you have of selling it.  Promote yourself like Don King promoting a fight and get your work out there if you want to be seen.

FaceBook
Twitter
500px
Tumbler
Flicker
The list is endless

Enter your work in contests local and online, start your own website you so can have a home for your work.  There is endless ways to market yourself and the more you use the better chance you have. Its all about being seen.

Good luck and may the force be with you.


----------



## play18now

I took a quick look, and my major observation is that the majority of your highest rated pictures were all of similar subjects.  Lot's of sunset compositions with bold colors in the sky and on the horizon.  Yes they're beautiful sunsets, but is that something that a customer would want to purchase and put up in their house or office.  Being a successful landscape photographer requires much more than just taking great pictures.  You're not giving someone a professionally done memory bank of something they experienced (i.e. wedding).  Your photographs have to convey emotion or grab the attention of the viewer on their own.  They will never be looked at to remind someone of a good memory they had from some event, so in order to sell, they have to be that much better.  If you had set up a gallery of the photos in that portfolio, I would have walked in and looked at them, liked a couple of them, but ultimately left without purchasing one.  Even phenomenal landscape photographers don't necessarily make their living selling landscape photos.  There's just not nearly as much money in it as there is in event or portrait photography.


----------



## lambertpix

Derrel said:


> ...In today's image market, there are millions, as in literally millions, of quality landscape images; tens of millions of postcard images; and probably billions of snapshots and simple for-the-record photos.



Harsh, but this is exactly the problem with landscape and other fine art photography.  You don't have to merely be very good -- you have to be phenomenal....and then you have to start monetizing the photos, which takes marketing, business savvy, and probably some luck, too.  I'm not sure if this is quite right, analogy-wise, but if you think of all the actors & musicians working side jobs until they get their big break, you might be able to appreciate the problem.  I don't have any numbers to support this, but I have a feeling that an awful lot of fine art photographers have another income to support their hobby -- be it portrait or commercial photography, or another profession altogether.

I think you've got some nice photos -- I actually like the tone of the bird photo quite a lot -- and there's nothing wrong with *trying* to sell your photos, but until you start to see a steady income from your work, it's pretty difficult to wake up and say, "Today, I'm going to sell art."  You might also find that approaching photography as an income source sucks a little art out of your hobby, too.  Not necessarily a deal-killer, but give it some thought.

BTW, if you haven't already done this, try getting that bird printed on aluminized paper (fairly cheap in small sizes) or metal -- it'll look like liquid copper.  Then, figure out how to sell it.


----------



## elementgs

runnah said:


> I think the better question is why?



I've made my money, I've served my country, I've done the impossible before and quite honestly, I'm not worried about doing it again.  I know it'll be difficult but as ShaneF said, even bad photos can sell.  It's about marketing and exposure.

I'm truly not worried about the money.

I'm worried I'll never make an impact.

I really truly appreciate all the feedback, even the deviation in topic.  It's all extremely helpful.


----------



## elementgs

lambertpix said:


> BTW, if you haven't already done this, try getting that bird printed on aluminized paper (fairly cheap in small sizes) or metal -- it'll look like liquid copper.  Then, figure out how to sell it.



Very nice, I'll give it a shot.  I just took that one a few days ago so I haven't even had it printed yet.  I love the texture in the sand and the tones, a ton.  Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## sashbar

I do not want to add anything to what the more accomplished photographers have already told you about your portfolio, and I think you have got some very good advice in this thread. I just would like to say that if you are hell bent to "achieve impossible" again, in my opinion, you have to adopt a completely different approach to what you have at the moment. Your portfolio looks way too casual. You have to be much more systematic and conscious of what you are doing. 
First of all - I think self education is not enough here because at best it is a very long and winding road. There are extremely talented self educated photographers, of course, but this kind of talent is rare and and it shows if not immediatly, but early. 
So if you have the money, invest in your education and do it wisely, work as an event photographer or anywhere in photography where you can earn money, it will add to your technical pedigree anyway. 
Secondly - a landscape photographer is a very broad term, you need to find your niche within landscape photography to be able to market it succesfully. Who will be your customer - housewives decorating their houses? Media editors? 
Then you will need to find your own style accordingly, work on developing, improving and polishing it, making it recognisable. What exactly is going to make it unique - your compositions, your feeling of colors, your locations, your inique shhoting technique, your post production prowess... I have no idea whatsoever. There you will need a professional help, that's why a formal education or a good tutor is so useful. But anyway only you will make it. You will have to put your own mark on these frigging sunsets or whatever you choose to shoot. So that people would say "Is it John Gannon sunset?" THEN you can build a powerful portfolio and after that MAYBE, just maybe you will have a chance to even sell something .  I can only guess here, but my feeling is, as other guys said, it is about as difficult as flying to the moon. But if you were in Air Force, than maybe..  

