Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Selling Our Photography

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 11:44:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Group

I made a post on here a couple of months a go and got some good feedback
towards the pictures on our website.

I have designed the website for my brother who is a keen photographer and
our website is http://www.grottypicturecompany.co.uk.

I personally think some of the photographs are of a high standard and very
interesting and would like to know what your opinions are on the best
avenue to pursue regarding selling his photos.

I was thinking we should target the American market or stock clubs, any
feedback would be great and much appreciated

Regards

Green Frog

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

More about : selling photography

Anonymous
December 27, 2004 2:34:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Green Frog wrote:
> Hi Group
>
> I made a post on here a couple of months a go and got some good
> feedback towards the pictures on our website.
>
> I have designed the website for my brother who is a keen photographer
> and our website is http://www.grottypicturecompany.co.uk.
>
> I personally think some of the photographs are of a high standard and
> very interesting and would like to know what your opinions are on the
> best avenue to pursue regarding selling his photos.
>
> I was thinking we should target the American market or stock clubs, any
> feedback would be great and much appreciated
>
> Regards
>
> Green Frog
>


This is not going to be easy for me 'cause I normally do not like to
criticize other peoples work but I must say, many of the photos that I
looked at on your web site remind me the photos that I would term as
candid walk-around shots. By that I mean they are pictures of scenic
opportunity, good in quality, but laking feel as to impart a sense of
story. I'm often times guilty of doing that too but I don't keep those
photos for very long, not long at all.

Naturally, what appeals to me may cause others to barf but that's my
feeling about lasting photos or photos that I think may have commercial
value. I take lots of photos but I treasure few. Remember, when you take
a photo you have actually stopped time. That which you have captured
becomes ageless. As long as that photo exists that period of time has
been frozen for evermore. The viewer of a photo should be able to feel
some sort of imaginary story emanating from the photo, otherwise it's
just a good photograph.

Look at the web sites of the regulars who post here in this group. For
example, See Skip and his wife's work, see Steve Kramer's work, gosh
there are so many who do so well I'm embarrassed not to quickly list
them all. That's a failing of us really old timers.

nick
December 27, 2004 9:36:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Green Frog" <dean_peters2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o psjmumvy0r7kcu0@derek...
> Hi Group
>
> I made a post on here a couple of months a go and got some good feedback
> towards the pictures on our website.
>
> I have designed the website for my brother who is a keen photographer and
> our website is http://www.grottypicturecompany.co.uk.
>
> I personally think some of the photographs are of a high standard and very
> interesting and would like to know what your opinions are on the best
> avenue to pursue regarding selling his photos.
>
> I was thinking we should target the American market or stock clubs, any
> feedback would be great and much appreciated
>
> Regards
>
> Green Frog

I must say the "People" segment are just not good photos, almost random
snaps. These photos are not unique in any sense. I could snap a 100 photos
like that just walking thru downtown. Sorry to criticize like this, but you
are "advertising" them for sale and I can say that I cannot see people
paying for these.

Having said that, looking at the other segments ....... equally as bad.
Sorry, but the composition is just terrible on these shots (even coming from
someone who is just started to read books on composition). Sometimes
criticism is the best feedback.
Related resources
December 27, 2004 9:36:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Musty wrote:
>
> I must say the "People" segment are just not good photos, almost random
> snaps. These photos are not unique in any sense. I could snap a 100 photos
> like that just walking thru downtown. Sorry to criticize like this, but you
> are "advertising" them for sale and I can say that I cannot see people
> paying for these.
>
> Having said that, looking at the other segments ....... equally as bad.
> Sorry, but the composition is just terrible on these shots (even coming from
> someone who is just started to read books on composition). Sometimes
> criticism is the best feedback.


Some of the pics are nice but I agree the whole people section should be
flushed & the others edited more carefully. Some are nice but a good
number are really not interesting at all.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 10:35:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Green Frog" <dean_peters2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o psjmumvy0r7kcu0@derek...
> Hi Group
>
> I personally think some of the photographs are of a high standard and very
> interesting and would like to know what your opinions are on the best
> avenue to pursue regarding selling his photos.
>
> I was thinking we should target the American market or stock clubs, any
> feedback would be great and much appreciated
>

What are you actually trying to achieve?
If you intend to sell wall art photos, it's not going to happen with those
pictures.
Put yourself in the seat at an interior decorator's office and ask yourself:

Will they want these pictures for their client's lounge room or office?
Business people spend a lot of money decorating their offices. I don't
recall ever seeing pictures of ducks in a pond on a dreary day hanging on
the wall of an office. What yould you hang in your office?

When you get the answer, shoot some more with some artistic interpretation,
perhaps some artistic editing but most of all, shoot pictures which are so
unusual, so different that you would like it on your lounge room wall! Then
you can go out and compete for business selling $500 wall art pictures.

Doug
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 10:35:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:338os1F3tl77jU1@individual.net:

> What are you actually trying to achieve?
> If you intend to sell wall art photos, it's not going to happen with
> those pictures.
> Put yourself in the seat at an interior decorator's office and ask
> yourself:
>
> Will they want these pictures for their client's lounge room or
> office? Business people spend a lot of money decorating their offices.
> I don't recall ever seeing pictures of ducks in a pond on a dreary day
> hanging on the wall of an office. What yould you hang in your office?
>
> When you get the answer, shoot some more with some artistic
> interpretation, perhaps some artistic editing but most of all, shoot
> pictures which are so unusual, so different that you would like it on
> your lounge room wall! Then you can go out and compete for business
> selling $500 wall art pictures.
>

Yepp - agree. Overall - nice photos. But nothing I would buy.

Moreover - the correct newsgroup is rec.photo.marketplace
for this kind of post.


