.
  Lightstalkers
* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

Establishing Photo Business through Web

I am starting this new thread to ask for ideas that have been useful in establishing yourself through the web.

What kind of web presence do you currently use? Own domain or a subdirectory on a larger site?

Today as I was checking some other websites through WhoIs, I checked my own domain, tomoko-yamamoto.com. I noticed that I have come a long way since I started my domain name website.

If I could do it over again, I would get my own domain name and start building my site without going through a subdicrectory. I started out my web presence as a subdirectory of my ISP’s website. After all it was free. One of the projects on the site was recognized widely and got it listed in dmoz, but when I changed over to my own domain, it took a while to get a new address recognized.

Getting your domain name registered and having it posted used to be prohibitely expensive, but it is not any longer.

It takes time to establish your website, and have it listed in important directories and have some kind of ranking.
Therfore, start early as soon as you know the direction of your photo project.

I would say avoid super cheap web hosts because you want your site to be up most of the time. With my first choice of web hosts, this was a problem.

I’d better stop here, and get other people to relate their experiences regarding websites.

by Tomoko Yamamoto at 2007-10-15 20:05:02 UTC (ed. Mar 21 2008 ) Baltimore, MD , United States | Bookmark | | Report spam→

Get on as many free photographer listing directories as well because if you list your website domain name on them it makes your rankings go up

by Andrew Wheeler | 17 Oct 2007 13:10 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
According to Alexa.com, andrewwheeler.com does not have any ranking. Your site is linked in by LS only. Perhaps there are other free sites you want your domain name to be listed that might count. I have more links than you do according to Alexa.

I think quality links (ie, those bring traffic to your site) might be important.

BTW is there a site similar to Alexa.com in France?

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 17 Oct 2007 15:10 | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
Sorry but I don’t know what Alexa.com is, also, when I say ranking I mean where your website appears in a search.
Mine comes on the second page of Google search results as there are two photographers in the US who have the same name as me, which is annoying. I’m glad i beat them to getting the domain name though! That was back in 1998.

by Andrew Wheeler | 17 Oct 2007 16:10 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
Alexa.com measures traffic to your site, rather than your appearance in search engines. If you appear at the very first place with your name in Google, your Alexa ranking becomes significant enough to be measured. Mine is the very first, so I cannot improve too much in Google, but my Alexa ranking can be improved by being listed in significant directories with good Alexa ranking ie. good traffic.

You can list yourself in dmoz, Open Directory Project. I have one listing due to my Schubert Project which their editors found for me, but I could submit my main domain address.

I might stand corrected, but in my humble opinion, photographers’ link exchange significantly improves in either, Google or Alexa. It is better to be listed in dmoz or Yahoo.

Andrew- I googled you and I can see you have competition for your name, even on the PhotoShelter site. You might want to have more than a few links to your PhotoShelter site from your domain to bring that up high in Google. I have more than a few on my website. As we speak, people at LS might be looking at your domain, and it might help your ranking eventually.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 17 Oct 2007 17:10 (ed. Oct 17 2007) | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
Hi, this is really an interesting post. I am eager to hear from other experienced LS members.

by [former member] | 17 Oct 2007 18:10 | Kolkata, India | | Report spam→
mhh I dont understand it, what do these numbers tell us? how many pictures we have sold last month..?

by [former member] | 17 Oct 2007 19:10 | Ibiza, Spain | | Report spam→
Traffic rankings are not directly correlated to the number of sales of one’s photographs. I don’t think many photographers are divulging those numbers.

Look at Alexa.com yourself to see how individual photographers’ site rank. If you know the names of some of those successful photographers, that would help. I just tested myself. I get an Alexa ranking of my domain tomoko-yamamoto.com, but I could input my name. In the latter, I’ve got competition for my name, bigger than I had thought. I’ve also found that a couople of pages on my site have established some rankings.

Google also has a directory of businesses, that would list photographers’ names and their ranking which is different from their search engine status with their names. Here is an example

Here, Google is listing photographers accoring to their page ranking of their websites. Google does this ranking by subdirectories.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 17 Oct 2007 19:10 (ed. Oct 17 2007) | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
I canceled my Cafepress endeavor cause I wasn’t ready for all the promo work to sell posters etc..

I may get back to it but for now I’m more interested in finding buyers for fine art prints online and would like to make that part of my online business.