In the meantime - analyse work of the best landscape photographers, ask yourself why this image is so good, and you have to consistently come up with the right answers. Because talent is not something abstract, it is just a simple ability to see things, tell a good image from a great one, break it to pieces and come up with right conclusions. You need to get under the skin of your favourite photographers and understand how do they do it and how do they see the world around them, what motivates them aestetically  etc etc. copycat them mercilessly to learn - not to borrow their style, but to find your own. Because you have to face the truth, if you want to be a sussessful landscape photographer, these guys are your competition. Can you do a landscape exactly as they did? Do you see how to improve upon it? Tough, really tough..

Just my 2 cents into your future bank account. So good luck !!


----------



## KmH

elementgs said:


> *Do I stand a chance?*


Absolutely.
Though if you only do landscape photography the chances are almost non-existent.

Your profile has no location. For trying to establish a landscape photography business it matters.
You will need access to 2 or morel urban centers that have substantial arts communities, galleries, business that collect fine art photography, art representatives, etc.

Photography talent won't be the deciding factor. Business talent will be.
Plan on having 3 years worth of income in the bank to live on while you get the business into the black.
A majority of your time during those 3 years will be spent on business tasks (mostly marketing, promotion, networking, trying to get established with an art representative), and not on doing photography related tasks.

A vast majority of the photographs that sell (about 85%) have people in them, and are bought by the people in the photographs.
The rest of the market (the remaining 15%) is split among all the other genre's of images, of which landscape photography is just 1.

Those 10 (maybe) photographers Amolitor mentioned that make a living from landscape photography more than likely make their money doing workshops and selling workshop DVD's, than by selling images.


----------



## amolitor

If you want to learn about how to make really good pictures, I recommend starting with some books on painting.

The material on photography is mostly "here's how you use your camera" mixed with some stuff that's wrong about how to make good pictures.


----------



## SCraig

The musician example that lambertpix mentioned is appropriate.  Living in Nashville I see talented musicians every. single. day.  Highly talented musicians that look and sound much like all the other highly talented musicians floating around here.  Many of them are waiting tables or working as secretaries or whatever they can find to make ends meet until they get their "Big Break".  On weekends they can be found on every street corner, guitar over their shoulder, doing everything they know to do to get that one foot in the door.

Many are not untalented head-bangers but truly talented musicians.  The place I used to work had a secretary who came to Nashville from Seattle to become famous.  She was a very talented singer and every minute she wasn't at work was spent trying to make that one break.  Every dime she made went into tapes and CD's and agent's fees.  Five years or so of hearing "No Thanks" was eventually enough for her.

I don't have numbers to back it up but I would suspect that this same story holds true for about 999 our of every 1000 that come to Nashville to make it big.  The market is entirely saturated and calling it an uphill battle is an understatement.  Talent alone won't do it.  Effort alone won't do it.  Both combined often won't do it.  It takes a unique niche and an enormous amount of luck, and in my opinion your battle is going to be very similar.  You can certainly try, and I wish you luck, but I hope you aren't one of those that head back to Seattle with their dreams shattered.


----------



## DiskoJoe

Youre not there yet or even close. This is a new contact I found on flickr. This is exactly what darrel is talking about. 

Flickr: CResende's Photostream


----------



## Newtricks

elementgs said:


> I'm still bouncing around a bit trying to decide on my personal style but I'm really getting a feeling for it.



Personal style is just that, one really does not decide on what it is, it just is. I choose to have a silk vest/waistcoat made with every suit I order from my tailor that is complimentary, yet doesn't match the material or color of the suit. Your point of view and lighting chooses that differ from the norm, or accepted perfect are what set one apart from the pack, is your style, IMO that is.


