Fine Art America - any good?

[CandyAppleRed Images]

 

I too have sold nothing through them, but it is free hosting, and given that I only made two small sales on Clikpic in four years, at least I am not shelling out for nothing. It does not have the look and flexibility of Clikpic, but then again it is not £55 per year!

 

There is a bit of a Flickr culture of adding to groups, liking and commenting, which I do not go in for.

 

It is no real effort to set it all up, but I cannot see me adding much to it in the future.

 

Only free for a small number of images. Go over and you pay.

 

Allan

 

Not strictly true in that you can have as many as you like for free, but they only allow a certain number (25?) to be printed on demand direct through them. Anything else is "contact artist to arrange sale."

[Callie]

No sales through FAA yet but three through Artflakes, all of the same but not often photographed Berlin building.

[Sheila Smart]

Congrats to all of you making sales with FAA! That's good to know something is happening here This year I joined FAA and still waiting for the first sale with about 200 files. Site is very friendly and I love option to set my own price. How does it look in A.flakes? Who decides about commission?

 

Sheila, when I click on this small image under big one it gets me to site with: "The page you have requested can not be found." and link to FAA front page below.

 

Today I got invitating email:

"I’m pleased to extend an invitation to you to join TheArtOfBusinessCards.com. 

These are exciting times as we have revamped our website and building our artist community.

This is a great opportunity for you to earn between $5 and $25 per sale with very little effort on your part."

 

Anybody can tell about them?

Thanks for the tip off. Don't quite know why that happened but its fixed now!

 

Sheila

[Allan Bell]

 

 

I find it worthwhile.  But then I take photographs and add textures, painting effects and such to my work.  I made more on FFA last year than I did on Alamy.  I think for it to work best, one needs to be artistic. I used to paint in watercolor, so the artistic bent is there.  Most of my sales have been of these "artistically rendered" images.  I have made a few sales of straight photographs, but very few.  This, a straight photograph, has sold repeatedly.  

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/spring-is-coming-betty-larue.html

 

It was also featured in Darrell Young's book, "Mastering the D7000". I've sold somewhere around 30 straight photos, most being of birds and one particular image of New England autumn foliage, and a Bar Harbor Restaurant. Like that.  So not to say straight photos can't sell, they just need to be of a subject that is universally popular.  Something that looks pretty on the wall, or can be used in a small grouping of like images.

And yes, much as I dislike it, one needs to play the game a bit.  Join groups, make and get comments.  It helps your images come up higher in the searches.  Time consuming and I wish I didn't need to do it.  I do participate, but not to the extent of many there.

 

Betty

 

http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/betty-larue.html

 

Betty you may be able to produce the "water colour" effect with your X-T1 without resorting to overlays/filters etc in processing.

 

Allan

 

 

Allan, is that a low blow remark or what? 

 

 

NOT low blow, just a possibility in the way your X-T1 would be set up.

 

Allan

[Phil Robinson]

Good to hear some of you get sales - I haven't yet but I am aware that my stuff is not as well suited to the fine art market as some.

What I would be interested in from those who do sell is how many views you get. I look at some contributors who get thousands of views for one image - is that the kind of level that's needed?

I've had about 700 views in total and although they are beginning to increase lately, I doubt I'm getting enough exposure to sell much.

[Allan Bell]

I do not "do" twitter/face book/etc so do not achieve the exposure that others have who "do" these social networking sites.

 

A good number of views all the same with about 390 images on site.

 

Allan

[David Davies]

I have just over 300 images with FAA, have been there for almost 2 years now, with only 1 sale and that was a greeting card. (Ideal for scanning!)

Have had better sales on RB, but not really worth the effort! Must admit that my work is not "arty" enough, and I am not into promoting on Facebook, Twitter etc.

Also, I find it difficult to comment on some of the work shown, and refuse to praise some of the dreadful captures!

That said, there is also some very good work on FA and RB.

[Robert Brook]

"The best site "I think" for fine art is Saatchi out of the UK"  KLH

 

I agree. IMO (that's IMVHO, Ed) Saatchi stands above the rest because it sells and promotes more than wall decoration.  Art collectors go there, and work can sell for decent prices.  And you aren't required to make gormless comments about other's work.

 

Beyond that you need a dealer.  London Art take on a very wide range of work from traditional representational painting to conceptual art to street photography.  Many dealers tend to specialise in particular genres and styles.

 

RB

[Marmot]

I joined RedBubble several years ago, really just to socialise with other snappers, so the occasional sales I make there are a bonus.  Most of my product sales are done through Zazzle, although that can be quite time consuming.

[Bill Kuta]

I joined FAA sometime in 2010, and had very promising sales the first year, but sales have fallen off some since then for me. I have about twice as many images there now (600+) as I did in 2010, but FAA has many times more than then. I don't play the commenting game much and don't do social media, but sometimes enter some of the contests. 

 

If you look at "Recently Sold" (last link down the left side of the FAA home page), you'll see that the great majority of sales appear to be of "traditional art," or photos made into digital art. Many of the straight photos that sell are tarted up well beyond what would be acceptable to Alamy, but hey, it's not a stock site (although the founder did recently make an announcement about a possible upcoming licensing aspect to it, to much alarm).