I am using my simple folio page as the kick off point for all my online business activity incorporating Photoshelter.

by Paul Treacy | 17 Oct 2007 20:10 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
Also, I invoice all of my clients via PayPal now but some will not pay this way. Rather they will send a check/cheque. But at least it speeds everything up for me and is more environmentally sound by reducing paperwork. It’s also easy to resend and remind if payment is late. It’s also easy to keep track and good records.

by Paul Treacy | 17 Oct 2007 20:10 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
I don’t fully understand how the technology works but I am at the top of the google list when I search my name.
My service provider has log statistics and I can see all the traffic to my site and it is broken down from hits, pages etc in a graph.

I also use as many as I can get onto photographer listing sites like Andrew mentioned.

These portals also appear at the top of a search so I think I am doing OK.

I have made a number of sales from magazines who have looked at my website.

Just recently I sold 7 images in a series that I shot 2 years ago and were in my archive.

I am going to get a photoshelter account and run that in tandem with my own site.

The only problem is I have to re-work a lot of my images and they all need better key-wording which takes time whichever platform or software you use to perform these tasks.

Unfortunately being at the top of a search engine result also means that your images are also more visible to thief’s…I am Involved in a copyright infringement case at the moment which I could really do without.

This is the graph that I see along with a more detailed log of statistics.

by [former member] | 17 Oct 2007 20:10 (ed. Oct 17 2007) | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
An important feature for my online business endeavors will be the self fulfill feature at Photoshelter. This is brilliant. I can sell limited edition numbered prints this way. I can sell signed dummies of my book projects this way and as a one off point of sale.

by Paul Treacy | 17 Oct 2007 20:10 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
I was surprised to see your comments here, but if that is the case, your promotion should include some text, otherwise people won’t find you.

If you can stand at an outdoor venue displaying all your photos, the pictures sell according to what they look, but the Web operates and relies heavily on text. According to my experience, you need specific descriptions of the photo in question plus a general category of photos. I struggled for a long time before I identified the style of my fine-art photography. I did not do this identification myself, but a girlfriend of mine insisted on the style identification. Maybe you need a friend to help you come up with an appropriate description for each, and a photo style category.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 17 Oct 2007 20:10 | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
Are you with GoBigMedia as well Mark? Your stats graph is exactly like mine.

If you go to my new site and enlarge an image, see if you can click and drag it to your desktop. I have a simple technique in the form of a protective shield I place over this images to prevent this type of theft. This is the only reason I make them so big.

Of course, if you understand code you can still figure out what the image url is but most won’t.

I’ll post a little tutorial later this week on how to do it.

Having said all that, I’ve noticed some downloads from my Photoshelter site that I did not sanction but tracked the people down to see what their intentions were. Photoshelter will only allow low res unless otherwise permitted by the owner.

by Paul Treacy | 17 Oct 2007 20:10 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
Tomoko, I think having the file info field filled in will do the trick rather than needing all the text to be visible on the page.

by Paul Treacy | 17 Oct 2007 20:10 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
Paul, filling in the file info field for the image file is important, but I don’t think Google has advanced to be indexing that yet.

You can hide the text in alt tags inside your img src, then people do not have to read it. Google does seem to index those alt tag text, but adding one phrase title to each when the image is enlarged would help the image indexed as you would like it, adding to the alt tag text, at least in my opinion. In effect, you are repeating one key phrase as the title of your image. You already have some image identification in the form of the name of your image files, which I think is good, but they may be too generic.

I observe that in Google Images that is why many amateur images with real image names rank higher than pro images with bunch of numbers in the image file names.

BTW, at PhotShelter, I notice that your caption goes under each image as an alternative text, which is being indexed in Google Images.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 17 Oct 2007 20:10 (ed. Oct 17 2007) | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
Mark

Are your image files assoaciated with file info? If they are, when you upload to Photoshelter, they automatically take up the caption to caption, and keywords into keywords in the IPTC section. Until I became aware of my file stolen early spring this year, I did not know I should have filled in at the minimum in the file info as copyrighted work and copyright notice, and the contact URL. Without these the editors consider the file as an orphan work. With the copyrighted work indicated, Photoshop will identify the file with a copyright mark when the file is opened, which will warn the thief of the consequences of using a copyrighted work.

Paul,

I know it is a pain to rewrite a caption for the html file for each of your images, but since all your files are at Phoshelter, so you can copy your captions from each file as opened at Photoshelter and paste them into the alt tag inside img src tags of your html page on your domain.