/Roland
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 10:35:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 07:35:51 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Green Frog" <dean_peters2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:o psjmumvy0r7kcu0@derek...
>> Hi Group
>>
>> I personally think some of the photographs are of a high standard and
>> very
>> interesting and would like to know what your opinions are on the best
>> avenue to pursue regarding selling his photos.
>>
>> I was thinking we should target the American market or stock clubs, any
>> feedback would be great and much appreciated
>>
>
> What are you actually trying to achieve?
> If you intend to sell wall art photos, it's not going to happen with
> those
> pictures.
> Put yourself in the seat at an interior decorator's office and ask
> yourself:
>
> Will they want these pictures for their client's lounge room or office?
> Business people spend a lot of money decorating their offices. I don't
> recall ever seeing pictures of ducks in a pond on a dreary day hanging on
> the wall of an office. What yould you hang in your office?
>
> When you get the answer, shoot some more with some artistic
> interpretation,
> perhaps some artistic editing but most of all, shoot pictures which are
> so
> unusual, so different that you would like it on your lounge room wall!
> Then
> you can go out and compete for business selling $500 wall art pictures.
>
> Doug
>
>


You are painting the wrong picture about the photography on our website,
focusing in on a picture of a duck (on a sunny day), when if you took the
time to look at our London & Abstract Gallery you would see interesting &
high quality pictures on display.

I appreciate your feedback but I never stated our photography was there
for wall prints in offices or even imagined we would be selling $500 wall
art prints at this early stage so please don't presume.

As it appears I am not in the correct newsgroup to ask for advice on
selling images then I will find a more appropriate newsgroup to post in.

Best regards

Green Frog







--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 12:59:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Musty wrote:
>>
>> I must say the "People" segment are just not good photos, almost
>> random snaps. These photos are not unique in any sense. I could snap
>> a 100 photos like that just walking thru downtown. Sorry to
>> criticize like this, but you are "advertising" them for sale and I
>> can say that I cannot see people paying for these.
>>
>> Having said that, looking at the other segments ....... equally as
>> bad. Sorry, but the composition is just terrible on these shots
>> (even coming from someone who is just started to read books on
>> composition). Sometimes criticism is the best feedback.
>
>
> Some of the pics are nice but I agree the whole people section should
> be flushed & the others edited more carefully. Some are nice but a
> good number are really not interesting at all.

Seems to me we went through this a few months back, maybe with the same
"seller". I remember commenting that plenty of energy and skill went
into designing the site, but the material (photography) had been
neglected.

Hasn't improved much, but that doesn't mean it won't.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 4:59:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 20:44:00 +0000 (UTC), "Green Frog"
<dean_peters2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Hi Group
>
>I made a post on here a couple of months a go and got some good feedback
>towards the pictures on our website.
>
>I have designed the website for my brother who is a keen photographer and
>our website is http://www.grottypicturecompany.co.uk.
>
>I personally think some of the photographs are of a high standard and very
>interesting and would like to know what your opinions are on the best
>avenue to pursue regarding selling his photos.
>
>I was thinking we should target the American market or stock clubs, any
>feedback would be great and much appreciated
>
>Regards
>
>Green Frog

I looked in particular at the "People" album.
The pics aren't bad, but none of them tell a story. They are what I
call 'stock' photos; put as many as you can on a CD, and sell it for
$100, and give full rights with it. The buyer can use them for
whatever they want.

A lady in front of a phone booth. Is she going in, or waiting for
someone?
A man kneeling in the street. Is he about to immolate himself, or is
he picking up quarters (coins)?
A man on a cell phone. Making a big business deal, or learning his
wife wants him to pick up a loaf of bread and some diapers on the way
home?

These photos can say anything, and thus say nothing. They can be used
in, for example, an annual report for just about any company, from
AT&T to the local job mart.
That's not to say they are bad, but they have no focus, no message, no
impact.

My opinion, of course.


--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 6:13:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Archived from "Green Frog" <dean_peters2003@yahoo.co.uk> on Mon, 27 Dec 2004
00:00:21 +0000 (UTC):

>On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 07:35:51 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Green Frog" <dean_peters2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:o psjmumvy0r7kcu0@derek...
>>> Hi Group
>>>
>>> I personally think some of the photographs are of a high standard and
>>> very
>>> interesting and would like to know what your opinions are on the best
>>> avenue to pursue regarding selling his photos.
>>>
>>> I was thinking we should target the American market or stock clubs, any
>>> feedback would be great and much appreciated
>>>
>>
>> What are you actually trying to achieve?
>> If you intend to sell wall art photos, it's not going to happen with
>> those
>> pictures.
>> Put yourself in the seat at an interior decorator's office and ask
>> yourself:
>>
>> Will they want these pictures for their client's lounge room or office?
>> Business people spend a lot of money decorating their offices. I don't
>> recall ever seeing pictures of ducks in a pond on a dreary day hanging on
>> the wall of an office. What yould you hang in your office?
>>
>> When you get the answer, shoot some more with some artistic
>> interpretation,
>> perhaps some artistic editing but most of all, shoot pictures which are
>> so
>> unusual, so different that you would like it on your lounge room wall!
>> Then
>> you can go out and compete for business selling $500 wall art pictures.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>>
>
>
>You are painting the wrong picture about the photography on our website,
>focusing in on a picture of a duck (on a sunny day), when if you took the
>time to look at our London & Abstract Gallery you would see interesting &
>high quality pictures on display.
>
>I appreciate your feedback but I never stated our photography was there
>for wall prints in offices or even imagined we would be selling $500 wall
>art prints at this early stage so please don't presume.
>
>As it appears I am not in the correct newsgroup to ask for advice on
>selling images then I will find a more appropriate newsgroup to post in.
>
>Best regards
>
>Green Frog


In other words, Green Frog, you really did not want a critical evaluation of
the images on your site, but rather were trolling for compliments to justify
your inflated opinion of your poor work. PLONK!!

vm
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 6:21:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Green Frog wrote:
> ...
> I was thinking we should target the American market or stock clubs,
any
> feedback would be great and much appreciated
....

