1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Something quick for you all

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by Jo2009, 11 Jun 2010.

  1. Jo2009


    Joined: 9 Dec 2009

    Posts: 188

    I'm going to be creating a website where I'm going to be selling my owen pictures witch are on canvas. I'll also be selling my pictures in photo frames.

    So, for me to have a rely good website and to get it all running, it's going to cost meanout £500. That's a lot of money just for a website but I want every thing at it's best.

    So due to the fact how much it's going to be costting me to do this, I need to make sure people will buy them. So, would you lot buy canvas witch have photos on by other people?

  2. neoboy


    Joined: 16 Mar 2004

    Posts: 12,639

    Location: UK

    I have to say, there are probably better market research methods out there :p

    Have you had a look at the prices places like Photobox offer and can you match those?
  3. PaulStat


    Joined: 1 Mar 2003

    Posts: 5,445

    Location: Cotham, Bristol

    depends if the pictures are any good and if you'll be running whatever you put on the website through a spell checker :p

    I will say that £500 is a lot to spend on a website to sell your own pictures.
  4. D.P.


    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 31,496

    This depends on the photo.

    I will pay some decent money for a good canvas photo I really like. I if had more money then I would pay £500 for a great canvas which was a limited print.

    However, I rarely see photos from amatures that I am willing to pay any substantial money towards. And I am even less likely to pay online from an amateur.

    You need to decide if your pictures are really going to sell. I suggest you ignore the website and try to sell in person. People generally don't like buying such things online, like buying clothing.

    If you do use a website then instead of getting your own designed, use one of the large websites dedicated for people selling online photos. Then you only pay a yearly fee and some commission.. You gain from having a trustworthy website.
  5. Jotun


    Joined: 11 Jun 2005

    Posts: 3,606

    Location: Liverpool

    Personally, no. I've got enough of my own to print and mount that I'm not really interested in other people's work.

    You're may be asking the wrong people though as I'd expect a fair amount of posters here are the same. The only art I'm interested is stuff I could never do, I've for a few oil paintings :)

    £500 is a lot, if you're technically minded you may want to look at setting up your own site as it's not too bad once you get to grips with everything.
  6. martinturner

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 27 Jun 2007

    Posts: 1,777

    £500 is a large investment if you have not got the work to back it up. I think as previously said it all depends on the quality of your work. Even if it is very good, £500 is still a lot of cash; I think the key is whether or not you can generate revenue from advertising. Personally, I see a website as just being the portfolio that goes with a more face-to-face method of selling your work. Get your stuff in a gallery, or a market stall or something along those lines. No photographer really makes any monies direct from web sales, unless you have done something of considerable recognition.
  7. glitch


    Joined: 8 Nov 2005

    Posts: 4,412

    No, and nor will anyone else.

    You need something that bridges the gap between you being a no-name amateur and a 'professional' photographer with a solid reputation. Until you have that nobody in their right mind is going to buy prints they have never seen from a website of a photographer they have never heard of, no matter how good your work is.

    I've got a couple of extremely talented young photographers who have won awards for their photography as my customers. Neither of them sell prints through their websites - and these are kids who have the reputation to bridge the aforementioned gap.

    Given that your previous threads in this forum have all revolved around what camera you ought to be buying and a snapshot of your cat, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you don't really seem to know what you're on about.

    Personally I think you're wasting your money and your time thinking you can do it yourself and make a success of it, but it's your money and your time to waste.
  8. VirtualAdept


    Joined: 23 Oct 2002

    Posts: 4,385

    Location: North Devon

    It might be worth speaking to local galleries, with regards to having prints to sell. A guy local to me has arranged with me to print a few canvas prints to sell in his shop with a little extra on top to go to me. Its not the ideal solution, but it may be worth looking into.

    Bit harsh isn't it?
  9. p0ss3s3d

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 30 Dec 2008

    Posts: 1,928

    Sports photography is 90% of the time bought online... :p (thats also because it's always bought as a jpeg and printed by the buyers (newspapers/magazines/web use etc.) - very few shots are printed myself other than the odd guy saying "Hey I want that picture of me on my wall in my car!")
    Last edited: 11 Jun 2010
  10. Amp34


    Joined: 25 Jul 2005

    Posts: 28,867

    Location: Canada

    I've just made a website for similar however I'm not planning on selling for £500, more like £150.. The website isn't going to be the main seller either, i'm hoping to use it in conjunction with displayed images in a few select places. They see the prints and get told about the website so they can have a look and see what other photos are available if the one they see IRL isn't one they want. :)
  11. glitch


    Joined: 8 Nov 2005

    Posts: 4,412

    Not really, no.

    It's not a sleight on the OP's abilities as a photographer, as for all I know he's got a hitherto undiscovered portfolio of stunning images and knows his stuff. But even professional photographers with a established reputation struggle to sell prints online, so why someone with seemingly limited experience and knowledge would succeed where others have failed is beyond me.

    As has already been mentioned, getting your work in front of your potential customers in a retail environment is really the only way of achieving enough exposure to generate any sales. And given that our OP doesn't seem to know what camera to buy or what type of photos he's going to take, I fail to see the sense in spending £500 on a website to try and do something that very rarely succeeds.

    I think he'd be better served spending time and money on sharpening his skills and learning the trade. But, ultimately, it's his time and his money to do with what he pleases and no doubt he'll do what he thinks is best.

    But, no matter what course of action he decides upon, good luck to him.
  12. nalla

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 1 Jan 2007

    Posts: 1,099

    well in my opinion people will buy photos of other peoples, as long as they like it, i personally wouldnt as i print my own photos/canvas prints, i do however sell purchased prints royalty free that photographers have taken, but it all depends on the picture, so a general question would you buy this off me without seeing the picture is very vague and unappealing in my opinion, if you can show us some samples then we could then say yes or no as to whether we think people would find your photos appealing, other than that we have nothing else to go on.
    oh and as for £500 for setting up a website this is very expensive when there are programmes for sale very cheap to help even the least pc knowledgeable to build a website.
    Last edited: 12 Jun 2010
  13. Randomface74

    Perma Banned

    Joined: 9 Aug 2009

    Posts: 12,254

    Location: UK

    I wouldn't pay more than £100 for art, regardless.
  14. VirtualAdept


    Joined: 23 Oct 2002

    Posts: 4,385

    Location: North Devon

    My apologies, I misinterpreted your intent in your other post :)

    Also, my reading of the OP suggested to me that the site would cost £500, rather than individual pieces of his work. If I've got that wrong, again, apologies.