Lumière d’Argent

I thought ExposureManager used EZPrints for the actual printing. They don’t. I learned from their recent XMas email that they have built their own lab in 2006. This could explain the results are different, and in my opinion better, than what I got from SmugMug.

Stephane :: Dec.25.2007 :: Printing, Sales :: No Comments »

They arrived with an apology from the local Post. SmugMug was not at fault, nor was EZPrint. They proceeded diligently, but there was a mistake done in the post here.

The prints arrived rolled in a tube and the tube was in… nothing. The parcel was just the tube. Nothing happened and the tube appears strong enough to protect the prints, but all in all it does not give the same impression as the parcel I got from ExposureManager. I thought they used the same lab, but they don’t. Also, there is a prominent SmugMug label on the tube, inviting the customer to contact them in case of problem. As I said before, the customer buys from SmugMug, not from me, and is reminded so.

I had ordered the same prints on the 3 different papers. To my surprise, I actually prefer the glossy one to the luster. There is a bigger surprise: metamerism failure. All three papers show a tint under some lighting.

Under natural light, glossy is neutral, matte is slightly warm and luster is green. Under tungsten, luster is neutral and the other two are pink. I don’t notice anything similar with the EM print on luster. They both use Fuji Frontier printers and both use the same Fuji paper, so I don’t know.

All three prints are from the same file and all three were ordered at the same paper size. They are supposed to print borderless yet one of the three has a white border on one side. Precision appears to be so-so. The problem here is that, unlike ExposureManager, SmugMug does not allow for proper separation between the file used for screen presentation and actual print files. Borderless prints are useless for framing! How can’t they understand that?

All in all, this shows amply that SmugMug can not be a solution to sub-contract orders fulfillment.

Stephane :: Dec.25.2007 :: Printing, Sales :: 2 Comments »

I am in the process of reworking the galleries. Some people have expressed interest in buying prints and others are asking for family portrait sessions.

I have looked at different hosters/printers and concentrated on Smugmug, Zenfolio and Exposure Manager. I opened trial accounts with all three and setup prototype galleries. All three are impressive in their different ways.

Smugmug seems to be the dominant player. They certainly do many things very well, especially support and customer service. They maintain a very active forum that helps to work around most limitations. They have good looking standard galleries that can be customized almost at will.

Zenfolio is the new kid on the block. They have a very modern website, with the fastest display and the best looking standard galleries in my opinion. The allowed customization is more limited than Smugmug but I feel that less is needed too.

Exposure Manager seems to be the oldest player. They have the worse looking galleries and the least user friendly website.

All three use the same print-house: EZ Print. I ordered test prints from SmugMug and Exposure Manager. SmugMug waived the printing and shipping costs to allow for a true cost-free test. I was not charged, but I never received the test prints either. I promptly (6 days) received the prints from Exposure Manager, sent by Fedex and very well packed and protected. The prints are flawless, the Fuji Lustre paper is very nice. I put the print next to the one I did at home from the same file and had to look hard to find minute calibration differences. Very satisfying experience.

I have no doubt my experience of not receiving prints from SmugMug is not typical at all. And if I had complained about it, they would have printed another set and sent it at no cost. There are ample testimonies of their excellent customer service.

I did not ask to get them because at that stage I already had decided for Exposure Manager.

The different reasons come down to the business model. If I setup my galleries with them, the customer still buys from SmugMug more than from me. It is very clear all along the ordering process. Smugmug is a photo sharing website with extra services for professional photographers.

Exposure Manager, on the other hand, is much more like a sub-contractor. The customers do not see them, they see me. And that’s important. For example, Exposure Manager gives me the customers details like names and addresses, while SmugMug does not.

So I went with Exposure Manager and their much cruder galleries. The templates they provide are not very good looking in my opinion. However, with some HTML work, it is possible to customize quite heavily and get it close enough to what I want. I’ll refine later.

Next stage: expanding the galleries to include much more older works.

Stephane :: Dec.15.2007 :: Printing, Sales :: 3 Comments »

Interesting discussion at Paul Butzi’s blog.

I am myself in the process of thinking it all, especially after my last (in every sense of the word) local exhibition.