I am writing here as an amateur photographer who once aspired to be a
professional but eventually realized that he probably didn't have the
talent and certainly hadn't put in the thousands of hours of dedicated
study and work it required to be really good. I'm far from an expert.

Personally, I liked a few of the photos quite a bit, I liked the
website design, and I thought the prices your brother was asking for
them were quite inexpensive. However I have to agree with other
posters that not all of the photos were of uniformly high quality. As
others have said, your brother would attract more attention if _all_ of
the photos were of uniformly professional quality, and all of them had
some unique characteristics that really expressed his personal approach
to art photography.

I don't mean to criticize his photography. A photograph can be
meaningful to one person and not to another. Some very mundane looking
photos grow on you when you look at them for a while. But,
unfortunately perhaps, there are probably a billion new photographs
made every day and it takes extraordinary talent, skill, and experience
to really distinguish your photos from the other billion. They have to
be the kind of photographs that a good amateur photographer could look
at and say, "None of my photos are as good as that!" And in fact there
are people participating in this group who have put up websites where
every single photo on the site seemed to me better than any photo I've
ever made.

Professional photography is like professional musicianship or
professional writing. Many good musicians can play difficult pieces
and entertain their friends. Many good writers produce interesting
novels, plays and stories. But they are in competition with
established artists, all of whom are very good and some of whom are
truly astonishing, for a very small number of opportunities.

I bet that there are 500-1000 novels written every year for each one
that actually gets published. People pour their heart and soul and
thousands of hours into writing novels that never make it past the
slush pile on the 23 year old junior editor's desk at any publisher.

It's the same with art photography. It's no longer enough to just be
good at it. You've got to be really, extraordinarily good, and a
little bit lucky too, to make money at it. Shooting weddings and
portraits is different and a bit easier to break into, but art
photography, commercial photography, fashion photography, and
photojournalism are all very hard.

If you and your brother want to put a lot of hours into this as a
hobby, why not. But if your hope is to make money, you'll probably
make a lot more money by getting a part-time job (for example in web
design which you are good at and for which there are many
opportunities) to absorb those hours.

Well, I've probably been more discouraging than I should have been.
But the point I'd most like to make is that if you like art photography
and like web design, do them. If you hope to make a bit of money from
it, try. But don't count on making any money at all. The competition
is fierce!

Good luck.

Alan
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 6:55:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 23:34:49 GMT, nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote:

>This is not going to be easy for me 'cause I normally do not like to
>criticize other peoples work but I must say, many of the photos that I
>looked at on your web site remind me the photos that I would term as
>candid walk-around shots. By that I mean they are pictures of scenic
>opportunity, good in quality, but laking feel as to impart a sense of
>story. I'm often times guilty of doing that too but I don't keep those
>photos for very long, not long at all.
>
>Naturally, what appeals to me may cause others to barf but that's my
>feeling about lasting photos or photos that I think may have commercial
>value. I take lots of photos but I treasure few. Remember, when you take
>a photo you have actually stopped time. That which you have captured
>becomes ageless. As long as that photo exists that period of time has
>been frozen for evermore. The viewer of a photo should be able to feel
>some sort of imaginary story emanating from the photo, otherwise it's
>just a good photograph.
>
>Look at the web sites of the regulars who post here in this group. For
>example, See Skip and his wife's work, see Steve Kramer's work, gosh
>there are so many who do so well I'm embarrassed not to quickly list
>them all. That's a failing of us really old timers.

What I look for is what I like to call "Stopping Power". I often
judge a photo by how long I stare at it; how long will I pause and
look at it. Will it stop me in my tracks if I'm walking past. ie.
Stopping power! If a photo can stop you, and make you peruse it, then
that is a good shot.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:51:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:sjt0t0d65rsra6s143qttr1r969s7a9lo7@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 20:44:00 +0000 (UTC), "Green Frog"
> <dean_peters2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Hi Group
>>
>>I made a post on here a couple of months a go and got some good feedback
>>towards the pictures on our website.
>>
>>I have designed the website for my brother who is a keen photographer and
>>our website is http://www.grottypicturecompany.co.uk.
>>
>>I personally think some of the photographs are of a high standard and very
>>interesting and would like to know what your opinions are on the best
>>avenue to pursue regarding selling his photos.
>>
>>I was thinking we should target the American market or stock clubs, any
>>feedback would be great and much appreciated
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Green Frog
>
> I looked in particular at the "People" album.
> The pics aren't bad, but none of them tell a story. They are what I
> call 'stock' photos; put as many as you can on a CD, and sell it for
> $100, and give full rights with it. The buyer can use them for
> whatever they want.
>
> A lady in front of a phone booth. Is she going in, or waiting for
> someone?
> A man kneeling in the street. Is he about to immolate himself, or is
> he picking up quarters (coins)?
> A man on a cell phone. Making a big business deal, or learning his
> wife wants him to pick up a loaf of bread and some diapers on the way
> home?
>
> These photos can say anything, and thus say nothing. They can be used
> in, for example, an annual report for just about any company, from
> AT&T to the local job mart.
> That's not to say they are bad, but they have no focus, no message, no
> impact.
>
> My opinion, of course.
>
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"

I took the time to go through just about every photo and didn't see a single
one that I thought was an "eye catcher". I believe that the people shots
were very unimpressive. A person with a camera could walk around a city and
randomly point the camera and take photos that were equal. If he is
planning to sell these photos, he better not quit his day job.

