Fine Art America - any good?

[John Mitchell 5,529]

I've had a look through the Artflakes site and could see no mention of whether photo submissions have to be exclusive, or whether Model or Property Releases are required - do you get that level of advice when you join up?

 

Also confess to being a little confused over their file size restrictions (max 25MB, 1200x1200 pixels). Seems very small for producing fine art prints etc - or am I just being dull after a long day?!

 

Grateful for any answers

 

Regards

 

John

The 25 MB is probably the maximum compressed JPEG size. Good question about releases. I don't imagine they would be needed unless someone is buying a print or poster for something other than personal use. I don't know what that might be, though. Artflakes is not exclusive in any way.

 

I've never made a sale through Artflakes. Good luck.

Edited April 23, 2014 by John Mitchell

[Number Six 57]

Many thanks John.

 

I also presumed 25MB was the max compressed JPEG size. However, I then saw that they also accept TIFF files (for which 25MB would be small). The 1200x1200 pixel limit exacerbated my confusion (& still does).

 

Good to hear that they do not require exclusive images though. Cheers!

[Sheila Smart 186]

Also ran scans with no threats shown. I have been testing the software this afternoon and am so far very impressed. I have also been trial-ing  Topaz and Snap Art 4 over the last few weeks, so far I am liking FotoSketcher best and not just for the price! I'm particularly liking the results when combining effects (tutorial page here http://fotosketcher.blogspot.fr/2013/08/fotosketcher-250-complete-tutorial.html)  and if it becomes possible to add photoshop brushes in, as David says he is working on in the comments on this page, then I will be extra happy.

 

One minus is that the software strips metadata.  I have brought this up with David and he is working on it.  

 

Sheila

[Sheila Smart 186]

Allan,

 

At the moment I am busy preparing a submission for FAA.  They seem to give rather a nice presentation of ones work and $30 per year is not much to pay for that. 

 

When I have it all up and running I will repeat the process on a European site.  I was thinking Artflakes, but I am certainly open to other ideas. I will have a look at PHOTO4ME.

 

What is what you describe as a "commercial hit"  if it is not yet a sale?

 

One problem I have is rather slow broadband, at the moment it takes 3 mins per image to upload to Alamy, OK if you are doing 10-20 at a go, but tedious if you have a lot.   BT Infinity has finally arrived in my street and their technician is coming to install it on May 8th so that should be a big improvement.

I have had a couple of sales on Artflakes but it took three emails to them before they responded to my question regarding the amount of commission they paid on the last sale where I had placed a 30% commission.  The full sale price of the print was $290 approx and I received $50.00 approx. Does not compute!  I was eventually advised that the commission was on the base price, not the selling price.  Hmmmm...

 

Sheila

Edited April 23, 2014 by Sheila Smart

[John Mitchell 5,529]

I uploaded it on WIN7 without any problems.   Subsequently ran a scan which showed no threats....

AVG gave me a threat warning when I tried to download fotosketcher. After the threat was supposedly dealt with, I downloaded the program but couldn't get it to work on my computer. Oh well, guess I'm not destined to be the next J. M. W. Turner. 

[Peter Jordan 197]

I am still selecting and preparing suitable images for this market,  so have not joined any of these sites yet. After looking further into Artflakes and Photo4me,  I think that Photo4me would be the better of the two for me.   Reading Allan's comments and the details on the Photo4me site, their approach seems to be much more considered and user friendly.    And they are UK based, where most of my location specific images come from.

 

Photo4me do ask for MR on any images with recognisable people, which seems ultra cautious for wall art, but they are probably thinking "better safe than sorry".

[SFL 164]

 

I have had a couple of sales on Artflakes but it took three emails to them before they responded to my question regarding the amount of commission they paid on the last sale where I had placed a 30% commission.  The full sale price of the print was $290 approx and I received $50.00 approx. Does not compute!  I was eventually advised that the commission was on the base price, not the selling price.  Hmmmm...

 

 

Sheila

 

 

30% of the base price?  That's rather low.  Can you decide the percentage at Artflakes?

 

Sung

[John Mitchell 5,529]

 

 

I have had a couple of sales on Artflakes but it took three emails to them before they responded to my question regarding the amount of commission they paid on the last sale where I had placed a 30% commission.  The full sale price of the print was $290 approx and I received $50.00 approx. Does not compute!  I was eventually advised that the commission was on the base price, not the selling price.  Hmmmm...