 

My most multiple sellers are a simple closeup of the US and Maryland flags flapping in the breeze, and a white boat prow with reflection.

 

Overall, it's a fine deal for $30 a year (why are we even debating $30/year?). 

 

Allan, if you check out some of Betty's photo artwork, you'll see that no automated process would achieve the same effects.

[Robert Brook]

"Many of the straight photos that sell are tarted up well beyond what would be acceptable to Alamy" BK

 

Where in the T&Cs does it say you musn't tart up your photos?

[spacecadet]

'Tarting up' might introduce artefacts. QC don't like artefacts.

[Phil Crean]

'Tarting up' might introduce artefacts. QC don't like artefacts.

Artefact tart with ice cream…could be a seller  

[Robert Brook]

'Tarting up' might introduce artefacts. QC don't like artefacts.

 

Most artifacts are introduced through poor technique.

[Betty LaRue]

I have received a monthly check, always over $100 and usually over or close to $200 from FAA for close to two years. Before that, often I'd get a check every other month or so.   2013 was a very good year for me, sales have slowed in 2014. I think it is because of the number of images added to the site.  Kind of like Alamy, the more contributors & images uploaded, the harder to get your images seen by the public..  That said, I still have sold 2 in the past week or so. My last check was smallish, less than $100, compared to the ones in 2013, but I should get a nicer one from these last sales.

 

While I realize I won't get rich from these sales, they do make a nice little bump to my monthly spending money.  They can pay for new cameras!!    Like the Fuji X-T1 I have on order!

 

I have sold one or two on Artflakes, posters only.  I have sold 5 on P4M, even though most sales are of places around the UK.  The thing about the UK images, you see the same landscape vistas shot by different people, over and over and over.  It is harder to stand out, but still, they make sales. There is one pier that I've seen done that has probably been shot hundreds of times. Same with that merry-go-round.  Not being familiar with the UK, I don't remember the name of that one, but I'm sure it is iconic.  

My sales on P4M were of Longhorns, believe it or not, and one autumn scene reflected in water.  Thought maybe an ex-pat bought them, lol!  So I rank #1 - FAA, #2 P4M, #3 - Artflakes.  For me, anyway.  UK people, of course, would rank P4M as #1, probably.

Betty

[Ed Rooney]

I joined FAA sometime in 2010, and had very promising sales the first year, but sales have fallen off some since then for me. I have about twice as many images there now (600+) as I did in 2010, but FAA has many times more than then. I don't play the commenting game much and don't do social media, but sometimes enter some of the contests. 

 

If you look at "Recently Sold" (last link down the left side of the FAA home page), you'll see that the great majority of sales appear to be of "traditional art," or photos made into digital art. Many of the straight photos that sell are tarted up well beyond what would be acceptable to Alamy, but hey, it's not a stock site (although the founder did recently make an announcement about a possible upcoming licensing aspect to it, to much alarm).

 

My most multiple sellers are a simple closeup of the US and Maryland flags flapping in the breeze, and a white boat prow with reflection.

 

Overall, it's a fine deal for $30 a year (why are we even debating $30/year?). 

 

Allan, if you check out some of Betty's photo artwork, you'll see that no automated process would achieve the same effects.

 

I had to do a on-site search to find "recently sold," but I'm glad i did, because the over-all image profile is much more varied than it was just a few years ago. There's a whole lot more than just landscapes and animals. I hate most of this newer stuff, but I'm happy to see the various ideas of "art" being on offer on FAA. 

 

Another surprise was to find that I've been paying $30 a year for my membership. (My fault of course for not tracking my automatic credit card charges.) I guess I'll put some more images up . . . but I will not be involving myself in that odious, totally insincere quid pro quo business.

[John Mitchell]

 

I joined FAA sometime in 2010, and had very promising sales the first year, but sales have fallen off some since then for me. I have about twice as many images there now (600+) as I did in 2010, but FAA has many times more than then. I don't play the commenting game much and don't do social media, but sometimes enter some of the contests. 

 

If you look at "Recently Sold" (last link down the left side of the FAA home page), you'll see that the great majority of sales appear to be of "traditional art," or photos made into digital art. Many of the straight photos that sell are tarted up well beyond what would be acceptable to Alamy, but hey, it's not a stock site (although the founder did recently make an announcement about a possible upcoming licensing aspect to it, to much alarm).

 

My most multiple sellers are a simple closeup of the US and Maryland flags flapping in the breeze, and a white boat prow with reflection.

 

Overall, it's a fine deal for $30 a year (why are we even debating $30/year?). 

 

Allan, if you check out some of Betty's photo artwork, you'll see that no automated process would achieve the same effects.

 

I had to do a on-site search to find "recently sold," but I'm glad i did, because the over-all image profile is much more varied than it was just a few years ago. There's a whole lot more than just landscapes and animals. I hate most of this newer stuff, but I'm happy to see the various ideas of "art" being on offer on FAA. 

