Joe Reifer

Joe Reifer interviewed by BFA candidate Holli Brunkala, April 2011

1. Did you receive any formal training in photography? How has that helped or hurt your business?

I learned traditional black and white developing and printing from a college friend, and worked in a black and white lab for a short time. I was primarily focused on playing music during my 20′s, and didn’t get serious about photography until about 10 years ago.

I used to think the photography business was 80% business and 20% photography. Now I think a conservative estimate is more like 90%/10%. Marketing and negotiating are more important than f/stops and shutter speeds. John Harrington’s Best Business Practices for Photographers book is really the best 20 bucks you could spend on your photography education.

2. It seems you do not have a rep. How are you marketing yourself? Due to the current economic status, have your strategies changed from when you were first starting out?

I am an artist with a day job. For the last 4 years I’ve made most of my income working 25-30 hours per week at a photography website company, teaching photography workshops, and teaching Photoshop at an art college. I’ve done occasional event and editorial work over the last 7 years, but I’m not actively seeking this type of work. My primary marketing activities are related to teaching workshops – blogging, social media, and email are the primary tools.

My job as an Account and Project Manager has given me the opportunity to meet and network with a wide variety of photographers. Beyond a handful of people who are doing weddings and corporate work, very few people I know are making a living as a full-time photographer without teaching or another source of income.

3. I could not find any books that you have published. Do you have another means of promoting your work?

Eventually I’m hoping to publish a book. Having a physical end product that’s paper instead of pixels seems immensely satisfying. I’m encouraged by the quality improvements in the print-on-demand world. But I want to take my time. Going on road trips to out-of-the-way places and absorbing the atmosphere under a full moon is my favorite thing to do. I’m more interested in making work that pleases me and having adventures than I am in packaging and selling my photos.

4. The work on your website is geared toward the fine art genre of photography. Have you been able to make a living from selling these images on your website, in galleries, etc. or do you have supplemental income?

This is mostly addressed above, but here’s the lowdown. Almost nobody makes a living solely as a fine art photographer. Beyond a very small roster of art world stars, even most well known successful fine art photographers have to teach or do commercial and editorial work.

Being a fine art photographer is a lot like being in a garage band. You might make enough money for a new guitar or camera, but you still need a job to pay your bills. Whether that job is shooting weddings or designing websites or working a regular job is up to you. My strategy has been to maintain a day job that leaves me the time and energy to shoot what I want.

5. What are the essential steps for an up-incoming photographer to make a successful living as a fine art photographer?

The best photography career advice I ever got was from Joe McNally at a workshop 6 years ago. He said “be an octopus.” You need to have an arm in everything, because it’s unlikely that one thing will pay your bills. Fine art photography is the least likely thing to pay your bills actually. For most photographers, there isn’t enough editorial work to pay your bills. So do both. Do headshots of lawyers. Pursue an in-demand specialty.

Once you have some experience, consider teaching. Love Photoshop? Lots of teaching opportunities there. Maybe you’re really good at masking and compositing – look for work as a retoucher. Talk to people who are doing the kind of work that you’re considering. Find out what it pays and how hard it is to get jobs. Do some assisting. Get to know some working professionals that will share their industry knowledge. Get a job at a lab or a high-end gallery. Don’t get discouraged. If you really want to make a living in photography, you can do it – HOW you do it may be much different than you suspect.

6. You and Troy Paiva have images from the same places. Are you ever worried about preserving your identity and whether or not your images will look too much alike?

Troy and I have very different styles – part of our compatibility is because there isn’t a threat that our images will look the same. In John Szarkowski’s construct of Mirrors and Windows, he’s a mirror and I’m a window.

7. How has it been beneficial to work with another photographer on night shoots?

The best part about night shooting with other photographers is networking about locations, camaraderie during the drive, and safety at remote locations. Seeing how other people shoot a location is also really interesting.

