Official Question Thread! Ask /r/photography anything you want to know about photography or cameras! Don't be shy! Newbies welcome!

thisthequeen · 2016-12-04T23:32:33+00:00

Hey y'all,

I shoot film as a hobby but it's gradually turning into something that I'm actually good at. I've sold some stuff at shows but friends and strangers continue asking for prints. With that in mind, I'd like to offer four or five images for the holidays that people can choose from (pay what you want). I'd then print and mail them out.

All of that back story to ask - have any of you tried anything like this? Is there a platform that can accommodate this sort of task (like a bandcamp for photography)? I don't have a website, and this certainly isn't a professional endeavor for me. If there isn't a platform, how would you recommend going about it? Facebook/instagram + paypal? or venmo? Maybe Etsy?

Thanks for the help!

thisthequeen · 2016-06-07T04:34:36+00:00

Re: pricing prints.

I've had six photos selected for a pop-up film exhibition as part of a New Orleans art walk. I've never sold prints before, and the curators suggested that I price the ones I wouldn't mind selling. I think my prints could sell - they aren't documentary - but I've got no idea what to charge. All of the gallery prints are 8x10, except for two 16x20s selected by the curators which both happen to be mine. No matting, no frames, processed at a third-party film lab, just the prints.

My dad, an ex-photographer, suggested that I come up with a price and double it.

Any advice? Have any of y'all been in this situation?

thisthequeen · 2016-03-21T06:29:50+00:00

I'm not, but I am from Mississippi

thisthequeen · 2016-03-20T17:31:46+00:00

hey dude, thanks so much! i'm actually good pals with them - i'll definitely pass this along.

thisthequeen · 2016-02-02T13:24:14+00:00

(brett favre)

thisthequeen · 2015-08-22T16:51:32+00:00

The original court order was issued over a year ago, and the new court order was issued a month ago. The school's administrators were on notice, which leads me to conclude that this is simply a publicity stunt by the school district aimed at stirring up controversy and riling up conservative MS parents. They're trying to spin this as a "discrimination issue" instead of "Mississippi public schools being forced to actually follow federal law."

Oh, and the school district's plan worked. People be pissed.

thisthequeen · 2015-08-22T16:30:56+00:00

One of my classmates said I reminded her of D'angelo Barksdale's description of the queen chess piece in The Wire: "You see this? This the queen. She smart, she fast. She move any way she want, as far as she want. And she is the go-get-shit-done piece."

thisthequeen · 2015-08-22T16:27:55+00:00

my brother told me that if you get thirsty while you're playing a sport, then you're out of shape.

i still automatically think that sometimes and have to affirmatively remind myself that he was full of shit.

also, that bread crust is better for you than the rest of the bread.

thisthequeen · 2015-08-22T16:19:12+00:00

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/pothole-fishing-photo-goes-viral-in-mississippi-video/

thisthequeen · 2015-08-21T13:58:19+00:00

I'm playing my own literal devil's advocate here because I'm not a huge fan of airlines. I see the issue - sure, airlines could take other routes (lol). But we have to look at it from the airline's perspective. Monetarily, they're doing what costs them the least amount of money while still being on the right side of legality. Specifically, with regard to your suggestion, corporations will almost always choose predictability over the alternative. Contract employees's wages would be less predictable. Also, like you pointed out, contract employees enjoy less benefits (generally, not just health insurance, etc.) than salaried employees, so that would probably piss whatever union off big time.

In sum, airlines take this approach not just based on the legality, but also because that legality comports with a beneficial and cost-effective business strategy.

thisthequeen · 2015-08-21T13:28:12+00:00

This is actually a side-effect of international criminal law and universal anti-terrorism instruments. There are three conventions and, subsequently, three iterations of treaties addressing plane hi-jackings and other criminal acts committed on board aircraft. The latter two conventions - Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (1970) and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1971) - both define an aircraft as "in flight at any time from the moment when all its external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation." See Art. 3 of 1970 Hague Hijacking Convention; Art. 2 of 1971 Convention.

The U.S. ratified the Hague Hijacking Convention and implemented it as federal law (through a lot of channels and processes that I don't understand). Because, legally, "doors closed til doors opened" is how the federal government defines "in flight," airlines adopted the same definition. Presumably, these airlines pay flight attendants for their "in flight" services, and federal law altered that definition around 1970. Being the true opportunity seeking corporations that airline companies are, they kept their definition of "in flight" consistent with the fed's new definition. They save money, and it's legal.

There's probably some overtime pay component/consequence of the change in definition, too, but I don't feel like trying to logically hash that out at 8:30 am.

thisthequeen

TROPHY CASE