Why last? Well, it simply does not make sense. The total number of people who saw that exhibition is about the audience I have on my meager web galleries in three days.

And yet, and yet, four prints sold! That is both bad and good. Obviously, economically it is a bad result. The return is a small fraction of the investment, even without including the time involved. On the other hand, four different people I don’t know have decided they like a print enough to give 45€ ($65 at current rate) to have that print on a wall at their home! That’s astonishing.

So there might be something to do.

But spending so much to sell so little is out of the question.

Someone told me once that marketing is about four P’s: Product, Price, Promotion, Place.

In this case the product is certainly not the result of a market study. It is what I like to do and I am not all that compelled to tailor prints to market trends. I already have a day job.

I have seen that exhibitions are not a proper place. Not enough traffic. Either the gallery or the artist have to be known, preferably both. But an exhibition of an unknown photographer at an unknown place is not going to work. Duh!

Promotion is probably the big unknown, unexplored, part. What drives traffic here is participation to photography forums. Not exactly smart marketing To be investigated.

So, back to the price. If, and that’s a big if, it is a determining factor once the other three P’s have been rightly nailed remains to be seen. The thing is, I have not exactly nailed the other three P’s… And, can price compensate unprofessional marketing? Unlikely, I’d say.

But still, like, Paul Butzy says:

I clearly recall reading about Jay Dusard giving prints to the cowboys he’d photographed, and how the cowboys would take these exquisite Fine Art Photographic Prints and thumbtack them up on the wall next to the stove, where they’d get all greasy and marked up but where the cowboys would enjoy them non-stop. Way back when I read that, I had this glimmer of thinking that perhaps the cowboys were right and that the Greater Art World is wrong, and that perhaps prints ought to be priced really, really low. So low that essentially anyone can enjoy them, even if enjoy them means taping them to the refrigerator door in the kitchen.

By reading the comments on Paul’s blog, it looks like that Brook Jensen article impressed others like it did to me. If I remember correctly his argument was that a CD costs less than $20, even ones with extremely good work that takes years to create, perfect and polish (when I write this I think of HAL). And well, this is art, isn’t it?

I honestly do not think any of my prints are worth more than a CD. I understand a part of the market is still ready to pay “art prices” for prints, but I’m afraid that population is shrinking.

So, I have started an experiment. I am setting up new galleries with an facility to order prints. I have set the prices to be on the affordable side and we’ll see what comes out from that.

The prints are not carbon ink on 100% cotton rag. That’s simply too expensive when one factors in the cash collection, processing, printing and shipping. So they are digital photographic prints made on a Fuji Frontier by quality fanatics professionals. I have order a few sample prints and everything was perfect. Communication, shipping and print quality. Besides, they offer a 30 days warranty period.

My feeling is that a photographer is not often a person who knows how to industrialize a process and deal with customers. Maybe it is better to leave that at people who know how to do that part and concentrate on the photography itself.

Stephane :: Dec.14.2007 :: Printing, Sales :: 2 Comments »

Last exhibition was printed on Moab Entrada Natural with Epson K3 inks. It worked well, but having since switched back to Piezography, I ran a few comparisons between what I had in stock. It turns out that Entrada is somewhat duller with NK7 inks while Hahnemühle Photo Rag really shines. Deeper blacks, more sparkle in the highlights, and something I can’t really identify combine to give much more pleasing prints. NK7 on Entrada are good prints and I would probably not find flaws if I had not compared to the same on Photo Rag. But I did. And it is like someone turned on the light on the Photo Rag one. Hard to believe.

A close examination also shows the print surface is flawless with Photo Rag while Entrada surface shows some light reflections, as if the ink was not completely absorbed. I have used Entrada a lot with early Piezography and MIS UT7 without noticing that problem, so maybe I could try to create my own Entrada curve with less ink and see. It would not give the higher DMax, though and probably not the nicer tone of Photo Rag.

A problem with Photo Rag is the price, though. Nearly twice compared to its competitors.

I don’t have time before the exhibition to order and test Innova and Bradford papers, but I surely will after the exhibition. Innova is supposed to be very very close to Photo Rag with NK7 and it is sold around the same price as Entrada.

In the meantime, Photo Rag is back!

Stephane :: Oct.21.2007 :: Printing :: 5 Comments »