8. I am interested in photographing and/or documenting abandoned buildings, much like the images in your portfolio. How would a photographer go about gaining legal access to these types of places?

Make prints and be nice to people. That’s the secret. Getting permission is all about social engineering. Many property owners are concerned about liability, so having insurance can be really helpful, too. Troy Paiva’s chapter on location access in Lance Keimig’s night photography book has extensive advice on this topic.

9. What makes Southern California, as opposed to other desert-scapes, the ideal place for night photography?

The Southern California desert has a wide variety of junkyards, mining ruins, and military and industrial sites to photograph. It’s also about proximity for me – 6-7 hours in the car, and there’s always something interesting to shoot. Western Nevada is also pretty nearby. With more time and budget, I’d do some shooting in Arizona, and New Mexico. The reality of working means if I’m driving more, I’m shooting less. Why drive further when the quintessential desert is only 300 miles away.

10. I noticed you update your blog fairly frequently. Why is it important for a fine art photographer to have and continually post to a blog?

Blogging is one of the best ways to get people to your website. Over 1/3 of my web traffic comes from people who are searching Google. There are a lot of ways to share your images online. I prefer using the blog format because I’m in control of the of the container, and it’s integrated into my website. Once images and articles are posted on my blog, it’s easy to share them on other websites.

Thanks again for the interview. Let me know if you have any follow up questions!

Substitute the word “photographer” where he says “writer.” Remember this video the next time someone says they’d like to use your image and that you’ll get a photo credit and it will be good publicity. [Thanks J.L.]

Photography websites can be something as simple as using an automated Lightroom gallery and a $5/month GoDaddy account, all the way up to a $5000+ custom website. Over the last 7 years I’ve gone from do it yourself, to a $50 template, to a $429 template, and now I’m ready for the next tier. While the up front costs of the solutions I’ve been reviewing vary, a comparison of the total cost of ownership over 3-4 years was actually really close. The bottom line is that the options I’m considering work out to be $32-38/month — a small price to pay in order to market your work effectively.

I’ve been using Evrium’s Fluid Galleries for my main website for a few years. The Fluid Galleries site is easy to update, but has some serious limitations that have left me wanting to upgrade my site. Before diving in to the feature requirements for a new photography website, here’s a look at the 4 year cost of using Fluid Galleries:

Fluid Galleries

• Upfront Cost: $429
• Referral Program: I referred 4 other photographers to Evrium at $50 each. (The referral program is no longer available.)
• Hosting (on my own web host): $11/month ($11/month, $132/year)
• Total First Year Cost: $361 ($30/month)
• Total Cost Over 2 Years: $493 ($247/year, $21/month)
• Total Cost Over 3 Years: $625 ($208/year, $17/month)
• Total Cost Over 4 Years: $757 ($189/year, $16/month)

Essential Features for a Photography Website Template

1. Big Images: Fluid Galleries has a maximum image height of 500 pixels — this makes vertical images look small. I’d like to be able to go 700 pixels high.
2. HTML Mirror Site: 85% of my web traffic goes to my blog. A lot of this traffic is from Google searches. The Fluid Galleries site is in Flash, which essentially makes my main website almost invisible to Google. The more expensive template sites use an automatic HTML mirror site for better search engine optimization (SEO), and for users that don’t have Flash. Better SEO means more overall web traffic. My blog can continue to drive traffic, but will be positioned as more of an adjunct to the main website.
3. Mobile Phone Compatibility: You can’t view Flash based websites on an iPhone. The better template sites will detect a mobile device and serve a mobile version of the site. This feature is becoming more and more important.
4. Flexible Image Management: With Fluid Galleries you upload a photo to a specific gallery, but can’t move images between galleries. You also can’t do sub-galleries. The template sites I’m considering all use a more flexible image management system that allows you to store images in your account, move them in and out of galleries, and also between galleries.
5. Marketing Tools: A customizable contact form and “email this photo” feature are both de rigeur. Static image URLs are also nice for sending someone a direct link to a specific image.