You wrote that you have made your image file thief proof. Are the thumbnails at least available for Google Images? Since your images need to be seen, I think you need to risk theft so that Google will make a smaller file from your large images to be used for image index. I think PhotoShelter’s policy of guarding the 500pix files is not that great because the thumbnails from the thumbnails are necessarily smaller. Some images survive this process and may be recognized, but if one’s image has some details, the thumbnailing process will deteriorate the image quality.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 17 Oct 2007 23:10 (ed. Oct 17 2007) | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
Hi Tomoko

As far as I am aware the orphan works bill does not apply here in the UK.

Would be very concerned if it does or ever will.

All of my images on my website have full IPTC embedded.

To be honest having IPTC on the images is not going to deter anyone who has decided to steal them.
I get the impression that most of these violations happen because the offender does not think he is going to get busted not because they were unaware of the image being protected by copyright.
I think the only option is to embed a watermark on all the images so it is never contentious but that spoils the image.
That will prevent most but in my case the images were used in such a derogatory way that the watermark would of probably been either cropped out or spotted out in photoshop.

by [former member] | 18 Oct 2007 08:10 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Paul – one way to get people to pay up front, who don’t want to use PayPal, is to deliver it via DRR or PS and use the online payment facilities on delivery (DRR does that, I am sure PS would also).

So they see their stuff as thumbnails, and pay with a credit card to download it.

Wade.

by Wade Laube | 18 Oct 2007 08:10 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Mark, all my stolen images so far had either the watermark cropped out or obscured by having being made a thumbnail. I also happen to have the watermark relatively small and placed toward the bottom with the stolen images so that it was easy to crop out the bottom. With the image not so much cropped out, the watermark was spotted out.

I’ve been watermarking my images more recently with light white (about 30%) and put watermarks in the middle of my images. I try to find a spot where the watermark is visible enough and yet would spoil the image the least.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 18 Oct 2007 12:10 | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
I don’t know about that Alexa thing, it says my site has no sites linking in whereas i know clearly that lightstalkers, le75, subjactive, and many others link in to me…. so perhaps its just a US thing. And my site is 1st when i google myself.
To answer your photo business through the web question, I use the web more for contacting people for groundwork and doing research for my projects, and to get info on where to send work to, contests, grants, residencies, but i don’t rely on it for someone to radomly find me if they are looking for a photographer, it is up to us to tell them we exist, or get ourselves listed in diffusion/info sites ….

by Gina van Hoof | 18 Oct 2007 14:10 | Brussels, Belgium | | Report spam→
Gina, the Alexa ranking is not limited to US-based websites. I have checked one UK company for its ranking, which was significant, significantly better than mine.

The Internet is useful to establish your photo business in your way as well. In that case having your name come up at the top in Google should be sufficient.

I think the Alexa ranking is important to me because I am trying to sell my photos directly to cosumers while you are not. I know a few successful photographers that have established photo business that way.

With my multimedia programs, I will need to approach diffently since I need to get to potential presenters. I need to prepare a promotional package with an audio CD, but I could put a snippet of audio online as well. At the moment most of my visitors to the multimedia program area seem to be students who are looking for free information.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 18 Oct 2007 15:10 | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
Hi Mark,

I have just checked your Alexa ranking, and you have a better Alexa ranking than mine!

Gina, my guess is that the links to you have to be significant enough to bring the traffic to your site. Honestly speaking, I don’t remember I had a ranking in Alexa when I first checked it back in March. I had not known Alexa existed until Scott Mallon mentioned it to me in the thread I locked up. Being active on LS probably has done the improvement for me.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 18 Oct 2007 15:10 | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
I am happy with my ranking ;) but I still dont understand the connection between business and ranking, also the ranking tells us nothing how good or bad our work is ;)

by [former member] | 18 Oct 2007 16:10 | Ibiza, Spain | | Report spam→
i am 1,317,900. (out of 1,317,901 presumably ;))))).

by Michael Bowring | 18 Oct 2007 16:10 | Belgrade, Serbia | | Report spam→
Alexa only counts visitors who have an Alexa Toolbar installed. This is mostlly the case with nerds in the US. Also your rank goes up if you have that toolbar installed. Not very useful, I’d say.

by Daniel Etter | 18 Oct 2007 17:10 | Cologne, Germany | | Report spam→
Your site is quite similar to mine, allso using SimpleWiewer. As the rest i like it! If you want to make the images look bigger on small screens set the number of thumbnails to just one or two. SimpleWiewer will then display an arrow to scroll between the thumbnails. In the line including the Homebutton you could allso put links to the other galleries, it is a bit anoying to have to go too the frontopage everytime..