 

Another surprise was to find that I've been paying $30 a year for my membership. (My fault of course for not tracking my automatic credit card charges.) I guess I'll put some more images up . . . but I will not be involving myself in that odious, totally insincere quid pro quo business.

 

I'm not into the quid pro quo thing either. Personally, I think that repeat sales do the most to improve rank. But what do I know. Some FAA members swear by the commenting game. I guess you either love it or hate it.

[Betty LaRue]

 

 

 

I find it worthwhile.  But then I take photographs and add textures, painting effects and such to my work.  I made more on FFA last year than I did on Alamy.  I think for it to work best, one needs to be artistic. I used to paint in watercolor, so the artistic bent is there.  Most of my sales have been of these "artistically rendered" images.  I have made a few sales of straight photographs, but very few.  This, a straight photograph, has sold repeatedly.  

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/spring-is-coming-betty-larue.html

 

It was also featured in Darrell Young's book, "Mastering the D7000". I've sold somewhere around 30 straight photos, most being of birds and one particular image of New England autumn foliage, and a Bar Harbor Restaurant. Like that.  So not to say straight photos can't sell, they just need to be of a subject that is universally popular.  Something that looks pretty on the wall, or can be used in a small grouping of like images.

And yes, much as I dislike it, one needs to play the game a bit.  Join groups, make and get comments.  It helps your images come up higher in the searches.  Time consuming and I wish I didn't need to do it.  I do participate, but not to the extent of many there.

 

Betty

 

http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/betty-larue.html

 

Betty you may be able to produce the "water colour" effect with your X-T1 without resorting to overlays/filters etc in processing.

 

Allan

 

 

Allan, is that a low blow remark or what? 

 

 

NOT low blow, just a possibility in the way your X-T1 would be set up.

 

Allan

 

 

You must explain how I can do that, Allan!

[Cryptoprocta]

Re views: most of my views - by a large factor - seem to be bots, which are quite easy to spot, either because they are 'New York, Russian Federation' type locations, or because after they've found you, you see lots of visits from the same location, either all together at nearly the same time (but looking at vastly different images, not findable on one search or adjacent in your portfolio), or at approximately the same time on several different days.

[Betty LaRue]

Re views: most of my views - by a large factor - seem to be bots, which are quite easy to spot, either because they are 'New York, Russian Federation' type locations, or because after they've found you, you see lots of visits from the same location, either all together at nearly the same time (but looking at vastly different images, not findable on one search or adjacent in your portfolio), or at approximately the same time on several different days.

 

Yes, I get some of those, too.  I don't understand what they are looking for and how it works.

[Callie]

Does anyone else have work on Photo4me? Any good? I have been looking for a UK based print company, first time I have heard of this one.

[Alex Todd]

 

Re views: most of my views - by a large factor - seem to be bots, which are quite easy to spot, either because they are 'New York, Russian Federation' type locations, or because after they've found you, you see lots of visits from the same location, either all together at nearly the same time (but looking at vastly different images, not findable on one search or adjacent in your portfolio), or at approximately the same time on several different days.

 

Yes, I get some of those, too.  I don't understand what they are looking for and how it works.

 

 

They are spider bots sent out by search engines to make it easier when someone does a search to produce a result quickly. Alamy doesn't allow them and that's why Alamy images don't show up on searches.

[losdemas]

Does anyone else have work on Photo4me? Any good? I have been looking for a UK based print company, first time I have heard of this one.

 

Yes. Nothing for a couple of years (!) then a couple of (very good) sales (both were 'pretty' floral images), then nothing.

 

Some folk have a lot of success there (I know a couple of people personally who sell consistently and consistently well there).  I think that it's similar to others thoughts on FAA: pretty flowers, landscapes, well-known iconic (mostly UK) locations and highly-processed images do well.

 

Personally, the 'amateurish' nature of the way the site is run annoys me (there is an ongoing issue with watermarks - which are pretty poor anyway - not being placed on images correctly, if at all).  I removed a number of images from there some time ago as a result of this.  Time to give it another go with Spring well under way (for the flowers)?

[Phil Robinson]

Good to hear some of you get sales - I haven't yet but I am aware that my stuff is not as well suited to the fine art market as some.

What I would be interested in from those who do sell is how many views you get. I look at some contributors who get thousands of views for one image - is that the kind of level that's needed?

I've had about 700 views in total and although they are beginning to increase lately, I doubt I'm getting enough exposure to sell much.

Ah, a sudden rush of views in the last couple of days - I assume it's you lot. Feel free to buy as well.

[John Mitchell]

 

Good to hear some of you get sales - I haven't yet but I am aware that my stuff is not as well suited to the fine art market as some.

What I would be interested in from those who do sell is how many views you get. I look at some contributors who get thousands of views for one image - is that the kind of level that's needed?

I've had about 700 views in total and although they are beginning to increase lately, I doubt I'm getting enough exposure to sell much.

Ah, a sudden rush of views in the last couple of days - I assume it's you lot. Feel free to buy as well.

 

Deep discounts?