Don Dunlap
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 10:44:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:55:31 GMT, secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 23:34:49 GMT, nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> This is not going to be easy for me 'cause I normally do not like to
>> criticize other peoples work but I must say, many of the photos that I
>> looked at on your web site remind me the photos that I would term as
>> candid walk-around shots. By that I mean they are pictures of scenic
>> opportunity, good in quality, but laking feel as to impart a sense of
>> story. I'm often times guilty of doing that too but I don't keep those
>> photos for very long, not long at all.
>>
>> Naturally, what appeals to me may cause others to barf but that's my
>> feeling about lasting photos or photos that I think may have commercial
>> value. I take lots of photos but I treasure few. Remember, when you take
>> a photo you have actually stopped time. That which you have captured
>> becomes ageless. As long as that photo exists that period of time has
>> been frozen for evermore. The viewer of a photo should be able to feel
>> some sort of imaginary story emanating from the photo, otherwise it's
>> just a good photograph.
>>
>> Look at the web sites of the regulars who post here in this group. For
>> example, See Skip and his wife's work, see Steve Kramer's work, gosh
>> there are so many who do so well I'm embarrassed not to quickly list
>> them all. That's a failing of us really old timers.
>
> What I look for is what I like to call "Stopping Power". I often
> judge a photo by how long I stare at it; how long will I pause and
> look at it. Will it stop me in my tracks if I'm walking past. ie.
> Stopping power! If a photo can stop you, and make you peruse it, then
> that is a good shot.
>

Just for the record, i am not the photographer, i designed the website and
was just looking for ideas to suggest to my brother who takes the
photographs so please remember this when responding.

I get the impressesion you are comparing the photographs on our website
with photographers who have been in the game for a long long time and
focus on taking pictures of people especially in 3rd world countries where
it is very easy to capture imagination and a story in a picture.

The pictures on the website are there as my brother is starting to take
digital photography and the London & Abstract Gallery offer pictures which
are of a very good quality but i do accept that the London & people
gallery are not of the same standard and are just there as extra galleries.

Around 3 months a go i made a post on here and a lady also made the point
that the other and people gallery where not of a good standard but the
London & abstract gallery where of a very high standard for there areas
and this is important to remember, You cant compare a photo of little boy
in Asia with the gherkin building in London, you have to compare photos in
the same categories.

There is a very good picture on the website of a homeless person but
people would rather ignore that picture and focus on the worst picture
which to me is wrong.

If i looked at a website i would offer praise and criticism not just
criticism and this is what i would expect in return but of course if you
honestly feel that none of the pictures offer praise then i respect that.

Regards

Green Frog


--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 10:44:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Green Frog wrote:
<snip>
> I get the impressesion you are comparing the photographs on our
> website with photographers who have been in the game for a long long
> time and focus on taking pictures of people especially in 3rd world
> countries where it is very easy to capture imagination and a story in
> a picture.

I compare pictures with what I like. What I like is based on my
experience and knowledge, not that of a photographer. Your impression is
immaterial.

> You cant compare a
> photo of little boy in Asia with the gherkin building in London, you
> have to compare photos in the same categories.
>

I can compare them to whatever I like; what is important for someone who
is trying to sell photographs is: Will someone like it enough to spend
money to own a print? I reckon that in a photography *users* group there
won't be many sales.

> There is a very good picture on the website of a homeless person but
> people would rather ignore that picture and focus on the worst picture
> which to me is wrong.
>

What is wrong is telling us there is a good picture and that focusing on
the worst picture is wrong. You asked for input. You get (I hope) what
you deserve.

> If i looked at a website i would offer praise and criticism not just
> criticism and this is what i would expect in return but of course if
> you honestly feel that none of the pictures offer praise then i
> respect that.

Good. Say, "Thank you," and stop with the whinge.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:24:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Green Frog wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:55:31 GMT, secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 23:34:49 GMT, nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> This is not going to be easy for me 'cause I normally do not like to
>>> criticize other peoples work but I must say, many of the photos that I
>>> looked at on your web site remind me the photos that I would term as
>>> candid walk-around shots. By that I mean they are pictures of scenic
>>> opportunity, good in quality, but laking feel as to impart a sense of
>>> story. I'm often times guilty of doing that too but I don't keep those
>>> photos for very long, not long at all.
>>>
>>> Naturally, what appeals to me may cause others to barf but that's my
>>> feeling about lasting photos or photos that I think may have commercial
>>> value. I take lots of photos but I treasure few. Remember, when you take
>>> a photo you have actually stopped time. That which you have captured
>>> becomes ageless. As long as that photo exists that period of time has
>>> been frozen for evermore. The viewer of a photo should be able to feel
>>> some sort of imaginary story emanating from the photo, otherwise it's
>>> just a good photograph.
>>>
>>> Look at the web sites of the regulars who post here in this group. For
>>> example, See Skip and his wife's work, see Steve Kramer's work, gosh
>>> there are so many who do so well I'm embarrassed not to quickly list
>>> them all. That's a failing of us really old timers.
>>
>>
>> What I look for is what I like to call "Stopping Power". I often
>> judge a photo by how long I stare at it; how long will I pause and
>> look at it. Will it stop me in my tracks if I'm walking past. ie.
>> Stopping power! If a photo can stop you, and make you peruse it, then
>> that is a good shot.
>>
>
> Just for the record, i am not the photographer, i designed the website
> and was just looking for ideas to suggest to my brother who takes the
> photographs so please remember this when responding.
>
> I get the impressesion you are comparing the photographs on our website
> with photographers who have been in the game for a long long time and
> focus on taking pictures of people especially in 3rd world countries
> where it is very easy to capture imagination and a story in a picture.
>
> The pictures on the website are there as my brother is starting to take
> digital photography and the London & Abstract Gallery offer pictures
> which are of a very good quality but i do accept that the London &
> people gallery are not of the same standard and are just there as extra
> galleries.
>
> Around 3 months a go i made a post on here and a lady also made the
> point that the other and people gallery where not of a good standard
> but the London & abstract gallery where of a very high standard for
> there areas and this is important to remember, You cant compare a photo
> of little boy in Asia with the gherkin building in London, you have to
> compare photos in the same categories.
>
> There is a very good picture on the website of a homeless person but
> people would rather ignore that picture and focus on the worst picture
> which to me is wrong.
>
> If i looked at a website i would offer praise and criticism not just
> criticism and this is what i would expect in return but of course if
> you honestly feel that none of the pictures offer praise then i respect
> that.
>
> Regards
>
> Green Frog
>
>