Allso (and most important): Really great pictures!!

by Ty Stange | 19 Oct 2007 10:10 | Copenhagen, Denmark | | Report spam→
Great pictures, Ty!

Is your photo market limited to Denmark? At least you could have another front page in English linked to the Danish homepage, enlarging your market.

I believe in localization to the language of the land, but one needs to use the de facto universal language of English as well to have your photos accessible globally.

Google, Flickr, and this LS site are using the utf-8 coding, allowing different languages of the world to be displayed properly.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 19 Oct 2007 11:10 (ed. Oct 19 2007) | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
One of the easiest ways to get web traffic is to insert html meta tags into the head of your index page. This allows you to put a list of keywords that appear in your site. It’s also a good idea to submit to online magazines with high traffic, such as www.filemagazine.com and www.fstopmagazine.com. Others that are updated less frequently include Milk Bar, See Saw, and Blir. Gomma Magazine offers a website review called “Gomma Monitor” that brings a lot of traffic to my site.

by Rachel R. | 19 Oct 2007 14:10 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
Thanks, Rachel, for your idea of contributing to online magazines with high traffic.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 19 Oct 2007 15:10 | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
Any other ideas?

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 21 Oct 2007 11:10 | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
Other ideas:
- Entering photo competitions (such as the IPA Photo Awards, The Color Awards Master’s Cup, PX3, the B&W Spider Awards, etc…)
- Attaching a photoblog to your website and joining photoblog communities
- ALWAYS attach a signature to every email you write, it’s good to encorporate a logo with a link. EVERY email you write, you’d be suprised how often people forward stuff
- make sure your website is clean, simple, and easy to navigate. Your photos should always be the first thing someone notices on your website
- submit your website to search engines (you can submit to google, yahoo, msn, dmoz directory, digg). This website has a table prepared where you can submit to most of them in one place: http://bblmedia.com/addurl.html

Hope that helps!

by Rachel R. | 21 Oct 2007 13:10 | Paris, France | | Report spam→
I think you have three possible audiences online. There’s editors, who like lots of pics, and then a strong “greatest hits” edit. They might give you an assignment. Then there are casual photography fans who like to see tightish edits and meaningful captions, gallery style. Some of those might buy prints. Gallery curators like this style too. Then there are specialists in architecture/sex/war/ whatever your subject is, who will want to blog about your work, but won’t make you a dime, and might even infringe your copyright.

I try and keep the first 2 updated via a mailing list, and the third get an RSS feed to play with. Is it worth it from a business perspective? It would be crazy not to have a site these days anyway, unless your reputation predates the internet. But it’s not bringing in much cash.

by John Perkins | 21 Oct 2007 17:10 | Cairo, Egypt | | Report spam→
I have had your third type blog about my photos, which did raise my standing in Google Images. Copyright infringements happened with none of the types you listed, John, but with web designers and web-based businesses in my case. I think my photos became their targets because they are easy to find and with the stolen images, it was easy to remove my copyright notices either by cropping or erasing. So it looks like you have to walk a fine line between protecting your images with copyright marks that would not mar your precious images and yet having them available for the search engine.

I discovered that promotional web images are not and should not be cheap. You can see the discussions here

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 21 Oct 2007 18:10 (ed. Oct 21 2007) | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
What kind of image protection do you use? Because I had an e-mail exchange with another LS member on this subject, I took advantage of my recently acquired skill of copying the screen (print screen key on PC)and copied my 500pix image at PS successfully. It looks like if you want to steal a web image, the pixel.gif will not prevent you from doing it.

Here is my image I grabbed through the print screen key and pasted into a file in Photoshop and cropped down to the 500 pix size.

