glen bach wrote:
> To have photo money start rolling in, there's no need to be Ansel
> Adams.
That would not be enough. He had to make portraits, shoot industrial
machinery for advertisements, and lots of other boring stuff just to pay
the
bills. Edward Weston had it worse, doing photographs of dead babies,
making
tedious photographs of ugly people that he spent hours of his time
retouching. Wynn Bullock had to run a portrait studio too.
Adams started making money only after working hard at it for many decades.
Weston never really made any money, and I doubt Wynn Bullock did either.
> You just need to be competent.
Well, if you were competent, you would not be selling snake oil.
> The mere fact that you've
> considered starting a photography career - and you have, or you
> wouldn't be reading this - says that you more than likely have all the
> shooting skill necessary to generate lots of happy clients - and to
> make plenty of money selling your photography.
While I _may have_ the required shooting skill, and even the necessary
darkroom skills, I do not have a business manager who is capable of
running
the business, a marketing manager who can get me famous, or the
temperament
to make the images paying customers would want.
> Once launched, your photography, marketing skills and sales are going
> to dramatically increase. Soon you'll be creating better and better
> work as well as making more and more money. Maybe someday you WILL be
> compared to Ansel Adams!
That is not even a goal of mine. I do not want to be the next Ansel Adams;
I
want to be the first ME. And if that is not good enough, I will make my
living doing something else.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 18:05:01 up 19 days, 8:50, 3 users, load average: 4.11, 4.19, 4.24
|