Just one more thing here is the link to our gallery with photobox.co.uk
which has updated pictures
http://www.photoboxgallery.com/416145

Regards

Green frog
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:39:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Green Frog" <dean_peters2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o psjomi3b0r7kcu0@derek...
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:55:31 GMT, secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> You cant compare a photo of little boy
> in Asia with the gherkin building in London, you have to compare photos in
> the same categories.
>
> There is a very good picture on the website of a homeless person but
> people would rather ignore that picture and focus on the worst picture
> which to me is wrong.
>
> If i looked at a website i would offer praise and criticism not just
> criticism and this is what i would expect in return but of course if you
> honestly feel that none of the pictures offer praise then i respect that.
>
> Regards
>
> Green Frog
>
You are quite wrong in your evaluation there Froggy...
If *any* of the other pictures were memorable, mention would have been made
of them, not just by me but others in the trade too. My mother told me once
that people who educate idiots have to accept responsibility for their
actions. In your brother's case I'd say anyone who gave him the confidence
to believe he was anything other than a "happy snapper" has to accept the
consequences.

Photography at a level of selling your random photos is not about having a
"good camera", it's about interpretation of a scene, artistic composition
and favourable lighting. I'd like to draw your attention to an image in the
collection to demonstrate this, but their isn't one. All of them are just
photos. If you intend to sell them, get some artistic ones up... Trust me
when I say this, you will know without asking how good they are by how many
you sell. Some of my favourite photo which I though would sell like hot
cakes, never sold yet others I thought; "no one will buy that" do sell like
hot cakes.

Photographic "edges" are like typefaces. Give a green user both and they'll
try to use every one of them when a seasoned or professional user will know
they are a tool to be used rarely and for specific situations. Using edges
the way you have is not one of those situations.

There is a reason people have been critical of your site and your brothers
photographs... You asked for critique. If you can't handle what you get,
don't ask. I'll give your brother one piece of advise... Don't take a photo
later than 1 hour after dawn or 1 hour before dark. That'll at least take
one of the elements of a favourably lit scene into account.

Doug
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:39:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Yp_zd.90581$K7.50687@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> If you intend to sell them, get some artistic ones up... Trust me
> when I say this, you will know without asking how good they are by how
> many
> you sell. Some of my favourite photo which I though would sell like hot
> cakes, never sold yet others I thought; "no one will buy that" do sell
> like
> hot cakes.

This goes for more than just photography. I'm in charge of magazine content,
and it never fails to amaze me how the articles I like the least can turn
out to be the most popular - IF they hit the right information that people
are looking for at the time.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 12:54:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:
> Green Frog wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>I get the impressesion you are comparing the photographs on our
>>website with photographers who have been in the game for a long long
>>time and focus on taking pictures of people especially in 3rd world
>>countries where it is very easy to capture imagination and a story in
>>a picture.
>
>
> I compare pictures with what I like. What I like is based on my
> experience and knowledge, not that of a photographer. Your impression is
> immaterial.
>
>
>>You cant compare a
>>photo of little boy in Asia with the gherkin building in London, you
>>have to compare photos in the same categories.
>>
>
>
> I can compare them to whatever I like; what is important for someone who
> is trying to sell photographs is: Will someone like it enough to spend
> money to own a print? I reckon that in a photography *users* group there
> won't be many sales.
>
>
>>There is a very good picture on the website of a homeless person but
>>people would rather ignore that picture and focus on the worst picture
>>which to me is wrong.
>>
>
>
> What is wrong is telling us there is a good picture and that focusing on
> the worst picture is wrong. You asked for input. You get (I hope) what
> you deserve.
>
>
>>If i looked at a website i would offer praise and criticism not just
>>criticism and this is what i would expect in return but of course if
>>you honestly feel that none of the pictures offer praise then i
>>respect that.
>
>
> Good. Say, "Thank you," and stop with the whinge.
>
>

Frank you are acting rather childish in your response, I am not
whinging, this is a discussion so relax ;-).

I was asking for suggestion on areas to sell our work not for people to
compare our pictures with professional photographers who take images
around the world and that was my point.

Many of the images in our below standard people gallery sell on stock
photo sites as they appeal to web designers who may use them as part of
layers in photoshop and I was hoping someone here may have other
suggestions for the other pictures.