Here is where I got a copy. http://www.photoshelter.com/user/tomoko-yamamoto

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 22 Oct 2007 00:10 (ed. Oct 22 2007) | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
Tomoko’s right. Preventing image theft on the web is pretty much a fool’s errand. The very nature of browsing the web means that a copy of pictures on a website resides on the viewer’s computer (in the disk cache or whatever your browser calls it). Taking a screenshot will get the picture even if there’s a blank gif on top of it, which only prevents stealing by right-clicking or option-clicking. These methods probably aren’t bad, but they don’t provide much security. Like a lock on a desk drawer, it keeps the honest people honest but someone who’s determined to steal will find a way around it.

The best method is probably a number of watermarks throughout the image, the way that Magnum and Photoshelter do it (as in Tomoko’s picture immediately before this comment). That way, if your image is stolen or hotlinked, you’re virtually guaranteed that your copyright notice is reproduced. It can’t be cropped out or easily reversed. I’m sure a retouching magician could make it go away, but hopefully there aren’t many people so dedicated to stealing pictures from photographers’ websites.

by M. Scott Brauer | 22 Oct 2007 00:10 | Nanjing, China | | Report spam→
Scott, my Photoshelter image has two watermarks because the one in the center is due to the watermark I made in the image file I uploaded and the one at the bottom is what PhotoShelter creates for you when you opt for a watermark. This is not a typical case, but I have seen something similar with someone else’s images. The Magnum images have five watermarks, one in the center and one in each corner. They are lighter than the PhotoShelter provided one, but since one of the five can end up at the part of an image that would make it harder to remove the watermark without altering the image, it seems effective.

The blank gif coverage will prevent Google to index the image but not a determined thief, so it certainly ends up as a fool’s errand.

I am leaning toward the Magnum type for my website images to minimize image theft on my site.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 22 Oct 2007 04:10 | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
For the Photoshelter images, they are indexed in Google Images, but from their thumbnails because the image page has a blank image as far as Google is concerned, I guess. Therefore the only captions associated with the image and the filename are indexed. No keywords associated with the image are indexed in Goolge Images, because the keyword list only appears when a single image is shown. Google Web can index the image page, though.

The way my images come up in Google is that as Google Images start showing my images high up, Google Web start showing up my single image page high up as a result of many visits based on Google Images.

I think potential thieves scour Google Images and probably Flickr very fast to check many images for their potential candidates.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 22 Oct 2007 13:10 | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
Earlier this afternoon I was reminded of not keeping up in updating my new additions through the RSS feed and of not including the RSS feed link to all my pages.

However, this evening I was impressed with the results of having a html file for my feed because Google has indexed my feed.php in Google Images and some of the visitors were coming to my site because of this. Since the RSS feed xml file cannot be read like the web, it would be good to have a html file of the same content. The feed xml file is indexed in Google Blogs, but text only is indexed, but not images. I don’t know what is happening to Photo blogs, but there is a way to make a html file out of xml using the html template.

It is also important to remember that people are searching for images to signify this is Venice or this is autumn, thus the importance of having keywords to indicate general category and specific subjects.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 28 Oct 2007 01:10 (ed. Oct 28 2007) | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
I have been folllowing my “last visitors” log provided by my web host this weekend. Since 80-90%? of my traffic is driven by web images in various image search engines, I can’t find the search terms given in statcounter.com stats. They do give you links, but the links are not complete, or get broken. “Last visitors” provide the referring links even for images completely so that when I click on it, I will be shown the page my visitor saw when they click on my image in Google Images. You can find image search terms the visitor used by clicking on “image results” located at the top right-hand corner. Now that I know where it is located to give me the page the visitor was shown with his/her search terms, I click on the second line at the same area even in the languages I don’t read. This is an important piece of information that shows what search terms people are using in searching for images.

They do not need to be the location or building or whatever, but can be general terms like lakes, clouds, mountains. With these search terms, the searcher must go through the pages very fast, faster than what I can do with my dial-up connection. My photos are sometimes found at way down. If your images fit many searchers’ search terms and get clicked on, your images will move up in ranks.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 29 Oct 2007 00:10 | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
Hi All. I have just spent the last 3 weeks re-designing, and expanding my website ( http://jonlister.com ) with the sole intention of using it for self-promotion. That is, I have (since last Wednsday) been ringing prospective employers and asking to send them a link to my website.
So far I have had some nice comments and one request for a quote to do some corporate stuff.