 

 

Sheila

 

 

30% of the base price?  That's rather low.  Can you decide the percentage at Artflakes?

 

Sung

 

I usually choose 40% or 50% markup depending on the image, but then I've never made a sale through Artflakes.

[Sheila Smart 186]

 

 

 

I have had a couple of sales on Artflakes but it took three emails to them before they responded to my question regarding the amount of commission they paid on the last sale where I had placed a 30% commission.  The full sale price of the print was $290 approx and I received $50.00 approx. Does not compute!  I was eventually advised that the commission was on the base price, not the selling price.  Hmmmm...

 

 

Sheila

 

 

30% of the base price?  That's rather low.  Can you decide the percentage at Artflakes?

 

Sung

 

I usually choose 40% or 50% markup depending on the image, but then I've never made a sale through Artflakes.

 

Had I realised that it was a percentage of the base price, I would have raised the percentage but that would make prints out of reach of most folk.  I prefer the FAA model where you place a price on what you want to actually receive for the print, not on a commission basis. 

 

Sheila

[Sheila Smart 186]

 

I uploaded it on WIN7 without any problems.   Subsequently ran a scan which showed no threats....

AVG gave me a threat warning when I tried to download fotosketcher. After the threat was supposedly dealt with, I downloaded the program but couldn't get it to work on my computer. Oh well, guess I'm not destined to be the next J. M. W. Turner. 

 

Apparently it doesn't work on Mac so if you have Apple, you are out of luck.

[John Mitchell 5,529]

 

 

I uploaded it on WIN7 without any problems.   Subsequently ran a scan which showed no threats....

AVG gave me a threat warning when I tried to download fotosketcher. After the threat was supposedly dealt with, I downloaded the program but couldn't get it to work on my computer. Oh well, guess I'm not destined to be the next J. M. W. Turner. 

 

Apparently it doesn't work on Mac so if you have Apple, you are out of luck.

 

I'm using a PC. Might try downloading fotosketcher again when I'm feeling brave. But I have mixed feelings. My father painted watercolours, and I know how difficult it is. Turning photos into paintings by digital means seems a bit like cheating to me.

Edited April 25, 2014 by John Mitchell

[Callie 314]

 

 

 

 

I have had a couple of sales on Artflakes but it took three emails to them before they responded to my question regarding the amount of commission they paid on the last sale where I had placed a 30% commission.  The full sale price of the print was $290 approx and I received $50.00 approx. Does not compute!  I was eventually advised that the commission was on the base price, not the selling price.  Hmmmm...

 

 

Sheila

 

 

30% of the base price?  That's rather low.  Can you decide the percentage at Artflakes?

 

Sung

 

I usually choose 40% or 50% markup depending on the image, but then I've never made a sale through Artflakes.

 

Had I realised that it was a percentage of the base price, I would have raised the percentage but that would make prints out of reach of most folk.  I prefer the FAA model where you place a price on what you want to actually receive for the print, not on a commission basis. 

 

Sheila

 

I started setting my % on Artflakes at 85%, on the basis that they seem to mostly sell posters quite cheaply. My % has gradually gone up after my first sale there, after 3 sales it is at the current level! I'm not happy with the way Artflakes works, the FAA model is far better, but putting up with it for now as a German seller works for me.

[Niels Quist 708]

 

 

I uploaded it on WIN7 without any problems.   Subsequently ran a scan which showed no threats....

AVG gave me a threat warning when I tried to download fotosketcher. After the threat was supposedly dealt with, I downloaded the program but couldn't get it to work on my computer. Oh well, guess I'm not destined to be the next J. M. W. Turner. 

 

Apparently it doesn't work on Mac so if you have Apple, you are out of luck.

 

 

After my deletion of the programme due to the doubt mentioned above I have redownloaded and reinstalled with no objections from Kaspersky. I think it may depend on the button or text link you choose for downloading. These sites are full of traps to make you download crap programmes. Even Java update tries to lure you to download an unnecessary and unwanted programme.

 

I have tried the FotoSketcher and it seems quite "cool" when you learn how to set the various parameters. All this made me try Fine Art America,, which I thought I was not the person to do.... ;-)

Edited April 27, 2014 by Niels Quist

[losdemas 3,026]

There is a common (often bright green) button which appear on many sites' download pages.  It is a Google ad.  You just have to be very careful which button you press - very easy to make a mistake.

[Sheila Smart 186]

 

 

 

I uploaded it on WIN7 without any problems.   Subsequently ran a scan which showed no threats....