I was not looking for sales in this newsgroup as you are trying to
suggest I was, I was looking for suggestions so please don't twist what
has been said.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 12:54:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Green Frog wrote:
> Frank ess wrote:
>> Green Frog wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I get the impressesion you are comparing the photographs on our
>>> website with photographers who have been in the game for a long long
>>> time and focus on taking pictures of people especially in 3rd world
>>> countries where it is very easy to capture imagination and a story
>>> in a picture.
>>
>>
>> I compare pictures with what I like. What I like is based on my
>> experience and knowledge, not that of a photographer. Your
>> impression is immaterial.
>>
>>
>>> You cant compare a
>>> photo of little boy in Asia with the gherkin building in London, you
>>> have to compare photos in the same categories.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I can compare them to whatever I like; what is important for someone
>> who is trying to sell photographs is: Will someone like it enough to
>> spend money to own a print? I reckon that in a photography *users*
>> group there won't be many sales.
>>
>>
>>> There is a very good picture on the website of a homeless person but
>>> people would rather ignore that picture and focus on the worst
>>> picture which to me is wrong.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What is wrong is telling us there is a good picture and that
>> focusing on the worst picture is wrong. You asked for input. You get
>> (I hope) what you deserve.
>>
>>
>>> If i looked at a website i would offer praise and criticism not just
>>> criticism and this is what i would expect in return but of course if
>>> you honestly feel that none of the pictures offer praise then i
>>> respect that.
>>
>>
>> Good. Say, "Thank you," and stop with the whinge.
>>
>>
>
> Frank you are acting rather childish in your response, I am not
> whinging, this is a discussion so relax ;-).
>
> I was asking for suggestion on areas to sell our work not for people
> to compare our pictures with professional photographers who take
> images around the world and that was my point.
>
> Many of the images in our below standard people gallery sell on stock
> photo sites as they appeal to web designers who may use them as part
> of layers in photoshop and I was hoping someone here may have other
> suggestions for the other pictures.
>
> I was not looking for sales in this newsgroup as you are trying to
> suggest I was, I was looking for suggestions so please don't twist
> what has been said.

Hard of understanding. No other explanation.
December 28, 2004 2:52:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104189670.236857.260390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Green Frog wrote:
> > ...
> > I was thinking we should target the American market or stock clubs,
> any
> > feedback would be great and much appreciated
> ...
>
> I am writing here as an amateur photographer who once aspired to be a
> professional but eventually realized that he probably didn't have the
> talent and certainly hadn't put in the thousands of hours of dedicated
> study and work it required to be really good. I'm far from an expert.
>
> Personally, I liked a few of the photos quite a bit, I liked the
> website design, and I thought the prices your brother was asking for
> them were quite inexpensive. However I have to agree with other
> posters that not all of the photos were of uniformly high quality. As
> others have said, your brother would attract more attention if _all_ of
> the photos were of uniformly professional quality, and all of them had
> some unique characteristics that really expressed his personal approach
> to art photography.
>
> I don't mean to criticize his photography. A photograph can be
> meaningful to one person and not to another. Some very mundane looking
> photos grow on you when you look at them for a while. But,
> unfortunately perhaps, there are probably a billion new photographs
> made every day and it takes extraordinary talent, skill, and experience
> to really distinguish your photos from the other billion. They have to
> be the kind of photographs that a good amateur photographer could look
> at and say, "None of my photos are as good as that!" And in fact there
> are people participating in this group who have put up websites where
> every single photo on the site seemed to me better than any photo I've
> ever made.
>
> Professional photography is like professional musicianship or
> professional writing. Many good musicians can play difficult pieces
> and entertain their friends. Many good writers produce interesting
> novels, plays and stories. But they are in competition with
> established artists, all of whom are very good and some of whom are
> truly astonishing, for a very small number of opportunities.
>
> I bet that there are 500-1000 novels written every year for each one
> that actually gets published. People pour their heart and soul and
> thousands of hours into writing novels that never make it past the
> slush pile on the 23 year old junior editor's desk at any publisher.
>
> It's the same with art photography. It's no longer enough to just be
> good at it. You've got to be really, extraordinarily good, and a
> little bit lucky too, to make money at it. Shooting weddings and
> portraits is different and a bit easier to break into, but art
> photography, commercial photography, fashion photography, and
> photojournalism are all very hard.
>
> If you and your brother want to put a lot of hours into this as a
> hobby, why not. But if your hope is to make money, you'll probably
> make a lot more money by getting a part-time job (for example in web
> design which you are good at and for which there are many
> opportunities) to absorb those hours.
>
> Well, I've probably been more discouraging than I should have been.
> But the point I'd most like to make is that if you like art photography
> and like web design, do them. If you hope to make a bit of money from
> it, try. But don't count on making any money at all. The competition
> is fierce!
>
> Good luck.
>
> Alan
>

Geez, you've almost convinced ME to quit photography altogether... ;-)
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 3:52:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 23:34:49 GMT, nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>This is not going to be easy for me 'cause I normally do not like to
>>criticize other peoples work but I must say, many of the photos that I
>>looked at on your web site remind me the photos that I would term as
>>candid walk-around shots. By that I mean they are pictures of scenic
>>opportunity, good in quality, but laking feel as to impart a sense of
>>story. I'm often times guilty of doing that too but I don't keep those
>>photos for very long, not long at all.
>>
>>Naturally, what appeals to me may cause others to barf but that's my
>>feeling about lasting photos or photos that I think may have commercial
>>value. I take lots of photos but I treasure few. Remember, when you take
>>a photo you have actually stopped time. That which you have captured
>>becomes ageless. As long as that photo exists that period of time has
>>been frozen for evermore. The viewer of a photo should be able to feel
>>some sort of imaginary story emanating from the photo, otherwise it's
>>just a good photograph.
>>
>>Look at the web sites of the regulars who post here in this group. For
>>example, See Skip and his wife's work, see Steve Kramer's work, gosh
>>there are so many who do so well I'm embarrassed not to quickly list
>>them all. That's a failing of us really old timers.
>
>
> What I look for is what I like to call "Stopping Power". I often
> judge a photo by how long I stare at it; how long will I pause and
> look at it. Will it stop me in my tracks if I'm walking past. ie.
> Stopping power! If a photo can stop you, and make you peruse it, then
> that is a good shot.
>