----------



## The_Traveler

elementgs said:


> I've made my money, I've served my country, I've done the impossible before and quite honestly, I'm not worried about doing it again.  I know it'll be difficult but as ShaneF said, even bad photos can sell.  It's about marketing and exposure.
> 
> *1)I'm truly not worried about the money.*
> 
> *2) I'm worried I'll never make an impact.
> *



in re 1) that's good because I know 20 people here locally who shoot as well as you do or better and don't even consider trying to sell their images because there are too many competitors and the price they could get wouldn't be worth the time and effort. That BS about social media marketing. That's what gets you $30 8 x 10 sales occasionally for all your efforts.

in re 2) make an impact on what? with what? you don't have anything specific to say or show so far. Come up with something first. 

If you love it, do it because you love it.
If you are doing it to make money, shoot weddings and other stuff or even better, get a job that actually pays money rather than tearing your heart out to produce something and hop to get paid for it.


----------



## runnah

elementgs said:


> I've made my money, I've served my country, I've done the impossible before and quite honestly, I'm not worried about doing it again.  I know it'll be difficult but as ShaneF said, even bad photos can sell.  It's about marketing and exposure.  I'm truly not worried about the money.  I'm worried I'll never make an impact.  I really truly appreciate all the feedback, even the deviation in topic.  It's all extremely helpful.



Oh well in that case go nuts.

If you don't have to actually make a living at it then you can just kick back and enjoy. Sell a few, sell none, as long as you still learn and enjoy it.


----------



## elementgs

Thanks a ton for all the advice.  I really truly appreciate all of it.  I have a long way to go.


----------



## weepete

As the other guys have said your photos are decent enough, but you need to refine them a bit. I think that you have enough technical proficiency that you  could probably get to a stage where your photos have that stop in your tracks wow factor that's missing currently. I agree with the guys who said that looking at it from an art and design perspective and the good news is that it can be learned too.

If you look at the guys who have made it to the top (and I'm not talking about just photography here) often the thing that separates them from a lot of others out there is the drive and determination to keep going along with the balls to do it in the first place. So if that's what you want to do go for it, get the information you need to move up a level and get stuck in.


----------



## gsgary

amolitor said:


> You might want to do a little research into the number of people who have in fact made a career out of landscape photography. I do not have any hard answers here, but would not be surprised to learn that the number of people who have managed to make even a modest living purely at landscape photography numbers less than 10.
> 
> It's a bit litle being a concert pianist, at best. Being excellent isn't enough.




Here's 1 of your 10 Gallery | Joe Cornish Gallery


----------



## Steve5D

_Everyone _stands a chance. It's what people decide to do with that chance which makes the difference.

Ignore those who say you don't stand a chance...


----------



## tts

Be proud of your work and stay passionate and  I am sure you can reach any of your goals. To be honest Photography is an Art like any other, there will be people out there loving what you do and people who don't, the wider the audience you can reach the more success you'll have! :mrgreen:


----------



## wyogirl

I'll tell you this... I am learning from one of the absolute best landscape photographers in my state.  He is extremely successful in his photography, has had major companies pay for him to travel to photograph for them and has had museums purchase his work.  

*He still has a day job...*


----------



## elementgs

wyogirl said:


> *He still has a day job...*



That's what I don't understand.  Is there simply no market for landscapes?


----------



## The_Traveler

elementgs said:


> wyogirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> *He still has a day job...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I don't understand.  Is there simply no market for landscapes?
Click to expand...


The potential market is affected by several things:
Some of those who would buy now make photographs.
With digital imaging and intelligent cameras, there are countless more people making landscape photographs
The traditional buyer/seller interactions have been distorted irrevocably by the deluge of images, the steep rise in quantity and drop in price of stock photography.


----------



## amolitor

No, there isn't much market for landscape photography.

The cost of many a good quality reproduction for sale is substantial, virtually all landscape photography is sold as decor, and there's a LOT of people trying to make some money selling their pictures. The fact that the pictures are sold as decor makes the market somewhat price sensitive. They're going to look for the cheapest picture that matches the couch and is the right size. The upshot is that the canvas-wrap manufacturers are probably doing pretty well, but the artists are in a race to the bottom, cutting margins like crazy.