AVG gave me a threat warning when I tried to download fotosketcher. After the threat was supposedly dealt with, I downloaded the program but couldn't get it to work on my computer. Oh well, guess I'm not destined to be the next J. M. W. Turner. 

 

Apparently it doesn't work on Mac so if you have Apple, you are out of luck.

 

I'm using a PC. Might try downloading fotosketcher again when I'm feeling brave. But I have mixed feelings. My father painted watercolours, and I know how difficult it is. Turning photos into paintings by digital means seems a bit like cheating to me.

 

Painters have been using photographs as derivatives for years so its payback time!!!

 

Sheila

[Betty LaRue 3,820]

I was a watercolor painter for a number of years. Placed in art shows, sold to the public.  It is hard.  Most of my work was based off of photographs.  I'd go out and shoot a scene with my Canon Sureshot, then see what I had.  If I liked something, I painted the scene.  The joy was taken away when people began asking me to paint something to match their newly decorated room.

I tried to do that, but as especially women know (think having a haircut you want and trying to get your stylist to see your vision) what a client has floating around in their mind may not be how you are visualizing it.  Next thing I knew, I was tense, unhappy, unfulfilled, and when I quit taking those commissions, the tenseness remained.  I gave it up.

After a spell of creative writing, I picked up the camera again and never looked back. 

 

After joining FAA, my work started out as straight photographs, but then slowly morphed into what I'm doing now.  What I am doing is still just as creative as what I did putting paint on paper.  Many artistic decisions to be made, many trial and errors.  Often I will have 4 versions of a piece finished, then decide which I like best.  Considering textures, I place one after maybe trying several to see what will work, then I carefully have to brush it off the subject, which takes brush strokes just as work-intensive as the real thing was.  In fact, some of my completed work takes longer than I took to do a watercolor on paper. The biggest difference is if you messed up putting paint on paper, you threw the whole thing away.  With digital work, you can go back in the history panel and fix it.

 

So I do not feel it is cheating.  I work just as hard as I once did.  I used artistic decisions just as I once did.  I have just as much satisfaction with a finished piece as I once did.  And I've sold more recent work than I once did.

 

Betty

[Peter Jordan 197]

I was a watercolor painter for a number of years. Placed in art shows, sold to the public.  It is hard.  Most of my work was based off of photographs.  I'd go out and shoot a scene with my Canon Sureshot, then see what I had.  If I liked something, I painted the scene.  The joy was taken away when people began asking me to paint something to match their newly decorated room.

I tried to do that, but as especially women know (think having a haircut you want and trying to get your stylist to see your vision) what a client has floating around in their mind may not be how you are visualizing it.  Next thing I knew, I was tense, unhappy, unfulfilled, and when I quit taking those commissions, the tenseness remained.  I gave it up.

After a spell of creative writing, I picked up the camera again and never looked back. 

 

After joining FAA, my work started out as straight photographs, but then slowly morphed into what I'm doing now.  What I am doing is still just as creative as what I did putting paint on paper.  Many artistic decisions to be made, many trial and errors.  Often I will have 4 versions of a piece finished, then decide which I like best.  Considering textures, I place one after maybe trying several to see what will work, then I carefully have to brush it off the subject, which takes brush strokes just as work-intensive as the real thing was.  In fact, some of my completed work takes longer than I took to do a watercolor on paper. The biggest difference is if you messed up putting paint on paper, you threw the whole thing away.  With digital work, you can go back in the history panel and fix it.

 

So I do not feel it is cheating.  I work just as hard as I once did.  I used artistic decisions just as I once did.  I have just as much satisfaction with a finished piece as I once did.  And I've sold more recent work than I once did.

 

Betty

 

Betty,

 

I have spent some time in watercolor classes.    Long enough to get a good feel for the subject and long enough to know I have no talent for it!

 

I used to think watercolor texturing of photographs was an inappropriate treatment, spoiling a photograph and trying to pass it off for something it was not.

 

Now I think producing art work this way is perfectly legitimate.   The fact is that it gives you huge scope to produce unique images that people will pay good money to hang on their wall.

 

Your experience as painter evidently fits you very well and your good results are well deserved.    Changing from painting to producing art works from a digital image must have been a very tough thing to do,  so well done you...