It’s early days yet but I am confidant that ultimately I will get work from this and that to me is the primary reason to have a website. It really beats the pain of trying to get appointments and trudging around with a book. Don’t know about you but I used to hate that…
I had never heard of Alexa either and it seems that Alexa has yet to hear of me. I’m just getting started on this so all of the above was interesting. I am targeting specific possible clients at the moment ,but I am also looking for an agency – any suggestions?

by Jon Lister | 29 Oct 2007 01:10 | Sydney, Australia | | Report spam→
If you have access to your website’s source pages (e.g. you upload them yourself, or can access your provider), you should add in some code from Google Analytics. This will tell you everything you need to know about who accesses your site – where from, for how long, the most popular pages, keywords used to find your site etc. : http://www.google.com/analytics/
All you have to do is sign up for free, add a small bit of code cut and pasted, and upload your pages (add the code to ALL your pages in the relevant part). Far easier then looking at web logs.

I’m going to re-read all these posts as I put up a very simple site after coming back from travelling recently. I’d also be interested to find out easy cost effective ways of having galleries in your site allowing purchase. I’m a software developer by trade, but I’d like to be able to just upload things easily (like the rest of you I’m sure).

by Darren Craig | 29 Oct 2007 11:10 (ed. Oct 29 2007) | Edinburgh, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I have used Google Analytics and have the code on the front page and several others, but since I’m not so interested in learning who is accessing my homepage, Google Analytics had not been helpful to me. Most of my traffic is spread all over my site and the entry point of my visitors is not limited to the homepage.

Since I had not checked my Google Analytics for the past several months, I decided to have a look. Google Analytics does give top twenty search terms used by my visitors per given page and I have to say they improved the way they report considerably since the last time I looked.

It looks like I need to insert the Analytics code into more pages on my site where I want to know what search terms have been used in image search engines.

Thanks, Darren, for pointing this out.

I would like to point out, however, that the web log provided is still useful to me because I can tell who is accessing my site with what search terms. Google Analytics only gives twenty sets of search terms. In order to improve the set of keywords including those I have not thought of or have thought about but rarely accessed that way cannot be known by only the top 20 search terms when there are more people visiting even the particular page.

Last night I saw someone accessing my particular photo with German search terms in the web log. This reminded me that I need to improve the image and the page. This happens to be important because this particular photo is not doing well in Google Images with English search terms. The photo is of the alpenglow of a group of the Dolomite mountains. With the German equivalents, I have a chance.

As for the store function, I have a thread going on this topic.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 29 Oct 2007 13:10 (ed. Nov 3 2007) | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
I am still learning a lot and I read this blog by Dan Heller last night regarding the kind of customers he has. He states that his customers are Not those photo editors who would flock to stock agency sites. Apparently there are plenty of them around to give him the business.

This reading makes me think twice about sending my photos to the new soon-to-be-open PhotoShelter Collection. I am skeptical of their marketing strategies because it looks like they are still counting on traditional photo buyers.

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 31 Oct 2007 11:10 (ed. Oct 31 2007) | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→
Any other ideas?

by Tomoko Yamamoto | 03 Nov 2007 17:11 | Baltimore, MD, United States | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Recommended
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→

Participants

Tomoko Yamamoto, Multimedia Artist Tomoko Yamamoto
Multimedia Artist
Vienna , Austria ( VIE )
Andrew Wheeler, Photographer Andrew Wheeler
Photographer
Paris , France
Paul  Treacy, Photographer Paul Treacy
Photographer
(Photohumourist)
London , United Kingdom ( LGW )
Wade Laube, Wade Laube
Sydney , Australia
Gina van Hoof, photographer Gina van Hoof
photographer
Brussels , Belgium ( BRU )
Michael Bowring, photographer Michael Bowring
photographer
Belgrade , Serbia
Daniel Etter, Photographer / Writer Daniel Etter
Photographer / Writer
Istanbul , Turkey
Ty Stange, Photographer Ty Stange
Photographer
(Photographer)
Copenhagen , Denmark
Rachel R., Photographer & Writer Rachel R.
Photographer & Writer
Paris , France ( CDG )
John Perkins, Photographer John Perkins
Photographer
Cairo , Egypt ( CAI )
M. Scott Brauer, Photographer M. Scott Brauer
Photographer
Boston, Massachusetts , United States ( BOS )
Jon Lister, Photographer Jon Lister
Photographer
Sydney , Australia ( SYD )
Darren Craig, "inbetween jobs" Darren Craig
"inbetween jobs"
(wannabe Photojournalist)
Perpignan , France


Keywords

Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2014 November Eleven