Absolutely anyone can get into the business trivially these days. There are several web sites that let you simply upload some pictures and set some prices and wait for the money to roll in.

If I wanted a landscape to go behind the couch, I'd spend an hour on one of these sites and pick the cheapest picture that had the right qualities for me. You would too, most likely.


----------



## elementgs

I just wanted to say thanks again for all the feedback.

I've given it a lot of thought over the past week and I really just don't want to quit because it'll be difficult, or because of the competition, or because I might not make it.  Nothing worth doing is ever easy and this will not be an exception to that rule.

You've all given me so much to think about and in the end, I'm really just don't think it'll be the same if I try and force myself to follow another path just because it's difficult, or even impossible, I won't respect myself no matter how successful I am.

I'll likely fail but I'll never quit trying. 

Edit: oh and btw, I won the Viewers choice award for the 15th annual California Amateur Coastal Competition.  Fairly stoked about that. 

http://mycoastalphoto.com/winners/2013-winners/


----------



## pgriz

Congratulations on the award. 

I make my living selling to the public.  In my field (contracting), there are a lot of competitors (many/most are contractor wannabees), and there is tremendous competition for every dollar.  To survive, I've had to figure out which niche we could operate in which would be large enough to provide enough revenue, narrow enough to eliminate most of the competition, and valuable enough to persuade clients to let go of some of their hard-earned money.  In the process, I've learned that my niche may represent only 5% of the potential market, but when I'm in front of them, I have a better than 50% chance of getting them to become clients.  The other 95% I have only a 1% chance of getting (mostly due to price).  So my marketing efforts are concentrated on finding the 5% of the market that will respond well to the message that I'm putting out.  My sales efforts are focused on qualifying the people who respond to our marketing (because maybe 25% will respond and in the end only 5% will actually need my services and be willing to pay my price).  

Is this experience relevant to you?  Maybe, maybe no.  But the fundamental issue for both you and me is to know what the profile of the customer is that meets the criteria (want/need your product or service, willing to pay your price).  We both need to know their reasons for buying, their criteria for selecting among a number of possible suppliers, and the trigger points that would move them to (or away) from a buying decision.  In other words, KNOW your customer.  

The other aspect to remember is that almost no-one buys a product.  They buy a set of benefits associated with the product.  The benefits may be only in their minds, but since perception is reality, that may be what gets them to decide.  Brand marketing is all about associating a set of benefits to the product in the minds of certain consumers.  The big boys (and girls) spend a ton of money putting out a consistent message (or sets of messages) to make us believe that their offering (product/service) is unique to them, and if purchased, will fulfill all of the customer's dreams/aspirations/needs/wants.  So if your product is landscape photography, you need to think about which set of attributes/benefits you'll need to push to get people to want to buy the photography, and why YOU are the only one who can give them these benefits.


----------



## cbarnard7

Here's my take:

**Disclaimer- I know NOTHING about selling my photos, so take it for what it's worth!**

I figure that people really don't buy regular prints of landscapes because...where are they going to put them? Who really wants an 8x10'' of the beach in a frame unless they were in the picture?

The only landscape art I've ever bought was a large canvas print of the Rocky Mountains when I first came to Colorado. It wasn't anything super special looking (I could've taken it) but it was nice and it made me feel like I was really in Colorado. 

I put it over my couch.

I find that the only landscape photographers who sell their art do so in a small niche. For example, there's two real "big" guys here who solely sell prints of shots taken in Colorado. Only the Coloradans are going to buy it, but they _will_ buy it and do so because of the same reason I did. I bought my canvas print from a furniture store that carried several copies of the same photograph. Also, I've only ever been interested in big prints since they make the most impact on me and guests in my house. So, the little 8x10 or whatever really isn't going to do much, unless you are creative with framing.

Since you live near the water, maybe focus on your niche and what you're best at shooting and go from there. Pick a category and run with it. 

"John Gannon- Coastal Sunrise Photographer" or what have you. 

But again, I am just talking as a consumer.


----------



## The_Traveler

I have a friend who is a 'successful' photographer.
She only does B&W only, she has gallery representation in several good galleries, has won many international prizes and her prints are all limited editions that start in the 500-700 dollar range and up for 8 x 10 (approx).
Is she rich? I don't think so.
She does OK but that is after many years of trying and working and damn good skills in a niche that isn't so crowded.
She does it for the love of it.