[SFL 164]

I was a watercolor painter for a number of years. Placed in art shows, sold to the public.  It is hard.  Most of my work was based off of photographs.  I'd go out and shoot a scene with my Canon Sureshot, then see what I had.  If I liked something, I painted the scene.  The joy was taken away when people began asking me to paint something to match their newly decorated room.

I tried to do that, but as especially women know (think having a haircut you want and trying to get your stylist to see your vision) what a client has floating around in their mind may not be how you are visualizing it.  Next thing I knew, I was tense, unhappy, unfulfilled, and when I quit taking those commissions, the tenseness remained.  I gave it up.

After a spell of creative writing, I picked up the camera again and never looked back. 

 

After joining FAA, my work started out as straight photographs, but then slowly morphed into what I'm doing now.  What I am doing is still just as creative as what I did putting paint on paper.  Many artistic decisions to be made, many trial and errors.  Often I will have 4 versions of a piece finished, then decide which I like best.  Considering textures, I place one after maybe trying several to see what will work, then I carefully have to brush it off the subject, which takes brush strokes just as work-intensive as the real thing was.  In fact, some of my completed work takes longer than I took to do a watercolor on paper. The biggest difference is if you messed up putting paint on paper, you threw the whole thing away.  With digital work, you can go back in the history panel and fix it.

 

So I do not feel it is cheating.  I work just as hard as I once did.  I used artistic decisions just as I once did.  I have just as much satisfaction with a finished piece as I once did.  And I've sold more recent work than I once did.

 

Betty

 

After all, softwares are only tools.  I have no doubt that if you give any tools to Betty, she will create art works.  Softwares are helping Betty to achieve what she visualises, not turning her to an artist.  As we all know, there are people who think bigger and better hardwares and clever softwares are the answer.

 

Sung

Edited April 27, 2014 by SFL

[John Mitchell 5,529]

I too dabbled with painting watercolours, and it didn't quite work out. So, what types of photos (i.e. what kinds of subject matter) best lend themselves to digital manipulation with software like fotosketcher?

[Zigzagmtart 18]

Betty and Sheila I just wanted to personally thank you for your contributions in this thread.  I have always considered photography and painting as seperate endeavors with little if any overlap.  I try so hard to get my images to be as accurate as possible and dislike even cloning out the odd bird or so.  But after reading this thread something suddenly clicked and I realized there was no reason to stop with the camera, that I was completely free to take that image in whatever direction I could.  I have Lightroom and Photoshop and just considered them as developing tools not creative tools.  And I know how incrediby naive that sounds, I just sat at my desk like someone had hit me with a stick.  How can someone my age be so blind?

 

I've just completed two artiistic renderings of rather plain images that are now rather interesting.  Quite amatuerish compared to your work.  But an entire new vista has opened up.

 

Thank you so much for educating an old man with blinders on.

[Betty LaRue 3,820]

I too dabbled with painting watercolours, and it didn't quite work out. So, what types of photos (i.e. what kinds of subject matter) best lend themselves to digital manipulation with software like fotosketcher?

 

I guess Sheila should answer this one. 

I can't try fotosketcher because I have a Mac, and it doesn't work on a Mac. So I can't see what is possible with it.

I find with my other painting software that usually landscapes and florals work best.  Other still life. 

 

I do use the CS6 watercolor filter a lot, but only to fix images that aren't worthy alone.  Like I've said before. If I have an image I've cropped and need it to be larger, the image gets soft when enlarged. I can run it through the watercolor filter (say, birds, butterflies) and it works.  I like to offer larger images on FAA just in case a buyer wants a large print. Since I usually go on and do other things to the image after using the CS filter, like adding textures and such, it works for me.  I usually don't use painting filters with the exception of CS6 watercolor filter for anything with eyes, noses, etc.  But since I can't see what fotosketcher does, I can't say about that one.

Sheila?

[Betty LaRue 3,820]

Betty and Sheila I just wanted to personally thank you for your contributions in this thread.  I have always considered photography and painting as seperate endeavors with little if any overlap.  I try so hard to get my images to be as accurate as possible and dislike even cloning out the odd bird or so.  But after reading this thread something suddenly clicked and I realized there was no reason to stop with the camera, that I was completely free to take that image in whatever direction I could.  I have Lightroom and Photoshop and just considered them as developing tools not creative tools.  And I know how incrediby naive that sounds, I just sat at my desk like someone had hit me with a stick.  How can someone my age be so blind?

 

I've just completed two artiistic renderings of rather plain images that are now rather interesting.  Quite amatuerish compared to your work.  But an entire new vista has opened up.