Yes, I agree. We may name the effect in a differen't manner but it's
the same thing.

nick
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 4:54:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Green Frog wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:55:31 GMT, secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 23:34:49 GMT, nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> This is not going to be easy for me 'cause I normally do not like to
>>> criticize other peoples work but I must say, many of the photos that I
>>> looked at on your web site remind me the photos that I would term as
>>> candid walk-around shots. By that I mean they are pictures of scenic
>>> opportunity, good in quality, but laking feel as to impart a sense of
>>> story. I'm often times guilty of doing that too but I don't keep those
>>> photos for very long, not long at all.
>>>
>>> Naturally, what appeals to me may cause others to barf but that's my
>>> feeling about lasting photos or photos that I think may have commercial
>>> value. I take lots of photos but I treasure few. Remember, when you take
>>> a photo you have actually stopped time. That which you have captured
>>> becomes ageless. As long as that photo exists that period of time has
>>> been frozen for evermore. The viewer of a photo should be able to feel
>>> some sort of imaginary story emanating from the photo, otherwise it's
>>> just a good photograph.
>>>
>>> Look at the web sites of the regulars who post here in this group. For
>>> example, See Skip and his wife's work, see Steve Kramer's work, gosh
>>> there are so many who do so well I'm embarrassed not to quickly list
>>> them all. That's a failing of us really old timers.
>>
>>
>> What I look for is what I like to call "Stopping Power". I often
>> judge a photo by how long I stare at it; how long will I pause and
>> look at it. Will it stop me in my tracks if I'm walking past. ie.
>> Stopping power! If a photo can stop you, and make you peruse it, then
>> that is a good shot.
>>
>
> Just for the record, i am not the photographer, i designed the website
> and was just looking for ideas to suggest to my brother who takes the
> photographs so please remember this when responding.
>
> I get the impressesion you are comparing the photographs on our website
> with photographers who have been in the game for a long long time and
> focus on taking pictures of people especially in 3rd world countries
> where it is very easy to capture imagination and a story in a picture.
>
> The pictures on the website are there as my brother is starting to take
> digital photography and the London & Abstract Gallery offer pictures
> which are of a very good quality but i do accept that the London &
> people gallery are not of the same standard and are just there as extra
> galleries.
>
> Around 3 months a go i made a post on here and a lady also made the
> point that the other and people gallery where not of a good standard
> but the London & abstract gallery where of a very high standard for
> there areas and this is important to remember, You cant compare a photo
> of little boy in Asia with the gherkin building in London, you have to
> compare photos in the same categories.
>
> There is a very good picture on the website of a homeless person but
> people would rather ignore that picture and focus on the worst picture
> which to me is wrong.
>
> If i looked at a website i would offer praise and criticism not just
> criticism and this is what i would expect in return but of course if
> you honestly feel that none of the pictures offer praise then i respect
> that.
>
> Regards
>
> Green Frog
>
>

I would like to remind you that you did say "any feedback would be
greatly appreciated."

Frankly, every poster that has responded to your request for aid has
been trying to provide you the aid you should be seeking. It is said an
artist builds success upon a platform of trial and discouragement.

Tell your brother to SEE a scene before he photographs the scene. Many
of the posters herein cut teeth in photography using film. Along that
road we became selective in what we photographed and learned by our
mistakes. Digital photography is a wonder media and very capable of
producing great photos, but it's not the camera, it's the mind and eye
of the photographer. Slow down, think before shooting, what is it that
you're trying to capture.

nick
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 1:37:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> ...
> Nonsense, the great photographer will have learned to see the deceive
> moment and shot it and will not fix things by cropping or shooting
> dozens of frame hoping to find something good.
>
> I suggest you need to study the work and writing of the greats
> starting with Cartier-Bresson.
> ...

I'm sure you meant to say "the decisive moment".

But let's not be too dogmatic about it. Fortunately, there are many
ways to be great at anything. Cartier-Bresson had one of them, but
there are many other ways too.

For comparison, consider Honore de Balzac, the great writer and
compatriot of H. C-B. It is said that he revised and rewrote each of
his works up to a dozen times before sending it to his publisher.
There are other great writers who get it exactly the way they want it
the first time, with no editing or re-writing. Who can say that one
method is better than the other?
It's the results that count, isn't it?

Alan
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 8:07:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <K3Ozd.8154$3v5.7009@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>Sorry, but the composition is just terrible on these shots

For the most part, it looks like the photographer just stopped dead in
his/her tracks when they spotted something they deemed worth shooting,
aimed, and fired. A photographer that takes striking photos will move
around, changing perspective to line things up and frame them so that
they have an interesting relationship to each other, and the frame
itself (or visualize later cropping).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 8:20:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:07:26 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <K3Ozd.8154$3v5.7009@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
>"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, but the composition is just terrible on these shots
>
>For the most part, it looks like the photographer just stopped dead in
>his/her tracks when they spotted something they deemed worth shooting,
>aimed, and fired. A photographer that takes striking photos will move
>around, changing perspective to line things up and frame them so that
>they have an interesting relationship to each other, and the frame
>itself (or visualize later cropping).

Nonsense, the great photographer will have learned to see the deceive
moment and shot it and will not fix things by cropping or shooting
dozens of frame hoping to find something good.

I suggest you need to study the work and writing of the greats
starting with Cartier-Bresson.