----------



## The_Traveler

dripbook said:


> Hey elementgs,
> 
> My name is Austin and I work for www.dripbook.com. I look at professional photography portfolios everyday and I see no reason why you wouldn't stand a chance.
> 
> Your photos are really good. Yes, making money in landscape photography is difficult, but it can be done. I see really good landscape portfolios on tons of photographers' pages on our website. My advice to you would be to take the talent you have for landscapes and apply it to other things like food, fashion, beauty, and other genres of photography that companies are hiring for.
> 
> With a very diverse portfolio, you will be likely to succeed because you certainly have a knack for it.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Austin



You wouldn't be biased towards his developing a portfolio because your company exists to host these portfolios would you?


----------



## gsgary

dripbook said:


> Hey elementgs,
> 
> My name is Austin and I work for www.dripbook.com. I look at professional photography portfolios everyday and I see no reason why you wouldn't stand a chance.
> 
> Your photos are really good. Yes, making money in landscape photography is difficult, but it can be done. I see really good landscape portfolios on tons of photographers' pages on our website. My advice to you would be to take the talent you have for landscapes and apply it to other things like food, fashion, beauty, and other genres of photography that companies are hiring for.
> 
> With a very diverse portfolio, you will be likely to succeed because you certainly have a knack for it.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Austin



Food photography is a lot different to landscape you will need to be a master with studio lighting which is a different ball game to landscape

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bratkinson

I'm just an amatuer, so I don't even try to sell my pictures. I think all of the OPs images in this thread are saleable. But hey, my background is computers...so zeros and ones makes sense...landscape? I look for simple shots.

But, as mentioned previously, find a niche you can fill. Depending on where you live, get 20-30 of your best shots upsized and nicely framed, and try your luck at 'sidewalk art/starving artist' types of sales. Impulse buying is what you would be trying to sell to. People see a great picture and think they have a place for it. But your prices would have to be in the $50 and under range to attract impulse buyers. Consider big flea markets as well. My brothers' brother-in-law has made a living for the past 30+ years selling merchandise at flea markets...a comfortable living, too! It's truly amazing some of the stuff that he sells out in minutes! Everything from player uniforms to name-brand gym shoes, etc. People at large flea markets (50-200 vendors/tables) buy just about anything and everything on the planet!


----------



## Steve5D

The_Traveler said:


> dripbook said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey elementgs,
> 
> My name is Austin and I work for www.dripbook.com. I look at professional photography portfolios everyday and I see no reason why you wouldn't stand a chance.
> 
> Your photos are really good. Yes, making money in landscape photography is difficult, but it can be done. I see really good landscape portfolios on tons of photographers' pages on our website. My advice to you would be to take the talent you have for landscapes and apply it to other things like food, fashion, beauty, and other genres of photography that companies are hiring for.
> 
> With a very diverse portfolio, you will be likely to succeed because you certainly have a knack for it.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't be biased towards his developing a portfolio because your company exists to host these portfolios would you?
Click to expand...


He mentioned his name and his affiliation as a means of saying "I have some experience in this".

There was no solicitation. If he wanted to solicit the OP's business, he probably would've done that in PM.

Maybe, just maybe, he suggests developing a portfolio because developing a portfolio is a good idea...


----------



## The_Traveler

Steve5D said:


> He mentioned his name and his affiliation as a means of saying "I have some experience in this".
> There was no solicitation. If he wanted to solicit the OP's business, he probably would've done that in PM.
> Maybe, just maybe, he suggests developing a portfolio because developing a portfolio is a good idea...



Since you are able to see directly into this respondent's mind and read his intent, perhaps you can explain that to the mods who seem to have banned this guy for soliciting business in other threads.


----------



## imagemaker46

Everyone has a chance, the same chance of winning a lottery if you buy the ticket every week. After dropping $20 a week for 20 years you'd end up being in the same place as most photographers are, deep in the hole.


----------



## slackercruster

Op, pretty pix. Give it a try. That will give you the answer better than we could. Either it is yes or no with the $ Good luck!


----------

