[lidarman]

The ones taken by a pro and put online for sale after. What are your thoughts?

 

[jl]

I have bought a few (3-4) from events where I didn't have any other 'action' photographs available, and it was a _good_ (not lame) shot.

 

[*rt*]

The ones taken by a pro and put online for sale after. What are your thoughts?

i have.

the quality of the photos is usually good and it's sometimes nice to have the pic as proof that you were actually there and actually did that. but recently i've found that they're not worth the money for me. usually i want the pictures to include in my race report or to send to my sponsor. most of the pro photogs are asking about $25 for a .jpg image which i think is a lot of money. i understand the rationale but i still think it's a lot of money so i am a lot less likely to buy the image.

so, i guess it depends on what you want the pic for. if you think it's a great pic and it seems like it's worth what they are charging for it then i'd buy it. otherwise i wouldn't.

rt

 

[rr]

The ones taken by a pro and put online for sale after. What are your thoughts?

Yeah, especially since we never seem to bring a camera along for our rides, the best pic I bought was the bottom of Porc jump shot, the race shots can look pretty boring cause your usually just seated and hammering. Sorry no pics to post, none are on my computer.

 

[SSINGA]

I have a few times - this is one of my favorites.

 

[Duckman]

Yup. Have bought a few from various races in the past. Usually end up decent quality. But, they do seem sorta pricey so I'm pretty choosy. Otherwise one ends up with zero pics while racing et all. I'm vain like that ya know.

 

[DaveX]

10 years later I'm kinda glad I forked over the cash for this one. It's one of the only race pictures i have from back in the day. Didn't buy it online though, I didn't even have a modem back then.

 

[lidarman]

i have.

the quality of the photos is usually good and it's sometimes nice to have the pic as proof that you were actually there and actually did that. but recently i've found that they're not worth the money for me. usually i want the pictures to include in my race report or to send to my sponsor. most of the pro photogs are asking about $25 for a .jpg image which i think is a lot of money. i understand the rationale but i still think it's a lot of money so i am a lot less likely to buy the image.

so, i guess it depends on what you want the pic for. if you think it's a great pic and it seems like it's worth what they are charging for it then i'd buy it. otherwise i wouldn't.

rt

\
Yes, that seems like the price for the .jpg I have seen too. You seem to prefer a digital over the print, since I know they sell small prints for less. So what price would it make you consistently buy it? $20, $15, $10? Or is there one?

 

[sportsman]

\
Yes, that seems like the price for the .jpg I have seen too. You seem to prefer a digital over the print, since I know they sell small prints for less. So what price would it make you consistently buy it? $20, $15, $10? Or is there one?

sniff..sniff..sniff..that smells like someone is considering combining hobbies and money making opportunities

 

[Debaser]

I know someone who's set up a site to sell rally racing pics in the nw. Not sure if he's made much $$ on it.

 

[SSINGA]

\
Yes, that seems like the price for the .jpg I have seen too. You seem to prefer a digital over the print, since I know they sell small prints for less. So what price would it make you consistently buy it? $20, $15, $10? Or is there one?

$10-15 for a .jpg burned on a cd with the pic printed on a sticker (or directly on the CD) for the CD would be cool!

 

[*rt*]

\
Yes, that seems like the price for the .jpg I have seen too. You seem to prefer a digital over the print, since I know they sell small prints for less. So what price would it make you consistently buy it? $20, $15, $10? Or is there one?

consistently buy digital?

i don't know. i guess i'd be willing to fork over $10 if i thought the photo was really good. don't know that you'd make much money that way though.

the explanation i got for the difference in price between the digital images and the print is that the photog can make more on prints. if he/she sells the electronic image then they only make money once and i can make as many prints as i want. this makes sense but it still didn't justify the cost for me. another photog i spoke to charged $25 for 3 jpgs of the same image: a low res, med res, and hi res. when i asked if i could just 3 low res images (each different) the answer was no. again, he wouldn't make enough money on the sale to do that.

if i think the print is really great and i want a copy i wouldn't have a problem paying $10 for a 5x7" print. but, in general i want most of my images digital.

rt

 

[*rt*]

sniff..sniff..sniff..that smells like someone is considering combining hobbies and money making opportunities

funny. you smell that too?

rt

 

[merrrrjig]

I am going to start selling my pictures at the races, well not AT the races but people can Email me for there pictures and I will mail them to them. Im asking around $3-$4 for a 4x6 and $5-$6 for an 8x10 shipped. I think there super cheap prices

 

[lidarman]

consistently buy digital?

i don't know. i guess i'd be willing to fork over $10 if i thought the photo was really good. don't know that you'd make much money that way though.

the explanation i got for the difference in price between the digital images and the print is that the photog can make more on prints. if he/she sells the electronic image then they only make money once and i can make as many prints as i want. this makes sense but it still didn't justify the cost for me. another photog i spoke to charged $25 for 3 jpgs of the same image: a low res, med res, and hi res. when i asked if i could just 3 low res images (each different) the answer was no. again, he wouldn't make enough money on the sale to do that.

if i think the print is really great and i want a copy i wouldn't have a problem paying $10 for a 5x7" print. but, in general i want most of my images digital.

rt

First off, I might be freelancing for a company who does this in the spring, so for one, I am curious about how they determine their pricing structure.