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0412/friend.html

http://www.photo-seminars.com/Fame/bresson.htm

As he also said about cropping, "Get closer".


***************************************************************



"Americans have plenty of everything and the best of nothing."

John C. Keats
American Writer
1924-2000
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 10:50:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <9353t05jm3a94so6l3ohsm9tq6a6n59pqb@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:07:26 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>>In message <K3Ozd.8154$3v5.7009@fe2.texas.rr.com>,
>>"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>>>Sorry, but the composition is just terrible on these shots

>>For the most part, it looks like the photographer just stopped dead in
>>his/her tracks when they spotted something they deemed worth shooting,
>>aimed, and fired. A photographer that takes striking photos will move
>>around, changing perspective to line things up and frame them so that
>>they have an interesting relationship to each other, and the frame
>>itself (or visualize later cropping).

>Nonsense, the great photographer will have learned to see the deceive
>moment and shot it and will not fix things by cropping or shooting
>dozens of frame hoping to find something good.

I didn't imply any such thing. You should really allow yourself time to
wake up before you start replying to people's posts. What I wrote was
that an interesting subject alone does not make a striking photo. You
have to compose that subject in its environment, which often requires a
change of position

>I suggest you need to study the work and writing of the greats
>starting with Cartier-Bresson.

>http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0412/friend.html

>http://www.photo-seminars.com/Fame/bresson.htm

>As he also said about cropping, "Get closer".

How does that help when the best frame you perceive is square, and as
high as the frame? How does it differ from my statement above, to "move
around, changing perspective to line things up and frame them so that
they have an interesting relationship to each other"?

You have a very narrow reading scope, and tend to read contextual
statements as concrete universal rules.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 10:54:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 28 Dec 2004 10:37:38 -0800, "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>John A. Stovall wrote:
>> ...
>> Nonsense, the great photographer will have learned to see the deceive
>> moment and shot it and will not fix things by cropping or shooting
>> dozens of frame hoping to find something good.
>>
>> I suggest you need to study the work and writing of the greats
>> starting with Cartier-Bresson.
>> ...
>
>I'm sure you meant to say "the decisive moment".

Damn Spell checker...

>
>But let's not be too dogmatic about it. Fortunately, there are many
>ways to be great at anything. Cartier-Bresson had one of them, but
>there are many other ways too.
>
>For comparison, consider Honore de Balzac, the great writer and
>compatriot of H. C-B. It is said that he revised and rewrote each of
>his works up to a dozen times before sending it to his publisher.
>There are other great writers who get it exactly the way they want it
>the first time, with no editing or re-writing. Who can say that one
>method is better than the other?
>It's the results that count, isn't it?

Yes, but you get the truly great results when you have the trained
eye. Photography is different from writing.

I hold that the greatest photographs capture a single moment in time
and they do that because the photographer has trained himself so the
camera is an extension of his mind and aesthetic.


********************************************************

"The fox knows many things, but
the hedgehog knows one big thing."

Archilochus
675 - 635 B.C.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 11:00:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <1104259058.301255.104800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>John A. Stovall wrote:
>> ...
>> Nonsense, the great photographer will have learned to see the deceive
>> moment and shot it and will not fix things by cropping or shooting
>> dozens of frame hoping to find something good.
>>
>> I suggest you need to study the work and writing of the greats
>> starting with Cartier-Bresson.
>> ...
>
>I'm sure you meant to say "the decisive moment".
>
>But let's not be too dogmatic about it. Fortunately, there are many
>ways to be great at anything. Cartier-Bresson had one of them, but
>there are many other ways too.
>
>For comparison, consider Honore de Balzac, the great writer and
>compatriot of H. C-B. It is said that he revised and rewrote each of
>his works up to a dozen times before sending it to his publisher.
>There are other great writers who get it exactly the way they want it
>the first time, with no editing or re-writing. Who can say that one
>method is better than the other?
>It's the results that count, isn't it?

.... not to mention the fact that he did not understand my post at all.
The jist of my post was that you need to compose your subject within the
context of the other objects in the frame, and the frame itself. I
included one tiny mention of cropping (having non-3:2 or non-native
framing in mind), and he goes off on a tangent as if I wrote, "never get
close; always crop".

Also, this is not a presciption to never take a spontaneous shot. There
are going to be lots of situations in which you don't have time to
optimally compose. You can, however, get into the habit of anticipating
situations and composing the context, like waiting for people to walk
into a certain spot, hoping that they will react to what they see at
that point, etc.

The plague of people who read for key-words stripped from context for
the purpose of pidgeon-holing is epidemic on these public forums.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 11:25:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Group
There is a book that I found that may be of interest to you in finding
the right market. It's called, "Sell and Re-Sell Your Photos" by Rohn
Engh. I have found it quite a good read, as I am also trying to figure
out the best market to target.

Good Luck
Erin

Green Frog wrote:
> Hi Group
>
> I made a post on here a couple of months a go and got some good
feedback
> towards the pictures on our website.
>
> I have designed the website for my brother who is a keen photographer
and
> our website is http://www.grottypicturecompany.co.uk.
>
> I personally think some of the photographs are of a high standard and
very
> interesting and would like to know what your opinions are on the best

> avenue to pursue regarding selling his photos.
>
> I was thinking we should target the American market or stock clubs,
any
> feedback would be great and much appreciated
>
> Regards
>
> Green Frog
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 4:51:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Green Frog wrote:

>> I have designed the website for my brother who is a keen photographer
>and
>> our website is http://www.grottypicturecompany.co.uk.

You have a layout glitch.

Try viewing the home page in IE after:
View / Text Size / Largest (for instance).


--
Alan ............
!