A Photo Folio

Upside: Design 3 is my favorite template out of everything I’ve reviewed, and APF meets all the requirements above [full feature list]
Downside: One free template change but $100 for additional changes, new company
Verdict: Best looking templates and meets all of the requirements above — looks like the winner.

• Upfront Cost: $1000
• Hosting (on their servers): $17/month  ($204/year)
• Total First Year Cost: $1204 ($100/month)
• Total Cost Over 2 Years: $1408 ($704/year, $59/month)
• Total Cost Over 3 Years: $1612 ($537/year, $45/month)
• Total Cost Over 4 Years: $1816 ($454/year, $38/month)

FolioLink

Upside: Lowest upfront and 4 year cost, no charge for changing your design, meets all of the requirements above [full feature list]
Downside: Not fond of most of the templates, 200 image limit
Verdict: Doesn’t matter if the upfront and overall cost are cheaper if you don’t like the templates.

• Upfront Cost: $600 ($250 setup + $350/year)
• Hosting (on their servers): $350/year
• Total First Year Cost: $600 ($50/month)
• Total Cost Over 2 Years: $950 ($425/yr, $36/mo)
• Total Cost Over 3 Years: $1200 ($400/yr, $33/mo)
• Total Cost Over 4 Years: $1550 ($388/yr  $32/mo)

Clickbooq

Upside: Very clean design, excellent Lightbox feature, no charge for changing your design, static image URLs [full feature list]
Downside: Highest upfront cost, most expensive over 4 years, 536×804 image size limit, limited number of portfolios
Verdict: Higher cost and image size limit are dealbreakers

• Upfront Cost: $1699 (can pay in 2 installments over 6 months)
• Hosting (on their servers): $99/year
• Total First Year Cost: $1799 ($150/month)
• Total Cost Over 2 Years: $1898 ($949/yr, $79/mo)
• Total Cost Over 3 Years: $1997 ($666/yr, $56/mo)
• Total Cost Over 4 Years: $2096 ($524/yr  $44/mo)

If you know of other options that fit all of the requirements above please let me know. Robert Benson has a longer list of photographer templates here. Livebooks is too expensive for the features I want. If you’re currently using one of the options above, definitely let me know how you like it — thanks!

Update 7/2009: I have moved my site from Fluid Galleries to A Photo Folio, and couldn’t be happier. Have a look at the new www.joereifer.com

Update 3/2010: Fluid Galleries now has new templates that include an HTML mirror site for SEO, iPhone compatibility, Lightboxes, and Google Analytics. Pricing for the Pro service is pay-as-you-go for $45 per month. No upfront cost, but more expensive than the options above over a 4 year period.

These are a few of my favorite things (covered car with shrubs) — by Joe Reifer

Let’s break the fine art photography print pricing down into categories. All prices are for unframed prints.

Fine Art Photography Print Pricing

A: $50-100 for a small print. You are happy that somebody likes your photographs and wants to own one. You charge a token amount to cover the cost of printing. Prints are sold directly to the buyer either in person or online.

B: $250-500 for a medium sized print. You’ve moved beyond the small cafe show into small galleries. You’ve sold a little bit of work at level A. The craftsmanship of your prints is quite good. You’re now selling your prints in editions. You’ve been taking notes on marketing. Sales may be direct or through a small gallery that takes 40-50%.

C: $1500-2500 for a medium/large sized print. You’ve been discovered by someone who can help market your work. Prints are now in the 24×30″ range or bigger. You may have received some hype in a medium sized gallery, and perhaps some attention from a contest or magazine. Your prints are sold in small editions. You get about 50% of the sale price minus your expenses.

D: $4000-10,000 and up for a large print. You’re now in the major leagues. For some reason your work has tipped from level C to level D. Could be an influential gallery, museum, book, media attention, critical acclaim, hardcore marketing, social climbing, dumb luck, or a combination. Probably a combination. The few people I’ve met in this league don’t necessarily make photographs that are any better than yours or mine.