I thought, "if they could sell twice as many images at $12.50 versus $25, they would make the same amount of money and twice as many people would have pix...Which is IMO, better for the racers and would likely cascade into more satisfied people in the long run. In normal economics, this is when marginal profit goes to zero. I would think that these companies would have figured this out and $25 is the equilibrium price, but who knows. Maybe they just assume a lot of things.

I guess their argument does make sense because, they are selling the "art" and the effort to take the pic is the same no matter what resolution you get. When you get into intangeable things like information, it's starts seeming unfair.

When I did 24 hrs of moab, I might have bought a print (they never got one of me on any of my laps) because after $125 entry another $10 for a 4x6 print seemed like nothing. I wonder how much of that plays into their pricing.

 

[sportsman]

\
Yes, that seems like the price for the .jpg I have seen too. You seem to prefer a digital over the print, since I know they sell small prints for less. So what price would it make you consistently buy it? $20, $15, $10? Or is there one?

I think that the caveat for purchasing prints instead of jpgs in order to get more sales is flawed.. How many people buy more than one copy? I've been known to buy a copy and then scan it to share. I've bought a couple here and there just because I like race pix (although I know my parents are sick of my sunglass covered racing/climbing/hiking/boarding pix). Prices seem to vary, I don't know if I've ever been given the opportunity to just buy the jpg, which would be my preference.

Might have to buy an Old Pueblo picture (costly) just because there are a series of shots near a huge puddle/small pond that I never saw during the race. I would've thought it was off course, but that have a few of me rolling past it, I must've been in worse shape thatn I thought

scott

 

[*rt*]

I thought, "if they could sell twice as many images at $12.50 versus $25, they would make the same amount of money and twice as many people would have pix...Which is IMO, better for the racers and would likely cascade into more satisfied people in the long run. In normal economics, this is when marginal profit goes to zero. I would think that these companies would have figured this out and $25 is the equilibrium price, but who knows. Maybe they just assume a lot of things.

i think that makes a lot of sense. i, for one, would be a whole lot more likely to pay $12.50 for a really good digital image than i would be to pay $25 for that same image.

when i was looking at buying images i also mentioned to the photog that they would get credit in anything that was posted. this, however, did not seem to make a difference to them at all. which, IMO was not good business. the more you get your name out there the more people are going to want your services. but what do i know?

I guess their argument does make sense because, they are selling the "art" and the effort to take the pic is the same no matter what resolution you get. When you get into intangeable things like information, it's starts seeming unfair.

yeah, about that "art" thing. no offense to those who take photos at races but to me that's not art. those are action shots. maybe in the world of photography there is no difference but a photographer at a race is setting up in one spot and shooting at what comes by in the hopes that he/she will catch some good images. same as a photog at any other sporting event. i don't argue that it takes some skill (which many event photographers seem to lack) to catch the shot but i think you can only loosely apply the term "art" to those pictures.

rt

 

[*rt*]

I think that the caveat for purchasing prints instead of jpgs in order to get more sales is flawed.. How many people buy more than one copy? I've been known to buy a copy and then scan it to share. I've bought a couple here and there just because I like race pix (although I know my parents are sick of my sunglass covered racing/climbing/hiking/boarding pix).

agreed. i thought it was flawed as well but there was no arguing with the person i was talking about. they seemed convinced that by selling me a digital image i was going to turn around an print off 100 copies and sell them for a profit. not likely! my parents are also sick of my sunglass covered racing etc pics and wouldn't pay me for them even if they werent!

rt

 

[lidarman]

yeah, about that "art" thing. no offense to those who take photos at races but to me that's not art. those are action shots.

rt

I didn't mean the term as in "fine art" or "artistic." That is a general term in the industry for "product"....can also be called "artwork" For example, you submit "artwork" to a printing company for letterheads, etc.

EDIT, if it was fine art, it would probably cost you $500 for an 8x10.

 

[*rt*]

I didn't mean the term as in "fine art" or "artistic." That is a general term in the industry for "product"....can also be called "artwork" For example, you submit "artwork" to a printing company for letterheads, etc.

got it.

one of the photogs i spoke to tried to convince me that his work fell into the "fine art" category and thats why he wouldn't sell me a digital copy. i wanted to tell him i thought he was totally full of doo-doo but i decided that would be unproductive.

sorry about the "art" rant in my previous post.

rt