 

Thank you so much for educating an old man with blinders on.

 

You are so welcome.  I've gotten where I am with photography because when I joined the Nikonians, I asked questions and experienced photographers tutored me.  I was recovering from chemo and radiation at the time, and decided with an "iffy" future, I wanted to do something that gave me joy. 

I also believe in this world we are here to put a hand out to anyone we can, and I do know many hands have been put out to me. 

 

Photography is an art in itself.  Maybe not so much shooting stock for the most part, but one can do creative things with their picture taking.  Doing "more" to the images once taken is just another step.  As I mentioned before, you can make composites of two or more images.  I got up with leg cramps at 4 am in St. Croix last October, and walked out of my rental cabin to look at the sea. I was astounded to see the moon setting over the water with a moon trail across it.  I ran in to get my Nikon and tripod and shot away.  The image was very nice, but I decided the moon looked too small for my purposes, so I found a moon shot I'd taken and stashed away on the HDs, and composited a nice, large moon into the image over the smaller one. I liked it.

 

Stock and art images do cross over for me somewhat. I can take a picture of a beautiful house finch in my blooming crabapple tree and use it for stock. Then I can do something artistic with it and use it on FAA.  Same as with butterflies and flowers (although I seldom upload florals to Alamy).  It all depends on what you have in your portfolio.

Glad you had an "Ah-hah!" moment.

 

Betty

Edited April 28, 2014 by Betty LaRue

[John Mitchell 5,529]

 

I too dabbled with painting watercolours, and it didn't quite work out. So, what types of photos (i.e. what kinds of subject matter) best lend themselves to digital manipulation with software like fotosketcher?

 

I guess Sheila should answer this one. 

I can't try fotosketcher because I have a Mac, and it doesn't work on a Mac. So I can't see what is possible with it.

I find with my other painting software that usually landscapes and florals work best.  Other still life. 

 

I do use the CS6 watercolor filter a lot, but only to fix images that aren't worthy alone.  Like I've said before. If I have an image I've cropped and need it to be larger, the image gets soft when enlarged. I can run it through the watercolor filter (say, birds, butterflies) and it works.  I like to offer larger images on FAA just in case a buyer wants a large print. Since I usually go on and do other things to the image after using the CS filter, like adding textures and such, it works for me.  I usually don't use painting filters with the exception of CS6 watercolor filter for anything with eyes, noses, etc.  But since I can't see what fotosketcher does, I can't say about that one.

Sheila?

 

 

Thanks for the reply, Betty. I managed to successfully download the fotosketcher program and get it up and running. Think I need to check out the tutorial that Sheila mentioned. Not sure that I would be any better with a digital paintbrush than I was with a real one. Looks as if it's worth a try, though.

[Betty LaRue 3,820]

Good luck, John.  Just remember, Rome wasn't built in a day. When you start out, you will be clumsy and end up throwing away what you've done more than not. But as you keep trying, it will get easier. 

One important tip.  As I work on an image...say I add the CS6 watercolor filter.  I save a copy. Then I add a texture and brush out the subject. I save a 2nd copy. Whatever choices I made, whether a painting process or whatever, I keep saving copies until I am totally happy with the last one. Then I delete the rest. If I screw one up, I go back to the last copy and don't have to start from scratch. I name the copies 2222-a, 2222-b, 2222-c and so on.  When I've deleted all the early copies, I also take off the letter on the last and best. 

I use the Nik filters a lot. Nik Color Efex (I think 4) When you look at my images, often you will see a background color that is strong and fades away as it progresses or turns into another color.  This is usually the last thing I do after I've done other work.  It can really make the image pop. I can't remember the name of the two filters offhand, I'm on my laptop and don't have it installed here.  I think it is called "Bi-colored filter". One has set colors, the other you can choose the two colors yourself. When you accept what you've done, it opens into PS the image is on layers, and you can further reduce opacity of the Nik filter or brush off some effects if you want.  I open the image in PS, then into Nik from PS, then go back to PS.

 

B

[MariaJ 439]

Thanks for all your helpful tips Betty.  I really like the beautiful art you have on FAA.  I also like to play around and do "art" with my photos, usually by adding a texture and blending layers.  I haven't used Nik filters but have some Topaz plugins.  

 

I'm assuming you must use some sort of tablet for all your brushing work.  That's next on my list of photography-related purchases. Are there any makes in particular recommend?