I am currently at the lower end of level B and selling very few prints because I don’t like hyping myself, and haven’t found the right person of influence to whisper my name into collectors’ ears. If you are a person of influence who has a talent for whispering, drop me a line.

To keep life simple, I produce prints of my night work in two sizes:

• Regular size — 12×18″ print. Typically framed to 18×24″
• Large size — previously 20×30″ but I’m upping the ante to 24×36″. Twice the regular size. 2×3 feet. Go big or go home. That’s as big as I’m willing to print from 35mm digital right now.

If you were to ask me last week what my pricing was for an unframed print, I would’ve said $150 for a regular print in an open edition, and $300 for a large print in an edition of 5.

As Walter says in the Big Lebowski (quoting Theodore Herzl), “if you will it, it is no dream.” I am jumping up from level B- to level B+. All pricing is artificial. I will embrace the artifice. Here is the new pricing:

• Regular unframed 12×18″ print: $300, edition of 5.
• Large unframed 24×36″ print: $750, edition of 2 plus an artist’s proof

Aspect ratios will vary for a few images shot square or on 6×7 film. This editioning may be seen as a completely artificial marketing device. Or perhaps as a realistic number of prints that can sell of one image. Or a purposefully crafted number of prints that I could care about making before my attention span runs out.

There. I just jumped up a level in the fine art photography pricing world. All I had to do was type the new pricing into my blog. Maybe one day I’ll claw my way up to level C. I am not holding my breath.

Are you trying to sell prints? Where do you fall on the scale, and how are you planning to get to the next level?

Update: After finishing this brief meditation on pricing fine art photography, I read New Republic art critic Jed Perl’s vitriolic polemic against Koons, Murakami, and the modern museum experience. A very highly recommended rant indeed (via Gallery Hopper).

The Pro Photo Home photography message boards have started a new program where you get paid to post. I had to check the date on the email to make sure it wasn’t April 1st. A follow up email this morning assured me that the program is real. For contributing content to the site you are paid 10 cents per post, with a maximum of $100 per year. You do need to sign up to be a member, at $35 per year, which takes your potential earnings down to $65 per year. Read more about the Photo Rewards Program.

If you regularly post to photo.net, fredmiranda.com, or another photography forum, this may be an intruguing idea. Your content is worth something. Better content creates a website that more people want to visit, which creates more advertising revenue for the site owner. Pro Photo Home’s acknowledgement of the value their content contributors provide is a step in the right direction.

But now that we’re in the age of the blog, can the message board really survive? The photographers whose opinions I care about do not regularly post on message boards — they have blogs, or write for publications. Here’s why — you have the potential to get paid more, and you own the content.

Let’s pull back the curtain again for a minute. If you follow an Amazon link from a blog and purchase any product, the blog owner gets about a 4% cut from Amazon. Last month someone clicked on a book link on my blog and bought a Nikon D200 and accessories, and my cut from Amazon was close to what I’d get for a whole year of posting on Pro Photo Home. Anyone planning to buy a Leica M8 soon? Maybe a new TV?

B&H Photo has also started an affiliate program. High traffic lens review sites like The Digital Picture utilize a nice blend of photo store links, Amazon, and Google Adsense without being overbearing.

I haven’t really made much of an effort to monetize my blog. The Amazon links are there for your reference. I only recommend things that I really like. My goal is to make enough money each month to cover my web hosting and other expenses, but I’m not worried about it if I don’t.

My tolerance for web advertising depends on the quality of the content. The better the content is, the more likely I am to put up with advertising. Where do I draw the line? I don’t like banners, boxes, or Google ads interspersed within the content. Keep the ads in the sidebar, and I usually don’t have a problem with the design.

Do advertisements and product links change how much you trust the content of a website? I would love to hear some examples of blogs you read regularly that have well designed ads.